Lower compression for less emissions

[MopaR&D]

I didn’t put words in your mouth. You brought up bicycles and mass transportation.

You exposed yourself. Your own words say you THINK the US needs to change. That we need to drive less. I say you have the problem.

You want me to drive less because you think it’s wasteful. Screw you. You have bought it all, hook line and sinker that man is killing the planet. And it’s not true.

I don’t care if you ride a bike. You see, I agree you have that right. Just keep it off my streets, which were designed for and paid for (mostly) by internal combustion engines. Those streets are for that use, not some fool on a bicycle.

I continue to increase my carbon foot print. I do it because I can plant a tree and do more good than all the government regulations and Greta Thunbergs the illogical world can breed.

Edit: I forgot to mention the busses you want to ride. I suspect you never do it or you wouldn’t advocate for it if you did. All forms of mass transportation are inherently inefficient. All of them. As last I looked not a single mass transit system in the US is self funding. That’s right. That means that I have to pay to subsidize something I don’t and won’t use.

You want to ride a bus I’m fine with it. Just make sure your fare pas for ALL OF IT. We’re that the case you might see how financially pathetic that system is. I won’t even consider how much money is wasted every year building rail systems, bus only lanes and stupid **** like that. None of which per dollar spent is as efficient as spending that road tax and other monies on fixing, maintaining and building new roads for cars and the commercial vehicles that deliver the food and other commodities needed for a first world country.

And yet, every year more money is dumped into those inefficient systems because it makes people like you feel better.

As a nation we’re are in retrograde. We are stumbling backwards at an alarming rate. In one more generation we could be a third world nation. That’s exactly where we are heading. Your notions only make that happen sooner.

We have already abandoned manufacturing to the point we can’t defend ourselves. We don’t have the materials to produce our own weapons systems.

I could go on, but it always comes full circle. No matter where you look at the circle, it points to retrograde thinking and behaviors.

Nah you are still putting words in my mouth. You're taking a very general statement and applying it to what you see fit. I don't think YOU should drive less, I have no idea what, where, how far you drive and I don't care. I'm talking about the people who daily-drive full-size pickup trucks and SUVs that get 10-15 MPG but never make use of the towing or hauling capacity and go out and buy (finance) a new car every 2-3 years just because it makes them feel better. OR they don't do anything to offset carbon emissions, like you do with planting trees (which is great, kudos to you). If you have a big truck you drive every day but you also tow and haul with it then that's fine in my mind but there are way too many people who over the past decade or so figured "trucks are cool and big and tough and gas is cheap I'll drive that just to haul my single body to work every day" and here we are with our 5th? 6th? fuel "crisis" and now you literally cannot buy a new vehicle made by an American company that isn't a full-size sedan or some form of crossover SUV because they put all their chips on selling what people want in the short-term. We never learn. I agree on the loss of manufacturing in the U.S. it is a travesty and a step backwards for sure. But that all happened because American companies are incredibly short-sighted and found it possible to increase profits by outsourcing. Conveniently for them countries like China have terrible pollution standards, look at any major industrial area there the air quality is so bad people are developing fatal health issues left and right and birth defects are rampant. That's the aspect that worries me. Ironically they've finally realized recently how badly it's affecting production (they don't give a **** about the health of their people just how much money gets made) and are making moves to clean things up. Same goes for India, they will soon be banning 2-strokes and most combustion engine vehicles in urban areas because the air quality is horrendous.

Again, I'm not that concerned about the planet as a whole I don't really buy that whole thing but you keep bringing it back to that. All I think is people should be mindful of how much energy they use in their daily lives and not being wasteful, no more no less. I don't think the gov needs to intervene and force people to think or act one way or the other, that's historically proven to never work and no freedom-loving American wants that. It clearly makes you feel better to write me off as a brainwashed liberal and tie all the stereotypes of that simply because I have an opinion about ONE aspect of the environment that you disagree with and it is impossible for you to not see everything in terms of black and white. Yes our current mass transit systems suck and it doesn't make me feel better just dumping money into it carelessly. And fortunately for me I live in a town where bike lanes are everywhere so don't worry about me hogging up your roads when I want to save gas and ride my bike to work on a nice day. I drive my Duster and D200 about once a week to keep them in good shape but my 2000 Buick I got for $1200 gets better mileage and pollutes a lot less while still being a fun, comfy car with a supercharged 3.8L V-6.

You have made some interesting points that have actually gotten me thinking but your shitty tone and making assumptions that I'm a useless gullible lib makes it really hard to take you seriously and want to have an intelligent discussion.

Sorry to the OP for this garbage tangent. I think I've said more than enough at this point.

 

[Hysteric]

I answered that. I get that you think swirl is a power maker but it is in fact a power loser. It is for emissions only and 99% for cold start emissions. And it requires cam timing changes for it.

Ask anyone what drives the tree hugging, sandal wearing, granola eaters wild the most and it’s cold start emissions.

