Gas mileage question.

[Evil Result]

Originally Posted by buickmastermind

There is a difference between burning a gas (the propane stove) and causing fumes to explode (forklift and truck motors). A fire isn't exploding, unless you put an erosol spray can into it...Current motors burn the fuel. You can cause an explosion with a small amount of fuel. To burn, you need considerably mor. The whole point of the system is to change it from a burning process to an explosion process.

methane, ethane, propane, butane, and isobutain are organic hydrocarbons known as alkanes. They are not created from crude oil, but together with a complex mixture of alkenes, cycloalkanes, and aromatic compounds form crude oil. Crude oil in turn is used to produce Gasoline, Kerosene, heating and lubricating oils. You can take the products above, and cause them to react to other particles to get back to the basic structures, which is what a supercarbureted system does. Gasoline, which can have anywhere between 6-12 carbon atoms in it, will react to evaporated water when evaporated to produce methanol, CH3OH. With the gasoline molecule defficient by 1 Carbon molecule and 2 Hydrogen molecules, it will further break down to a given amount of methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6), and propane (C3H8). Methane, ethane, and propane combine to form a natural gas. The best way to describe it is that it is like taking back all the energy that was used in the process to make the gasoline in the first place.

The fine mist a fuel injector is supposed to put out isn't very fine. It is more like a stream. A fine mist would only be injected about 1-2 feet at 35psi. A not so fine of a mist is sprayed up to four feet.
A brand new fuel injector sprays the gasoline at least 5 feet. You can test that yourself easily enough. The fuel isn't being misted into the cylinders, it is being sprayed.

Here is proof of the lead additive in a gasoline. Notice how it is worded:

"The octane rating of hydrocarbons can be improved by the addition of small quantities of compounds called "antiknocking agents". Among the most widely udes antiknocking agents are the following;
CH3
|
CH2 CH3
| |
CH3-CH2-Pb-CH2-CH3 CH3-Pb-CH3
| |
CH2 CH3
|
CH3
tetraethyllead tetramethyllead
...The catylitic converters with which late-model automobiles are equipped can be "poisoned" by lead...To minimize knocking, unleaded gasolines contain methyl-tert-butyl-ether, which has the same effect on the gasoline." (Raymond Chang, seventh edition chemistry)

It has the same effect as the lead does. Hmmm. I wonder why it's there. Surely not to minimize knocking in an unleaded motor? Only diesel "knocks."
A though about diesel motors. The diesel is not ignited by a spark. The heat comes from being compressed. It produces all the heat heat needed to ignite simply by compressing. Unleaded engines compress the gas considarably...Electric energy does not eaqual heat energy. A diesel should have better gas mileage, better torque, and less emmisions than a standard unleaded motor. Proof? The Duramax diesel by GM. NO unleaded V8 comes close to it in all three respects.

I'v never seen so many contradictions in my life.

I get 'knock' in my gasoline engine if i advance my ignition to far or put in a lower grade gas than suggested by the engine manufacturer.

Today all engines run on unleaded gasoline...diesel never had lead added to it(if you get confused later).

Leaded gas helps improve engien wear and knock properties of gasoline but this lead was an environmental hazard and so was removed from gasoline, substitutions for the anti-knocking lead agent where created, this newer anti-kncoking agent don't contain lead if they did it would have been a moot point in removing lead from the gas in the first place.

Anyways compairing a firecracker to crude oil fuels dosen't makes sence... solid propelent to liquid propelent all depends on how its used. cut open that fire cracker take the powder make it a long length and light it... the burn rate will be alot slower.

In vietnam they took C4 and made thin flat wafers out of the C4 to cook there food because the C4 burned slow enough although burned extremely hot.

[RandomTask]

I'm really tired of argueing with you. My dad is a Nuclear Physicist at Thomas Jefferson National accelerator facility. I showed him this thread and he started laughing at all your comments...
A percussion explosion, by that, you mean striking something. The REASON the first wave in a nuclear explosion hits so hard, its neutrons trying to get out of the way. Basically, they're taking a metal (plutonium) and expanding it to hundreds of thousands of times its volume extremely quickly. The first wave is ALSO heat. You're getting all your facts mixed up. You're talking about dis-associating hydrogen and oxygen molecules, the process which takes an enormous emount of energy. Way to much energy to be produced by that little amount of gasoline. Several thousand degrees of heat. You're saying theres no heat in a percussion explosion?

The rapid expansion frost burned his hand. It also pulls energy from the air around it. Hence the reason of pre-evaporating the gasoline. It gets all the energy it needs from the air. All that is left for it to do is be exposed to a spark, such as static electricity, which I can guarentee doesn't "run" anywhere near 500 degrees celcius. if it did, then we would be in trouble...

The energy is in relation to volumetric. If one litre of liquid gasoline = 700litres of gaseous gasoline, THERE IS STILL THE SAME ENERGY, ENERGY IS NEITHER GAINED NOR DESTROYED, JUST TRANSFERED.

Igniting liquid Gasoline requires that residual heat. It not just helps, it makes the ignition possible.

You're saying that you CAN'T start a car cold, $(#$ off.

Now you're saying is make it H30? H20 IS ALREADY BALANCED, ITS NEUTRAL. Hydrogen, with an outer electron valence of 1, and Oxygen, with an outer valence of 6. 8 outer is balanced. It WON'T bond with any free floating hydrogen.

The reason your hand gets hurt more if you try to hold the firework, YOU'RE TRYING TO CONTAIN THE ENERGY. If you lay your hand flat, the air surrounding it more readily absorbs the energy.

The oil you use doesn't come in a yellow container(PENZOIL)? Wow, I guess I should start buying ones that come in blue or silver containers because that makes all the difference.

Heat is mechanical energy you dipshit.

Im tired of posting against you.

