Major gains in fuel economy?

Status
Not open for further replies.

well then what the hell has silicon being made into a transistor got to to with pulling power out of thin air ?
 

And the 300W generated by the alternator loaded the engine more which ate more gas. The alternator can generate make the 300W but it is not energy that would other wise be wasted.

When you make the hydrogen you will lose energy to heat.
 
Keeping it real

Thunderchild said:
well then what the hell has silicon being made into a transistor got to to with pulling power out of thin air ?
Click to expand...

It's an analogue. Just as the transistor is a device that must conform to the laws of physics, so too must the increase in fuel efficiency.

You can't "pull the extra efficiency out of thin air". But, just as you can modify silicon to perform the function of a transistor, so (I believe) you can modify the fuel to yield a greater efficiency. And, I also suspect that it's likely that part of that increase in efficiency will come from the enrichment of the fuel with HH and/or O.

If you ask if I think the extra efficiency will come from cracking water into HH and O, under the hood, the asnwer is, no. But, I remain open to being proven wrong. However, I'm just not going to go chasing after every cock-a-mamie link that someone tosses out to try to get some other crackpot to "prove" it to me.
 
erm petrol has 100 % power it get burnt in the engine 30-40 % becomes mecanical power the other 60-70 % becomes heat until you figure a way of making less heat and more mecanical power you won't be going nowhere on efficiency if you found a way of rteclaiming the heat and putting it to use then your onto something but we were discussing these hydrogen things funny that they have more or less dropped out of the discussion now that we are talking business......
 
We have the power!!

Thunderchild said:
erm petrol has 100 % power it get burnt in the engine 30-40 % becomes mecanical power the other 60-70 % becomes heat......
Click to expand...

Hate to burst your bubble but, the internal combustion engine doesn't get 00.000000000001% of the power from a molecule of gasoline...er...sorry...petrol. Now, admittedly, almost all that energy is untappable by the forces available on earth (or even our solar system) but, some of it is and (I believe) that time will prove me right.

But, it's likely that most of the gains will be in terms of fractions of a percent, with occasional larger breakthroughs. That's just the way research on these sorts of things goes.

But, you are right when you go on to say that converting energy that goes out of the engine as heat, into motive power, is one area that fuel efficiency can be achieved. That can be achieved through engine design, lubricants, fuel formulations and (the dreaded) careful driving.
 
audioguru said:
When are gullable people going to learn that HHO will not improve the fuel economy of their vehicle, unless it is compressed in a dangerous tank?
Click to expand...

The idea with the water injection as used by turbine engines was not to do any HHO thing. It's effect is that of cooling, and because of the cooling, you can extract more power from the turbine engine.
I'm not an expert, but in my mind the cooling adds to engine efficiency for that short period, thus allowing more power.
Why it's called water-meth, the meth (methanol) part is to compensate for a proper combustion mix, otherwise your fuel becomes diluted.
The thing the designers/engineers were after is exclusively the cooling effect the water has at the moment it evaporates.

I would also be a bit sceptical of driving a vehicle with hydrogen compressed at uber pressure for the purpose of combustion.
 
the internal combustion engine needs heat to run it runs on heat problem is alot of heat is dissipated and never used we all know (I hope) that a car performs better with a hot engine obviously overheating is not a good idea I'm not suggesting we stop cooling engines... hec I'd loose my job working for a car radiator company
 

Great info oznog.
Very promising technology as well.
I suspect BMW's system will be a bit big/heavy still. That could be problematic for the modern car. But I'm sure we'll find out.
 

Funny what people try(claim) with magnets.
Some claom it can heal certain illnesses.
Where we stay we have terribly hard water, calcium carbonate/lime scale, whatever you want to call it, when doing research, I found this profound magnetic solution that magically does something to the calcium molecules that makes them not turn into lime scale build-up in your pipes, kettle of dishwasher.
What bogus.
The chemical systems takes your water from one extreme to the other. Same poor quality remains.
I've made peace with replacing my dishwasher pump once a year, or will have to move.

Oops, this must probably be a new thread, as I'm sure it will draw some reaction.

Magnets are good for generating small amounts of electricity though
 
Thunderchild said:
I can get up to 14 m/litre on my car.. !
Click to expand...


Shame, my thoughts are with you.
Either you tow a fuel tank, or drive from fuel station to fuel station.
The best fuel consumption I've ever managed was 5.84l/100km.
That was in my 1.6i CLX Ford Ikon, when it was still a lot never.
Now I'm averaging around the mid 7's
 

Philba your figures quoted are prototype figures.
Have a look at the electric car vs. gas guzzlers thread, I've published the production spec figures over there.
To sum up:
3.9 sec..... no
220 miles..... no, well maybe.
babe magnet..... no (go for the puppy, remember the top gear test with the puppy vs. Aston Martin...... puppy won)
All in all good looking car, still bloody expensive. Claimed to be better that prius, in "green" terms.
 
3v0 said:
From link "Call it a talking paper".


There is no claim of new chemistry. The claim is hydrogen raises the temperature of the burning mixture which allow more of the fuel to burn.
Click to expand...

