14.7 :1 paradigm
06-08-2009, 10:36 AM
#1
Advanced PassionFord User
Thread Starter
14.7 :1 paradigm
Had a guy pop up on a newsgroup I subscribe to and offering an interesting argument about the AFR....I dont get time to read all the text, but it got me thinking......here's some of his theory, I thought some on here might like to comment....
"For those old enough to remember I recall a couple of guys at a watch fair in Basel showing how they could excite a crystal. The response from the watch making industry was "Nothing could ever replace the quality of hand made Swiss watches" Good job Seiko and Texas Instruments thought otherwise. 3 years later, 50,000 out of work and 95% of their ( the Swiss) market share was lost. So please dismiss my beliefs if you want to it's the first step of a paradigm change.
But for those who don't want to I took some readings today
A/F calculations on my clk320
3.2 litre , 2403 rpm 9 litre/hour at 68 mph
Air in with VE = 100% = 3.2 x 60x 0.5 x 2403 / 1000 = 231 m3
Air density at 1 atmosphere = 1.225 kg/m3
Air density at 29 inch vacuum = 0
Pro rata for 4 in vacuum = 1.225 x (29-4)/29 = 1.056 kg/m3
The engine has DOHC so I assume peak volumetric efficiency is about 90%
Wikipedia states maximum attainable in NA engine is 137%. But that's with ram air induction such as trumpets and bonnet scoops. I will talk about my knowledge later.
But I will Pro-rata it for 4 inch vacuum on my meter = 90x (29-4)/29 = 77.7% Sorry I am using inches and SI units its only for the ratio) Even though in reality it is humpback curve with the peak about mid rpm which just so happens to be round where my engine rpm is
lets be conservative and say 70%. Do a web search you will find that this is representative of a modern engine.
So 231 x 1.056x 0.7 = 171 kg/ hr
Fuel mass = 9 x 0.707 = 6.33 kg/hr
A/f ratio approx = 27:1
Not quite the 42 :1 of my earlier example but then that was a poor gas gussler engine and mine is " reasonably" fuel efficient. Over 54,000 miles I have averaged 30.5 mpg. The Germans like to have a car that tells you lots of information. Yet still it is a long way off 14:7 to 1
And for those who think I don't know what I am talking about you are entitled to naturally Asperate your opinion .
I was trained by Rolls Royce and specialised in gas turbine engineering
Since the age of 18 I have turbocharged one motorcycle and two cars. And I am not talking bolting on kits
I was the chief engineer for Leyton house formula one team in the 1980's and developed the first carbon fibre induction system for an F1 car (that includes the trumpets So you can imagine we did quite a bit of dyno testing to optimise.
I also built a race engine made from carbon fibre to compete with the Torlon motor."
"For those old enough to remember I recall a couple of guys at a watch fair in Basel showing how they could excite a crystal. The response from the watch making industry was "Nothing could ever replace the quality of hand made Swiss watches" Good job Seiko and Texas Instruments thought otherwise. 3 years later, 50,000 out of work and 95% of their ( the Swiss) market share was lost. So please dismiss my beliefs if you want to it's the first step of a paradigm change.
But for those who don't want to I took some readings today
A/F calculations on my clk320
3.2 litre , 2403 rpm 9 litre/hour at 68 mph
Air in with VE = 100% = 3.2 x 60x 0.5 x 2403 / 1000 = 231 m3
Air density at 1 atmosphere = 1.225 kg/m3
Air density at 29 inch vacuum = 0
Pro rata for 4 in vacuum = 1.225 x (29-4)/29 = 1.056 kg/m3
The engine has DOHC so I assume peak volumetric efficiency is about 90%
Wikipedia states maximum attainable in NA engine is 137%. But that's with ram air induction such as trumpets and bonnet scoops. I will talk about my knowledge later.
But I will Pro-rata it for 4 inch vacuum on my meter = 90x (29-4)/29 = 77.7% Sorry I am using inches and SI units its only for the ratio) Even though in reality it is humpback curve with the peak about mid rpm which just so happens to be round where my engine rpm is
lets be conservative and say 70%. Do a web search you will find that this is representative of a modern engine.
