The magnets ...

[Other]

Hello Bolt

I looked at the data on excel, there are a few points that quibble me, in general the tractor engines are very close to aircraft engines, except that they are diesel.
When empty 2360 rpm is at the maximum of the injection regulator this gives a consumption of 12 liters per hour, but or go therefore this heat it is not the inertial forces which eat everything and if it were the case the major part heat should be found in the exhaust and the cooling circuit, since on the motor shaft it leaves only peanuts (alternator fan, and mechanical friction)
As an example, an engine that I know well the Lycoming O-290 D-2 reheating at high idle 800rpm for 15 minutes in winter it takes 4l to 4,5l of gasoline, normal it must involve a propeller to make wind so low load and these idle engines are adjusted voluntarily rich.
Manufacturer's figure
Maximum power at 2800 RPM 140 Hp
nominal power at 2600 RPM 135 Hp consumption 12,6 US gal
At 75% power at 2350 RPM 101 Hp consumption 7,2 gal US
A65% power at 2200 RPM 87 HP consumption 6,3 gal US

What we notice is that from 2600 to 2800 Hp only increased by 5 Hp while from 2350 to 2600
rpm the Hp increased by 34hp, the torque curve is quite flat it is at its maximum around 2350 rpm it remains good between 2100 and 2400, then it quickly crashes exceeds 2500 rpm, this makes an engine usable up to at 2600 rpm maximum. In uphill it is at 2500 rpm full power that this horse gives its revelation.


Andre

[iota]

First day with magnets.
I didn't notice anything in particular, maybe a softer purr ... not sure.

I thought of something about the effect of magnets on fuel:

The orientation of I don't know what in the fuel that would facilitate its ignition, it seems to me pipo.

I said to myself that maybe the hydrocarbon molecules would be weakly "magnetized" by the magnets during the passage and that at the time of the mixture with the air, the present atoms would "stick" in a certain way to the molecules of fuel which would make a more homogeneous mixture.

Voili voilou

[bolt]

Manufacturer's figure
Maximum power at 2800 RPM 140 Hp
nominal power at 2600 RPM 135 Hp consumption 12,6 US gal
At 75% power at 2350 RPM 101 Hp consumption 7,2 gal US
A65% power at 2200 RPM 87 HP consumption 6,3 gal US
Andre

good evening André
here is what your references give in graph:


Does that: at 75% power at 2350 RPM 101 Hp, you mean that 101 Hp at 2350 RPM is not the full load of this regime?
or is it that: 101 Hp is the full load of 2350 RPM and that at this point, it is limited to 75% of the nominal power

because if we assume the curves that I have just made in a full load test, the torque reserve is only:

((C max / C full load at max speed) -1) x 100 = 3.85%

with maximum torque at 2600 RPM and not at 2350 RPM

Can you scan us your curve

Otherwise to compare with the 12L / h of the fully accelerated tractor without load, disassemble your propeller to your plane and rotate it at 2800 rpm and measure the consumption for a given time, then calculate the hourly consumption and you m will say news

bolt

[Other]

Hello

Otherwise to compare with the 12L / h of the fully accelerated tractor without load, disassemble your propeller to your plane and rotate it at 2800 rpm and measure the consumption for a given time, then calculate the hourly consumption and you m will say news

Impossible to run a Lycoming, without its propeller, it is the flywheel and the fan that cools the horse, already we see a clear difference between a wooden shepherd propeller and a metal one.
The curves on the engines are made in two ways full power and we gradually decrease the load to crush the Rpm, and the other with a propeller approved for this engine that is to say keep an acceptable vacuum for the engine depending on the Rpm and on this test we vary the pappillon that (approach) reality on the plane, normally the vacuum dial is graduated in inches of mercury from 0 inches = absolute depression and 30 inches atmospheric pressure at sea level.
Normally on an airplane with a well balanced propeller, the inches of mercury follow the RPM of the engine when it is direct on the propeller, i.e. 23 inches of mercury correspond to 2300 rpm and 26 inches of mercury correspond to 2600 rpm close to full throttle 28 inches of mercury close to atmospheric pressure.





