Searching \ for '[EE] Simple fuel-saver, so they say' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=simple+fuel+saver
Search entire site for: 'Simple fuel-saver, so they say'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Simple fuel-saver, so they say'
2007\06\27@053601 by Jinx

face picon face
I saw this advertised on TV today by a NZ motoring retail
chain (Repco)

http://www.hiclone.co.nz/

Interesting that it was the only item in the ad accompanied
by "100% money-back guarantee", although that could be
just repeating Hiclone's policy and not intended to imply
any dubious claims

It seems too good to be true (always a red flag). By simply
swirling the air going into the carburettor, 13-15% fuel savings
and more power, as reported by customers

I'd like to believe it, but is this yet another leg-pull ? And it
doesn't look like $169 worth either, although what does
"worth mean"

When I first heard the name, Magnetronic, I thought, 'allo,
what's all this then. But the name has seemingly nothing to
with the BS, and proven BS at that, fuel savers that claim
magnets do something magical to petrol

I'm not a motor engineer, but if it's as easy as a little time with
some thin sheet metal and a pair of snips, wouldn't it be more
common, even mandatory, on motor engines ? I know that
carburettors evolve, but 15% improvement in one go with a
few vanes ?

2007\06\27@055738 by Jinx

face picon face
Identical to "patented" Hiclone

http://tornadofuelsaver.com/

Sigh, sucked in again

Someone took the trouble to compare

http://www.salemboysauto.com/tornado.htm

Found a few others, all say the same. Junk

www.toyota-4runner.org/showthread.php?s=414d8ec9bbdf1e61c8061d7e215e0
b16&postid=212735

I can't imagine how much more mixing one of these simple
vortex things could do AFTER a turbo-charger

2007\06\27@060416 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


{Quote hidden}

If it looks too good to be true, it probably is...

They don't work, as most reasonably intelligent people would suspect.  A car magazine over here tested a very simmilar product, and measured only power loss.  With the amount of swirl/tumble given to the mixture as it goes through the inlet of port of a cylinder, stiring the air a little bit at the air intake is simply not going to do anything (a fart in a hurricane springs to mind).  If it did, you'd expect with the millions of $'s of research they spend, that car manufacturers would have adopted this years ago.  If something that could literaly be made for a few cents could even give a fraction of the claimed benefits, they would be fitting them.

It's quite incredible just how many snake oil products exist in the automotive sector.  Do people become more guilible after buying a car?

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2007\06\27@062136 by Jinx

face picon face
> Do people become more guilible after buying a car ?

I very nearly did. After being carless for many many years
and ready to get one back on the road, my ears perked up.
Now I'll take a step back and a deep breath before reaching
for the $$

Most instructive for saving money were 3 demos

Jeremy Clarkson's London-Edinburgh-London trip in a V8
on one tank of diesel and similar tests on the track by both
Mythbusters and a NZ motoring program. You can save
substantially by driving conservatively, including reducing
drag (windows and tailgate up) and weight (didn't Top Gear
calculate it costs UKP6 a year to haul a moustache around ?)



2007\06\27@090910 by Goflo

picon face

---- Jinx <joecolquittspamKILLspamclear.net.nz> wrote:
> I know that
> carburettors evolve, but 15% improvement in one go with a
> few vanes ?

Carburettor? You're kidding - What's got a carb on it these days?

Jack

2007\06\27@095019 by Neil Baylis

picon face
On 6/27/07, Michael Rigby-Jones <.....Michael.Rigby-JonesKILLspamspam.....bookham.com> wrote:
>
>
> It's quite incredible just how many snake oil products exist in the automotive sector.  Do people become more guilible after buying a car?
>

Even worse is the high end audio sector.

2007\06\27@100947 by Tony Smith

picon face
> ---- Jinx <EraseMEjoecolquittspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTclear.net.nz> wrote:
> > I know that
> > carburettors evolve, but 15% improvement in one go with a
> few vanes ?
>
> Carburettor? You're kidding - What's got a carb on it these days?
>
> Jack


My bike has four of them.  I'm not quite sure why someone decided to put
four carbs on a four cylinder 600cc motor, but anyway.  At least the 250
only has one.  (And no fuel filter as standard, you be surprised at the tiny
size a bit of grit needs to be to jam the float)

Not a good example, btw.  Bikes tend to be conservative in their design.
Anything 'odd' rarely lasts a model or two.  Hey, it works, people buy them,
why change?  (I think I just described Harley Davidsons business plan.)

Tony

2007\06\27@104119 by Ling SM

picon face
>>It's quite incredible just how many snake oil products exist in the automotive sector.  Do people become more guilible after buying a car?
>>
> Even worse is the high end audio sector.

My perception that these "feel good" product cannot and should not have
an easy time was shattered completely after doing a simple survey among
my friends.  My gut feel is it maybe representative everywhere.  Please
prove that I am wrong from your surveys.

I am resisting to conclude that it is much EASIER to sell what people
want to believe than the real stuff that almost always offer marginal
benefits over cost.

Then again who can deny that the REAL happiness and joy many are
deriding from their super duper audio cable.  This, I don't think the
highest end HP Vector Network Analyzer can capture it.

Ling SM

2007\06\27@105030 by Tony Smith

picon face
> Most instructive for saving money were 3 demos
>
> Jeremy Clarkson's London-Edinburgh-London trip in a V8 on one
> tank of diesel and similar tests on the track by both
> Mythbusters and a NZ motoring program. You can save
> substantially by driving conservatively, including reducing
> drag (windows and tailgate up) and weight (didn't Top Gear
> calculate it costs UKP6 a year to haul a moustache around ?)


In the second round of tailgate testing, there was a rather neat
demonstration of E=MV^2, otherwise known as 'going twice as fast takes four
times the effort'.

They ran the test at ~50 MPH (55?), and used 5 gallons or so.  The next run
was at 25 MPH, and only used 1.25 gallons.  (#s might off a bit...)

They never commented on it, but it was interesting to see a 'real life'
example.

Tony

2007\06\27@115336 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
The erstwhile tin cones and now "precious metal" ones snake oil fuel
saver on the NZ market has received endorsements by a number of NZ car
clubs and motoring organisations. It doesn't save fuel but these
suckers are prepared to endorse it and help suck more victims in.




       Russell



{Quote hidden}

2007\06\27@125346 by David VanHorn

picon face
> Carburettor? You're kidding - What's got a carb on it these days?

Lawnmowers?

2007\06\27@145101 by Roy

flavicon
face

Send it to the "Fair Go" TV producers.
_______________________________________

Roy Hopkins             ZL2RJH
Tauranga
New Zealand
_______________________________________

> {Original Message removed}

2007\06\27@162720 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Sears 20" lawnmower with Briggs engine, 27 Hp. Kohler Engine available
as injected or carb. I use the Carb. for standby generator since it had
a gasoline cutoff solenoid that I could use when running other fuels.
Didn't want to get into the issues related to the cutoff with injection,
not knowing the electronics embedded.

David VanHorn wrote:
>> Carburettor? You're kidding - What's got a carb on it these days?
>>    
>
> Lawnmowers?
>  

2007\06\27@164907 by Goflo

picon face

---- Carl Denk <cdenkspamspam_OUTalltel.net> wrote:
>  27 Hp. Kohler Engine available
> as injected or carb. I use the Carb. for standby generator since it had
> a gasoline cutoff solenoid that I could use when running other fuels.

Sounds interesting -Care to elaborate?

Jack

2007\06\27@171155 by Dave Tweed

face
flavicon
face
Tony Smith <@spam@ajsmithKILLspamspamrivernet.com.au> wrote:
> > Most instructive for saving money were 3 demos
> >
> > Jeremy Clarkson's London-Edinburgh-London trip in a V8 on one
> > tank of diesel and similar tests on the track by both
> > Mythbusters and a NZ motoring program. You can save
> > substantially by driving conservatively, including reducing
> > drag (windows and tailgate up) and weight (didn't Top Gear
> > calculate it costs UKP6 a year to haul a moustache around ?)
>
> In the second round of tailgate testing, there was a rather neat
> demonstration of E=MV^2, otherwise known as 'going twice as fast
> takes four times the effort'.
>
> They ran the test at ~50 MPH (55?), and used 5 gallons or so.
> The next run was at 25 MPH, and only used 1.25 gallons.  (#s
> might off a bit...)
>
> They never commented on it, but it was interesting to see a 'real
> life' example.

That has nothing to do with e = 0.5*m*v^2 (instantaneous energy),
and everything to do with the fact that most forms of resistance
(air resistance, rolling resistance, etc.) are proportional to v^2.
This means that the total energy (work) required to travel a given
distance tends to be proportional to v^2, and the power required
(work per unit time) is proportional to v^3.

-- Dave Tweed

2007\06\27@172730 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
The 12.5KW generator is cog belt drive from engine. The engine runs
natural gas (from our own well), gasoline (175 gallon tank for vehicles
10' away)(automatic transfer to generator's 16 gallon tank), or propane
and will seamlessly
switch between any of the fuels depending what is available. A Tri-PLC
T100MD888+  manages the whole thing. The PLC programs in ladder logic
with Basic routines embedded in the rungs (circuits).  A PIC 18F1320 at
the gas well monitors well head and regulated gas pressures and
enclosure temperature. The PIC comunicates with the PLC via fiber optic
thats converted to  RS-485 in the house.

We drilled the gas well 30 years ago for $8K USD, and it is 1000' deep.
The well serves only the house, and in very cold windy weather can be
temporarily depleted, but an hour rest and it's good for a half a day again.

I'm looking for a way to comunicate 2 ways with the PLC via. phone,
probably tones to the PLC and voice out of the house. This would
probably be on the RS-485, but could go RS-232.

KILLspamgofloKILLspamspamcox.net wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\06\27@183344 by Rich

picon face
I drive with the tailgate down when I use the pickup unloaded.  It does save
fuel because up, it can scoop up enough air pressure at 50 mph to cause
significant drag.   I have seen some kind of rubber or polymer sheet on some
pickups with big holes in the sheet stretched across the back, and no
tailgate.  I assume it is intended to reduce drag but at higher speeds it
seems that perhaps some significant drag may develop to obviate the purpose.


