Unichip

How does that statement conflict in any way with my original comments?

 

Chilli...

A few of your statements were not correct. Why are you now referring to your 'basic statements' and 'einstein'?

And why physics? Its chemistry.. You said it like 3 times..

 

Actually it is physics

Any time a reaction between two compounds (in this case fuel and air) takes places using an exothermic reation and the measured output is a force then it is considered a pyhsical reaction.

 

The only part of your original post I disagree with is the following excerpt

That's all
simple

This claim

is based on your personal experience, and is not necessarily up for dispute, but my personal experiences are different.

 

I am thoroughly sick and tired of this bullshit.

Power produced and converted to mechanical action, is clearly the field of PHYSICS.

The fuel source is the realm of CHEMISTRY.

Einstein was some fool who thought he had a half-way decent grip on both.

I referred to my "basic statements" because this thread has been deliberately diverted from the original question/answer(in an all to frequent fashion nowadays)for reasons that escape me.

"POWER" produced by igniting ANY given fuel source, is the result of ENERGY released by the total consumption of that fuel sample. That ENERGY is a constant(and is finite).
There is no simple way to increase that ENERGY release UNLESS you INCREASE the quantity of the fuel sample, OR, CHANGE the chemical constituency of the fuel being used, to a compound that has a greater ENERGY release per same sized sample(the latter being relative to fuel economy comparison).

END OF DISCUSSION.

 

I think someones a little bit angry.

Ease up dude, half your posts arnt very accurate anyway. Whats the big deal?

Ofcourse energy is finite and the rest of it. Why would you talk about that? I have no idea why you go off on these tangents.

 

Then stop churning it out. You are the one who sent this thread off topic, or did you forget?

In the perfect world of absolutes it is like that. But going from first principles to actual read world combustion efficiency it isn't that clear cut. There is a certain amount of energy per amount of fuel of course, but how much of that energy is released, when it is released and how it is released are all variables How many engines get a perfect burn? None with an emissions compliant tune.

You advance the timing (with the same amount of fuel) you will increase combustion temperatures, you increase the combustion temperature you increase efficiency. You go too hot and you start forming some nice gasses like NOx and other nasties, you will also reach the limits of the materials that the engine is made out of and if temperatures get too hot pre-ignition will become a problem.

Over the standard tune there is an improvement to be made, you CAN get more power from the same amount of fuel when comparing standard tune to a properly adjusted tune.

And all this stuff is Thermodynamics, a big scrunched up ball of physics and chemistry with whole lot of it's own weird theories. Entropy anyone?

 

Mate, if you can show me how it is possible to obtain a greater energy release from ANY given fuel source(that is delivered in the optimum fuel/air ratio)without increasing the quantity of the fuel charge, then you will have solved a dilemma that has stumped Engineers and Scientists for many generations.

In respect to my experiences with a Unichip(which were positive in my opinion)each and every application will vary to some degree, as will the expectations of the end user.

 

Cheers

Lloyd:zlove::zlove:

 

This is your opinion(which you are entitled to). It is not supported by any proof on your part and is therefore suspect.

I mentioned a simple power vs afr graph which did dispute your initial reference to fuel vs power in the way you described it. I was also trying to be gentle in saying that while you may be thinking it correct, your post was a bit off. Which.. frankly.. it was. Ease up, dont worry about it.


Because a simple reply to a question asked by a friend, was attacked immediately after I answered it(in what could only be interpreted as an attempt to ridicule my reply). Uncalled for, and unwarranted IMHO.
If you think I go off on a tangent, what do you call it when someone goes to a Motor Mechanic to try and get a differing opinion on my comment, a touch of overkill perhaps?

Attacked? Crickey.. Where do you get this stuff? Why so sensitive? If a post isnt accurate and someone disputes.. its not an attack.

An engine tuner mentioned by Pex was correct in what he said. It was different to what you said. Overkill? I wouldnt say overkill at all. I would say the correct information was presented by the suitable person. Overkill? Crickey man..



Cheers
Steve

 

Hey guys stop flooooding
Chemistry, thermodynamics, equations....
There are sill 4-5 really helpful advices...
I just wanted to hear some unichip user reviews
:diespam:

 

Steve,

Both of us are given to minor inaccuracies when trying to give abbreviated, simple responses to posts.

For my part, I have no issues with any of your posts(except for minor misunderstandings by both of us).

I made it quite clear that I was basing my comments on Basic Physics theory(not the vagaries of Engine Tuning Dynamics)but that didn't suit some other protagonists who just had to find cause for argument.

That is the rubbish I am sick of.

Cheers mate
Lloyd

 

And what use is that to anyone? Yay! First principles! Fuel burns when I light it! What use is that in regards to a unichip i.e. engine tuning and the results thereof?

If you don't like it you can always leave I'm sure not going to stop you, I'll even open the door for you.

 

I guess the point in question is that the tune that vadim will have is not the optimum tune of that which you speak, hence his desire to learn more about the Unichip in particular.
Everyone seems to be all hot under the collar about this subject, but I have actually enjoyed the debate.
There aren't too many threads around these days where we can get in and have a good friendly technical debate about aspects of cars/engines etc.

Anyway, when it comes to a Mass-debate, no one wants to "pull out" early, in case we CUM to the wrong conclusion :rofl:[TIS]

 

this may be off topic...

vadim, chances are you will definitely get better fuel consumption as long as you tune it for, say, 95 or 98 ron and always use that fuel. tuner can program in a little of bit of timing advance and a bit of a/f ratio correction compared to OEM. makes for a slightly leaner burn which should give you better output for less fuel across the board and better consumption.

 

I approve of this thread, it made my day

 

... lol, pex ...to add your Physics/Chemistry issues, i will add another complication ......

.. the "pull out" before the "come" has to do with the Oedipus complex ... eeekkkk

... just love that line ....

 

Big words from someone who is strangely silent when meeting person to person.

A: Fortunately I don't require your permission to answer or post a question on this forum, you pretentious upstart.
B: As a former user of a Unichip in a Z32, I do have an entitlement to express my experience of that device.
C: My comments were of significantly more value than your initial efforts(even though I don't come from QLD).

 

I do hope you're not advocating 'Self Gratification' Baz(it doesn't seem to have worked for you, or me).:zlove::zlove::rofl::rofl: