Hydrogen Scam: Watch out for "Hydrogen Hybrid Technologies"
Shawn
Don't Fall Investors.
Electrolysis to improve Fuel Efficiency Will NEVER Work!
Because "Splitting Water" for Hydrogen & Oxygen Gas Will End
Up with Heated Vapor after 25 - 30 minutes of usage.
"This is Not what I think, this is what I have seen in my
experiment".
Even If you can find a better material to Electrolyze, you
will still end up with high heated Water Vapor instead of
Hydrogen Gas and Oxigen Gas. Don't Fall People.
Shawn
"Shawn" <alpr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:xPqdnbDFUbl60sTV...@posted.toastnet...
Further more, You need 2.7Kw - 4 Kw to produce 1 hp of
Hydrogen Gas. Where would you get the power to Electrolyze?
Very likely from your alternator, that will drain all your
battery off quicker than you think, At your Gasoline Expense.
JerryD(upstateNY)
So you used 2700 to 4000 watts of electricity to make enough Hydrogen to
produce 746 watts of electricity.
Oh yea, that will REALLY solve our energy problems.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
"Shawn" wrote in message.......Further more, You need 2.7Kw - 4 Kw to
Don Lancaster
> Using that 1 HP produced, you can make 746 watts of electricity with it.
> So you used 2700 to 4000 watts of electricity to make enough Hydrogen to
> produce 746 watts of electricity.
> Oh yea, that will REALLY solve our energy problems.
>
Your figures are BEFORE amortization.
The actual values are ludicrously worse.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/morenrgf.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Eeyore
"JerryD(upstateNY)" wrote:
> Using that 1 HP produced, you can make 746 watts of electricity with it.
Rather less in the real world actually.
> So you used 2700 to 4000 watts of electricity to make enough Hydrogen to
> produce 746 watts of electricity.
> Oh yea, that will REALLY solve our energy problems.
Yeah, but it keeps plenty of people cosily wealthy with 'research grants'
doesn't it.
Just the usual 'nose in the trough' pork-barrel shit.
Graham
Shawn
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:485B89D4...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> "JerryD(upstateNY)" wrote:
>
>> Using that 1 HP produced, you can make 746 watts of
>> electricity with it.
>
> Rather less in the real world actually.
>
Exactly if you use standard Electrolysis, but I give those
Hyper a little more credit since they claim they used
Extraordinary Material that can extract 10X more Hydrogen.
>> So you used 2700 to 4000 watts of electricity to make
>> enough Hydrogen to
>> produce 746 watts of electricity.
>> Oh yea, that will REALLY solve our energy problems.
Right, I knew all of this figure before posting, I am just
reminding people why they couldn't make sense of what they're
doing.
Don Lancaster
>
>
> Exactly if you use standard Electrolysis, but I give those
> Hyper a little more credit since they claim they used
> Extraordinary Material that can extract 10X more Hydrogen.
>
>
In other words, you are saying that both Faraday's Law and thermodynamic
exergy are both wrong.
Along with the untold millions of experiments that routinely verify them
day in and day out.
They, of course, should be given a lot less credit. Zero, even.
Eeyore
Shawn wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
> > "JerryD(upstateNY)" wrote:
> >
> >> Using that 1 HP produced, you can make 746 watts of
> >> electricity with it.
> >
> > Rather less in the real world actually.
>
> Exactly if you use standard Electrolysis, but I give those
> Hyper a little more credit since they claim they used
> Extraordinary Material that can extract 10X more Hydrogen.
Oh dear. A crackpot. What's it called ? Faerie Dust ?
And you were doing so well up to then.
Graham
DB
> Shawn wrote:
>>
>>
>> Exactly if you use standard Electrolysis, but I give those Hyper a
>> little more credit since they claim they used Extraordinary Material
>> that can extract 10X more Hydrogen.
>>
>>
>
You and Graham post a lot without interpreting the ops words. He is not
saying what you posted. Did you bother to read what the op posted that
you snipped?
quote:
"Right, I knew all of this figure before posting, I am just
reminding people why they couldn't make sense of what they're
doing."