People far smarter than you are running very high compression ratios because they have figured out that detonation is not only attributed to octane. There are other factors at play that you aren't even aware of. The mere fact that you do not understand what SWIRL is and what it does automatically consigns you to the distant past of engine research as the topic is still being investigated. If you had bothered to read some of it it would have broadened your horizons concerning what it does.

So by your logic improving combustion (which is what swirl does) decreases the force applied to the crank because: (Insert unscientific theory) Here:

Maybe go ask Darin Morgan why he uses a wet flow bench.......If airflow was all that mattered in an engine he is obviously wasting his time.

 

[92b]

Since we're already talking Government conspiracy theories and electric cars. Anybody have an idea how we could bring vaccinations into this conversation?

 

[Hysteric]

Since we're already talking Government conspiracy theories and electric cars. Anybody have an idea how we could bring vaccinations into this conversation?

 

[Scody21]

Well if you look at the roots of the medical system, it leads right to the oil companies…

 

[SLOPAR72]

Well if you look at the roots of the medical system, it leads right to the oil companies…

Oil and Insurance.... They run the country.....

JW

 

[George Jets]

Higher Compression = Cleaner Burn
More Power out of the same fuel spent.

It's not Rocket Science

☆☆☆☆☆

 

[Hysteric]

Higher Compression = Cleaner Burn

If the mixture is right and I don't mean AFR.

 

[Dan the man]

Higher Compression = Cleaner Burn
More Power out of the same fuel spent.

It's not Rocket Science

☆☆☆☆☆

This is exactly what I thought. A higher compression ratio would cause the mixture to burn cleaner and I think that heart shaped combustion chambers help improve the burn rate as well. Pistons at zero deck height or at least close will have a better flame travel. It's obvious why the 318's are known as gas hogs and poor performer's with their pistons being like a 0.100" down the bore. Look at Fords 5.0 in the 80's, they were known to get 25mpg and ran like a scalded dog, mopars 318 never did that from the factory.

 

[Dan the man]

If the mixture is right and I don't mean AFR.

This is what efi is suppose to do. It's pretty much impossible to get a carburetor to stay in tune, way to many variables.

 

[Dan the man]

Oil and Insurance.... They run the country.....

JW

True

 

[92b]

This is exactly what I thought. A higher compression ratio would cause the mixture to burn cleaner and I think that heart shaped combustion chambers help improve the burn rate as well. Pistons at zero deck height or at least close will have a better flame travel. It's obvious why the 318's are known as gas hogs and poor performer's with their pistons being like a 0.100" down the bore. Look at Fords 5.0 in the 80's, they were known to get 25mpg and ran like a scalded dog, mopars 318 never did that from the factory.

It's been a long time since I studied this but if you do a search on oxides of nitrogen I think it will help you find the answer to your question. Start with this definition. "Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are poisonous gases derived from nitrogen and oxygen combustion under high pressure and temperatures."
[Edit] You can look here also.Understanding Engine Exhaust Emissions

 

[MOPAROFFICIAL]

Higher Compression = Cleaner Burn
More Power out of the same fuel spent.

It's not Rocket Science

☆☆☆☆☆

Little more to it pertaining to some of the points in this convo than that.
As much octane as you NEED is what will burn the most efficient.
This almost reminds me of the air pump talk.

 

[pt70]

Electric vehicle's are a joke, limited traveling distance. Once there's only electric vehicle's, see what your taxes do then as the government has to make up for the lost revenue from gasoline taxes. Also the charging stations at different locations cost 5k a piece that cost will be passed on to the consumer. Charging your electric car at home requires a 220 outlet how many people have those in their garage? And you can't use a extension card for it.

A lot of misinformation here. Most [if not all] electric cars can be charged on 120 volts. It just takes longer, like overnight or less. The 'superchargers' require 240 volts and a 40 amp circuit, and a special outlet. They can charge the car in less than an hour. Some of the supermarkets have installed charging stations in their lots. Handy-dandy.

Note that the cost of installing pumps, underground tanks, islands, and the tanker trucks, their fuel, and their drivers are ALL being past on to the consumer.

The lack of gas tax revenue is a problem. CT and other states are already talking about a mileage tax. I like it. Everyone should pay their fair share for use of our roads. Including bicycle paths.

Batteries are improving. Tesla has a 500 mile sedan ou now.

 

[Ottmundr]

It didn’t. This is what happens when lawyers write laws about things for which they are wholly unqualified for.

Lower compression also increases heat in the exhaust. Makes less power. Burns more fuel per horsepower per hour (BSFC).

There is nothing good about low compression ratios.

 

[Ottmundr]

Since we're already talking Government conspiracy theories and electric cars. Anybody have an idea how we could bring vaccinations into this conversation?

Drive your weak cars, save the gas for me.

Masked and vaxxed

PUREBLOOD!

