| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Eeyore
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
 |
|
hanson wrote:
| Quote: |
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....
|
You can get treatment for that you know.
Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
hanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:56 pm Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
Eyesore aka "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:484025A8.53409CB2@hotmail.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/c3fa876a8c2128b8
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....
You can get treatment for that you know.
Graham
That must have been an Eyesore for ya, wasn't it... and it
also says in the *** FAQ: about ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... ***
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/f232cf15901ce7ba
----quote ----->
" Whenever you see someone commenting about "ahaha...
AHAHAHA" you know right off the bat that you've got a real
stupid fool & uptight mooch on your hands worth having big
time fun with". <----end quote ----
| Quote: |
So, Graham, is it less of an eyesore for you now that you |
know that you are a "real stupid fool & uptight mooch"...
ahahaha... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA....
Let's have fun now... and thanks for the laughs, mooch!
ahahaha... ahahahahanson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Eeyore
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
hanson wrote:
| Quote: |
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....
ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... ***
ahaha...AHAHAHA
ahahaha... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA....
ahahaha... ahahahahanson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:%gV%j.37$0O1.26@trnddc07...
| ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....
| "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@comcast.net> wrote in message
| news:DvydnXhTkb4jZqLVnZ2dnUVZ_uLinZ2d@comcast.com...
| >
| Androcles wrote:
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/ef4084dfdaa922ce
| Which is your political slant on it.
| Waste is using more when less will do.
| What I find amusing is that a car stored in a garage for
| 25 years becomes a "classic" and its value increases -
| or at least stays the same, taking inflation into account. [1]
| >
| "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@comcast.net> wrote:
| That is the law of supply and demand in action. There is no
| such thing as a "just" or inhrenet price. The price of goods for
| sale is determined by supply and demand. No one will produce
| goods at a loss for any great length of time, so actual costs of
| production have to be factored into supply. Economics 101.
| The Just Price concepts is bogus and an artifact of Catholic
| theoplogy. [2]
Is that plonked shithead responding to me now?
Now that IS a waste of time.
Here's an example of waste.
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
tau = (t-x/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
All perfectly true as long as v = 0, but reduces to
xi = x
tau = t
Now that is using more when less will do, but shitheads
like Kolker create a demand for it and Einstein was pleased to
supply any crap desired.
| >
| Androcles wrote:
| To me that is waste, using two cars when one will do. [1]
| >
| "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@comcast.net> wrote:
| So do not do what you consider wasteful. Anything you want
| to buy or rent and you have the money for, you may rightfully
| acquire (short of hiring someone to do a contract murder). [3]
| >
| hanson wrote:
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/78d04358a1601a18
| [1] ahahaha... well Andro, your definition of waste is acceptable
| for you own pov, but like I said .... "Waste", like beauty, is in
| the eye of the | beholder. "Waste" is simply an energy- & goods
| consumption format which others do disagree with.... ahahaha...
| which you agree with in [1]... ahahaha... in that what you regard
| as waste, is a precious and valuable commodity for the hoarder
| or collector... Hell, for the Rich & Famous, even old chairs, their
| night-stools & hair-clippings do not become waste.
Oh sure. Eat shit, 10,000,000,000 flies can't be wrong.
--
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch
Androcles
| They become
| highly priced "Antiques", like Napoleon's dried & shriveled cock,
| that was auctioned off a few years back either at Christie's or
| Sotheby's for $3.25 million. It made headlines worldwide.
| ahahahah...
| >
| [2] .... Kolker, why do you, as a Jew, have to attack the church
| every time you get a chance, and why do you let everybody know,
| constantly, that "murder" [3] is always on you mind?... hahahaha...
| By/with/thru that, Bob, you are creating only more "Anti-Semitism"
| then there already is. So, do you do that because of some "supply
| and demand" reason or is it simply your "wasteful" behavior?...
| >
| ahahaha... See you guys in other threads, where we can howl &
| cajole about other issues then "waste", preferably over some
| other type of "shit" that is to some a highly valuable commodity.
| So, see you guys in/on other heaven- & earth moving issues...
| hahaha... Thanks for the laughs, guys... ahahaha.... ahahahanson
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
hanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 1:55 am Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
Eyesore aka "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:484025A8.53409CB2@hotmail.com...
| Quote: |
Eyesore wrote that hanson wrote: |
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/c3fa876a8c2128b8
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....
ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... ***
ahaha...AHAHAHA
ahahaha... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA....
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
Now, that is much better, Graham, except that you should
have left out "hanson" in your 1st and last line above and
it would have looked as if you have fun. ---- But since you
did not you must be exactly what it says in the FAQ here,
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/f232cf15901ce7
that you are **real stupid fool & uptight mooch** ... and on
top of that, as can been seen in here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewable/msg/7a6b7ecbcdfa3e9d
that you are a class 3 enviro, aka a **Little Green Idiot**,
who co-invented Anthropic Global Warming with Al Gore
for which he got the $$$$$$, but you got hot shit... ahaha..
ahahaha... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA....
| Quote: |
Thanks for the laughs, Graham, & let's have fun now b4 |
the next Little Ice Age, that just around the corner & freezes
all your Green hopes.... environmentally!... ahahaha...
ahahaha.... ahahahahanson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
zzbunker@netscape.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:49 am Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
On May 29, 10:45 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:taq%j.20560$Zs3.5432@newsfe20.ams2...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/e67060fff6c23741"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:zHn%j.15470$9H6.5014@trnddc04...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/cd8ff20673edb656
about the oil crisis, its players and the games they play, like here
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/8b67fce923b56a19
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/0aa53c5ef7317f6b
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34
including the use of alternative / Bio fuels
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/35be49f4be7ddb4b
and how Prez Carter's SYNFUEL project got ruined/bankrupted
after the 1970 oil crisis, in which the Arabs turned the oil spigot
off, because of the USA's policy preferences towards its parasite,
Israel but, why in/from 2007 on the Arabs, instead of turning off
the oil tap fully again, they let the oil run and simply said:
"Let the dumb fucking goyim PAY US, THE ARABS, for their
love of and their dependency on the Jews... We'll see how
much and how long the gyoim will carry that Jewish yoke &
burden.. while we rake in the dough"... which is seen in that:
::: "Global oil demand has increased only by 1% last year,
::: So why has the oil price risen by 200% in that same time"?...
Also, the Enviros must be implicated in the sick & silly oil game
as much as the kikes and Ass-venters are. To wit: Green terrorism:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d8c8b22b4ffedd09
wherein it says:
"If the green bastards would not have stymied all nuclear
reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
today plenty of cheap electricity, like France & Japan. We'd
have licked rad-chem disposal problems, we'd have modern
batteries and advanced capacitors in our cars instead of
gas-tanks and we would be driving in hi-powered nonpolluting
electric cars, and we would not be implicated and heavily
influenced by the irrational behavior of America's parasite, Israel
who has not managed to live in peace with its neighbors for
the last 60 years and has conned the US into treaty guarantees
that Israel will get all the oil it needs first, form the US, even if the
US must ration oil for it own citizens..... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
|
Yes it is a 1000% scamola.
Since it took 100 years to convince the I.C.E hack idiots that
hydro-carbons
have so litte to do with hydrogen, that's mostly why people
developed digital processing,
solar energy, fiber optics, lasers, and robots for the idiots,
| Quote: |
Androcles wrote:
The pity of it all is that the energy is wasted; if society went in for
greater efficiency - things like better insulation, heat pumps, washing
containers instead of melting them down to make new containers
the costs would be dramatically reduced. I was watching a show
on TV about the construction of the science base at the south pole
and although I don't give a flying fuck about Big Bang theories
or Dark Energy, I was impressed by the construction of the base
which is scavenging every bit of heat from the motor generators.
Building high tech in those conditions is tough, I take my hat off
to all those guys. When you have to use duct tape to prevent
frost bite from taking your nose off then you are not working in
the most comfortable place.
hanson wrote:
Interesting observation, Andro, though we are drifting off the
immediate subject matter now, it is so true what you say.
Like the S-pole station staffers, almost any desired condition
can be achieved in small isolated communities, or under stress
conditions in large societies as well, like for instance during
times of war ...where people do or must think alike & fall in line.
True, recycling and its benefits are great and much less
wasteful than the way we live now. However consider what
Enviros now call "waste" is someone else's **income**, the
bread and butter on the tables for those millions of people,
who do produce and bring you these "through away" items
of convenience. --- Strictly, academically speaking there is
never any waste. "Waste", like beauty, is in the eye of the
beholder. "Waste" is simply an energy- & goods consumption
format which others do disagree with.... ahahaha...
Remember, during WWII we had all kinds of recycling programs
in place, as mandates... but as soon as that hardship was over
we began to enjoy life's more pleasant annuities to the hilt...
... until the Green shits appeared and saw golden chances to
fatten their wallets, via permit charges, user fees, enviro sur-
taxes, recycling prepays and now a looming Carbon head tax,
all legalized extortions which they the institutionalized, after scaring
the people, by declaring that everything was polluted and that the
earth must be saved. The Green shits operated strictly according
to the edicts of their green Bible that says:
Green Genesis:
1 "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
2 "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
3 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot... for the mass-media today... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
Revelations:
4 "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
5 "to attract great funding you have to scare the public by making
= things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
= --Petr Chylek, Prof. Atmospheric Sci., Dalhousie Uni, Halifax
6 "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the
= right thing" -- Sen.Tim Wirth, Admin of Ted Turner's $1Billion UN-gift..
7 "No matter if the science is all phony, Climate change [provides]
= equality in the world." -- Christine Stewart, Can. Enviro Minister
8 "It is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presen-
= tations" -- Al Gore, Chairman, Gen. Investment Management Bankhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/14968cc3ee9939d4
hanson
Take care, old pal, ...
hanson
| > --
| > Androcles wrote:
| > Why did Einstein say
| > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| > the "time" each way is the same?
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:42 pm Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
On 5$B7n(B29$BF|(B, $B>e8a(B2$B;~(B48$BJ,(B, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:nnh%j.35882$_c7.31118@newsfe16.ams2...
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:Zvg%j.33067$3j.5246@trnddc05...
| "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:0675a4e0-3d55-40f2-bd3f-c864a4a4b99e@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| > Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
| >> A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
| >> about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
| >> into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.
|
| "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" wrote:
| > It is based on a myth. While it is well-known that the efficiency of
| > the IC engine is around the 30-40% mark at best, the myth is that this
| > is due to incomplete combustion, and that most of the fuel goes out
| > the tailpipe. This is not true. Almost all fuel in a properly tuned
| > engine is combusted.
|
| > The two energy losses are heat into the cooling jacket of any cooled
| > engine, and the energy (heat and pressure) in the exhaust. While
| > there have been attempts at building uncooled (adiabatic) engines, the
| > biggest hangup so far is the lubricants. When internal temps get too
| > high all existing lubricants break down.
|
| > Turbocharging does recover some exhaust energy, but we cannot take out
| > too much exhaust energy, or it will limit engine's ability to breath,
| > reducing horsepower for a given engine size. We can indeed increase
| > thermal consumption by this road, but it results in a heavier engine.
| > That is okay for a stationary engine, but any engine used in
| > transportation, must be as light as possible. If a heavy but more fuel
| > efficient engine is used, the total vehicle weight goes up, requiring
| > more energy, so we end up still burning more fuel 
|
| hanson wrote:
| Don, you are kind but you won't change any minds in the
| Alternative- or Hydrogen fuel cults. They have their minds
| made up to get to their vapid heaven... with a religious passion.
| Whenever the fuel prices rise you see 2 phenomena emerging:
| (1) the compulsive savers who wish to beat the transportation
| game at any cost and hence believe anything.
| (2) the conning saviors who accommodate their fantasies
| with any scam the can lay on (1)
| Here is how the current dreams and schemes of (1) and (2)
| will end up, since these 2 cults reject not only the iron existence
| of the laws of thermodynamics but also refuse to believe in
| games that the powerful oil boys play:
| <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/8b67fce923b56a19
| <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/0aa53c5ef7317f6b
| <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34
| ahahaha.... ahahahanson
|
Androlces wrote:
I like the idea of hydrogen as a fuel, don't you?
