Vapor fuel continued desscussion!!

[Cycle]

Originally Posted by 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

Ever notice that all they look at is the West Antarctica section? There's a reason for that... the relatively warmer waters upwelling there, combined with the fact that that section of ice is about the only ice in Antarctica that overhangs the water, means it melts faster there. That's where the majority of that 159 square kilometers of melt per year takes place. Makes it look more "dramatic" to show melting ice than accumulating ice, don't you think? Especially for those who have an agenda.

In actuality, the average Antarctica temperature inland is -70 F. The average temperature on the coast is -4 F. Which means you'd have to raise the temperature by 102 F inland and 36 F on the coast just to get the ice to its melting point. The only ice melting in Antarctica is that ice in contact with sea water... unless you've found a way to slip around the physical reality of the melting point of ice being 32 F. LOL

You'll note that they've been beating that "West Antarctica is going to drop off into the ocean and flood the world!" drum for the past 46 years at least... and the size of West Antarctica over the years?

Let's look at the Antarctic "ice loss" (most of which occurred in that Western leg) in context, shall we?
Lying with Statistics: The National Climate Assessment Falsely Hypes Ice Loss in Greenland and Antarctica | Watts Up With That?

Strange that the "time lapse" photo on the NASA site uses pictures from all the way back to 2003 as "proof" that excessive melting is taking place... take a look at this:
Access forbidden!
"During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gtlyr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gtlyr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (W A and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry. "

So now NASA's constrained to saying the "excessive melting" is taking place from 2008 onwards... because they themselves admit it was adding ice from 1992 to 2008.

Stemming ice loss, giant atmospheric rivers add mass to Antarctica’s ice sheet | Watts Up With That?
"Extreme weather phenomena called atmospheric rivers were behind intense snowstorms recorded in 2009 and 2011 in East Antarctica. The resulting snow accumulation partly offset recent ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet, report researchers from KU Leuven."

Whoops, now this "massive ice melt" is constrained to 2011 - present. Just how short a time frame do you want to go to? LOL

Antarctic Ice Sheet surface mass balance
"The Antarctic Peninsula has the highest accumulation rates (up to 1500 mm per year), followed by coastal West Antarctica, which has around 1000 mm accumulation per year."

From the graphic on that same web page, the several methods of measuring ice accumulation for 2012 (the latest studies to have been done) show anywhere from a 200 gT loss to a 150 gT gain. Given that radar and laser altimetry are the most accurate methods, and they both show net ice gain... just where is this "massive melt"?

To quote that web page:
"Overall, a recent estimate puts Antarctic net mass balance at -71 ± 53 gigatonnes per year8, so just negative over the 19 year survey."

Just barely negative over the 19 year survey, most of that over the past 7 years, most of that due to upwelling of relatively warmer water in the Edmundson Sea for the West Antarctica ice in contact with seawater. None of it "massive melt". Now, that's not very much, is it. Global warming alarmism to stir up the masses

"Periods of high accumulation occurred in the past, in the 1370s and 1610s AD, but there has been an increase of 10% in snow accumulation in some coastal regions since 1850 – a fact that agrees with independent work on the Antarctic Peninsula."

Wait... an increase in accumulation since the Little Ice Age ended?! LOL

Don't believe the global warming alarmist hype. It's designed for nothing more than to bilk you and everyone else out of your money by getting carbon exchanges set up, which will cause massive price increases for everyone, while profiting the ground-floor investors of those carbon exchanges (who just so happen to be the same people spewing the alarmist hype) in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year range.

"Climate models predict that, for a generally warmer climate, snowfall will increase over Antarctica. Surface melt will increase around the more northerly Antarctic Peninsula, and dynamic changes such as increased ice discharge, ice-shelf collapse and grounding line recession, and marine ice-sheet instability are likely to offset any increases in precipitation. However, if no dynamical ice response is assumed, then increases in snowfall over the entire continent of 6-16% to 2100 AD and 8-25% to 2200 AD are likely to result in a drop in sea level of 20-43 mm in 2100 and 73-163 in 2200, compared with today."

