Vortex to save fuel?
Re: Vortex to save fuel?
a televised media had the experience of reproducing, to the letter, the NEDC test in real conditions in Paris, which was a big mess on the docks.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Re: Vortex to save fuel?
Completely false.Janic wrote:Pollution being linked to consumption, a hundred times more would mean consumption a hundred times higher which does not exist
CO and CO2 production is proportional to consumption (since carbon comes only from fuel), but the distribution between the two can be very variable.
The production of other pollutants (NOx, particles, ...) is not proportional to consumption, but depends on the conditions of combustion (temperature, pressure, ...).
These are "real conditions". So in fact, what you want are tests in "real conditions", but identical and reproducible, so just another "scientific" test.Janic wrote:But what you say here about the difference between mountain and plain is of elementary evidence.
No ! If only for the difference in weight between the two, plus the techniques used. If you take the manufacturer's data, the consumption of the first will prove to be higher (with equivalent technology) than the second. [/ Quote] It's fun to refer to the manufacturer's data measured by tests that you demolish elsewhere.It is also a vehicle capable of driving at 300 km / h may pollute less than a vehicle unable to exceed the 150 km / h when they both drive at 80 km / h.
In your sentence, the important point is "with equivalent technology", but in" real life ", we compare" real "vehicles, which use different technologies.
What is the point of giving pollution at maximum speed, if it is never used "in real conditions"?Janic wrote:Should tests be made to measure the maximum pollution that a vehicle can produce (if we are able to ...)?
Yes of course ! Manufacturers should also give consumption and pollution at maximum speed, but that does not go in the direction of a low-pollution policy.
It just amounts to defining another theoretical test, which no longer even has the advantage of allowing comparison between different vehicles.
0 x
Re: Vortex to save fuel?
Completely false.Janic wrote:Pollution being linked to consumption, a hundred times more would mean consumption a hundred times higher which does not exist
CO and CO2 production is proportional to consumption (since carbon comes only from fuel), but the distribution between the two can be very variable.
The production of other pollutants (NOx, particles, ...) is not proportional to consumption, but depends on the conditions of combustion (temperature, pressure, ...).
And in passing, in the mountains, well loaded, first and at the end of the hairpin, the consumption of a car happily exceeds 100 liters per 100 km.
It only lasts a few meters, but is this value "in real condition" that must be taken into account?
If not, what other (s), and under what condition (s)
These are "real conditions". So in fact, what you want are tests in "real conditions", but identical and reproducible, so just another "scientific" test.Janic wrote:But what you say here about the difference between mountain and plain is of elementary evidence.
It's fun to refer to the manufacturer data measured by tests that you refute elsewhere.Janic wrote:No ! If only for the difference in weight between the two, plus the techniques used. If you take the manufacturer data, the consumption of the first will prove (with equivalent technology) superior to the second.It is also a vehicle capable of driving at 300 km / h may pollute less than a vehicle unable to exceed the 150 km / h when they both drive at 80 km / h.
In your sentence, the important point is "with equivalent technology", but in" real life ", we compare" real "vehicles, which use different technologies.
What is the point of giving pollution at maximum speed, if it is never used "in real conditions"?Janic wrote:Should tests be made to measure the maximum pollution that a vehicle can produce (if we are able to ...)?
Yes of course ! Manufacturers should also give consumption and pollution at maximum speed, but that does not go in the direction of a low-pollution policy.
It just amounts to defining another theoretical test, which no longer even has the advantage of allowing comparison between different vehicles.
The tests are imperfect, of course, they must be made to evolve, of course, but from there to refusing any measurement resulting from the test and accepting only values measured "in life", that amounts to depriving oneself of any possibility of action. .
0 x
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 13644
- Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
- Location: picardie
- x 1502
- Contact :
Re: Vortex to save fuel?
The reliability of the roll bench, not the manufacturers' cheat.Christophe wrote:You talk about this: new-transport / measure-of-the-consumption-of-cars-cycle normalizes-eu-t5606.html ?
Why is the test not performed on roads?
In fact, it can be. But it is difficult then to control all the parameters such as the weather, the temperature or even the abrasiveness of the road. In addition, this must be done in the absence of wind! Therefore, for better reproducibility, manufacturers prefer to work on a dynamometer. But beware, the conditions are here also codified. The machine simulates the resistance related to aerodynamic drag, rolling and mass of the vehicle. A blower simulates the air flow entering the engine, depending on the speed. http://www.moniteurautomobile.be/actu-a ... -nedc.html
Obviously I can't reproduce it, but (if not cheating) for the same power category, I can compare the consumption.Did67 wrote:If you want, I'll find the protocol and you will ride like that, you will tell me the news. I'm a "cool" driver, but when I read this I was on my ass.
0 x
Re: Vortex to save fuel?
Janic wrote:It is also a vehicle capable of driving at 300 km / h may pollute less than a vehicle unable to exceed the 150 km / h when they both drive at 80 km / h.
No ! If only for the difference in weight between the two, plus the techniques used. If you take the manufacturer data, the consumption of the first will prove (with equivalent technology) superior to the second.