So 231 x 1.056x 0.7 = 171 kg/ hr
Fuel mass = 9 x 0.707 = 6.33 kg/hr
A/f ratio approx = 27:1
Not quite the 42 :1 of my earlier example but then that was a poor gas gussler engine and mine is " reasonably" fuel efficient. Over 54,000 miles I have averaged 30.5 mpg. The Germans like to have a car that tells you lots of information. Yet still it is a long way off 14:7 to 1
And for those who think I don't know what I am talking about you are entitled to naturally Asperate your opinion .
I was trained by Rolls Royce and specialised in gas turbine engineering
Since the age of 18 I have turbocharged one motorcycle and two cars. And I am not talking bolting on kits
I was the chief engineer for Leyton house formula one team in the 1980's and developed the first carbon fibre induction system for an F1 car (that includes the trumpets So you can imagine we did quite a bit of dyno testing to optimise.
I also built a race engine made from carbon fibre to compete with the Torlon motor."
06-08-2009, 12:00 PM
#2
10K+ Poster!!
Statistics vs meausrements
hmmmm
Cars only run Lambda=1 (14.7:1 AFR for unleaded petrol) at idle and cruise... any other time and its not running 14/7:1 funnily enough
hmmmm
Cars only run Lambda=1 (14.7:1 AFR for unleaded petrol) at idle and cruise... any other time and its not running 14/7:1 funnily enough
06-08-2009, 03:44 PM
#4
Advanced PassionFord User
Sounds like this guy has spent too long with a calculator.
As far as I'm concerned 14.7:1 AFR is purely to get a catalytic convertor up to its optimal working temperature.
As far as I'm concerned 14.7:1 AFR is purely to get a catalytic convertor up to its optimal working temperature.
06-08-2009, 08:43 PM
#5
Testing the future
what's his point? of course the average afr will be greater than stoich as there is a lot of time when the engine is just pumping air with no fuel going in (when slowing down). that will more than offset the time accelerating when it may be only fractionally less than 14.7:1. obviously 10s slowing down with no fuel at all going in giving an AFR of more than 10000000000000000000000000000:1 will more than offset 10s of cruising at 14.7:1 and 10s of accelerating at 12:1. you do the math.
not true. a leaner mixture will heat the cat far quicker.
honda tried to introduce lean burn engines donkeys years ago but were effectively prevented from doing so worldwide due to legislation enforcing the use of cats. their california market 1,5 civic engine was the first production engine to use a wideband lambda sensor.
the guys statistics above prove that lean burn technology is the way to save fuel usage, whereas cats are only an effective means of reducing the emissions of certain gases
honda tried to introduce lean burn engines donkeys years ago but were effectively prevented from doing so worldwide due to legislation enforcing the use of cats. their california market 1,5 civic engine was the first production engine to use a wideband lambda sensor.
the guys statistics above prove that lean burn technology is the way to save fuel usage, whereas cats are only an effective means of reducing the emissions of certain gases
Last edited by foreigneRS; 06-08-2009 at 08:47 PM.
Trending Topics
06-08-2009, 09:31 PM
#8
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southend-on-sea
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prob not that related to this but there are petrol engines that can run ultra lean. upto 60 to 1 or something close to that. The new VW FSI engines run direct injection much the same way diesels do.
06-08-2009, 09:40 PM
#9
Too many posts.. I need a life!!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: England
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was trained by Rolls Royce and specialised in gas turbine engineering
Since the age of 18 I have turbocharged one motorcycle and two cars. And I am not talking bolting on kits
I was the chief engineer for Leyton house formula one team in the 1980's and developed the first carbon fibre induction system for an F1 car (that includes the trumpets So you can imagine we did quite a bit of dyno testing to optimise.
I also built a race engine made from carbon fibre to compete with the Torlon motor."
Anyway, I don't see the point to this post. All I see is a lot of mathematics and no conclusion. Surely there should be an intro, main body then conclusion like most academic pieces?