The sad thing is that people are actually buying these products. I know
of one guy that spent $1000 for a hydrogen booster kit. Said company
gets a point for jilting the public and getting away with it.
My Dad use to say, 'If you want to get rich quick, start a religion.'
Eeyore
DB wrote:
Yes, he was right. The Faerie Dust religion.
Graham
r.l...@comcast.net
If we start with an engine that is at best 30% efficient (more like 25%)
and we IMPROVE the efficiency to maybe 50% - 60%, we've done a good thing!
I'm not using the "water cooled resistors" like most of the one's you see on
YouTube.
I'm using a high frequency PWM supply that only draws 5.1 amps. I get almost
2 liters of
gas per minute. My gas mileage went from 22 on the highway to 39. And my
cell runs COOL!
And have just started emulating the O2 and MAP sensor signals for a better
match with the fuel computer.
So I'm hoping for even better performance.
I agree that we can't make enough hydrogen efficiently to run an internal
combustion engine alone.
But we can dam sure improve what the auto industry has given us.
Do your homework, build it, try it. then run you can run your mouth!
PS Don: This is my secret money machine
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:485BCD63...@hotmail.com...
Screen Ranger
<r.l...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DrGdneG0Aop5kcLV...@comcast.com...
> You guy's are really missing the point here.
> If we start with an engine that is at best 30% efficient
> (more like 25%)
> and we IMPROVE the efficiency to maybe 50% - 60%, we've done
> a good thing!
> I'm not using the "water cooled resistors" like most of the
> one's you see on
> YouTube.
> I'm using a high frequency PWM supply that only draws 5.1
> amps. I get
High Frequency or not, the bottom line it, you still convert
it to DC, so what's the point of raising this PWM BullShit?
> 2 liters of
> gas per minute. My gas mileage went from 22 on the highway
> to 39. And my
> cell runs COOL!
> And have just started emulating the O2 and MAP sensor
> signals for a better
> match with the fuel computer.
> So I'm hoping for even better performance.
>
> I agree that we can't make enough hydrogen efficiently to
> run an internal
> combustion engine alone.
> But we can dam sure improve what the auto industry has given
> us.
>
> Do your homework, build it, try it. then run you can run
> your mouth!
>
> PS Don: This is my secret money machine
People already tried it fucker, you damaged people engine. Go
away, your scam ought to be stopped.
DB
> You guy's are really missing the point here.
> If we start with an engine that is at best 30% efficient (more like 25%)
Dumb shit....
Eeyore
r.l...@comcast.net wrote:
> You guy's are really missing the point here.
> If we start with an engine that is at best 30% efficient (more like 25%)
> and we IMPROVE the efficiency to maybe 50% - 60%, we've done a good thing!
> I'm not using the "water cooled resistors" like most of the one's you see on
> YouTube.
> I'm using a high frequency PWM supply that only draws 5.1 amps.
From the car's 12V supply ? That's qround 60W on input power. I don't have the
figures handy but is 2 litres of H2 / minute compatible with that ?
> I get almost 2 liters of gas per minute. My gas mileage went from 22 on the
> highway to 39. And my cell runs COOL!
So, your electrolyser has good efficiceny maybe but with a mere 60W of total
input power(and at least some useful outout) it would hardly be HOT.
> And have just started emulating the O2 and MAP sensor signals for a better
> match with the fuel computer.
> So I'm hoping for even better performance.
>
> I agree that we can't make enough hydrogen efficiently to run an internal
> combustion engine alone.
> But we can dam sure improve what the auto industry has given us.
The addition of hydrogen in small quantitites to a gasoline /air mix is AFAIK an
unknown to me, but since in modern cars, almost perfectly complete combustion
takes place, where's the efficiency gain to be had ?
What vehicle are you testing this on ?
Graham
Eeyore
Screen Ranger wrote:
> <r.l...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:DrGdneG0Aop5kcLV...@comcast.com...
