Hydrogen fuel cell car! HAHA!

Yes, indeed the devil is in the details that is why I am pointing you at volumetric efficentcy.

Where in EVER did you state MPG as installed in an automobile as your base line? Or MPG as a base line for efficientcy? Not until after I made my post concerning up to 92% efficiencty from a given engine. When you were previously speaking of efficientcy, I asked you 4 times to explain your meaning? You did not- until now.

I was and still am speaking in terms of engine efficientcy- how power's created, amount of fuel consumed= output, from the engine. There is a reason for this and if you think on it you will understand where I am going.

No mention EVER of any other mediums (as a car in motion via it's running gear ect.)- this is why I asked you 4 times to make yourself clear so we can communicate on the same page.

 

This example below, is in part, why volumetric efficiency is so important.

Thermal energy (BTU) can be reused, but if it is lost due to some outside factor, then it can not. This the typical combustion engines down fall. Energy lost to heat- not because of heat. (to a certain point of course). If we were to run our engines on pure gasoline of the best quality, power output would greatly increase, and there by efficiency too.

The World’s Most Fuel Efficient Car: 285 MPG, Not A Hybrid – Gas 2.0

285 MPG on 1 gallon of fuel- do the math.

Edit: And in 1959 see this - http://gas2.org/2008/02/29/37659-mpg-car-found-in-museum-it-was-built-in-1959/

 

Fact is that I gave you the acceptable definition of efficiency relating to ICE. I gave you the limits of ICE according to Physics. Gas engines are only capable of 37%. Diesel goes by a different model and is more efficient... I then gave you the example on the worlds most efficient diesel engine at 54%. Yet you still want to claim I have not told you what efficiency is and you seem to ignore physics and world records. You wish to claim 92% and 97% efficient and how the new wonder NEVIS engine is 40%

I'm really lost. I don't know how to explain it any better. You got the definition for volumetric efficiency from Wiki... and completely skipped over the rest.

In physics

• Efficient energy use, useful work per quantity of energy
  • Energy conversion efficiency, desired energy output per energy input
  • Energy conservation, reducing the use of energy
  • Electrical efficiency, useful power output per electrical power consumed
  • Fuel efficiency, converting energy in fuel to kinetic energy or work
    • Specific impulse, in propulsion systems, a measure of fuel efficiency
  • Lighting efficiency, visible light from a light source per unit of energy, in lumens per watt
  • Mechanical efficiency, the effectiveness of a simple machine, mechanical advantage over ideal mechanical advantage, often denoted by the Greek Lower character η (Eta)
  • In thermodynamics:
    • Energy efficiency, measure of second law thermodynamic loss
    • Thermal efficiency, useful work per the higher heating value of the fuel
  • Radiation efficiency, ratio of radiated power to power absorbed at the terminals of an antenna
  • Volumetric efficiency, in internal combustion engine design for the RAF

Efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

So I'm still curious if Ryland has seen any difference in this latest round of turning off the generator?