06-08-2009, 09:49 PM
#10
One of the rules of predicate calculus is that if you start out by accepting something which is false, then you will be able to imply that other things which are false are true.
A more simple example would be:
False assumption : 1 + 1 = 1
Truth proved : I am Elvis
Method:
I am 1 person
Elvis is 1 person
1 person + 1 person = 1 person
Therefore I am Elvis
etc
06-08-2009, 09:51 PM
#11
Indeed, he states about PEAK VE being 90% (which is reasonable), and then tries to apply 70% as a suitable number for during cruise claiming it to be "conservative" because its less than the peak VE of 90%.
He seems to have missed the somewhat fundamental fact that an engine at tiny part throttle openings doesnt consume anywhere near as much air as one that is at wide open throttle.
From the point he made that massive mistake, he was royally fucked from there onwards
He seems to have missed the somewhat fundamental fact that an engine at tiny part throttle openings doesnt consume anywhere near as much air as one that is at wide open throttle.
From the point he made that massive mistake, he was royally fucked from there onwards
Last edited by Chip; 06-08-2009 at 09:52 PM.
07-08-2009, 10:07 AM
#14
10K+ Poster!!
Indeed, he states about PEAK VE being 90% (which is reasonable), and then tries to apply 70% as a suitable number for during cruise claiming it to be "conservative" because its less than the peak VE of 90%.
He seems to have missed the somewhat fundamental fact that an engine at tiny part throttle openings doesnt consume anywhere near as much air as one that is at wide open throttle.
From the point he made that massive mistake, he was royally fucked from there onwards
He seems to have missed the somewhat fundamental fact that an engine at tiny part throttle openings doesnt consume anywhere near as much air as one that is at wide open throttle.
From the point he made that massive mistake, he was royally fucked from there onwards
I'd love to see these other "projects" of his
07-08-2009, 10:20 AM
#15
PassionFord Post Whore!!
its not that his maths is flawed, it seems pretty straighforward to me, its just at 14.7 to 1 (AF-1) the engine must be at steady state, which on road calculations isnt realistically possible
07-08-2009, 10:24 AM
#16
Advanced PassionFord User
Thread Starter
I just find him interesting really, he seems to have a few character flaws, in his other submissions to the group he talks about being 'booted out of newsgroups'
"Seems I am booted out of one group for as yet an unsubstantiated
> > allocation but I though before I disappear into the ether I would share
> > my test work today as my claim that the 14:7 a/f ratio commonly quoted
> > is fundamentally flawed."
I get the feeling the guy is a plank, but TBH I can never be arsed to challenge his theories and perceptions, I thought a few of you guys might have your own views him.....lol...
The maths seems to me to be very optimistic and pessimistic all at the same time, the debate actually revolves around the use of HHO on cars and some of his other ramblings seem to be about baffling with science rather than offering solutions....the hard hitting references he's using about Leyton House & Carbon etc seem too good to be true.....it's a long time since I came across someone like this !!!!
"Seems I am booted out of one group for as yet an unsubstantiated
> > allocation but I though before I disappear into the ether I would share
> > my test work today as my claim that the 14:7 a/f ratio commonly quoted
> > is fundamentally flawed."
I get the feeling the guy is a plank, but TBH I can never be arsed to challenge his theories and perceptions, I thought a few of you guys might have your own views him.....lol...
The maths seems to me to be very optimistic and pessimistic all at the same time, the debate actually revolves around the use of HHO on cars and some of his other ramblings seem to be about baffling with science rather than offering solutions....the hard hitting references he's using about Leyton House & Carbon etc seem too good to be true.....it's a long time since I came across someone like this !!!!
07-08-2009, 10:28 AM
#17
Advanced PassionFord User
Thread Starter
This is his latest update on his projects.......
