Author Topic: Increased efficiency  (Read 64219 times)

albany dbd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: Increased efficiency
« Reply #120 on: August 09, 2006, 03:42:17 AM »
well that was a lot of attitudes and some good facts and alot of bullshit.  i can only speak for myself but $ per kwh plus btu is what matters.
also the noise level and simplicity goes a long way. a steam turbine is pretty efficient but its not so simple to keep running in the barn.
class 5 steam fitter - millwright - class 6 code pipe and pressure vessel welder - fabricator.  oh and good old country boy from the farm. 
( Beat it to fit paint to match ) oh and X-ray of course

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Increased efficiency
« Reply #121 on: August 09, 2006, 04:42:14 AM »
boy this whole thread has become quite exciting to say the least.

several black eyes, knocked out teeth and ruffled feathers later, where are we?

i have a question for those that would answer it.

(a)as a percentage what would you expect to be able to raise your listeroids efficiency?

ok another that dovetails on the last question. ( stop rolling your eyes, you knew i would ask!)

(b)what specifically would you do to raise the efficiency of you engine?

and another( yup :) )

(c)what would the expense be in your estimation in time and money to attain this alteration?

i will even lead off,, so you can take a poke at my eye :)

(A). perhaps 2 to 3% increase in efficiency (i stress perhaps)

(B). install a thermostat, to get the coolant temp up to near 195 or so,
      make sure my intake and exhaust restriction was minimal via large paper element air filter and large open flow muffler,
      perhaps do the math on intake and exhaust runner to see if i could tune them to optimum at the rated rpm.

(c). maybe another 100 bucks in parts and materials,, and depending on how crafty i was perhaps another 10 hrs to     
      fabricate the necessary flanges etc.

ok.... now your turn.... what would you do to increase the efficiency, go ahead step up and answer the questions,
i wont pick them apart, but am interested in what other think along these lines.

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

fattywagonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: Increased efficiency
« Reply #122 on: August 09, 2006, 04:59:55 AM »
Well the Fawker is at it again... trying to elevate his status by making degrading statements about folks he clearly knows nothing about... IMO the Fawker is likely an insecure and resentfull, social invalid, wanna be substandard engineer who has some fantasy of actually doing something cool but he's stuck in some office calculating the strength of a beam for someone who is actually building something cool....  when anyone else comes along and suggest anything he doesn't understand  he slams it... Example: He think his IDI comet combusting chamber is as efficient as DI even though most every one else in the engine engineering world states a 5-7% increase in efficiency for DI over IDI... I guess all those engineers are wrong... there also seems to be confusion about other subjects such as increasing the expansion ratio, larger bores being more efficient and this pesky little broblem of comparing one engines efficiency to another... he thinks it just can't be done... bottom line?  I guess it's hard to maintain superiority when you have a closed mind and clearly don't understand the subject matter... 

fattywagonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: Increased efficiency
« Reply #123 on: August 09, 2006, 05:03:05 AM »
Hi Bob,
There's about a 5% higher efficiency in a DI over an IDI... so that;s a good place to start...

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Increased efficiency
« Reply #124 on: August 09, 2006, 05:28:06 AM »
well i dont want to change my heads on the 25/2

according to my research the idi engines are more tolerant of waste oils,  no?

so what else would you do?

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

GuyFawkes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
    • View Profile
    • stuff
Re: Increased efficiency
« Reply #125 on: August 09, 2006, 10:02:41 AM »
Well the Fawker is at it again... trying to elevate his status by making degrading statements about folks he clearly knows nothing about... IMO the Fawker is likely an insecure and resentfull, social invalid, wanna be substandard engineer who has some fantasy of actually doing something cool but he's stuck in some office calculating the strength of a beam for someone who is actually building something cool....  when anyone else comes along and suggest anything he doesn't understand  he slams it... Example: He think his IDI comet combusting chamber is as efficient as DI even though most every one else in the engine engineering world states a 5-7% increase in efficiency for DI over IDI... I guess all those engineers are wrong... there also seems to be confusion about other subjects such as increasing the expansion ratio, larger bores being more efficient and this pesky little broblem of comparing one engines efficiency to another... he thinks it just can't be done... bottom line?  I guess it's hard to maintain superiority when you have a closed mind and clearly don't understand the subject matter... 

Kiss my ass.