> > You guy's are really missing the point here.
> > If we start with an engine that is at best 30% efficient
> > (more like 25%)
> > and we IMPROVE the efficiency to maybe 50% - 60%, we've done
> > a good thing!
> > I'm not using the "water cooled resistors" like most of the
> > one's you see on
> > YouTube.
> > I'm using a high frequency PWM supply that only draws 5.1
> > amps. I get
>
> High Frequency or not, the bottom line it, you still convert
> it to DC, so what's the point of raising this PWM BullShit?
Of course, typical cheap (and even some quite expensive) meters misread
(under-read) PWM waveforms, so it's simply a measurement error.
Use proper instrumentation and the efficiency gain will vanish.
The only true way to measure efficiency with a cheap meter involves
measuring the true real unpulsed *DC* power in. It may be 50 amps
instead of the 5 amps he thinks it is.
Graham
Eeyore
DB wrote:
Carnot efficiency exceeded ?
I have to say I'm impressed by those large marine diesels that manage some
50%.
Graham
Don Lancaster
>
> High Frequency or not, the bottom line it, you still convert
> it to DC, so what's the point of raising this PWM BullShit?
>
The whole point in raising PWM bullshit is that it easily lets you make
the same stupid measurement errors everybody else does. That convince
you that Faraday's Law and the thermodynamic laws are all wrong.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse112.pdf
Don Lancaster
> Screen Ranger wrote:
>>
>> High Frequency or not, the bottom line it, you still convert it to DC,
>> so what's the point of raising this PWM BullShit?
>>
>
>
> The whole point in raising PWM bullshit is that it easily lets you make
> the same stupid measurement errors everybody else does. That convince
> you that Faraday's Law and the thermodynamic laws are all wrong.
>
> http://www.tinaja.com/glib/muse112.pdf
>
>
>
On second thought, PWM Bullshit is not by itself intrinsically evil.
It is the ease of measurement errors that it introduces that causes all
the problems.
In reality, Faraday's Law DEMANDS a current. And the ONLY known
efficient current sources MUST use PWM or a similar switching technique.
A current source DEMANDS the illusion of a high impedance source. If
that source is dissipative, most of the energy is burned up in the
source. PWM lets us create a nondissipative high impedance.
DB
Yes, and they are very large.
http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/photo-of-an-engine/
But, have you seen the efficiency curve of an auto alternator? I've got
one somewhere. It barely gets close to 50% at the best part of the curve.
Spaceman
Any higher would cause even more drag on the engine
and cause more heat buildup in the belt also.
:)
Shawn
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:6c9vi4F...@mid.individual.net...
Hey Don, I believe you my man! I have something to pass by you
and see what you think, I don't want to post it, can I email it
to you? It's a theory used in most hybrid cars. I'm about to
deliver it to the public.
Thanks.
m II
>> But, have you seen the efficiency curve of an auto alternator? I've
>> got one somewhere. It barely gets close to 50% at the best part of
>> the curve.
>
> Any higher would cause even more drag on the engine
> and cause more heat buildup in the belt also.
> :)
No. Any higher would REDUCE the drag on the engine and cause LESS heat
build up in the belt. That, of course, is at the same OUTPUT level.
Think about it. At fifty percent efficiency, you actually have to put IN
twice the power that would actually be needed if the thing was one
hundred percent efficient.
Or, in other words:
If we had one hundred percent efficiency, we could get the same output
with HALF the input. Half input = less belt/engine load.
mike
--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage, this filter
blocks all postings from Gmail, Google Mail and Google Groups.
Don Lancaster
Wikipedia gives this reference for 50% efficiency:
Horst Bauer (ed.) Automotive Handbook 4th Edition, Robert Bosch GmbH,
Stuttgart, 1996, ISBN 0-8376-0333-1, page 813
Spaceman
> Spaceman wrote:
>
>>> But, have you seen the efficiency curve of an auto alternator? I've
>>> got one somewhere. It barely gets close to 50% at the best part of
>>> the curve.
