Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
You need to read that in the context of his question about why you would run it at higher rpm.
Uh, you stated "Running it a low RPM under strain puts excessive strain on it, you get higher oil pressure and the turbo doesn't kick in until you start getting into the higher RPM's"
What part of that context results in higher oil pressure at lower RPM?
BTW, turbo systems can be designed to 'kick-in' at just about any RPM.
Burdell someone may consider that sentence as poorly worded at best but anyone with any amount of intelligence that has read the entire discussion would understand exactly what I meant. Run along now the adults are trying to have an intelligent discussion.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Burdell someone may consider that sentence as poorly worded at best but anyone with any amount of intelligence would understand exactly what I meant. Run along now the adults are trying to have an intelligent discussion.
What a load of crap! Oil pumps are engine driven and produce more pressure with more RPM, controlled by relief valves. You're statement of lower RPM resulting in higher oil pressure is BS, your snide little 'run along' crap does nothing to change that.
I don't know what you're talking about here but I'm referencing the efficiencies, the most efficient use of any fuel is using it where it's needed.
That is very debatable.
Quote:
For example I could indirectly heat my house with coal using electric or burn it directly in my house.
The OP wasn't about heat, but about propulsion. And counterexamples abound there.
For instance: The reason people ditched coal-fired locomotives was that they failed to convert the heat energy from coal to useful work with better than single-digit efficiency rates - 5-7%, the rest goes into heating up the surrounding countryside.
Compare to an electrical locomotive.
A fairly modern coal-fired power plant has an efficiency rate of 30-35%. Electric motors can have efficiencies around 90%, not accounting for the fact that electrical locomotives used regenerative breaking decades ago. So even if you lost a full 70% of the centrally generated energy in transmission and conversion, you'd still use the energy stored in the coal with higher efficiency than by burning it in the locomotive.
Interestingly, a problem with the first electrical locomotives was that they were too efficient - there was no waste heat to bleed off to heat up the passenger cars!
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Did you have trouble with word problems in school?
No, were you dropped on your head as a child?
Instead of making lame, wise ass remarks why don't you explain what you so poorly tried to say? IF you can? Or would that be too diffvicult considering your apparently limited knowledge of IC engines?
Now what shall we do with the new EPA rules that are shutting down electric generating plants all over the country? I wonder if electricity might get so high, just as Obama promised, as to preclude many people using the Leaf. I like this commercial but think maybe it should have been put out months ago before the EPA started enforcing Obama's cap and trade rules.
Now lets let the big guys get back to the diesel - electricity discussion. Maybe we should consider the point that diesel is a by-product of crude oil which our Great and Mighty Oz-bama wants to stop using.
I wonder how many new generating plants will have to be built in order to replace all those that are being closed in order to run the autos that will be in addition to the appliances, etc on the commercial.
The reason people ditched coal-fired locomotives was that they failed to convert the heat energy from coal to useful work with better than single-digit efficiency rates - 5-7%, the rest goes into heating up the surrounding countryside.
Yes but in modern system you could achieve much higher rates especially if you used a similar sytem like a diesel locomotive. My point is this, If you were able to scale down a modern unit and put it on a car it would be much more efficient than plugging it in. Of course that is completely impractical and would be very expensive to boot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