DI has an approx 5% thermal efficiency that IDI, thermal efficiency is only one of the components of efficiency.
Charge mixing efficiency is another one, and IDI beats DI hands down, especially at low RPM, by a wedge more than 5%
Fuel vapourisation efficiency is another one (the injector doesn't do all the work) and again IDI beats DI hands down.
Charge combustion pressures ramp and lot nicer with IDI than DI, and this is another source of efficiency.

DI on the other hand is a LOT cheaper to make, cuts cylinder head costs by as much as 20%, and considering cylinder head cost can account for 30% of engine costs that is a lot of money.

"All those engineers" are not wrong, they are just being selectively quoted by the marketing droids, the engineers in question don't get to speak in a public forum.

Fatty you seem to think this is some sort or popularity contest or barracking at the hustings, the one who can get most people to side with him is the victor and thus proven right.

It don't work that way, right is right even if nobody believes it, because basic engineering principles don't care if you even exist, much less what you choose to believe in.

You lot are all the same, you roll out the same tired old snippets that are always quotes from somewhere else, and when challenged on them the pot is empty and you have no more to give.

NOT ONE SINGLE basic fact or reasoned argument have you been able to come up with.

Your entire argument basically boils down to GF is a wanker.

When I was a punk kid and getting to motorbikes in a bad way (after years spent fettling english iron) I bought all the japanese bike marketing bullshit too, and I used to go on to my old man about all the fabulous new things the japanese had invented and developed, nothing new under the sun, he said, I, like you, said rubbish.

He then said, if you can find any japanese bike with anything that is a genuine innovation, I will personally buy you any japanese motorcyle you like...  now I was working and could afford any new japanese motorcycle anyway, but you never look a gift horse in the mouth.

The (long) conversation went like this.

me - OK, honda have made a water cooler vee four

dad - so? AJS made a water cooled vee four in 1933, and it was blown too.

etc

-------------------------------

You talk now like I did back then, you talk like someone quoting shampoo adverts, ooh it's got lipids, ooh it's hypo allergenic, ooh it's recommended by the blah foundation.

You don't realise that lipids are just bunches of molecules that congregate in spherical form and are hydrophobic, hypoallergenic is not found in ANY medical dictionary, being a term devised by marketers in 1953 to sell a cosmetic by making it sound medical, and the blah foundation is not an independent government / medical body, but a trade foundation owned and operated by the cosmetics manufacturers.

You got all the buzzwords, but you don't even realise that basically you are talking shit.

Shall we eat this tub of axle grease labelled margarine A with LDL lipids or margarine B with HDL lipids, because hey WE NEED TO LOWER OUR BODIES CHOLESTEROL.

Do we? Seeing as cholesterol in MANUFACTURED by the body (about 2 grams a day) because the body needs it as an essential building block for our sex hormones and vitamin d. SO even if you understood all those buzzwords, which you don't, you go and buy some food product thinking it will lower cholesterol, which it won't, because 85% is produced IN THE BODY, while labouring under the impression that lowering your cholesterol is a good thing, which is isn't, unless you want to be a eunuch with a vitamin deficiency.

No, ALL THAT STUFF IS MARKETING BULLSHIT, it sure sounds technical, that is the idea, but it doesn't mean anything except BUY ME NOW!

================

NAME ONE SINGLE DIESEL ENGINE MANUFACTURER who offers any engine in DI or IDI, just take your pick.

just name one.

You can't

You don't know enough to understand why.

When pressed all you have is marketing sounbites, your knowledge lacks any depth, so you revert to ad hominem attacks against those who would point this out to you.

Twice now I've said $100 your blower design has prior art. Why won't you discuss it? not sure of yourself? or is this a project that doesn't exist anywhere outside of a CAD drawing? Or is it that merely making statements is enough in your world?

I am currently working on a desktop cold fusion device.

pah
--
Original Lister CS 6/1 Start-o-matic 2.5 Kw (radiator conversion)
3Kw 130 VDC Dynamo to be added. (compressor + hyd pump)
Original Lister D, megasquirt multifuel project, compressor and truck alternator.
Current status - project / standby, Fuel, good old pump diesel.

