Vapor fuel continued desscussion!!

[stovie]

here's some pics of my setup.



As you can probably see in this setup the closing of the ball valve only controls how much air is brought through the jar by reducing how much it let's through creating a bit more vacuum through the jar.



This one is of the jar itself, as you can see with this image the pipe in it has about 50 1/16" holes. And i made it so that they go around the pipe in a spiral to reduce the amount of vacuum needed to pull air through it.

The 50 1/16" holes are only about half what is needed to hit the same air flow as the 3/4" pipe, but i did this to better control the throttle of the scooter.

I found out with this setup that the bigger the bubbles coming out of the pipe the rougher the idle. I had just the 3/4" pipe going into the jar and at idle it would pulse badly with the bubbles that were coming out of that size a hole.

[Cycle]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Any car could be tuned to use these kind of a/f ratios especially without EPA rules. That car says low CO2 but how's it's HC and NOX doing?

Depends upon the engine's design parameters what its exhaust gas analysis graph will look like.

Typically, when you go richer than stoichiometric, your UBHC and CO increases, but your NOx decreases.

When you go leaner than stoichiometric, your UBHC and CO decreases, but your NOx increases... at least until you hit flammability limits and start skipping combustion events due to flame blowout... then your UBHC increases and your NOx decreases. Extending flammability limits (via better head design, better ignition method, flammability enhancers) extends the lean-burn range before UBHC increases and NOx decreases.

Knocking down high combustion temperatures with water vapor or water vapor / alcohol injection while burning lean knocks down NOx by absorbing the combustion temperature spikes that create NOx.

So ideally, if an engine ran lean while utilizing water vapor injection, it'd produce plenty of power and still have clean(er) emissions. Stoichiometric is a compromise brought about by limits in the ability to extend flammability limits and knock down NOx production.



[soapbox]
We don't worry about CO2, because CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's a natural part of the oxygen / carbon dioxide cycle and is necessary for life, not to mention it only comprises 0.04% of atmospheric gas. Don't believe the global warming "CO2 is gonna getcha!" alarmists... those leading that charge promulgate their tripe to try to get carbon exchanges set up, from which they'll profit handsomely (at the wallet-draining expense of everyone else)... the rest of the herd bleating the CO2 alarmism are just wanna-be intellectuals vomiting the soundbites they think will make them sound intelligent. CO2 levels have been orders of magnitude higher in the distant past, and life (and the planet) survived just fine... in fact, during one particular period about 485 million years ago, CO2 levels were approximately 17.5 times higher than today, solar output was nearly identical (less than a percent difference, according to researchers), and the planet slid into an ice age that lasted approximately a million years and killed approximately 49% of all life. Because CO2 is not a global warming gas... it's been proven that CO2 concentration lags temperature change by 600 to 1000 years in every glacial and interglacial period ever studied. The major contributors to global warming or cooling are the same as they've always been... solar and orbital forcing. Care to guess what the current trends are for solar and orbital forcing? Yeah... at the precipice of sliding into an approximately 10,000 year cold period.
[/soapbox]

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Cycle

Because CO2 is not a global warming gas.

One correction .. Chemistry.

The term is 'greenhouse gas' ... and yes .. chemically CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Definition:
A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range ... we know and have proven that CO2 meets this definition.

[Cycle]

Not that this is the appropriate forum to discuss this, but here goes...

Originally Posted by IamIan

One correction .. Chemistry.

The term is 'greenhouse gas' ... and yes .. chemically CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Just love how easy it is to attract the nitpickers. LOL

Now answer the questions, please:
By what mechanism does a greenhouse work?
Why is the planet different from a greenhouse?
Be as detailed as you can be, because I'll be tearing apart your answer at a later time.

Originally Posted by IamIan

Definition:
A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range ... we know and have proven that CO2 meets this definition.

CO2 absorbs in the infrared, but it also emits in the infrared (on the night side of the planet) at an equal rate. The radiative forcing from CO2 is negligible, especially when compared to water vapor, which absorbs in a much larger spectrum and is much more prevalent in the atmosphere (and it falls to the ground in the form of rain, carrying that heat to the surface and keeping it there longer rather than reradiating to The Infinite Heatsink we call space). This has been known (and written about) for the past 150 years (ref: Tyndall).

And now for Yet Another Inconvenient Truth (I've got hundreds of them to embarrass the AGW sheeple):
The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas becomes ever more marginal with greater concentration | Watts Up With That?
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of ~390 ppmv, (parts per million by volume). Accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level.

Remarkably, IPCC Published reports , (TAR3), do actually acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information is in their report. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate).
--------------------------------------------------------------

Now... you were saying?

