cheap ideas for improveing power

[levi18175]

You know what's really sad

Just to clear this bit up, that's not my profile, one of the people I work with decided to correct your obvious stupidity.

If you was to go read just about any other forum out there, they would tell you the benifit of a cold air intake, they would explain to you the benifit of an improoved ignition system, they would explain to you the cost effective gain of wrapping zip ties on the stetched throttle cable thats on most older rangers.

But no, you find it more important to sit down and investigate on where a message came from, rather to find out if what was posted was right. Thats just ignorantly pathetic.

 

[Jspafford]

See that's why everyone who's here is here.. Because we don't have all the same bogus info as all the other sites...

Oh and the throttle cable mod had been here for years now.. They probably got it from us.

 

[MAKG]

OMG, this is amazing.

"Qualifications" are not terribly relevant. I never joined nor attempted to join MENSA for that reason. An "intelligent" person should know that IQ doesn't correlate with success or even other measures of intelligence. My 2.5 year old can identify all his letters and numbers now. That makes him "above 95% of the population" (of his age). Does it mean he's a genius? Maybe, but education research shows that early literacy skills do not correlate to grades later in life.

Honestly, I'm surprised MENSA still exists. I thought that was one of those stupid 80s overachiever fads. I guess if it's still around 25 years later, it's obviously not a fad (but I DO stick with the rest of that).

If you go through all my posts since the board changed, you won't find a single time I mentioned my own credentials. I still won't. I believe that to be a mark of a lost argument. Why? One reason was that I was flabbergasted several years ago to find the best Diesel mechanic -- with a thorough understanding of all the details including the physics -- on this board never completed high school. I tried talking him into enrolling at Berkeley (just a few miles from his house at the time), but he wasn't interested. He would have made a fantastic engineer.

A first clue about the physics: As a race engine designer, you really should know that fuel going "bang" is a VERY bad thing. Normal burn does not explode at all. Detonation does. The point -- and the ONLY point -- of having fuel around is to heat the air. Mechanical shocks are not necessary, nor are they desirable, in any internal combustion engine.

As for nitrous oxide, it's true that it's an oxygenate, but most of its effect is cryogenic. Even the NOS engineers will tell you that (despite the fact that they seem never to have heard of a pressure regulator, which might actually keep the flow -- and mixture -- constant).

 

[Ric]

Just to clear this bit up, that's not my profile, one of the people I work with decided to correct your obvious stupidity.

If you was to go read just about any other forum out there, they would tell you the benifit of a cold air intake, they would explain to you the benifit of an improoved ignition system, they would explain to you the cost effective gain of wrapping zip ties on the stetched throttle cable thats on most older rangers.

But no, you find it more important to sit down and investigate on where a message came from, rather to find out if what was posted was right. Thats just ignorantly pathetic.

For a Genius, your use of the English language is horrible, and you should be ashamed of yourself... I began to go through your post and "fix" your grammar and spelling, but grew tired of it. Reading your antics leaves me laughing at you. You sir, are a joke. Good luck with your geniusness.

 

[Dave R]

Just to clear this bit up, that's not my profile, one of the people I work with decided to correct your obvious stupidity.

What can I say besides..

But no, you find it more important to sit down and investigate on where a message came from, rather to find out if what was posted was right. Thats just ignorantly pathetic.

Important? Don't flatter yourself, two mouse clicks was all it took. Hell, even someone so Windoze/internot ignorant as me could do it.

 

[BlackBII]

If you was to go read just about any other forum out there
.

Can we say reeeeeeedneck? "If you was to" lol Does he have a mullet in his pic?

Funny how etmotorsports only has one post...................................and joined in dec. 07

 

[levi18175]

Now Shut Up, And Get Off My Back.

An internal combustion engine, of any sort, gasoline, propane, diesle, wankle (rotary for you morons), etc.... Is nothing more than an energy converter. You are relying on the potential energy in the fuel to move a (somewhat) controlled device, rather it be a piston, turbine, or rotor.

The "Potential energy" is released in the combustion process, several take different steps to reach this point of the reaction, in this case I will use the example of a gasoilne engine.

The fuel is introduced to the combustion chamber, mixed with ambient oxygen. Assuming the crank shaft is already turning ( the engine running), vacuum pulls the fuel into the chamber. The piston compresses the mixed fuel, in order to absorb as much of the energy released during the transition from potential energy, to kinetic energy. This can be measured with the following formula- Kinetic energy= 1/2mv-squared, where m=mass in kilograms, v= velocity in meters per second. Energy is always ambient, it is never created nor destroyed. It is transfered from place to place, and transfered from one source into another.

When an energy is introduced into the combustion chamber, with the fuel compressed, the amount of energy carries through. The energy intoduced in this example is heat. Even though it is electricity causing the arc, the great amount of heat that is introduce is what ignites the fuel. This begins the process of converting the potential energy in the fuel into kinetic energy, forcing the piston downwards.

As stated in the information above, energy can not be destroyed in an engine, it can only be introduced, and converted. When more heat is introduced in the combustion chamber the energy is converted at a faster, more efficient rate.

Many scientist have published many papers that will back this information up. Here is some of them

Louis-Victor de Broglie (1892-1987)
Erwin Shrodinger (1887-1961) awarded Nobel Prize in 1933
William Hamilton (1805-1865)
Niels Bohr (1885-1962) awarded Nobel Prize in physics 1922

Look them all up, do the research, all the information is what is being taught to you, your kids anyone in school taking a chemistry class, I even have proof.

 

[Dave R]

Well, that's a nice primer on the basics of internal combustion, thanks for posting it. But, nothing there supports your contention that an incremental increase in the spark energy used to ingite the fuel/air mix, above the threshold, can make any SIGNIFICANT increase in an engine's economy or useable power output.

vacuum pulls the fuel into the chamber.