Twinscrew

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Increased efficiency
« Reply #126 on: August 09, 2006, 12:23:50 PM »
Quote
$100 says there is prior art...
That's very generous, Guy. As many R&D projects are typically underfunded, I accept. Just to be clear. I produce a patent # and you produce $100. Is that correct? Will that be USD or GBP. From the screen name I deduct that you are in the UK. Wasn't Guy Fawkes the gun powder dude? Something about many kegs of powder, supposed to blow something up but, caught and killed prior? I vaguely remember the story as told by one of my elementary school teachers. I wasn't paying attention. I was too busy trying to pound square blocks through round holes.

bitsnpieces1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
Re: Increased efficiency
« Reply #127 on: August 09, 2006, 12:34:42 PM »
OK, How bore size affects heat loss.  
GIVENS:
3 different cylinders, stroke always twice bore.  
Circ. = circumference of cylinder,  Vol. = Volume of cylinder,  S.A. = Surface Area, h = height = stroke, D = diameter = bore
Ratio:  x:1,  No. of inches of area available to absorb heat from 1 cubic inch of volume.  [2] = squared, [3] = cubed.
**********
Bore      Stroke   Circ.   Vol.   S.A.   Ratio
In.      In.   In.   In.[3]   In.[2]   x:1
1      2            
2      4
4      8
**********
Vol. = pi x r[2] x h    
Circ. = pi x D (Bore)
S.A. = (2 x pi x r[2]) + ( h x Circ. )
 Â        = (area of top of cylinder + area of bottom of cylinder{AKA piston top})  +  area of wall of cylinder
Ratio = S.A. / Vol.
**********
#1   Vol. = 3.14 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 2 =  1.57
   Circ. = 3.14 x 1 = 3.14
   S.A. = (2 x 3.14 x 0.5 x 0.5) + (2 x 3.14) = 7.85
   Ratio = 7.85 / 1.57 = 5 (:1)

#2   Vol = 3.14 x 1 x 1 x 4 = 12.56
   Circ. = 3.14 x 2 = 6.28
   S.A. = (2 x 3.14 x 1 x 1) + (4 x 6.28) = 31.4
   Ratio = 31.4 / 12.56 = 2.5 (:1)

#3   Vol = 3.14 x 2 x 2 x 8 = 100.48
   Circ. = 3.14 x 4 = 12.56
   S.A. = 25.12 x 100.48 = 125.6
   Ratio = 125.6 / 100.48 = 1.25 (:1)
**********
So we have:

Bore      Stroke   Circ.   Vol.   S.A.        Ratio
In.      In.   In.   Cube In.   Square In.        x:1
1      2   3.14   1.57   7.85        5 :1
2      4   6.28   12.56   31.4        2.5 :1
4      8   12.56   100.48   125.6        1.25 :1
**********
 Holding the relationship of bore to stroke the same, the larger the bore gets the FEWER inches of surface area available to draw off the heat produced from combustion.  Therefore; the larger the bore is the more efficient it is, BASED SOLELY ON HEAT LOSS.
 Â Also, given the same rate of heat loss through the metal; It would be safe to say that the higher the combustion temp. is the more efficient it would be.  BUT, this would be subject to confirmation.  

I'm pretty sure the math and spelling is right, but, they're always subject to mistakes
Lister Petter AC1, Listeroid 12/1, Briggs & Stratton ZZ, various US Mil. surplus engines. Crosley (American) 4cyl marine engine(26hp).

GuyFawkes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
    • View Profile
    • stuff
Re: Increased efficiency
« Reply #128 on: August 09, 2006, 01:48:05 PM »
Quote
$100 says there is prior art...
That's very generous, Guy. As many R&D projects are typically underfunded, I accept. Just to be clear. I produce a patent # and you produce $100. Is that correct? Will that be USD or GBP. From the screen name I deduct that you are in the UK. Wasn't Guy Fawkes the gun powder dude? Something about many kegs of powder, supposed to blow something up but, caught and killed prior? I vaguely remember the story as told by one of my elementary school teachers. I wasn't paying attention. I was too busy trying to pound square blocks through round holes.

I didn't lay $100 on the table so you could indulge in your usual trick of moving goalposts and restating the same bullshit a different way.

$100 bucks says there is prior art, this is now the fourth and last time I say it.
--
Original Lister CS 6/1 Start-o-matic 2.5 Kw (radiator conversion)
3Kw 130 VDC Dynamo to be added. (compressor + hyd pump)
Original Lister D, megasquirt multifuel project, compressor and truck alternator.
Current status - project / standby, Fuel, good old pump diesel.

mobile_bob

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
    • View Profile
Re: Increased efficiency
« Reply #129 on: August 09, 2006, 02:43:08 PM »
bitsnpieces:

nice math, and under only one condition is your conclusion correct, and that is at rated load

at rated load the smallest cylinder perhaps makes one hp, for example

at the same hp output the larger cylinder making one hp, is well below rated output and is less efficient
based solely on heat loss

this is one possible factor of why the lister 6/1 with its 4.5 inch bore appears to have a lower efficiency than a
changfa 6 hp water cooled engine with it 2.56 bore

the illustration is easier to accept if you step up to a hypothetical engine of 40 inch bore and 60 inch stroke,
there is no way to argue that if the engine was to make 1 hp, it would use much more fuel to do so , based solely on
heat loss.

follow?