>>
>> Any higher would cause even more drag on the engine
>> and cause more heat buildup in the belt also.
>> :)
>
> No. Any higher would REDUCE the drag on the engine and cause LESS heat
> build up in the belt. That, of course, is at the same OUTPUT level.
>
> Think about it. At fifty percent efficiency, you actually have to put
> IN twice the power that would actually be needed if the thing was one
> hundred percent efficient.
>
> Or, in other words:
>
> If we had one hundred percent efficiency, we could get the same output
> with HALF the input. Half input = less belt/engine load.
Actually I would think if you had 100% efficiency you would have 100 %
of the input being converted to energy.
and at 50% you only get 50% of the input being converted.
hence to get 100% you would need a higher load factor to do such?
Give me back my generators!
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
>
>
> mike
Don Lancaster
Eeyore
DB wrote:
Sadly disappointing. You know one idea was to make the aleternators larger (and
more efficient) and then remove all the other ancillary mechanical power
take-offs like power-steering and a/c and run them electrically to get overall
improved efficiency ?
Doesn't seem to have got anywhere yet. I dare say it has legs though, esp with
serious series hybrids coming along.
Graham
Don Lancaster
With the biggie being electric valves.
Followed by on-demand steering, cooling, etc...
Eeyore
m II wrote:
> Spaceman wrote:
>
> >> But, have you seen the efficiency curve of an auto alternator? I've
> >> got one somewhere. It barely gets close to 50% at the best part of
> >> the curve.
> >
> > Any higher would cause even more drag on the engine
> > and cause more heat buildup in the belt also.
> > :)
>
> No. Any higher would REDUCE the drag on the engine and cause LESS heat
> build up in the belt. That, of course, is at the same OUTPUT level.
>
> Think about it. At fifty percent efficiency, you actually have to put IN
> twice the power that would actually be needed if the thing was one
> hundred percent efficient.
>
> Or, in other words:
>
> If we had one hundred percent efficiency, we could get the same output
> with HALF the input. Half input = less belt/engine load.
I hope you two are confusing each other as much as you're confusing me !
Neither of you seem to as much as half an idea about the concept of
*losses*.
Graham
Eeyore
Spaceman wrote:
> Actually I would think if you had 100% efficiency you would have 100 %
> of the input being converted to energy.
Yes. Such things only happen in thought experiments though, not the real
world.
> and at 50% you only get 50% of the input being converted.
Yes.
> hence to get 100% you would need a higher load factor to do such?
NO.
Read up about 'losses'. Such as thermal (the drive belt heats from echanical
movement - the energy is LOST forever). The electrical coils have resistance
- see I2R losses. The rectifiers have a forward voltage conduction loss. See
semiconductor diode etc etc etc.
It's all very basic science.
Graham
Eeyore
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > DB wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> DB wrote:
> >>>> r.l...@comcast.net wrote:
> >>>>> You guy's are really missing the point here.
> >>>>> If we start with an engine that is at best 30% efficient (more like 25%)
> >>>>> and we IMPROVE the efficiency to maybe 50% - 60%...
> >>>> Dumb shit....
> >>> Carnot efficiency exceeded ?
> >>>
> >>> I have to say I'm impressed by those large marine diesels that manage some
> >>> 50%.
> >> Yes, and they are very large.
> >> http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/photo-of-an-engine/
> >>
> >> But, have you seen the efficiency curve of an auto alternator? I've got
> >> one somewhere. It barely gets close to 50% at the best part of the curve.
> >
> > Sadly disappointing. You know one idea was to make the aleternators larger (and
> > more efficient) and then remove all the other ancillary mechanical power
> > take-offs like power-steering and a/c and run them electrically to get overall
> > improved efficiency ?
> >
> > Doesn't seem to have got anywhere yet. I dare say it has legs though, esp with
> > serious series hybrids coming along.
>
> That is the main point of 42 volt electrics.
> With the biggie being electric valves.
I heard they take 6-10% of the engine power. Is that true ?
> Followed by on-demand steering, cooling, etc...
