What is Water For Gas?

Yes you are. Too dishonest to admit it also.

Oh let me see who should I pay attention to? Should I listen to the opinion of some poster on usenet whose only technical argument is "there is no free lunch" or should I listen to the researchers who have actually studied and tested working models of hydrogen-enriched SI engines.

Here is a quote from a researcher at UC Davis who is studying hydrogen enrichment.

There are two main categories for the many theories as to why hydrogen enrichment is such a great benefit. There are the thermodynamic benefits of hydrogen by means of a fast flame speed, low ignition energy and rapid diffusion. And then there are the chemical benefits like OH radical production and the creation of new combustion mechanisms.

It has been demonstrated repeatedly that converting some of the hydrocarbon fuel used in a SI engine to hydrogen and burning the combination under the right conditions does improve engine efficiency. The question of whether hydrogen defies the laws of thermodynamics ia not an issue. That is not to say there aren't any serious design considerations to hydrogen enrichment. That just happens to not be one of them.

I don't have a lousy attitude. You have made statements that are factually incorrect. Since when is correcting false statements a "lousy attitude"? Hydrogen-enrichment does not defy the laws of thermo-dynamics. It has been shown that it can improve thermal efficiency in IC engines by every reputable research institution that has investigated the phenomenon. You on the other hand, just theorize that it defies the laws of thermodynamics. There is no research to support your position.

-jim

----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----

formatting link
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000Newsgroups

---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Reply to
jim
Loading thread data ...

I think you are probably just uneducated, Jim. Well, high school, maybe.

There is no doubt that hydrogen will burn in a properly designed engine, and that it can be mixed with standard fuels as well. There is considerable energy in the combustion of hydrogen. Most of the energy coming from the combustion of gasoline or diesel has to do with oxidation of the hydrogen, not combustion of the carbon.

I have ridden in hydrogen fueled busses, where no other energy source was used. The airport busses in Frankfort, Germany have had this experiment for some time.

Given a certain amount of fuel entering an engine, the efficiency is related to the amount which can be converted to mechanical energy. The rest is lost as heat (cooling system, radiation, convection, friction, and heat out the tailpipe). The difference in temperature between the gases entering the engine and the gases leaving are a rough measure of efficiency.

The hotter the gases entering and the cooler the gases leaving (assuming heat losses mentioned above are constant), the more efficient is the process. (I am making some generalizations, you lazy thermodynamics devils ;.)

Hydrogen is a power packed fuel. No doubt about it. But as far as it being able to do magic things which are beyond the ken and explanation of science, dont bet on it.

Now, if you continue to be insulting and abusive, I will have to lose my temper and use words that I really dont choose to use at the moment.

Reply to
HLS

I suppose you think the research done at UC Davis is done by high school students?

If you are trying to prove that hydrogen enrichment doesn't increase the energy input to the engine. No need to prove that - Of course it doesn't. By converting some of the fuel to hydrogen the total energy available for combustion becomes less. No need to prove something everybody agrees with. By converting some of the hydrocarbon fuel to hydrogen (by whatever means one chooses) the net energy contained in the fuel becomes less. That is undisputed.

If you have 5% less energy but use that energy with 20% greater efficiency you get a net gain in efficiency. That was the conclusion NASA arrived at when they study hydrogen-enrichment.

Yes. Obviously when you improve thermal efficiency less heat ends up in the atmosphere. There no need for you to define efficiency. There is no disagreement as to what efficiency means. No one has ever said your definition of efficiency is flawed. You have defined efficiency adequately.

Yes and that is exactly the result researchers have found obtains when some of the hydrocarbon fuel is first converted to hydrogen and the the 2 fractions are burned in combination. That is, they have found for the same amount of fuel more mechanical energy is produced and less energy is lost as heat.

In controlled laboratory conditions it has been shown the same amount of fuel will produce more power and less heat lost to the atmosphere. It is well known that the conversion of some of the fuel to hydrogen requires energy input and the net amount of energy in the resulting fuel mix will be less. That part of the process loses efficiency - the rest of the process gains efficiency. What you seem to be unable to grasp is that modifying the way fuel burns can be the key to altering the thermal efficiency of the process. This is not a new idea. The best diesel engines are 45% more thermal efficient than the best gasoline engines. And the reason for that greater thermal efficiency can pretty well be boiled down to one thing - the diesel fuel burns differently than gasoline. In other words, there are design deficiencies in gasoline engines not present in diesel engines that are a direct consequence of the way the 2 fuels burn. And one way to get around those design deficiencies is to change the way that gasoline burns.