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

Andre Blanchard

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 373
    • View Profile
Re: Increased efficiency
« Reply #130 on: August 09, 2006, 02:57:31 PM »
you have specific fuel capacity for nitromethane, and gasoline, a specific engine you know the capacity of, and specific bhp for each fuel, and fuel consumption rate, you don't need anything else.

If we assume that fuel consumption equals usable HP.  It is bad practice to use the assumption in the prof of the assumption.



From
http://www.goarmy.com/racing/nhra_top_fuel_dragster.jsp
Car 2225 lbs or 1009Kg
Speed 338 mph or 151 m/s

E = 0.5 m v^2 = 11.5 MJ energy accelerate the car


Fuel used 12 gal
Near as I can tell they are limited to 85% nitro at most tracks, Denver seems to be an exception.
Assuming that is by volume we have.  Also assuming nitro and gas are not soluble in each other, a less safe assumption.

10.2 gal or 38610 cm^3 of nitro
1.8 gal or 6814 cm^3 gas

Nitro 1.138 g/cm^3 and 12 MJ/Kg
Gas 0.803 g/cm^3 and 42 MJ/Kg

Nitro 43.939 Kg and 527 MJ
Gas 5.4716 Kg and 230 MJ

Total 757 MJ

11.5 / 757 = 1.5% efficiency for the car system, better then I expected.  I did not double check the math so...

If we had the torque and RPM plots for the engine during a run we could look at just the engine should be better as a lot gets blown off in the clutches.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2006, 05:24:41 PM by Andre Blanchard »
______________
Andre' B

Twinscrew

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Increased efficiency
« Reply #131 on: August 09, 2006, 03:00:09 PM »
Quote
I didn't lay $100 on the table so you could indulge in your usual trick of moving goalposts and restating the same bullshit a different way.
No you layed $100 on the table until you realized that you might actually have to pay it. Then you tried to justify removing it. But hey man that's cool. It is what it is.

fattywagonman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: Increased efficiency
« Reply #132 on: August 09, 2006, 03:43:47 PM »
Listen up Fawker... (stuffy, limey, prick and self proclaimed king of knowledge)... why you feel the need to make remarks about other folks intelegence (based by reading a few posts on a forum) is beyond my comprehension...   You know NOTHING got it... Nothing about these folks and their abilities including myself... We do however know something about you.... you are a prick!.. For the record I have NEVER claimed to invent anthing truly novel... I have combined some things that I MAY the first to do (Like build a working IC Erricson cycle engine)  but most of the time I'm a student of history... and like I've said before most ideas are old ones (prior art) ... however unlike you I do believe new things are possible... logic says it is so... you seem to have a very closed mind... in your world eveything has been done so why try anything new... funny thing is this is the same thing that folks like you told Newcomen, Watt, Otto, Diesel and every single person who ever tried to bring anything new to the table... They told Otto he was wasting his time... steam was king (it was for about a hundred years) and it would always be so....  Logic says you and your kind are wrong... there will be a new and more efficient way  to pump air or harness the work done by expanding it in a cylinder ... maybe twinscrew has a novel idea.. maybe not..  but why do you feel the need to slam him with NO knowledge about him and his ideas... if they have merrit they may get recognised... if not then just why not let the chips fall where they may... sure quantum leaps in invention are unlikely... each idea is generally built on one that came before it...  Here's an example of a fairly novel motorcycle...
http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2006/06/30/motoczysz-unveiling-racebikes-at-laguna-seca/

I'll chalenge you to find us some prior art on this design...

Sure the Comet has it's advantages... it mixes vey well... so it's better for heavy fuel...  But like it or not your comet burns more fuel per output than my DI listeroid...

