New '16 Z06 owner. What to know and good mods
08-14-2018, 01:34 PM
#201
I think the cat protection is a lie GM wants people to believe is real.
The real truth is they are limiting HP and Torque, and I believe the info I was provided a few months back about them using the MAF and MAP sensors, and a set of pre determined limits, which cause the cars to run more and more RICH leading up to the p0106 limit, is accurate info.
I believe Jstewarts dyno's are accurate. I believe the car learned the BMS was there flowing more air and thus making more power, and it is running .1 to .2 richer to UNDO the power gain and bring power back down, intentionally being .1 or .2 richer than a stock car which flows LESS air... and thus does not hit as high on the tables' limits.
The "dive rich" occurring at later rpm is due to the x-pipe preventing MAP pressure from reaching the "dive rich" limit as quickly, as the X pipe lessens restriction and thus not as much pressure has to be built to flow as much air... so the map sensor is blinded from doing its job. See, GM is using EVERY sensor at their disposal to TRY to detect the car is flowing more air and thus making more power. Its not just the map, or just the maf, or just exhaust 02 sensors... it is all of the above.
What is cool is, the catless down pipes have those "sims" that go in place of the stock sensors, so i believe those FURTHER trick the stock tune.
The MAF is the ONLY enemy left... AFE and halltech are the only companies so far that have tried to trick the MAF. VaraRam was going to do this as well, but in the electronic fashion. I want VaraRam's product to succeed, i just want them to be aware how lean their car is going to run at sea level on a cold night at 150mph, so they need to make sure their unit prevents a lean situation in the engine during those circumstances. Which is why i thought up the slide gate in the first place... they are going to need one to restrict the air flow I believe.
I believe the geometry of the AFE tube was specially designed to trick the MAF. I believe Terry at BMS figured this out, but I think he is also careful to discuss it, because a person is likely to say "alright, so the bottom line is, your filter flows as much or more as the AFE, BUT the AFE is tricking the MAF, so AFE will allow me to see 20+ hp an torque gains, where the BMS will NOT show gains once the car learns the BMS is on there flowing more air... correct?"
And at that point, he probably has to say "correct" and then they go off and buy an afe.
What Terry should be focused on is a way to trick the maf the way the AFE does. Then his BMS would shine.
Slide gates with all different patterns and cut outs... in the actual blade that slides into the intake pipe, just ahead of the maf... are going to be the new trend very soon.
Last edited by Mikec7z; 08-15-2018 at 06:59 PM.
08-14-2018, 02:10 PM
#202
Drifting
I have been thinking about this today. In order to make the same power we all agree you need the same weight of gas (oxygen) flowing into the cylinders in both situations. We all agree that you need more air at altitude to do this as it is less dense.
Air at sea level and at 45 degrees has a density of 1.26 g/ liter.
Air at 5000ft has a density of 1.04 g/liter
I could not find the specific volume of the stock intake manifold but an aftermarket one was about 400ci it 7.37 liters. The volume really doesn’t matter as long as the same one is used in both situations.
At sea level then that manifold will hold 7.37 l and at 1.26 g/l for air gives a total of 9.28g of air at 1 atm. We need the same number of grams at 5000 feet stuffed into the same manifold at which is starting at .83 atm.
So at altitude the same manifold has an initial volume of 7.37 liters however that air is at .83 atm. The atm at this point doesn’t matter as we are looking at the density of air at that level. Atmospheric pressure is accounted for in density caluculations. 7.37l at 1.04 g/l is 7.66 grams of air to begin with at 5000ft and 45 degrees. To make the weight equal we need an extra 1.6g roughly. To get that we need to add 1.5l of air at that temp and altitude to the manifold. That makes the total air needed to make the same power of 8.93 liters.
When you do the math, at that temp and altitude, to get 8.93l into an intake of 7.37l to make the same density (weight/unit volume) you will need 1.2 atm or 17.8 psi (MAP) in the manifold at altitude which is more than the 1 atm (14.7 psi) at sea level. We all agree you need more pressure in the manifold to add and compress the air in order to make the same power.
Mike said if the pressures were the same in the manifold and the temp was held constant the power would be the same between altitude and sea level.
Not the case here. If you raise the PSI at sea level to the same at altitude, 17.8 psi you need to add about 1.47 liters of air with a higher density and oxygen content.
Show me where I am wrong. Just saying you are right doesn’t make it so. You have done nothing to prove otherwise except criticism.
Air at sea level and at 45 degrees has a density of 1.26 g/ liter.
Air at 5000ft has a density of 1.04 g/liter
I could not find the specific volume of the stock intake manifold but an aftermarket one was about 400ci it 7.37 liters. The volume really doesn’t matter as long as the same one is used in both situations.
At sea level then that manifold will hold 7.37 l and at 1.26 g/l for air gives a total of 9.28g of air at 1 atm. We need the same number of grams at 5000 feet stuffed into the same manifold at which is starting at .83 atm.