 

[Bewy]

The idiots, like Thunberg, that want everyone to drive elec cars only think to the end of their nose. None of it has been carefully thought through.
The cost of the infrastructure to electrify & install nation-wide charging stations will be massive. Especially countries with large land areas such as Canada & Australia with small populations [ 25m people in Aust ] from which to collect tax revenue to fund this gigantic hoax. Imagine the cost in mountainous countries with poor road access. And where do you dump the batteries once there millions on the road?

 

[Hysteric]

Some more stuff to think about.

5. FLOW IN THE CYLINDER by John L. Lumley, Cornell University (excerpt from his book: Engines – an introduction. Cambridge University Press, 1999) INTRODUCTION The gas flow in the cylinder has a profound influence on the performance of the engine, whether intended or not. In the early days of the automobile, it was seldom intended, because relatively little was understood about turbulence, the primary player in this drama. Engines were designed largely by empiricism; from time to time a particularly successful design emerged, and its characteristics (to the extent that their relevance was recognized) were preserved in subsequent engines. There are a couple of notable exceptions to this: In the first, between 1903 and 1907 H. R. Ricardo [45] (the father of the octane number), working at Cambridge University with Professor Bertram Hopkinson, did pioneering work on the effect of turbulence on combustion and heat transfer in the IC engine, particularly on the effect of the increased effective flame speed on knock, and on the possibility of stratified charge, among other things. This led, during the First World War, to great improvements in the design of tank engines (giving short flame travel and high turbulence levels, permitting higher compression ratios without knock), and after the war led to design modifications of the flat‐head, or side‐valve engine, which resulted in the same performance as the overhead valve engine, and which were generally adopted, and resulted in patents. The other notable exception involved measurements made of the swirl and tumble produced by various inlet configurations, and the effect of the swirl and tumble on combustion [63], [86].

The flow measurements were made using high speed photography of goose down (!) in a glass cylinder. The combustion measurements used schlieren techniques. The authors determined the major mean flow and turbulent characteristics of swirl and tumble, and their effects on combustion (we will detail this later). The work of Ricardo (above) and this pre‐war work were largely forgotten, and had to be rediscovered during the 1980s and 1990s. An example of an early engine designed largely on an empirical basis is the DOHC penta‐head engine, which was developed for racing during the teens of the century, and was afterward extensively used in aircraft. It was designed principally to maximize the valve area, which keeps the Mach index as low as possible, although the Mach index was not understood at the time. It was known to be particularly successful, but it was not understood until recently (except for the work of Ricardo [45] and the NACA work [63], [86]) that the orientation of the inlet valves induces tumble, which is then broken up as the piston approaches TC, resulting in high turbulence levels, and high effective flame speeds. The central location of the spark plug also gives relatively short travel distances for the flame front, which Ricardo [45] understood. The combination of short distances and high effective speeds results in short burn times, which means that the compression ratio can be increased at the same octane number without knock, one of Ricardoʹs basic findings [45].

In modern engines, short burn times can be taken advantage of in other ways. For example, higher exhaust gas recirculation rates (EGR) could be tolerated, resulting in higher efficiency and lower NOx production. This would be preferable to increasing the compression ratio in a modern engine, since an increased compression ratio could raise the unburned hydrocarbon emissions, because the crevice volume would become a larger fraction of the total volume

Lower octane fuels can work at higher compression ratio's when you know what you're doing.

 

[Scody21]

Oil and Insurance.... They run the country.....

JW

It’s the Banks…

 

[92b]

Drive your weak cars, save the gas for me.

Masked and vaxxed
View attachment 1715904821View attachment 1715904822



PUREBLOOD!
View attachment 1715904823

And now a little homophobia added to the mix. Nice job! Racism anyone?

 

[SLOPAR72]

It’s the Banks…

No doubt they are part of the equation....

Insurance is actually the most profitable form of legal gambling there will ever be....

JW

 

[Dan the man]

A lot of misinformation here. Most [if not all] electric cars can be charged on 120 volts. It just takes longer, like overnight or less. The 'superchargers' require 240 volts and a 40 amp circuit, and a special outlet. They can charge the car in less than an hour. Some of the supermarkets have installed charging stations in their lots. Handy-dandy.

Note that the cost of installing pumps, underground tanks, islands, and the tanker trucks, their fuel, and their drivers are ALL being past on to the consumer.

The lack of gas tax revenue is a problem. CT and other states are already talking about a mileage tax. I like it. Everyone should pay their fair share for use of our roads. Including bicycle paths.

Batteries are improving. Tesla has a 500 mile sedan ou now.

I'm sure that they will find a way to make everyone pay and I disagree with that, say for seniors who don't drink anymore shouldn't have to pay any form of a tax that replaces the lost revenue from the fuel tax.

 

[Dan the man]

I'm sure that they will find a way to make everyone pay and I disagree with that, say for seniors who don't drink anymore shouldn't have to pay any form of a tax that replaces the lost revenue from the fuel tax.

I mean drive anymore, I had a senior moment

 

[92b]

I mean drive anymore, I had a senior moment

Did you find an answer to your question in the link I sent you?

 

[Dan the man]

Did you find an answer to your question in the link I sent you?

Yes, thanks