Whoopsie... what was that again? A drop in sea level? LOL

(references to the scientific peer-reviewed articles used to compile that report provided on the web site above)

Originally Posted by wickydude

An overview of Antarctic ice trends

See above. And SkepticalScience.com, predictably, provides no references to scientific articles, peer reviewed or otherwise. LOL

Originally Posted by wickydude

Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

Correlation between solar forcing and Global Sea Surface Temperature:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/...-energy-model/
Note the nearly 100% correlation between solar activity and GSST.

(data reconstruction from peer reviewed scientific articles utilizing HADsst2GL, SSNLOD, SSN-SSBz data)

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/...ivergence-lie/
Ocean heat content has been dropping since 2013, as measured by ARGO.

(data reconstruction from peer reviewed scientific articles utilizing HADsst2GL)

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...4/06oct_abyss/
http://iceagenow.info/2014/10/nasa-s...s-warmed-2005/
“When scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in
Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature
data from 2005 to 2013, they found that “the ocean abyss below 1.24
miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably,” the space agency
announced in a press release on Monday.

Whoopsie... now the global warming alarmists can't use "all that heat is hiding deep in the ocean!" as an excuse for the 18 year, 6 month "global warming" hiatus... sure seems funny that the temperature change almost directly corresponds to solar and orbital forcing, though.

http://principia-scientific.org/brea...overnment.html
"Goddard continues: "I discovered a huge error in their adjustments between V1 and V2. This is their current US graph. Note that there is a discontinuity at 1998, which doesn’t look right. Globally, temperatures plummeted in 1999, but they didn’t in the US graph."

They didn't in the US graph because by that time, the climate researchers were altering the data. They later disposed of the raw data to cover their tracks. They got caught doing this during the ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0 hacking of their emails.

Now, shall we discuss the solar and orbital forcing influences?

Originally Posted by wickydude

Is Greenland gaining or losing ice?

That only goes to 2010...

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

The Greenland glacier added 500 gT of net ice in 2014. And it shows more ice than during the 1990-2011 period. And, rather than being unreferenced data from SkepticalScience.com, it comes from climate scientist Peter L. Langen, Danish Climate Centre.

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...

Given that they've closed the thread in the Unicorn Corral pertaining to this subject, I'm still waiting for you to name a forum.

[wickydude]

Yeah, wattsupwiththat is much more scientific.... Provides better hyperlinks (did you even see those on the skeptic?) I'm sure you can point me to, cause I couldn't find them.
I guess I'm just not smart enough to start believing in conspiracy theories.
/sarcasm

I see now that I should not have taken the bait.
I won't respond to it anymore here.

Back to work, designing wind turbine parts.

[freebeard]

Vertical or horizontal axis? If you not working under a nondisclosure agreement you could post that in Saving@Home.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Cycle

Given that they've closed the thread in the Unicorn Corral pertaining to this subject, I'm still waiting for you to name a forum.

Stop trolling someone else's thread with your off topic rant ... It's rude.


Start an appropriate thread .. or take it somewhere else entirely.

Link to another forum's thread with over 4k posts on the topic .. go have fun with it there

[wickydude]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Vertical or horizontal axis? If you not working under a nondisclosure agreement you could post that in Saving@Home.

Not really suitable for homes. Doesn't fit in my back yard 😋
Home - Lagerwey Wind

[2000mc]

[Flakbadger]

Abandon Thread!

[Cycle]

Originally Posted by wickydude

Yeah, wattsupwiththat is much more scientific.... Provides better hyperlinks (did you even see those on the skeptic?) I'm sure you can point me to, cause I couldn't find them.
I guess I'm just not smart enough to start believing in conspiracy theories.
/sarcasm

I see now that I should not have taken the bait.
I won't respond to it anymore here.

Back to work, designing wind turbine parts.

And the NASA, Principia Scientific and Danish Climate Center references? You conveniently missed those... and the WUWT site provides references to the data they used, which are all sourced from peer reviewed papers and underlying data.

But then, providing evidence contrary to one's religiously held beliefs usually tends to just make one cling tighter to one's "guns and bible". Cling tight... reality's not on your side, your religious belief in AGW is all you've got. You'd best hope that's enough to keep you warm at night... it's fixing to get mighty cold in the future.

