Hi Brad,
We are certainly not wrong. It's just that you didn't see why the calculation was done. If the overall efficiency of the system had been more than 100%, as the first calculation showed, then the rest is secondary. This information would be of primary importance. But I think there is a decimal error, which is why I provided my calculation, not to evaluate your system.
Then the improvement in performance is to be measured and only you can do it. You announce 75%, it's much more than what's commonly reported, so it would be nice if you could provide the synoptic diagram, the measurement protocol and the data tables in a more formalized way, a youtube video being not enough for me (in addition this effort of clarity often allows to see the possible errors).
Yes well of course the system as a whole is not over 100% efficient--never will be. Also,i do not see any need for any other information other than that supplied in the video's,and the graphs i have posted--it cant get any clearer than that. The RPM remains a constant,+/- 5% for each test. The generators efficiency remains a constant for each test. The amount of fuel remains a constant for each test. The load remains a constant for each test. So,if the watt hours and run time increase each time we run the test after each modification,then that is a very clear indication that the thermal efficiency of the engine is increasing. The first run with the motor in standard factory trim produced 54.7 watt hours for that 100ml volume of fuel,and ran for 8:47. The third run produced 94.4 watt hours,and ran for 14:46. Each test consumed 100ml of fuel. So 94.4/54.7x100=172.5. So a 72.5% increase in efficiency. I dont know what more could be needed ?. Brad
---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
|