The problem I see with it is that it takes a lot of crude oil to
electrolyze
the water in the first place and you can't carry much hydrogen around in
a compressed state without cooling it to way down low, which adds up
to danger.
What's needed is another Nobel, someone to come up with a way of
making it as safe as nitro-glycerine in clay, there when you need it but
safe enough to toss around.
Don't you chemical whizzes know of something, a catalyst perhaps, that
can do that? Perhaps if you bonded it with some inexpensive substance
like carbon, there is plenty of coal still around...
.
hanson wrote:
Yes, all the technologies for AF & H have been here for a long time.
But the issue is whether they will catch on widespread and for good.
I say no, because even after tapping and using up only 1% of all the
existing C&CH reserves, the real "Peak Oil" is at least 1500 years
in the future... See details of why in above links. The last time, in the
1970's when has we such an oil spasm... Prez Carted ordered the
SYNFUEL project which the oil boys promptly bankrupted simply by
dropping the crude oil price to $10 (ten)/ bbl... ahahaha...
This time around it boils down to a contest of wills:
::: Is it cheaper to change the lifestyle of some 4 billion people
::: (EU, US, IN, CH etc) bygreenpreachings.... or to force a
::: change of the behavior in a pitifully small fraction of 0.6% of
::: that 4 billion, in some 25 million Iraqis? ...
::: "Global oil demand has increased only by 1% last year,
::: So why has the oil price risen by 200% in that same time"?...
ahahahaha.. See details in the above links... ahahahanson
--
Androcles wrote:
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
|
Here has another method. Good for environment.
http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=rI29vhWEAfA
http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPPqfcd20CY |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Matt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
Fred Kasner wrote:
| Quote: |
feed an engine. However the dangers of hydrogen aside he was also
transporting a dangerous solution for a passenger vehicle that was a lye
solution. Can you see the hazard when a collision sundered the tank and
a strong lye solution splashed out onto a city street?
|
Do you suppose a pint of lye is more dangerous than 15 gallons of
gasoline? Have some perspective. And what about the sulfuric acid in
the batter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Matt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
Mark Thorson wrote:
| Quote: |
A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.
|
1) The claims of increased efficiency are made out of nothing, meaning
that there is no explanation of .
2) Why have the car makers not implemented this when amateurs are able
to get 10% improvements?
3) Why have research chemists and research mechanical engineers not
measured and given a theoretical explanation of the supposed efficiency
improvement? Why is this being argued on Usenet and Yahoo groups
instead of in scientific journals?
4) Some of the electolysis advocates want you to put their special
circuit board between your oxygen sensor and your computer so that the
computer believes the exhaust has less oxygen than it actually has.
fooling the computer into believing the intake mixture is too rich.
Then the computer runs the engine leaner. Gas mileage is better while
the engine turns to junk due to running too lean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
Matt wrote:
| Quote: |
3) Why have research chemists and research mechanical engineers not
measured and given a theoretical explanation of the supposed efficiency
improvement? Why is this being argued on Usenet and Yahoo groups
instead of in scientific journals?
|
Check the references here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_Fuel_Injection
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Matt
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:24 am Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
| Quote: |
Matt wrote:
3) Why have research chemists and research mechanical engineers not
measured and given a theoretical explanation of the supposed
efficiency improvement? Why is this being argued on Usenet and Yahoo
groups instead of in scientific journals?
Check the references here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_Fuel_Injection
|
I saw that page, but I didn't see that it applied to these electrolytic
boosters, since the article considers simultaneous natural gas
injection. If you can point to a refereed research paper that considers
efficiency improvement of Brown's gas injection, I would be more than
happy to consider it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:21 pm Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
On Jun 22, 12:34 pm, Matt <m...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Mark Thorson wrote:
A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.
1) The claims of increased efficiency are made out of nothing, meaning
that there is no explanation of .
2) Why have the car makers not implemented this when amateurs are able
to get 10% improvements?
3) Why have research chemists and research mechanical engineers not
measured and given a theoretical explanation of the supposed efficiency
improvement? Why is this being argued on Usenet and Yahoo groups
instead of in scientific journals?
