cheap ideas for improveing power

[samsonitesamsonite]

I figured it out!!! Idiot Savant!

 

[Jason]

I learned something form all of this. Too many people use Google to argue on the net. Surprisingly all the big words and references used in this thread are on the first two pages of a Google search on the topics being discussed.

I love the net. :lol:

 

[MAKG]

Umm, Jason, that's how Google works.

What people talk about (and how much) is how they index.

 

[Evan]

I learned something form all of this. Too many people use Google to argue on the net. Surprisingly all the big words and references used in this thread are on the first two pages of a Google search on the topics being discussed.

I love the net. :lol:

Yep. Google can make just about anybody sound like they know what they're talking about on a forum, even if they don't.

That's why you can't take sites/web discussions like these too seriously.

Good observation.

 

[MAKG]

It's an observation I haven't been able to repeat.

What, specifically, was the Google search?

My own observation is that the poster in question owns a college chemistry book that he doesn't understand.

 

[BlackBII]

Learning from a KB(knowledge based) index is something EVERYONE does, like reading a text book, it's a KB document(index), or instructions on how to install and aftermarket high output TFI coil, a KB document(index), or researching on Google, Wiki or whatever....

Now to say that every one takes to heart all that information from a KB doc. is not true, because of ignorance, imperceptiveness etc. etc. Where learning and accepting new truths is not influential in some peoples mind because of sheer incomprehension, they just can't think like that because they are ignorant.

The "techs" on this site are intelligent and know what they are talking about because of a lack of ignorance, or rather a willingness to learn. The knowledge is then stored (indexed) and can then be addressed to problematic situations. An unwillingness to learn, or ignorance voids this process, limiting an individual to the amount of knowledge he/she can take in (index).

It's a very proven method.

 

[HAPPY_RANGER_GUY]

I think the burden of proof is on you, sir. Show us the math!

//////

...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.

//////

LEVI HAS DONE THE MATH, HE JUST DOESN'T WANT TO SHARE HIS SECRETS!!
(Ancient Chinese Secret I suppose)

Come on man, quit posting pictures of Chemistry books and provide some real meat to show the value added by installing this performance ignition equipment on my stock 2.3L Lima. There IS still time for me to include you on my Christmas card mailing list.

T.

 

[shadetree]

And isn't it the height of arrogance...........

Hmmmmmmm! Gross calling someone else arrogant......pot calling kettle.....chickens coming home to roost.....et al.

 

[levi18175]

I will get started on the math and post pics of the papers soon, (it takes a good minute to perform these equations, if you've ever done one, you'd understand)

This is thermal velocity broke down

In this graph, assume that x-temperature

When a moving particle (air/fuel) inside the temp. gradient, collides with a medium (heat, or spark if you will) it will reach an equilibrium distrobution.

Now if you do your math on this, you will see the possible velocity in whcih, your "flame front" (as someone previously refered to as) will travel inside the combustion chamber.

BUT, there is still a variant that must be considered, the initial amount of heat. Thats where the rest of boltzmann's equation comes into play.

Just to my luck, someone has already made a nice little program that will graph the outcome, when more initial energy (heat) is introduced into the equation. Here is the link.

http://www.chemsoc.org/exemplarchem/entries/pkirby/exemchem/boltzmann/boltzmann.html

 

[MAKG]

I will get started on the math and post pics of the papers soon, (it takes a good minute to perform these equations, if you've ever done one, you'd understand)

This is thermal velocity broke down

In this graph, assume that x-temperature

When a moving particle (air/fuel) inside the temp. gradient, collides with a medium (heat, or spark if you will) it will reach an equilibrium distrobution.

Now if you do your math on this, you will see the possible velocity in whcih, your "flame front" (as someone previously refered to as) will travel inside the combustion chamber.

BUT, there is still a variant that must be considered, the initial amount of heat. Thats where the rest of boltzmann's equation comes into play.

Just to my luck, someone has already made a nice little program that will graph the outcome, when more initial energy (heat) is introduced into the equation. Here is the link.

http://www.chemsoc.org/exemplarchem/entries/pkirby/exemchem/boltzmann/boltzmann.html

OK, this is just too funny.

First, flame fronts DO NOT follow the Boltzmann equation because they are NOT particles. Boltzmann's equation is the source of almost all gas dynamics and is a method of modelling NONequilibrium systems such as those containing moving shock waves.

And this is REALLY funny because the figure you stole describes the gas-transport Boltzmann Equation, and the link describes a DIFFERENT Boltzmann equation (the guy got around...) that applies only in thermal equilibrium with no external energy sources and discretized energy states. It's a complete nonsequitir. It applies to closed systems with discrete energy levels such as resonant cavities. Your cylinders are not Klystrons.

Here is your FIRST problem. List the independent variables in the Boltzmann transport equation. That actually does (almost) apply to the situation at hand. Well, actually its generalization (Saha Equation) does, since particle number is not conserved in the presence of combustion. Then tell us in words what the Boltzmann (or Saha) distribution function means. Then I might believe your head isn't in your posterior.

