Diesel v petrol fuel economy
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel v petrol fuel economy
"Spooky" <nobodyofthatname@hatmail.com> wrote in message
news:0W5df.12106$lJ.603@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Hello Hairy. Don't you hang around uk.telecom.mobile too? Think I've seen
> your name in there somewhere.
Nope, sorry...
H1K
news:0W5df.12106$lJ.603@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Hello Hairy. Don't you hang around uk.telecom.mobile too? Think I've seen
> your name in there somewhere.
Nope, sorry...
H1K
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel v petrol fuel economy
"Spooky" <nobodyofthatname@hatmail.com> wrote in message
news:0W5df.12106$lJ.603@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Hello Hairy. Don't you hang around uk.telecom.mobile too? Think I've seen
> your name in there somewhere.
Nope, sorry...
H1K
news:0W5df.12106$lJ.603@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Hello Hairy. Don't you hang around uk.telecom.mobile too? Think I've seen
> your name in there somewhere.
Nope, sorry...
H1K
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel v petrol fuel economy
"Spooky" <nobodyofthatname@hatmail.com> wrote in message
news:0W5df.12106$lJ.603@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Hello Hairy. Don't you hang around uk.telecom.mobile too? Think I've seen
> your name in there somewhere.
Nope, sorry...
H1K
news:0W5df.12106$lJ.603@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Hello Hairy. Don't you hang around uk.telecom.mobile too? Think I've seen
> your name in there somewhere.
Nope, sorry...
H1K
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel v petrol fuel economy
"Spooky" <nobodyofthatname@hatmail.com> wrote in message
news:0W5df.12106$lJ.603@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Hello Hairy. Don't you hang around uk.telecom.mobile too? Think I've seen
> your name in there somewhere.
Nope, sorry...
H1K
news:0W5df.12106$lJ.603@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Hello Hairy. Don't you hang around uk.telecom.mobile too? Think I've seen
> your name in there somewhere.
Nope, sorry...
H1K
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel v petrol fuel economy
"Albert T Cone" <me@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3tjfcgFsgkqsU1@individual.net...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> >>Well, there was a rumour that at the time of it's launch, the VW-Audi PD
> >>130 TDi was the most thermally efficient production car engine
> >>available, 43% of the fuel energy into power
> >
> > Sounds like someone's dream - the mere age of the fuel would make
several
> > percent difference in conversion efficiency, let alone the fact that
they're
> > using the same thermodynamic cycle as everyone else!
> >
> > It's been a couple of decades since College, but 43% sounds like the
Carnot
> > Cycle (i.e. theoretically perfect), rather than something produced by a
> > typical petrol engine. The hs tables are undoubtedly in the loft, but,
well,
> > um ;o)
> >
> > Standing-by to be corrected...
> >
> > H1K
>
> Hmmm. A diesel-cycle, with an expansion ratio of 5, a CR of 19 and
> using eta=1.4 gives a theoretical efficiency of 57%, even ignoring the
> increased effective CR due to the turbo.
>
> IIRC modern low NOx diesels have flame temperatures of under 2000K, and
> exhaust temperatures of around 500K, so the equivalent Carnot cycle
> efficiency would be around 75%
Wowsa.. things have changed since 1988 ;o) For some reason, 43% rang a
bell.. I stand/sit corrected!
The age of the fuel still makes a difference, though - enough so that F1
fuel is overrated when transported, but down to pump values when used a few
days later.
H1K
news:3tjfcgFsgkqsU1@individual.net...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> >>Well, there was a rumour that at the time of it's launch, the VW-Audi PD
> >>130 TDi was the most thermally efficient production car engine
> >>available, 43% of the fuel energy into power
> >
> > Sounds like someone's dream - the mere age of the fuel would make
several
> > percent difference in conversion efficiency, let alone the fact that
they're
> > using the same thermodynamic cycle as everyone else!
> >
> > It's been a couple of decades since College, but 43% sounds like the
Carnot
> > Cycle (i.e. theoretically perfect), rather than something produced by a
> > typical petrol engine. The hs tables are undoubtedly in the loft, but,
well,
> > um ;o)
> >
> > Standing-by to be corrected...
> >
> > H1K
>
> Hmmm. A diesel-cycle, with an expansion ratio of 5, a CR of 19 and
> using eta=1.4 gives a theoretical efficiency of 57%, even ignoring the
> increased effective CR due to the turbo.
>
> IIRC modern low NOx diesels have flame temperatures of under 2000K, and
> exhaust temperatures of around 500K, so the equivalent Carnot cycle
> efficiency would be around 75%
Wowsa.. things have changed since 1988 ;o) For some reason, 43% rang a
bell.. I stand/sit corrected!
