"Patchwork Problem Solving"Part 1(Long post)

[Divco man]

The main issues I have with the Ice, and Detroit, involve 'pumping losses' which we'll get into, and PPS, (Patchwork Problem Solving), particularly as it involves emissions.

PPS; Saw a show recently about medical marajiuana. They were interviewing a cancer 'survivor', and she said; "After the radiation therapy, I was nauseous, so they gave me a pill for that. That pill made me constipated, so they gave me a pill for that.Which gave me diarhea, so, you guessed it, they gave me a pill for that.I was also depressed, another side effect of the treatment, so they gave me an anti-depressant, which also had side effects.I was ranting to a friend about this, and they said; So, your taking a pill, to deal with the side effects of a pill, that your taking to deal with the side effects of a pill, that your taking to deal with the side effects of the treatment?Why don't you just smoke pot?No nausea or depression, and no need for other pills?" Thats an example of PPS, which might also be called Piss Poor Problem solving!

In my current project, I'm taking parts and using them in ways they weren't designed for;i.e. putting a front axle that wasn't designed to go on my frame on in a way it and the frame weren't designed for, then hooking up a power steering box to a frame it wasn't designed to go on, and the box is ford, the axle is Dodge, so have to get creative with the pitman arm drag link combo to make it work.Almost every time, despite careful thought and measurements, it takes 3 tries to get it right.

Once or twice, however I have gotten in to PPS.Modifying my design has unintended consequences, and the solution to that causes other problems, etc.Because I have limited resources, (Time, $ , energy) eventually I have to say "This just isn't working", scrap the whole thing and start again at square 1.Unfortunately Detroit DOEs have the resources to go down this road way past the point of absurdity, and the medical profession doesn't have to pay, the patient does, often with $ being the least of it.

My point; in 1966, knowing it was coming and with time to prepare, the car companies had to deal with emission controls; initially focused on smog, caused by hydrocarbons.i.e. unburned gas coming out the tailpipe.They could have said "Lets look at the other end of the pipe. If theres unburned gas coming out the tailpipe, its NOT burning in the engine, which is wasting gas as well as causing smog.They didn't Instead they focused on the tailpipe.

Within the previous 10 years, scientists for the oil co.'s had developed Catalyctic cracking, as a different way to make gasoline.Expose the petroleum to high heat, (700-1000 degees) and a catalyst, IN THE ABSCENCE of OXYGEN, and it triggered a chemical reaction, in which the longer chain molecules are cracked into lighter, more volitile elements."AHH, (said the auto engineers) but what happens if you do it with O2 present?" "Well, then the petroleum breaks down to its ultimate constituents, Hydrogen an methane, and ignites.We try to avoid that in refineries, as things go BOOM!"

So, the auto engineers made a catalyctic converter, and it worked, sort of. Problem was, at some throttle poisition/load conditions, there wasn't ENOUGH unburned gas in the exhaust to trigger the reaction, and so the unburned gas went right by the converter, and out the tailpipe. Hmmm,..Need another pill!

So, they put an O2 sensor upstream of the converter. Despite its name, what it really does is measure the amount of unburned gas in the exhaust. Sends a signal to the ECM, which puts more gas in the engine, simply to ensure there will be more unburned gas in the exhaust. Coarse, (need another pill) carburetors weren't able to respond adequately to such signals from the ECM, so they had to change all vehicles to fuel injection.

But, there was a problem (Need ANOTHER pill!). There was so much extra fuel in the combustion chamber, that liquid fuel was forming on, or running/dripping onto hotspots in the combustion chamber, leading to pre-ignition, or engine knock.So, they put a knock sensor, that would detect engine knock, and send a signal to the computer.But, this alone wasn't enough, so they went to the oil companies.Basically, what they said was "Your gasoline is too ignitable.Can you make it less ignitable, so we won't have engine knock, by raising the octane from 75 to 85 or 90?"This the oil Co.s were glad to do, even tho it meant spending 10-12 million $, per refinery.They were "Happy to do it", because the independant refineries, unaffilliated with the major oil co.'s that simply bought oil on the open market, refined it, and distributed it to independant gas stations, (@ a retail price .5-.7/gal cheaper) couldn't afford the upgrades, and went out of business, and the independant stations followed, or had to buy from the oil co's. But I digress.