So at altitude the same manifold has an initial volume of 7.37 liters however that air is at .83 atm. The atm at this point doesn’t matter as we are looking at the density of air at that level. Atmospheric pressure is accounted for in density caluculations. 7.37l at 1.04 g/l is 7.66 grams of air to begin with at 5000ft and 45 degrees. To make the weight equal we need an extra 1.6g roughly. To get that we need to add 1.5l of air at that temp and altitude to the manifold. That makes the total air needed to make the same power of 8.93 liters.
When you do the math, at that temp and altitude, to get 8.93l into an intake of 7.37l to make the same density (weight/unit volume) you will need 1.2 atm or 17.8 psi (MAP) in the manifold at altitude which is more than the 1 atm (14.7 psi) at sea level. We all agree you need more pressure in the manifold to add and compress the air in order to make the same power.
Mike said if the pressures were the same in the manifold and the temp was held constant the power would be the same between altitude and sea level.
Not the case here. If you raise the PSI at sea level to the same at altitude, 17.8 psi you need to add about 1.47 liters of air with a higher density and oxygen content.
Show me where I am wrong. Just saying you are right doesn’t make it so. You have done nothing to prove otherwise except criticism.
08-14-2018, 02:47 PM
#203
The thing is, this is not necessary to understand to help with the OP or anyone else making more power on their stock cars... it might change things a couple percentage points... but nothing huge. Its crazy to keep talking about this, it is a waste of time.
However... I will respond to you... but only because I think we are at a dead end with the original topic this thread was about for a few days.... Jstewart is out of town for 1 week he informed me.
All that being said, you are one of these people who is getting blinded by math equations instead of simple common sense.... but with that said I thought of something that neither of us explored yet, and I will get to THAT, AT THE END OF THIS POST.
But first, I want to see if we can agree on something, and I want to see if you have the mental ability to agree on it... without looking at math equations.
Lets say we have 100% oxygen air. no other molecules to clutter our scientific thought. PSI is a force... it is the atoms/molecules pushing away from each other due to the electrons having the same charge. The closer the o2 molecules are crunched together, the more force their electrons have, pushing away from each other... just like magnets of the same polarity... stronger and stronger force outward as you push them closer and closer together.
So here we go... very simple.... 100% o2.... in a rigid metal container... 20psi.... 100 degrees F.
Those o2 molecules, are going to have the same distance between them... as any other o2 molecules... at 20 psi... in a rigid container.... at 100 degrees F.
Assuming the containers are identical in volume, then we will be able to say THE SAME AMOUNT of o2 molecules, are in each container. It does not matter if we came down in pressure to get to this point. It does not matter if we came up in pressure to get to this point... all that matters is... PSI is pressure... exerted by gas molecules/atoms pushing away from each other. And when we ISOLATE the variable of "ratio of oxygen" and we just make it 100% o2... NOW... there is no false understandings for your mind to grab onto. 20psi... is 20psi. If temp is higher... then we need less o2 molecules to create the 20psi.
and with that temp statement said, IF you are comparing to real life scenarios... understand, heat in the manifold at higher altitudes IS HIGHER as the air had to be COMPACTED A GREATER DIFFERENCE to get it to be 20 psi... so that 20psi air will be hotter, and thus we will need to put a few extra psi into the manifold to get the o2 count equal.
but understand something, while I have known the temp variable is the real life missing variable all along... i have also witnessed you slam me with elementary equations which lacked the temp and you never described the temp as the culprit for the discrepancy... so before I went to temp, I wanted to see if you were a person who was even willing to admit when you were wrong, or if this thread was just going to turn into you being smarter than me, since you play with gasses all day, and you think that gives you the right to try to belittle others.
I think you realize by now, i am not stupid, please stop treating me as if I am. Thank you.
ANOTHER thing that you may be doing is relating this to your field, and perhaps in your field, there are pressure sensors that are RELATIVE to AMBIENT pressure sensors (like a boost gauge) and so you are thinking in terms of your real life experiences, and not in terms of a metal manifold with a sealed sensor inside, that has no clue about outside bar pressures, only what real bar pressure is inside the manifold after the screws.
Now, with all of that said, and I hope you think about all that I just said for a while...
there is a 3rd option that i realized while i was in the shower.... next post...
However... I will respond to you... but only because I think we are at a dead end with the original topic this thread was about for a few days.... Jstewart is out of town for 1 week he informed me.
All that being said, you are one of these people who is getting blinded by math equations instead of simple common sense.... but with that said I thought of something that neither of us explored yet, and I will get to THAT, AT THE END OF THIS POST.
But first, I want to see if we can agree on something, and I want to see if you have the mental ability to agree on it... without looking at math equations.
Lets say we have 100% oxygen air. no other molecules to clutter our scientific thought. PSI is a force... it is the atoms/molecules pushing away from each other due to the electrons having the same charge. The closer the o2 molecules are crunched together, the more force their electrons have, pushing away from each other... just like magnets of the same polarity... stronger and stronger force outward as you push them closer and closer together.
