Puppeteer

Author Topic: fuel compsumpion  (Read 27115 times)

fattywagonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: fuel compsumpion
« Reply #45 on: December 08, 2006, 02:30:59 PM »
Quote
FW:
and there probably won't be 5% between all three!

bob g

Hi Bob,
The Indians state a SFC of 268 g/kW for the 6 HP IDI and 235 g/kW for the 6 HP DI... That's over a 10% difference.. While I'm not sure how the real world #'s would come out I'll bet it would be close to the manufactures #'s. The Indians don't use the Comet chamber for their IDI... it would also be interesting to compare the Comet SFC. 

Smokey

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: fuel compsumpion
« Reply #46 on: December 08, 2006, 04:19:25 PM »
On thermal efficiency; it is nothing more than energy sought divided by energy that costs.  Unfortunately, the devil is in the details.   What is the energy sought? In our case is the shaft work of our Lister(oid).  How do we measure it? (a) with the aid of a dynamometer or (b) the output of our gen head. 

Not so fast there, the dynamometer has some frictional losses that may be (probably are) invisable to the instrumentation, better account for it and correct the readings.  If we use the electric power from the generator head as an indicator of engine work output the measured power is the product of the engine efficiency, belt drive efficiency and generator efficiency.  Hard to determine the engine work output alone without knowledge of the drive and generator efficiencies.

 If we choose to just lump them together and call it the overall genset efficiency that is fine if you are choosing to try to improve efficiency of your own genset.  But bear in mind if you compare measurements of your system to that of some one else there is a measurable uncertaintly involved with the comparison.  How do you know the both sets have the same drive and generator efficiencies.  Casual comparisons are fine as long as everyone is aware of and takes into consideration thease uncertainties.

Assume you have a reliable method to measure the engine shaft work, lets take a look at the measurement of the heat of combustion.  Simple right? just go to a handbook and look up the heating value of petro diesel.  Wait a minute...light diesel, heavy diesel and whats  this higher heating value/ lower heating value stuff? Well, being pump diesel its probably light diesel. Heavy diesel is probably that thick stuff that must be heated up before being pumped into a large diesel.Thats my assumption.  Lower heating value assumes complete combustion ( no HC, CO or NOx in exhaust, just H2O and CO2) and the water in the exhaust stream is in the vapor phase at temperature of 25 deg. C or 77deg F and a pressure of one atmosphere.  Higher heating value employs the same assumptions, but the water is in liquid phase. Ok, so we are using the lower heating value of light diesel fuel, 43,200kJ/Kg or 18,600BTU/lbm by my reference.  Done, right? Nope.  Real engines have incomplete combustion, for best accuracy we need an analysis of the exhaust products and the temperature of the exhaust stream.  When we know this, the heats of formation for each chemical specie of the exhaust products can be found and the heat releassed during combustion determined.

My point in relaying this information is this: when we use terms like "thermal efficiency" in casual conversation ( watts produced divided by lower heating values of diesel) we must bear in mind that there is a lot of overhead involved with obtaining an accurate measure of this term. The value that we might calculate for thermal efficiency using the simplifying assumptions stated above may well still be 85-90% accurate, I don't know as  I have never looked into it.

GF speaks of not all BTUs being equal.  I can't say that I understand fully the point that he is trying to make, sometimes I am a bit dense.  What I do know and perhaps this is part of what he is saying is this;  sources of energy posess a quality. We all know that energy can be converted from one form to another. Mechanical work and electrical work are two high quality forms of energy.  What makes them high quality is that they are readily converted to other forms of energy with minimal losses.  For example electrical energy can be converted into mechaniclal work with a better than 90% conversion effieiency with an electric motor (for large motors, smaller one are less).  Thermal energy is a lower quality form of energy.  For example, converting thermal energy into mechanical work using a steam power plant (steam turbine) has about a 40% conversion efficiency. And that is for a relatively high efficiency plant.  Temperature of the thermal energy source plays a role too.  It is easier to convert thermal energy to another form if the thermal energy exists at a high temperature rather than a low temperature.
Metro 6/1, ST5 Genhead

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito,
"do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it."

biobill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 408
  • 'riods make good houseguests if fed right
    • View Profile
Re: fuel compsumpion
« Reply #47 on: December 08, 2006, 04:45:05 PM »
Quote from: fattywagonman
The Indians don't use the Comet chamber for their IDI... it would also be interesting to compare the Comet SFC.