[RandomTask]

Then I realize this kid advertises:
A/C
REAL chrome trim
in his sig. Wow, an '86 buick lasabre... WITH A/C?! OMG OMG OMG OMG

[bjdm151]

Don't forget this kid is the mechanic of KU

Oh and it sounds like the duramax got beat by your 455 or whatever v8 with 86 miles to the gallon.

We know that diesels can do wonders for the trucking industry.
And we know they don't use spark plugs, but they are running on compression ratios of like 20:1 plus how many pounds of boost, injection pressures can take off your hand. Thats why they are slighly more efficient than gasoline engines.
Now disconnect all your spark plug wires on any spark ignition engine and see what happens.
Also you started off saying that lead was used to prevent the formation of propane or something and know you're saying it was used to reduce knock. And i still don't see the word lead in methyl-tertiery-butyl-ether. There is no lead in pump gas.
And you still don't get it,
In normal combustion we don't produce propane or methane or methanol or whatever you're stuck on, Gasoline and air go in, and mostly the 5 gases come out, Oxygen, CO, HC, CO2, NOx, and add in a little water, you know the stuff that doesn't get burned in you're engine.
The supercarburetor doesn't work and we don't want an explosion in our engines.

[bjdm151]

In your first post you were asking questions about does anybody know about the supercarburetor and how does it work? Can an engine operate at 100% efficiency and get 200mpg? Your being retarded and now your trying to come off as Gods pupil of the combustion process. Your retarded and your trying to put apply certain models of chemistry that don't work in this application.


YOU ARE NOT AS SMART AS YOU THINK YOU ARE

[RandomTask]

He just has a misconception on the chemistry and hes completely avoid the thermal dynamics of the situation.

[curtis73]

Let's all at least get on the same page here. Combustion is combustion. Its the combining of a fuel with oxygen. This reaction gives off heat. There is no known combustion process that does not make heat. The properties of combustion make them appear to be different, but they are all the same critter. There is no such thing as a difference between a "burning" combustion and an "explosive" combustion. Paper burns slowly. Nitrogycerin burns quickly. End of story.

Only a fraction of the heat made in engines can be used as mechanical energy. Buickmastermind; let's use some hypothetical numbers and make an example. We know that (when combustion happens, 100% of the chemical energy is used. Let's say in an engine, from the combustion, 20% makes its way to mechanical energy, 60% makes it to heat, and the remaining 20% is sound, light, and other energy, including that which remains potential in chemical energy. If we could bend the rules of physics and reduce that heat that is produced to, say, 40%, the 20% we've conserved DOES NOT show up as mechanical or other forms of energy. It simply skews the graph downward. What we CAN do is to actively remove the heat. NOT make the engine cooler, mind you. Remove heat from combustion, which in turn makes the engine hotter and requires greater cooling capacity. This is done with playing with surface areas, alloy mixes, and dynamics of the cooling system to play with how much heat gets removed and how much stays there.

The bottom line is that the energy given off is not something you can play with. The combustion of gasoline and oxygen gives off heat... period. Its expressed most commonly as Delta H and is a fixed number for a given set of parameters. That heat given off during combustion is not the enemy, its just a cold hard fact of combustion. The reason combustion engines use compression before ignition is because it increases T (temperature) without raising heat. Its tought to describe, but you're not adding heat, but the temperature goes up... Adiabatically.. for the same and opposite reason that propane is cold coming out of the tank.

Assuming you've given enough activation energy to the mixture, it will ignite. If it gives off 100% of its chemical energy to other forms, (according to our example) 20% is mechanical, 60% is heat, and 20% is other junk. That is not negotiable as far as the chemical equation is concerned. Its fixed, mathematical fact based on its surrounding properties. You can change those properties by changing their surroundings, like compression ratio, cooling efficiency, etc, but not remove heat entirely or in any appreciable amount.

Lets take a look at Boyle's gas laws condensed into his formula, PV=nrT, or as I like to call it, "the pervert rule." P is pressure, V is volume, n is a chemical number derived from the atomic weight(s) of the stuff in question, r is a gas constant and T is temperature in Kelvin.

All things equal, things are fine. But, if T is reduced by half, either P or V must be reduced by half as well. This is demonstrated in your car tires in the cold; they lose both pressure and volume. If that makes sense, we'll move on. Since heat is constantly being absorbed by the coolant, T is dropping rapidly after combustion. Therefore, P is dropping at the same rate. I know this will shock you, but T is our friend. Its this very reason that Aluminum headed engines make less power than iron headed ones. (all other things equal) The aluminum absorbs heat faster and typically require more compression ratio to make the same power. The benefits of increased compression are notable in airflow, efficiency, and therefore power production.

To narrow it all down, take another look at PV=nrT. Let's assume a fixed volume since that is set by the piston's position. If you explode gas/air in a fixed volume, its obvious that the pressure will increase. This is mostly a product of the explosion itself; you've taken a large dense molecule, split it up into a bunch of light gasses and it takes up more space. This is the mechanical part. You've also introduced a huge amount of heat, and therefore T. Increasing T increases P as well, so this added pressure is more energy available to push on the piston. T is a good thing!

I realize your rationale, but its just incorrect in this case. The combustion of things creates heat, period. There is no way of getting around it, and in fact in engines today, we use it to make power. But, removing heat does not increase efficiency.

In fact, adding heat increases efficiency. The term chemical equation is just that; an equation. If you add something to one side, you'll get more out on the other side. Adding ENERGY before combustion in an engine (in our case, adding T) means you'll get more energy in general during and after combustion.

The inefficency of engines is due to hundreds of factors, including limitations on how gasoline burns, friction in the engine, and simply the overcoming of inertia with reciprocating pistons is incredible.

