At 03:26 PM 2/01/2008, you wrote:
>Some people will never believe no matter what .
>If you read further than the front page you will find
>they rate various devices and their complexity and
>whether they have been duplicated by others
>independently.
>I have seen two of these engine mod designs working!
>The cheapest two ideas to use are the vortex generators
>(Manf in Australia $200, 10% fuel saving )virtually the
>same savings as the Sinha deturbulater quotes but lasts for
>years longer
>"The stack" hydroxy boost method in a Landrover Discovery,
>only enough room under the bonnet for 2 units
>+ bubblers, Build cost + tuning $850
>The combined savings for a 4 ltr V8 averages a 30%
>Makes a thirsty beast quite reasonable to afford.
>
>I have some experience of running gas fueled vehicles
>LPG/CNG/Methane and the kind of mind and tenacity
>willing to have a go at getting things like this working.
>
>Some of the electrical devices are outside my area but
>I seek further information or build one of the designs
>to verify.
>
>Just remember this site just acts as a gathering place
>for all these various ideas and gives some ratings
>Some ideas are practical some are off the planet.
>Your decision
>
>
>
>_
Gary,
I'm willing to believe that under some circumstances adding vortex
generators in the inlet system of an I.C. engine might have some
benefit (poor mixture distribution to the individual cylinders - we
Lycoming owners know about this). Likewise adding electrolytically
generated hydrogen/oxygen mix to the fuel air mixture could
conceivably have some benefit in aiding the fuel/air combustion
process but the answer to these things is to do the experiment under
controlled conditions and publish the results - whether or not they
support your hypothesis. There are plenty of dynamometers and
mechanical engineering departments at universities and the
experimental design here isn't hard. Otherwise we are in the realm of
factory polars from German glider manufacturers.
Which leads to the problem of how to do experiments under controlled
conditions when trying to figure out the natural world. Mostly you
can't and so you look for circumstances under which your preferred
conditions seem to be occurring, do some measurements and if you are
very lucky indeed you just might get some results that are less than equivocal.
No Ray, the evidence for AGW isn't unequivocal. Billions of dollars
are being spent every year, and continue to be spent trying to figure
out what is happening. The signal is very noisy, the sensor accuracy
is doubtful and this applies to ground stations, radiosondes and
satellites. There is respectable scientific opinion and evidence on
both sides of the argument.
Temperatures haven't risen uniformly as CO2 levels have increased.
You might like to wonder why temperatures appeared to have cooled
from the MWP to the LIA when CO2 was allegedly constant. Latest
thinking is that aerosols can have a warming or cooling effect
depending on the size of particles, composition etc, etc ,etc. Clouds
have a warming or cooling effect depending on altitude and location.
Low clouds generally cool because they reflect incoming S.W.
radiation better than they trap outgoing L.W.. For high clouds the
opposite is generally the case.
As for the third of your US EPA references, the GCM's might start out
with the intention of being physical but they certainly aren't in the
state they are running today. Look up "parameterisation" and why it
is used in the GCMs.
Computer models are fine for predicting what you experiments ought to
show and a great aid to experimental design but they *must* be
validated (or not) by real world measurements. At least that was the
way it used to be done. Recently Gavin Schmidt at R.C. claimed that
the models were not able to be invalidated by real world
measurements. Look it up. Not that the models were good, but that
they had such a wide range of outcomes as to incorporate any range of
real world measurements that were possible.
Any glider pilot with any interest in the aerodynamics of gliders
knows the manufacturers use computer models to design and predict the
performance of their products. We all know how well that sometimes
works. The folks at Boeing and Airbus do the same and they are
working with turbulent flow aerodynamics which is relatively
predictable. Funny thing is they still use wind tunnels also and
sometimes must make aerodynamic fixes after the real aircraft flys.
After you have figured out what the acronyms I've used mean and done
the last things, you might actually be a lot more knowledgeable.
As for those skeptical of the AGW theory having vested interests, I
guess you are right. I don't want my money stolen by windmill
scammers, my freedoms taken away by lunatic politicians
riding the current fashionable bandwagon or be dictated to by
deranged socialists who are still regretting the demise of the USSR
and who will grasp any straw in order to make people live "better"
lives according to the their socialist theories.
I mean the people on the pro AGW side have motives as pure as the
driven snow don't they? They would never exaggerate the evidence to
gain better funding would they? Or sell windmills? Or carbon credits?
Oh god! I just remembered. I once got money from an oil company! I
worked for BP Australia for a few weeks during uni vacation at the
end of 1966. So I guess you can ignore me.
BTW I'd like one of these www.aptera.com
Mike
Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments
phone Int'l + 61 746 355784
fax Int'l + 61 746 358796
cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784
Int'l + 61 429 355784
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website: www.borgeltinstruments.com
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
