| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mark Thorson
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 12:33 am Post subject: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or Not |
 |
|
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.
Two web sites that were mentioned are:
http://www.savefuel.ca/oxy-hydrogen/
http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/index.html
Unfortunately, the thread wandered off into the weeds
with much of the discussion being about how you can't
get something for nothing, the energy from the gases
is ultimately drawn from the alternator, etc. That's
not the point.
The claim is that adding these gases into the
carb or fuel injection system results in burning
the fuel more efficiently -- so you're extracting
more energy from the gasoline.
Is there any possibility this could be true?
I talked to a friend of mine yesterday about this
subject, because he's thinking about ordering the
plans to build one. (I don't know if it's from
either of the web sites listed above.) He's got
lots of experience with engines and racing, but
doesn't know a heckuva lot of chemistry.
I told him it seemed like a scam, but that I
really didn't know. It's not unreasonable that
burning could be improved this way. Certainly,
the oxygen would improve burning, like a nitro
system. But, apparently the claim is that the
hydrogen is somehow improving combustion. Any
good scam will have a good story behind it.
Even if it were completely neutral on gas
mileage, after people have invested their time
and money building one, they'll be motivated
to see it in a favorable light. If they don't
do strictly scientific tests, they can easily
delude themselves into believing they see a
benefit. A lot of quack medicine is based on
similar placebo effects.
Anyone got any comments on the plausibility
of these devices? Are there any reliable tests
from trustworthy sources validating or debunking
these devices? The plans cost $150, which
further raises the scam alert level. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
HLS
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 12:34 am Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
"Mark Thorson" <nospam@sonic.net> wrote in message
| Quote: |
The claim is that adding these gases into the
carb or fuel injection system results in burning
the fuel more efficiently -- so you're extracting
more energy from the gasoline.
Is there any possibility this could be true?
|
No, not likely.
Modern systems already do a pretty good job of burning the fuel
to near completion. There is little left over to recover.
Losses due to friction and unused heat would seem to be the biggest
remaining factors which might be improved, and this hydrogen oxygen
(Brown's gas) thing is not geared to help minimize those losses.
It is sort of like cost accounting...take into account all the factors, and
this
electrolysis bit doesnt really help the bottom line.
You still cannot get around the laws of thermodynamics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Frank
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 12:50 am Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
Scam.
Think about it in these terms:
Gasoline engine bleeds power to battery for electrolysis to generate
hydrogen which is fed to engine as fuel.
This would basically make it a perpetual motion device with no net gain
in energy.
In fact there is energy lost in heat and friction to generate and burn
the hydrogen which means adding such devices to your car would result in
lower mileage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 1:15 am Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
Frank wrote:
| Quote: |
Scam.
Think about it in these terms:
Gasoline engine bleeds power to battery for electrolysis to generate
hydrogen which is fed to engine as fuel.
This would basically make it a perpetual motion device with no net gain
in energy.
In fact there is energy lost in heat and friction to generate and burn
the hydrogen which means adding such devices to your car would result in
lower mileage.
|
That might not be the point.
AIUI modern engines recirculate exhaust gasses to cool the flame and
produce less NOx. It also reduces engine efficiency. Maybe injecting the
mix raises the temp back up and increases efficiency (at the cost of
more NOx).
Also water injection is an old technique of getting better mileage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28engines%29
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mark Thorson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 1:26 am Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
Frank wrote:
| Quote: |
Scam.
Think about it in these terms:
Gasoline engine bleeds power to battery for electrolysis
to generate hydrogen which is fed to engine as fuel.
|
It is not claimed that all of the energy for the engine
comes from the hydrogen. Most of the energy continues
to come from the gasoline. The claim is that more energy
is extracted from the gasoline by more efficient burning,
due to the addition of the gases from electrolysis.
| Quote: |
This would basically make it a perpetual motion device
with no net gain in energy.
|
While you're out in the weeds, I lost a Frisbee out there.
Could you keep an eye open for that? Thanks.
| Quote: |
In fact there is energy lost in heat and friction to
generate and burn the hydrogen which means adding such
devices to your car would result in lower mileage.
|
If there were no improvement in the combustion of the
gasoline, that would be true. The claim is that the
electrolysis gases improve the combustion of gasoline. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Nate Nagel
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 1:48 am Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
Mark Thorson wrote:
| Quote: |
Frank wrote:
Scam.
Think about it in these terms:
Gasoline engine bleeds power to battery for electrolysis
to generate hydrogen which is fed to engine as fuel.
It is not claimed that all of the energy for the engine
comes from the hydrogen. Most of the energy continues
to come from the gasoline. The claim is that more energy
is extracted from the gasoline by more efficient burning,
due to the addition of the gases from electrolysis.
This would basically make it a perpetual motion device
with no net gain in energy.
While you're out in the weeds, I lost a Frisbee out there.
Could you keep an eye open for that? Thanks.
In fact there is energy lost in heat and friction to
generate and burn the hydrogen which means adding such
devices to your car would result in lower mileage.
If there were no improvement in the combustion of the
gasoline, that would be true. The claim is that the
electrolysis gases improve the combustion of gasoline.
|
any car whose combustion can be "improved" to the point that you notice
a difference needs a tuneup, not H2 injection.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
HLS
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
"Mark Thorson" <nospam@sonic.net> wrote in message
| Quote: |
If there were no improvement in the combustion of the
gasoline, that would be true. The claim is that the
electrolysis gases improve the combustion of gasoline.
|
We have all read the claims, Mark. The science is bogus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 3:44 am 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.