4) Some of the electolysis advocates want you to put their special
circuit board between your oxygen sensor and your computer so that the
computer believes the exhaust has less oxygen than it actually has.
fooling the computer into believing the intake mixture is too rich.
Then the computer runs the engine leaner. Gas mileage is better while
the engine turns to junk due to running too lean.
|
My recollection is that hydrogen is VERY low octane. Running a car
engine on hydrogen requires a lot of EGR or some other method to
control detonation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
jim
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 22, 12:34 pm, Matt <m...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
Mark Thorson wrote:
A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.
1) The claims of increased efficiency are made out of nothing, meaning
that there is no explanation of .
2) Why have the car makers not implemented this when amateurs are able
to get 10% improvements?
3) Why have research chemists and research mechanical engineers not
measured and given a theoretical explanation of the supposed efficiency
improvement? Why is this being argued on Usenet and Yahoo groups
instead of in scientific journals?
4) Some of the electolysis advocates want you to put their special
circuit board between your oxygen sensor and your computer so that the
computer believes the exhaust has less oxygen than it actually has.
fooling the computer into believing the intake mixture is too rich.
Then the computer runs the engine leaner. Gas mileage is better while
the engine turns to junk due to running too lean.
My recollection is that hydrogen is VERY low octane.
|
The octane rating for hydrogen is something like 135 I don't know if there
is anything else higher than that?
-jim
| Quote: |
Running a car
engine on hydrogen requires a lot of EGR or some other method to
control detonation.
|
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Fred Kasner
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:30 am Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
Matt wrote:
| Quote: |
Fred Kasner wrote:
feed an engine. However the dangers of hydrogen aside he was also
transporting a dangerous solution for a passenger vehicle that was a
lye solution. Can you see the hazard when a collision sundered the
tank and a strong lye solution splashed out onto a city street?
Do you suppose a pint of lye is more dangerous than 15 gallons of
gasoline? Have some perspective. And what about the sulfuric acid in
the batter?
|
The explosive character of gasoline is a very hardy myth. It occurs but
rarely. A split fuel tank can occasionally cause a gasoline fire but
fatalities from such a fire are rare save for the execution of a person
and an induced fire to hide the evidence. But what can be done when a
lye solution is splattered over the road and sidewalks? Batteries can be
split and sulfuric acid released but those batteries are quite hardy and
don't even require a metal reinforced container. Usually the battery
splits and leaks out the acid in situ. And there isn't a great deal of
it in any event. Not quite what would happen when you used water and an
active metal to produce hydrogen and a strong base as well. Much more
lye or similar base solution would be found in a vehicle using such as a
source for making hydrogen as a "fuel". Compared to the small amount of
sulfuric acid the ratio would be quite large.
Now I've demonstrated the perspective you invoked. And as such your
argument is found wanting.
FK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
Fred Kasner wrote:
| Quote: |
Matt wrote:
Fred Kasner wrote:
feed an engine. However the dangers of hydrogen aside he was also
transporting a dangerous solution for a passenger vehicle that was a
lye solution. Can you see the hazard when a collision sundered the
tank and a strong lye solution splashed out onto a city street?
Do you suppose a pint of lye is more dangerous than 15 gallons of
gasoline? Have some perspective. And what about the sulfuric acid in
the batter?
The explosive character of gasoline is a very hardy myth. It occurs but
rarely. A split fuel tank can occasionally cause a gasoline fire but
fatalities from such a fire are rare save for the execution of a person
and an induced fire to hide the evidence. But what can be done when a
lye solution is splattered over the road and sidewalks? Batteries can be
split and sulfuric acid released but those batteries are quite hardy and
don't even require a metal reinforced container. Usually the battery
splits and leaks out the acid in situ. And there isn't a great deal of
it in any event. Not quite what would happen when you used water and an
active metal to produce hydrogen and a strong base as well. Much more
lye or similar base solution would be found in a vehicle using such as a
source for making hydrogen as a "fuel". Compared to the small amount of
sulfuric acid the ratio would be quite large.
Now I've demonstrated the perspective you invoked. And as such your
argument is found wanting.
FK
|
If you want to get rid of the lye just wash it off with vinegar, or hose
it down with CO2 etc.
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
92 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
