Gas Mileage Improvement

[QUIXO777]

if you think thats true, then they have already won...
there is no way it can make air colder...it is supposed to create a vortex which is later disrupted by the rest of the intake.
the tornado is a piece of metal that is restricting your engine.

clicky

sorry to burst your bubble.

Moving air makes it cooler

 

[Fix4Dirt]

Moving air makes it cooler

moving the air does not make it cooler, it just accelerates the heat transfer process, as when it is not moving the stagnant air heats from say your body, and as it heats, it cant transfer the heat from your body as effectively, but when it moves the warmer prior stagnant air is replaced by other air at the surrounding temperature which is more "primed" to transfer heat, as it has not come in contact with heat as much prior. not sure if that makes sense. TLDR: moving air is not cooler than stagnant air it just transfers heat better, its just our body perceives it as cooler that way, but still 70 degree air is the same as moving 70 degree air and at 70 both the still and moving air will heat transfer just as effectively. moving air is no cooler than standing air until it comes in contact with something warmer

 

[donalds]

moving the air does not make it cooler, it just accelerates the heat transfer process, as when it is not moving the stagnant air heats from say your body, and as it heats, it cant transfer the heat from your body as effectively, but when it moves the warmer prior stagnant air is replaced by other air at the surrounding temperature which is more "primed" to transfer heat, as it has not come in contact with heat as much prior. not sure if that makes sense. TLDR: moving air is not cooler than stagnant air it just transfers heat better, its just our body perceives it as cooler that way, but still 70 degree air is the same as moving 70 degree air and at 70 both the still and moving air will heat transfer just as effectively. moving air is no cooler than standing air until it comes in contact with something warmer

You would understand HVAC systems well

 

[Mbrooks420]

Moving air makes it cooler

No. Air going from high to low pressure makes it cooler. Hold a thermometer out the window and drive. It won’t get colder.

 

[94Eddie]

There are so many MPG improving gimmicks that have come to market over the years. A family member swore that a hydrogen gas generator was giving him increased gas mileage. I tried to explain there is no free lunch with these gimmick devices regarding energy. That the electricity used to generate the hydrogen was putting the engine under a higher load from the alternator producing more current and this was burning more gasoline. Then I went into the inefficiencies for the conversion of gasoline to mechanical motion to the inefficiencies of the alternator using mechanical motion to produce electricity to the inefficiencies of the hydrogen generator using electricity to produce hydrogen. He wasn't having any of this and was convinced the hydrogen gas made his engine more efficient.

The only way I can see a tornado type of device saving gas is if it is enough of a restriction to limit the engine from burning fuel during higher load conditions. Sort of the same effect a one barrel carburetor with a much smaller CFM rating versus much larger four barrel carburetor with a much larger CFM rating would have on mpg. The smaller carburetor doesn't allow the driver to "put his foot down" and burn fuel at a higher rate that is less efficient. This might mean the vehicle can't maintain speed going uphill or againt a strong wind but it will be more fuel efficient. This said I don't think the tornado type of devices are this restrictive and therefore have any appreciable effect on mpg.

One of the funniest gimmicks I have seen promoted is installing an alternator(s) in an EV. The theory is to have the wheel(s) drive the alternator as the EV moves and use the electricity it produces fed back to the electric motors driving the vehicle. Some think this is as close to a perpetual motion machine as we can get.

 

[Fix4Dirt]

One of the funniest gimmicks I have seen promoted is installing an alternator(s) in an EV. The theory is to have the wheel(s) drive the alternator as the EV moves and use the electricity it produces fed back to the electric motors driving the vehicle. Some think this is as close to a perpetual motion machine as we can get.

so youre increasing load on the motors............. to charge the battery? id like to see someone do that.... just to measure how much charge is used at say 40 moving for 20 miles vs 40 20 miles with the alt on it see if increasing load to feed power back is even efficient maybe going down a hill foot off the gas but then again dont they do that already? not very ev versed

You would understand HVAC systems well

lol! its just a chem question, somewhat! although im good with the general principles of that kind of stuff, bet theres a bunch of stuff i cant explain/dont know though still got a bunch more years to learn though!

im also realizing my tldr sections are just as long as my long drawn out ones

 