{Original Message removed}

2007\06\27@190405 by Jinx

face picon face


> I drive with the tailgate down when I use the pickup unloaded.  It
> does save fuel because up, it can scoop up enough air pressure at
> 50 mph to cause significant drag

Mythbusters claimed that with the tailgate down, the vortex behind
the cab disappears. According to the pick-up manufacturer (smoke
trail test film), air coming over the cab roof bounces off that vortex,
resulting in less drag

http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/1997/October/05.html

As they say there, it's counter-intuitive

Not that I'm doubting your results, you know your vehicle and
have the numbers

2007\06\27@191020 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Jinx wrote:

> Jeremy Clarkson's London-Edinburgh-London trip in a V8
> on one tank of diesel and similar tests on the track by both
> Mythbusters and a NZ motoring program. You can save
> substantially by driving conservatively, including reducing
> drag (windows and tailgate up) and weight (didn't Top Gear
> calculate it costs UKP6 a year to haul a moustache around ?)

A moustache?  On your face?  (???)

Mythbusters also proved that tailgating large trucks helps a lot, but
it's a pretty horrible way to die if you don't stop when they do.  And
illegal in most places to follow closely enough to get the big gains.

Even following a large truck at "reasonable" distances at highway speeds
helps a little bit.  A nice long flat road, and a cruise control set to
the speed of the truck ahead of you, and you'll save a few bucks during
the trip... if the truck's not doing 90 MPH!  (GRIN)

Nate

2007\06\27@191209 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Ling SM wrote:

> Then again who can deny that the REAL happiness and joy many are
> deriding from their super duper audio cable.  This, I don't think the
> highest end HP Vector Network Analyzer can capture it.

Some people just want their toys at any price.  (Hey, Harley-Davidson's
business plan again!  GRIN...)

Nate

2007\06\27@191643 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Rich wrote:
> I drive with the tailgate down when I use the pickup unloaded.  It does save
> fuel because up, it can scoop up enough air pressure at 50 mph to cause
> significant drag.   I have seen some kind of rubber or polymer sheet on some
> pickups with big holes in the sheet stretched across the back, and no
> tailgate.  I assume it is intended to reduce drag but at higher speeds it
> seems that perhaps some significant drag may develop to obviate the purpose.

This is exactly what MythBusters disproved.

Having the tailgate up creates a vortex behind the cab to the rear of
the vehicle and actually creates LESS drag when the air flowing over it
of the main airstream interacts with the vortex instead of dragging
along the bed of the vehicle.  A "buffer zone" of circular air motion,
so to speak.

The various "remove the tailgate" or "leave it down" products are snake
oil. Those netting-across-the-back products were proven in the show (as
was leaving the tailgate down) to have LOWER gas mileage than leaving it up.

Do your own tests (as they recommended) scientifically if you don't
believe them, but they did a pretty good job of making the tests fair,
and tailgate up won all categories.

Nate

2007\06\27@191909 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face
Carl Denk wrote:

> We drilled the gas well 30 years ago for $8K USD, and it is 1000' deep.
> The well serves only the house, and in very cold windy weather can be
> temporarily depleted, but an hour rest and it's good for a half a day again.

How did you get the mineral rights?

Out here in the westnern U.S., you might own the land on top but not the
minerals, gas, oil, or whatever below.

Was it difficult?  Or did you just tap the gas and not care?  Or did you
have a property that also included underground mineral rights?

Just curious -- if you had to go through that process, what did it cost
for that part of the well.

Nate

2007\06\27@205806 by Jinx

face picon face
> (didn't Top Gear calculate it costs UKP6 a year to haul a
> moustache around ?)
>
> A moustache?  On your face?  (???)

Yes, that kind of moustache. Weight is fuel by their reckoning
and face fungus has weight, therefore.... Similarly get rid of the
crap in the boot, take the roof-rack off if you aren't using it etc

I guess when you add up the cumulative unnecessary tonnage
you cart around during the year it makes sense, even if it does
sound flippant. I'm sure Ferrari don't advocate wearing a diving
belt for better fuel economy ;-)

2007\06\27@212515 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
That's the same as Ohio, surface and mineral rights are 2 different items.

We made mineral rights part of the offer to purchase the 6.5 acres.
Turns out the farmer (land was winter wheat harvested day before we dug
basement) had sold mineral rights to the parts of the 500 or so acres he
owned checkerboard style (he wasn't particularly fond of the purchasing
salesman), and our particular parcel was one that had not been sold.
Mineral rights didn't cost anything, just came along with the deal. The
$8K was to the driller.

As we were building house, hired a well driller (cable tool rig) to
drill for water. 3 holes were dry, he got down about 80 feet and after
looking, feeling, and sniffing mud coming up, he said there was no
useable water down there. On the 3rd hole we started talking about gas,
an he pointe out around the horizon, a half dozen houses that had their
own gas well. We came to an agreement, the driller got the necessary
State of Ohio drilling permits (the operation was regularly inspected),
ordered casing, put a loner cable on the rig and started drilling. The
hole has 120 feet of 8" casing to case off any fresh water if any,
another 60 foot of 6" casing to case off the salt water (artesion (sp)
to within 20' of surface). Top of 8" casing has a blind bolted flange,
1.25" pipe coupling welded to side, which then takes well head pressure
(0 to 50 PSI.) to regulator down to 6" H20 pressure and on to house. The
natural gas has a dew point of water vapor around freezing. The well
head and all piping exposed to the weather must be heated in winter, an
enclosure around the well, regulator (and the PIC), heat trace tape
other spots.

Nate Duehr wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\06\27@213553 by Goflo

picon face
Knew there was a reason I kept my flak jacket....  

Not rocket science, guys - You want MPGs, slow down.
Had my nose rubbed in it driving a VW Bus for 30 years;
@35 mph 24 mpg, 55 mph 16 mpg. It'd manage 70+ mph
on the flat, but the fuel consumption was intolerable, and
a cross wind would put you in the klong, so did'nt spend
enough time in that part of the envelope to get real numbers.

Jack


---- Nate Duehr <spamBeGonenatespamBeGonespamnatetech.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> --

2007\06\27@214258 by Jinx

face picon face

> Send it to the "Fair Go" TV producers.

It seems such a blantant waste of people's time and money
I feel I should do something

2007\06\27@235009 by Jinx

face picon face
Fancy that (or this). Read the Repco catalogue again

http://www.repco.co.nz/services/cat/1.html

honestly looking for other products (new battery, seat covers),
and found that the Magnetronic piece of crap is actually a
Magnatronic piece of crap

http://www.magnatronicpr.com/FAQ.html

I will have a word with Repco (at least) about getting said crap
off their shelves

2007\06\28@002733 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Jun 27, 2007, at 2:11 PM, Dave Tweed wrote:

>> They ran the test at ~50 MPH (55?), and used 5 gallons or so.
>> The next run was at 25 MPH, and only used 1.25 gallons

> That has nothing to do with e = 0.5*m*v^2 (instantaneous energy),
> and everything to do with the fact that most forms of resistance
> (air resistance, rolling resistance, etc.) are proportional to v^2.

Interestingly, my prius (which features instantaneous and cumulative
milage reports as well as per-trip bargraphs thereof) gets significantly
better milage on mostly highway driving (~52 mpg) than it does on
neighborhood driving (25-35mph, about 40mpg.)  I surmise that the
gas usage in the neighborhood is dominated by accelerating.  The
semi-mythical 60mpg happens on long stretches of 30-45mph roads and
(surprisingly?) rush-hour freeway traffic (where there's a fair
amount of very slow acceleration to low speeds, and similarly slow
deceleration; ideal for regenerative breaking and electric accel.)

(also interesting is that the air conditioning doesn't seem to
affect milage much, but if you need HEAT, it'll run the gas engine
to create that heat, which has noticeable impact...)

BillW

2007\06\28@005344 by Rich

picon face
Interesting because I actually realized increased mileage with the TG down.
I have not modeled the air currents with "smoke" but I did fill the gas tank
and check the mileage.  I got between 3 and 5 miles per gallon better with
the tail down at different times.  I'm one of those people that saves
receipts and write the mileage down on it so when I fill the tank again I
can calculate the mileage.  But I don't do all highway driving.  I get about
20 mpg plus or minus on my V6 in 2W HD.  I never checked it in 4W HD or 4W
LD.  I only use 4W LD to pull the backhoe or trailer.
   I wonder if I were to put NTC thermistors in strategic places and pulse
them to avoid self heating error, could I collect the air flow measurements
with the TG up and TG down?  Also if I correlate the airflow at those points
with the velocity of the vehicle could I actually model the fluid
kinematics? And, if the drag is increased with the TG down to the extent
that it increases fuel consumption it would seem that additional energy
would be required from the engine; similar to turning on the head lamps or
air conditioning.  Could the tach to speed ratio be recorded in continuous
real time with the TG up versus TG down?  Of course, the delta drag may be
too insufficient to cause a measurable delta RPM.  It could be fun to do
some of this.  Just a kind of fun project with no pressure to meet a dead
line.




{Original Message removed}

2007\06\28@010020 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Mythbusters also proved that tailgating large trucks helps a lot,
> but
> it's a pretty horrible way to die if you don't stop when they do

Long long ago on a weekly intercity commute of about 70 miles I found
that if I was inside about a motorcycle length behind a large truck
then power requirements were very noticeably reduced. Fun, and much
warmer on cold nights, but hard on the nerves. Not something I did
over any great distances more than a few times as it was far too
dangerous.




           Russell






2007\06\28@011231 by Brent Brown

picon face
On 28 Jun 2007 at 15:49, Jinx wrote:

> Fancy that (or this). Read the Repco catalogue again
>
> http://www.repco.co.nz/services/cat/1.html
>
> honestly looking for other products (new battery, seat covers),
> and found that the Magnetronic piece of crap is actually a
> Magnatronic piece of crap
>
> http://www.magnatronicpr.com/FAQ.html
>
> I will have a word with Repco (at least) about getting said crap
> off their shelves

Following your lead I just sent them a message through their website. Now what
about that magnetic woolen underlay also advertised on TV...?

--
Brent Brown, Electronic Design Solutions
16 English Street, St Andrews,
Hamilton 3200, New Zealand
Ph: +64 7 849 0069
Fax: +64 7 849 0071
Cell: 027 433 4069
eMail:  TakeThisOuTbrent.brownEraseMEspamspam_OUTclear.net.nz


2007\06\28@013417 by Jinx

face picon face
> > I will have a word with Repco (at least) about getting said crap
> > off their shelves
>
> Following your lead I just sent them a message through their
> website

I've tried to speak to someone in authority at Repco but, being
advertising types, they'd already buggered off home at 4pm

Interestingly, as I passed through their phone system and explained
my complaint, all three people agreed. I wish I'd recorded them
dissing on their own product. mmm mmm

When I first called their 0800 number I got put through to a store
without realising (thought I was talking to head office), and
proceeded to give a till jockey a hard time, for which I apologised

He wanted to debate the issue, and to his credit was the only one
prepared to duke it out on behalf of the product. I'd really have
expected the reverse

He claimed that "he'd heard" of people it worked for but couldn't
substantiate that. I counter-claimed that some people say they have
invented and patented a perpetual motion machine, and asked
would he buy one for $169 ? No, he said

1-nil

My experience is that people who claim these benefits have no
hard data to support that, but those who claim they have no
benefits DO have the numbers

Supposed to be receiving a call from up top tomorrow

> Now what about that magnetic woolen underlay also advertised
> on TV...?

aaaaargh !!!!!

