DIY_EFI Digest V3 #193
Jim Velasquez
jim_velasquez at partech.com
Tue May 5 04:41:52 GMT 1998
Hey, folks, who says that future automobiles with INTERNAL combustion
engines can't make use of electric drivetrains and FUEL CELLS?
Supposedly said are in early development, and if some design challenges
are solved, we could be looking at a HIGHLY efficient powerplant that
could still burn gasoline (such a fuel cell DOES exist!). They output
electricity, heat, and some combustion byproducts...
We would then be doing exotic ELECTRIC motor swaps, so what?
I for one would enjoy fitting such to one of my project cars.
From: "Richard W. Cowan" <gt1040a at prism.gatech.edu>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 18:07:21 -0400
Subject: Re: High MPG
At 02:24 AM 5/5/98 +1000, you wrote:
>Yes, I agree. In fact, I think that if as much time, effort, and money
was
>put into the development of a turbine engine (like the Chrysler one) as
has
>been put into the engines we currently run, the "200 MPG carb" type
idea
>would be a case of "so what!" In the case of the Chrysler turbine, it
had a
>very ingeneous heat transfer drvice that recycled otherwise wasted heat
from
<snip>
<delurk>
Yes, ICEs are incredibly inefficient, and probably no amount of tweaking
will ever make it as good as electric. Turbines are excellent compared
to
ICEs but they suck for stop-n-go. That's why they make great airplane
engines and lousy auto engines.
This is probably [nc], but IMO the words "automobile" and "efficient"
are
never going to go together until they are all switched to electric
sometime
(before you can say dead oil lobby). Then we'll have to change the list
from DYIEFI to DYI(more amperage!). (Of course the electricity to
charge
the batteries will still be generated by coal-burning plants until we
switch to nuclear). Hopefully by then we will be beyond the days of the
electric-golf-cart-with-a-sloop-rig-for-windy-days.
I had the opportunity to drive the GM EV1 and a Rav4 EV. The batteries
are
still friggin huge, range sucked, its still expensive, but the power
output
at the wheels was far beyond what I expected. The future doesn't look
quite so dim anymore.
Sorry for the rambling
Richard BME '96, GA Tech. Go Jackets!
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~vap1rc
------------------------------
From: "Derek Jewett" <djewett at snowcrest.net>
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 16:01:28 -0700
Subject: Re: High MPG
I have a hard time believing electric vehicles will ever replace or even
compliment (on any scale) internal combustion engine powered vehicles.
For
example look at Honda's ZLEV engine, it produces such low emissions it
actually cleans the air in smoggy areas!! (i.e. Los Angeles), and it has
been proven that zero level emissions vehicles or ZLEV's I believe
they're
called, produce less emissions when compared to the emissions produced
to
generate enough electricity to power the same car the same distance,
etc..
So in summary EFI will be around for a long time to come!
This has been a CARB service message
Derek Jewett - "clean air advocate"
1975 Chevy LUV w/383 small block
carbureted, and lotsa black smoke!
------------------------------
From: "TBK" <terryk at foothill.net>
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 16:40:13 -0700
Subject: Re: High MPG
Chrysler Turbine: 120hp/425ftT-lbs torque
- -----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Plecan <nacelp at bright.net>
To: diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu
<diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Monday, May 04, 1998 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: High MPG
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Danny Barrett <danny_tb at postoffice.utas.edu.au>
>To: diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu
<diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu>
>Date: Monday, May 04, 1998 12:55 PM
>Subject: Re: High MPG
>
>
>>Yes, I agree. In fact, I think that if as much time, effort, and money
was
>put into the development of a turbine engine (like the Chrysler one) as
has
>been put into the engines we currently run, the "200 MPG carb" type
idea
>would be a case of "so what!" In the case of the Chrysler turbine, it
had a
>very ingeneous heat transfer drvice that recycled otherwise wasted heat
from
>the exhaust to the intake, thereby making the engine more efficient
(this
is
>a bit more difficult with the IC engine to say the least - basically,
it
has
>to be stored as chemical potential energy within the fuel, and this can
only
>>be done by chemically altering the fuel with an endothermic reaction).
