Not directly engine answering your questions Wayne but one of the best way to explain to Newbies engine “power loss”:
The woodgased fueled engine has to power the woodgas maker with it’s suction power.
IF a gasoline fueled engine had to power even a percentage of the power/heat needed to refine from crude oil to usable gasoline be easy to understand that engine will have LESS available power left over for you to use.
(Get’s them off of minutia and just onto using a bigger engine.)
S.U.
This is very interesting, I have never seen my new 0- 60 inches of water go to peg out -70 before, may be it is because I do clean my hay filter out with water more often then most. I also have a plastic hayfilter barrel that wants to colaspes with heavy vaccum pulls. It will be interesting when I change out the plastic one and go back to the orginal steel type that was in it when Wayne built the 1992 Dakota back ln 2012. Keeping my charcoal bed loose helps also by slipping charcoal off the grate on harder vaccum pulls. A lighter foot on the pedal seems to be more efficent then a heavy foot all the time. Wood gas driving style is part of the other 95% that needs to be mastered.
Bob
Let’s say we could manage to fill the cyl as well as running gasoline with very little restraint. Still, with woodgas, half the cyl volume would be occupied with woodgas. Doesn’t the amount of oxygen kind of dictate the energy reliesed at combustion? We should be down to 50% power right there.
Knowing woodgas burns 37% more efficient - that would mean 68.5% power, minus the losses caused by filling ratio. Also, most of us are unable to reach the rpms where the engines power is rated.
Wether it’s 40, 50, 60 or 70% power, it still amazes me wood takes us from point A to B, pretty much with the flow of traffic. And the “$ to mile-ratio” increasing every day
Under those numbers the only logical conclusion I can come to from a hot rodding/ power making stand point is the answer to more power is more cylinder filling of the gas mixture. After all a engine is nothing more then a glorified air pump. The more air you pump in the more you pump out, resulting in more power made. That answer would be forced induction, the same recipe in a gasoline setting. The difference being as Wayne and Steve both keyed into, the engine is powering the refinery, net loss of power. How to recuperate those losses at the refinery is not the same as recouping the loss of power at the mill. This begs into what has been discussed over and over amongst woodgassers, stationary operation to reduce weight on the vehicle, reducing the need for more power being made at the mill, better aerodynamics improving speed and power loss with wind drag of the system. Coupled to stored woodgas like that of liquid propane. Then forced induction or forced injection in a higher concentration into the mill for more cylinder capacity fill. Each of those sets forth its own problems of making it work first, then getting it dialed in to least amount of energy input from both operator and outside power needs ( heat, electricity, gasoline or other powered chunkers, ect ect) where a man could spend many years deciphering out each set of problems to each set off issues to finally return with the information we all have. A operator inputed system of controlling both system and vehicle is the most net efficient and time efficient use, dealing with the loss of power and happy to be down the road a to b with little need of the gasoline/ diesel pump ( I didn’t forget about you @Tone ) compression bump, timing tuning is see as the most viable way to recoup power at the engine. maybe electric power management of the gasifier a way to gain back at the refinery. I don’t know where or how to even start with that end, but temperature management, wood to water ratio, gas free flow, gas storage for those extended/ high demand pulls. it comes in my mind back to what Wayne has said all along, what do you plan to do with the vehicle? Hard work v10 hauling towing slow speed with bottom end grunt power? Or high speed cruising? Tailoring your system to perform at that level to meet your needs. Proper vehicle choice for the application. For instance my Toyota is vehemently NOT a cruising truck, in the time it was built it was meant in my mind a a general low speed around town commuting rig. Yes i added the v8 for my young minded needs of going fast off the line, short runs of bursting tire smoking look at me show off fun. Well guess what tires are expensive so are speeding tickets, aggravated cops looking for me once seeing and knowing the truck. Not my gig anymore. Now I need a proper long distance driver, the Toyota gearing not matched the the chev motor rpm usage, the truck is happiest cruising 48-53mph consistent. Best wood per hopper mileage and usable power. Regear, or repower? What will suit my needs better? My v10 other hand, happy doing 60mph. Ill end up with a better long range driver in that truck, while having some of the wanted down low geared grunt for towing and hauling. I think in time I will need a better mileage per hopper high speed commuter such as Wayne’s Dakota platform. Or even stepping down to a 4 cylinder rig. Better mileage per pound yet. Then when those 2 vehicle needs are met, moving on to chasing the gasoline power on wood, by one matter or another of filling the cylinder full as can be of the freedom fuel woodgas mixture.
“Shoot for perfection while understanding you will never get it. Accept Excellence”
Marcus I certainly agree with the last . . . say 2/3rds of your statement.
However, on woodgas as an IC engine fuel versus gasoline, versus even a better comparison to pump-spec diesel fuel . . .
These last two are extremely complex long chained molecules.
The three fuelgas components in woodgas are very simple molecules. It is easy to have enough air oxygen to completely combust them.
Once any IC engine fuel is completely combusted you will make no more heat. It is the made heat that expands all of the in-cylinder gases and water vapor: INCLUDING AIR NITROGEN that is making the piston pushing to be converted to shaft power.
