Page 10 of 15
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:12 am
by KiwiBacon
vvega wrote:arh well i guess you will just keep goign and keep going and going and going
4.5 liters of lpg is to much ive talked to a desil man today ... a veyr clever one .. he seams to think that at idle because of the crap v.e you engine would barly use 6 liters of air a min to your 4.5liters of lpg ...with because of the presure of water is actually compressed so you dont even have a true 4.5 liters ........
... i showed him this threed and he laughed his face of
"of cause its going to det he throwing in a 80% mix of lpg"
A 3.9 litre engine turning at 700rpm using only 6 litres of air per minute?
I think you need to find yourself a better expert, that one doesn't have a clue.
The bucket is floating, the only increase in pressure is from the weight of the empty bucket (~60g) which spread over 75cm^2. That's a pressure increase of 0.06%. Insignificant.
As for the dyno plot, the torque they quote is corrected to flywheel figures. The stock 1HD-FTE had 440Nm, they only got 430.
Funnily enough, 430 and 440 together don't even make 970Nm.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:04 pm
by KiwiBacon
Wopass deserves some credit for the title of this thread.
Never has the content been so accurately predicted.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:13 pm
by vvega
KiwiBacon wrote:Okay I'll admit I screwed that up.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:14 pm
by vvega
KiwiBacon wrote:Okay I'll admit I screwed that up.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:33 pm
by albundy
This is better then working in healthcare: you two leave all the bitching nurses and doctors for dead.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:38 pm
by Bubba
Can I inject diesel in to my LPG 3f for the same results??????????
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:40 pm
by KiwiBacon
vvega wrote:lol its funny because hes got fume working and you havent ... so really ill take his word over yours anyday
basically i dont see how you can call anything
i mark the people i listen to on success ... hes has it ... and you ... dont
and again your calulations are wrong for the bucket
lp gas compress's on its self .. i dont see that in your equastion ethier even at surface level you still have to diplace water to get the gas to come out .. in turn the gas has to generate enough presure to diplace the water .. this means .. bzzzt compressed gas
so we did a little experiment we got a bucket and some water a tank of some lpg and a flow meter we used a 1/4 inch tube set the calibrated flow meter to 5liters per min and filled the bucket with watersubmerged it and fromt he bottom stuck in the hose ... well we were astonished to see that it took over 5 mins before we saw any bubbles
so we did the test again ... and again
after decised that that was a shit way to measure volume we turned the bucket right side up put the hose in the bottom and placed some glass over the top with another tube in it connected to a gas analiser
now lp been heavier than aire foced the air out and will at some point become saterated with lp gas rather than a air lp mix
at this point we have purged the bucket
and guess what
1 min and 3 seconds later we had a result
carry on
so many things wrong with your experiment
and yet .. you still dont realise its a dud
The pressure at the bottom of a bucket of water is 4% of atmospheric (3.9kPa, 0.6psi). If that stopped your gas flow then you've got issues. An LPG bottle has in excess of 30psi on a cold day (more on a warm one), why can't yours push past half a psi?
I didn't measure at the bottom. I measured at the top, the pressure is the weight of the bucket.
Do you really believe 6 litres per minute for my engine? I can see how you didn't make it through engineering school.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:44 pm
by Andrew1706
mudzilla wrote:The gas inmproved performance 11.9% na and 19% turboed .. NOT 58.9 %
No, gas and turbo is a 58.9% increase over the stock non-turbo motor.
They state that they're using tractive effort (torque at the wheels) in the dyno graphs and there are too many variables to be able to quote flywheel.
KiwiBacon wrote:
Funnily enough, the 430Nm they got from the turbo and gas injection is still less than toyotas diesel only 1HD-FTE.
KiwiBacon wrote:As for the dyno plot, the torque they quote is corrected to flywheel figures. The stock 1HD-FTE had 440Nm, they only got 430.
Funnily enough, 430 and 440 together don't even make 970Nm.
What does that have to do with the price of milk? I put this up so that we could finally see some graphical proof that gas injection works but you still try and pick a negative out of it?
Also where does it say it's been corrected to flywheel figures? They didn't say anything about the result they acheived - I calculated it using information I found that stated the 1HZ motor made 270NM stock..