So here we go... very simple.... 100% o2.... in a rigid metal container... 20psi.... 100 degrees F.
Those o2 molecules, are going to have the same distance between them... as any other o2 molecules... at 20 psi... in a rigid container.... at 100 degrees F.
Assuming the containers are identical in volume, then we will be able to say THE SAME AMOUNT of o2 molecules, are in each container. It does not matter if we came down in pressure to get to this point. It does not matter if we came up in pressure to get to this point... all that matters is... PSI is pressure... exerted by gas molecules/atoms pushing away from each other. And when we ISOLATE the variable of "ratio of oxygen" and we just make it 100% o2... NOW... there is no false understandings for your mind to grab onto. 20psi... is 20psi. If temp is higher... then we need less o2 molecules to create the 20psi.
and with that temp statement said, IF you are comparing to real life scenarios... understand, heat in the manifold at higher altitudes IS HIGHER as the air had to be COMPACTED A GREATER DIFFERENCE to get it to be 20 psi... so that 20psi air will be hotter, and thus we will need to put a few extra psi into the manifold to get the o2 count equal.
but understand something, while I have known the temp variable is the real life missing variable all along... i have also witnessed you slam me with elementary equations which lacked the temp and you never described the temp as the culprit for the discrepancy... so before I went to temp, I wanted to see if you were a person who was even willing to admit when you were wrong, or if this thread was just going to turn into you being smarter than me, since you play with gasses all day, and you think that gives you the right to try to belittle others.
I think you realize by now, i am not stupid, please stop treating me as if I am. Thank you.
ANOTHER thing that you may be doing is relating this to your field, and perhaps in your field, there are pressure sensors that are RELATIVE to AMBIENT pressure sensors (like a boost gauge) and so you are thinking in terms of your real life experiences, and not in terms of a metal manifold with a sealed sensor inside, that has no clue about outside bar pressures, only what real bar pressure is inside the manifold after the screws.
Now, with all of that said, and I hope you think about all that I just said for a while...
there is a 3rd option that i realized while i was in the shower.... next post...
08-14-2018, 02:58 PM
#204
your most recent post is grasping for an excuse why o2 concentrations would not be apples to apples at an equal psi and equal temp.
There is a third option.... while o2 and nitrogen ratios in air at all altitudes MAY be the same.... the OTHER gasses may not be the same ratio.
Why does this matter? Well, because when molecules are compressed towards each other, different molecules have different compression/psi curves.
So, with that said, it MAY be possible, that the remaining percentage of air, that we have left as ??? that air COULD be different in ratio to sea level vs 6000 ft. I do not know.
All that I know is, IF these other molecules are different in ratio, that would be the ONLY stone left unturned in our debate... and thus 20psi, at higher altitude MAY NOT have the same o2 concentrations... as the other gasses compress less or more easily than the other gasses compress at sea level, as the other gases, are DIFFERENT MOLECULES.
That is all that I have.
Nothing against you personally, but i get very fed up with equation memorizers who cant follow word thought logic experiments, and get caught up in equations, because equations mean NOTHING if they can't be APPLIED TO REALITY PROPERLY 100%, and as far as the internet goes, scientists are lazy and wannabe's and degree seekers, who will fail a test if real life if i put it in front of them, with real life word problems, and they have the "corrected o2 content percentages" at different altitudes, and this is a BS way of doing it... because I believe it confuses people, such as I was early on when I thought their ratios were different for o2 at different altitudes. I believe it still has you confused as well, maybe im wrong, but that is my belief.
With all that said, i don't want to keep debating this man, it is a negligible non important topic. Sorry I called you dumb or whatever, but you have to understand, you are trying to make me out to the be a fool, and I can easily do the same thing back... so PLEASE stop starting your posts with "WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IS...." followed up with something i absorbed the first time you said it, or followed up with an equation ive known since HS, or a simple logic ive known since I was 8. It is insulting my man.
i think we BOTH understand each other's points of view, and we may never agree. My 100% oxygen explanation makes this as simple as I know how to make it for you.
I don't think anyone in the forum thinks either of us are a dummy, and i think this is a complex topic, that lost most people 20 posts ago.
Rather than debate me anymore, take that 100% o2 explanation to a top physicist, put it up on Quora, whatever, and see what people say. But this thread... no more of this stuff man. Get some info from other sources, ask the question fairly, present it as I have presented it, and see what you find out, and feel free to PM me... but this is not fair to others on this forum, it does not matter for our stock vehicles enough to consume the amount of space you and I are taking up right now with this debate.
There is a third option.... while o2 and nitrogen ratios in air at all altitudes MAY be the same.... the OTHER gasses may not be the same ratio.
Why does this matter? Well, because when molecules are compressed towards each other, different molecules have different compression/psi curves.
So, with that said, it MAY be possible, that the remaining percentage of air, that we have left as ??? that air COULD be different in ratio to sea level vs 6000 ft. I do not know.
