| OCR Text |
Show Engine Parameters The engine performance parameters showed considerable difference before and after testing of DF2 at low RPM for 85% full power testing (Figures 11-13). This could have been caused by the development of problems either in the engine or in the mechanical connections of the dynomometer. This was not considered in the results because of the similarity of the curves obtained after the dynomometer was rebuilt,* (Figure 13). The data plotted (Figures 14-23) from the engine were an average of two runs for a minimum of three data points per test. The error yielded approximately the same results for all runs. The values for error were 2% for n. and 0.3% for OBSFC, BHP, BMEP, and Torque. The fuel consumption for 10% Dioxalane in the unmodified engine was 8% higher than that for DF2 (Figure 24). With the atomization correction applied, the fuel consumption was decreased by as much as 6%. The fuel consumption for 10% MEK (Figure 25) exhibited a hump between 1400 and 2000 RPM. In this range, the fuel consumption deviated the most from that found for DF2. There was 10% more fuel consumed for 25% SFO than for DF2 (Figure 26); but when the injectors were set at INOP for 25% SFO, the fuel consumption improved by 8% at the high RPM range, but decreased 2% at low speeds. The most impressive results were obtained for 10% Dioxalane/5% SFO where the fuel consumption increased by as much as 13% from that of DF2 (Figure 27). However, upon adjustment of the INOP to 2650 psig, the fuel consumption decreased as much as 11%, such that it was within 2% of that of DF2. For the remaining blend, 10% MEK/15% SFO, fuel consumption was increased by 8% from that of DF2 (Figure 28), the correction for proper atomization caused fuel consumption to decrease only about 2%. The engine noise level remained approximately the same for all fuels tested. It appeared to run smoother with the atomization improvements. *It was rebuilt prior to the testing of the new blends. -38- |