You quote the FTE motor, okay - imagine gas injection with similar results as above but say instead of turboing a non turbo motor you modify the factory FTE - more boost, more diesel pump and add in gas injection - you would argue that the possible '60%' increase of 430nm to 690nm would be impossible?
I invite anyone else to graphically add to this discussion rather then KiwiBacon and his abacus
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:46 pm
by vvega
...
KiwiBacon wrote:Okay I'll admit I screwed that up.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:49 pm
by vvega
..
KiwiBacon wrote:Okay I'll admit I screwed that up.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:01 pm
by KiwiBacon
vvega wrote:oh so your throwing your toys now and resulting to personal insults
our test was done using calibrated gear .. end of the day your test was wrong its proven .. get over it
sorry typo 60 odd not 6
your opinion means nothign kiwi your just a sore little man and it shows ..
must be gutting
So your really clever diesel guy now thinks 60 litres for a 3.9 litre diesel at 700rpm?
Now he's only out by a factor of 17 instead of 170.
How does your "calibrated" flowmeter with 5 litres per minute not put out any gas for five minutes when underwater?
Where did you find a 5 litre bucket? If your "calibrated" flow took 1:03 to fill then it's gotta be 5 litres right?
No it wasn't an insult, more an observation. I can now see why you couldn't make it through an engineering degree. You don't take the time to read and understand anything that's put in front of you. You post up anything from anyone without first checking if it makes sense.
Like the 6 litres per minute, which you revised to 60 and is still a complete fantasy.
You claim to tune cars (and be good at it) yet you don't even know how much air an engine ingests.
You haven't been able to verify or otherwise any of the calculations here, you can't even repeat a simple experiment. Have you run an idling diesel on it yet?
Nope.
Unfortunately you don't understand enough to know the limits of your understanding, I'm not sure you made it through first pro thermodynamics, let alone second pro. That's the problem and why you keep jumping around tangents like flash point which is completely irrelevant.
I'm off to do some work, I'll be back much later on.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:04 pm
by GQTROL
The majority of this thread is way over my head, but assuming the 3.9L engine has no boost at idle, then by my clacs it would be consuming 1365L of air /minute (3.9L / 2 stroke x 700rpm). It also ignores volumetric efficiency issues at this rpm, but I'd say it would be negligible anyway.
Either way, its still a long way from the 60L of air that has been suggested.....unless I've missed something?
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:07 pm
by vvega
......
KiwiBacon wrote:Okay I'll admit I screwed that up.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:08 pm
by KiwiBacon
GQTROL wrote:The majority of this thread is way over my head, but assuming the 3.9L engine has no boost at idle, then by my clacs it would be consuming 1365L of air /minute (3.9L / 2 stroke x 700rpm). It also ignores volumetric efficiency issues at this rpm, but I'd say it would be negligible anyway.
Either way, its still a long way from the 60L of air that has been suggested.....unless I've missed something?
Nope, you're dead right.
I gave it a VE of 80% which is why I used 1092 litres/min.
At 100% VE it would be 1365 litres/min.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:29 pm
by vvega
sorry kiwi im not doing this anymore
you have resorted to lible somments as you did in the last threed
seams you have some issue and i hope you sort them
fact is i did a test in a lab undersupervision
you did a test in yoru back yard
and my test that showed yours was wrong was incorecct ?
see ya mate
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:31 pm
by vvega
GQTROL wrote:The majority of this thread is way over my head, but assuming the 3.9L engine has no boost at idle, then by my clacs it would be consuming 1365L of air /minute (3.9L / 2 stroke x 700rpm). It also ignores volumetric efficiency issues at this rpm, but I'd say it would be negligible anyway.
Either way, its still a long way from the 60L of air that has been suggested.....unless I've missed something?
if v.e actually relates to power from air not to air consumption .. that comes under somethign else ... but just like everything else
kiwi has got it wrong like with the didderance between a boiling point and a flash point
oh and as for "v.e " as in his equastions
if it was 20% .. hes over estimated in his equasions by 60 % of the volume of air
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:36 pm
by vvega
KiwiBacon wrote:Okay I'll admit I screwed that up.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:38 pm
by vvega
oh what again kiwi
you screwed it up again ........
if i cant beat you with a supervised lab result well .. there is nothign else to do
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:38 pm
by GQTROL
vvega wrote:GQTROL wrote:The majority of this thread is way over my head, but assuming the 3.9L engine has no boost at idle, then by my clacs it would be consuming 1365L of air /minute (3.9L / 2 stroke x 700rpm). It also ignores volumetric efficiency issues at this rpm, but I'd say it would be negligible anyway.
