Measure and monitor its car consumption

Tips, advice and tips to lower your consumption, processes or inventions as unconventional engines: the Stirling engine, for example. Patents improving combustion: water injection plasma treatment, ionization of the fuel or oxidizer.
User avatar
gegyx
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6930
Registration: 21/01/05, 11:59
x 2870




by gegyx » 11/10/06, 11:40

Me too, I make only one maximum full per month. So I do not understand these additions of 7 or 15 l ...

Uhhh ... 10 x 20> 2 x 50 so it's not the same.
Thank you, I corrected your data that I had badly taken again.

What you have not put in the tank with the 1er full for example, you will be obliged to put it in 2ième or 3ième to reach finally the same volume of fuel for the method of filling. Same volume = same km. I do not think I'm wrong in saying that.

Uncertainty (variable fuel quality, precision of the fuel pump, rounding of the pump meter, human error of the filler handling, etc.) must be taken into account.
To fill a tank of 1000 liters at once, it is much better than to do it in 10 times, and much better than to do it in 100 times, and in different distributors ...
Therefore, with an 70 capacity tank l, it is better to make a full tank, bringing the 70 l closer, and only when the tank is empty (at least on the reserve).

And then, having the ability to make a reliable average on a maximum full, is only a plus, when you want clarification on the particular type of a trip, that we just made.

For me, it's obvious.
0 x
User avatar
vttdechaine
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 162
Registration: 23/03/06, 16:01
Location: Eastern France near Switzerland




by vttdechaine » 11/10/06, 12:56

gegyx wrote:Me too, I make only one maximum full per month. So I do not understand these additions of 7 or 15 l ...
I was talking about my current use. At the time we made between 2 and 5 full / month. When we were hanging close to the blackout, we put enough to go with the car no more.

Uncertainty (variable fuel quality, precision of the fuel pump, rounding of the pump meter, human error of the filler handling, etc.) must be taken into account.
We have no data on that. It's hard to take into account.

To fill a tank of 1000 liters at once, it is much better than to do it in 10 times, and much better than to do it in 100 times, and in different distributors ...
+ 1 if you consider that not all pumps give the same indication. It should be known at what level the uncertainty of delivery can be considered. But here, if I understand correctly, you question the accuracy of the data indicated by the pump. If someone has data on the rigor of the indications of pumps this could be a parameter to be integrated into a possible interpretation of the data (there is a regulation on it it seems to me).

Therefore, with an 70 capacity tank l, it is better to make a full tank, bringing the 70 l closer, and only when the tank is empty (at least on the reserve).
Without precise data, I will be careful not to say "better" or "worse than".

And then, having the ability to make a reliable average on a maximum full, is only a plus, when you want clarification on the particular type of a trip, that we just made.
+ 1 for sure
0 x
Marty
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 11/10/06, 14:13

vttdechaine wrote:
Woodcutter wrote:
vttdechaine wrote:[...] Technically, no one will calculate the improvement of its consumption on 1 full.
Yes...
When I change fuel

vttdechaine wrote:I did not understand
When I change fuel, or when I put an additive or something else, I would try to find out if I have a difference, from one full to another ... But I'm not saying that I would draw any conclusions, shade...

vttdechaine wrote:
Woodcutter wrote:No.
But to calculate a consumption on a wrong value is conceptually inconvenient for my psychorigidity ...

A wrong value? I think it's the reality that's written on the board.


13 / 02 / 00 [...] 827 l 9 l 1,09
This is a wrong value ... The 9 l have not been consumed in 827 km, so it does not help. From the beginning, my comment is on that, that's all.
Nothing more.
Now, if you do not accept any comments without getting on your big horses, it's a shame for you ... :|

Personally, it's not my problem.
You propose data, I make you a remark on some of these data, that's it ... But if it amuses you to palaver hours on it, I also have plenty of time to lose ... : roll:
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
User avatar
vttdechaine
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 162
Registration: 23/03/06, 16:01
Location: Eastern France near Switzerland




by vttdechaine » 11/10/06, 17:57

But Bucheron none of the mileage values ​​correspond to the consumption that is on the same line : Shock: !

