FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Electronix » design
OT: Petrol consumption
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 6 [77 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Author Message
keith
electronics forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2060

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:53 pm    Post subject: Re: OT: Petrol consumption Reply with quote

In article <MqmdnUyOeJYY5iPZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@rcn.net>, jya@ieee.org
says...
Quote:
Richard Henry wrote:
Jerry Avins wrote:

I kept the ignition timing on the edge of too advanced in my '53 Ford
F-head. I could just make it knock a little between 35 and 45 mph when
floored in third gear. That is, except on humid days. Fog was just like
retarding the timing. The engine ran smoother, but with less oomph.

Some old military aircraft engines injected water to make the engines
run better.

The practice started with drag racers before WWII. As one story goes, an
aircraft mechanic in the Pacific theater who gad been a drag racer in
civilian life equipped his pilot's P-47 Thunderbolt with a make-shift
water-injection system to better defend against the more nimble Japanese
Zeros. (The Thunderbolt was a magnificent fighter, as heavy and with as
much horsepower as a DC-3 cargo plane. It was heavily armed and armored,
and fast on the level. Because of its weight, it was relatively slow to
turn and climb. The Zero had no armor at all, not even room for a
parachute. They would climb rapidly and dive down on the Thunderbolts,
shooting through the canopy if the pilot didn't roll.

The mechanic's word to his pilot was supposedly something like "If you
get into trouble, pull this handle. Horsepower should go from 2300 to
3000 if the engine doesn't blow up." Later tests indicated something
more like 2800 than 3000, but it was enough. When a Zero tried to
outclimb him, the pilot headed straight up and, hanging on his prop,
raked the Zero's belly.

All was not immediately well, however. The pilot included details of the
maneuver in his debriefing, and the base commander court martialed both
him and his mechanic for unauthorized tampering with Government
property. The court martial order was sent for approval to the division
general, who quashed it and ordered the modification made to all the
Thunderbolts in his command, under the tutelage of the mechanic.

Can anyone confirm the details? I heard the story from a returning
veteran, with no corroboration.

I didn't know there were any Jugs in the Pacific.

Quote:
I was once shot at (sort of) by a P-47, but that's another story.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap7.htm

--
Keith
Back to top
Roger Hamlett
electronics forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 302

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:05 pm    Post subject: Re: OT: Petrol consumption Reply with quote

"Richard Henry" <pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153330007.557114.310290@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Jerry Avins wrote:

I kept the ignition timing on the edge of too advanced in my '53 Ford
F-head. I could just make it knock a little between 35 and 45 mph when
floored in third gear. That is, except on humid days. Fog was just like
retarding the timing. The engine ran smoother, but with less oomph.

Some old military aircraft engines injected water to make the engines
run better.
Not just to 'make them run better'. They could run with higher boost

pressures, and/or the ignition more advanced (just like the car in the
above quote), without knocking. Adding water is not really quite like
retarding the timing. It has a whole 'series' of effects, but the main
ones are cooling the mixture, and cooling the combustion chamber. On the
car, the mixture, and induction pressures used were fixed, but on most
aircraft, the mixture can be adjusted, and with a supercharger, you can
run with more boost to get more total power.
It was tried as early as the 1920's, by Sir Harry Ricardo (he also came up
with the 'octane' designation for fuels), but first came into 'common' use
on the latter supercharged engines in WWII, where a 'combat power'
setting, used this. Both UK, and US aircraft used this. You actually can
get higher fuel economy with this. The problem of course is the need to
supply water...

Best Wishes
Back to top
Eric Jacobsen
electronics forum beginner


Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:32 pm    Post subject: Re: OT: Petrol consumption Reply with quote

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 21:05:00 GMT, "Roger Hamlett"
<rogerspamignored@ttelmah.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Quote:

"Richard Henry" <pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153330007.557114.310290@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Jerry Avins wrote:

I kept the ignition timing on the edge of too advanced in my '53 Ford
F-head. I could just make it knock a little between 35 and 45 mph when
floored in third gear. That is, except on humid days. Fog was just like
retarding the timing. The engine ran smoother, but with less oomph.