The analogies used earlier about firecrackers and bombs are somewhat valid, but still, they are all just combustion. Its just that the energies they produce are widely varying. The explosion of gunpowder makes largely mechanical energy but not much heat or light. The explosion of H2 and O2 makes incredibly violent mechanical explosions with a high amount of heat and almost no light. So as you can see by our previous example, if gasoline makes 20/60/20, gunpoweder might be more like 60/20/20 and H2O might be 40/50/10. Those aren't chemical terms, they're curtis-isms.

The use of water injection is invaluable to engines where required. They drastically reduce intake temps for a denser mixture, allows for more controlled combustion and... well, honestly I can't remember the rest, but efficiency of getting more energy from the gasoline is not its most direct by-product. The water is completely inert in combustion. Its benefits are strictly physical, not chemical.

[CBFryman]

Originally Posted by buickmastermind

There is a difference between burning a gas (the propane stove) and causing fumes to explode (forklift and truck motors). A fire isn't exploding, unless you put an erosol spray can into it...Current motors burn the fuel. You can cause an explosion with a small amount of fuel. To burn, you need considerably mor. The whole point of the system is to change it from a burning process to an explosion process.

methane, ethane, propane, butane, and isobutain are organic hydrocarbons known as alkanes. They are not created from crude oil, but together with a complex mixture of alkenes, cycloalkanes, and aromatic compounds form crude oil. Crude oil in turn is used to produce Gasoline, Kerosene, heating and lubricating oils. You can take the products above, and cause them to react to other particles to get back to the basic structures, which is what a supercarbureted system does. Gasoline, which can have anywhere between 6-12 carbon atoms in it, will react to evaporated water when evaporated to produce methanol, CH3OH. With the gasoline molecule defficient by 1 Carbon molecule and 2 Hydrogen molecules, it will further break down to a given amount of methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6), and propane (C3H8). Methane, ethane, and propane combine to form a natural gas. The best way to describe it is that it is like taking back all the energy that was used in the process to make the gasoline in the first place.

The fine mist a fuel injector is supposed to put out isn't very fine. It is more like a stream. A fine mist would only be injected about 1-2 feet at 35psi. A not so fine of a mist is sprayed up to four feet.
A brand new fuel injector sprays the gasoline at least 5 feet. You can test that yourself easily enough. The fuel isn't being misted into the cylinders, it is being sprayed.

Here is proof of the lead additive in a gasoline. Notice how it is worded:

"The octane rating of hydrocarbons can be improved by the addition of small quantities of compounds called "antiknocking agents". Among the most widely udes antiknocking agents are the following;
CH3
|
CH2 CH3
| |
CH3-CH2-Pb-CH2-CH3 CH3-Pb-CH3
| |
CH2 CH3
|
CH3
tetraethyllead tetramethyllead
...The catylitic converters with which late-model automobiles are equipped can be "poisoned" by lead...To minimize knocking, unleaded gasolines contain methyl-tert-butyl-ether, which has the same effect on the gasoline." (Raymond Chang, seventh edition chemistry)

It has the same effect as the lead does. Hmmm. I wonder why it's there. Surely not to minimize knocking in an unleaded motor? Only diesel "knocks."
A though about diesel motors. The diesel is not ignited by a spark. The heat comes from being compressed. It produces all the heat heat needed to ignite simply by compressing. Unleaded engines compress the gas considarably...Electric energy does not eaqual heat energy. A diesel should have better gas mileage, better torque, and less emmisions than a standard unleaded motor. Proof? The Duramax diesel by GM. NO unleaded V8 comes close to it in all three respects.

WOW...we all got learned agian by Curtis73...while i sit hear quietly giggleing at buick. bjdm151 has a great point. buick asked a question and when we gave him answears (even prople with 4+ year college degrees related to his question) he bashes us with his vastly "superior" false knowlege. so we prove him wrong once agian.

Now as for you statements buick
-Burning and "exploding" are 2 different things? lets take "explode" and brake it down...oh yes EX-... as in EXpansion or EXothermic. Ex- means out. when you burn LP gas on a stove it EXpands. when you combust LP gas in a controlled environment (cylender) it EXpands. all burning is is an exothermic reaction that happens when a fule oxidieses. pretty much everything will burn. at which tempature this happens depends on chemical properties. things such as water will brake down into hydrogen and oxygen before burning. but the tempatures requited to make H2O split are so much higher than tempatures in an internam combustion engine. that is why in order to split H2O you use electrolicis. Hydrogen has a 1- charge and oxygen has a 2+ (meanin in order for either one to have a Noble Gas configuration H has to loose 1 electron and oxygen has to gain 2. note: why water is so stable. 2 hydrogen loose their valence electrons and 1 oxygen gains 2 valence eletrons...but you should have learned that in 7th grade in the chemistry section). anyway, anything will burn and oxydies. iron will burn. iron will "burn" if it is placed in pure oxygen. it is a very violent reaction. so whether you are burning propane or combusting it, the propane is burning.

- what is funny is that you claim propane cant be made from crude oil but it can be made from gasoline...funny thing is that gasoline comes from crude oil... crude oil can be refined into any hydrocarbon you can think of. though it isnt practical it can be done.

-injectors are made to be able to deliver the right ammount of fule wiht maximum atomization. now sure a 1800CC injector may shoot a stream at 35psi but a 120cc injector in your average small engine automobile wont spray 5 foot lead alone handle 35psi very well. and once agian yo udidnt read my post because i did say that they are sprayed onto the back of the intake vualve...which turns them into fumes quick enough...ther is very very little (if any at all) liquid gasoline entering a cylender. and tempatures ride enough in compression stroke to make it atomize most of hte way also.

-your 7th edition chemistry book is probably 30 years old and the company is now on the 14th edition or so.... LEAD IS NOT USED. and you dont write out your compounds very well either...