Either way, its still a long way from the 60L of air that has been suggested.....unless I've missed something?
if v.e actually relates to power from air not to air consumption .. that comes under somethign else ... but just like everything else
kiwi has got it wrong like with the didderance between a boiling point and a flash point
oh and as for "v.e " as in his equastions
if it was 20% .. hes over estimated in his equasions by 60 % of the volume of air
So what is it then? I've always relied on the above to work out snorkle sizes, air-filter sizes etc based on a max rpm and max boost and assumed a VE to work out cfm requirements.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:52 pm
by skid
wopass wrote:haynzy wrote:it has been very entertaining, much like going to the inlaws but without the dodgy advances from the motherinlaw
that sounds like an interesting story!!
can I meet her
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:52 pm
by DieselBoy
KiwiBacon wrote:vvega wrote:lol its funny because hes got fume working and you havent ... so really ill take his word over yours anyday
basically i dont see how you can call anything
i mark the people i listen to on success ... hes has it ... and you ... dont
and again your calulations are wrong for the bucket
lp gas compress's on its self .. i dont see that in your equastion ethier even at surface level you still have to diplace water to get the gas to come out .. in turn the gas has to generate enough presure to diplace the water .. this means .. bzzzt compressed gas
so we did a little experiment we got a bucket and some water a tank of some lpg and a flow meter we used a 1/4 inch tube set the calibrated flow meter to 5liters per min and filled the bucket with watersubmerged it and fromt he bottom stuck in the hose ... well we were astonished to see that it took over 5 mins before we saw any bubbles
so we did the test again ... and again
after decised that that was a shit way to measure volume we turned the bucket right side up put the hose in the bottom and placed some glass over the top with another tube in it connected to a gas analiser
now lp been heavier than aire foced the air out and will at some point become saterated with lp gas rather than a air lp mix
at this point we have purged the bucket
and guess what
1 min and 3 seconds later we had a result
carry on
so many things wrong with your experiment
and yet .. you still dont realise its a dud
The pressure at the bottom of a bucket of water is 4% of atmospheric (3.9kPa, 0.6psi). If that stopped your gas flow then you've got issues. An LPG bottle has in excess of 30psi on a cold day (more on a warm one), why can't yours push past half a psi?
I didn't measure at the bottom. I measured at the top, the pressure is the weight of the bucket.
Do you really believe 6 litres per minute for my engine? I can see how you didn't make it through engineering school.
It doesn't matter what you did Bacon. Its wasn't a true scientific experiment, especially as the whole experiment hinged on correctly and acuratly measureing gas flow.
As a result, the inacuracy this critical element of the experiment made the results inadmissable to this arguement.
VVega has correctly undertaken the experiment using a flow meter (he should still have calibrated it and got a base line reading, then done serveral tests and taken an avaerage of the results) but non the less, it was conducted in a whole different legue to yours.
I still don't see how you can derive so much enjoyment from going round in circles in an a debate??
Clearly, your flow measurement method was inadequate, and as a result, any conclusion you have drawn from that experiment will be flawed.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:17 pm
by KiwiBacon
DieselBoy wrote:It doesn't matter what you did Bacon. Its wasn't a true scientific experiment, especially as the whole experiment hinged on correctly and acuratly measureing gas flow.
As a result, the inacuracy this critical element of the experiment made the results inadmissable to this arguement.
VVega has correctly undertaken the experiment using a flow meter (he should still have calibrated it and got a base line reading, then done serveral tests and taken an avaerage of the results) but non the less, it was conducted in a whole different legue to yours.
I still don't see how you can derive so much enjoyment from going round in circles in an a debate??
Clearly, your flow measurement method was inadequate, and as a result, any conclusion you have drawn from that experiment will be flawed.
So he used an uncalibrated flow meter?
What a circus.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:20 pm
by KiwiBacon
vvega wrote:GQTROL wrote:The majority of this thread is way over my head, but assuming the 3.9L engine has no boost at idle, then by my clacs it would be consuming 1365L of air /minute (3.9L / 2 stroke x 700rpm). It also ignores volumetric efficiency issues at this rpm, but I'd say it would be negligible anyway.