My statement above would seem to lend to pressure boosting both air and woodgas into the cylinder. Seem . .
Ron Lemler trying on his 300cid Ford has now offered up cheap his supercharger for sale to anyone else wanting to fall into this rabbit hole.
Another rabbit hole, IMHO is pursuing decreasing the passed thru nitrogen in the woodgas.
Sterling externally heated engines, need, and use contained expansion gasses. Many gases been tried on those. Helium the most often used. Argon and nitrogen too.
Another maybe, rabbit hole speculated that someone will be try soon would be a powerful variable driven air-in gasifier blower system. Take the gasifier system sucking loading off of the IC engine completely.
Should work on paper. What will be the needed energy input loading for this variable speed electric motor? And how much more complexity on the contol side to that kind of system? Sure to have both of these. Worth it? I strongly doubt this.
Again, I acknowledge my woodgasing experiences are with stationary electrical generation.
Very much accepted there that the same engine-generator system switched from gasoline to delivered propane will have less power. Switch then to delivered methane gas it will have less power yet. You just have to accept less watts out as you cange the fuels.
The explanations always being the less BTU fuel densities to those gaseous fuels.
Hmm. Maybe not.
Realize that these engine systems are not modified in any way for better compression ratios, ignition timing and even valve opening and timing for these different gaseous fuels in-engines characteristics.
On the personal use electrical generators it is far more cost effective that if you had truly have a need for 5000 watts on gasoline. Then to get the 5000 watts needed on propane; or on methane or woodgas just use an upsized 7500 to 10,000 (on gasoline) system to get your 500 watts.
Far cheaper and easier than any pressure boosting and/or internal engine modifications.
Vehicles? The same starting point less power solution reigns. Use a different; or make up a much better power to weight ratio vehicle.
Mini-engined vehicles (primarily inline 3 and 4 cylinder) as Joni proved spend the time and effort #1 on mechanical compression raising. Then extreme ignition timing will not be needed.
This is my biggest understanding at this time. Versus. It is in no way a direct comparison, they are different fuels, for different purposes, for different needs/ demands. It is not a straight across comparison. We are so accustomed to gasoline power that anything less just looses its interest quickly, until times like today when that liquid refined blueish gold is nearly unaffordable, or worse yet in other countries heavily regulated taxed and rationed. Then the interest of people begins to look more favorably on alternative fuels such as woodgas, when it suits there financial interest. I don’t even begin to understand the molecules, that is way over my head! But it is pure and simply not on the same playing field, not even in the same ball park to say that gasoline and woodgas is comparable. A alternative, not a replacement. That would imply the same uses if it were a replacement which it is not. The only comparison I can speak to is my cursory reading here with people like @KristijanL who knows the chemistry of adding hydrogen content to the produced char gas, thereby changing the chemical make up of the gas to burn with more power. To me, if one wants to gain the power production of gasoline, from a woodgas fueled engine then one must purpose engineer a engine TAILORED to the chemical make up of woodgas. Just as gasoline engines loose out on propane. I recently found out from my parts guy who is well deep into power making of the old ways that there are a few company’s who have a purpose built camshaft design to reach peak usability of propane. Propane somewhat comparable to woodgas… that is a avenue that could be explored in the building of a engine purpose built to make gasoline power on woodgas. As we talked way back on this thread from compression ratio, connecting rod ratio, then camshaft profile, intake runner length, cfm throttle body flow capabilities, exhaust port design and so on.
This is stepping way out from taking any manufacture build buy it ready to run motor like we try to stick to. This is big money, dyno cell conditions in finding peak numbers horsepower and torque. Both in there own ways completely irrelevant to real world application. But would be something to go off of. Then move forward from there in chasing that gasoline power. For me that would be a very fun project to take on, but a pocket book drainer. Any recipe can be built for power and torque on gasoline, it has all been done and documented thousands of times across the internet. We are in a whole different class with our fuels here, in many ways unexplored territory. If a rich hot rodder where to dive in with financial backing I think it could be achieved in time under lots of testing conditions, different engine platforms and so on. Just not at a cost I could afford. But I own my trucks and can be content with the power they provide and the purposes they serve. When the time comes and I go for stationary operation it may differ a little for me. A sustained rpm loading system I think I would feel much more comfortable doing some tweaking with. But until that time my solar array will do stand in.
Unrelated, has anyone ever used a pto output to hydraulic pump to then supply a hydraulic motor coupled to a generator head??? That could be a quick way into stationary with a gasified truck, ejecting the need for a purpose built generator motor that would perform peak numbers loading instead using geared powered off the truck. This is just thoughts here on this idea
To answer that Wayne we would need to take a propane or other type of engine and put it in a Dyno with a restriction on the carb and do some pulls to how much the pumping losses rob it of power.