The
>problem that I can see with the heat exchanger is that it didn't
exchange
>enough of the exhaust heat. Obviously, if it exchanged more, with a
greater
>efficiency, the engine would be more efficient - it's basic
thermodynamics,
>and it's even given a name - "Regenerative cycle" ie. recycle waste
heat
>>energy to raise the efficiency of the engine. And guess what... It's
>easiest
>>to do with some sort of turbine. Perhaps someone should revisit the
old
>>Chrisler engine and make the heat exchanger more efficient???
>>
>>Danny Barrett.
>>
>>
>The most impressive moment I had around the Chy Turbine car
>was standing behind it, and the ambient temp rising from 60-70F
>to well over 100, very quickly. Maybe an over impression of youth
>but it made ya walk away in a hurrry.
>
>Bruce
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Christopher G. Moog" <cgmoog at ibm.net>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 20:04:57 -0400
Subject: Re: High MPG electic raving
Richard W. Cowan wrote:
> <delurk>
> Yes, ICEs are incredibly inefficient, and probably no amount of
tweaking
> will ever make it as good as electric. Turbines are excellent
compared to
> ICEs but they suck for stop-n-go. That's why they make great airplane
> engines and lousy auto engines.
Besides steady power requirements turbines don't size down well.
Clearances
along the edges remain the same size in large units as small so the
small units
are less efficient. This is while in small power generation (less than
tens of
kW diesel rule). Also why in trains and ships diesels are still the
most popular
power plant.
> This is probably [nc], but IMO the words "automobile" and "efficient"
are
> never going to go together until they are all switched to electric
sometime
> (before you can say dead oil lobby). Then we'll have to change the
list
> from DYIEFI to DYI(more amperage!). (Of course the electricity to
charge
> the batteries will still be generated by coal-burning plants until we
> switch to nuclear). Hopefully by then we will be beyond the days of
the
> electric-golf-cart-with-a-sloop-rig-for-windy-days.
>
> I had the opportunity to drive the GM EV1 and a Rav4 EV. The
batteries are
> still friggin huge, range sucked, its still expensive, but the power
output
> at the wheels was far beyond what I expected. The future doesn't look
> quite so dim anymore.
>
> Sorry for the rambling
>
> Richard BME '96, GA Tech. Go Jackets!
> http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~vap1rc
As far as electric goes they use more energy per mile than an
efficient ICE
automobile. The EV1 uses 248 watt-hrs/mi (measured at the charger) The
RAV4
uses 412 watt-hrs/mi (again at the charger) This electricity is
produced at a
fossil fueled plant (the energy used by EVs should be counted against
the
incremental generator not the base plants since they represent a new
load).
These plants need approximately 10,000 btus of fuel to produce 1,000
watt-hour of
energy. So the EV1 uses the equivalent of 2480 btus to travel a mile.
Since
gasoline has 114,000 btus per gallon the EV1 is getting the equivalent
of 46
mpg. The RAV4EV is getting the equivalent of 28 mpg. Neither of these
figures
beats a good ICE vehicle with the same performance.
To reduce oil use with electric vehicles will require a nuclear based
electrical
system. Until that happens we should save fuel by using mass transit
(where
available), efficient ICE (vehicles not inefficient EVs and not SUVs),
and by
cutting wasted travel.
------------------------------
From: "M&D" <91coupe at bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 20:17:54 -0400
Subject: Re: High MPG
<Humor>
I, and countless thousands of others, take umbrage to your omission of
the
Wankel rotary engine as an alternative to pushrods. (What we call
boingers).
:)
</Humor>
Seriously though, although the wankel wasn't very efficient to start
with,
Mazda's latest MSP-RE engine puts out like 225HP with 1.3 Liters, and
gets
25 MPG or so. Naturally aspirated. Would that they would go into
production...
Anyway, just wanted to put a slant on things.
Michael Harrington
91coupe at bellsouth.net and http://www.geocities.com/motorcity/downs/4038
91 RX-7 Coupe "Pearl" w/ some mods
88 RX-7 T2 "Beast" sitting in carport :(
N3WJE Technician+ Ham
- -----Original Message-----
From: Frederic Breitwieser <frederic.breitwieser at xephic.dynip.com>
To: diy_efi at coulomb.eng.ohio-state.edu
<diy_efi at coulomb.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Monday, May 04, 1998 10:58 AM
Subject: High MPG
>>Something you mentioned: I know of Charles Nelson Pogue's "200 MPG
carb."