If this were the case there would be no difference in consumption on this spreadsheet (or very low as seen with the consumption curve per 5000 kms).

When I say that this is the reality on the board, I say that on such a day I put so many liters of fuel oil after having done xx kilometers. In "gross" consumption I get xx liters / 100. Only indeed that does not bring anything (besides no single line does not bring anything). These consumer tips put one after the other gives, for example, the graph.

It is exactly the whole issue of measuring consumption. We do not fill the tank with the fuel that we burned previously (so indeed 9 liters were not consumed in 827 kms). We fill it with the fuel we are going to burn. Only at the moment "t" when we put fuel what are the parameters that we have on hand?

Tell me how to organize the lines of this spreadsheet so that it is consistent but without eliminating mileage that we necessarily need to make calculations (I prefer to make my measurements on 230 000 terminals than on 150 000 it makes sense).

You propose data, I make you a remark on some of these data, that's it ... But if it amuses you to palaver hours on it, I also have plenty of time to lose ...

If you make these remarks, others must do them too, so much so that everyone can judge in terms of the application he wants to make. My comments are purely friendly but it's true that I have trouble understanding this remark (although I understand correctly : Cheesy: ).

Regards :D
0 x
Marty
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 11/10/06, 21:12

vttdechaine wrote:But Bucheron none of the mileage values ​​correspond to the consumption that is on the same line : Shock: !
Ah? :| So why divide the number of liters by the mileage on the same line?

vttdechaine wrote:When I say that this is the reality on the board, I say that on such a day I put so many liters of fuel oil after having done xx kilometers. In "gross" consumption I get xx liters / 100.
I have never disputed the "reality" of the figures in the table, I am just saying that the value is wrong ...
What you calculate in the case of a complement is NOT a consumption, since the mileage does not correspond to what was done to burn this fuel.

vttdechaine wrote:It is exactly the whole issue of measuring consumption. We do not fill the tank with the fuel that we burned previously (so indeed 9 liters were not consumed in 827 kms). We fill it with the fuel we are going to burn. Only at the moment "t" when we put fuel what are the parameters that we have on hand?
The fuel that is replaced replaces, in volume, the fuel used previously. These are the parameters on which we base ourselves. Hence the need to always fill identically if you want calculate a consumption...

vttdechaine wrote:Tell me how to organize the lines of this spreadsheet so that it is consistent but without eliminating mileage that we necessarily need to make calculations (I prefer to make my measurements on 230 000 terminals than on 150 000 it makes sense).
I authorize you to talk to me ... 8) : Wink:

Simply, do not fill in the "consumption" box of a line that does not correspond to a full, a real full of which we are sure.
It does not reduce the total mileage of the measurement, just the intermediate data.
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
User avatar
vttdechaine
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 162
Registration: 23/03/06, 16:01
Location: Eastern France near Switzerland




by vttdechaine » 12/10/06, 11:30

Woodcutter wrote:
vttdechaine wrote:But Bucheron none of the mileage values ​​correspond to the consumption that is on the same line : Shock: !
Ah? :| So why divide the number of liters by the mileage on the same line?
For my personal vision When I started the spreadsheet, I did not know how I was going to use the data.

vttdechaine wrote:When I say that this is the reality on the board, I say that on such a day I put so many liters of fuel oil after having done xx kilometers. In "gross" consumption I get xx liters / 100.
I have never disputed the "reality" of the figures in the table, I am just saying that the value is wrong ...
What you calculate in the case of a complement is NOT a consumption, since the mileage does not correspond to what was done to burn this fuel.
It's not never the case on no line of this spreadsheet. So the observation made for the "full complementary" lines can be made for the 400 lines of the spreadsheet.

vttdechaine wrote:It is exactly the whole issue of measuring consumption. We do not fill the tank with the fuel that we burned previously (so indeed 9 liters were not consumed in 827 kms). We fill it with the fuel we are going to burn. Only at the moment "t" when we put fuel what are the parameters that we have on hand?
The fuel that is replaced replaces, in volume, the fuel used previously. These are the parameters on which we base ourselves. Hence the need to always fill identically if you want calculate a consumption...
One never fills his tank in an identical way. For example, the flow rates of the guns being different, the additives between different stations too (avoid the foam for example), the triggering is never done at the same time. The concept of full is therefore something totally subjective and depends on too many parameters.