2007\06\28@013508 by Rich

picon face
It is interesting that many people believe that the fuel actually explodes
in the cylinder and drives the piston against the crankshaft.  That is
hardly the case.  The IC engine is a heat engine just as the steam engine is
a heat engine.  The mileage depends on the efficiency of the conversion of
fuel into heat.  The fuel-air mixture burns: it does not explode.  When the
cylinder comes up it compresses the air creating an oxygen rich environment
for the fuel mixture.  The spark causes the fuel to burn and the heat from
the oxidation of the fuel causes the fluid molecules inside the cylinder to
expand rapidly and equally in all directions.  The force acting on the
piston head from the expanding molecules is what moves the crank shaft.
   The expanding forces against the side walls of the cylinder do not
contribute to the force on the piston head and so contribute to the
inefficiency.  But the optimum fuel-air mixture for the most complete
combustion is not used (BUT in MHO it could be).  The mixture is always on
the rich side to guarantee predictable and repeatable ignition without any
dead cycles. The rich mixture is another inefficiency because it results in
less than complete combustion.  There are some other kinetic factors like
the inertial forces and migration of the mixture through the manifold, which
is why polished ports and manifolds yield more power.
   Increasing the compression would create a richer oxygen environment to
produce a hotter burn (more heat) which is the whole objective of the IC
engine.  But too much oxygen would move the process from burn to explode
which would damage the engine.  There is the real limit on mileage and
efficiency: How much heat you can get from the burn of the fuel without
exploding it.  In diesel engines the compression ratio is much higher and it
is so oxygen rich that a spark is not required to initiate the burn.  But
here, again, the efficiency limit is imposed by the rate of oxidation; too
fast and BOOM, you wrecked your engine.  The reason diesel can tolerate
higher oxygen ratios is because there is less BTU per unit volume than for
gasoline, of whatever octane.
   So to get more mileage you need to figure out how to get more heat per
unit fuel, a more complete burn and keep on the safe side of explosion.
   Now here is an interesting point.  Some people talk about alternative
energy on one side of the page and better efficiency on the other side.  So
they came up with ethanol.  Ethanol has less BTU per unit volume than
Gasoline.  To save energy they advocate mixing ethanol with the gasoline and
at some pumps it is already premixed.  Question!  How is mixing something
with less energy with something with more energy going to result in
increased efficiency, or better mileage, and so on.  The heat produced by
the burn will actually decrease, resulting on lower power.  The problem of
repeatable ignition cycles requiring a richer mixture remains.  Is it an
oxymoron?  Or is it simply a moron idea? I am baffled by it.


{Original Message removed}

2007\06\28@014331 by Cedric Chang

flavicon
face
I admire you guys for sending messages.
Cedric

{Quote hidden}

> --

2007\06\28@015446 by Rich

picon face
If you use a vacuum gage (and they sell some with mileage indicators) you
can consciously practice more efficient driving. I watch the tach and try to
keep it from spiking up quickly.  I assume that it will save by not
accelerating rapidly.


{Original Message removed}

2007\06\28@015759 by Rich

picon face
The drag issue is key issue.  If there is more drag you need more energy to
overcome it.  I would like to see the smoke test they ran.


{Original Message removed}

2007\06\28@020633 by Rich

picon face
When I was a teen, I would get behind a huge trailer truck right up close
with my little sprite.  If the truck was moving about 80 MPH I could get
pulled along for a moment or two.  But I had to be what seemed inches away.
I could not sustain the ride.  I assumed that the air dynamics were not
right or some wind interfered. It just didn't work out for me.


{Original Message removed}

2007\06\28@023233 by Jinx

face picon face
> I would like to see the smoke test they ran.

I'll dig out that episode and see about some screen grabs for you

(I really really hope the footage does have a smoke test, I'm sure
it did)

2007\06\28@030308 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Now what about that magnetic woolen underlay also advertised
>> on TV...?

> aaaaargh !!!!!

That item particularly and that sort of thing in general annoy me
greatly.

They play on the suffering of people to sell an utterly shonky profit
at exorbitant * prices.

The placebo effect, random distribution and happenstance, and an N day
money back  man that they can claim thousands of satisfied customers
and thereby continue to sell their ripoff extortionate ripoff products
to thousands more.

In the case of the "biomag" "magnetic fleece underlay" - a fleece
mattress cover with magnets imbedded, the fleece part probably does
some good for some people and makes the magnet effect or lack thereof
hard to ascertain or demonstrate. It would not be at all hard to do
double blind controlled trials if they were really interested in doing
so - but that would most certainly kill the goose that is laying their
golden eggs for them.

Maybe there's a market niche for an oxygen free copper magnetic wool
precious metal cones turbulizer? A real fleece product!

That is, fwiw, by no means the biggest con going in NZ at present. By
far the biggest ripoff that I am aware of is "retirement villages". So
well done that the vast majority of people are not aware that these
are legalised licences to ripoff people on a scale that is almost
impossible to match anywhere else. Compared to this the occasional
petty conman who charges an old person $5000, or even $15000 to paint
their fence is in a completely different (and minor) league. I suspect
that even Jinx will not initially make sense of this assertion.




           Russell


* Not that there is a price that isn't exorbitant for such products.

2007\06\28@032506 by Jinx

face picon face
part 1 386 bytes content-type:text/plain; (decoded 7bit)

> I would like to see the smoke test they ran

OK, what they did was use water flow in a tank with a model
pick-up. Oats substituted for smoke. With the tailgate up, the
oats formed a ball behind the cab and other oats flowed over
the top of that ball. With the tailgate down there was no ball

Sorry no smoke, but I knew there was a flow test





part 2 16001 bytes content-type:image/jpeg; (decode)


part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

2007\06\28@051540 by Jinx

face picon face
> >> Now what about that magnetic woolen underlay also advertised
> >> on TV...?
>
> > aaaaargh !!!!!
>
> That item particularly and that sort of thing in general annoy me
> greatly.

I'v thought about those before. Never been able to find any data
to support their claim. But note that are quite careful with those
claims. The advertising is very fuzzy about what benefits you can
expect. "may help" type of statements etc, and that's what stopped
me making a formal complaint. I think if you pursued it you might
dent their reputation, but it's not so clear-cut (to me anyway) as
advertising a product with "Guaranteed fuel savings" in big print

2007\06\28@064010 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: piclist-bouncesEraseMEspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspammit.edu]
>On Behalf Of Rich
>Sent: 28 June 2007 06:35
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [EE] Simple fuel-saver, so they say
>
>
> The expanding forces against the side walls of the cylinder do not
>contribute to the force on the piston head and so contribute to the
>inefficiency.

I'm not sure this can be true.  The very fact that the cylinder and cylinder head are present is what creates the pressure in the first place.  Exterting pressure on a static body performs no work.  What does reduce efficiency is the cylinder, head and piston absorbing heat from the burning fuel/air mixture, which is why ceramic coatings have been developed to try to reduce this (for piston and head at least).


>In diesel engines the compression ratio is much
>higher and it
>is so oxygen rich that a spark is not required to initiate the
>burn.

The reason it does not need a spark is because the heat created during compression is used instead.  This heat would also readily ignite a stoichiometric gasoline/air mixture, but the resulting burn would not be controlled, e.g. detonation.


> The reason diesel can
>tolerate
>higher oxygen ratios is because there is less BTU per unit
>volume than for
>gasoline, of whatever octane.

Diesel actually has a higher energy content than gasoline.  Also note that octane rating is not an indicator of energy content of gasoline! In fact very often the high octane fuels will have slightly lower energy density, because the additives required to increase the octane rating displace some fuel (e.g. what used to be tetra-ethyl lead many years ago).  High octane simply means that the fuel has improved resistance to detonation, so a higher compression ratio can be used to extract more energy from the fuel.

The reason that very weak (i.e. excess oxygen) mixtures can be ignited in a diesel is because they do not rely on a small spark located at one point in the combustion chamber, instead the fuel is injected into the compressed and heated air and starts burning immediately.  In a gasoline engine, the mixture has to have enough fuel for the spark to initiate combustion.  This is why stratified charge engines have been developed, this creates a small fuel rich mixture around the spark plug, surrounded by a larger volume of weak mixture.  Once the rich mixture is ignited, the flame front will happily propagate through the weaker regions. The GDI engines that e.g. Mitsubishi have developed rely on this.

Note that the actual mixture ratio in a diesel varies considerably over the engines operating range because it not throttled, i.e. the volumetric efficiency is more or less constant, only the amount of fuel injected varies.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2007\06\28@085328 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Interesting because I actually realized increased mileage with the TG down.

Perhaps you should consider the sports cars that have a wind screen behind
the seats for top down running - the effect is quite dramatic if a long
haired person is sitting in the seat, with the screen not present their hair
gets blown all over the place, with the screen up it is controllable.

2007\06\28@092703 by Tony Smith

picon face
> Supposed to be receiving a call from up top tomorrow
>
> > Now what about that magnetic woolen underlay also
> advertised on TV...?
>
> aaaaargh !!!!!


Today I encountered a woman who refused to keep stuff in the office fridge.
The reason was that it was covered magnets.  Now this just isn't logical, as
everyone knows magnets are good for you (except electromagnets, which emit
electricity, radiation and bad vibes.)  Her home fridge had none, which is
why she was so healthy & happy.  I guess the milk didn't get polarised or
something.

You could hear the neurons in her head grinding against each other when I
showed her how a fridge door seal works...  :)

Tony

2007\06\28@094831 by Goflo

picon face

---- Tony Smith <RemoveMEajsmithEraseMEspamEraseMErivernet.com.au> wrote:
> Today I encountered a woman who refused to keep stuff in the office fridge.
> The reason was that it was covered magnets.  Now this just isn't logical, as
> everyone knows magnets are good for you (except electromagnets, which emit
> electricity, radiation and bad vibes.)  Her home fridge had none, which is
> why she was so healthy & happy.  I guess the milk didn't get polarised or
> something.
>
> You could hear the neurons in her head grinding against each other when I
> showed her how a fridge door seal works...  :)

ROTFL...

