From: atec7 7 ""atec77 " on 8 Apr 2010 10:05
From: Bernd Felsche on 8 Apr 2010 11:48
atec7 7 <""atec77 \"@ hotmail.com"> wrote:
Ummm... it's a differential built "sideways".
The "20%" improvement in fuel consumption would be best case.
Wishful thinking, to a large part.
Many modern engines effectively have variable displacement; with
mechanical and turbo-superchaging varying the amount of air that an
engine gets, which extends flexibility and the load-speed range at
which efficiency is at or near peak.
Diesel engines don't have a sharp peak efficiency characteristic.
Back in the 1930's, the Germans were flying with 2-stroke
diesel engines having a brake thermal efficiency of over
40%. (Jumo 205) The brake-specific fuel consumption curve of
the engines is quite flat over a wide range of speeds,
varying by about 5% between about 1600 and 2000 rpm (max
speed 2200 rpm) with a minimum around 230 g/kWh for the ones
with only a scavenge blower; down to 220 g/kWh for the Jumo
207 with additional exhaust-gas turbocharger, designed for
flying at altitudes in excess of 16km (52,000ft).
Spark-ignition engines are sprouting direct-injection as well, so
diesel-like efficiency can at least be approached under part-load
conditions; which is where most driving occurs. Similar emissions
problems to those of diesel, in the form of NOx are a big problem.
Solutions are similar; such a cooled EGR to reduce the effective
volume of fresh air reducing combustion temperatures and employing a
storage 'catalyst' that will be purged opportunistically when e.g.
moderate to hard acceleration is called for, or by rich-cycling with
retarded timing, deliberately producing excess HC and CO to purge
the NOx, without changing the torque at the flywheel.
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | If builders built buildings the way programmers
X against HTML mail | wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that
/ \ and postings | came along would destroy civilization.
From: atec7 7 ""atec77 " on 8 Apr 2010 23:49
Bernd Felsche wrote:
> atec7 7 <""atec77 \"@ hotmail.com"> wrote:
> Ummm... it's a differential built "sideways".
Not the way he explained it or according to the engineers on the show
no clutch no bands
might be worth pursuing certainly a better solution than lots of bands
> Nice try.
> The "20%" improvement in fuel consumption would be best case.
> Wishful thinking, to a large part.
From: Albm&ctd on 9 Apr 2010 01:27
In article <hpknqt$70d$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, atec7 7 <""atec77 \"@
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.
From: atec7 7 ""atec77 " on 9 Apr 2010 01:51
> In article <hpknqt$70d$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, atec7 7 <""atec77 \"@
> hotmail.com"> says...
> How boring.
Projecting again you surfie reject ?