Topics include, Machine Tools & Tooling, Precision Measuring, Materials and their Properties, Electrical discussions related to machine tools, setups, fixtures and jigs and other general discussion related to amateur machining.
John Evans wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 2:44 pm
Build it and report back when it is in operation !
PS I have plans for a 200 MPG carburetor if we still used carbs !!
Remember the fish carburetor? It was claimed to be able to get 100 mpg. Supposedly a big car company like GM bought the rights to the invention and put it on the shelf so the public would not reap the benefits of good milage.
Because why wouldn't GM give up billions in profits in order to do a favor to the oil industry?
BTW patents are published. What's the patent number? They also expire after twenty years. Where are the 100 mpg carburetors?
John Hasler wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:09 pm
earlgo
Guess who won the power transmission wars.
Westinghouse and Steinmetz.
Exactly. Edison touted DC for homes but transmission losses made it impractical. Tesla touted AC and the rest is history no matter who bought/stole the patents from whom.
As for the 100mpg carburetors, they were put in the Teslas.
--earlgo
Before you do anything, you must do something else first. - Washington's principle.
People really like to believe that there's such a thing as a carburetor that will yield 100 MPG, but the harsh reality is that there isn't that kind of energy in the fuel. The laws of physics rule. It takes a given amount of energy to do a given amount of work. That's assuming 100% efficiency, which is never going to happen. There's always losses---friction or resistance (electrical friction).
H
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
Actually, the 100 mpg barrier was first broken by a Studebaker in 1949. They modified a few more things than the carburetor, though. They also didn't do it driving to work and back.
Better mileage is accomplished via the reduction of losses, including making engines run better (computerized). When that has been accomplished, the only thing left is to reduce the amount of work being done (make the vehicle lighter, with less wind resistance and lower friction in regards to bearing surfaces). Said another way, there's no way in hell you can get a '59 Cadillac Coupe DeVille to deliver 100 mpg. It just can't happen, because there's not enough energy in a gallon of gasoline. Not in diesel, either.
For anyone who believes that a 100 mpg carburetor has existed, I'd like to offer you some shares in a bridge. Only driven to church on Sunday.
It all boils down to physics. There is no free lunch.
H
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
Edison was not a scientist. He was an unscrupulous businessman. He electrocuted an elephant to prove is wrong thesis.
Edison was hardly an inventor, since he exploited commercially the work of others.
John Hasler wrote: ↑Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:09 pm
earlgo
Guess who won the power transmission wars.
Westinghouse and Steinmetz.
Exactly. Edison touted DC for homes but transmission losses made it impractical. Tesla touted AC and the rest is history no matter who bought/stole the patents from whom.
As for the 100mpg carburetors, they were put in the Teslas.
--earlgo
It wasn't line losses that make DC power impractical, it was the lack at that time of a way to easily convert the low voltage, high current lines to high voltage low current that make the line losses reasonable. AC power is easily converted back and forth by using transformers and those were easy to build.
As an example, there is a DC line that originates in the middle of North Dakota that carries power to eastern Minnesota. With DC power there is full current all the time. With AC it rises, peaks, decreases to zero, then increases to peak the opposite direction meaning that the maximum current is flowing for much less of the time.
RMinMN writes:
As an example, there is a DC line that originates in the middle of North Dakota that carries power to eastern Minnesota.
With DC power there is full current all the time. With AC it rises, peaks, decreases to zero, then increases to peak the
opposite direction meaning that the maximum current is flowing for much less of the time.
Three-phase is nearly as efficient as DC in conductor utilization. The advantages of DC for long transmission lines have to do with the reactance of the line.
Transmission lines have a steel core, otherwise they would be more likely to snap. The steel wire is galvanized. There are attempts to coat the steel with a aluminum/zinc alloy so the core can transmit power as well. Since most of the lines are old, there is going to be a big infrastructure bill coming due.
A man of foolish pursuits, '91 BusyBee DF1224g lathe,'01 Advance RF-45 mill/drill,'68 Delta Toolmaker surface grinder,Miller250 mig,'83 8" Baldor grinder, plus sawdustmakers
Alumaweld is an alternative to galvanized steel wire for the core of ACSR but it would make little difference to conductivity because skin effect keeps almost all of the current in the aluminum conductors that surround the steel. The aluminum layer is so thin that the total cross-sction amounts to quite a small wire.
The skin effect is negligible up to a few hundred kHz or very large wire sizes. At 60Hz, the skin effect is roughly 8.5mm deep (1/3"), so there is negligible loss in conductor below 17mm (2/3") in diameter.