I didn't know that. I'd love to see what the difference is.

Ya know, we seem to be wasting an awful lot of energy ( ;D) criticizing and validating our individual projects. If you can utilize something that was previously wasted than you have improved the efficiency. Period. You can figure your success or failure anyway you like. On the molecular level, on the cosmic level, whatever. My analysis is a bit simpler. If it works, great, you win. If it doesn't, thats ok, you learned something and probably enjoyed the time spent doing it. So you still win. And if it blew up maybe you could post it so others can learn too. :o We, or at least I, am tinkering, not building gigawatt powerplants.

 As a result of another thread I've been doing a lot of soul searching about working smart. I've come to the conclusion that I just don't, especially if you put a monetary value on your time. But I'm ok with that. I haven't owned a TV for 22yrs but I'm sure that I could come up with an equally worthless way to pass my time if I wasn't puttering. Domestically I'm a disaster. I get compulsive about my projects and put off other important things to work on them. The projects I do take on tend to be out in left field, with no relevance to 99.9% of the rest of the world so my chances of profiting from my labors are nil. But, I like what I do and wouldn't have it any other way

                                                             Bill
 
 
Off grid since 1990
6/1 Metro DI living in basement, cogen
6/1 Metro IDI running barn & biodiesel processer
VW 1.6 diesels all over the place
Isuzu Boxtruck, Ford Backhoe, all running on biodiesel
Needs diesel lawnmower & chainsaw

Andre Blanchard

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 373
    • View Profile
Re: fuel compsumpion
« Reply #48 on: December 08, 2006, 04:49:59 PM »
GF speaks of not all BTUs being equal.  I can't say that I understand fully the point that he is trying to make, sometimes I am a bit dense.  What I do know and perhaps this is part of what he is saying is this;  sources of energy posess a quality. We all know that energy can be converted from one form to another. Mechanical work and electrical work are two high quality forms of energy.  What makes them high quality is that they are readily converted to other forms of energy with minimal losses.  For example electrical energy can be converted into mechaniclal work with a better than 90% conversion effieiency with an electric motor (for large motors, smaller one are less).  Thermal energy is a lower quality form of energy.  For example, converting thermal energy into mechanical work using a steam power plant (steam turbine) has about a 40% conversion efficiency. And that is for a relatively high efficiency plant.  Temperature of the thermal energy source plays a role too.  It is easier to convert thermal energy to another form if the thermal energy exists at a high temperature rather than a low temperature.

He is talking about the effects of the second law of thermodynamics, entropy which is related the quality of the energy you bring up, sometimes referred to as exergy.
A large mass of water at a temperature just a little higher then ambient is less useful then a smaller mass at a much higher temperature even thou the BTU in each mass are the same.
______________
Andre' B

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: fuel compsumpion
« Reply #49 on: December 08, 2006, 04:58:52 PM »
Andre:
you are amazing!

how  is it that you can strip it down and post it in a couple of sentences, what takes our dear friend GuyF hundreds?

how could you relate the difference between btu's and btu's without bullet tragectories, steam turbine treatices, and other cool but equally off topic analogies?

whats da matta wit yu anyways?

:)

i nominate Andre to be our official GuyF translator, he can read all his stuff and boil it down to a pertinent sentence of two.

do i hear a second?

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

xyzer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1058
    • View Profile
Re: fuel compsumpion
« Reply #50 on: December 08, 2006, 07:15:13 PM »
How fuel will a 6/1 @ use 650rpm 3000watts load in  a 24 hr period   .   gals per hr thank  tugboat
Hey Tugboat!.......did you get your question answered?......LOL! There are talkers, typers, and doers..... I wonder if some Indian chipping away on a piece of obsidian argued with the rest of the chippers and the ones sitting on there asses doing nothing about the energy loss in making his arrowhead? Like a .049 Cox vs. the space shuttle has shit to do with anything other than theory....so what! I say this valid thread was hijacked! I am to the point if GF responds the thread is on its way to no where.....never a yes, no, black, or white answer....No facts pertaining to the original post!....
Let this one DIE!
Dave
Vidhata 6/1 portable
Power Solutions portable 6/1
Z482 KUBOTA