It's fun to refer to the manufacturer data measured by tests that you refute elsewhere.
If, you were attentive you would have noticed that I (we are several to have said it) only pointed out that these tests did not correspond to reality outside the dynamometers. But even taking these, the manufacturers' data indicate differences between the target vehicles of low or high displacement and the large displacements consume, at equivalent speed, more than the smallest. (Unless you have figures which demonstrate the reverse)
In your sentence, the important point is "with equivalent technology", but in "real life", we compare "real" vehicles, which use different technologies.
Equivalent technology means that we do not compare from a consumption point of view a diesel, a petrol, a gas, with direct or indirect injection, with single or double and triple turbo or without. So equivalent technology means what it means.
Janic wrote:Should tests be made to measure the maximum pollution that a vehicle can produce (if we are able to ...)?
Yes of course ! Manufacturers should also give consumption and pollution at maximum speed; but this does not go in the direction of a low pollution policy.
What is the point of giving pollution at maximum speed, if it is never used "in real conditions"?
German motorways, circuits allow these "real" conditions not on bench.
It just amounts to defining another theoretical test, which no longer even has the advantage of allowing comparison between different vehicles.
No need for theoretical tests, it is enough to take, at random, several vehicles leaving the chains, to make them roll on a true road at realistic speeds corresponding to the real uses, (the auto media made heaps of them and which sometimes appeared in technical reviews.)
The tests are imperfect, of course, they must be made to evolve, of course, but from there to refusing any measurement resulting from the test and accepting only values measured "in life", that amounts to depriving oneself of any possibility of action. .
On the contrary ! it is these measures in real situations that interest the future buyer, which is why they felt cheated with the false VW scandal.
http://www.largus.fr/actualite-automobi ... 54385.html
Why is the test not performed on roads?
In fact, it can be. But it is difficult then to control all the parameters such as the weather, the temperature or even the abrasiveness of the road. In addition, this must be done in the absence of wind! Therefore, for better reproducibility, manufacturers prefer to work on a dynamometer. But beware, the conditions are here also codified. The machine simulates the resistance related to aerodynamic drag, rolling and mass of the vehicle. A blower simulates the air flow entering the engine, depending on the speed.
Hell is paved with good intentions!
Admittedly, it is difficult to meet ideal conditions on the road, but the driver will not go on a dynamometer, nor will he ride under the conditions of this NEDC test, which are unrealistic and therefore ridiculous (but all that is to make believe that the manufacturers of the vehicles make efforts against pollution and previously to touch premiums) To compensate for these differences it is enough to indicate a range of consumption noted where the purchaser can find his way without having the impression of to have been had.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Re: Vortex to save fuel?
How difficult it is to standardize real road tests is obvious ...
From there to doing the tests by pushing unrealism to cut off all the accessories, until driving at 30 or 40 km / h, until disconnecting the air conditioning, until over-inflating the tires, that's what fact that the results are obtained in conditions completely outside the "average" conditions ... Hence the phenomenal difference between the "standardized" emissions and reality ...
It would be very easy to "brake" the rollers in proportion to the air resistance, to provide the air conditioning with 30% with + 35 °, 30% at + 22 °, 30% at + 5% and 10% at - 5 ° (I say that at random), to plan 15% of the route with headlights, 10% with wiper, the car radio (which "weighs" little) for 45% of the time, etc ...
So a "realistic" protocol.
It will always be "theoretical" data.
Each driver, depending on his use, his driving style, will still have his different emissions. But at least the comparisons of the different vehicles, on the basis of theoretical data of course, will have been fixed in a "domain of validity" quite close to the average use ...
This has been proposed. But the builders' lobby quibbles.
I do not understand that the authorities (European in this case - single market) do not manage to impose that!
Note that there is much less debate around crash tests, yet just as theoretical!
From there to doing the tests by pushing unrealism to cut off all the accessories, until driving at 30 or 40 km / h, until disconnecting the air conditioning, until over-inflating the tires, that's what fact that the results are obtained in conditions completely outside the "average" conditions ... Hence the phenomenal difference between the "standardized" emissions and reality ...
It would be very easy to "brake" the rollers in proportion to the air resistance, to provide the air conditioning with 30% with + 35 °, 30% at + 22 °, 30% at + 5% and 10% at - 5 ° (I say that at random), to plan 15% of the route with headlights, 10% with wiper, the car radio (which "weighs" little) for 45% of the time, etc ...
So a "realistic" protocol.
It will always be "theoretical" data.
Each driver, depending on his use, his driving style, will still have his different emissions. But at least the comparisons of the different vehicles, on the basis of theoretical data of course, will have been fixed in a "domain of validity" quite close to the average use ...
This has been proposed. But the builders' lobby quibbles.
I do not understand that the authorities (European in this case - single market) do not manage to impose that!
Note that there is much less debate around crash tests, yet just as theoretical!