Either way, its still a long way from the 60L of air that has been suggested.....unless I've missed something?
if v.e actually relates to power from air not to air consumption .. that comes under somethign else ... but just like everything else
kiwi has got it wrong like with the didderance between a boiling point and a flash point
oh and as for "v.e " as in his equastions
if it was 20% .. hes over estimated in his equasions by 60 % of the volume of air
VE is volumetric efficiency, it relates actual air consumption to the ideal air consumption.
GQTROL is indeed correct.
Didn't you say earlier that you were a petrol engine tuner?
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:23 pm
by vvega
KiwiBacon wrote:DieselBoy wrote:It doesn't matter what you did Bacon. Its wasn't a true scientific experiment, especially as the whole experiment hinged on correctly and acuratly measureing gas flow.
As a result, the inacuracy this critical element of the experiment made the results inadmissable to this arguement.
VVega has correctly undertaken the experiment using a flow meter (he should still have calibrated it and got a base line reading, then done serveral tests and taken an avaerage of the results) but non the less, it was conducted in a whole different legue to yours.
I still don't see how you can derive so much enjoyment from going round in circles in an a debate??
Clearly, your flow measurement method was inadequate, and as a result, any conclusion you have drawn from that experiment will be flawed.
So he used an uncalibrated flow meter?
What a circus.
nope was calibrated as was the gas analiser
was hamilton uni gear used
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:26 pm
by DieselBoy
vvega wrote:KiwiBacon wrote:DieselBoy wrote:It doesn't matter what you did Bacon. Its wasn't a true scientific experiment, especially as the whole experiment hinged on correctly and acuratly measureing gas flow.
As a result, the inacuracy this critical element of the experiment made the results inadmissable to this arguement.
VVega has correctly undertaken the experiment using a flow meter (he should still have calibrated it and got a base line reading, then done serveral tests and taken an avaerage of the results) but non the less, it was conducted in a whole different legue to yours.
I still don't see how you can derive so much enjoyment from going round in circles in an a debate??
Clearly, your flow measurement method was inadequate, and as a result, any conclusion you have drawn from that experiment will be flawed.
So he used an uncalibrated flow meter?
What a circus.
nope was calibrated as was the gas analiser
was hamilton uni gear used
Ahh sweet, i miss messsing round in the Lab's up there
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:27 pm
by KiwiBacon
vvega wrote:nope was calibrated as was the gas analiser
was hamilton uni gear used
Hamilton uni? WTF is that?
You mean Waikato?
Who is the person who runs the lab and lent you the equipment? I want to call them up and ask what you did.
Mainly because your description is soo bad it can't be followed.
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:30 pm
by vvega
KiwiBacon wrote:vvega wrote:nope was calibrated as was the gas analiser
was hamilton uni gear used
Hamilton uni? WTF is that?
You mean Waikato?
Who is the person who runs the lab and lent you the equipment? I want to call them up and ask what you did.
Mainly because your description is soo bad it can't be followed.
oh gowd thats funny
your calling what i did bad.. after what you did
why dont you ring your own local uni and ask about a flashpoint... maybe they will get you to explain it
or maybe they wont
youve run out of excuses havent you .. nothign left ...lol
i can just picture the sounds of laughter over the phone now
hahahhahahaha
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:51 pm
by skid
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:55 pm
by vvega
pritty much sums up my efforts skid
#### i know
ill get a tank of lpg turn it on release it into the atmosphere .. and all the d cars in the country will blow up only leaving the petrols .. instant resale valve for my truck :d
TBH i think kiwi spent more time sniffing the lpg than sticking it in his truck ...lol
Re: fume'ing
Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:17 pm
by wopass
KiwiBacon wrote:Wopass deserves some credit for the title of this thread.
Never has the content been so accurately predicted.
oohh geee thanks bacon, that gives me warm fuzzies
did you have your wanger in hand when you typed that?
again.
you did it wrong.
at the end of the day thats what it comes down to, there are people that can and do, then theres people like you that criticise and argue and try to put a downer on everything. actualy im pretty fed up with trying to keep up with your arguments.
you know why?
because
it
f#cking
WORKS!!!!!as elmer fudd says...
eeah badeeaa badeeaa thats all folks
now im going to totaly ignore this argue with bacon thread as it has been said by a few people, its a waste of bandwidth