Smokey

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: fuel compsumpion
« Reply #51 on: December 08, 2006, 08:18:23 PM »
Tugboat,
Metro claims 275g/kW-hr brake specific fuel consumption. They don't specify if the figure is for best economy or rated output, so I will assume it is for rated output.   Assuming a drive belt efficiency of 95%, generator efficiency of 85% a fuel density of .81 kg/liter and that fuel consumption scales linearly with load. I calculate about 5.36 US gallons for a continuous 3kW load over 24 hours for the Metro 6/1.  Subject, of course to the accuracy of metro's fuel consumption numbers and my assumptions.  Ball park figure at best.

Hope this helps. Now we can grant Dave's wish and this thread can die. :)
Metro 6/1, ST5 Genhead

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito,
"do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it."

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: fuel compsumpion
« Reply #52 on: December 08, 2006, 08:38:45 PM »
to one and all:

my appologies for my part in subverting this thread,

i took exception to a particular individual be ballyhoo'd (is that a word?) over efficiency concerns in regard to using a changfa to produce a small amount of power.

i should have started another thread rather than taken part in giving the arguement leg's here.

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

t19

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Tanks and Lister... Heavy Metal
    • View Profile
Re: fuel compsumpion
« Reply #53 on: December 08, 2006, 11:21:29 PM »
Bob, you and Guy are rank amatures.  On another board I am on, they can redirect a threat in less than three posts. :D

No bother

There is plenty of room for all of Gods creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes...

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: fuel compsumpion
« Reply #54 on: December 08, 2006, 11:32:54 PM »
COOL, i guess i can pull my gloves back on then?

:)

bob g
otherpower.com, microcogen.info, practicalmachinist.com
(useful forums), utterpower.com for all sorts of diy info

Doug

  • Guest
Re: fuel compsumpion
« Reply #55 on: December 08, 2006, 11:47:20 PM »
I can spend all day looking for corners in a round room. With or without gloves, pacing like Gus the polar beer...

Where were we fuel consumption?

Doug

t19

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
  • Tanks and Lister... Heavy Metal
    • View Profile
Re: fuel compsumpion
« Reply #56 on: December 09, 2006, 01:52:27 AM »
COOL, i guess i can pull my gloves back on then?

:)

bob g

Damn the sound of snapping rubber gloves sense a chill through my body  :o
There is plenty of room for all of Gods creatures... right next to the mashed potatoes...

agroot

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
    • BioFuel Depot.ca
Re: fuel compsumpion
« Reply #57 on: December 09, 2006, 02:14:16 AM »
How fuel will a 6/1 @ use 650rpm 3000watts load in  a 24 hr period.   gals per hr thank  tugboat

From reports on the Utter Power website, about 0.4 gal/hr or 9.6 gal / day with the generator's output at 3KW with the specified drive.

It seems to me that energy content of fuel varies by its type.  Summer diesel, winter diesel, BioDiesel, and various vegetable oils each have differing energy content.  What you use will affect fuel consumption.  Reports also indicate that fuel consumption decreases as an engine "wears in".

Tugboat, I'm in the same position as you are.  I don't know what my 20/2 will drink. The load will vary, and I'm going to use WVO for fuel. I'll find my answer through trial and terror.

This has been an excellent thread, as it gave great insight to the members of the forum.

Tony

Firebrick

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: fuel compsumpion
« Reply #58 on: December 13, 2006, 06:28:10 AM »
I will not comment of the actual fuel consumption related to the lister/listeroids but I will make a comment on BSFC.  This is a weight measurement so one has to forget the btu's per gallon.  Gasoline and Diesel fuel have different wieghts per gallon but have close to the same BTU's per pound.  This goes for alot of other liquid hydrocarbon fuels.  When you look MPG it seams one is much more efficient than the other but when you compare Horsepower per pound it equals out more, depending on the design and application, as some designs are better suited to the job at task.