I'm well acquainted with one of her soul sisters - See if I can get
up the nerve to show her your post...   :)

Jack

2007\06\28@100350 by David VanHorn

picon face
> You could hear the neurons in her head grinding against each other when I
> showed her how a fridge door seal works...  :)

Did you tell her she's living on an enormously powerful magnet whose
field reaches out thousands of miles into space?

2007\06\28@101314 by Jinx

face picon face
> Did you tell her she's living on an enormously powerful magnet
> whose field reaches out thousands of miles into space ?

I'm so fed-up with these wretched people who select facts to
suit their bias/prejudice/hippy leanings. And they won't be told
will they, because it unsettles them and they take it personally

My all-time favourite description of them is from the B***s**t
series. Penn Jillette's, and I apologise profusely beforehand, but
he does it just so well - "Then there's THIS asshole"

2007\06\28@101445 by Peter P.

picon face
Rich <rgrazia1 <at> rochester.rr.com> writes:

> combustion is not used (BUT in MHO it could be).  The mixture is always on
> the rich side to guarantee predictable and repeatable ignition without any
> dead cycles. The rich mixture is another inefficiency because it results in
> less than complete combustion.  There are some other kinetic factors
> like

Most modern engines run super-lean and recirculate exhaust to mitigate the
detonation (this reduce oxygen % and thus flame speed).

>     Increasing the compression would create a richer oxygen environment to
> produce a hotter burn (more heat) which is the whole objective of the IC
> engine.  But too much oxygen would move the process from burn to explode
> which would damage the engine.  There is the real limit on mileage and  

A suitable ECU can cope with 100% oxygen (see above). The cylinder
metallurgy cannot cope with 100% oxygen.

> efficiency: How much heat you can get from the burn of the fuel without
> exploding it.  In diesel engines the compression ratio is much higher and it
> is so oxygen rich that a spark is not required to initiate the burn. But  
> here, again, the efficiency limit is imposed by the rate of oxidation; too
> fast and BOOM, you wrecked your engine.  The reason diesel can tolerate
> higher oxygen ratios is because there is less BTU per unit volume than for
> gasoline, of whatever octane.

Actually Diesel fuel has higher BTU/cu. ft than Otto, precisely because of
higher compression. And Diesel can cope with 100% oxygen with
recirculation as above. The reason Diesel is more efficient is the higher
compression and the different burn characteristics of heavy fuel (it won't
really detonate). The same increase in efficiency reduces the heat load on  
the cylinder and allows more boost. The metallurgy is the actual limiting  
factor for Diesel boost, as anyone running tuned Diesels will tell you,  
there is no such thing as too much boost for a Diesel, but melting the
engine or making the exhaust glow red hot is a definite possibility.

High efficiency compound power stations use a blown Diesel followed by
reheat and a steam turbine to reach very high efficiencies. Alternatively
a gas turbine is used instead of the Diesel.

{Quote hidden}

It is an oxy (pun!) moron, and the joke is on the buyer. Ethanol is
'pre-oxydized'. Fuel is sold by the gallon but it should be sold by the  
pound (weight) or more exactly, by the BTU, converted to weight. All
professional fuel measurements are in lbs/hr (or HP or mile or kW such) at
given BTU (or equivalent kg/hr). Also ALL bulk fuel sales are by lbs or
tons. There is no such thing as selling by the gallon excepting for the
suckered end customer. Even when bulk barrels are sold temperature is
accounted for to arrange for the amount in bulk barrels at STP. The reason  
is that fuel varies in volume, with temperature, besides having various
BTU grades. When one buys gas in winter one buys more gas by weight per
gallon than in summer. The difference is large enough that it can wipe out
smaller effects (like economizers and engine tuning).

The current way to sell fuel by the gallon regardless of temperature while
leaving the makers to 'blend' it as they see fit is a license to steal
imho. Meanwhile the state authorities that tax fuel tax it happily by the
gallon regardless of density and BTU content. Switching to E85 increases
tax income (at the same tax rate) by up to 30% for the same mileage. So if  
E85 would get a '10% tax break' then the tax authority would still gain by
a large margin.


Ethanol mixed into gas (specifically E85 and the like) is effectively a
hole in the consumer's pocket and liable to bring a bad name to Ethanol
fuel. Not only does the gas prevent the engine to be compressed up to 15:1
as pure ethanol and ethanol/water (incidentally W85 defined as 85% ethanol
and 15% water would be a workable fuel) would, but it adds all the
problems of limited storage time (if any water gets in E85 the fuel will
separate) and reduces the BTU thus increasing consumption by the gallon    
gauge by up to 30%, as recently compared by an auto magazine's independent
testing. A boon for the taxman and for fuel Co's, and a bad name for
Ethanol. With this the taxman and the fuel co's hit two rabbits with
somebody else's bullet imho.

A fair way to sell fuel is by BTU, specified by mass (lbs or kgs). This    
deletes the temperature effect and even makes E85 comparisons fair since  
the price should reflect $/BTU and not the treacherous $/gallon (or
liter).

And to run an engine on ethanol, one runs it on 100% ethanol or 85-95%
ethanol + water + nitrous or such, at 15:1 and higher (possible with
exhaust recirculation) compression, where the added efficiency by  
compression increase more than compensates for the lower BTU/lb (not
gallon!) of ethanol. In fact, to be fair, car mileage should be given in
miles/BTU (or miles/kWh or equivalent). That would allow electric and      
other cars to be compared too, and would be a direct measure of
efficiency.

And, incidentally, CO2 exhaust, 'green footprint' etc is also related to
fuel mass and type, not volume. Look up any chemical reaction and you'll
see that *everyone* balances reactions by mass, not by volume, from 9th
grade on at least. That makes suckers who buy fuel by volume in summer
less intelligent than 9th graders imho.

And if you think I'm just babbling, read about a lawsuit in Utah that      
tries to force authorities to make gas retailers add temperature
compensation to gas pumps:

 http://www.petrolworld.com/news/northamerica/?
 guid=66adf828-8350-45b1-bc56-918b7d8fbd84

(paste on 1 line)

Oops.

Peter P.





2007\06\28@103551 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> You could hear the neurons in her head grinding against each other
> when I
> showed her how a fridge door seal works...  :)


But, the door seal probably has a crystal lining over the magnets.


       Russell

2007\06\28@105423 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> You could hear the neurons in her head grinding against each other when I
>> showed her how a fridge door seal works...  :)
>
>Did you tell her she's living on an enormously powerful magnet
>whose field reaches out thousands of miles into space?

Hmm, went to a talk this morning here at work where details were presented
about this scheme that is afoot to do a "Star Trek" style shield from solar
radiation for planetary travellers.

Apparently they reckon only about 50nT is needed to shield you from the
plasma ejections from the sun ...

2007\06\28@112629 by Edward King

flavicon
face
Hi!

Ive just finished a contract during which I did some work using a GSM module
that does everythign you're wanting. Would you like me to forward the
details on to you or have you an alternative in mind?

Edward


{Original Message removed}

2007\06\28@121423 by alan smith

picon face
I've heard the opposite.....that it causes the air pressure to not flow over the truck if the tailgate is down.  I've never seen any difference in my truck up or down

Rich <RemoveMErgrazia1spam_OUTspamKILLspamrochester.rr.com> wrote:  I drive with the tailgate down when I use the pickup unloaded. It does save
fuel because up, it can scoop up enough air pressure at 50 mph to cause
significant drag. I have seen some kind of rubber or polymer sheet on some
pickups with big holes in the sheet stretched across the back, and no
tailgate. I assume it is intended to reduce drag but at higher speeds it
seems that perhaps some significant drag may develop to obviate the purpose.


{Original Message removed}

2007\06\28@133427 by Matthew Mucker

flavicon
face
Also, in the case of an accident, the vehicle has a lot more structural
integrity with the tailgate up.

{Original Message removed}

2007\06\28@145121 by Peter P.

picon face
<goflo <at> cox.net> writes:
> Not rocket science, guys - You want MPGs, slow down.
> Had my nose rubbed in it driving a VW Bus for 30 years;
>  <at> 35 mph 24 mpg, 55 mph 16 mpg. It'd manage 70+ mph
> on the flat, but the fuel consumption was intolerable, and
> a cross wind would put you in the klong, so did'nt spend
> enough time in that part of the envelope to get real numbers.

Hehe, the early VW buses had a reputation for having the 'aerodynamics of
a brick'

 http://www.vwbusstop.demon.nl/bushistory/

Later there were spoiler kits and the like to improve it. Of course driving
slower reduces aerodynamic loss but while one's at it one may switch to
non-balloon tyres and run them at max. allowed pressure (not in summer) and tune
the engine to run better at low power with leaner mixture (plugs and timing), as
well as change the transmission oil to the lightest possible.

Peter P.


2007\06\28@152549 by Goflo

picon face

> Hehe, the early VW buses had a reputation for having the 'aerodynamics of
> a brick'

Later ones were'nt much better - Similar to pushing a barn door
mounted to the front fender down the road.  :) One learns patience.
24 mpg not too bad for a 1 ton truck, though.

> Later there were spoiler kits and the like to improve it.

Mostly made things worse.

> Of course driving
> slower reduces aerodynamic loss but while one's at it one may switch to
> non-balloon tyres and run them at max. allowed pressure (not in summer) and tune
> the engine to run better at low power with leaner mixture (plugs and timing), as
> well as change the transmission oil to the lightest possible.

Some of these work, although early 70s models were jetted so lean
(for the US market) that fuel economy actually improved by richening
up a bit, allowing one to drive in a higher gear in many situations.
4-into-1 headers were worth a couple mpg too, as well as better top
end, a rare change with no real down side.

Jack

2007\06\28@185301 by Jinx

face picon face
> I admire you guys for sending messages.
> Cedric

Thanks Cedric. I really do want garbage like this off the market,
partly because, like most people, I'm basically honest, and very
honest when it comes to claims about my own products. To
claim and guarantee that magnets save fuel is very dishonest

Repco are a big chain, by Australasian standards, and they
should be more careful. For a company that says "Cars are our
life too" you'd think they should have taken some notice of fuel-
saver debunkings, specifically in NZ wrt to magnets, the AA,
Consumer Magazine, and even the NZ Government

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/daily/2000/0822.shtml

The shop assistant I spoke to yesterday would have done his
job and sold me one. I don't know whether he actually believed
what he was saying. And maybe he doesn't today after the ear-
ache I gave him ;-)) !! Is selling things his whole job ? I don't
think so. But he can't question the company products either (my
niece is a "secret shopper" and might report people like him)

That a product is advertised as "money-back, no questions" is
no defense against selling it in the first place. Money-back is
covered by law anyway. What irks me is that some customers
will not return it, for various reasons, but that doesn't mean
they're satisfied. It's just too much bother, or whatever. More
fool them, but that encourages the scammers and probably, by
the dodgy logic that goes with their dodgy science, validates
the product further

We shall see what the day delivers

2007\06\28@224442 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Jun 28, 2007, at 8:03 AM, David VanHorn wrote:

>> You could hear the neurons in her head grinding against each other  
>> when I
>> showed her how a fridge door seal works...  :)
>
> Did you tell her she's living on an enormously powerful magnet whose
> field reaches out thousands of miles into space?