[94Eddie]

so youre increasing load on the motors............. to charge the battery? id like to see someone do that.... just to measure how much charge is used at say 40 moving for 20 miles vs 40 20 miles with the alt on it see if increasing load to feed power back is even efficient maybe going down a hill foot off the gas but then again dont they do that already? not very ev versed

The EVs already have regenerative braking that is very efficient. One thing that is clear about EVs is their range drops like a rock when they are under a sustained load. I watched a video on YouTube the other day where a guy used an EV Lightening F150. He has the 230 mile range version and he planned to make two round trips to pick up two cars 32 miles away and the terrain is pretty much flat for the trip (Kansas). At the start of the first trip the truck was charged to an estimated range of a little more than 200 miles. He was pulling an empty trailer that weighted 1,400 lbs. At the end of the first one way trip the estimated range dropped to 132 miles. The truck used around 70 miles of estimated range to travel 32 miles with an empty 1,400 lb trailer!

On the return trip he loaded up a Model T pickup for a total weight of around 3,700 lbs. At the end of the return trip there was 50 miles of estimated range left. So to go 32 miles the truck used 82 miles of estimated range! The second round trip was out of the question without getting a charge. I have seen other YouTubers get the results with the Lightening and other EV trucks when towing. An ICE truck doesn't take near the hit on range when towing the same load. EV cars are the same when going up steep long grades or traveling at high rates of speed. Then add in cold temperatures reducing battery efficiency and use of the heater and the estimated range can be chewed up in very few miles.

 

[C420sailor]

Fewer restrictions and smoother surfaces don’t always mean superior flow and performance. Fluid dynamics is something that is pretty intuitive about 75% of the time, but if I had a dollar for every time someone yielded poorer dyno performance after making a ‘common sense’ airflow mod, I’d be a rich man.

That said, do I think these devices are gimmicks? You betcha. That also said, a broken clock is right twice a day. You may throw one of these in an intake that just happens to have a design that could benefit from a little restriction or turbulent flow. Many very high end engines have textured intake tracts instead of highly polished ones. Why? Has to do with boundary layer, turbulent vs laminar flow and free stream velocities. Lots of nerdery that isn’t always intuitive.

An example of this? In airplanes, the O-470 is a popular six cylinder piston engine. Due to the differences in intake runner length, it is a real ***** to run ‘lean of peak’ for optimal fuel economy in full throttle cruise. Pilots found that with the throttle plate slightly closed, it created just the right amount of turbulent flow to allow for more even air/fuel distribution to all the cylinders, making LOP operation possible. In other words, you could save more gas by inducing a little more airflow restriction. Not intuitive, but it’s true.

It’s wild thinking air around/through an object is going to act one way, and then seeing the results of a computational fluid analysis. Sometimes it’s nothing like what you’d expect.

 

[Turdle]

Fewer restrictions and smoother surfaces don’t always mean superior flow and performance. Fluid dynamics is something that is pretty intuitive about 75% of the time, but if I had a dollar for every time someone yielded poorer dyno performance after making a ‘common sense’ airflow mod, I’d be a rich man.

That said, do I think these devices are gimmicks? You betcha. That also said, a broken clock is right twice a day. You may throw one of these in an intake that just happens to have a design that could benefit from a little restriction or turbulent flow. Many very high end engines have textured intake tracts instead of highly polished ones. Why? Has to do with boundary layer, turbulent vs laminar flow and free stream velocities. Lots of nerdery that isn’t always intuitive.

An example of this? In airplanes, the O-470 is a popular six cylinder piston engine. Due to the differences in intake runner length, it is a real ***** to run ‘lean of peak’ for optimal fuel economy in full throttle cruise. Pilots found that with the throttle plate slightly closed, it created just the right amount of turbulent flow to allow for more even air/fuel distribution to all the cylinders, making LOP operation possible. In other words, you could save more gas by inducing a little more airflow restriction. Not intuitive, but it’s true.

It’s wild thinking air around/through an object is going to act one way, and then seeing the results of a computational fluid analysis. Sometimes it’s nothing like what you’d expect.

So, the dimples on a golf ball make it travel further. Dimples inside the runners might do something interesting. I wonder if that has been attempted.