All that I know is, IF these other molecules are different in ratio, that would be the ONLY stone left unturned in our debate... and thus 20psi, at higher altitude MAY NOT have the same o2 concentrations... as the other gasses compress less or more easily than the other gasses compress at sea level, as the other gases, are DIFFERENT MOLECULES.
That is all that I have.
Nothing against you personally, but i get very fed up with equation memorizers who cant follow word thought logic experiments, and get caught up in equations, because equations mean NOTHING if they can't be APPLIED TO REALITY PROPERLY 100%, and as far as the internet goes, scientists are lazy and wannabe's and degree seekers, who will fail a test if real life if i put it in front of them, with real life word problems, and they have the "corrected o2 content percentages" at different altitudes, and this is a BS way of doing it... because I believe it confuses people, such as I was early on when I thought their ratios were different for o2 at different altitudes. I believe it still has you confused as well, maybe im wrong, but that is my belief.
With all that said, i don't want to keep debating this man, it is a negligible non important topic. Sorry I called you dumb or whatever, but you have to understand, you are trying to make me out to the be a fool, and I can easily do the same thing back... so PLEASE stop starting your posts with "WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IS...." followed up with something i absorbed the first time you said it, or followed up with an equation ive known since HS, or a simple logic ive known since I was 8. It is insulting my man.
i think we BOTH understand each other's points of view, and we may never agree. My 100% oxygen explanation makes this as simple as I know how to make it for you.
I don't think anyone in the forum thinks either of us are a dummy, and i think this is a complex topic, that lost most people 20 posts ago.
Rather than debate me anymore, take that 100% o2 explanation to a top physicist, put it up on Quora, whatever, and see what people say. But this thread... no more of this stuff man. Get some info from other sources, ask the question fairly, present it as I have presented it, and see what you find out, and feel free to PM me... but this is not fair to others on this forum, it does not matter for our stock vehicles enough to consume the amount of space you and I are taking up right now with this debate.
Last edited by Mikec7z; 08-14-2018 at 03:13 PM.
The following users liked this post:
AZGASSER (08-14-2018)
08-14-2018, 03:08 PM
#205
Drifting
Thanks for the response as we are getting back on track. I never said that boost was MAP directly but it is a factor on the end result. We have kept temp constant and out of the equation as we both know the lower atmosphere pressure allows the gases to expand. Less molecules per volume and less temp. We started the discussion based on your observation that at 45 degrees at sea level and a speed around 155 the code pops. So those are the conditions we kept in mind.
My whole point is air, because we aren’t dealing with 100% O2, needs various pressures and volumes to make similar power. Never once did I say you could not make the same or more power at altitude as at sea level. All I stated was that if the MAP is the same at two different altitudes the amount of gas by weight has to be different as density is different. We don’t need to go over the determinants of density as you obviously know the physics of this.
Like I mentioned earlier, as an anesthesiologist I deal with gas flows, concentrations, pressures, blends everyday. Partial pressure, heats of vaporized gases all have a roll in what I do daily. I don’t understand the mechanisms and electrical programming of these vehicles. I trust you to help sort that out for me. However when you talk gas/air and it’s roll in performance. I used the equations as I thought you and I could dig through the details, that’s all. Like you we try to keep an open mind and when I disagree I will try to explain my reasoning.
Yiu and I are just trying to dig deeper and understand the reasons things are done the way they are.
My whole point is air, because we aren’t dealing with 100% O2, needs various pressures and volumes to make similar power. Never once did I say you could not make the same or more power at altitude as at sea level. All I stated was that if the MAP is the same at two different altitudes the amount of gas by weight has to be different as density is different. We don’t need to go over the determinants of density as you obviously know the physics of this.
Like I mentioned earlier, as an anesthesiologist I deal with gas flows, concentrations, pressures, blends everyday. Partial pressure, heats of vaporized gases all have a roll in what I do daily. I don’t understand the mechanisms and electrical programming of these vehicles. I trust you to help sort that out for me. However when you talk gas/air and it’s roll in performance. I used the equations as I thought you and I could dig through the details, that’s all. Like you we try to keep an open mind and when I disagree I will try to explain my reasoning.
Yiu and I are just trying to dig deeper and understand the reasons things are done the way they are.
The following users liked this post:
Mikec7z (08-14-2018)
08-14-2018, 03:15 PM
#206
Their minds are hurting right now
08-14-2018, 03:30 PM
#207
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Oct 2005
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan
Posts: 7,077
Received 1,817 Likes
on
1,085 Posts
I have been thinking about this today. In order to make the same power we all agree you need the same weight of gas (oxygen) flowing into the cylinders in both situations. We all agree that you need more air at altitude to do this as it is less dense.
Air at sea level and at 45 degrees has a density of 1.26 g/ liter.
Air at 5000ft has a density of 1.04 g/liter
I could not find the specific volume of the stock intake manifold but an aftermarket one was about 400ci it 7.37 liters. The volume really doesn’t matter as long as the same one is used in both situations.