"my first car that I put my HoD on was OBD1 I got an 82% improvement. my next car is OBD2 so ultimately yes I will reprogramme but at the moment I want to try lower cost adjustments first. Also I want to install a leo geet so HoD can wait. The O2 sensor is really just a fancy switch that tells the engine if its above or below a set point. Thats why putting an EFIE in between the O2 sensor and the ECU should work all you are doing is moving the real set point of the switch even if the engine doesnt work. It maybe possible to fit a wideband sensor which would give greater option. see patrick kellys files chapter 10 about page 52 as I recall.
> I tried and EfiE on my OBD1 O2 sensor it was okay I then proceded to adust the MAF so that the two were synchonised. I think water for gas files have a schematic. what I found was that the resistors were too high. I went down to 3.3K but that was still too agressive. My next attempt will be to fit duel o2 sensors efi and a similar device to the maf. Check out anadigelect website see how their efie uses jumpers so you can use it for maf, wide and narrow band sensors. It also has a feature for your multimeter that allows for the mm resistance whichg is nice tough. And they are inexpensive.
>
> The reason I want to try and reprogramme the ecu is because I want to play with ignition timing. Is something that isnt being addressed with EFEI and maf correctors.
>
> The simplest thing to try and I intend to try this first is to reboot your ecu. Shared with me by Philip Luke and has merits. Only works if your device is going to run all the time. But that sthe same issue you will have with reprogramming and ecu. Efie do have an advantage in as much as you can connect them to a relay so you can run boosted or not as you wish.
>
> warm up the engine
> disconnect the negaive lead ( dont let it earth)
> wait 30 minutes or pump gas pedal for 5 minutes to dicharge residual capaciace.
> reconnect negative and start up.
>
> The thing with this is if it doesnt work you just do the same and you go back to an as new car.
>
> Drive it round so it relearns
>
> The other thing you may want to consider is an decelleration shut off.
>
> My 82% wasnt just HoD. The reason I know what my engine vacuum was , was because I was actually and purposfully measuring it. If you can do a bit of electronics. You an rig up a p type moset on each injector so that when the engine is pulling a high vacuum ( as in when you are decellerating) you can switch the fuel to the engine off.
>
> This is another paradigm that needs to be exposed but if I mention it openly no doubt some expert will shoot me down. But you know, it works. If you send me your email address I will send you a sketch I wont share it openly anymore. Basically when a car decellerates they pump more fuel into the engine. The reason is that it prevents backfiring. So the mindset has been never lean off, but that approach never considers the blatantly obvious, if there is no fuel then there is nothing to backfire. Thats what the mosfet does. when it switches it shuts off the injector,. The ecu doesnt know and so doesnt get confused.
>
> Anyway as I work on it I will send you an update if you want. The thing is if Lod D goes for the concept we will be remapping the aton martin engines anyway and it will give me an opportunity to use some advanced equipment to answer those sorts of questions.
>
> regards Paul"
Enjoy
"my first car that I put my HoD on was OBD1 I got an 82% improvement. my next car is OBD2 so ultimately yes I will reprogramme but at the moment I want to try lower cost adjustments first. Also I want to install a leo geet so HoD can wait. The O2 sensor is really just a fancy switch that tells the engine if its above or below a set point. Thats why putting an EFIE in between the O2 sensor and the ECU should work all you are doing is moving the real set point of the switch even if the engine doesnt work. It maybe possible to fit a wideband sensor which would give greater option. see patrick kellys files chapter 10 about page 52 as I recall.
> I tried and EfiE on my OBD1 O2 sensor it was okay I then proceded to adust the MAF so that the two were synchonised. I think water for gas files have a schematic. what I found was that the resistors were too high. I went down to 3.3K but that was still too agressive. My next attempt will be to fit duel o2 sensors efi and a similar device to the maf. Check out anadigelect website see how their efie uses jumpers so you can use it for maf, wide and narrow band sensors. It also has a feature for your multimeter that allows for the mm resistance whichg is nice tough. And they are inexpensive.
>
> The reason I want to try and reprogramme the ecu is because I want to play with ignition timing. Is something that isnt being addressed with EFEI and maf correctors.