[Cycle]

Originally Posted by stovie

I understand that you need the 14.7-1 a/f ratio (or the stoichiometric ratio) to burn the fuel at atmospheric pressure to achieve a "2 C8H18 + 25 O2 → 16 CO2 + 18 H2O". However, once you get further away from that ratio the issue becomes weither or not the "reaction" will continue after exceeding that ratio is the distance of the fuel molecules. If there to far a part then some will "react", but others will not braking the reaction and stopping the burning of the fuel.

Now in a internal combustion engine where it compresses the a/f mixture it's a bit less of an issue. However the issue after that is the increased heat produced as you lean it out, because if the engine is running pretty rich then your already running at the other end of the stoichiometric ratio. Basically what i'm trying to say is that the only real way to get the a/f ratio to the lowest you can, you have to start with no fuel and slowly add it tell the engine starts to run properly, and with my experience with doing that so far it is far less then the 14.7-1 a/f ratio that the car manufacturers say they are using.

A car can handle the "instant explosion" caused by going so low because it's a very small explosion when you get it to the right amount. It's like lighting a small balloon of gas in a closed room, to big and it will blow the windows out. If it's just the right size though it will explode but just enough to raise the pressure in the room without blowing out the windows. In an engine if the "instant Explosion" is too high it just increases the RPM's.

A method of extending flammability limits is to do away with the "flame front" and cause combustion throughout the combustion chamber all at once... one does this with a flood of free radicals to kick-start the reaction. That's why corona discharge ignition works so well to allow engines to run leaner.

Combustion is nothing more than a free radical cascade. Flood the combustion chamber with free radicals (electrons), and you'll get combustion everywhere all at once. The side benefit is that you do away with knocking because there is no collision of flame fronts.

Corona discharge works by cutting on and off the high voltage at such a frequency that while the electricity can start sending corona discharge phase streamers, it can't enter the higher-amperage arc phase. Thus, CD uses less current than traditional ignitions. It just uses it more efficiently. And those streamers can reach throughout the entirety of the combustion chamber volume, since the piston is near TDC and the volume is relatively small.

Since lean burns hot, the increased temperatures will create NOx. Knocking NOx creation down with water injection (which moderates the temperature spikes by absorbing the heat and evaporating the water) not only limits NOx creation, but the expanding steam adds to cylinder pressure, enhancing engine power output.

A side benefit that I'd briefly thought about then shelved before Peter Rotgans (Peterrr) revived my interest in it, is that the water preferentially condenses on the in-cylinder surfaces when pressure rises, before any fuel can likewise condense (and it definitely does condense despite the high temperatures and short amount of time... wedge shaped heads are specifically designed in part to mitigate this problem by reducing condensation area). Thus, the condensed fuel is sitting on a very thin layer of water. When the flame approaches those surfaces, the water flashes to steam, pushing that condensed fuel back into the flame and thereby increasing fuel efficiency and reducing UBHC by reducing partial burn.

Unfortunately, certain trolls who didn't understand Peter's point, since English is obviously a second language for him, chose to run Peter off the forum with insults rather than undertake to learn what Peter was trying to teach... despite Peter giving mathematical proof and third-party corroborated data, despite that certain troll understanding Peter's native tongue and not bothering to ask Peter to clarify in that native tongue. The guilty party shall remain unnamed, but I'm betting he'll be around shortly to bray further justifications for his inability to understand the in-depth fourth-grade mathematics of what Peter was saying, choosing instead to lash out and drive away an innovative thinker.

[oil pan 4]

Ok getting back on track.
If fuel vapor engines were so amazing why cant an engine be built that runs off say propane (which has a boiling point of around -40) a substance where you know there is no possibility that its anything other than a super heated gas at room temperature when under 1atm of pressure and get significantly better btu/mile economy than a gasoline engine?

The best propane engines I have found get maybe 5% better fuel economy than their gasoline counterpart. That difference could be due to the propane mod specific engines running higher compression and different ignition advance than their gasoline counter parts because propane burns in an engine almost like 105 octane gasoline.

I don't consider simple small engines that have been converted from gasoline to propane a fair comparison, where no other changes are made aside from fuel induction system on the converted engine. The converted engine should at the very least get an ignition timing advance too.