-wow you read how stuff works enough to understand "how diesels work" oh, but wait, diesels dont knock either. since after all it isnt "pre ignition." it is just regular ignition...the fule isnt injected utnill the air tempatures are high enough to burn the fule. and diesel isnt rated in octane (octane=resistance to ignite). it is rated in how readily it is willing to burn. oh and how about al ittle quiz...oh oh i know, what did rudolf diesel originally deisgn his engine for and what fule was it originally designed to run off of (hint: McDonalds). now your ideas that electrical energy is not related to mechanical or thermal energy. well let me just put it this way. 1watt of electricity is equal to 1joule of energy per seconds. a joule can be related to all things energy. eletromagnetic, thermal, kenetic, electric, potential, you name it it can be rated in joules. and its funny that you say that diesles have better emmisions....a diesel will have better emmisions if it is running "lean" at a low RPM....but if it begines to run "rich" (or not all the fule is being burned) it has horible emmisions. i wonder why my brand new '05 C-6 doesnt belch black smoke but Semi- rigs do....oh thats right the C-6 is more effeciently burning its fule.

[buickmastermind]

Sorry about the length of this post, but I had to quote you on a few different things a few different times.

CBFryman, do you even know how to spell?

"Only a fraction of the heat made in engines can be used as mechanical energy."
How does a car turn heat energy into mechanical energy? I see no boilers under the hood, only a block of drilled steel that changes chemical energy into 80% heat energy and 20% mechanical energy! Tell me, what device under the hood of a car, or anywhere in the car for that matter, changes heat energy into mechanical energy?

"There is no such thing as a difference between a "burning" combustion and an "explosive" combustion"

Burning:v. burned, or burnt (bûrnt) burn·ing, burns
v. tr.
To cause to undergo combustion.
To destroy with fire: burned the trash; burn a house down.
To consume (fuel or energy, for example): burned all the wood that winter.
Physics. To cause to undergo nuclear fission or fusion.
To damage or injure by fire, heat, radiation, electricity, or a caustic agent: burned the toast; burned my skin with the acid.

Exploding:v. ex·plod·ed, ex·plod·ing, ex·plodes
v. intr.
To release mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy by the sudden production of gases in a confined space: The bomb exploded.
To burst violently as a result of internal pressure.
To shatter with a loud noise: The vase exploded into tiny pieces when it hit the floor.
To make an emotional outburst: My neighbor exploded in rage at the trespassers.
To increase suddenly, sharply, and without control: The population level in this area has exploded during the past 12 years.
To change state or appearance suddenly: Over the weekend the trees exploded with color

Wow. Explosions are the same thing as burning. NOT.

"Leaded gas helps improve engien wear and knock properties of gasoline but this lead was an environmental hazard and so was removed from gasoline,"
Lead improves engine wear. ??? Lead was supposedly used to "prevent" engine wear, not increase it! Why use lead at all if it wears a motor down faster?

"Nitrogycerin burns quickly"
Never heard of "nitrogycerin", and I have yet to see proof that NitrogLycerin burns. It explodes.

"Remove heat from combustion, which in turn makes the engine hotter and requires greater cooling capacity"
Wait a second here. Removing heat from an object makes it hotter? So much for the laws of conservation of energy that you speak so highly of.

"The bottom line is that the energy given off is not something you can play with. The combustion of gasoline and oxygen gives off heat... "
True, which is why mixing the gasoline with water is done, so you can produce Methanol and natural gasses. Natural gasses: gasses found in nature. The explosion of these gasses gives off way, way, way less heat.

"The reason combustion engines use compression before ignition is because it increases T (temperature) without raising heat."
How do you increase the temperature without raising heat? This is one of the mysteries of the scientifically uneducated mind.

"Its this very reason that Aluminum headed engines make less power than iron headed ones"
Hey, World, let's all put iron heads on our motors so we can get more power! So, the faster I absorb heat, the more power I create...Yet again, one of the mysteries of the scientifically uneducated mind.

"you've taken a large dense molecule, split it up into a bunch of light gasses and it takes up more space. "
I think your finally starting to understand it...

"You've also introduced a huge amount of heat, and therefore T. Increasing T increases P as well, so this added pressure is more energy available to push on the piston. T is a good thing!"
Never mind, you lost it...again.

"There is no way of getting around it, and in fact in engines today, we use it to make power. But, removing heat does not increase efficiency. "
And again...If you don't create the huge amount of extra heat (which requires energy, not supplies it) in the first place, you don't have to dissipate it in the radiator! Wow. Science at work.

"In fact, adding heat increases efficiency. The term chemical equation is just that; an equation. If you add something to one side, you'll get more out on the other side. Adding ENERGY before combustion in an engine (in our case, adding T) means you'll get more energy in general during and after combustion."
This equation you're talking about is referring to applications that have the primary purpose of turning one form of energy into heat energy. If a motors primary purpose is to create heat, how did Ford discover that a motor can propel something? Accident? The motor was created to produce mechanical energy.

"The analogies used earlier about firecrackers and bombs are somewhat valid, but still, they are all just combustion. Its just that the energies they produce are widely varying. The explosion of gunpowder makes largely mechanical energy but not much heat or light. The explosion of H2 and O2 makes incredibly violent mechanical explosions with a high amount of heat and almost no light. So as you can see by our previous example, if gasoline makes 20/60/20, gunpoweder might be more like 60/20/20 and H2O might be 40/50/10. Those aren't chemical terms, they're curtis-isms."
...Read the definitions again...

"The use of water injection is invaluable to engines where required. They drastically reduce intake temps for a denser mixture, allows for more controlled combustion and... well, honestly I can't remember the rest, but efficiency of getting more energy from the gasoline is not its most direct by-product. The water is completely inert in combustion. Its benefits are strictly physical, not chemical."
Really? So why is water injected into some racing motors if it affords no chemical benefits? Water is completely innert in combustion, and prevents it. However, water vapors are a different story. VAPORS CAN IGNITE. Simple.