>
> The simplest thing to try and I intend to try this first is to reboot your ecu. Shared with me by Philip Luke and has merits. Only works if your device is going to run all the time. But that sthe same issue you will have with reprogramming and ecu. Efie do have an advantage in as much as you can connect them to a relay so you can run boosted or not as you wish.
>
> warm up the engine
> disconnect the negaive lead ( dont let it earth)
> wait 30 minutes or pump gas pedal for 5 minutes to dicharge residual capaciace.
> reconnect negative and start up.
>
> The thing with this is if it doesnt work you just do the same and you go back to an as new car.
>
> Drive it round so it relearns
>
> The other thing you may want to consider is an decelleration shut off.
>
> My 82% wasnt just HoD. The reason I know what my engine vacuum was , was because I was actually and purposfully measuring it. If you can do a bit of electronics. You an rig up a p type moset on each injector so that when the engine is pulling a high vacuum ( as in when you are decellerating) you can switch the fuel to the engine off.
>
> This is another paradigm that needs to be exposed but if I mention it openly no doubt some expert will shoot me down. But you know, it works. If you send me your email address I will send you a sketch I wont share it openly anymore. Basically when a car decellerates they pump more fuel into the engine. The reason is that it prevents backfiring. So the mindset has been never lean off, but that approach never considers the blatantly obvious, if there is no fuel then there is nothing to backfire. Thats what the mosfet does. when it switches it shuts off the injector,. The ecu doesnt know and so doesnt get confused.
>
> Anyway as I work on it I will send you an update if you want. The thing is if Lod D goes for the concept we will be remapping the aton martin engines anyway and it will give me an opportunity to use some advanced equipment to answer those sorts of questions.
>
> regards Paul"
Enjoy
07-08-2009, 10:34 AM
#18
Nearly all modern ECU's cut the fuelling totally when you back off the throttle, thats certainly how I normally map cars.
That guy really is clueless IMHO, send him a link to this thread, and then at least he can learn a bit about where he has gone wrong?
That guy really is clueless IMHO, send him a link to this thread, and then at least he can learn a bit about where he has gone wrong?
07-08-2009, 10:35 AM
#19
10K+ Poster!!
Whta does he hope to achieve by altering the injection timing?
On engine is siamese inlet ports (MPi Minis for example) they have done this to solve charge distribution problems... on direct injection engines (petrol or diesel) its absolulty critical!! But the manufacture will have done this work already...
Alex
On engine is siamese inlet ports (MPi Minis for example) they have done this to solve charge distribution problems... on direct injection engines (petrol or diesel) its absolulty critical!! But the manufacture will have done this work already...
Alex
07-08-2009, 10:44 AM
#21
Advanced PassionFord User
Thread Starter
Whta does he hope to achieve by altering the injection timing?
On engine is siamese inlet ports (MPi Minis for example) they have done this to solve charge distribution problems... on direct injection engines (petrol or diesel) its absolulty critical!! But the manufacture will have done this work already...
Alex
On engine is siamese inlet ports (MPi Minis for example) they have done this to solve charge distribution problems... on direct injection engines (petrol or diesel) its absolulty critical!! But the manufacture will have done this work already...
Alex
I'll send him a link Chip, but I doubt he'll have any input on here, he'll no doubt feel we were persecuting him........
Last edited by ian sibbert; 07-08-2009 at 10:46 AM.
07-08-2009, 10:57 AM
#22
Well either he wants to learn or he doesnt I guess mate!
For the record though, I have had a wideband on hundreds of cars now, and nearly all run in the 14-15 region on cruise, thats real world data not theory, if he lives anywhere near me im happy to go and show him on his own car, it wont be running 27:1 or 40:1 I can guarentee that!
For the record though, I have had a wideband on hundreds of cars now, and nearly all run in the 14-15 region on cruise, thats real world data not theory, if he lives anywhere near me im happy to go and show him on his own car, it wont be running 27:1 or 40:1 I can guarentee that!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Marc sierra
Ford Sierra/Sapphire/RS500 Cosworth
1
10-10-2012 08:18 AM
Nath
Non Ford parts & other stuff for sale
5
16-02-2007 07:29 AM