Other

[bolt]

good evening André

on your curves photo:
the torque reserve (full load) is 8%, and the maximum torque is at 2000 RPM (it may be lower but we do not see below 2000 RPM)

For specific consumption, it is higher at full load than at the partial loads indicated, it is therefore the opposite of a diesel

and, at the maximum torque (2000 RPM), it is significantly higher than at 2200, 2400, 2600, 2800 RPM speeds, it is still the opposite of a diesel

if it were the curves of a diesel, I would think that the full charge would be with the open blocked overload, consequently increasing the specific consumption compared to the partial charges which would be in fact, a normal charge,

I am not too familiar with the tests and reactions of a petrol engine to pass judgment on your curves, can someone comment

bolt

ps: for the curves that I made to you, that doesn't mean much since 2600 and 2800 RPM are in full load, while the other modes are partial loads

[Other]

Hello bolt
These curves are made with a propeller (load pinwheel) but static, on a plane in flight it is completely different, it is wrong to say that it consumes more at 2000 rpm than at 2400 many parameters influenced there a speed (step) where the triane is low and it depends on the propeller diameter width of the blade and its pitch, so the curve on paper provided by the manufacturer just gives an overview, but in real life it's different thing and it is far from being simple, very can make the right adaptation plane> engine> propeller, even the manufacturers flounder, it is always a compromise ..

Andre

[bolt]

it's wrong to say that it consumes more at 2000 rpm than 2400 ...... so the curve on paper provided by the manufacturer just gives an overview,

Hello André

The manufacturer's overview clearly shows a higher specific consumption at 2000 RPM

with: specific consumption = consumption in relation to the work performed

it is sure that at 2000 RPM full load it will consume less than 2800 RPM full load

but at 2000 RPM full load, it already makes only 108 horsepower against 140 to 2800

brought back to the horse produced, it is less good at 2000 than at 2800, it's still surprising



No doubt the parameters are changing up in the sky

bolt

[Christophe]

I agree with the analysis of these curves ... but only on paper and without the plane to tow behind ... so André rightly and you too Boulon!

Indeed, in practice with a fixed callage the fact of turning at 2400 instead of 2000 increases (in theory, it would be necessary to correct with the traction / output curves of the propeller) the speed of the plane by 12%.

Now the power demanded is the cube of the speed, increasing the speed by 12% will therefore theoretically increase the power by roughly 40% .... this is what happens on the blue curve, the power of the propeller goes from 60 to 102 hp or 70% increase so enough to compensate for these 40% ... Phew the plane can advance

Here is pkoi, even if the yield is better at 2400, the consumption is greater at 2400 tr 2000 ... because the yield only earns 15% between these 2 schemes ... If he won 40% could be assumed that the consos are identical ...

It would be interesting in our case to report the conso in km traveled .... but most of the time the private drivers measure the conso in hours it seems to me, is not it André?

[Christophe]

ps: I think it would be VERY interesting to make a new subject on this subject (motor efficiency depending on the load) because we are clearly Off Topic compared to "magnets" ...

I have wanted to write 1 article on this for a long time: show why we consume less per 100 while driving at 60km / h than at 20km / h ...

[tribededana]

Hi everybody,

she made this story of magnets run out of ink so I would like to give my opinion:

I take care of an association for the protection of animals and the environment; to finance us, we sell fuel savers based on magnets that I have known for more than 15 years.
I decided to sell this product because I know it works and that our goal is the environment and not money.
our biggest customer is a seller of agricultural machinery and when we know the skepticism of farmers ...

we are very comfortable with that because out of 1000 vehicles equipped, no one has requested reimbursement to date (yes, with us it is 22,50 euros and it is "satisfied or reimbursed"!)

here, if it can help: www.evolution-biophile.org

good to you