Oh And I just had to post this.... I always wanted to build a lister with a crank arrangement like this... vibration free in a big slow turning single cylinder engine would be a very usefull feature
http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2006/06/19/neander-turbo-diesel-motorcycle/

Ideas are called prior art not prior engineering.. ... No one teaches art in engineering class... they only teach numbers and proven designs... like it or not innovation is an art... A formal edjucation is generally the enemy of innovation... be carefull you might actually learn something from someone you didn't want to learn from...  
« Last Edit: August 09, 2006, 04:03:11 PM by fattywagonman »

Andre Blanchard

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 373
    • View Profile
Re: Increased efficiency
« Reply #133 on: August 09, 2006, 04:03:44 PM »
<< snip >>

Oh And I just had to post this.... I always wanted to build a lister with a crank arrangement like this... vibration free in a big slow turning single cylinder engine would be a very usefull feature
http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2006/06/19/neander-turbo-diesel-motorcycle/

Ideas are called prior art not prior engineering.. ... No one teaches art in engineering class... they only teach numbers and proven designs... like it or not innovation is an art... A formal edjucation is generally the enemy of innovation... be carefull you might actually learn something from someone you didn't want to learn from... 


Bottom of page.
http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/thurston/1878/Chapter3.html
EDWARD CARTWRIGHT 1793

Sorry just couldn't help myself.
______________
Andre' B

bitsnpieces1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
Re: Increased efficiency
« Reply #134 on: August 09, 2006, 04:31:46 PM »
bitsnpieces:

nice math, and under only one condition is your conclusion correct, and that is at rated load

at rated load the smallest cylinder perhaps makes one hp, for example

at the same hp output the larger cylinder making one hp, is well below rated output and is less efficient
based solely on heat loss

this is one possible factor of why the lister 6/1 with its 4.5 inch bore appears to have a lower efficiency than a
changfa 6 hp water cooled engine with it 2.56 bore

the illustration is easier to accept if you step up to a hypothetical engine of 40 inch bore and 60 inch stroke,
there is no way to argue that if the engine was to make 1 hp, it would use much more fuel to do so , based solely on
heat loss.

follow?

bob g
 Wrong,  I could care less what hp it's putting out.  I'm not concerned with how much fuel it uses.  The larger bore/stroke has the smaller heat loss potential !period!.  How you use that heat loss is another thing.  A 24 inch bore x 56 inch stroke producing 1 hp has less heat loss potential than a 1 inch bore x 2 inch stroke producing 1000 hp.  What it tells us is that a larger bore has less "stuff" to dump heat too.  Therfore MORE heat has to be retained.  It's a calculus thing called differentials.  You're talking about a direct result, I'm talking about the trend that you get from multiple direct results.  
 Â The larger bore is more efficient when corrected for hp output, that is: the larger produces it's hp more efficiently than the smaller bore because it's able to retain more heat and feed it into expansion.  ie: the larger bore uses (x) gm. of fuel to produce 1 of it's hp and the smaller bore (x+0.1) gm. of fuel to produce 1 of it's hp.  AND the hp I'm talking about is the hp pushing the piston down, NOT at the crankshaft.  Once you get past the piston top all sorts of things will degrade the efficiency.  Larger bearings in the large engine will exert more drag (thus more hp loss) than the smaller bearings in the small engine.  Thus the larger bore with larger bearings has more actual drag that requires more hp to overcome, thus lowering overall efficiency at the crankshaft if you are running the large engine at reduced output.  OR,  Better fuel/air charge in the small engine will develop more power than poorer fuel/air charge in the large engine (IF such a difference in mix exists).
 Â We're dealing with (theoretical)item 1 changes by a 1:1 relationship, (theoretical)item 2 changes by the square of #1 relationship, (theoretical)item 3 changes by the cube of #1 relationship.  As things get bigger and bigger the cubed item takes over and controls the situation.  You're trying to change the conditions under which the test is performed to produce the results you want.  How about this: Is a flathead engine capable of producing as much hp as an overhead valve engine? Yes if you're alowed to have different displacements, different compression ratios (you can get 13:1 out of a flathead), if you run the flathead on fuel/pure oxygen but not the overhed valve.  You're talking about changing the combustion characteristics of the karger bore.  Derate your small engine to the same % of rated hp as you do the larger one and see what it does.  So Listeroid 6hp run at 1hp compared to little 1hp run at 1/6 hp and what happens?  
 Â  I have ONLY varied the actual dimensions, the rest follows from pure mathematics I had nothing to do with them.  
Lister Petter AC1, Listeroid 12/1, Briggs & Stratton ZZ, various US Mil. surplus engines. Crosley (American) 4cyl marine engine(26hp).