(Need yet ANOTHER Pill) Making the gas in plain language LESS ignitable meant that the whole combustion process was slowed down. We're only talking 10ths or 100ths of a second, but that makes a difference. The slower the burn, the more NOX, (Nitrous oxide) is produced.So, to deal with this side effect of a side effect, etc. they came up with EGR valve, to send a little of the exhaust gas back into the engine, in order to reduce NOX.I don't really care how this works, cause at this point I'm ready to just smoke a joint and forgetaboutit!

Seriously,this is what I mean by Patchwork Problem Solving, or Piss-poor Problem solving, take your pick!Thing is, when it comes to wasted gas, its not just the unburned gas in the exhaust, there is also gas which burns in the combustion chamber, but ignites too late to impart any useable energy to the piston, and gas thats wasted, because its ignited before the piston gets to top dead center; the notorious pumping losses.To explore this in more detail, we have to look at the nature of gasoline. If anyones still reading, sorry for the long post, and for (perhaps) seeming to state the obvious.I do have a point I'll be getting to, (eventually), I need to frame the discussion, and put things in context.Just so you know, My endpoint is that I have a 1965 truck, that will have a re-built engine.Seeing the results of the path that Detroit took, I can use any developments of the last 40+ years, and what resources I have, to try and take a different approach to mileage and pollution.

 

[Lazy JW]

I agree in principle on some of what you said here, but you could use a little upgrade on some of the technical details about O2 sensors and fuel octane properties.

Here's a link to a LONG thread over at www.speedtalk.com that will leave your head spinnin' like the knob on the outhouse door. Pay particular attention to posters David Redzus and a fellow who goes by Nitro2. You have to be a member and logged in to view this thread but it is free.
Joe

http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13935

 

[Divco man]

I find it difficult to research exactly what happens during this catalyctic cracking process; I either find learned papers written by chemists, for chemists, or stuff like "How it works", that doesn't REALLy tell HOW it works, and doesn't answer my questions. At what temp. does this process take place? Is it the same temp for all fractions of gasoline? One I did get answered; "So the unburned gas in the exhaust converts to hydrogen and methane, what happens to it then?" I'd given up on finding anything useful, and was on a completely unrelated site, when I followed a link. EUREKA!

It described a MR.Wizard or school science demonstration project.Need an assistant with tongs, or a bench vice; some way to hold a Catalyctic converter ceramic honeycomb still while you aim a propane or butane torch at it.Lite the torch, adjust the flame nice and hot, and aim it at 1 area for a couple of minutes, till it starts to glow.Keep it there long enough to get it good and hot. Turn the torch away, turn it off, wait a couple of seconds, turn it back on and aim it back at the same spot.After a few seconds, you'll see the glow return, and if you slightly jiggle the torch, you'll see the glow respond. You won't smell any unburned gas. Turn the torch away to check; its still unlit! Turn it back, glows back.The gas is converted to hydrogen and methane, and burned, as a part of the process, which is why catalyctic converters don't need an ignition source.

Now, a little about the other 1/2 of the equation; gasoline. Its composed of 100's of fractions, each with its own chemical properties, including volatility, (temp it vaporises at) and therefore flamability.(Cause liquid gas don't burn.Has to vaporise, so it can ignite.)

Set a bowl of gas out in the sun, get your eyes so your looking across the top of the bowl, and your vision is distorted, cause your looking thru vaporising gas. Specifically, thru some of the 'lightest' fractions, that vaporise at aptnospheric pressure and moderate temps. If it all vaporised that readily, the bowl would be dry in 15 min. or so.But, in 15 min. the bowl is still over 1/2 full, cause there are medium heavy fractions, that don't vaporise as readily. Come back a day later, and in fact even a week later, and there will still be some liquid left. Thats the Heaviest fractions, that only vaporise at high temps. More on them later.

Now, lets put the gas in the car; droplets of gas are squirted into the intake stream.Safe bet those 'lightest fractions' that immediately began to vaporise from our bowl at mild temp and normal aptnospheric pressure, are going to immediately vaporise, with normal engine temps and the negative pressure of the intake stream, and maybe even some of the light-medium, that would have gone in the first 15 min. As vapors, they mix with the air, and the medium and heavier and UBER heavy, (still there after a week) fractions remain droplets in aerosolised suspension .This mix is sucked into the intake manifold and passage in the head leading to the intake valve, and then the intake valve shuts, trapping (sort of) this intake charge.