Some old military aircraft engines injected water to make the engines
run better.
Not just to 'make them run better'. They could run with higher boost
pressures, and/or the ignition more advanced (just like the car in the
above quote), without knocking. Adding water is not really quite like
retarding the timing. It has a whole 'series' of effects, but the main
ones are cooling the mixture, and cooling the combustion chamber. On the
car, the mixture, and induction pressures used were fixed, but on most
aircraft, the mixture can be adjusted, and with a supercharger, you can
run with more boost to get more total power.
It was tried as early as the 1920's, by Sir Harry Ricardo (he also came up
with the 'octane' designation for fuels), but first came into 'common' use
on the latter supercharged engines in WWII, where a 'combat power'
setting, used this. Both UK, and US aircraft used this. You actually can
get higher fuel economy with this. The problem of course is the need to
supply water...

Best Wishes

Ah, we've digressed to car stuff. Yay!

FWIW, in the 70s I knew a guy who was a 747 captain for PanAm. In
those days he'd said that the 747 carried more weight in water than in
fuel to support the water injection in the turbofans.

A lot of guys who do performance tuning on cars with superchargers
still use water injection to cool the air charge under pressure. The
thing I've found really strange is that the optimum juice to use for
this is windshield washer fluid. So what a lot of people do is just
run a pump line from the washer reservoir to the high pressure side of
the supercharger and trigger the pump with a particular boost level.
Works like a champ.

Since P-47s had substantial forced induction I could see the same sort
of thing happening, but whether or not it just cooled the intake
charge or actually got injected into the jugs it would be having
different effects.

I'd also heard that a side effect of in-cylinder water injection in
aircraft engines was accelerated corrosion of the cylinders (or heads,
I don't recall). So it was a tradeoff.

Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp.
My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.
http://www.ericjacobsen.org
Back to top
Eric Jacobsen
electronics forum beginner


Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Petrol consumption Reply with quote

On 19 Jul 2006 07:04:59 -0700, "Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
Now consider the cost in energy to build a car multiplied by the
increased probability of totaling the car in an accident when
the lights are off.

-- glen

this is the correct answer, the fuel cost to run the headlights is MUCH
lower compared to the "probability cost" of reducing the chances of
having an accident.

Mark

Uh, only assuming that one would be as likely to drive in the dark if
the headlights were not equipped.

Do you try to fly your car even though it doesn't have wings?

Ya gotta give people _some_ credit for having brain cells.

Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp.
My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.
http://www.ericjacobsen.org
Back to top
Richard Owlett
electronics forum beginner


Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:49 pm    Post subject: Re: Petrol consumption Reply with quote

Eric Jacobsen wrote:

Quote:

Ya gotta give people _some_ credit for having brain cells.


*WHY*


Have you EVER directed traffic at a fire or accident scene?

I have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was a Fire Police Officer in Ithaca New York Fire Department

Do you understand that otherwise intelligent people have problems
understanding that a 100 ft ladder parked crosswise of their intended
route presents a problem?

And I have even better stories.
Back to top
Eeyore
electronics forum Guru


Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 642

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:53 pm    Post subject: Re: OT: Petrol consumption Reply with quote

Eric Jacobsen wrote:

Quote:
A lot of guys who do performance tuning on cars with superchargers
still use water injection to cool the air charge under pressure. The
thing I've found really strange is that the optimum juice to use for
this is windshield washer fluid. So what a lot of people do is just
run a pump line from the washer reservoir to the high pressure side of
the supercharger and trigger the pump with a particular boost level.
Works like a champ.

Screenwash often contains ethanol. The ethanol evaporates and absorbs latent
heat, cooling the intake air.

Graham
Back to top
Jerry Avins
electronics forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 127

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:58 pm    Post subject: Re: OT: Petrol consumption Reply with quote

Keith wrote:

...

Quote:
I didn't know there were any Jugs in the Pacific.

From the link I posted,

Quote:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap7.htm,

"By the end of the war, the Thunderbolt had been used in every active
war theater with the exception of Alaska."

...