At sea level then that manifold will hold 7.37 l and at 1.26 g/l for air gives a total of 9.28g of air at 1 atm. We need the same number of grams at 5000 feet stuffed into the same manifold at which is starting at .83 atm.
So at altitude the same manifold has an initial volume of 7.37 liters however that air is at .83 atm. The atm at this point doesn’t matter as we are looking at the density of air at that level. Atmospheric pressure is accounted for in density caluculations. 7.37l at 1.04 g/l is 7.66 grams of air to begin with at 5000ft and 45 degrees. To make the weight equal we need an extra 1.6g roughly. To get that we need to add 1.5l of air at that temp and altitude to the manifold. That makes the total air needed to make the same power of 8.93 liters.
When you do the math, at that temp and altitude, to get 8.93l into an intake of 7.37l to make the same density (weight/unit volume) you will need 1.2 atm or 17.8 psi (MAP) in the manifold at altitude which is more than the 1 atm (14.7 psi) at sea level.
Mike said if the pressures were the same in the manifold and the temp was held constant the power would be the same between altitude and sea level.
Air at sea level and at 45 degrees has a density of 1.26 g/ liter.
Air at 5000ft has a density of 1.04 g/liter
I could not find the specific volume of the stock intake manifold but an aftermarket one was about 400ci it 7.37 liters. The volume really doesn’t matter as long as the same one is used in both situations.
At sea level then that manifold will hold 7.37 l and at 1.26 g/l for air gives a total of 9.28g of air at 1 atm. We need the same number of grams at 5000 feet stuffed into the same manifold at which is starting at .83 atm.
So at altitude the same manifold has an initial volume of 7.37 liters however that air is at .83 atm. The atm at this point doesn’t matter as we are looking at the density of air at that level. Atmospheric pressure is accounted for in density caluculations. 7.37l at 1.04 g/l is 7.66 grams of air to begin with at 5000ft and 45 degrees. To make the weight equal we need an extra 1.6g roughly. To get that we need to add 1.5l of air at that temp and altitude to the manifold. That makes the total air needed to make the same power of 8.93 liters.
When you do the math, at that temp and altitude, to get 8.93l into an intake of 7.37l to make the same density (weight/unit volume) you will need 1.2 atm or 17.8 psi (MAP) in the manifold at altitude which is more than the 1 atm (14.7 psi) at sea level.
Mike said if the pressures were the same in the manifold and the temp was held constant the power would be the same between altitude and sea level.
Oxygen content will be identical at the same (absolute) manifold pressure and temperature.
Whether the Manifold Air Pressure sensor in the C7Z measures absolute values, I do not know. The ECM might reference it to ambient air pressure during the startup and testing procedure. Some fuel injection systems do.
Last edited by Warp Factor; 08-14-2018 at 03:54 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Mikec7z (08-14-2018)
08-14-2018, 03:32 PM
#208
its all good, we all learned stuff we didn't know or had gotten rusty on and forgotten.
next time someone wants to have the debate, ill be ready
So will he
next time someone wants to have the debate, ill be ready
So will he
08-14-2018, 04:13 PM
#209
Drifting
Warp,
I am sorry you can't follow the equations/relationships/math what ever the discussions. Go back and re-read and tell me where I am wrong in the use of the values and formulas I used. Did not make any of these relationships up? Like Mike said well known and proven by years of science well before any of use were around. I went through the amounts of air/oxygen etc to make power. Showed how much volume is needed which we all agree is more and the reason why. Mike and I agreed on the variables and ultimately came to an understanding of the concepts with a little give and take. Just saying it is wrong with NO supporting explanation does nothing to support any discussion here or in any thread. While you are correct with the application of the equation you are not dealing with the same conditions across both scenarios. That is all I see at this point.
Thanks for being part of the forum and adding to it. That is why we are all here.
I am sorry you can't follow the equations/relationships/math what ever the discussions. Go back and re-read and tell me where I am wrong in the use of the values and formulas I used. Did not make any of these relationships up? Like Mike said well known and proven by years of science well before any of use were around. I went through the amounts of air/oxygen etc to make power. Showed how much volume is needed which we all agree is more and the reason why. Mike and I agreed on the variables and ultimately came to an understanding of the concepts with a little give and take. Just saying it is wrong with NO supporting explanation does nothing to support any discussion here or in any thread. While you are correct with the application of the equation you are not dealing with the same conditions across both scenarios. That is all I see at this point.
Thanks for being part of the forum and adding to it. That is why we are all here.