Indeed and Lexus (plus others) have been working on regenerative electrical
suspension too.
Graham
Don Lancaster
The big deal about electric valves is that they give you variable timing.
Especially letting you go six cycle at lower speeds.
I suspect that early versions will consume more energy than mechanical
camshafts; later improvements should certainly improve the efficiency.
Certainly timing belts remain a high repair item. And one that can
easily destroy a high performance engine. Especially Nissans with their
negative valve clearance.
DB
>
> DB wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> DB wrote:
>>>> r.l...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> You guy's are really missing the point here.
>>>>> If we start with an engine that is at best 30% efficient (more like 25%)
>>>>> and we IMPROVE the efficiency to maybe 50% - 60%...
>>>> Dumb shit....
>>> Carnot efficiency exceeded ?
>>>
>>> I have to say I'm impressed by those large marine diesels that manage some
>>> 50%.
>> Yes, and they are very large.
>> http://gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/photo-of-an-engine/
>>
>> But, have you seen the efficiency curve of an auto alternator? I've got
>> one somewhere. It barely gets close to 50% at the best part of the curve.
>
> Sadly disappointing. You know one idea was to make the aleternators larger (and
> more efficient) and then remove all the other ancillary mechanical power
> take-offs like power-steering and a/c and run them electrically to get overall
> improved efficiency ?
That is something quite different. The 42 volt system has been on the
drawing board for some time. And sure, the alternator in that system
will be much more efficient.
But today's electrical demand is so very overwhelmed by the power train
demand that it is hardly an issue.
> Doesn't seem to have got anywhere yet. I dare say it has legs though, esp with
> serious series hybrids coming along.
And hybrids are another thing quite different than headlights and other
ancillaries, or the 42 volt fly by wire stuff.
apples and oranges....
Laurence Sheldon
> That is the main point of 42 volt electrics.
> With the biggie being electric valves.
>
> Followed by on-demand steering, cooling, etc...
I'm not sure I follow the arithmetic here.
More, bigger, heavier batteries to haul around.
Bigger alternator to haul around, and to turn.
And I have trouble seeing that
prime-mover->alternator->battery->electric-motor->hydraulic-pump is more
efficient than prime-mover->hydraulic-pump is.
Being forced to that by other considerations (like the prime-mover being
thousands of miles away) might make it a good idea, but efficiency is
not going to be the winning argument.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
Eeyore
Laurence Sheldon wrote:
> Don Lancaster wrote:
>
> > That is the main point of 42 volt electrics.
> > With the biggie being electric valves.
> >
> > Followed by on-demand steering, cooling, etc...
>
> I'm not sure I follow the arithmetic here.
>
> More, bigger, heavier batteries to haul around.
> Bigger alternator to haul around, and to turn.
>
> And I have trouble seeing that
> prime-mover->alternator->battery->electric-motor->hydraulic-pump is more
> efficient than prime-mover->hydraulic-pump is.
Oh it IS ! By LOTS. Less belts to break too.WHAT hydraulic pump btw ?
Graham
Don Lancaster
>
> And I have trouble seeing that
> prime-mover->alternator->battery->electric-motor->hydraulic-pump is more
> efficient than prime-mover->hydraulic-pump is.
>
Not even close.
You can turn the pump on and off easily on demand with the electric
control. Potentially much more efficient.
Robert Adsett
> Laurence Sheldon wrote:
> >
> > And I have trouble seeing that
> > prime-mover->alternator->battery->electric-motor->hydraulic-pump is more
> > efficient than prime-mover->hydraulic-pump is.
> >
>
> Not even close.
> You can turn the pump on and off easily on demand with the electric
> control. Potentially much more efficient.
And skip the pump, go to direct electric.
Robert
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Screen Ranger
Don, this is one of your mistakes. Turning the Fuel pump off and
on is bad because the tires are in contact with the engine, you
will drag friction, adding extra load to your trip.......I won't
pay you $115/hr because I've seen your two mistakes already
online.......Heehee........