Stop global warming
Yes, I think we can. The present internal combustion engine was mostly developed in a time when fuel cost and efficiency were not imperatives. We need to go back to the early days of engine devleopment and reassess the way designers handled branches in the design road. We may have overlooked some better choices way back when the discovery of oil in Oklahoma and Texas seemed to say that there would be cheap gasoline forever.
One of these early branches in the road was a choice between four-stroke cycle engines and two-stroke cycle engines for automobiles. At the time, we used carburetors to feed fuel to the cylinders. In this context, the four-stroke engine is a far better choice. (More efficient and less polluting.)
But, the trend today is toward injection of fuel directly into the cylinders. With this modern option, the two-stroke cycle actually provides a far more efficient engine. Here are some other choices that need to be reviewed:
1. Engines are only designed for either gasoline or diesel, and nothing else.
2. Compression ratios are lower than one would choose for best efficiency.
3. Engine design principles are not based on a need to reduce weight.
Some people are looking at the exciting possibilities still left to be explored. A possible outcome may be radically new engine types in the near future.
Ernie Rogers
Monday, November 8, 2004
Saturday, September 11, 2004
MPG Update
I changed fuel in the last few weeks. Currently, I am using Philips diesel from the North Salt Lake Refinery, used in this intermountain region. I seem to have better mileage with this fuel, now getting 62 mpg.
This is a point for reflection-- what further change in driving or car properties should I make to increase my mileage a little more? Any suggestions?
Ernie Rogers
This is a point for reflection-- what further change in driving or car properties should I make to increase my mileage a little more? Any suggestions?
Ernie Rogers
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Ernie's Alaskan Adventure
This summer, my grandson, Kai Rogers, and I drove to Alaska--Salt Lake City to Anchorage, 3,000 miles. Of course, we went in the thrifty, fuel-sipping Beetle TDI diesel.
Total fuel for the trip to Alaska, 3,000 miles, was 52 gallons. Not bad --- about 57 miles per gallon. On the return trip we did a little better, getting 58 miles per gallon.
I had hoped to do better. Here in the western states, my summer mileage is consistently about 60 miles per gallon. We surmise that the reason is the difference in climate. It would be necessary to use a little different diesel fuel blend in northern Canada and Alaska to insure that the fuel doesn't solidify if the weather were to suddenly turn cold. Cold-weather fuel contains a little less energy than what we use down around Utah in the summer time.
You can follow the link to my car's web page to see some pictures and hear more about the trip.
Ernie
Total fuel for the trip to Alaska, 3,000 miles, was 52 gallons. Not bad --- about 57 miles per gallon. On the return trip we did a little better, getting 58 miles per gallon.
I had hoped to do better. Here in the western states, my summer mileage is consistently about 60 miles per gallon. We surmise that the reason is the difference in climate. It would be necessary to use a little different diesel fuel blend in northern Canada and Alaska to insure that the fuel doesn't solidify if the weather were to suddenly turn cold. Cold-weather fuel contains a little less energy than what we use down around Utah in the summer time.
You can follow the link to my car's web page to see some pictures and hear more about the trip.
Ernie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)