Visualise a high school, final bell has rung, and all these kids are crowding down a hall, eager to get out the door at the end. There's a teacher at the door, only letting 20 thru at a time, and then slamming the door. (Who cares why, its just an analogy).So, the 21st kid stops short, and the kid behind bumps into him, etc. etc. like a freeway pileup, only less force.A few of the kids at the back may peel-off as another teacher, in another hall opens a door, (another intake valve, on another cylinder)but almost all are kind of 'lined up' for this door, and they stand there for a second, waiting. (Building inertia).Analogy gets weirder, but stay with it. Theres a hurricane or twister out side the door, creating a terrific suction,but the teacher doesn't care.They open the door, and now the kids don't want to go,(inertia; a body at rest tends to want to stay at rest), but theres nothing for them to hold on to, to keep from being sucked out the door.The smallest, lightest kids,(The air with vaporised lightest fractions) having the least mass also has the least inertia, therefore regardless of where it is in line, it gets sucked out first. Then the smallest droplets, then the next smallest, and finally the biggest fattest 'kids' go last.

The other 1/2 of inertia is momentum; an object in motion tends to stay in motion, and here once again, mass plays an important role.The air and lightest fractions may be the first thru the door (valve), followed by the yada yada, but momentum says that the largest drops are going to have the most momentum, and are going to push right thru the other 'kids', and end up down at the piston top, and similarly the next largest droplets just above them, and so on, all of which is going to tend to push the lightest, vaporised factions up near the top.At least, I think so.In addition, 'stoichimetric' 14:7:1 is just an average. Actually, the fuel air mix is very rich, at the top, and gets leaner as you move down the cylinder.

Now, the pistons reached BDC, intake valves closed, and the piston starts up, compressing the mixture. Doesn't really stir up the mixture, that is it doesn't change the position of any of the droplets in relation to the other droplets, just squishes everything closer together.Does have 2 competing affects on the fuel, however. On the 1 hand, compression causes gases to change state to liquid. On the other, the compressing raises the temp, which tends to change liquid gas to a vapor. More about this later.

As the piston gets to 30 degrees before TDC or so, the spark plug fires, igniting the rich vaporised a/f at the top, and this causes the temp to begin to rise, dramatically, as the flame kernal starts to expand down,heating the droplets of fuel just below.They in turn vaporise and ignite, and the process is repeated as the flame kernal expands down against the piston, which is coming up. What happens to any droplets, or portions of droplets, comprised of the Uber-heavy fractions? I suspect there simply isn't enough heat to cause them to vaporise, and so they get pushed ahead of the flame front, down towards the piston.Similarly, any of the medium heavy fractions might also be waiting for the temp to get high enough for them to vaporise and ignite. As the kernal progresses the process continues. The piston reaches TDC, starts down, and now at last the combustion is giving us usable power. The combustion space is expanding, which should reduce the pressure, making it 'easier' for fractions to vaporise, but the flame kernal is expanding, keeping the pressure up. Eventually we get to the last 15 degrees or so of piston travel, and finally the temp has risen enough (800-900 degrees at aptnospheric pressure, but with cylinder pressures, probably higher is needed.)to vaporise and ignite the Uber-heavy fractions.They ignite, but do to mechanical dis advantage, aren't imparting much useable energy to the piston. The piston reaches BDC, and starts up as the exhaust valve opens.That doesn't lower the pressure much, however,(which would make it 'easier' for these fractions to vaporise and burn, cause the piston is now going up, and squeesing the exhaust gasses, including these fractions, out the (narrow) exhaust valve opening.In fact, the sonic speed of the exhausting gasses extinguishes these fractions, before they've completely burned.And so it is PRIMARILY these Uber heavy fractions which either burn up in the catalyctic converter, or come out the tailpipe and make smog.

And therein lies yet another of the problems with the emissions control system. When the O2 sensor sends a signal, the ECM sends more gas, all the fractions of the gas. Now for sure, of this 'extra gas' thats sent, the lightest fractions, that you can see vaporising off the top of the bowl, they get burned up in the cylinder, even though the engine doesn't need them for power.And, since they are burned in the cylinder, they aren't even making the converter work! Similar the medium and heavy fractions of this "extra gas".The only portions of this extra gas that survive combustion and so contribute to makeing the converter work MUST, I submit, be these UBER heavy fractions. All the other fractions of the 'extra gas' are wasted; they don't do what they were 'dispatched' by the computer to do, 'feed' the converter to make it work, and the engine doesn't need them.