 

[94Eddie]

Fewer restrictions and smoother surfaces don’t always mean superior flow and performance. Fluid dynamics is something that is pretty intuitive about 75% of the time, but if I had a dollar for every time someone yielded poorer dyno performance after making a ‘common sense’ airflow mod, I’d be a rich man.

That said, do I think these devices are gimmicks? You betcha. That also said, a broken clock is right twice a day. You may throw one of these in an intake that just happens to have a design that could benefit from a little restriction or turbulent flow. Many very high end engines have textured intake tracts instead of highly polished ones. Why? Has to do with boundary layer, turbulent vs laminar flow and free stream velocities. Lots of nerdery that isn’t always intuitive.

An example of this? In airplanes, the O-470 is a popular six cylinder piston engine. Due to the differences in intake runner length, it is a real ***** to run ‘lean of peak’ for optimal fuel economy in full throttle cruise. Pilots found that with the throttle plate slightly closed, it created just the right amount of turbulent flow to allow for more even air/fuel distribution to all the cylinders, making LOP operation possible. In other words, you could save more gas by inducing a little more airflow restriction. Not intuitive, but it’s true.

It’s wild thinking air around/through an object is going to act one way, and then seeing the results of a computational fluid analysis. Sometimes it’s nothing like what you’d expect.

The 4.6L 3V V8s are an example of what you say above. Many people replace the charge motion spacer with delete plates thinking they will get a power boost across the RPM range. The plates have two intake openings for each cylinder. On the OEM units one of the openings has a butterfly plate in the intake track that opens and closes depending on RPM, throttle position etc. What people found when replacing the OEM part with one that deletes the throttle opening was a noticeable drop in low to mid horsepower and torque. They gained a little high RPM horsepower but the overall driving experience was worse. It turns out Ford stuck the throttle plate in to increase air turbulence just before the intake valves to increase atomization of the fuel as it entered the combustion chamber. This allowed for a more efficeint burning of the fuel in low to mid RRM ranges which created more power while improving fuel efficiency. My 2007 Mustang has a definite power spike around 4,500 RPM when these throttle plates go wide open. So the plates allow good low/mid RPM performance without sacrificing much high RPM power. The key is where to induce this turbulence. Things like the Tornado create the turbulence well before the intake valves so it is dissipated by the time it reaches the fuel injection point. Turbulence works at certain locations in the intake tract. Otherwise it is a restriction to airflow that reduces power.

I am curious as to whether the O-470 has tuned intake runners.

 

[94Eddie]

So, the dimples on a golf ball make it travel further. Dimples inside the runners might do something interesting. I wonder if that has been attempted.

I remember an episode of the Mythbusters where they dimpled the surface of a car and it went from 26 mpg to 29 mpg. I miss that show.

 

[joney]

There are so many MPG improving gimmicks that have come to market over the years. A family member swore that a hydrogen gas generator was giving him increased gas mileage. I tried to explain there is no free lunch with these gimmick devices regarding energy. That the electricity used to generate the hydrogen was putting the engine under a higher load from the alternator producing more current and this was burning more gasoline. Then I went into the inefficiencies for the conversion of gasoline to mechanical motion to the inefficiencies of the alternator using mechanical motion to produce electricity to the inefficiencies of the hydrogen generator using electricity to produce hydrogen. He wasn't having any of this and was convinced the hydrogen gas made his engine more efficient.

The only way I can see a tornado type of device saving gas is if it is enough of a restriction to limit the engine from burning fuel during higher load conditions. Sort of the same effect a one barrel carburetor with a much smaller CFM rating versus much larger four barrel carburetor with a much larger CFM rating would have on mpg. The smaller carburetor doesn't allow the driver to "put his foot down" and burn fuel at a higher rate that is less efficient. This might mean the vehicle can't maintain speed going uphill or againt a strong wind but it will be more fuel efficient. This said I don't think the tornado type of devices are this restrictive and therefore have any appreciable effect on mpg.

One of the funniest gimmicks I have seen promoted is installing an alternator(s) in an EV. The theory is to have the wheel(s) drive the alternator as the EV moves and use the electricity it produces fed back to the electric motors driving the vehicle. Some think this is as close to a perpetual motion machine as we can get.

Doesn't a hybrid do similar (regenerative) to charge its battery? No energy transfer/conversion is anywhere near 100% of course. Just picks up a bit of juice from the gas-powered motion. Perpetual motion LOL.