I sure hope you didn't copy and paste that, since EVERYBODY, even MENSA society members, knows there is no such thing as vacuum, only the absence of pressure. Vacuum doesn't "pull" the air/fuel in, ambient air pressure pushes it in.

 

[thegoat4]

....When an energy is introduced into the combustion chamber, with the fuel compressed, the amount of energy carries through. The energy intoduced in this example is heat. Even though it is electricity causing the arc, the great amount of heat that is introduce is what ignites the fuel. This begins the process of converting the potential energy in the fuel into kinetic energy, forcing the piston downwards.

As stated in the information above, energy can not be destroyed in an engine, it can only be introduced, and converted. When more heat is introduced in the combustion chamber the energy is converted at a faster, more efficient rate.

Many scientist have published many papers that will back this information up. Here is some of them

You seem to be operating on the assumption that the spark introduces an appreciable amount of heat into the cylinder. It does not. The area of the spark and the duration are both too small and too short to amount to much despite the temperature at the moment of the spark. It functions only to light off the fuel immediately near it. Then that fuel progressively lights the rest. You get your "flame front."

Sort of like a match isn't a forest fire, but it can start one. The forest won't care if that match burns around 400 degrees, 4,000 degrees, or 4,000,000 degrees. It's still just a match and the rest of the forest will burn at the same speed and the fire will move only as fast as it can ignite more wood.

 

[Ric]

Thanks, levi18175.

Did you get that from Wikipedia or another source? I ask only because your use of grammar is not consistant with what you've demonstrated before.
Big deal. You've described part of the priniciples of the combustion engine to a slight degree of accuracy, which most of us understand already. Your repeated "off the mark" demonstrations of knowledge to build your ego/e-rep is only making you look worse. If anything, you should be listening to the likes of Dave and MAKG as they DO have a wealth of accurate information and theory to share... and all without propping themselves up and blowing their own horns.

Just stop.

 

[BlackBII]

I think I see a small(ok, more possibly a large) notation of a plagiarized document, as stated before your grammar and word usage/style are not consistent, even within the same post, i.e. The main paragraphs and the last few sentences in your spcheal....

 

[levi18175]

Well, that's a nice primer on the basics of internal combustion, thanks for posting it. But, nothing there supports your contention that an incremental increase in the spark energy used to ingite the fuel/air mix, above the threshold, can make any SIGNIFICANT increase in an engine's economy or useable power output.



I sure hope you didn't copy and paste that, since EVERYBODY, even MENSA society members, knows there is no such thing as vacuum, only the absence of pressure. Vacuum doesn't "pull" the air/fuel in, ambient air pressure pushes it in.

Then why does Steven Hawkins use the word "VACUUM" in his theory on black holes? It is mearly a form of measurement. You measure a N/A engine's intake pressure as vacuum, not the force of ambient pressure.

 

[levi18175]

I think I see a small(ok, more possibly a large) notation of a plagiarized document, as stated before your grammar and word usage/style are not consistent, even within the same post, i.e. The main paragraphs and the last few sentences in your spcheal....

There is no plagiarizm in there what so ever. I mearly stated the energy therom, then breifly explained how it is applied to the internal combustion engine.

Have you resorted to nit-picking at my grammar? That in any case is pathetic. Just because I my writing style changes, doesn't mean that the words didn't come from me. Their are only two parts of that whole post that came from another source other than my brain, The energy therom, and the formula to measure the possible amount of potential energy. The rest was from previously attained knowledge.

As far as the heat mentioned in another reply, the temperature at witch you light a match at in a forest fire is really a bad example. You are dealing with a much larger scenario. Even though it is a burn, inside a combustion chamber, your primary goal (if increasing power) is to ignite as much air/fuel as fast and efficient as possible. In most cercumstances factory will do the job, but not as well as after market. The hotter the initial burn, the faster it can reach it's maximum potetial. This is why a hotter spark is more efficient. If you broke down the formula I mentioned before, you will have a measurement of the amount of potential energy that is in your fuel. That nuber is not how much will be produced. It can only be produeced if all the outside factors or perfect (ambient temp, pressure, intruduced heat, air/fuel ratio).

There is a point at which to much heat deminishes the power gain, this is why builders try to keep an engine below 190. I think that we can all agree that a cooler engine performs better.

The trick is getting all the factors right. It can all be figured mathematically, but the trick is actually making it do what it's supposed to. Thats where experoence comes into play.

There's not a whole lot of people that set down and put pen to paper before they build an engine, they rely on previously attain knowledge of trial and error. This is perfectly fine, but in order to acheive a much more desirable outcome, it's best to do the math. That's why I tend to puch for certain mods, even though you can't hear, or feel some of the changes, the numbers cannot lie.

 

[thegoat4]

....There's not a whole lot of people that set down and put pen to paper before they build an engine, they rely on previously attain knowledge of trial and error. This is perfectly fine, but in order to acheive a much more desirable outcome, it's best to do the math. That's why I tend to puch for certain mods, even though you can't hear, or feel some of the changes, the numbers cannot lie.

OK, I was referring to the quantity of heat coming from the spark and you jumped to the engine coolant temp. Different things, the latter not being affected by an after-market coil pack. And the temp of the spark won't affect the speed of the flame front at all. There is no magic.

As far as people picking on your grammar and spelling, that's because that's how we communicate in here. It's a pain in the ass to talk to someone who mumbles, and it's just as much a pain to read from someone who can barely spell.

 

[Pt_Ranger_V8]

IT's funny...

when you're wrong, and you get the attention of ALL the mod's on the board...

now the fun begins!