Sounds like the next Christmas Secret Santa party you need to get her  
a real magnetic compass for a present.

Then ask her to hold it up to the earpiece of her desk telephone.

That oughta freak her out beyond belief...  :-)

--
Nate Duehr
RemoveMEnateTakeThisOuTspamspamnatetech.com



2007\06\28@224950 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Jun 27, 2007, at 11:54 PM, Rich wrote:

> If you use a vacuum gage (and they sell some with mileage  
> indicators) you
> can consciously practice more efficient driving. I watch the tach  
> and try to
> keep it from spiking up quickly.  I assume that it will save by not
> accelerating rapidly.

I swear I read a study somewhere that talked about the desired  
behavior is actually to accelerate as hard and quickly as possible to  
reach cruise speed quicker.

Heh heh... or was that just my lead foot talking?

--
Nate Duehr
EraseMEnatespamspamspamBeGonenatetech.com



2007\06\28@230321 by David VanHorn

picon face
> Some of these work, although early 70s models were jetted so lean
> (for the US market) that fuel economy actually improved by richening
> up a bit, allowing one to drive in a higher gear in many situations.
> 4-into-1 headers were worth a couple mpg too, as well as better top
> end, a rare change with no real down side.

My toyota celica, which I installed instant and avg mpg metering in,
got best mileage at 62, and benefitted a lot from shutting down the
exhaust gas recirculation and lowering the idle to about 700 rpm.
Stoplights and sitting in traffic is 0 MPG.

2007\06\29@165603 by Jeff Findley

flavicon
face

"Jinx" <RemoveMEjoecolquittKILLspamspamclear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:007001c7b90f$6cf2fbe0$0100a8c0@ivp2000...
>> I drive with the tailgate down when I use the pickup unloaded.  It
>> does save fuel because up, it can scoop up enough air pressure at
>> 50 mph to cause significant drag
>
> Mythbusters claimed that with the tailgate down, the vortex behind
> the cab disappears. According to the pick-up manufacturer (smoke
> trail test film), air coming over the cab roof bounces off that vortex,
> resulting in less drag
>
> http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/1997/October/05.html
>
> As they say there, it's counter-intuitive
>
> Not that I'm doubting your results, you know your vehicle and
> have the numbers

This was known to be true before Mythbusters, but it is a bit counter
intuitive and may not apply equally to all makes and models due to different
bed lengths and other small design changes between models.  Small changes
can do big things to aerodynamics, especially if a small change moves where
a boundary layer is tripped to turbulent flow.

As far as the show goes, I thought they had a Ford engineer on there
explaining the effect.  I'd expect modern vehicles like the newest Ford F150
to be designed to get the best mileage with the tailgate up.  But even
better than tailgate up or down would likely be an aftermarket bed cover.

Jeff
--
   "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
    little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
    safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)



2007\06\30@163833 by Peter P.

picon face
Russell McMahon <apptech <at> paradise.net.nz> writes:
> > showed her how a fridge door seal works...  :)
> But, the door seal probably has a crystal lining over the magnets.

Don't the magnets and the crystals have FCC IDs ? The magnets are radiating an
intended electromagnetic field with a frequency of at least 1/86400 Hz [1] and
the crystals must be receiving and annihilating this field, thus being
intentional receivers.

Peter P.

[1] There are 86400 seconds in a standard day


2007\06\30@173446 by David VanHorn

picon face
> Don't the magnets and the crystals have FCC IDs ? The magnets are radiating an
> intended electromagnetic field with a frequency of at least 1/86400 Hz [1] and
> the crystals must be receiving and annihilating this field, thus being
> intentional receivers.

Devices with operating frequencies below 9 kHz are exempt.


'[EE] Simple fuel-saver, so they say'
2007\07\02@013900 by Rich
picon face
Even though the mixture should be adjusted for altitude, it cannot be made
lean in order to improve engine performance.  The purpose for complete
combustion is to reduce unwanted exhaust emissions and to improve engine
performance.  Rich and lean become relative terms and can only be related to
engine performance.

{Original Message removed}

2007\07\02@020325 by Rich

picon face
Thank you, much.  I will appreciate it. I expect to learn something.  


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jinx" <joecolquittSTOPspamspamspam_OUTclear.net.nz>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <spamBeGonepiclistSTOPspamspamEraseMEmit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 2:32 AM
Subject: Re: [EE] Simple fuel-saver, so they say


>> I would like to see the smoke test they ran.
>
> I'll dig out that episode and see about some screen grabs for you
>
> (I really really hope the footage does have a smoke test, I'm sure
> it did)
>
> --

2007\07\02@021240 by Rich

picon face
I don't doubt that the test results were recorded accurately.  I do have
some question about the analysis simply because I set out to see if it was
true that TG down saves fuel.  My results, of course had to be normalized.
The test was simple.  Fill the tank and record the odometer.  Fill it again
and record the odometer.  Subtract the miles and divide by the number of
gallons to get miles divided by (per) gallons.
   Now, my curiosity is piqued and I would like to see what the vortex is
like an what sort of impact that will have on a counter force presented to
the TG and how that counterforce translates into added fuel use. The added
fuel use could easily be converted to counter force applied to the tailgate.


{Original Message removed}

2007\07\02@030435 by Rich

picon face
An excellent point.  


----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Mucker" <KILLspammatthewspamBeGonespamMucker.net>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <EraseMEpiclistspamEraseMEmit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [EE] Simple fuel-saver, so they say


{Quote hidden}

>> --

2007\07\02@031946 by Rich

picon face
Yes, the heat plays an important role but without the increased oxygen the
heat developed by the combustion would be less, if combustion could still be
sustained a lower oxygen levels.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Rigby-Jones" <.....Michael.Rigby-Jonesspam_OUTspambookham.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <TakeThisOuTpiclist.....spamTakeThisOuTmit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:42 AM
Subject: RE: [EE] Simple fuel-saver, so they say


>
>
>>{Original Message removed}

2007\07\02@032250 by Rich
picon face
Some cruise controls do that.  But accelerating fast pulls more vacuum.  I
think we all talk through our lead foot sometimes :o)


{Original Message removed}

2007\07\02@033603 by Rich

picon face
Yes, that is true.  The heat absorption of the engine components do
contribute to a loss of efficiency.  However, the forces acting normal to
the direction of displacement do not add directly to the piston
displacement.  The argument for the random collision is inconsequential
because the forces are not significantly redirected.
   The molecular expansion would have to be uniformly directed along the
axis of travel of the piston for "all" of the forces to be utilized.  But
that is impossible.
   There is much more to be said regarding the molecular dynamics but I
believe it would go to a level of discussion beyond what I intended here,
although I would not object to some off-list discussion.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Rigby-Jones" <TakeThisOuTMichael.Rigby-JonesKILLspamspamspambookham.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <.....piclistspamRemoveMEmit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:42 AM
Subject: RE: [EE] Simple fuel-saver, so they say


>
>
>>{Original Message removed}

2007\07\02@051049 by Lee Jones

flavicon
face
>>> I would like to see the smoke test they ran

> Now, my curiosity is piqued and I would like to see what the vortex
> is like an what sort of impact that will have on a counter force
> presented to the [tailgate] and how that counterforce translates
> into added fuel use. The added fuel use could easily be converted
> to counter force applied to the tailgate.

Smoke test is difficult to do without a wind tunnel.

An inexpensive method of determining localized ar flow direction
is tufts of yarn.  A roll of yarn and a roll of masking tape is
only about $5 -- plus labor to install (yarn removal is optional).

Cut some yarn into pieces 2-3" long.  Tape one end only of each
piece of yarn and create a rectangular array of yarn bits on the
surface(s) of interest.  In this case, I'd try tufting the top of
the cab, the back of the cab, the entire truck bed, and both(?)
sides of the tailgate on about a 6" x 6" grid.

Then, as you drive, you can see the air flow direction at each
point (yarn attachment) by the way that each piece of yarn is
oriented.  Top of the cab might be tough to see, but a passenger
could easily monitor the flow on the cab's back window, in the
bed, and on the tailgate.  Try it with tailgate open and then
with the tailgate closed.

Plus, think of the amusement you'll give other drivers as they
see your truck going by with bits of yarn taped all over it. :-)

                                               Lee Jones

2007\07\02@051436 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


{Quote hidden}

If we could coax molecules to expand in one direction only then I think the piston engine would already be a historical curiosity!

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2007\07\02@052111 by Lee Jones

flavicon
face
Some further comments on yarn tufting...

>>>> I would like to see the smoke test they ran

>> Now, my curiosity is piqued and I would like to see what the vortex
>> is like an what sort of impact that will have on a counter force
>> presented to the [tailgate]

> An inexpensive method of determining localized ar flow direction
> is tufts of yarn.

> Cut some yarn into pieces 2-3" long.

On reflection, you might want to make the tufts of yarn longer,
say 4-6" (maybe longer) for a pickup truck.

And if you're using a search engine, "yarn tufting" works but gets
lots of hits on carpet making too.  Try "flow visualization".  One
page I found quickly was University of Washington

   http://www.uwal.org/uwalinfo/techguide/flowvis.htm

It talks about several flow visualization techniques.

                                               Lee Jones

2007\07\02@061139 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Plus, think of the amusement you'll give other drivers as they
>see your truck going by with bits of yarn taped all over it. :-)

Hmm, guess it won't be as funny as the Top Gear team deciding to drive
through Alabama with slogans about being gay painted on their car, was to
the viewers. Had to get away from a mom and pop gas station in a hurry after
a bunch of tough looking types turned up in a pickup ...