08-14-2018, 04:42 PM
#210
Racer
08-14-2018, 05:01 PM
#211
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Oct 2005
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan
Posts: 7,077
Received 1,817 Likes
on
1,085 Posts
Warp,
I am sorry you can't follow the equations/relationships/math what ever the discussions. Go back and re-read and tell me where I am wrong in the use of the values and formulas I used. Did not make any of these relationships up? Like Mike said well known and proven by years of science well before any of use were around. I went through the amounts of air/oxygen etc to make power. Showed how much volume is needed which we all agree is more and the reason why. Mike and I agreed on the variables and ultimately came to an understanding of the concepts with a little give and take. Just saying it is wrong with NO supporting explanation does nothing to support any discussion here or in any thread. While you are correct with the application of the equation you are not dealing with the same conditions across both scenarios. That is all I see at this point.
Thanks for being part of the forum and adding to it. That is why we are all here.
I am sorry you can't follow the equations/relationships/math what ever the discussions. Go back and re-read and tell me where I am wrong in the use of the values and formulas I used. Did not make any of these relationships up? Like Mike said well known and proven by years of science well before any of use were around. I went through the amounts of air/oxygen etc to make power. Showed how much volume is needed which we all agree is more and the reason why. Mike and I agreed on the variables and ultimately came to an understanding of the concepts with a little give and take. Just saying it is wrong with NO supporting explanation does nothing to support any discussion here or in any thread. While you are correct with the application of the equation you are not dealing with the same conditions across both scenarios. That is all I see at this point.
Thanks for being part of the forum and adding to it. That is why we are all here.
As uncomfortable as I am with Mike's posting style, he does seem to have a remarkable talent for "cutting to the chase", as opposed to spending hours or days or weeks on math-based analysis, to figure out things (and still get them wrong) which are readily apparent to even a hillbilly who grew up manipulating mechanical objects every day.
The next time I need an anesthesiologist, I would be glad to have you there. Engine power production might be a little different from anesthesiology.
Last edited by Warp Factor; 08-14-2018 at 05:08 PM.
08-14-2018, 05:38 PM
#212
i believe the problem is in the way these internet scientists have dumbed down the way they describe o2 at high altitudes.
The RATIO of o2 to other gasses does not change... but what they are doing is they are essentially saying "at 6000 feet, the air is LIKE having air that has an o2 content of 16% instead of 21%"
i think he may be plugging in those lower than 21% values into his equations instead of leaving percentage fixed at 21% or whatever value he wants to use as the o2 ratio constant.
The reality of course is, at high altitude, there is less percentage of EVERY gas molecule, if one wants to use this flawed scientific viewpoint that is so common across the net, so for them to say that o2 is now 16% instead of 21% is not a fully scientifically accurate way of describing it. If you add up ALL the gasses, you will get to 80% basically instead of 100% using this flawed lame point of view. Obviously, that is not reality. I fell for it, and he fell for it...
THIS description they use commonly on the net is WHY I, in my first posts back to azgass, I said the RATIO of o2 changes with altitude. He volunteered that it does NOT change... and instead of argue, i took his word and did further research, and he was in fact correct. That is when I realized the common explanation on the net was not real science, just a LIKE, valley girl, way of explaining things.
The only thing that is changing at different altitudes is the PRESSURE/CONCENTRATION of o2. Those 2 words are interchangeable essentially. The higher concentration of a gas molecule in a specific area, the higher the PRESSURE that gas will exert on other atoms/molecules around it, whether it is a steal container, or other gasses. Bar pressure is bar pressure and is REAL absolute pressure, and real absolute force from the atoms/molecules electrons fighting to repel each other at close distances.
He and others need to quit pretending the ratios of o2 change... only the pressure/concentration changes, per volume.
Hope that makes sense.
I feel bad, I have known this since the moment he corrected me on the ratios being equal on his second post to me...
but i sensed that he himself did not fully understand it, and not to be a jerk, but i think i proved my point that he in fact did not
I'm not trying to prove I'm better than he is, but i wanted him to not feel like he was so much further above me that he had the right to pick me apart, especially after i read his first post and already saw its flaws, and i knew him picking me apart was going to be his next step... IF my initial answers were not spot on.
So I played the same game back for a bit
EDIT: I realize I EVEN made the mistake of using the word "concentration" incorrectly in this post and then the ones below this, i contradict myself.
So anyway, this leads me to believe even more strongly that OTHERS would use the word incorrectly, and to check that value out in your equations, very well
The RATIO of o2 to other gasses does not change... but what they are doing is they are essentially saying "at 6000 feet, the air is LIKE having air that has an o2 content of 16% instead of 21%"
i think he may be plugging in those lower than 21% values into his equations instead of leaving percentage fixed at 21% or whatever value he wants to use as the o2 ratio constant.
The reality of course is, at high altitude, there is less percentage of EVERY gas molecule, if one wants to use this flawed scientific viewpoint that is so common across the net, so for them to say that o2 is now 16% instead of 21% is not a fully scientifically accurate way of describing it. If you add up ALL the gasses, you will get to 80% basically instead of 100% using this flawed lame point of view. Obviously, that is not reality. I fell for it, and he fell for it...