Whats more, because there is now more of these medium fractions than the engine needs, some of them fall out of suspension, or re-liquify during compression, leading to detonation.

SO, whats the answer? The patchwork answer would be to some how seperate out some of these uber heavy fractions, and have seperate injectors to inject them when the O2 sensor calls for it,.. screw that.

O.k, How about telling the oil companies to leave them out? :rolflmao: Yeah, like thats gonna work. They may not of done that back in the 60's even if the auto co.'s told them. Remember, they had a real strong incentive to go along with raising the octane.Certainly they won't do it cause we want them to. How about filtering it out, before we put the gas in our engines? Pain in the ass, and we're still not getting any use out of it, so not improving mileage.,,,,,

We've got a fraction of gas, that is still around at the end of the combustion stroke, when the temp is highest, and we've still got oxygen present.Petroleum product, heat and O2! All we need is a catalyst! Finally, we get where I've been going, all along. The 1 modification I'm going to do, that won't neccesarily be easy or cheap to undue, and could even ruin my engine. I have no idea if its gonna work, but I'm gonna try. I'll get into the details of how in a later post, and there's some major "ifs" there as well. The essence is this; I'm gonna ceramic coat the top of the cylinder, and the "faces' of the valves. I'm gonna ceramic coat the top of the piston, and bond to that ceramic, a thin layer of Palladium, the same catalyst they use in catalyctic converters.

HOPEFULLY, the ceramic coating will insure that there won't be enough residual heat from the previous combustion to trigger an immediate catalyctic reaction, when the intake valve opens. Hopefully the lack of residual heat means that even when the temp starts to climb, it won't get high enough to trigger a reaction. Either scenario would result in major detonation. :nono:

Hopefully, 1 of 3 things will happen; everything will proceed normally, until the piston is nearing the bottom of its stroke, at which point all the Uber fractions will have been pushed down to the top of the piston, and the temp will have gotten high enough to trigger the reaction,converting the uber fractions to hydrogen and methane and igniting them.
Or, the temp will get high enough a little earlier, and the reaction will be triggered a little sooner, burning off the Ubers and some of the other heavy fractions, imparting useful energy to the piston in the process.
Or, and I doubt this, at some point even a little earlier, the reaction will take place at the top of the piston, and that will ignite the a/f above it, starting a second flame kernal, that will travel up to meet the kernal coming down from above.

1 or 2 details; the layer of Palladium will be extremely thin, and so i don't think it will hold much residual heat, although I do think it might hold up to what I'm asking of it. Thats 1 of the big "Ifs".

Also, I forgot to mention there is 1 other requirement for the reaction; Contact. The petroleum has to be in direct contact with the catalyst. Hence my perhaps excessive theorising about positions, etc.As I understand it, only the petroleum in direct contact with the catalyst will convert and burn, although in this application, it does seem to me that that heat of that should ignite other petroleum, that doesn't come into direct contact. If, for example the Catalyst developed a layer of carbon, or anything else, that prevented the petroleum from direct contact, the process wouldn't take place.Thats yet another in a long line of "IFs". Gotta rest now, more details later. Jim

 

[Lazy JW]

There are something in excess of 30,000+ different hydrocarbons, any given gallon of gasoline may contain 400+ different ones and this will vary from refinery to refinery, season by season, and the exact base stock used in the process. Pump gas as available to the general public is very inconsistent in chemical makeup.

Hydrocracking was developed and used because it allows the refinery to make more marketable product out of the base stock rather than simply taking what they could get as per the old method. This allowed them to be more profitable than the competition, which is what business is all about.

Every combustion event in an ICE is a firestorm in a maelstrom; it is actually quite remarkable that it works at all. Build a fire, put it out, build a fire, put it out, build a fire, put it out........ It's little wonder that each fire is different, all things considered.