Just because you can plagiarize on the web doesn't mean you can understand it. You stole that figure out of context from an article on transport by Uri Lachish, working in the context of reverse osmosis, a rather distinctly different problem.

FYI, tell us what you think the temperature "gradient" is in the presence of a flame front. What determines it? What bounds the thickness of the flame front from below?
Define for us what you think a "front" is.

And even if this analysis weren't total crap, you STARTED with the assumption that a spark would add a little heat to combustion. That's called assuming the result. That's what you were trying to prove.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Oh, and don't lie about "performing the equations." It takes a whole hell of a lot more than "a minute" to solve the Boltzmann transport equation. It's nasty enough that it's not done even on supercomputers for any but the absolute simplest problems, and then generally only in one dimension. And the usual problem there is determining WTF the initial conditions should be.

 

[levi18175]

are you serious? This has to be a joke by this point.

I might believe your head isn't in your posterior.

MAn, for being a tech advisor, your rather pathetic.

First off, it takes more than a minute to perform the equation....NO SHIT SHIRLOCK

(I believe that I said iit was going to take me a "GOOD" minute to do this, meaning a while)

And second, the equation begins by defining the random possibility of particle placement in a defined area, then goes through to give the probabliity of a rate of change during an alteration process of just about any kind.

 

[MAKG]

And second, the equation begins by defining the random possibility of particle placement in a defined area, then goes through to give the probabliity of a rate of change during an alteration process of just about any kind.

Wrong. The Boltzmann transport equation does not work in configuration space alone. I thought you were going to say that.

The Boltzmann variables are three space dimensions, three velocity (or momentum) dimensions, and time. It's a seven dimensional problem; that's why no one EVER does numerical models using it in three space dimensions. Or even two. Though I know of a couple of 1D examples (they use the nuclear Saha equation, though -- similar but not the same).

What you appear to have described (badly garbled) is called the "continuity" equation, and the function involved is just (number) density. However, no complete gas dynamics formulation can be made based on the continuity equation alone. For instance, there is no way to introduce external sources of energy into it, so it really isn't very general at all. It also has no pressure....

Question #3: The continuity equation (drho/dt + (v dot grad) rho = 0, in case you haven't Googled that yet) is always derivable from the Boltzmann transport equation. How? People DO model that in three space dimensions (though not by itself).

Question #4: Describe the meaning of the continuity equation in words.

Question #5: What's wrong with rho in this formulation? It should be obvious after #4.

You're attempting to research this in real time, aren't you? Not a good sign. It's rather obvious. You're not going to BS your way through this.

FYI, I don't buy this "good while" thing. You said you were doing a practically impossible calculation. It will NEVER happen. And I'd really like to see the proposal for supercomputer time.

 

[levi18175]

I think I have figured out how the moderators and advisors work on this.The better you are at hiding perpetual ignorance the higher you are able to rank in the system.

The irony that I find in this ongoing argument, is that this "IS" the only site that will bash the concepts that have been introduced. I guess you have a shiny object dangling somewhere.

As I do recall, I just introduced an idea, then got slapped in the face. This would leave the responsibility of prooving yourselves correct first, not the other way around. Even during this argument, a few people let it slip that aftermarket ignigtion sytems do improve performance.


You brought up the Saha-equation, as did someone else. You should beat your head on the table. I guess the nect thing that you people are going to say is that the world is flat, or E doesn't equal mC squared.

The Boltzmann equation is a rather more apropriate equation due to the simple fact that it '"CAN" measure all variables.

On a more personal note, how can you assume that a human cannot perform an equation that was written by a human?

I would like to invite, and recomend that you all go back to your books. It seems that you have become stubborn in your thoughts, and are afraid to attain new concepts and thoughts. This is what leads to complete and udder ignorance.

I am done with this.

You all can burn in hell for all I care. I will not waste any more key strokes, for the sake of arguing with ignorance.

 

[Booncha57]

Am I going to have to separate you guys??

 

[MAKG]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Dude, E *DOESN'T* equal mc^2. That comes out of popular literature, not out of any modern calculation.

The correct statement is

E^2 - p^2 c^2 = m^2 c^4

Look up "rest mass." It's an actual Relativistic invariant. You're only right if p=0. Which is a rather problematic statement if you're interested in actually calculating anything Relativistic.

Actually, I'm rather well versed in modern physics. That's why I can see through this point by point. I've been tested by better folks than you.

On a more personal note, how can you assume that a human cannot perform an equation that was written by a human?

No assumption involved. Calculability is calculable. As is scaling. Computer scientists do it all the time. Though the really obvious stumbling block in a direct numerical calculation of the BTE in three space dimensions is the sheer size of the discretization. You'd need to be very, very clever (and you're not).

And it's VERY easy to come up with and state incalculable problems. A very well known one is the "travelling salesman" problem. Take a list of N cities placed arbitrarily and calculate the shortest route that includes them all and doesn't repeat. If N is larger than a few, guaranteeing the minimum is effectively impossible. A standard exercise for budding computer scientists is to calculate the number of permutations for N=25. Don't believe me? Well, you're welcome to try it....

Though I must admit to "udder ignorance." It's true I've never milked a cow.