0 x
Re: Vortex to save fuel?
these authorities could not ignore the absurdity of these NEDC standards. But the trend is to reduce pollution and particularly CO2 to reassure people that the authorities in question were doing something about it. In reality few people know these unrealistic tests hence the recent surprise after the VW case.I do not understand that the authorities (European in this case - single market) do not manage to impose that!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 13644
- Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
- Location: picardie
- x 1502
- Contact :
Re: Vortex to save fuel?
Considering the cheat of the manufacturers, these tests become unrealistic indeed.Did67 wrote:How difficult it is to standardize real road tests is obvious ...
From there to doing the tests by pushing unrealism to cut off all the accessories, until driving at 30 or 40 km / h, until disconnecting the air conditioning, until over-inflating the tires, that's what fact that the results are obtained in conditions completely outside the "average" conditions ... Hence the phenomenal difference between the "standardized" emissions and reality ...
No wonder people lose confidence and believe that they are doing business with a miracle product. http://samuel.benoit.online.fr/fr/arnaq ... fuel-saver
With the same type of bench and a realistic protocol, the efficiency of an economizer can be measured irrefutably, but not guaranteed if the comparison is made in real road traffic conditions.
This is what I wanted to express from the start.
0 x
Re: Vortex to save fuel?
these tests were unrealistic regardless of any cheat.Considering the cheat of the manufacturers, these tests become unrealistic indeed.
confidence is gained by being frank and honest about the driving reality, not a lab test.No wonder people lose confidence and believe that they are doing business with a miracle product. http://samuel.benoit.online.fr/fr/arnaq ... fuel saver
It doesn't work like that in reality. There is not a perfect type which would be universal, each vehicle according to its age of the existing technique on this one, will necessarily see an adaptation of the proposed economiser. For the VSLAs in question, each experimenter makes his own economizer with fairly appreciable differences which are more of experience (several tests of shape, materials, etc. ... different. This is why, instead of theoretical discourse in the empty, you have to roll up your sleeves and do your own tests. It works or it doesn't work, but at least it's concrete. However if we stick to an average of experimenters it works well and even very good sometimes.With the same type of bench and a realistic protocol, the efficiency of an economizer can be measured irrefutably, but not guaranteed if the comparison is made in real road traffic conditions.
it is understandable, but only abstract, theoretical and it is insufficient; so: at work!This is what I wanted to express from the start.
now this site ... quoted!
The "vortex" generators
These are devices are placed the air intake and which are supposed to generate turbulence which must facilitate the mixing of the combustion air and the fuel, in order to improve combustion. These are kinds of inclined metal strips mounted on a ring, which is mounted on the air intake duct or directly in the intake duct. Not really convincing apparently it... Actually i guess it can (possibly) have a small effect on carburetion engines: that is to say old gasoline cars with carburetor (or my FIAT with LPG kit aspirated ??), but in general we rather try to reduce turbulence on the air intake. Note that some of these products look dangerous: the slats that compose them seem fragile and the risk of breakage cannot be excluded (with potential dramatic consequences on the engine).
did he even try? Obviously its literature, approximate and inaccurate, shows that not! "Actually i guess... "..."have a small effect on carburetion engines "Another inaccuracy, it works as much on injections. Clearly he did not even take the time to consult the sites and forums specialized on the subject. It's called denigration a priori ... so trash! Finally, and here he is right, at the very beginning of the experiments, some people used aluminum cans to see if ... with the associated risks. No more current experimenter would be foolish enough to do the same. It is even rather the reverse, some VSLAs are so thick that they will survive the life of the car because they will not wear out just for a few euros ... who says better!
and this one:
"Water injection
It reminds me of the pantone engine, a technology which is apparently widely criticized, and of which no scientific study to date validates the announced results. Rather than water injection proper, the principle would be based on the production of hydrogen from water, which would allow for cleaner combustion and better performance, as well as a reduction in consumption. Without going further on the principle of the pantone motor, it seems like In the rare cases where some DIY enthusiasts claim that it works, the engines are subjected to constant loads (gas mower, agricultural tractors).
Clearly, once again, he did not bother to verify with experimental sources "it seems like". Indeed, however, at constant load, it works better as any motorist can see it on any current combustion engine. This author seems to have big deficiencies in mechanics especially on gas mowers.them (a new technique?). So no, it does not only work at constant load.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
-
- Econologue expert
- posts: 13644
- Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
- Location: picardie
- x 1502
- Contact :
Re: Vortex to save fuel?
What does your VSLA look like and where is it placed?
Can you put pictures?
Can you put pictures?
0 x
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 6 Replies
- 6038 views
-
Last message by Janic
View the latest post
04/03/17, 13:30A subject posted in the forum : special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction
-
- 4 Replies
- 6892 views
-
Last message by rodibruno
View the latest post
24/11/08, 00:24A subject posted in the forum : special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction
-
- 16 Replies
- 21871 views
-
Last message by elephant
View the latest post
20/10/06, 08:35A subject posted in the forum : special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction
-
- 351 Replies
- 341929 views
-
Last message by nikolaj
View the latest post
16/04/21, 05:43A subject posted in the forum : special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction
Back to "Special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 169 guests