Two web sites that were mentioned are:
http://www.savefuel.ca/oxy-hydrogen/
http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/index.html
Unfortunately, the thread wandered off into the weeds
with much of the discussion being about how you can't
get something for nothing, the energy from the gases
is ultimately drawn from the alternator, etc. That's
not the point.
The claim is that adding these gases into the
carb or fuel injection system results in burning
the fuel more efficiently -- so you're extracting
more energy from the gasoline.
Is there any possibility this could be true?
I talked to a friend of mine yesterday about this
subject, because he's thinking about ordering the
plans to build one. (I don't know if it's from
either of the web sites listed above.) He's got
lots of experience with engines and racing, but
doesn't know a heckuva lot of chemistry.
I told him it seemed like a scam, but that I
really didn't know. It's not unreasonable that
burning could be improved this way. Certainly,
the oxygen would improve burning, like a nitro
system. But, apparently the claim is that the
hydrogen is somehow improving combustion. Any
good scam will have a good story behind it.
Even if it were completely neutral on gas
mileage, after people have invested their time
and money building one, they'll be motivated
to see it in a favorable light. If they don't
do strictly scientific tests, they can easily
delude themselves into believing they see a
benefit. A lot of quack medicine is based on
similar placebo effects.
Anyone got any comments on the plausibility
of these devices? Are there any reliable tests
from trustworthy sources validating or debunking
these devices? The plans cost $150, which
further raises the scam alert level.
|
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
|
|
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 2:37 pm Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
On May 26, 2:33 pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> 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.
|
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  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
hanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:0675a4e0-3d55-40f2-bd3f-c864a4a4b99e@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
jim
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 10:35 pm Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 26, 2:33 pm, 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.
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,
|
That would be your myth. It is just a straw man for you to argue against.
The basis of the theory of why mixing hydrogen with gasoline improves
thermal efficiency is not that it results in more complete combustion. Nor
is it that the laws of nature can be broken.
The first study which was sponsored by NASA and involved airplane engines
was done more than 30 years ago and they were able to achieve 20% improved
fuel economy with hydrogen gasoline mixture. Do you think someone forgot
to tell NASA about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Several studies since
then have also confirmed the original findings.
The theory is that hydrogen mixed with petrol does 3 things. 1) under
very light loads it is possible to efficiently burn extremely lean
mixtures this has been shown to achieve 50% less petrol use at idle. 2)
hydrogen mixed with gasoline burns much faster than gas alone. 3) hydrogen
enrichment boosts octane. Engines can be designed to take advantage of
these properties. The theory is that by combusting all the fuel earlier in
the power stroke delivers more of the energy to the drive train. The
gasoline that burns late in the power stroke may burn completely but
because it occurs so late in the cycle the energy is mostly wasted.
There is a Canadian company that that modifies engines at a cost
$4,000-$10,000 that claims 20% improvement in mileage with no performance
loss (they give a guarantee of 10% fuel savings). Needless to say that
won't pay for itself until fuel costs go higher.
This is not to say that the stuff now being sold on the internet is not
a scam. Those do-it-yourself kits probably are all scams.
-jim
| Quote: |
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
|
----== 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
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:Zvg%j.33067$3j.5246@trnddc05...
| "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer@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
|
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...
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
 ))
--
Androcles
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/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
hanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 11:48 pm Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
"Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:nnh%j.35882$_c7.31118@newsfe16.ams2...
| Quote: |
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:Zvg%j.33067$3j.5246@trnddc05...
| "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer@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) by green preachings.... 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"?...
| Quote: |
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/
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Fred Kasner
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 2:04 am Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
| Quote: |
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:Zvg%j.33067$3j.5246@trnddc05...
| "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer@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
|
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...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
))
|
That idea has been played around with on this NG many years ago. Jed
Checketts, a sincere, but misinformed inventor produced an encapsulated
version of NaH or Na that could be crushed and dropped into water to
produce hydrogen. He saw this a way to produce hydrogen on demand to
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? Also his
processes for producing the NaH used some considerable chemical
processes which produced the CO2 that he felt he was avoiding in such a
process. He eventually left the field and sold his company for producing
the process. We have heard no more of this and Jed has not been on this
NG for quite a few years. I can see a couple of niche uses for such a
system but not any wide spread use. Getting rid of the lye solution is
one super problem.
FK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 2:41 am Post subject: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:tOh%j.8558$nx6.7393@trnddc03...
| "Androcles" <Headmaster@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
| news:nnh%j.35882$_c7.31118@newsfe16.ams2...
| > "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
| > news:Zvg%j.33067$3j.5246@trnddc05...
| > | "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer@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) by green preachings.... 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
You missed my grin. I don't write "hahaha" when I'm joking, that's your
logo.
Even I know hydrogen bonded to carbon is fuel, whether in a potato,
cellulose, polyethylene, gasoline or chicken shit. There really is not much
difference between a carbohydrate and a hydrocarbon, the energy is in
the bond, not the elements, and the economics is in the cost of extracting
it.
So when I suggested bonding hydrogen to carbon I was reinventing Nature's
wheel.
This was the first use of the all natural hydrogen energy system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomen_steam_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Stephenson%27s_Rocket.jpg
If the green shits want it green, then this wood burner is as green as it
gets:
http://www.erichall.eu/images/USA2002/sw2026.jpg
Not even the Iraqis want that.
--
Androcles
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/ |
|
| 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
|
75 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