I’ve been trying to get involved in this conversation but I keep getting tongue tied in my brain. A large refinery like a WK is going to take a lot of air moved through it to work efficiently. When the air is supplied by the suction of moving cylinders then bigger is better, hence more displacement. Except for the old imbert fueled buses and trucks I haven’t seen anyone at least on line that is running a bigger engine than the V-10. Kind of optimally sized for the current generation of WK’s. If the WK V-10 can move a fair number of tons of trailer and hay and still go down the road at 55 MPH then there is really no need to improve it. The available carbon and oxy are sufficient to do the required work. The engine and the refinery are symbiotic, each fulfilling the others needs. Same with the smaller refinery and engines on the car builds. So why look for ways to make wood gas as powerful as other fuels? I almost want to chew my own tongue off for mentioning this but why has no one tried to build a wood gas electric hybrid with the wood gas fueling a generator to power the batteries. That takes a whole level of complexity required for variable RPM engines to function efficiently, out of the equation.
Another point I am long ruminating upon is what is the point of wood gas other than self sufficiency and sustainability. Methanol is also a fuel that can be made from wood by anyone who wants to put together a simple still. Why would it not be better to hybrid Wg with methanol for the momentary boosts of power you are getting from gasoline? Injected under pressure into a plenum like one on a tunnel ram intake manifold using a simple on off solenoid. I have been waiting for Rob to give some details on his methanol injection systems.
Here is a question I have been pondering and thinking about to woodgas fuel characteristics in a charcoal gasifier.
If you heat water to the boiling point and make steam. Is there less nitrogen or nitrate being produce out of the water then in the atmosphere? If yes, then is it better to add steam to a gasifier over adding water to a gasifier and making steam in the firetube lobe area?
I can see how water would protect the nozzles that is good, but I would think steam would protect the nozzles also with out removing heat from the firetube lobe. Like pre heating the air in a wood gasifier, pre heat the water to steam to make it more effecient. Just some thoughts on this to make more hydrogen out put in a gasifier.
Bob
I don’t think I did a very good job at asking my original question. Maybe I can be a little more clear here.
I think the hot rodders may have some formulas for calculating a certain amount of HP % gain when a certain amount of boost is supplied from a turbo or supercharger. What I am curious about is just the opposite .
If enough drag was placed on the incoming air to the motor
to create a vacuum near that of a gasifier ,filters etc. ( 30-40 inches of water for instance ) There may be some formula to calculate the power loss due to cylinders filling less.
Way over my head but I do know there will be power loss. I think it is important to keep filters clean , fines to a minimum and airways open on the gasifier system . With the gasifier we are starting with a weak fuel and we can contribute to motor weakness if we cause the motor to suck harder .
Yes Wayne it would be interesting to find out what the difference would be. If you restrict the air flow with a higher vaccum lets say -40 wc to a gasoline fueled IC engine. I would think it would start to run rich and the computer would see that and would cut back on the fuel if it was run by a flow mass sensor. Less horse power for sure. But how much. It would have to be tested on a dino to know that question. We might find that a gasoline engine is not as powerful as we think it is in the 3,000 to 4,000 rpm range compared to the same engine running on wood gas.
Bob
Well I can’t find it now but there is a engine masters video on air cleaners types size flow and such that shows direct horsepower being lost and made. Like I talked about early the more air that goes in must come out making more power, it’s proven a dirty air clean restricting air flow will kill horsepower, and I think you are right Wayne there probably is a calculator somewhere that shows air flow restriction vs horsepower loss and I’m sure it is a BUNCH. In the episode if I recall correctly the highest performing air clean was quite literally a salad bowl on top of a carb. Hey @tcholton717 do you recall the episode I’m thinking of? It definitely illustrates that by choking a engine it kills power. Would a smart efi compensate for this? @Rob383 im sure will know. And if it does what would the horsepower loss be and would it effectively stretch across the rpm range, or come to a pinnacle point of choking the engine and huge loss of power in the top end
I remember one aspect of flows also affects torque. On the Motorized Bicycle forum a lot of guys keep the stock carburetors and build purposefully restrictive headers/mufflers to keep torque up for the sake of Horsepower.
I noticed when I swapped my engines for larger carbs and free flowing exhaust I did lose bottom end grunt. Not sure if it actually changes torque or simply moves the torque curve into the higher RPMs.
Hey WayneK there is a way that simulates this.
Engine operating at higher and higher altitudes results in less air weight, less cylinder filling; less engine power.
You had to experience some of this with your over the Rockies trip to the west coast.
It is the light aircraft folks who have the charts for this. manufactures specific to each aircraft? Less piston engine power for altitude. Barometric pressure changes. Changed air temperature.
Someone wake up Michael Gibbs or Mr Pepe.
Most light aircraft are naturally aspirated.
~10% powerless for every ~4000 feet/~1000 meters is the figure for gasoline generators.
Regards
Steve Unruh
The smaller the engine the more noticable. On my xr 250 a header and muffler swap from a later series bike claimed with correct jetting a 1.5 hp gain. VERY noticable above 4500 rpm, also noticable loss of torque everywhere below. 18hp stock form at 6200rpm if I recall correctly. Had to rejet again with a high flow air filter swap as well also a change that could be felt in the seat