>>And I know about the chemistry of how it worked, and why its results
were
>>not very reliable (I know more about the chemistry of it than he did
at
the
>>time - but this doesn't take much). Asside from this, Pogue stated in
an
>
>Unfortunately, these kind of devices and technology are basically
bandaids
>to a much greater problem, one of great inefficiency. A pushrod engine
is
>about as ineffecient as an engine can get, however it does have its
merits.
> I think once engineers start moving away from a 100 year old design,
>things will definately get better mileage wise. I don't have the URLs
>handy, however there are two such engines that have strayed away from
>pushrods, but replacing the rotating assembly with a giant Cam. The
cam,
>instead of controlling valve timing, is driven by the pistons, which
are
>configured in a radial fashion. The one engine that is running (and in
the
>internet), creates very little horsepower, however the torque it
generates
>phenominal as compared to its weight, size, and configuration.
>
>I think pushrod engines waste something in the neighborhood of 80% of
the
>available power in the gasoline.
>
>
>Frederic Breitwieser
>Bridgeport, CT 06606
>
>Homebrew Automotive Website:
>http://www.xephic.dynip.com/
>
>1993 Supercharged Lincoln Continental
>1989 HMMWV
>2000 Buick-Powered Mid-Engined Sports Car
>
>-
>
------------------------------
From: Paul Tholey <pft101 at psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 20:50:12 -0400
Subject: Ford MAF
Attn: Ford Guys
A friend with a 1994 Escort GT, 1.8 twin cam is looking to do
some
minor modifications. The MAF is the flapper door style. It has a 7 pin
connector. We pulled the other style MAF off a plain Escort. It has a
4
pin connector labled A B C D. Is there a way to incorporate this less
restictive MAF into the twin cam Escort setup? I think they both have
the
same output, just concerned about the scaling.
Anyother tips/advice is appreciated.
Paul Tholey
------------------------------
From: Clare Snyder <snyder at huron.net>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 21:39:19 -0400
Subject: Re: High MPG electic raving
Christopher G. Moog wrote:
>
> Richard W. Cowan wrote:
>
> > <delurk>
> > Yes, ICEs are incredibly inefficient, and probably no amount of
tweaking
> > will ever make it as good as electric. Turbines are excellent
compared to
> > ICEs but they suck for stop-n-go. That's why they make great
airplane
> > engines and lousy auto engines.
>
> Besides steady power requirements turbines don't size down well.
Clearances
> along the edges remain the same size in large units as small so the
small units
> are less efficient. This is while in small power generation (less
than tens of
> kW diesel rule). Also why in trains and ships diesels are still the
most popular
> power plant.
>
> > This is probably [nc], but IMO the words "automobile" and
"efficient" are
> > never going to go together until they are all switched to electric
sometime
> > (before you can say dead oil lobby). Then we'll have to change the
list
> > from DYIEFI to DYI(more amperage!). (Of course the electricity to
charge
> > the batteries will still be generated by coal-burning plants until
we
> > switch to nuclear). Hopefully by then we will be beyond the days of
the
> > electric-golf-cart-with-a-sloop-rig-for-windy-days.
> >
> > I had the opportunity to drive the GM EV1 and a Rav4 EV. The
batteries are
> > still friggin huge, range sucked, its still expensive, but the power
output
> > at the wheels was far beyond what I expected. The future doesn't
look
> > quite so dim anymore.
> >
> > Sorry for the rambling
> >
> > Richard BME '96, GA Tech. Go Jackets!
> > http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~vap1rc
>
> As far as electric goes they use more energy per mile than an
efficient ICE
> automobile. The EV1 uses 248 watt-hrs/mi (measured at the charger)
The RAV4
> uses 412 watt-hrs/mi (again at the charger) This electricity is
produced at a
> fossil fueled plant (the energy used by EVs should be counted against
the
> incremental generator not the base plants since they represent a new
load).
> These plants need approximately 10,000 btus of fuel to produce 1,000
watt-hour of
> energy. So the EV1 uses the equivalent of 2480 btus to travel a mile.
Since
> gasoline has 114,000 btus per gallon the EV1 is getting the equivalent
of 46
> mpg. The RAV4EV is getting the equivalent of 28 mpg. Neither of
these figures
> beats a good ICE vehicle with the same performance.
>
> To reduce oil use with electric vehicles will require a nuclear based
electrical
> system. Until that happens we should save fuel by using mass transit
(where
> available), efficient ICE (vehicles not inefficient EVs and not SUVs),
and by
> cutting wasted travel.