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Back to top
dalai lamah
electronics forum beginner


Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:17 pm    Post subject: Re: Petrol consumption Reply with quote

Un bel giorno Eric Jacobsen digitò:

Quote:
this is the correct answer, the fuel cost to run the headlights is MUCH
lower compared to the "probability cost" of reducing the chances of
having an accident.

Mark

Uh, only assuming that one would be as likely to drive in the dark if
the headlights were not equipped.

He probably meant during the day:

http://www.openroad.com.au/motoring_roadsafety_headlightssafefeature.asp

In several countries (like Italy) it is mandatory to keep the headlights
switched on during the day.

--
asd
Back to top
Chris Jones
electronics forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 278

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:44 pm    Post subject: Re: OT: Petrol consumption Reply with quote

Paul E. Schoen wrote:
[snip]
Quote:

There may be a slight regen effect when going downhill, adding to the
compression braking effect, and the maximum charge current is somewhere
between 30 and 70 amps (about 1 HP). It might be possible to tweak the
charger circuit to engage only when the brake pedal is touched (or when
the battery drops below about 80% charge).
[snip]
Paul

That's an idea I've been thinking about recently, i.e. tweak the reference
voltage of the battery charger slightly up when the brake pedal is pressed
or when the foot is off the accelerator and the revs are over 2000, and
slightly down when the accelerator is pressed hard. I wonder if anyone is
doing it in production cars. It may well be patented but if not, you've
done us all a favour by disclosing it. It could save a worthwhile amount
of fuel and also some brake pads when you consider how many cars there are,
and how easy it would be to implement.

Chris
Back to top
martin griffith
electronics forum Guru


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 1098

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:03 pm    Post subject: Re: OT: Petrol consumption Reply with quote

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:53:41 +0100, in sci.electronics.design Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:


Eric Jacobsen wrote:

A lot of guys who do performance tuning on cars with superchargers
still use water injection to cool the air charge under pressure. The
thing I've found really strange is that the optimum juice to use for
this is windshield washer fluid. So what a lot of people do is just
run a pump line from the washer reservoir to the high pressure side of
the supercharger and trigger the pump with a particular boost level.
Works like a champ.

Screenwash often contains ethanol. The ethanol evaporates and absorbs latent
heat, cooling the intake air.

Graham
Eric must be a cool frood, and knows where his towel is


http://www.ericjacobsen.org/icard.htm


martin
Back to top
Eeyore
electronics forum Guru


Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 642

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:16 pm    Post subject: Re: OT: Petrol consumption Reply with quote

martin griffith wrote:

Quote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:53:41 +0100, in sci.electronics.design Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote:



Eric Jacobsen wrote:

A lot of guys who do performance tuning on cars with superchargers
still use water injection to cool the air charge under pressure. The
thing I've found really strange is that the optimum juice to use for
this is windshield washer fluid. So what a lot of people do is just
run a pump line from the washer reservoir to the high pressure side of
the supercharger and trigger the pump with a particular boost level.
Works like a champ.

Screenwash often contains ethanol. The ethanol evaporates and absorbs latent
heat, cooling the intake air.

Graham
Eric must be a cool frood, and knows where his towel is

http://www.ericjacobsen.org/icard.htm

LOL ! I like it.

Graham
Back to top
Jim Thompson
electronics forum Guru


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 5440

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:33 pm    Post subject: Re: OT: Petrol consumption Reply with quote

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:16:18 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:


martin griffith wrote:

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:53:41 +0100, in sci.electronics.design Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote:



Eric Jacobsen wrote:

A lot of guys who do performance tuning on cars with superchargers
still use water injection to cool the air charge under pressure. The
thing I've found really strange is that the optimum juice to use for
this is windshield washer fluid. So what a lot of people do is just
run a pump line from the washer reservoir to the high pressure side of
the supercharger and trigger the pump with a particular boost level.
Works like a champ.

Screenwash often contains ethanol. The ethanol evaporates and absorbs latent
heat, cooling the intake air.

Graham
Eric must be a cool frood, and knows where his towel is

http://www.ericjacobsen.org/icard.htm

LOL ! I like it.