"Now as for you statements buick
-Burning and "exploding" are 2 different things? lets take "explode" and brake it down...oh yes EX-... as in EXpansion or EXothermic. Ex- means out. when you burn LP gas on a stove it EXpands. when you combust LP gas in a controlled environment (cylender) it EXpands. all burning is is an exothermic reaction that happens when a fule oxidieses. pretty much everything will burn. at which tempature this happens depends on chemical properties. things such as water will brake down into hydrogen and oxygen before burning. but the tempatures requited to make H2O split are so much higher than tempatures in an internam combustion engine. that is why in order to split H2O you use electrolicis. Hydrogen has a 1- charge and oxygen has a 2+ (meanin in order for either one to have a Noble Gas configuration H has to loose 1 electron and oxygen has to gain 2. note: why water is so stable. 2 hydrogen loose their valence electrons and 1 oxygen gains 2 valence eletrons...but you should have learned that in 7th grade in the chemistry section). anyway, anything will burn and oxydies. iron will burn. iron will "burn" if it is placed in pure oxygen. it is a very violent reaction. so whether you are burning propane or combusting it, the propane is burning."
You start off by saying that exploding is exothermic, and is the same thing as burning. You end by saying that combustion and buring are the same thing. Combustion is NOT an explosion.

"funny thing is that gasoline comes from crude oil... crude oil can be refined into any hydrocarbon you can think of. though it isnt practical it can be done."
I think you may have something here. Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons. You just said that it is not practical to produce hydrocarbons. That is what gasoline is. That is why we break the gasoline molecule down, to get at the more practical gasses.

"injectors are made to be able to deliver the right ammount of fule wiht maximum atomization. now sure a 1800CC injector may shoot a stream at 35psi but a 120cc injector in your average small engine automobile wont spray 5 foot lead alone handle 35psi very well."
So, you are saying that the injector on the 2.2l v4 used in the Chevy Cavalier, which happens to be the SAME injector used in both the 3.4l v6 and the 5.2l v8, shoots less gasoline into the motor than the injector on a larger motor?! I think not. The injector is calibrated to shoot the correct amount of fuel in a stream, so it lands in one place and cannot evaporate quickly enough. The only way to get the liquid to go into the cylinder is to aim it directly at the back of the valve opening. Some of the gas vaporizes, yes, but there are no evaporated water molecues there at that point to react with them, and the supercarburated process can occur normally.

"your 7th edition chemistry book is probably 30 years old and the company is now on the 14th edition or so...."
Actually, a book that is copywrited in 2002 is not thirty years old. The first edition was published in 1981. Updating to the xth edition doesn't change the scientific fact behind it. If you had read the entire quote that i used, you wouldn't be saying that I am saying that they still use lead. They use, and I once again quote, "methyl-tert-butyl-ether, which has the same effect on the gasoline" It has the same effect as lead, but it isn't poisonous. It is lead-based not in the sense that it is built around a lead atom, but its purpose is meant to duplicate the leads function in the gasoline. That function is to react with water vapors so that the water vapors cannot react to the gasoline.

"now your ideas that electrical energy is not related to mechanical or thermal energy." "1watt of electricity is equal to 1joule of energy per seconds"
FYI. Heat is measured in joules, not joules per second. They are not directly related, and therefore cannot be equal.

"In your first post you were asking questions about does anybody know about the supercarburetor and how does it work? Can an engine operate at 100% efficiency and get 200mpg? Your being retarded and now your trying to come off as Gods pupil of the combustion process. Your retarded and your trying to put apply certain models of chemistry that don't work in this application."
I am not being retarded. If a motor ran @ 100% efficeincy, I would be getting 233 mpg. Running at about 89% efficeincy is what produces the 200 mpg estimate. So, chemistry only applies in a chemistry laboratory? And you were calling me a moron...

"Also you started off saying that lead was used to prevent the formation of propane or something and know you're saying it was used to reduce knock"
I said it prevents the formation of natural gasses, but politics, the major roll in the prevention of the supercarburater, says that lead is used as a knock reduceant. *Evil Result said that lead enhances engine wear...

"You're saying that you CAN'T start a car cold, $(#$ off."
Ever heard of the terms open and closed loop operations? If you are Canadian, then you can say no. If you work on cars, you had better know what they are. Why do you think the motor idles higher at start-up? To create more heat faster, twit.

Ask the resident double chem major why vaporized H2O reacts with the other three atoms to form CH3OH. Not me.

"The reason your hand gets hurt more if you try to hold the firework, YOU'RE TRYING TO CONTAIN THE ENERGY. If you lay your hand flat, the air surrounding it more readily absorbs the energy."
Exactly my point about explosions.

"Heat is mechanical energy you dipshit.

Im tired of posting against you."

Heat is a totally different type of energy! It doesn't even correspond to work. Work is mechanical energy is MOVEMENT. Heat energy is HEAT! This isn't rocket science. Although, compared to your current "knowledge" of "science"...seeing as how you're tired of posting against me, yet continue to do so...

[sierrap615]

Originally Posted by buickmastermind

"Only a fraction of the heat made in engines can be used as mechanical energy."
How does a car turn heat energy into mechanical energy? I see no boilers under the hood, only a block of drilled steel that changes chemical energy into 80% heat energy and 20% mechanical energy! Tell me, what device under the hood of a car, or anywhere in the car for that matter, changes heat energy into mechanical energy?


Heat is a totally different type of energy! It doesn't even correspond to work. Work is mechanical energy is MOVEMENT. Heat energy is HEAT! This isn't rocket science. Although, compared to your current "knowledge" of "science"...seeing as how you're tired of posting against me, yet continue to do so...

shit even i can answer that. remember what heat basicly is how fast the parts of an atom move(at O K they are at a dead stop) during combustion, the burning produces heat. or in other words, the atoms jump around more then a gerbil on speed. as the atoms speed up, they push away from each other. hence expansion of the the gases in the combustion chamber. the expanding gas push the cylinder down on the power stroke. how did you think a engine produces power?