Lets imagine that you knew a process that could make gasoline burn just like diesel. With that modification to the fuel you would be able to build gasoline engines that get far better mileage than they do without your process. Why is the concept that modifying the combustion characteristics of a fuel allows for different thermal efficiencies so hard to grasp?

Don't be confused by the the hypothetical example given in the above paragraph. Hydrogen enrichment of gasoline does not make it burn just like diesel, but it does change the properties in a direction that help overcome some of the serious liabilities that gasoline combustion has that diesel combustion doesn't.

What magic things? When did anybody say magic things happen?

You have utterly failed to make any sort of valid technical arguments. You only belabor points that no one disputes. So now what? You make threats that you will resort to additional invalid responses?

-jim

----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----

formatting link
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000Newsgroups

---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Reply to
jim

Jim, you are just a cyclic asshole....if you realized that you were an asshole, you might not choose to be one, but in being one you can never identify it...and you will keep being one.

Are you getting out of high school this year?

Reply to
HLS

I vaguely remember that. Ceramic coatings to reduce heat transfer to metal parts (a fairly common practice now, other parts made entirely of ceramics, turbocharged with no after-cooler to eliminate that heat loss, waterless coolant, etc. etc. Good ideas, but the materials weren't up to the challenge. And when you try to operate at very high induction temps, you really have to go to a diesel cycle or detonation will be the limiting factor.

Given that large fixed-speed turbo-diesels (big generator sets for example) are bumping up around 45% efficiency (measured as chemical energy in the fuel versus mechanical energy at the output), further progress is getting very hard to come by. That's darn close to the theoretical Carnot efficiency in a typical operating environment.

Reply to
Steve

I remember something about experiments using ceramic blocks and pistons. Very little heat transfer out of the cylinders. It did improve efficiency but the parts didn't last long.

But there is still lots of room for efficiency improvement in gasoline motors. If the typical automobile gasoline engine achieved that same 45% efficiency it would travel about 80% farther on each gallon of gas then it does now.

-jim

----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----

formatting link
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000Newsgroups

---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Reply to
jim

No argument, but the obstacles to overcome are bigger. You have to maintain efficiency over a broad RPM and load range (hybrids at least partially get away from that and let you operate at one or two predetermined speeds). But as I alluded to in an earlier paragraph, diesels let you run enormous intake pressures and temperatures (if desired) which allow more heat recovery than is likely possible with a spark-ignition cycle, at least without direct fuel injection ala Wright

3350 (more 1950s technology for ya....)
Reply to
Steve

Steve wrote:

Does direct injection of gasoline change things much? Stratified charge is sort of direct injection and they allow you to run leaner but the difference is much in the way of changing efficiency. There isn't an option to get a refund on that fraction of a barrel of imported crude oil that goes to gasoline or an option of converting that portion of crude to other products economically. So we're stuck with a lot of gasoline and making the SI engine more efficient is the only viable option for using that fuel efficiently. And yes the key to improving efficiency in burning gasoline should be high intake pressures and low exhaust temps. But you need to make changes to the way the fuel burns or you can't get around the obstacles.

According to MIT studies, Adding hydrogen to gasoline (converting some of the fuel energy from gasoline to hydrogen) can make it possible for a spark engine to idle at up to 50:1 Air fuel ratios. That means idling with higher intake pressure and a reduction in heat out of the exhaust and radiator. They claim this produces thermal efficiency approaching 95% of diesels (this is only for the light load mode of operating). Large amounts of EGR are also possible with hydrogen enrichment and improvement in emissions. The other idea the same lab is working on is direct injection of ethanol as an addition to gasoline. This improves efficiency for operating under heavy loads. The vehicle would have 2 fuel tanks one for E85 and one for regular gas. When the engine is under load ethanol would be injected directly into the cylinders to supplement the gasoline - the amount of gasoline stays fairly steady and the amount of ethanol injected would be proportional to engine load. That creates the possibility of cylinder pressures 4 times higher that what is now possible (with only gasoline) without causing detonation. The MIT research estimates are that the per cent of ethanol to gasoline needed for this would work out to an average of around 10%-15% (much higher when accelerating hard and much lower when not). Part of the gain in efficiency would be that engines could be made smaller and still put out the same power. Both of these methods are designed to overcome the limitations that are there due to the way gasoline burns in current designs.

-jim

----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----

formatting link
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000Newsgroups

---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Reply to
jim

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.