 

[94Eddie]

Doesn't a hybrid do similar (regenerative) to charge its battery? No energy transfer/conversion is anywhere near 100% of course. Just picks up a bit of juice from the gas-powered motion. Perpetual motion LOL.

They do this too. The hybrid batteries have a much smaller capacity than EVs. Their batteries are mainly used to assist takeoff from a dead start and to run the vehicle for just a few miles on electricity only. This is why they get so much better city mpg ratings than on the highway.

 

[DintDobbs]

@QUIXO777 Congratulations, you revived a thread that sat untouched for 16 years! That's the oldest revival I've ever seen. You also made an other world record, you actually got a good conversation going under it. Almost went for three records - nobody mentioning the ancient thread revival. 2 out of 3 ain't bad!

Moving air isn't cooler or warmer than stationary air, but the movement or circulation helps to equalize the temperature between existing hot air and existing cold air, because the heat transfers to the cooler air. This heat transfer still occurs even when the air is static, but the process takes much longer, because the hotter air isn't exposed to as much colder air to which it would dissipate heat.

On the other side of the coin, if your thermometer is in a cool place and you turn on a fan to blow air across the thermometer, chances are the thermometer will read higher after the fan is on, because the air circulation just helps to equalize the temperature by combining existing warm air with existing cooler air. Ever feel a warm breeze? Hot moving air combines with the cooler air that you're standing in, thereby increasing your local temperature. This concept is applied by electric space heaters with integrated fans; the movement helps to transfer the heat to the cooler air more efficiently, warming a room faster than that same amount of heat energy would, if it had no fan to disturb the static air.

Movement in the air can cause it to become much warmer. In fact, moving air inherently causes friction, thereby increasing its temperature - hence, why meteors, satellites, and space shuttles become extremely hot when moving into the atmosphere at high speed.

But in all seriousness, to all who have contributed, the restrictions improving efficiency is the reason you don't put a 4" exhaust pipe on every car. Depending on engine bore, stroke, and RPM's at any given time, a smaller exhaust pipe can provide better performance - the air doesn't care where the pipe is on the car, intake, exhaust, radiator, air conditioner, body panels, it's all still air. Physics rule, I wonder if when God created the heavens and the earth, if he figured we'd use air for this kind of stuff. xD

 

[Fix4Dirt]

@QUIXO777 Congratulations, you revived a thread that sat untouched for 16 years! That's the oldest revival I've ever seen. You also made an other world record, you actually got a good conversation going under it. Almost went for three records - nobody mentioning the ancient thread revival. 2 out of 3 ain't bad!

Moving air isn't cooler or warmer than stationary air, but the movement or circulation helps to equalize the temperature between existing hot air and existing cold air, because the heat transfers to the cooler air. This heat transfer still occurs even when the air is static, but the process takes much longer, because the hotter air isn't exposed to as much colder air to which it would dissipate heat.

On the other side of the coin, if your thermometer is in a cool place and you turn on a fan to blow air across the thermometer, chances are the thermometer will read higher after the fan is on, because the air circulation just helps to equalize the temperature by combining existing warm air with existing cooler air. Ever feel a warm breeze? Hot moving air combines with the cooler air that you're standing in, thereby increasing your local temperature. This concept is applied by electric space heaters with integrated fans; the movement helps to transfer the heat to the cooler air more efficiently, warming a room faster than that same amount of heat energy would, if it had no fan to disturb the static air.

Movement in the air can cause it to become much warmer. In fact, moving air inherently causes friction, thereby increasing its temperature - hence, why meteors, satellites, and space shuttles become extremely hot when moving into the atmosphere at high speed.

But in all seriousness, to all who have contributed, the restrictions improving efficiency is the reason you don't put a 4" exhaust pipe on every car. Depending on engine bore, stroke, and RPM's at any given time, a smaller exhaust pipe can provide better performance - the air doesn't care where the pipe is on the car, intake, exhaust, radiator, air conditioner, body panels, it's all still air. Physics rule, I wonder if when God created the heavens and the earth, if he figured we'd use air for this kind of stuff. xD

great explanation!!!! if i were to guess, i dont think even cellular respiration or atp production was anticipated miracle we even have living things, let alone things as complex as humans or other eukaryotes! (sorry, ill stop!)