Hey 3v0.
I wonder if that claim will hold water.(no pun intended).

Inside the combustion chamber, around the point of ignition of the combustible fuel, have aguess what the temp is?
It's amazing. Here follows a breakdown.
The spark moves between the electrodes, lasting .001 sec. the voltage might climb to 40kV and amps to 200A. Average spark plug temperature is 6000°C. WOW.
The spark delivers between 150 and 200 times more energy than what the stoichiometric mixture typically needs.
From fuel/air intake to max combustion lasts approx. 2ms.
Between firing the spark plug temp is around 650°.

that's heavy.
So the point is, I wonder if a few extra H molecules would significantly increase the combustion temperature.
what do you think? I mean 6000° C. Doubt anything that can burn will not burn.
 
That's just basic thermodynamics - reducing the temperature on the cold side of a heat engine will increase the effcieincy more than increasing the tempertature on the hot side by the same amount.
 

I wonder if your figures are not over optimistic.
Saying that ICE efficiency figures are very controversial.
Some believe the "production" figures are even as low as 15%, others claim as high as 34%.
I have it around 20% for production engines and just over 30% for racing engines.
But that is possibly a new thread on its own.
The point is, you loose much of the power that should end up at the wheels, through heat and friction. Again my def for ICE is something trying to break itself apart, because there are to many things pushing other things, pushing other things, etc. That calculates to major losses.

So the conclusion to this thread is to get rid of the ICE engine entirely.
 
Hero999 said:
That's just basic thermodynamics - reducing the temperature on the cold side of a heat engine will increase the effcieincy more than increasing the tempertature on the hot side by the same amount.
Click to expand...
Water is injected into the burn-side, and done so for years now with turbine engines, surely the engineers knows more than us about why.

Some additional info from an Airbus pilot friend of mine to clear it up.
I was also wrong here.
The max power for what a turbine engine can produce is the fuel mass you can push through it. Simple, not so simple. The turbine engine is limited by it's temp limit, so that makes you not put more fuel mass into it, it might disintegrate.
So you will agree, the more fuel, the higher the temp. But you have a turbine temp limit. So you inject water. The water evaporates real quickly, causing cooling, allowing you to add more fuel, because you are 'sort of' increasing the engine temp limit.
As stated the meth ensures just that the combustion ratio is maintained.

So I was wrong regarding the efficiency being heightened. You are actually only playing the system to add more fuel to it.
Easy solution to get more power.
 
Thanks ARRIE

You read the post and didn't just look for the negative. There is some answers to the questions if your not bound and determined to be negative and critical of how some one post.

Abusive text deleted, this is NOT tolerated here.

Moderator.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Question about water injection for a jet

arrie said:
Water is injected into the burn-side, and done so for years now with turbine engines, surely the engineers knows more than us about why.

Some additional info from an Airbus pilot friend of mine to clear it up.
Click to expand...

You make a good point about the turbine inlet temperature (TIT) which is carefully monitored by thermocouples in a gas turbine engine and fed into the computer (digital now but, analog in early jets).

The ideal mixture for combustion is 15 to 1. But, the air to fuel ratio of the typical turbojet engine is about 60 to 1 with the extra air blowing around the outside of the flame in the burner section for cooling (as well as for turbine cooling). The mixture is still 15 to 1 for the flame. That's one reason there's so much air available in a jet (for de-icing, cabin temp contol, pneumatics for starting other engines, etc.).

What I don't understand about water injection (in a jet) is where the water is injected and exactly how it works. With a regular reciprocating engine extra fuel, that doesn't burn, is used for cooling. The water simply replaces the excess fuel.

If so much air is run through the jet engine anyway, how is the water (or whatever muxture is used) intorduced and why?

I know that it's common, when cleaning jet engines to run them up on a stand and spray either water or ground-up nut shells into the intake to knock the crud off the compressor and turbine blades.
 
Just a note...

audioguru said:
I had a tiny 8 weeks old Bichon Frise white fur dog. The gorgeous young chicks were all around!
Click to expand...

Be careful...with a dog like that you might also find that a lot of your maile friends seem to have an special affinity for show tunes...
 

so you get 17.12 m/litre ? thats very good bearing in mind though I have a small engine not really up to the cars weight and its 10 years old done 100k mile and has already been reconditioned once
 

Hey, I'm just quoting what they say on the web site. It's their advertising. If they are lying, the court system (and disgruntled owners) will take care of it.

Every woman I showed this car to goes, "wow, cute". Being very "green" is a big pull however, the real chick magnet is the fact that it costs >$100K. Try testing a pile of money versus almost anything else - the money usually wins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Question
Parallel LC Induction heater with High Q Factor
Replies
1
Views
5K
rjenkinsgb
S
  • Question
LC Parallel resonance induction heater
2
Replies
22
Views
8K
rjenkinsgb
S
  • Question
Inductive Reactance of Solenoid with Solid Metal Core With respect to frequency
Replies
2
Views
3K
Tony Stewart
G
Biomass as fuel
2
Replies
27
Views
8K
duffy
Any one looked at Gm fuel-cel car
Replies
19
Views
5K
Mr RB
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…