OT: 'Our Energy'. Is it going to work?

[T i m]

They are still a 'chemical' rather than 'mechanical' solution though aren't they?

Yes, but not if your foot is off the throttle? ;-)

Quite. ;-)

I think the idea was that some thought that to save fuel when they were going to be coming to a halt, they would slip it into neutral and cruse (on tickover), only stopping on the brakes (pre regen braking etc).

However, if the engine is having to maintain tickover it's got more throttle than if there is no demand for power and is being 'driven' by the inertia of the car as it decelerates.

Not really ever tried to do that myself, just something I heard that I found interesting. Strangely though, I think it might be better for a

2/ (tank mix especially) to idle than be spun at high revs with a closed throttle (but for different reasons). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Who is the sad old man prattling on about now?

What, like these:

Where all that apply generate electricity from mechanical input:

I previously quoted info from here:

That wasn't what you were picking holes in the spelling or grammar was it? You really must be scraping the barrel if that's all you have old man!

Aw bless ... more FUD ...

For that to have had any real relevance I would have had to acted on it and I didn't.

Oh dear, faceplanted again old man ... better luck next time! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Vir Campestris]

I said energy, not fuel.

If your foot is off the throttle on any modern car the injectors will have turned the fuel off.

It's your kinetic (or potential, on a hill) energy that is spinning that engine.

Andy

[T i m]

Erm, if by take you mean 'consume kinetic energy by converting inertia into (mainly) friction and heat' then yes, but I thought the point was fuel consumption? ;-)

Yes, that's what I said didn't I ... and hence the engine wouldn't need to maintain it's own tickover revs = less fuel consumed.

Cheers, T i m