Originally Posted by buickmastermind

"The use of water injection is invaluable to engines where required. They drastically reduce intake temps for a denser mixture, allows for more controlled combustion and... well, honestly I can't remember the rest, but efficiency of getting more energy from the gasoline is not its most direct by-product. The water is completely inert in combustion. Its benefits are strictly physical, not chemical."
Really? So why is water injected into some racing motors if it affords no chemical benefits? Water is completely innert in combustion, and prevents it. However, water vapors are a different story. VAPORS CAN IGNITE. Simple.

hehehe if water vapors can ignite why do firemen spray water in the air to a fire? and why don't swimming pools and water park have no smoking signs required?

anyway they use water injection so they can run lower octane on higher compression engines. it is detonation control not a power increaser. read:
http://home.att.net/~alkycontrol/page8.htm

[buickmastermind]

A motors specific purpose is to create mechanical energy, not heat energy. That is what I have been trying to say. Eliminate as much excess heat as possible to increase the efficiency of the motor. In our current motors, we burn gas. Heat from the spark plug is used to create mechanical energy. My point is that almost all of the heat energy that burning fuel creates is useless! Any energy that is needed to burn the fuel is supplied by the spark plug. That is why water vapors, which react to gas vapors, need to be supplied to produce the natural gasses and methanol. That is also a secondary purpose of water vapor in racing engines.

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by buickmastermind

"There is no such thing as a difference between a "burning" combustion and an "explosive" combustion"

Wow. Explosions are the same thing as burning. NOT.

Explosions take place because of combustion. In social terms (the ones found in dictionaries) Explosion is a more descriptive word for combustion. If you follow the dictionary's description you could say that intercourse and sex are different things. The dictionary here is talking about exploding trees. The bottom line is that explosions come about by combustion. Explosion is a term we use to describe violent combustion.

"Nitrogycerin burns quickly"
Never heard of "nitrogycerin", and I have yet to see proof that NitrogLycerin burns. It explodes.

My sincerest apologies that in a twelve paragraph respectful response I missed a single letter. The fact of the matter is, nitrogLycerin combusts. If you wish to argue scientific fact, please provide your proof in the space provided below. If you have proof that the NitrogLycerin molecule reacts with oxygen in a different way than paper, please enlighten us all.

"Remove heat from combustion, which in turn makes the engine hotter and requires greater cooling capacity"
Wait a second here. Removing heat from an object makes it hotter? So much for the laws of conservation of energy that you speak so highly of.

No, removing heat from the combustion places it somewhere else. Heat happens. If you remove it from combustion, it has to be somewhere else. If you remove it from the "explosion", where does it go? Into the fourth dimension? NO. It goes into the coolant. Hence why you haven't understood a word I've said. It is a chemical fact that heat exists. In one of my earlier posts, I said the HEAT and TEMPERATURE were two different things. Let my try ONE MORE TIME to explain this to you like a child. If you have a cylinder of air at STP (that's standard temperature and pressure) and you compress it by half of its volume, the temperature goes up. Remember PV=nrT and the Adiabatic model we used? Did you add temperature? NO, you added NOTHING. You compressed the heat that you had into a smaller area, increasing its temperature. Its the same reason that any aerosol can feels cold when its contents are dispelled. Adiabatic cooling and heating. You have to think of heat as a PIECE of energy, not like a hot summer day.

Don't try to think of heat as temperature. Temperature is the net result of heat in minus heat out, or Delta +H minus Delta -H. If the engine gives the coolant 200 joules of heat and the cooling system is capble of removing 180 joules, the system will slowly increase in temperature regardless of the fact that its not giving it any more heat.

Even more remedial terms....... Imagine HEAT as a hot rock in a room. There is a fixed amount of HEAT. It gives its heat to the air in the room. All things left alone, you will have a certain temperature in the room based on the heat that is in the rock. Now shrink the room to half its size. You haven't changed the amount of HEAT in the room, but its a higher temperature. If you had taken chemistry you would have been taught these terms.

... And one more try. Let's say you have a bucket with a hole in the bottom that is capable of leaking 10 gallons per minute. (gpm). If you add 10 gpm to the bucket, it stays at the same level. If you add more, it overflows. If you add less it drains. Heat and temperature works the same way. Heat is the water you add. Temperature is the amount of water in the bucket. Add HEAT faster than it can release it and the TEMPERATURE rises.

"The bottom line is that the energy given off is not something you can play with. The combustion of gasoline and oxygen gives off heat... "
True, which is why mixing the gasoline with water is done, so you can produce Methanol and natural gasses. Natural gasses: gasses found in nature. The explosion of these gasses gives off way, way, way less heat.

If you still think that mixing water (an inert compound) combines with gasoline to make "natural" gasses, then this argument is finished. Water mixes with NOTHING in the engine, except maybe the iron to make Fe2O3. Before you argue this again, consider this. Regardless of what you put in, you get the same thing out. If you put carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen into the equation, you get C, H, and O, OUT of the equation. Also, if you think Methanol with 12,755 BTUs gives off less energy than gasoline with 11,875 BTUs you are sorely mistaken. You also seem to think that gasoline is less "natural" than natural gas. They are all hydrocarbons and produce heat and other shit. Just because its natural doesn't make it clean. When the Exxon tanker Valdez ran aground and dumped all of its crude oil (the most natural form of hydocarbon possible, fresh out of the ground) did the animals play in it and thank heaven that was given the Black Manna of life? Nature also makes Pit Vipers and Scorpions.

"The reason combustion engines use compression before ignition is because it increases T (temperature) without raising heat."
How do you increase the temperature without raising heat? This is one of the mysteries of the scientifically uneducated mind.