In Ontario, we have been running on nuclear energy for many years. The
CANDU is supposed to be the best system out there - and we are shutting
virtually ALL of them down. Problems with maintenance and expense -
Mabee if they privatise the system someone will manage to run it
efficiently, but what about safely? I'm of a mixed mind on the subject.
As for the efficiency arguement, a LARGE turbine is more efficient than
a small one, and constant load helps too. Therfore, a properly designed
oil or NG fired turbine generator can be a lot more efficient than
current designs. Even with generator and transmission losses, the EV of
tomorrow, including power generation, will likely be more efficient and
less poluting on the whole than anything that exists today, and than any
ICE of tomorrow. However, the EV of tomorrow will NOT depend on the grid
for power. Ballard Energy, and others of their ilk, will see to that.
Fuel cells will be the future.
- --
_/\_
--|-----([])-----|--
S 0/ \0 B
Alls well that ends well!! www.snyder.on.ca is back
E-Mail service is back to normal
To avoid bouncing E-Mail messages
Reply to Clare at snyder.on.ca
OR
Remove the R from clsnyder in my E-Mail Address to reply. Stop the
spammers!!!
It's hard to soar like an eagle when your stuck with a bunch of
Turkeys!!!
------------------------------
From: Steven Gorkowski <kb4mxo at mwt.net>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 20:38:22 -0500
Subject: depot boardsRe: And for our Next Trick ... How 'bout a
diyTrionic?
I have access to a lab materials to remove most any epoxy from
electronic parts. But can't promise if the unit will work but they work
in 99% of the time.Contact me off line if you want this done.
Steve
kb4mxo at mwt.net
garfield at pilgrimhouse.com wrote:
> Hey Maties.
>
> I been keepin this under me hat for a while, but thot I'd spill the
> beans and max out the fun, now that I have a Lab Rat working. Member
> that thread awhile back about using the post-spark ionization current
> to
> detect detonation and misfires? Well, one of our illustrious members,
> whose initials are Jim Crance (golly, I hope he doesn't mind taking a
> bow), who's also a fellow pilot, got aholdOme and said he had a
> slightly
> marginal Trionic Ignition/Ionization unit from Saab that worked fine
> excpet it hickup'd whenever it was in a deep freeze, and would I like
> to
> have a look? Jim's a Saab (& other Euro's) Mech. So I got the thang
> last
> week before last, along with a nice Saab 9000 manual Jim sent along,
> and
> danged if it don't look feasible to diy.
>
> The assembly's epoxy potted, so limits my snooping to watching it fly
> from the outside (just as well), but like I said before, I figure
> ANYTHING that's being mass deployed in the commercial auto market has
> GOT to be diy'able; otherwise anything twitchy/complicated/sensitive
> isn't gonna make it, and Saab's apparently been using this technology
> since '93!! Does this remind you at all of EGOR?
>
> So, here's the plan. Just like before, instead of 'cheating' and
> looking
> inside, we'll use the same approach as on EGOR, and try to LEARN how
> it
> works, with yous guys help, like before. Now, since I'm not a member
> of
> SAE, and I see they want a $100/yr subscription JUST to search their
> Paper's bibliography, I am soliciting help in locating any/all
> articles/info on this system. I can't imagine Saab not touting it
> upon/in-prep-for it's introduction in '93, so there have GOT to be
> some
> interesting/useful papers available. Soooo, any of yous guys with a
> moment and a membership in SAE, could you start the ball rolling by
> doing a search in the SAE Bibliography for any hits on the following
> known good keywords:
> Saab AND Trionic, "Ignition Discharge Module", Ionization,
> etc.
>
> The manual Jim sent me says "The Saab Trionic system was introduced in
>
> 1993 on Saab 9000 models fitted with the B234L engine." The manual
> itself if for '96, and assuming they're still using this Trionic stuff
>
> in '98, that means the thang's been deployed for 5 years. That oughta
> be
> enough to convince anyone it works, I would guess. [Saab sells alot of
>
> them Turbo 9000's, don't it? At any rate I sure see alot of them here
> in
> Calif. A fan of the yuppie crowd, ifyaknowadamean.]
>
> Finally, Fair Use allows us the privilege of posting a few of the key
> pages from the manual to wet your appetite, so I'll scan a couple in
> and
> post them up on the FTP site. This could give ole EGOR a definitive
> challenge to his nascent fameNnotoriety. Now he's gonna have
> competition. Sorta like the Red & Yellow MnM bozos. Heh.