THIS description they use commonly on the net is WHY I, in my first posts back to azgass, I said the RATIO of o2 changes with altitude. He volunteered that it does NOT change... and instead of argue, i took his word and did further research, and he was in fact correct. That is when I realized the common explanation on the net was not real science, just a LIKE, valley girl, way of explaining things.
The only thing that is changing at different altitudes is the PRESSURE/CONCENTRATION of o2. Those 2 words are interchangeable essentially. The higher concentration of a gas molecule in a specific area, the higher the PRESSURE that gas will exert on other atoms/molecules around it, whether it is a steal container, or other gasses. Bar pressure is bar pressure and is REAL absolute pressure, and real absolute force from the atoms/molecules electrons fighting to repel each other at close distances.
He and others need to quit pretending the ratios of o2 change... only the pressure/concentration changes, per volume.
Hope that makes sense.
I feel bad, I have known this since the moment he corrected me on the ratios being equal on his second post to me...
but i sensed that he himself did not fully understand it, and not to be a jerk, but i think i proved my point that he in fact did not
I'm not trying to prove I'm better than he is, but i wanted him to not feel like he was so much further above me that he had the right to pick me apart, especially after i read his first post and already saw its flaws, and i knew him picking me apart was going to be his next step... IF my initial answers were not spot on.
So I played the same game back for a bit
EDIT: I realize I EVEN made the mistake of using the word "concentration" incorrectly in this post and then the ones below this, i contradict myself.
So anyway, this leads me to believe even more strongly that OTHERS would use the word incorrectly, and to check that value out in your equations, very well
Last edited by Mikec7z; 08-14-2018 at 06:35 PM.
08-14-2018, 05:50 PM
#213
Drifting
Mike,
I reached out to you with an olive branch and you continue to be a horses A&@!!! You need to go back and read critically what was said. The density and therefore the concentration can change, the ratios however are fixed up to a certain point. We agree more molecules per volume means higher pressure if temp is held constant. What level of education do you have where you can’t see or remember that I posted the ideal gas law in the first post. The density of air decreases with altitude. Known fact. You said it yourself earlier about dense air at sea level. Never once did I disagree that fact. Dense materials, like the rocks in your head have more mass/weight per volume. What do you think makes up that weight? I’ll give you a minute to think.
Ok it is the amount or number of particles of oxygen and hydrogen. You are hopeless. I wish you could read and understand basic physics. You are right, you have the understanding of this like you were 8.
I reached out to you with an olive branch and you continue to be a horses A&@!!! You need to go back and read critically what was said. The density and therefore the concentration can change, the ratios however are fixed up to a certain point. We agree more molecules per volume means higher pressure if temp is held constant. What level of education do you have where you can’t see or remember that I posted the ideal gas law in the first post. The density of air decreases with altitude. Known fact. You said it yourself earlier about dense air at sea level. Never once did I disagree that fact. Dense materials, like the rocks in your head have more mass/weight per volume. What do you think makes up that weight? I’ll give you a minute to think.
Ok it is the amount or number of particles of oxygen and hydrogen. You are hopeless. I wish you could read and understand basic physics. You are right, you have the understanding of this like you were 8.
The following users liked this post:
Mikec7z (08-14-2018)
08-14-2018, 05:55 PM
#214
Mike,
I reached out to you with an olive branch and you continue to be a horses A&@!!! You need to go back and read critically what was said. The density and therefore the concentration can change, the ratios however are fixed up to a certain point. We agree more molecules per volume means higher pressure if temp is held constant. What level of education do you have where you can’t see or remember that I posted the ideal gas law in the first post. The density of air decreases with altitude. Known fact. You said it yourself earlier about dense air at sea level. Never once did I disagree that fact. Dense materials, like the rocks in your head have more mass/weight per volume. What do you think makes up that weight? I’ll give you a minute to think.
Ok it is the amount or number of particles of oxygen and hydrogen. You are hopeless. I wish you could read and understand basic physics. You are right, you have the understanding of this like you were 8.
I reached out to you with an olive branch and you continue to be a horses A&@!!! You need to go back and read critically what was said. The density and therefore the concentration can change, the ratios however are fixed up to a certain point. We agree more molecules per volume means higher pressure if temp is held constant. What level of education do you have where you can’t see or remember that I posted the ideal gas law in the first post. The density of air decreases with altitude. Known fact. You said it yourself earlier about dense air at sea level. Never once did I disagree that fact. Dense materials, like the rocks in your head have more mass/weight per volume. What do you think makes up that weight? I’ll give you a minute to think.
Ok it is the amount or number of particles of oxygen and hydrogen. You are hopeless. I wish you could read and understand basic physics. You are right, you have the understanding of this like you were 8.
Im being genuine, this is where your problem lies if you want to understand it. I BELIEVE
And I am not blaming you, i am blaming the internet and the way these other lame scientists INACCURATELY describe ratios and concentrations with their valley girl LIKE reasoning, which is not accurate.
i dont think 80% of them even understand it to be honest, they just read and repeat, and add even more flaw.