Keep up the thinking,
Joe

 

[rbohm]

8) when you are talking about emissions controls and engineers, you are leaving out one important part of the equation in regards to how emissions are in fact controlled, and that is the government regulations. if you look deeper into the clean air act, and its amendments and companion regulations and laws, you will find that the engineers hands are tied in how to solve emission problems. the automotive engineers didnt say, "lets use a catalytic converter in the exhaust to control HC emissions" the government did. the engineers worked to improve efficiency with in the confines of the government regulations put upon them. thus we got electronic carbs, and eventually efi. if the government had set the standards, the emission controls on an internal combustion engine would be quite different, and much less expensive.

 

[Lazy JW]

Yup. Even if an engine were developed that can run clean enough without a cat the law still says thou shalt have a cat. Reckon who might have lobbied for such a law to be put in place, eh? (clue: follow the money, as in, who sells the expensive stuff of which cats are composed?)
Joe

 

[Divco man]

Yeah, thats why I'm working with a 1965 truck! Thank God for the 'grandfather' principle, that means they can't come back and try and make my truck meet standards developed later. At least, not yet. There have been several attempts to pass legislation to mandate scrapping older cars, tho.I've also read that the EPA will refuse to look at or test any vehicle equipped with a mileage improvement device, if it has any of the factory equipped emissions control devices disabled or removed.
Aren't we all re-assured with the new Government Motors! Now that the governments taken direct ownership, things will definetly get better! :rolflmao: And despite the tone of my earlier post, I recognise the car companies had plenty of help in going down the road they've gone down, including us.That is, the consuming public.

Anyway, I'm going to be using palladium leaf, (like Gold leaf) its 99% pure. $50.00/ book for 24 'leaves', 4" square, so the cost isn't bad. Don't know what it will cost for the ceramic coating, if I have it done in a shop. Will probably try to have a shop do it except for the pistons, and either have them prep them, or, if I can be present when they apply the paint, maybe I can leaf them there.
I'm going to have to experiment with it and the ceramic epoxy paint, to see if it will bond. I think it will, it will just be a matter of working out the exact method, by trial and error.Even tho its super thin, its made by hammering, and is actually quite hard, so I'm optimistic.

Its hard to find pistons for the 262, but I learned on the vintage group, Chevy 292 pistons are the same bore, same pin-bushing size and are about 30 thousandths tall. Also, whereas the ford pistons are truly Flat-topped, dead smooth surface, these Chevy pisons have a square recess, 35 thousanths deep, comes to 1/4" of the edge of the piston at the corners, and the surface is machined with a cross-hatch kind of a pattern, kind of like miniature waffle iron pattern. Thats good for increased surface area. I'll have em machined down 30 tho., and the recessed area is where the ceramic and palladium will go.

LJW; You talked earlier about heating. I've got a boat oil cooler; basically a 2 1/2' long x 3" dia pipe, with 2 sets of in and out fittings.Gonna use it as a fuel heater, running the fuel line to it and then, insulated line, to the carb.Gonna get a remote oil filter set-up, and run the hot oil line to this fuel heater. The predator is basically like a cube or box, with a round flange on the top and bottom, so I'm considering painting it with reflective insulating paint.Its all aluminum, which should evenly distribute the heat from the heated gas.

The Clifford manifold is also aluminum, and will be altered so it bolts up to the stock exhaust manifold heat riser, with the valve removed.Considering painting the outside of both manifolds with the same reflective/insulating paint, ceramic epoxy in the case of the exhaust.Again, the aluminum manifold should evenly transfer the heat to the a/f mixture, hopefully encouraging vaporisation without getting too hot.

I haven't actually unpacked and looked at the NOS head I've got, yet. I would Love to include some 'softhead' in it, just not sure its practical.Not sure I feel confident making major changes, like changing the location or angle of the valves.And, I think changes wouldn't involve removing material, at least on the intake side, it would involve adding material.Its either that, or going with a very different piston, either making from scratch or modifying one, in order to have a part of it that comes right up to the intake valve, and fills the area all around it.I've got a link to a great site on Ford inlines, has a good cross section view of the 215/223/262 layout, I'll post a link. That, at least I can do with this computer!Try Googling I6ID, then go on 215/223/262 and scroll down.Theres another thing I'm gonna try, but as its a different subject I think I'll start another thread. Sorry about that, heres the exact link (my computer doesn't like opening multiple windows at the same time) http://www.geocities.com/edwins63/ohvsix.html scroll down to the first pics, the end view on the right. Jim