2007\07\02@232707 by Rich

picon face
I guess it would be amusing.  I should wear a silly costume and let someone
else drive :-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Jones" <TakeThisOuTleespamspamfrumble.claremont.edu>
To: <piclistEraseMEspammit.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 5:13 AM
Subject: Re: [EE] Simple fuel-saver, so they say


{Quote hidden}

> --

2007\07\02@233005 by Rich

picon face
Well said, Mike.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Rigby-Jones" <RemoveMEMichael.Rigby-JonesEraseMEspamspam_OUTbookham.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <@spam@piclistRemoveMEspamEraseMEmit.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 5:16 AM
Subject: RE: [EE] Simple fuel-saver, so they say


>
>
>>{Original Message removed}

2007\07\04@195002 by Jinx

face picon face
At this site, well worth a look around, 10 simple measures to
reduce vehicle fuel consumption

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/

In the Publications section, a report on the state of consumer
electronics/appliances from the 70s to the present. Some good
(efficiency), some not so good (standby, proliferation). Too
many examples to choose quotes

The Rise Of The Machines (5MB pdf)

http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/download.cfm?p=4&pid=884

A general synopsis here

"Gadget boom drives energy demand - the ampere strikes back"

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10449580

=============

Regarding the Magnatronic. A work in progress

Brent Brown and I giving Repco's Automotive Divisional Manager
some things to think about and asked a few probing questions. He's
come back with a rather limp reply so far, and I've not yet heard
back from the Commerce Commission about Repco advertising
"guaranteed 10% fuel savings"

2007\07\05@044747 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>The Rise Of The Machines (5MB pdf)
>
> http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/download.cfm?p=4&pid=884

Hmm, cell phone to die for on page 2.

But wait - whets this in big red letters on page 6 'If one mobile charger
per household is left on standby, the energy wasted is enough to provide the
electricity needs of 66.000 homes for one year'

They must be real old chargers then ...

Somehow I don't think this is a New Zealand originated document (where will
NZ put the 'extra 2 million extra households' mentions in the caption of the
photo on page 6). And it looks like it is deliberately using old equipment
in the illustrations, cell phone already mentioned, 8 track cartridge
recorder, rather old TV.

2007\07\05@051948 by Jinx

face picon face
> But wait - whats this in big red letters on page 6 'If one mobile
> charger per household is left on standby, the energy wasted is
> enough to provide the electricity needs of 66.000 homes for
> one year'
>
> They must be real old chargers then ...

If you assume 25 million households in the UK, and one charger
per household (I think that's conservative - figures suggest 63m
or 2.5 per household) then, by their estimate, a charger must use
66000/25000000th of a household's power or 0.264%. If the
average UK home uses 12kWh per day or 500W/hr, then the
charger would be about 1.3W. Does that sound reasonable ?

> And it looks like it is deliberately using old equipment in the
> illustrations, cell phone already mentioned, 8 track cartridge
> recorder, rather old TV.

The report is covering the 70s to now, and those appliances
are what was around. I'm sure if 8-tracks were still around
Homer Simpson and Al Bundy would be happy, but you know
they aren't and wouldn't seriously be included in a survey of
today's entertainment gear

This goes into more detail than the Herald

www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/04/eaice104.x
ml

Using all that power for appliance stand-by is such a waste and
it's only going to get worse. Some education about turning stuff
off at the wall is really needed. And also about big TVs. Fancy
a large plasma using 1.7kW !! My wallet feels nervous when I
put the one-bar heater on for an hour to take the chill off the room.
Imagine the power used to watch garbage and repeats for 8-10
hours a day

2007\07\05@062515 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Jinx wrote:

> If the average UK home uses 12kWh per day or 500W/hr,

Just a nitpick for the unsuspecting reader (since the thing with units is
confusing enough <g>): 12kWh/day would be 500W (not 500W/hour).

Using the trick with units with all numbers, this could go like this:

12 kWh/day = (12 kWh/day) / (24 h/day) = 12/24 kW = 500 W


It's always again impressive how small things become massive when you
multiply them by the huge numbers of people we are today. It's pretty
evident that our reproductive capacity is way ahead of many other
capacities of ours... :)

Gerhard

2007\07\05@062817 by Richard Prosser

picon face
Jinx,
But the 1.7W or whatever that is "wasted" by the appliance on standby
goes into heat. So if you are using electricity for heating the room
anyway,  the savings are less. Of course, if you have an aircon
running, then the cost is that much higher!

RP

On 05/07/07, Jinx <EraseMEjoecolquittspam@spam@clear.net.nz> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\07\05@070136 by Jinx

face picon face


> Jinx,
> But the 1.7W or whatever that is "wasted" by the appliance on
> standby goes into heat. So if you are using electricity for heating
> the room anyway,  the savings are less

Haha, that's a very charitable and inventive way to look at it. Then
again, my room is always the warmest because (a) PC and other
bits and pieces, PSUs etc and (b) my sunshine personality. It is
quite rare for me to put the heater on. Quite content with a woolly
hat and another pair of socks. Used to being out in all weathers
and taking my "heating" with me. I'm not someone who heats the
home like the tropics and then sits around in shorts and a T (and
then moans about the power bill)

2007\07\05@071346 by Jinx

face picon face
> > If the average UK home uses 12kWh per day or 500W/hr,
>
> Just a nitpick for the unsuspecting reader (since the thing with units
> is confusing enough <g>): 12kWh/day would be 500W (not 500W/
> hour).

Yeah, I know. I was trying to solder and do mental arithmetic and
just thought if it's wrong, m'eh, screw it ;-) That's intended to read
500W per hour or 0.5kWh, and that's the figure I wanted to express

> It's pretty evident that our reproductive capacity is way ahead of
> many other capacities of ours... :)

That whole abstaining thing never did catch on did it

2007\07\07@082550 by Tony Smith

picon face
{Quote hidden}

I can easily find a dozen or so plug packs around, for mobile phones, drill
chargers, routers, external drives, USB hubs and so one.  1.3W sounds
reasonable (perhaps low), there are 3 near me, the switchmode one is cold
(unused), the other 2 are warm, the one that isn't in use isn't much cooler
than the one that is.  Hmmm.  I should measure its current.

I've really disliked plug packs since I found one melted one day.  I brought
a bunch of switchmode ones and have gradually replaced the old ones.  (9v
ones seem to be hard to find.)  I suspect this problem will got away by
itself eventually.

Those calling out to switch off devices (with the real off button) must not
have encountered Sony.  I looked inside one of their CD players once, and
found the power switch was on the low voltage side of the transformer, not
the mains.  So 'off' meant the display didn't light up, but the transformer
still sucked its 1.3W of power all day.  Nice one, Sony.  I'm sure that's an
isolated incident...

1.7kW for a plamsa TV, it that right?  I've seen .5kW ones.

Tony

2007\07\07@092201 by Jinx

face picon face
> 1.7kW for a plamsa TV, it that right?  I've seen .5kW ones.

That's the way they're heading, plus the obligatory "theatre"
sound system as well of course

I saw a little of the Live Earth concerts and can't help wondering
if the point will really get across. The lure of the gadget seems so
much stronger than the "be good and save the planet" message,
especially to teens with disposable income and peer pressure


2007\07\07@100447 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > 1.7kW for a plamsa TV, it that right?  I've seen .5kW ones.
>
> That's the way they're heading, plus the obligatory "theatre"
> sound system as well of course
>
> I saw a little of the Live Earth concerts and can't help
> wondering if the point will really get across. The lure of
> the gadget seems so much stronger than the "be good and save
> the planet" message, especially to teens with disposable
> income and peer pressure


Fair enough.  I wonder if you can perch a kettle on top so you can make a
cup of tea.

I guess it's time to start a business installing extra-quiet air
conditioners so people can enjoy the theatre rooms in their McMansions
better.

Tony

2007\07\12@195505 by Jinx

face picon face
> I can easily find a dozen or so plug packs around, for mobile
> phones, drill chargers, routers, external drives, USB hubs and
> so on

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/column/story.cfm?c_id=702&objectid=10451193

"Shirley Bongard has spent the last six months building a house
trying to make the best decisions. "Realising that Auckland would
undergo more power cuts in the years to come, we chose gas
appliances for water heating, cooking and heating. This week,
with a 24 hour power cut in Orewa, we have discovered that all
our new gas appliances have been very carefully designed to need
electricity to operate the starters. We couldn't override the
automatic starters and hence had no hot water, no cooking and
no heating. So much for technological advances and thank
goodness for the free hot showers available at the Orewa Caravan
Park."

Make you spit wouldn't it

2007\07\14@075641 by Tony Smith

picon face
> have discovered that all our new gas appliances have been
> very carefully designed to need electricity to operate the
> starters. We couldn't override the automatic starters and
> hence had no hot water, no cooking and no heating. So much
> for technological advances and thank goodness for the free
> hot showers available at the Orewa Caravan Park."
>
> Make you spit wouldn't it


Cold spit at that.

I remember the old electric ignition for gas stoves, a few leaking and very
corroded D-cells stuck in the back.  They didn't work very well either, but
at least a match did.

Still, good point.  I'll have to check the ignition on my gas-powered
router.

Tony

2007\07\24@160822 by Barry Gershenfeld

face picon face
About the original premise.  Swirling the air in the engine intake is a
good idea.  It gets the fuel and air mixed better.  Thing is, Honda was
working with this 30 years ago.  The "Civic" introduced us to the CVCC
engine  (Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion).  Looking at the Wikipedia
entry, I see that it really involved the stratified charge technique
already mentioned in this thread.  That supports what I was going to say
next.  Not only would the engine-eers incorporate anything that made it
work better, but the automakers are constantly being pushed by the
lawmakers to make these things run, er, "better", so they have plenty of
incentive.

About "er, better".  An engine-eer (well, how would you say "engine
engineer"?) told us that if you instrument an engine and vary the mixture,
you can determine the point at which you have (a) best efficiency, (b) the
most power, and (c) the lowest emissions.   They are close but they don't
coincide.  So already you have to be careful about what "better" means.  In
other words, there are tradeoffs.   Even in (c) you have to say "which"
emissions.  I think in this case it was HC.

If your constraint is emissions, then, here's a lesson I learned during a
tour of the refinery around 1970 (they were still deciding how to do
this).  Lean hot mixture gives you a lot of nitrogen compounds.  A rich
mixture gives you hydrocarbons.  NOx is really hard to take apart.  HC can
be burned (like in a converter).  They were leaning toward the HC +
catalytic converter, and that's what we got about 5 years later.

BTW I tried the http://www.hiclone.co.nz/ link and it is dead.  Maybe
that's a good thing.