vttdechaine wrote:Tell me how to organize the lines of this spreadsheet so that it is consistent but without eliminating mileage that we necessarily need to make calculations (I prefer to make my measurements on 230 000 terminals than on 150 000 it makes sense).
I authorize you to talk to me ... 8) : Wink:
Cool. I did not know how to talk to you ... : Mrgreen:

Simply, do not fill in the "consumption" box of a line that does not correspond to a full, a real full of which we are sure.
It does not reduce the total mileage of the measurement, just the intermediate data.
I like it (if I understand correctly ...). Clearly I do not indicate the value of gross conso too important. However, which values ​​to stop? I have consumptions for example of + 6,7 liters in June 1997. Regarding the volume of fuel, it is not a complementary complement and yet I do not think I have eaten so much on a period where normally the cons is less than 5 liters? A small idea to manage these conso there?
0 x
Marty
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 12/10/06, 11:34

I feel that it starts to leave valve this discussion ... : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 12/10/06, 19:37

vttdechaine wrote:[...]One never fills his tank in an identical way. For example, the flow rates of the guns being different, the additives between different stations too (avoid the foam for example), the triggering is never done at the same time. The concept of full is therefore something totally subjective and depends on too many parameters.
Disagree !
I am able to do identical full unless the station is sloping in the wrong direction.

Differences between average conso unitary and moving average by adding volume and kmage:
0,00
-0,03
-0,03
0,01
0,00
0,00
0,02
0,00
0,03
0,04
0,04
0,04
0,04
0,04
0,04
0,03
0,03
0,03
0,03
0,02
0,02
0,02
0,02
0,03
0,03
0,03
0,03
0,02
0,02
0,02
0,02
0,02
0,05
0,05
0,05
0,05
0,06

For the rest, I do not know how to manage your "drinks" too important.
The only thing that bothered me from the start was, precisely, that they were in a "consumption" box when they are not, related to a mileage ...

But hey, maybe we'll stop, huh? (Otherwise Tof will make us an acute administrative crisis! :P : Wink:)
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Other
Pantone engine Researcher
Pantone engine Researcher
posts: 3787
Registration: 17/03/05, 02:35
x 12




by Other » 12/10/06, 23:26

Hello
the file that I use for consumption, I always fill up full and when I want a good tests following a modification
I refuel a good trip and return full stopper

Andre


https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... mobile.xls
0 x
User avatar
PITMIX
Pantone engine Researcher
Pantone engine Researcher
posts: 2028
Registration: 17/09/05, 10:29
x 17




by PITMIX » 13/10/06, 07:50

Hello
Me too I use a small table excel for my consos.
I returned the data on my Palm and I refuel only when the gauge is in the red zone.
So I always put the same amount of gas to a few liters and I always put the trip odometer to 0.
I still get 10L / 100km in an urban route, but there the readings on the board are useless. 39L for 385 to 400km, 35L for 345 to 360km.
On the other hand, I realized that the difference of conso is very important between urban and motorway routes. Since my car is almost never used on highway and it is only in these conditions that I come to make a conso comparison, I now hold a precise statement.
At steady speed 110 / 120km / h I get a stable conso. I make a course of 100km (always the same) and always in the same weather conditions. I do a first full tank without taking care of the total capacity (the engine is already hot). .
I'm doing my 100km engine test run. I refuel on the edge, I start counting very precisely.
I make a second course of 100km with the reactor in service and there I do the comparison.
The modifications that I bring to my engine are verifiablent imediatement. Without reacteur the car consumes 6,5L / 100km then the conso varies more or less according to the modifications made.
For example, my first build was overpowering the 1L / 100km engine, and the latest build creates a saving of 0,8L / 100km.
Now that I know that the conso does not exceed the 7L 100km highway I think to refine the calculation using a can of graduated 10L. So instead of doing the full complement to the pump (imprecise) I would do it with my graduated can.
0 x

Back to "Special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 210 guests