If you believe the AGW schtick, you're being lied to and manipulated for the monetary gain of others. Do your own research, you'll find that solar and orbital forcing are (and remain) the major contributing factors to global temperature change... and we're heading into a solar and orbital forcing period which will cool the planet. It's predicted it'll be a similar amount of cooling as during the Little Ice Age... except it'll last approximately 10,000 years.

The ClimateGate 2.0 hacked emails show the climate researchers know this... they were discussing "coordinating their message" because telling people to prepare for AGW and an ice age seemed incongruent to the message they'd been putting out for years now.

It's ridiculous to claim that a tiny percentage of CO2 (currently 0.04% of atmospheric gas composition) has any effect in comparison to that giant fusion furnace in the sky that we call our sun.

[freebeard]

...that giant fusion furnace in the sky...

Fusion furnace or electrical anode?

[wickydude]

Originally Posted by Cycle

Not that this is the appropriate forum to discuss this, but here goes...



Just love how easy it is to attract the nitpickers. LOL

Now answer the questions, please:
By what mechanism does a greenhouse work?
Why is the planet different from a greenhouse?
Be as detailed as you can be, because I'll be tearing apart your answer at a later time.


And now for Yet Another Inconvenient Truth (I've got hundreds of them to embarrass the AGW sheeple):
The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas becomes ever more marginal with greater concentration | Watts Up With That?
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of ~390 ppmv, (parts per million by volume). Accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level.

Remarkably, IPCC Published reports , (TAR3), do actually acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information is in their report. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate).
--------------------------------------------------------------

Now... you were saying?

If you believe the AGW schtick, you're being lied to and manipulated for the monetary gain of others. Do your own research, you'll find that solar and orbital forcing are (and remain) the major contributing factors to global temperature change... and we're heading into a solar and orbital forcing period which will cool the planet. It's predicted it'll be a similar amount of cooling as during the Little Ice Age... except it'll last approximately 10,000 years.

The ClimateGate 2.0 hacked emails show the climate researchers know this... they were discussing "coordinating their message" because telling people to prepare for AGW and an ice age seemed incongruent to the message they'd been putting out for years now.

It's ridiculous to claim that a tiny percentage of CO2 (currently 0.04% of atmospheric gas composition) has any effect in comparison to that giant fusion furnace in the sky that we call our sun.

Please do take that somewhere else, with links to articles written by scientists, and to newer ipcc reports.

For the record, the planet will do just fine, it's just us humans who are going to have trouble with gkobal warming. And yes it's real.

[Cycle]

Sure... which forum would you like to take it to?

How about that 18 year 6 month "global warming" hiatus, huh? Those climate scientists are sure having a hard time explaining that with their computer models, the only place global warming actually exists. That must be why they got caught falsifying several data sets, and disposing of the raw data. But looking at solar and orbital forcing influences, it's easy to explain. LOL

Which data would you like as corroboration? UK Met? UAH? RSS? NASA JPL?

Fact: CO2 accounts for 1 ten-millionth of one percent of climate forcing. Would you like to see the math to corroborate that?

Fact: James Hansen, in a NASA brief, said temperatures dropped from 1940 to 1999... while out the other side of his mouth he was falsifying the data sets to erase the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age so he could claim in 1999 that it was the warmest year on record... when caught doing so, he stated that he had to change the data, otherwise he'd not be able to show a trend!

Fact: Antarctica shows only 159 square kilometers of melt per year (per CryoSat-2), out of 14,000,000 square kilometers total. That's only 0.001135% that's melting per year. For it to totally melt at this rate would take something on the order of 88,000 years, and we'll be long into another ice age before then. And that's if no ice were added to Antarctica for that entire time.

Fact: The Greenland glacier added 500 gT of net ice in 2014.

Would you like the corroborating data to support all this? I've got it handy.

[wickydude]

Please give some evidence that is backed by scientific data.
I will give some data to the contrary:
JPL | News | The 'Unstable' West Antarctic Ice Sheet: A Primer
An overview of Antarctic ice trends
Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions
http://www.skepticalscience.com/gree...termediate.htm

Back on topic: still don't see any real data on the fuel efficiency and emissions of the fuel vapor thingy...

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Cycle

Not that this is the appropriate forum to discuss this

That part you got correct.


Take it to an appropriate thread for that topic.

[freebeard]

That would be http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ing-23123.html in The Lounge.

But the mods locked it at 1319 posts. Just when it was getting good.

Originally Posted by wickydude

Back on topic: still don't see any real data on the fuel efficiency and emissions of the fuel vapor thingy...

My impression is that that would be expecting a lot from the OP.