Vortex to save fuel?

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.
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Vortex to save fuel?




by izentrop » 20/10/16, 17:32

Did67 wrote:this is true, as we (almost) always have too much power, reducing power while reducing richness is not a problem. If the unburnt decreases, then the yield increases. "Mechanically"...
Yes indeed.
Janic wrote:I just passed a CT to a Focus 1999 essence, after having placed a WITH.
Result: CO slowed: 0,00% (maxi0.5) CO slowed idle: 0.00% (max 0.3 to 2500 rpm, lambda: 1.020.
It is an electronic injection to have such a perfect lambda?
In this case with or without AVEC, it must not change much. Can you iron your CT without? : Wink:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Vortex to save fuel?




by Janic » 20/10/16, 17:45

DID hello
The gains of many "gadgets" are often psychological: the driver pays much more attention to his driving; we then arrive at spectacular gains (that anyone can achieve by adopting a very soft drive).

This is not wrong ... completely! Except that often, on this ecological site
http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/A.V.E ... EC2014.htm
(who is the first to have "promoted" the Pantone system, then Gillier pantone, Christophe knows something!) The witnesses have already tried to reduce their consumption with a cooler driving. Now, this site gives 102 testimonials (irregular ones by the way) of essays done (not just talk speech stories!)
After everyone has an opinion, which will not replace the implementation of an AVEC (it's like culture with or without soil cover, it is experimentation that shows, you know some thing)
It would require repeated tests, on fleets of vehicles (rehearsals), with drivers not knowing if their vehicle is equipped or not.

In theory, yes! In reality: no! (It's like gardening) Since again this would depend on the type of conduct adopted by these "testers" It's like the Gillier pantone system: on the bench there is little difference (but the assemblies made for these tests do not rarely respect the instructions given, results of the experiment, (see Flitox, and Dede ... of canada)) but the practical test on road in real conditions, the results are much more interesting and not "psychological". (read the testimonials of Quanthomme, Hypnow, Ecopra and other which make the happiness of the septics full of a priori)
The most effective, without deception, to reduce its consumption is still to have the smallest vehicle possible ... When I see the park, it is where we could win.
Obviously! Most of the trips, especially in the city, could be done by bicycle (CO = 0.00000%) Meanwhile, the car park being what it is, if everyone can improve its combustion and pollution with such a simple way, to the reach of any handyman and for a few euros only: why deprive yourself?
1 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Vortex to save fuel?




by izentrop » 21/10/16, 09:08

Road testimony has no scientific value.
Janic wrote:on the bench there is little difference
... it's the only way to make real measurements with or without, without changing the other parameters.
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Vortex to save fuel?




by Janic » 21/10/16, 10:49

Road testimony has no scientific value.
always this obsession of the scientific whole! That reassures you so much?
Janic wrote:
on the bench there is little difference ...

it's the only way to make real measurements with or without, without changing the other parameters.
what sweet naivety! But you truncated my sentence "(but the montages made for these tests only rarely respect the instructions given, results of the experiment, "*
For a measure to be valid, it must meet at least certain criteria. But who masters, even partially, these? Experimenters, pioneers in any field.
Take NEDC standards, scientifically (sic) established and compared to the reality of the field that does not correspond to this standard. It is the reality of the field that prevails, which eventually recognize the professionals who hitherto (for political reasons) hid behind an unrealistic standard.
According to your speech, it would be better to continue to pollute without vergers since a standard (scientifically established, have I already said?) Would support the opposite? Fortunately, some people prefer the reality of the terrain!

* who does this reproach to Obamot?
NB: you should be fully satisfied with the measurements (scientifically established: would I have already said it?) Of the cited CT! And as you are very talented and scientifically informed: what do you say?
1 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Gaston
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1910
Registration: 04/10/10, 11:37
x 88

Re: Vortex to save fuel?




by Gaston » 21/10/16, 11:45

Janic wrote:Take NEDC standards, scientifically (sic) established and compared to the reality of the field that does not correspond to this standard.
The NEDC tests have never been intended to establish a representative or realistic measure of consumption or pollution, only to allow the comparison of the consumption and emissions of certain pollutants of the different vehicles under precise and reproducible conditions.


Janic wrote:It is the reality of the field that prevails, which eventually recognize the professionals who hitherto (for political reasons) hid behind an unrealistic standard.
According to your speech, it would be better to continue to pollute without vergers since a standard (scientifically established, have I already said?) Would support the opposite? Fortunately, some people prefer the reality of the terrain!
The reality on the ground is that the same vehicle can pollute ten or a hundred times more when riding a mountain lane at full load than when traveling at steady speed on empty plains.
It is also a vehicle capable of driving at 300 km / h may pollute less than a vehicle unable to exceed the 150 km / h when they both drive at 80 km / h.

And what can be removed :?:
It does not help to decide anything (allow, prohibit, tax, bonusser?) ...