I refuse to enter this battle again. See above. If you can't distinguish between heat and temperature from my extensive explanations, then you are just not going to get it. If you add 200 joules of heat to the air in your room, it may increase temperature a couple degrees. If you add 200 joules of heat to an aluminum can, it would melt. The can's TEMPERATURE would be much higher despite the fact that you added the same amount of HEAT. You don't "raise" heat, you can add or subrtract it. Heat makes temperature, not the other way around. This "uneducated mind" has completed four undergraduate degrees, two of which are in Chemistry and Biochemistry, eight years of University tenure, and twenty years experience in automotive repair and customization. If you want to seriously go up against my "uneducated mind" you better come at me with something other than your inability to discern between a form of energy energy and the way it is measured. You increase temperature without adding heat about 2000 times per minute on the highway inside your engine.

"Its this very reason that Aluminum headed engines make less power than iron headed ones"
Hey, World, let's all put iron heads on our motors so we can get more power! So, the faster I absorb heat, the more power I create...Yet again, one of the mysteries of the scientifically uneducated mind.

I dare you to post your findings at www.eng-tips.com . This is an engineering forum comprised of the greatest minds in metallurgy, engineering, automotive design, and developmental theory. It is a proven mathematical, thermological, and physical fact that, all things equal, an aluminum headed engine makes less power than an iron headed engine. The reason aluminum is desirable is that you can raise compression without pre-ignition problems and reap the benefits of higher compression... like I said in the last post... to take advantage of the Delta +H, airflow, and efficiency that higher compression affords. I have some iron headed engines in my stable, and some aluminum. They serve different purposes. If you say I have an uneducated mind again, I'll personally track you down and smash your face in.

And again...If you don't create the huge amount of extra heat (which requires energy, not supplies it) in the first place, you don't have to dissipate it in the radiator! Wow. Science at work.

So what are you saying? making heat REQUIRES energy???? Combustion provides the heat in this equation. And again, if you had read my post instead of argumentatively skimming it, you would see that combustion creates heat. You can't get around it. Not unless you're God and I doubt that. Combustion makes heat. It doesn't matter how you get rid of it, its there.

"In fact, adding heat increases efficiency. The term chemical equation is just that; an equation. If you add something to one side, you'll get more out on the other side. Adding ENERGY before combustion in an engine (in our case, adding T) means you'll get more energy in general during and after combustion."
This equation you're talking about is referring to applications that have the primary purpose of turning one form of energy into heat energy. If a motors primary purpose is to create heat, how did Ford discover that a motor can propel something? Accident? The motor was created to produce mechanical energy.

NO NO NO. This equation I'm talking about is a chemical mathematical FACT. Its not something that changes with application. We chose gasoline for its combustion properties in engines. We chose CNG for its properties in home heating and cooking. We chose paper to light our campfires because of its properties..... NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. We CAN'T change the properties of how gasoline burns by just cooling it down with water. Ford didn't discover shit. He took some designs by several other builders of IC engines and put them in his vehicles. Learn your automotive history.

Really? So why is water injected into some racing motors if it affords no chemical benefits? Water is completely innert in combustion, and prevents it. However, water vapors are a different story. VAPORS CAN IGNITE. Simple.

Holy s#!t. If you think that water vapor BURNS in an engine then you are nothing short of delusional. You also have obviously never taken a single chemistry class, or you would know the difference between a chemical reaction and a physical one. I'm only going to say this one more time... water offers no chemical reaction to the air/fuel mixture being drawn into the engine. It is INERT, which means non-reactive in the parameters of the engine dynamics.

Combustion is NOT an explosion.

So you're saying in combustion, things combine with oxygen, but in an explosion they aren't??? Throwing a match in a bucket of gasoline and the resultant flame is combustion. Igniting vaporized gasoline and air is an explosion. Are they different? I think not. They are both combining a fuel with oxygen.

Gasoline is a mixture of hydrocarbons. You just said that it is not practical to produce hydrocarbons. That is what gasoline is. That is why we break the gasoline molecule down, to get at the more practical gasses.

Even if your fantasy existed, it doesn't matter how you break it down, you still have the same stuff in the combustion chamber. If you offer H, C, and O to the equation, you get H, C, and O out of the equation. You can't magically make atoms and molecules disappear during combustion. If you offer H2O along with H, C, and O, after combustion you get H2O, H, C, and O. Its not rocket science. What goes in must come out.

So, you are saying that the injector on the 2.2l v4 used in the Chevy Cavalier, which happens to be the SAME injector used in both the 3.4l v6 and the 5.2l v8, shoots less gasoline into the motor than the injector on a larger motor?! I think not.

Actually, yes. First of all, I think you mean 5.3L, and second, you fail to take into consideration fuel pressure and pulsewidth. Secondly, although they could be, they are NOT the same injector. Same case, different pintle and valve. Don't have the g/l numbers with me, but they flow more on the 3.4.

The injector is calibrated to shoot the correct amount of fuel in a stream, so it lands in one place and cannot evaporate quickly enough. The only way to get the liquid to go into the cylinder is to aim it directly at the back of the valve opening. Some of the gas vaporizes, yes, but there are no evaporated water molecues there at that point to react with them, and the supercarburated process can occur normally.

Good lord we're stretching here. First of all, the injector never fires a stream. It fires an incredibly fine mist which does a much better job of atomizing than a carburetor ever could. Saying that the evaporated water reacts with it is just... well, idiotic.

Actually, a book that is copywrited in 2002 is not thirty years old. The first edition was published in 1981. Updating to the xth edition doesn't change the scientific fact behind it.

uhh... actually it does. In 1981 we still taught the two-kingdom Biological paradigm. In fact since 1985 we've gone to the FIVE-kingdom system. Scientific frontiers are advancing daily. I also happen to know that your chemical evidence would not be found in your book. I took Chemistry in 1981 and it wasn't that way then.

It is lead-based not in the sense that it is built around a lead atom, but its purpose is meant to duplicate the leads function in the gasoline. That function is to react with water vapors so that the water vapors cannot react to the gasoline.