The age of the fuel still makes a difference, though - enough so that F1
fuel is overrated when transported, but down to pump values when used a few
days later.
H1K
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel v petrol fuel economy
"Albert T Cone" <me@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3tjfcgFsgkqsU1@individual.net...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> >>Well, there was a rumour that at the time of it's launch, the VW-Audi PD
> >>130 TDi was the most thermally efficient production car engine
> >>available, 43% of the fuel energy into power
> >
> > Sounds like someone's dream - the mere age of the fuel would make
several
> > percent difference in conversion efficiency, let alone the fact that
they're
> > using the same thermodynamic cycle as everyone else!
> >
> > It's been a couple of decades since College, but 43% sounds like the
Carnot
> > Cycle (i.e. theoretically perfect), rather than something produced by a
> > typical petrol engine. The hs tables are undoubtedly in the loft, but,
well,
> > um ;o)
> >
> > Standing-by to be corrected...
> >
> > H1K
>
> Hmmm. A diesel-cycle, with an expansion ratio of 5, a CR of 19 and
> using eta=1.4 gives a theoretical efficiency of 57%, even ignoring the
> increased effective CR due to the turbo.
>
> IIRC modern low NOx diesels have flame temperatures of under 2000K, and
> exhaust temperatures of around 500K, so the equivalent Carnot cycle
> efficiency would be around 75%
Wowsa.. things have changed since 1988 ;o) For some reason, 43% rang a
bell.. I stand/sit corrected!
The age of the fuel still makes a difference, though - enough so that F1
fuel is overrated when transported, but down to pump values when used a few
days later.
H1K
news:3tjfcgFsgkqsU1@individual.net...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> >>Well, there was a rumour that at the time of it's launch, the VW-Audi PD
> >>130 TDi was the most thermally efficient production car engine
> >>available, 43% of the fuel energy into power
> >
> > Sounds like someone's dream - the mere age of the fuel would make
several
> > percent difference in conversion efficiency, let alone the fact that
they're
> > using the same thermodynamic cycle as everyone else!
> >
> > It's been a couple of decades since College, but 43% sounds like the
Carnot
> > Cycle (i.e. theoretically perfect), rather than something produced by a
> > typical petrol engine. The hs tables are undoubtedly in the loft, but,
well,
> > um ;o)
> >
> > Standing-by to be corrected...
> >
> > H1K
>
> Hmmm. A diesel-cycle, with an expansion ratio of 5, a CR of 19 and
> using eta=1.4 gives a theoretical efficiency of 57%, even ignoring the
> increased effective CR due to the turbo.
>
> IIRC modern low NOx diesels have flame temperatures of under 2000K, and
> exhaust temperatures of around 500K, so the equivalent Carnot cycle
> efficiency would be around 75%
Wowsa.. things have changed since 1988 ;o) For some reason, 43% rang a
bell.. I stand/sit corrected!
The age of the fuel still makes a difference, though - enough so that F1
fuel is overrated when transported, but down to pump values when used a few
days later.
H1K
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel v petrol fuel economy
"Albert T Cone" <me@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3tjfcgFsgkqsU1@individual.net...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> >>Well, there was a rumour that at the time of it's launch, the VW-Audi PD
> >>130 TDi was the most thermally efficient production car engine
> >>available, 43% of the fuel energy into power
> >
> > Sounds like someone's dream - the mere age of the fuel would make
several
> > percent difference in conversion efficiency, let alone the fact that
they're
> > using the same thermodynamic cycle as everyone else!
> >
> > It's been a couple of decades since College, but 43% sounds like the
Carnot
> > Cycle (i.e. theoretically perfect), rather than something produced by a
> > typical petrol engine. The hs tables are undoubtedly in the loft, but,
well,
> > um ;o)
> >
> > Standing-by to be corrected...
> >
> > H1K
>
> Hmmm. A diesel-cycle, with an expansion ratio of 5, a CR of 19 and
> using eta=1.4 gives a theoretical efficiency of 57%, even ignoring the
> increased effective CR due to the turbo.
>
> IIRC modern low NOx diesels have flame temperatures of under 2000K, and
> exhaust temperatures of around 500K, so the equivalent Carnot cycle
> efficiency would be around 75%
Wowsa.. things have changed since 1988 ;o) For some reason, 43% rang a
bell.. I stand/sit corrected!
The age of the fuel still makes a difference, though - enough so that F1
fuel is overrated when transported, but down to pump values when used a few
days later.
H1K
news:3tjfcgFsgkqsU1@individual.net...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> >>Well, there was a rumour that at the time of it's launch, the VW-Audi PD
> >>130 TDi was the most thermally efficient production car engine
> >>available, 43% of the fuel energy into power
> >
> > Sounds like someone's dream - the mere age of the fuel would make
several
> > percent difference in conversion efficiency, let alone the fact that
they're
> > using the same thermodynamic cycle as everyone else!
