Well, at least I am no snake oil saleman any more. Agree? If not I'll stay on these fundamental issues for another 7 pages defending and explaining. As I said, if people still have questions where the improvement in efficiency comes from, there is no point going further.
I presume that I just take too long to do it. Please remember I am overthrowing automobile engine establishment with just one person. If I do not get any replies contradicting me. I'll do the efficiency calculation in glory details, so you can follow every assumption every step of calculation.
Chengine wrote:Well, at least I am no snake oil saleman any more. Agree?
Disagree
If not I'll stay on these fundamental issues for another 7 pages defending and explaining. As I said, if people still have questions where the improvement in efficiency comes from, there is no point going further.
I presume that I just take too long to do it. Please remember I am overthrowing automobile engine establishment with just one person. If I do not get any replies contradicting me. I'll do the efficiency calculation in glory details, so you can follow every assumption every step of calculation.
Cheers,
Chengine
You cant even answer basic questions as to how your idea works or by how much. You are not getting any replies contradicting you because you haven't actually said anything. You keep moving the goalpost as to what your engine will accomplish every time someone points out a flaw in your logic. First it was 30% efficiency. Then lower emissions then lower emissions for startup only as long as you add another system to the mix. You still cant make a factual statement to the amount of air you need to accomplish this and the real amount of reduction to be expected.
After reading along since the beginning but not saying anything to not offend someone personally, I have to say that in my view there is no sense to have this thread not closed. This may also be in the interest of the thread starter because it saves him from any more self humiliation.
Can I recommend to users wanting to expose their ideas to use the standard scientific paper approach?
1) Abtsract: SHORT piece of a few hundred words where you hint at some of the issues and methods you will expose and the goals you want to achieve. No need for references
2) Introduction: Can be longer text. A bit of background, where you talk about existing data and prior art. References here would be welcome
3) Core of the exposition: This part usually is long and hard to read. In this forum, I guess most of the time an empirical study of your idea. Experimental setups, diagrams, tables, measuring gear, units, materials... all must be clear so that a person versed in the field may replicate your work. References for any mentioned prior work and ex-libris statements!
4) Results: DATA! No biases, or if there are by design of the experiments, describe them. Error margins, also any non systematic effect that may occur. No cherry picking of data! No story telling, that comes in the conclusion...
5) Conclusion: Here a bit of story telling may be used. Give your interpretation of the data, suggest pitfalls, or successes. Discuss if your predictions were met or not and why you think it is so. Aim at future studies that can be performed.
Anything less than this methodology is really very hard to follow and engage with, it is a matter of mental hygiene and goes a long way towards building trust. I have hardly ready anything more from this thread after a few posts for the lack of serious scientific/engineer reporting
I'd like to see a results table added to that page; e.g
-5 to 0 points: "you may be on to something here"
0 to 10 points: "not bad, keep working at it"
.....
200 to 300 points: "Hold tight, we're sending someone round before you do yourself or someone else some serious damage".
.....
etc.
Hi,
.
As you noticed that I am very thick skinned. This forum is really a walk in the park. I welcome all criticisms. Do not worry, I'll leave one day. Probably very soon.
Today I want to pose a question to replace my pervious winter engine efficiency question. As DOE does not agree with me. I do not want to offend DOE. That is one of the reason I do not pursue. However I replace that with this one. The physics is the same.
"why is rich mixture running has lousy MPG, while lean running is really efficient?" I will not ask for answers. Here is mine.
The chemical energy input is the same, but the work resulted from excess fuel operating engine.( just slightly over stoichiometric ) is much less than just the small amount of fuel escaping. For the lean running engine, the opposite is true. the fuel efficiency is significantly more than what Stoichiometric correct running engine.
My explanation is that for the rick running engine, the additional loss of efficiency is due to the fact that unburned and partially burned gas has very large vibrational states, as they are very large molecules. The convert combustion energy into "internal energy" not kinetic energy. That account for lower combustion temperature and pressure than expected. For the lean running engine, the excess air displaces or dilutes the residual exhaust air in the cylinder.Thus it lessens the impact of residual gas on efficiency. In some way "lean running" is half way between normal engine and Chen engine where exhaust gas is excluded. (Honda's stratified engine is one such example)
Again I welcome all comments.
Chengine
By the way, I have not forgotten my efficiency calculation.
Can you post some numbers indicating that the energy in the vibration of the unburned molecules is significant, or should I just take your word for it?
Chengine wrote:As you noticed that I am very thick skinned. This forum is really a walk in the park. I welcome all criticisms. Do not worry, I'll leave one day. Probably very soon.
Your additions are as interesting as the posts in the Caption competition thread. I hope you stay. I look forward to your additions on a daily basis.
Sadly, in the last four pages not much more has come to light, so I encourage the OP to respond to the actual questions instead of running around the issues. Failure to do so might get this thread locked, despite all good intentions.