>
> Let's get'er rollin, dudes. Cuz this tech sure looks like it beats the
>
> acoustic knock detection schemes by a Swedish mile! And, unless we get
> a
> total firehose of activity on this and begin to overload the list, how
>
> bout you POST your finds instead of sending them to me privately.
> Might
> encourage the beehive effect, and bring everyone interested up to
> speed
> that much faster. [BTW, didy'all know that this gizmo is even used to
> "commute" the spark/injection, by replacing the cam sensor? Yeah, it
> detects which "other" pair of plugs is firing via ionization current,
> and combined with the crank sensor for the "intersecting pair",
> determines which cylinder is at TDC on it's power stroke. Cool, eh?]
>
> Cheers maties; if we pull THIS one off, we'll have to think seriously
> about holding some kinda party or sumpin, eh? Could be fun.
>
> Gar
------------------------------
From: Frederic Breitwieser <frederic.breitwieser at xephic.dynip.com>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 21:44:27 -0700
Subject: Boingers
>Anyway, just wanted to put a slant on things.
Okay Michael, short and sweet- my apologies for not including the wankel
in
my suggestive list of inefficient antiquated technology :)
<smile>
Frederic Breitwieser
Bridgeport, CT 06606
Homebrew Automotive Website:
http://www.xephic.dynip.com/
1993 Supercharged Lincoln Continental
1989 HMMWV
2000 Buick-Powered Mid-Engined Sports Car
- -
------------------------------
From: "Robert Harris" <bob at bobthecomputerguy.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 19:40:10 -0700
Subject: RE: And for our Next Trick ... How 'bout a diyTrionic?
The disadvantage of an acoustical knock detector is that it detects the
"sound" of knocking, i.e. a certain frequency and type of noise that
unfortunately can be masked or enhanced by physical engine
charactoristics
(aluminum, iron etc) and change's frequency etc by many factors and the
fact
that ordinary engine noise has to be filtered out.
The Ionization Knock Detector looks for a specific event in the
combustion
gasses - the sudden appearance of ionization products after ignition.
Since
this mechanism is not heavily engine material, size, fuel, temp, ambient
noise dependent for determining its characteristics, the detection of
the
event is straightforward without the need of highly sophisticated self
anally extracting make TI rich DSP's. Start with a clean signal and
you
don't need the hi fangle BS to make the system work - a strange concept
I
know but once upon a time was considered the way to do things.
Properly done, ION can work on everything from a lawnmower to a
Multi-staged
turbo intercooled alcohol fueled road rocket without any basic changes
or
tuning. It simply must detect the knock related ionization event -
which
incidentally will cause a low voltage dc conduction across the spark
gap.
Simple. Non computerized, wazoo ized and eminently doable without
anything
even approaching a DSP.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu
> [mailto:owner-diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu]On Behalf Of Don Berry
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 1998 10:12 AM
> To: 'diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu'
> Subject: RE: And for our Next Trick ... How 'bout a diyTrionic?
>
>
> Has anyone considered use a DSP (digital signal
processor)
> for acoustic knock detection? I understand that they can actually
operate
> with a negative signal to noise ratio.
>
> Don
>
> ...and no, my Chevy does NOT run Windows! ;^)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> snip
>
>
> Cuz this tech sure looks like it beats the acoustic
knock
> detection schemes by a Swedish mile!
>
------------------------------
From: garfield at pilgrimhouse.com
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 20:03:18 -0700
Subject: Re: And for our Next Trick ... How 'bout a diyTrionic?
On Mon, 04 May 1998 20:38:22 -0500, Steven Gorkowski <kb4mxo at mwt.net>
wrote:
>I have access to a lab materials to remove most any epoxy from
>electronic parts. But can't promise if the unit will work but they work
>in 99% of the time.Contact me off line if you want this done.
>
>Steve
As I mentioned before, I hope I don't have to resort to this, but I will
look for another unit to maybe sacrifice. How bout you sharing the
methods and materials used?
I hope this is not another secret method. Sigh.
Gar
------------------------------
End of DIY_EFI Digest V3 #193
*****************************
To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command:
subscribe diy_efi-digest
in the body of a message to "Majordomo at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu".
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace "diy_efi-digest" in the command
above with "diy_efi".
More information about the Diy_efi
mailing list