Barry
Always behind in my reading


2007\07\24@192956 by Jinx

face picon face
The Commerce Commission got back to me yesterday about the
Magnatronic fuel-saver

"We'll monitor the situation"
"What does that mean ?"
"Well, we haven't had enough complaints to look into it fully"
"So that means you won't be doing anything ?"
"Pretty much. But we will monitor it"

Oh, good for you. Earned your day's pay

Yet "Sebastian" agreed with me about the Magnatronic (he said he'd
seen the ads) and could probably have made a call if he felt like it. The
product doesn't work and is advertised misleadingly (misleadingly ?),
which I thought would be good enough for the ComCom to do
something about. But apparently not. How many complaints does it
take ? He didn't know

Jinx 0 Scammers 1, although I think they cheated having ComCom
as an extra player on the pitch. To be fair, I know Magnatronic is
crap, ComCom don't. Not without looking into it they don't. But
they won't look into it until other people find out it's crap. Which
is what I was trying to stop in the first place ;-)

Not done with it yet though. Now there's a principle involved. A
Repco branch I went into on Sunday still had them for sale. Might
check again today

2007\07\24@201450 by Goflo

picon face

---- Jinx <@spam@joecolquittspam_OUTspam.....clear.net.nz> wrote:
> The Commerce Commission got back to me yesterday about the
> Magnatronic fuel-saver...

Sounds like you fought the good fight, Joe. Protecting the ignorant
from the consequences of ignorance can be an unequal struggle.
Where I live gambling was illegal till about 15 years ago. Now the
take from gambling is the largest cash crop in the state, and the
casinos vie with the public employee unions to call the tune for those who aspire to public office.

best regards, Jack

2007\07\25@084335 by John Ferrell

face picon face
Swirly add-ons were available 1949 Chevy when I started driving. I always
wondeed why there were not two models, different directions for each
hemisphere.

There was a product that worked at least for a while. It was an additive for
transmissions and differentials. I think it was kerosene. By thinning the
gear lube it reduced resistance. Of course it also reduced the longevity of
the drive line. Since Dad was an auto mechanic it was not all bad.  :)

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"Life is easier if you learn to plow
      around the stumps"
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2007\07\25@132435 by James Holland

flavicon
face

{Quote hidden}

I haven't been following all of this thread but these devices come up
repeatedly. Have you seen the US Federal Trades Commission website? It
annoys me that here in the UK it seems like many of the false claims that
these conmen make are allowed to keep recurring whereas in the US they have
already been banned and the manufacturers/retailers penalized.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/08/savegas.shtm

If you have some time on your hands search for Slick 50, fuel saving
magnets, Splitfire spark plugs and any others you can think of. Most of them
or equivalents seem to be there.

Cheers
James


2007\07\25@184843 by Jinx

face picon face
> It annoys me that here in the UK it seems like many of the false
> claims that these conmen make are allowed to keep recurring

Having tried the right thing and failed I've passed it all over to a
consumer watchdog TV programme called Fair Go. They might
or might not pick it up. The response and inaction from the Com
Com I think is worthy of an airing at least. Could be the twist that
gets the Magnatronic and the dreamers at Repco some deserved
publicity

2007\07\29@174723 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Jinx,

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:28:49 +1200, Jinx wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Your ComCom sounds like an equivalent of our Office of Fair Trading - do you have an equivalent of our Advertising Standards Authority?

They don't deal with dodgy business practices, but their thing is whether adverts are legal, honest, and not misleading.  In this case I reckon they
would be easier to persuade that this is all wrong.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\07\29@180125 by Jinx

face picon face
> Your ComCom sounds like an equivalent of our Office of Fair
> Trading - do you have an equivalent of our Advertising Standards
> Authority?

Yes, even has the same name

> They don't deal with dodgy business practices, but their thing is
> whether adverts are legal, honest, and not misleading.  In this
> case I reckon they would be easier to persuade that this is all
> wrong

Might be worth a go actually (although advertising is supposed to be
covered by ComCom). The Magnatronic was also advertised, albeit
briefly, on TV, so that would justify a complaint to the Broadcasting
SA

You wouldn't think it would be this hard to get a useless product
off the market would you ?

I've dealt with the BSA once before and thought they did a really
crappy job. My complaint was that a channel advertising "ad-free
and uninterrupted movies" was breaching that by including their
logo on screen, which is very distracting at times. The BSA had
so much trouble even understanding the complaint I looked around
for their government Minister to ask the WTF ? question, but they
don't have one. I lost the complaint on appeal. Still think I'm right,
and so do other viewers. I did get them to stop running competition
marquees across films though, which were really annoying

2007\07\29@200342 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face
On Jul 29, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Jinx wrote:

> You wouldn't think it would be this hard to get a useless
> product off the market would you ?

Um, have you ever counted how many "useless" products are
on the market?  Regulatory agencies have their hands full
with the actively harmful products; things that harmlessly
do not much of anything are far down on the list; see previous
discussions on audiophile "electronics", health "supplements",
exercise and weight-loss gimmicks, cosmetics, etc, etc, etc.

BillW

2007\07\29@202511 by Jinx

face picon face

> Um, have you ever counted how many "useless" products are
> on the market?

Yes, which is why I'm talking to the appropriate agencies, citing
examples of which similar bodies in this country have already
determined it as useless. If the Magnatronic was being sold out
of somebody's home I'd probably not worry about it. Being
sold and advertised by a major retail chain is something else

2007\07\29@204715 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Jinx,

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:54:12 +1200, Jinx wrote:

>...
> "Realising that Auckland would
> undergo more power cuts in the years to come, we chose gas
> appliances for water heating, cooking and heating. This week,
> with a 24 hour power cut in Orewa, we have discovered that all
> our new gas appliances have been very carefully designed to need
> electricity to operate the starters. We couldn't override the
> automatic starters and hence had no hot water, no cooking and
> no heating. ...

Well the central heating and hot water I can understand - modern gas water heaters need fans to run the air in and exhaust out, and obviously
active safety features such as flame-failure detection and overheat prevention need electricity, but a gas cooker?  Surely that should just work by
turning on the taps - of has the safely culture gone mad and there's electronic control of gas rings now?

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\07\29@211945 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> "Realising that Auckland would
>> undergo more power cuts in the years to come, we chose gas
>> appliances for water heating, cooking and heating. This week,
>> with a 24 hour power cut in Orewa, we have discovered that all
>> our new gas appliances have been very carefully designed to need
>> electricity to operate the starters. We couldn't override the
>> automatic starters and hence had no hot water, no cooking and
>> no heating. ...
>
> Well the central heating and hot water I can understand - modern gas
> water heaters need fans to run the air in and exhaust out, and
> obviously
> active safety features such as flame-failure detection and overheat
> prevention need electricity, but a gas cooker?  Surely that should
> just work by
> turning on the taps - of has the safely culture gone mad and there's
> electronic control of gas rings now?

Madness is is.
But possibly not even safety.
Possibly just really stupid design decisions.
But I have seen other gas cookers that needs mains voltage to operate.
The good old days bimetal strip gas safety cutoff must be in short
supply :-)



       Russell



2007\07\30@114301 by Recon

picon face
Howard Winter wrote:

> Well the central heating and hot water I can understand - modern gas
> water heaters need fans to run the air in and exhaust out, and obviously
>
>active safety features such as flame-failure detection and overheat prevention need electricity, but a gas cooker?  Surely that should just work by
>turning on the taps - of has the safely culture gone mad and there's electronic control of gas rings now?
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>Howard Winter
>St.Albans, England
>  
>

Thats a problem even here in the US.  our new gas ENERGY CONSERVING  
water heater needs household current to work.   I have looked over the
wiring diagram  with  thoughts of converting it to  12 V DC and using  
some solar cells to charge a battery.

Recon

2007\07\30@120736 by David VanHorn

picon face
> > turning on the taps - of has the safely culture gone mad and there's
> > electronic control of gas rings now?
>
> Madness is is.
> But possibly not even safety.
> Possibly just really stupid design decisions.
> But I have seen other gas cookers that needs mains voltage to operate.
> The good old days bimetal strip gas safety cutoff must be in short
> supply :-)


Gotta have electricity to run the digital clock, and embedded web server.
:)

2007\07\30@121300 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Recon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I installed a 50Gallon Gas "energy saver" water heater in my house
recently, and my controls are 120VAC 60hz,
too. I THINK the 120VAC is used to interface to a few sensors
(pressure(2) and pilot light(1)). The first pressure
sensor detects whether enough water is in the tank to engage the burner;
the second detects high pressure in the
tank (to prevent an explosion). The pilot light detector now works on a
IR detector, instead of the old mechanical
method.

I'll bet it could be converted to solar system operation (12/24VDC) easily.

--Bob


'[EE] Simple fuel-saver, so they say'
2007\10\15@085155 by Jinx
face picon face
> 1.7kW for a plamsa TV, it that right?  I've seen .5kW ones.

Big-screen TVs may be outlawed

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=339&objectid=10469468

New Zealand may ban some of the largest plasma televisions from
being imported into the country if they fail to meet energy performance
standards.

The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority is investigating the
energy performance of televisions, particularly those using plasma or
LCD technology

2007\10\15@112740 by Peter P.

picon face
Jinx <joecolquitt <at> clear.net.nz> writes:
> Big-screen TVs may be outlawed

Small nitpick: To be viewable in daylight, projectors and screens of the
non-transflective kind *must* come up with enough energy to compete with the
ambient light. That would be 0.5-1kW/m^2 at 100% efficiency (0.5 for the average
reflectivity of the environment). Real efficiency with light losses and so on is
more like 20% in good cases. So yes, they are power hogs. Anyone who has ever
had to do with stage lighting (especially in daylight but not only) could have
told them that a long time ago.

The other side of the issue is the fact that there exist lighting arrangements
which use hybrid systems, consisting of sun collectors and lightpipes for
daytime use, and a HID light for nighttime use, which should or could be exempt
from idiotic blanketing regulations when used with a big screen (probably rear
or front projection). Modifying an existing LCD projector to use such a
lightsource should be trivial. I have personally 'played' with a heliostat type
of system to provide light for a slide projector. The resulting picture was very
bright and well viewable in daylight. Unfortunately the amount of light used
should (and does) destroy any emulsion or light modulator after a while (maybe a
DLP modulator will work well here). My solution was to put the slide in a
(squarish) glass recipient with water in it. The recipient got more than
lukewarm in just a few minutes, as expected. Circulation and other arrangements
could be used. And no, you cannot patent it, copious previous art exists,
probably going back to Galilei and before.

Peter P.


