"Fossil fuel" reality check

Any topic with a chance of polarization - Not for the easily offended.

Moderator: Team

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

"Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by exhaustgases » Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:23 am

And remember this is one of 6 fuel spray nozzles in a not so big jet engine, and the video shows it not even running at full capacity.
And we wonder where the fuel is going? Or the emissions etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fRBOkXvAK0

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3442
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by GARY C » Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:38 am

How many barrels of oil do you get from a dinosaur and how did they all fall into one hole? :D

that vid reminds me of the topfuel, fuel pump demonstration that required a fire hose.

paulzig
Expert
Expert
Posts: 642
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by paulzig » Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:48 am

GARY C wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:38 am
How many barrels of oil do you get from a dinosaur and how did they all fall into one hole? :D

that vid reminds me of the topfuel, fuel pump demonstration that required a fire hose.

Bit of a misnomer as there are no fossils in 'fossil fuel'.. :)

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3442
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by GARY C » Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:00 am

paulzig wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:48 am
GARY C wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:38 am
How many barrels of oil do you get from a dinosaur and how did they all fall into one hole? :D

that vid reminds me of the topfuel, fuel pump demonstration that required a fire hose.

Bit of a misnomer as there are no fossils in 'fossil fuel'.. :)
Yeah, I think the largest fossil graveyard is over 500 acres and there isn't 1 qt of 10w30 to be found.

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7537
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by pdq67 » Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:44 am

But there is a lot of tar at La Brea!

And it's filled with fossils.

pdq67

paulzig
Expert
Expert
Posts: 642
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by paulzig » Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:11 am

The term fossil is misused here to refer to something that is old or aged... The fuel itself is decaying organisms under pressure and heat not fossils.

User avatar
Dave Koehler
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3346
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:19 pm
Location: Urbana, IL USA
Contact:

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by Dave Koehler » Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:34 am

exhaustgases wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:23 am
And remember this is one of 6 fuel spray nozzles in a not so big jet engine, and the video shows it not even running at full capacity.
And we wonder where the fuel is going? Or the emissions etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fRBOkXvAK0
25gpm. Pretty efficient compared to a Top Fueler.
Where does the fuel go? Converted to thrust of course.
Did you expect to see a nozzle that injects the "special" chems on an engine from the 50s?

That fellow has some interesting videos. Much can be learned.
Dave Koehler - Koehler Injection
Fuel Injection - Nitrous Charger - Balancing - Nitrous Master software
http://www.koehlerinjection.com
"Never let a race car know that you are in a hurry."

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by exhaustgases » Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:18 am

I used the fossil term since that's what every one "thinks" its called, cause its the pushed term. Mineral fuel and oil is the correct term.
50's or not, it is still the norm or even worse the bigger the engine you go in that world. When those engines run its like flushing fuel down the toilet every second. I just thought it was nice to get to see the amount of fuel used for one of six fuel nozzles that are flowing for a slow speed or thrust setting.

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7537
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by pdq67 » Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:11 pm

A real world gas mileage reality check here using my old survivor '67SS/RS Camaro car.

Stock, 295hp/350, M-20 and 3.31 regs and about 25.3"/29.5" dia. or so tires was like 16.5 to 17 mpg running about 70 mph back then.

Same combination, but with a 350hp/327, -151 hy-cam in her! About 15.5 to 16 mpg! The old -151 cam pulled like a, "freight train"!!!

My old, junk301 with an old junkyard, -097 Duntov in it was still like 16 mpg. Sucker would hit 7,000+ rpm any time I put my foot in it!

I didn't keep the old hopped up 300hp/327 that was in my car when I got it back so don't know. It had a 268 hy-cam in it. Those damned little 268/270 hy-cams run fine in the old 250/275/300hp/327 engines! One will wake them right up!!

I never figured the gas mileage for my .060" over, 11.5 to 1 CR, full house/"tripped", 409 "W" engine, but I always thought it would be about 10 mpg??

The big sucker ran like a 283 on steroids!!

Now my Strong-Arm 406, about 15 with 26.5" dia. tires running about 55 mph on the 4-lane commuting daily. Cam was a 292/230, 109/107 or so, .480" lift old-school jobber!

I haven't lit off my 496 yet so don't know how it's gas mileage will be?

pdq67

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6193
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by David Redszus » Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:42 pm

pdq67 wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:11 pm
A real world gas mileage reality check here using my old survivor '67SS/RS Camaro car.

Stock, 295hp/350, M-20 and 3.31 regs and about 25.3"/29.5" dia. or so tires was like 16.5 to 17 mpg running about 70 mph back then.

Same combination, but with a 350hp/327, -151 hy-cam in her! About 15.5 to 16 mpg! The old -151 cam pulled like a, "freight train"!!!

My old, junk301 with an old junkyard, -097 Duntov in it was still like 16 mpg. Sucker would hit 7,000+ rpm any time I put my foot in it!

I didn't keep the old hopped up 300hp/327 that was in my car when I got it back so don't know. It had a 268 hy-cam in it. Those damned little 268/270 hy-cams run fine in the old 250/275/300hp/327 engines! One will wake them right up!!

I never figured the gas mileage for my .060" over, 11.5 to 1 CR, full house/"tripped", 409 "W" engine, but I always thought it would be about 10 mpg??

The big sucker ran like a 283 on steroids!!

Now my Strong-Arm 406, about 15 with 26.5" dia. tires running about 55 mph on the 4-lane commuting daily. Cam was a 292/230, 109/107 or so, .480" lift old-school jobber!

I haven't lit off my 496 yet so don't know how it's gas mileage will be?

pdq67
This is a topic I looked into a few dozen years ago; horsepower vs fuel economy.

Given the same body shape (similar frontal area and Cd) and running at the same mph, fuel economy results were nearly equal.

So how much horsepower does it take to propel a Camaro at a constant 70 mph? How much fuel?

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7537
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by pdq67 » Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:01 pm

David,

I came to about the same conclusion after I looked close!

It's not until you put your foot to the floor that gas mileage changes all that much.

Then we are going from Mpg to Hp!!!

pdq67

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by exhaustgases » Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:45 pm

If it is fuel mileage the best fuel mileage would be from a large airliner with turbo compounded diesel engines on it, even the old gas engines beat the jets in the better fuel consumption area.

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6193
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by David Redszus » Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:47 pm

pdq67 wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 4:01 pm
David,

I came to about the same conclusion after I looked close!

It's not until you put your foot to the floor that gas mileage changes all that much.

Then we are going from Mpg to Hp!!!

pdq67

Assuming a frontal area of 28 sqft, with a Cd of 0.48, at a steady 70 mph, our car will require 35 hp.

GARY C
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3442
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by GARY C » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:05 pm

paulzig wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:11 am
The term fossil is misused here to refer to something that is old or aged... The fuel itself is decaying organisms under pressure and heat not fossils.
Any idea how it all ended up in one hole?
Any idea why many of the wells thought to be empty have refilled them selves?

paulzig
Expert
Expert
Posts: 642
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: "Fossil fuel" reality check

Post by paulzig » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:57 am

GARY C wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:05 pm


Any idea how it all ended up in one hole?
Plate tectonics and the formation of basins causing the biomass to drop in there?
Any idea why many of the wells thought to be empty have refilled them selves?
secondary reservoirs deep inside the earths crust under pressure, feeding into the primary reservoirs as the oil is depleted maybe?

Post Reply