Should tests be made to measure the maximum pollution that a vehicle can produce (if we are able to ...)?
And if this maximum is reached only a few seconds during the life of the vehicle, while another vehicle pollutes more in the usual cases, which is preferable :?:


It is easy to shout haro on the test procedures, but they are necessary when one wants to make decisions (and the decisions are not scientific, they are political).
1 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: Vortex to save fuel?




by Did67 » 21/10/16, 12:26

Nevertheless, everyone agrees that the current protocols, under the influence of the manufacturers' lobby, are particularly "silly" and biased:

- there is a whole battery of "accommodations" aimed at reducing emissions when in reality, we cannot drive like this: very low speeds, deactivated electrical accessories, etc ...

- if the "perfect" protocol does not exist, we could approach it a bit! The "average" use of a car in France is known; we know that it covers x% of km on the motorway, y% on national and departmental roads, z% in the city; that it is in so many traffic jams ... It would suffice to "reproduce" this, in a standardized way, to give a more realistic indication ...

- everyone could then "interpret" these results: the one, a frequent traveler, practically only on the motorway, would correct in one direction; another, doing almost only the city would correct in the other direction ...

- there, starting from anything, it's as if you knew almost nothing, except "ideally", such model would emit less stink than another ... But as we are at kilometers from reality, pissing in a piano would have the same interest!
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Vortex to save fuel?




by izentrop » 21/10/16, 13:00

Janic wrote:
Road testimony has no scientific value.
always this obsession of the scientific whole! That reassures you so much?
Simple observation: changing several parameters at the same time gives random results, which can not be exploited.
Even if the vehicle consumption measurements are not made under real traffic conditions, if they are all made with the same specifications, the results are reliable and can be compared (by categories of course).
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Vortex to save fuel?




by Janic » 21/10/16, 13:29

gaston hello
janic wrote: It is the reality of the field that prevails, which eventually recognize the professionals who hitherto (for political reasons) were hiding behind an unrealistic standard.
According to your speech, it would be better to continue to pollute without vergers since a standard (scientifically established, have I already said?) Would support the opposite? Fortunately, some people prefer the reality of the terrain!

The reality on the ground is that the same vehicle can pollute ten or a hundred times more when riding a mountain lane at full load than when traveling at steady speed on empty plains.

It looks like Isentrop all spit. Pollution being linked to consumption, a hundred times more would mean a consumption one hundred times higher than what does not exist
But what you say here about the difference between mountain and plain is of elementary evidence.
It is also a vehicle capable of driving at 300 km / h may pollute less than a vehicle unable to exceed the 150 km / h when they both drive at 80 km / h.

No ! If only for the difference in weight between the two, plus the techniques used. If you take the manufacturer data, the consumption of the first will prove (with equivalent technology) superior to the second.
Should tests be made to measure the maximum pollution that a vehicle can produce (if we are able to ...)?

Yes of course ! Manufacturers should also give consumption and pollution at maximum speed, but that does not go in the direction of a low-pollution policy.
And if this maximum is reached only a few seconds during the life of the vehicle, while another vehicle pollutes more in the usual cases, which is preferable

Answer given above! At most, can we invoke the quality of materials used in high-end, which provide a longer life, but we are no longer in a comparison "all things being equal"
But in the case invoked of this thread, the two would profit from the same advantages and would maintain the difference. (Consult the site quanthomme!)
It is easy to shout haro on the test procedures, but they are necessary when one wants to make decisions (and the decisions are not scientific, they are political).

I agree with this last point for its political aspect (but this policy is imposed by those who make the rain and the weather in industrial terms, the powerful lobbies of the industrial economy). The pseudo scandal VW has exploded the wall of silence and hypocrisy.

Did hello
Nevertheless, everyone agrees that the current protocols, under the influence of the manufacturers' lobby, are particularly "silly" and biased:
- there is a whole battery of "accommodations" aimed at reducing emissions when in reality, we cannot drive like this: very low speeds, deactivated electrical accessories, etc ...

Elementary, my dear Watson! + 1
- if the "perfect" protocol does not exist, we could approach it a bit! The "average" use of a car in France is known; we know that it covers x% of km on the motorway, y% on national and departmental roads, z% in town; that it is in so many traffic jams ... It would suffice to "reproduce" this, in a standardized way, to give a more realistic indication ...

This is what the professional media offer. Peugeot has just given measurements in real conditions that compare with those of the NEDC exceed them by about 1.8 l / 100 on average.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685

Re: Vortex to save fuel?




by Did67 » 21/10/16, 13:31

izentrop wrote:Even if the vehicle consumption measurements are not made under real traffic conditions, if they are all made with the same specifications, the results are reliable and can be compared (by categories of course).


They are reliable, as a comparison, in their "domain of validity". However, the protocol is such that we are very far from "normal" use. So I doubt that they are still a reliable comparison under normal conditions!

If you want, I'll find the protocol and you will ride like that, you will tell me the news. I'm a "cool" driver, but when I read this I was on my ass.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79111
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: Vortex to save fuel?




by Christophe » 21/10/16, 13:35

0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

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

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 185 guests