> >
> > It's been a couple of decades since College, but 43% sounds like the
Carnot
> > Cycle (i.e. theoretically perfect), rather than something produced by a
> > typical petrol engine. The hs tables are undoubtedly in the loft, but,
well,
> > um ;o)
> >
> > Standing-by to be corrected...
> >
> > H1K
>
> Hmmm. A diesel-cycle, with an expansion ratio of 5, a CR of 19 and
> using eta=1.4 gives a theoretical efficiency of 57%, even ignoring the
> increased effective CR due to the turbo.
>
> IIRC modern low NOx diesels have flame temperatures of under 2000K, and
> exhaust temperatures of around 500K, so the equivalent Carnot cycle
> efficiency would be around 75%
Wowsa.. things have changed since 1988 ;o) For some reason, 43% rang a
bell.. I stand/sit corrected!
The age of the fuel still makes a difference, though - enough so that F1
fuel is overrated when transported, but down to pump values when used a few
days later.
H1K
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel v petrol fuel economy
"Albert T Cone" <me@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3tjfcgFsgkqsU1@individual.net...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> >>Well, there was a rumour that at the time of it's launch, the VW-Audi PD
> >>130 TDi was the most thermally efficient production car engine
> >>available, 43% of the fuel energy into power
> >
> > Sounds like someone's dream - the mere age of the fuel would make
several
> > percent difference in conversion efficiency, let alone the fact that
they're
> > using the same thermodynamic cycle as everyone else!
> >
> > It's been a couple of decades since College, but 43% sounds like the
Carnot
> > Cycle (i.e. theoretically perfect), rather than something produced by a
> > typical petrol engine. The hs tables are undoubtedly in the loft, but,
well,
> > um ;o)
> >
> > Standing-by to be corrected...
> >
> > H1K
>
> Hmmm. A diesel-cycle, with an expansion ratio of 5, a CR of 19 and
> using eta=1.4 gives a theoretical efficiency of 57%, even ignoring the
> increased effective CR due to the turbo.
>
> IIRC modern low NOx diesels have flame temperatures of under 2000K, and
> exhaust temperatures of around 500K, so the equivalent Carnot cycle
> efficiency would be around 75%
Wowsa.. things have changed since 1988 ;o) For some reason, 43% rang a
bell.. I stand/sit corrected!
The age of the fuel still makes a difference, though - enough so that F1
fuel is overrated when transported, but down to pump values when used a few
days later.
H1K
news:3tjfcgFsgkqsU1@individual.net...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> >>Well, there was a rumour that at the time of it's launch, the VW-Audi PD
> >>130 TDi was the most thermally efficient production car engine
> >>available, 43% of the fuel energy into power
> >
> > Sounds like someone's dream - the mere age of the fuel would make
several
> > percent difference in conversion efficiency, let alone the fact that
they're
> > using the same thermodynamic cycle as everyone else!
> >
> > It's been a couple of decades since College, but 43% sounds like the
Carnot
> > Cycle (i.e. theoretically perfect), rather than something produced by a
> > typical petrol engine. The hs tables are undoubtedly in the loft, but,
well,
> > um ;o)
> >
> > Standing-by to be corrected...
> >
> > H1K
>
> Hmmm. A diesel-cycle, with an expansion ratio of 5, a CR of 19 and
> using eta=1.4 gives a theoretical efficiency of 57%, even ignoring the
> increased effective CR due to the turbo.
>
> IIRC modern low NOx diesels have flame temperatures of under 2000K, and
> exhaust temperatures of around 500K, so the equivalent Carnot cycle
> efficiency would be around 75%
Wowsa.. things have changed since 1988 ;o) For some reason, 43% rang a
bell.. I stand/sit corrected!
The age of the fuel still makes a difference, though - enough so that F1
fuel is overrated when transported, but down to pump values when used a few
days later.
H1K
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel v petrol fuel economy
Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> "Spooky" <nobodyofthatname@hatmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0W5df.12106$lJ.603@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>> Hello Hairy. Don't you hang around uk.telecom.mobile too? Think I've
>> seen your name in there somewhere.
>
> Nope, sorry...
>
> H1K
Well how about ntl.discussion.broadband then?
> "Spooky" <nobodyofthatname@hatmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0W5df.12106$lJ.603@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>> Hello Hairy. Don't you hang around uk.telecom.mobile too? Think I've
>> seen your name in there somewhere.
>
> Nope, sorry...
>
> H1K
Well how about ntl.discussion.broadband then?