Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 |
06-14-2018, (Subject: Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 ) Post: #6 | |||
| |||
RE: Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 (06-13-2018 )Rawze Wrote:(06-13-2018 )DLC Wrote: What causes the 870 to be harder on fuel than a 871? Im reading on wiki about the Venturi effect and the de Laval nozzle. So now I have a question about the Venturi effect and the de Laval nozzle, being this is a Venturi pipe, de Laval nozzle. If I'm reading this right, In the Venturi effect on compressible fluids, such as air, wouldn't the mass flow of air increase after the restriction and the placement of this being so close to the combustion chamber, wouldn't this pipe act like a de Laval nozzle? Could these be the principles that Cummins may be trying to use in the use and placement of this pipe? If so, was this a failed idea or a "makes no difference if its there" part, to get better efficiency? Because they didn't use the same set up on the cm871's and after. I always have to ask why something was used then not. It's like this worked somewhere in their engineering process but then didn't... Im looking at the second half of the part on "Choked Flow". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect The limiting case of the Venturi effect is when a fluid reaches the state of choked flow, where the fluid velocity approaches the local speed of sound. When a fluid system is in a state of choked flow, a further decrease in the downstream pressure environment will not lead to an increase in the mass flow rate. [u]However, mass flow rate for a compressible fluid will increase with increased upstream pressure, which will increase the density of the fluid through the constriction (though the velocity will remain constant). This is the principle of operation of a de Laval nozzle. Increasing source temperature will also increase the local sonic velocity, thus allowing for increased mass flow rate but only if the nozzle area is also increased to compensate for the resulting decrease in density. | |||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest » |
Messages In This Thread |
Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 - DLC - 06-13-2018, RE: Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 - tree98 - 06-13-2018, RE: Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 - Chamberpains - 06-13-2018, RE: Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 - Rawze - 06-13-2018, RE: Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 - Chamberpains - 06-14-2018 RE: Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 - DLC - 06-14-2018, RE: Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 - Rawze - 06-15-2018, RE: Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 - Chamberpains - 06-15-2018, RE: Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 - Rawze - 06-15-2018, RE: Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 - DLC - 06-15-2018, RE: Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 - Chamberpains - 06-15-2018, RE: Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 - DLC - 06-16-2018, RE: Fuel Efficiency differences 870 vs 871 - Rawze - 06-16-2018, |
NOTE: Rawze.com is not affiliated, nor endorses any of the google ads that are displayed on this website.