2007\10\15@115100 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Jinx,

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:51:45 +1300, Jinx wrote:

> Big-screen TVs may be outlawed

I was very surprised to find how much energy LCD televisions use.  When I upgraded my computer monitor from a 17" CRT to an 18" LCD the power consumption fell
from something like 250W to 50W, but looking at replacing my 24" CRT TV with a similar-sized (but widescreen) LCD it looks like the power consumption will at
least double!  What's going on that means that LCD TVs are energy-guzzlers, when LCD monitors aren't?

One of the reasons I wanted to upgrade the TV was to save energy, but if it's actually doing the opposite I may hang onto my present one, perhaps until analog
switch-off when I'll really have to do it.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\10\15@115647 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

{Quote hidden}

Cool the film using vapor phase cooling? I also recently read of powering
laptops with alcohol driven fuel cells. The waste is water, which could be
used to cool the processor (boil off the water).

Back on displays and projectors, film and LCD projectors end up throwing
away power for the dark areas on the screen. I suspect DLPs deflect that
power to a heat sink (or maybe you could show another image that is
negative). LED displays only light that which needs to be lit, which is
pretty neat.

Harold



--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2007\10\15@135045 by Peter P.

picon face
Howard Winter <HDRW <at> H2Org.demon.co.uk> writes:
> least double!  What's going on that means that LCD TVs are energy-guzzlers,
when LCD monitors aren't?

The current LCD TVs are not particularly green because they have to be wide
angle viewable (unlike computer monitors). The color and brightness shift that
occurs with a LCD viewed from a side is unacceptable with a LCD used as a TV
(and even more so with a wide one where the width causes a broader view angle to
be required even for a centered viewer). This translates into lower light
transmission. A computer LCD will not have the same constraints and also be much
closer to the viewer. It is also not expected to be viewable in more than a
little bright daylight as a LCD TV is.

Peter P.


2007\10\16@102017 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > Big-screen TVs may be outlawed
>
> I was very surprised to find how much energy LCD televisions
> use.  When I upgraded my computer monitor from a 17" CRT to
> an 18" LCD the power consumption fell from something like
> 250W to 50W, but looking at replacing my 24" CRT TV with a
> similar-sized (but widescreen) LCD it looks like the power
> consumption will at least double!  What's going on that means
> that LCD TVs are energy-guzzlers, when LCD monitors aren't?
>
> One of the reasons I wanted to upgrade the TV was to save
> energy, but if it's actually doing the opposite I may hang
> onto my present one, perhaps until analog switch-off when
> I'll really have to do it.



I'm a little suspicious of the 250W --> 50W...  mainly the 250W number...
Are you sure you were contributing that much to global warming?

BTW, you'd be surprised how well your existing TV will look with a digital
set-top box.  Units with twin-tuner + 250GB hard-drive + USB2 are becoming
common & cheap.

Tony

2007\10\16@104710 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>BTW, you'd be surprised how well your existing TV will
>look with a digital set-top box.

I agree.

>Units with twin-tuner + 250GB hard-drive + USB2 are
>becoming common & cheap.

Agreed again, but make such the USB can run at high speed. I'm sure mine
only runs at full speed - takes 20-30 minutes to transfer an hours program
that runs to about 1GB.

2007\10\17@053212 by Dario Greggio

face picon face
Tony Smith wrote:

> I'm a little suspicious of the 250W --> 50W...  mainly the 250W number...
> Are you sure you were contributing that much to global warming?

I'm pretty sure that a 15" CRT was using some 120-150W, while a 15" LCD
would take some 25-30W - I seem to remember I checked it with a digital
current tester!

--
Ciao, Dario

2007\10\17@060253 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I'm pretty sure that a 15" CRT was using some 120-150W, while a 15"
> LCD
> would take some 25-30W - I seem to remember I checked it with a
> digital
> current tester!

The CRT probably uses analog current

       :-)  :-)  :-)


       Russell

2007\10\23@163711 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Tony,

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:15:54 +1000, Tony Smith wrote:

{Quote hidden}

I took that from the rating plate on the monitor - it could have been pessimistic I suppose - I didn't actually measure it.

> BTW, you'd be surprised how well your existing TV will look with a digital
> set-top box.  Units with twin-tuner + 250GB hard-drive + USB2 are becoming
> common & cheap.

The top of my set is stacked with boxes!  :-)  One of them matches what you say above - a Topfield PVR5800 (known as the "Toppy" to its fans).

As I said, one of the reasons for upgrading the television was to save energy - I'm not the sort who spends much money to get a better quality picture, for the sort
of stuff that I watch it isn't important.  What I really need to do is improve my antenna system to get a better signal into the living room, and improve its rejection
of 144MHz...

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2007\10\23@200252 by David VanHorn

picon face
> As I said, one of the reasons for upgrading the television was to save energy - I'm not the sort who spends much money to get a better quality picture, for the sort
> of stuff that I watch it isn't important.  What I really need to do is improve my antenna system to get a better signal into the living room, and improve its rejection
> of 144MHz...

Tuned stub filter?

2007\10\24@050604 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Oct 23, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Howard Winter wrote:

>> I'm a little suspicious of the 250W --> 50W...  mainly the 250W  
>> number...
>> Are you sure you were contributing that much to global warming?
>
> I took that from the rating plate on the monitor -
> it could have been pessimistic I suppose...

Depends on age.  We had a talk today on "greening" our products,
and one of the interesting points is that customers are starting
to look at power consumption numbers, and we're getting beat up
because out THING that draws about 130W fully loaded (measured)
has a rating of 300W (based on who knows what worst case scenarios,
while some of our competitors go in claiming "greener" with a box
labeled 150W that draws ... 150W.

I suspect older devices are likely to be rated very conservatively
(rated power greater than actual consumed power) while newer devices
are chasing that "green" image and cutting things as close as they can.

Sigh.
BillW

2007\10\29@151727 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face
I found this web site regarding automotive "snake oil", but I can't remember if it was ever posted on this thread? It might be useful for someone anyway:

http://www.fuelsaving.info

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2007\10\29@155126 by piclist

flavicon
face
I haven't been following this thread, so my apologies if this has already been
mentioned.

Even though it is not just a "simple" fuel-saver, This months FastCompany
magazine has an article on a guy who has a Hummer with 800HP and does 60mpg,
running a modified diesel engine with a mixture of diesel/biodiesel and
hydrogen.

I don't have the magazine here so I'll have to paraphrase, "...all of
the cars I
have modified, were modified with off the shelf parts made and/or used by the
big car manufactures today, so it is not "impossible" as they say, they just
don't want to do it..."

If anyone of you is interested in having your car modified, the price tag is
around US $28,0000, which includes the brand new diesel engine.


-Mario

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.



2007\10\29@164457 by McReynolds, Alan A

picon face
I'd like to see the EPA certified test that demonstrated 60MPG.  Air
friction and rolling resistance alone probably make that impossible.

...Alan

{Original Message removed}

2007\10\29@165343 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face
Haven't heard what quantity of hydrogen, maybe 95% of power coming from
the hydrogen, and just a squirt of the oils. ~) or maybe :)

McReynolds, Alan A wrote:
> I'd like to see the EPA certified test that demonstrated 60MPG.  Air
> friction and rolling resistance alone probably make that impossible.
>
> ...Alan
>
> {Original Message removed}

2007\10\29@220531 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Even though it is not just a "simple" fuel-saver, This
>> months
>> FastCompany
>> magazine has an article on a guy who has a Hummer with
>> 800HP and does
>> 60mpg,
>> running a modified diesel engine with a mixture of
>> diesel/biodiesel and
>> hydrogen.


The claims are not just so much utter rubbish as evil
rubbish.

But, just to put some feel on things.
Hydrogen has an energy per mass of about 3 times that of
petrol.
BUT as a *liquid* it has a density about the same as gaseous
air so its mpg on a volume basis is totally useless.

But if we play their game and use mass an an indicator then
pure Hydrogen will at best be the equivalent of tripling
your available fuel volume.

So for a Hummer to get 60 mpg on Hydrogen alone is the same
as claiming 20 mpg on Petrol. That is obviously doable with
many vehicles, but saying that it has 800 HP says that it is
"rather well tuned" and it's not going to get 20 mpg on
petrol so ... .

Note that the above is for pure Hydrogen and is mass based.
So, they are either bare-faced liars or constructive-liars -
either way, people to be avoided while waving money around.

Alcohol and diesel are close enough to petrol in energy
content per mass as to not make a significant difference in
the above considerations.

Making an IC engine run as well on Hydrogen as on petrol may
be a less than trivial task - but maybe not. Easy enough in
theory.



       Russell
__________________________

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Denk" <spamBeGonecdenkEraseMEspamalltel.net>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public."
<piclistspamBeGonespammit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: [EE] Simple fuel-saver, so they say


{Quote hidden}

>> {Original Message removed}

2007\10\29@235318 by Piclist

flavicon
face
Those are the thoughts I had too when I saw the cover.  I was looking
for something different to read during breakfast on Sunday, and the
cover caught my eye, and I decided to buy it thinking "that's no
possible".  It turns out that Fast Company is actually a good magazine
=)

Anyway, I put a pdf file on my web site, you can download the whole
story from there and check it out.  Yes, I know about the copyright
issues, but I figured this is very interesting and you won't tell on me.
In fact, if you like the article, do buy a copy of this months issue,
there's other good stuff there too.

Enjoy.

http://www.mmendes.com/FastCompany.100MPG.pdf  (it's about 5.9 megs, I
scanned the pages as JPGs and printed to a pdf file)


-Mario

{Original Message removed}

2007\10\30@004151 by Info

flavicon
face
The article is avail on their webpage, minus the pretty pictures.

----- Original Message -----
> Anyway, I put a pdf file on my web site, you can download the whole
> story from there and check it out.  Yes, I know about the copyright
> issues, but I figured this is very interesting and you won't tell on me.
> In fact, if you like the article, do buy a copy of this months issue,
> there's other good stuff there too.
>
> Enjoy.
>
> http://www.mmendes.com/FastCompany.100MPG.pdf  (it's about 5.9 megs, I
> scanned the pages as JPGs and printed to a pdf file)


2007\10\30@010556 by Piclist

flavicon
face
Thanks for the hint.  Here's the url for those that don't want to
download the pretty pictures:

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html


-Mario


{Original Message removed}

2007\10\30@075500 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> The claims are not just so much utter rubbish as evil
> rubbish.

I should have read the article (although at that stage I
didn't know where it was).

   http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html

Much of that is half reasonable or better.
The Hydrogen/biodiesel/60mpg/600HP (or whatever) hope is
untenable.
But overall it SOUNDS like a man who knows what he is doing
with cars is doing it.

I'm somewhat suspicious of even his more modest claims but
they are "likely" within the range of "normal".


       Russell



More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...