Oooh, backpedaling... sexy. Girls like that. Its lead... no wait, its not lead. It reacts with water... no wait, it cannot react to gasoline. Before you post again, please; for the love of all that's holy, read back over your own posts and explain your own inconsistancies.

I am not being retarded. If a motor ran @ 100% efficeincy, I would be getting 233 mpg. Running at about 89% efficeincy is what produces the 200 mpg estimate. So, chemistry only applies in a chemistry laboratory? And you were calling me a moron...

By what paradigm do you assume a 100% efficient motor gets 233 mpg??? Is that in a light car with a conservative driver and a 2.35 final drive ratio, or a heavy car with a racer and a 4.10 final drive? Is that at sea level, or in Colorado? Is that with Gasoline/Ethanol, or just straight gasoline? Is that with moderate or high compression? What cam and how much overlap? Is the transmission automatic or manual? At what efficency is the transmission rated? What size tires? How wide of a tire and what is the inflation pressure? How many people in the car? Mountainous terrain or flat? Dry or Humid? Running the lights or not? What's the amperage rating of the alternator? What is the coefficient of drag? Serpentine belt or v-belt? Overdriven water pump or underdriven? Smog equipment or none? What type of intake; dual plane, single plane, 360, 180, tunnel ram, large runner, short runner, isolated from oil or no? What size of engine? What is the reciprocating weight and its RPM range? What weight of oil and is it controlled with anti-roping agents, a crank scraper, or a windage tray? What oil pressure? What tolerances are you running on the bearings? Roller valvetrain or flat tappet? Torrington thrust bearings or a button? Timing chain or belt? OHV or not? Thermostat temperature? ECU or carb tuning settings? This is but a tiny list of factors that affect MPG.

Ever heard of the terms open and closed loop operations? If you are Canadian, then you can say no. If you work on cars, you had better know what they are. Why do you think the motor idles higher at start-up? To create more heat faster, twit.

No, dipstick. It idles higher at idle because of the richer mixture. Ever hear of fuel puddling and fuel shear? The walls of the intake are colder and tend to condense fuel. This is all but eliminated in EFI since it directs the fuel at a point that it is difficult to puddle. None of my EFI cars have a fast cold idle... and by the way, open and closed loop operation is the same in Canada and US. It has nothing to do with geography (that means where you are on the globe) its about temperature of the test equipment, namely the O2 sensor.... at which point it calibrates injector pulsewidth from the Lamdba values it gets from the O2 sensor. I guess you didn't plan on my knowing more about closed loop than you do. Sorry.

Ask the resident double chem major why vaporized H2O reacts with the other three atoms to form CH3OH. Not me.

You may ask me... IT DOESN'T

Heat is a totally different type of energy! It doesn't even correspond to work. Work is mechanical energy is MOVEMENT. Heat energy is HEAT! This isn't rocket science. Although, compared to your current "knowledge" of "science..

Heat IS energy. Energy IS work. Work is NOT ALWAYS mechanically expressed. They all dance constantly and we merely harness it in an engine.

Listen, you started with an egregious post (that means "really bad") and I reacted with flames. In hindsight I felt bad about it, thinking that you were just misled and I publicly apologized. You acknowledged with a kind response. I then posted with respect and knowledge to maybe clear the water, which you repaid with animosity and name-calling. So, I guess you win. Let's write a new chemistry and physics textbook in which removing heat doesn't reduce temperature, completely inert compounds randomly react with huge complex hydrocarbons, and water burns when its converted to vapor. We'll be ranked right up there with Ron L. Hubbard. It will be a great comedy for scientists.

I propose the following three options:

1) If you are so certain of your data, post it at www.eng-tips.com and see what the most discerning minds in automotive engineering have to say. Trust me, I monitor those forums, so I'll see it. If you are right on your topics, I'll personally rent a billboard here in L.A. publicly apologizing for my terrible 8-year education.
2) Just come clean now. I understand the forum sociology. I helped design several. Once you start on a path, you have to stick with it or face the humiliation of the public, right? I've actually been there multiple times. There are only a few of us involved in this topic, so why don't we just take a step back and get our tetosterone in check. We're adults, right?
3) Just quit posting this stuff.

How 'bout it guys... want to just agree to disagree? Its obvious we're not going to change buick's mind, so lets just go our separate ways.

I for one am out of it. I've spoken my peace, but I don't like the nasty tone this thread has taken. Wanna meet for a beer? I'm buying!

Curtis

[Evil Result]

I felt as though Buick was trying to convert me to the dark side of chemical theory, through some sort of hypnotic suggestion.

When he said he didn't know how an Otto engine converts heat energy into mechanical energy...i though to myself wow he must be playing with us getting us all pissed off because nobody could be that dumb unless their trying because i'v never heard anybody who could speak normally like Buick state such ridiculous information and try to back it up against educated individuals..... but i'm shure we know Buick dosen't have an education because he dosen't seem to know anything that he talking about.

ok off to school to for my Mechanical Engineering class...

[CBFryman]

huh? Hey! im in High School and i understand more of this stuff than buick. Electricity is Measured in Joules per seconds and heat is measuted in joules. so there fore they cant be related? WTF? if i apply 200 joules of energy over a period of 1 seconds it equal to 200watts. heat and electricity arent related, lmao. that is why you get a 2000w RMS amplifier and let it run for a little while then put you hand on the heat sink. oh thats right the extra JOULES of energy make it warm. But i agree with curtis73. Buick will never realize is contradictions to his self and modern chemistry and physics. so hey you buy the beer and no one calls the cops and ill drink it till i puke that is...

[CBFryman]

Oh and what happened to Sabb? he has a few degress, either that or he just knows his stuff...him and myself have had a few arguements untill ive realized that he knows just a tad (ya right, "just a tad" ) more than myself.

PS
Buick, ya might wanna come to me to get a real stereo installed in that Buick, with A/C. very nice.