My above post, i was admitting i was being a dick... it was not pointed at you as much as me. Warp already said he agrees im right, so im not convincing anyone I am more right than you, I'm giving my 2 cents on where your math is off.
Last edited by Mikec7z; 08-14-2018 at 06:12 PM.
08-14-2018, 05:58 PM
#215
Drifting
Wrong again. Dude this is getting old. If I give you a quarter and two dimes, you have them in a ratio of 1:2. If I give you 2 quarters and 4 dones the ratio is still 1:2 but the concentration in your hand is greater.
Yiu are losing credibility with each response.
Yiu are losing credibility with each response.
The following users liked this post:
Mikec7z (08-14-2018)
08-14-2018, 05:58 PM
#216
21% o2 concentration in the gas... is that not also 21% ratio of o2 in the gas?
Not trying to be a smart ***, trying to answer your question to warp.
Not trying to be a smart ***, trying to answer your question to warp.
08-14-2018, 06:00 PM
#217
ok, then im wrong on why/where your math was off, but i still stand behind my 100% oxygen explanation of why I'm right about how reality actually behaves, and a few people agree I'm right in the real life terms I've discussed.
you asked a genuine question where your math was off, i thought i might know where it was off, i guess i don't, ill leave it up to the others to figure out.
not trying to start a fight back up, that's for sure.
you asked a genuine question where your math was off, i thought i might know where it was off, i guess i don't, ill leave it up to the others to figure out.
not trying to start a fight back up, that's for sure.
Last edited by Mikec7z; 08-14-2018 at 06:10 PM.
08-14-2018, 06:16 PM
#218
what is the concentration of oxygen if it is 100%? WOULD concentration vary per altitude if it is 100% of the air? IF "NO", then I'm right.
If "YES", it does vary concentration at different altitude when it is 100%, then I'm not right.
I don't know if im right or not, I'm taking a shot in the dark, because everything else we agree on and seems to be sound.
I would plug 100% o2 into your equations, and if it does not come out to be 20psi bar equals 20psi bar, no matter how you get there... then understand, your understanding of "concentration" might be off, and rightfully so... BECAUSE MOST EXPERT SCIENTISTS ON THE INTERNET SEEM TO BE EXPLAINING IT WRONG in valley girl "LIKE" contexts.
If "YES", it does vary concentration at different altitude when it is 100%, then I'm not right.
I don't know if im right or not, I'm taking a shot in the dark, because everything else we agree on and seems to be sound.
I would plug 100% o2 into your equations, and if it does not come out to be 20psi bar equals 20psi bar, no matter how you get there... then understand, your understanding of "concentration" might be off, and rightfully so... BECAUSE MOST EXPERT SCIENTISTS ON THE INTERNET SEEM TO BE EXPLAINING IT WRONG in valley girl "LIKE" contexts.
Last edited by Mikec7z; 08-14-2018 at 06:20 PM.
08-14-2018, 06:21 PM
#219
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Oct 2005
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan
Posts: 7,077
Received 1,817 Likes
on
1,085 Posts
Obviously (at least from my current perspective), my thought models weren't quite up to speed yet.
Last edited by Warp Factor; 08-14-2018 at 06:33 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Mikec7z (08-14-2018)
08-14-2018, 10:35 PM
#220
Drifting
what is the concentration of oxygen if it is 100%? WOULD concentration vary per altitude if it is 100% of the air? IF "NO", then I'm right.
If "YES", it does vary concentration at different altitude when it is 100%, then I'm not right.
I don't know if im right or not, I'm taking a shot in the dark, because everything else we agree on and seems to be sound.
I would plug 100% o2 into your equations, and if it does not come out to be 20psi bar equals 20psi bar, no matter how you get there... then understand, your understanding of "concentration" might be off, and rightfully so... BECAUSE MOST EXPERT SCIENTISTS ON THE INTERNET SEEM TO BE EXPLAINING IT WRONG in valley girl "LIKE" contexts.
If "YES", it does vary concentration at different altitude when it is 100%, then I'm not right.
I don't know if im right or not, I'm taking a shot in the dark, because everything else we agree on and seems to be sound.
I would plug 100% o2 into your equations, and if it does not come out to be 20psi bar equals 20psi bar, no matter how you get there... then understand, your understanding of "concentration" might be off, and rightfully so... BECAUSE MOST EXPERT SCIENTISTS ON THE INTERNET SEEM TO BE EXPLAINING IT WRONG in valley girl "LIKE" contexts.
I know the internet depending on sites does not always explain it in a way you and i are use to seeing. Formulas and such are "dumb" downed to make it easier. Just like when you describe A/F ratios on the systems involved, I had to go to several sources to see how these things work and what they are actually seeing and reporting. I did not know MAP sensors came in different BAR values 1,2 or 3. Since this discussion happened I learned something during all this.
If you learn something new each day, that is a great day. All of us need to help each other learn the beauty of these cars.
Last edited by AZGASSER; 08-14-2018 at 10:36 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Mikec7z (08-14-2018)