Graham

Looks like Eric and I are neighbors. That's the Intel division I
consulted for when I designed the USB modules.

Follow Chandler Blvd west for about 8 miles and you come to my abode.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Back to top
Rich Grise
electronics forum Guru


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 3971

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:31 am    Post subject: Re: Petrol consumption Reply with quote

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 02:19:33 -0700, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
Quote:
Jeff L wrote:

Since no one else calculated it, here goes (not including other lights such
as marker and tail lamps, which are typically about 5W a piece (non LED)
adding to about 35W on a typical car):

Gasoline = ~32,000 kj/l
Engine efficiency (avg, not best case) = 15%
Headlamp power = 55W each X 2
Wiring losses = 3%
Alternator eff = 95%
Belt losses driving alternator = 15%
1 kWh = 3600 kj

Energy needed to light headlights for 1 hour = 0.110 kW => 396 kj/h

Energy needed to light headlights for 1 hour = 0.110 kWh => 396 kj
Energy is power x time. or

Power needed to light headlights = 0.110 kW => 396 kj/h

Adding alternator losses gives: 416.84 kj/h
Adding wiring losses gives: 429.73 kj/h
Adding belt losses gives: 505.57 kj/h
Adding engine efficiency losses: 3,370.46 kj/h

Which gives 0.105 l of fuel consumed per hour.

Interesting, that means with the average car, between 300 and 600 l of fuel
is consumed in just lighting the head lamps over the car's life!

Now consider the cost in energy to build a car multiplied by the
increased probability of totaling the car in an accident when
the lights are off.


Not to mention the original question - what proportion is that of the
total amount of gasoline burned during this test period? I know that
"running the air conditioner with the windows closed uses less horsepower
than leaving the windows open at speed (because of the turblence)", but
how about lights on/off? My Fiero has pop-up headlights, so on the highway,
using my headlights costs me more than just the electricity, but in
drag. I don't know how much, but I don't mind that much because I like
to drive with my lights on, especially in the morning and evening (of
course night, duh) and when the sky is overcast, or only cloudy. My car
looks like a little lump of dirt, so I turn on the lights in hopes that
the SUV people won't drive over me. ;-)

But, what's the difference in MPG between, say, Bakersfield and Fresno,
with headlights on and off?

Thanks!
Rich
Back to top
Richard The Dreaded Liber
electronics forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 28 Apr 2006
Posts: 199

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:36 am    Post subject: Re: Petrol consumption Reply with quote

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 07:04:59 -0700, Mark wrote:
Quote:

Now consider the cost in energy to build a car multiplied by the
increased probability of totaling the car in an accident when
the lights are off.

this is the correct answer, the fuel cost to run the headlights is MUCH
lower compared to the "probability cost" of reducing the chances of
having an accident.


There's no such thing as an accident. Traffic crashes are caused by
negligence, except for the handful that are actually equipment failure
or some kind of medical emergency, like the driver has a seizure.
Drunkenness is another form of negligence, and the driver is culpable.

Want Zero Traffic Fatalities?
http://www.abiengr.com/~sysop/images/Safe-Car.gif

Cheers!
Rich
Back to top
The Chimp
electronics forum addict


Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 60

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:38 am    Post subject: Re: Petrol consumption Reply with quote

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:35:16 -0700, Eric Jacobsen wrote:

Quote:
Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp.

Huh? You pray with them, in hopes that they might receive Divine Healing?

Well, why not? We've tried everything else! ;-P

Good Luck!
Rich^H^H^H^HBobo
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 6 [77 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:38 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Electronix » design
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Current consumption of MP3 player with OLED display Jon D Equipment 13 Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:07 pm
No new posts Circuit Power Consumption phaeton Basics 13 Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:44 pm
No new posts led power consumption eeh design 3 Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:21 am
No new posts Analog versus digital: power consumption Joerg design 11 Tue May 16, 2006 3:03 am
No new posts dc power consumption johnmclaren_99@yahoo.com Basics 7 Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:32 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums |  Medicine forum |  Science forum  |  Send and track newsletters


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group