Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or Not ???
Mark Thorson
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.
HLS
"Mark Thorson" <nos...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> 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.
Frank
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.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
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
Mark Thorson
>
> 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.
Nate Nagel
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
HLS
"Mark Thorson" <nos...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> 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.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
> 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 :-(
hanson
news:0675a4e0-3d55-40f2...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
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
jim
Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
>
> 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
> 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 =---
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:Zvg%j.33067$3j.5246@trnddc05...
The problem I see with it is that it takes a lot of crude oil to electrolyze
the water in the first place and you can't carry much hydrogen around in
a compressed state without cooling it to way down low, which adds up
to danger.
What's needed is another Nobel, someone to come up with a way of
making it as safe as nitro-glycerine in clay, there when you need it but
safe enough to toss around.
Don't you chemical whizzes know of something, a catalyst perhaps, that
can do that? Perhaps if you bonded it with some inexpensive substance
like carbon, there is plenty of coal still around...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:)))
--
Androcles
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
hanson
news:nnh%j.35882$_c7....@newsfe16.ams2...
> 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...
> .
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
>
>
>
> --
Fred Kasner
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
Androcles
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
Androcles
"Fred Kasner" <fka...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:cNj%j.5547$Ri....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
Never underestimate the inventiveness of humanity, Fred. Not every idea
works as it is first proposed but sooner or later an intelligent mind with
the necessary experience will solve any technological problem the market
demands.
http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/gallery/saturn/SaturnV.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/37/20070113195808!Leonardo_da_Vinci_helicopter.jpg--AndroclesWhy did Einstein saythe 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/
Brent P
> 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.
The key is less petrol use. Of course there is less petrol use, another
fuel has been added to the system.
It's like someone fills up their car with 15 gallons of fuel... drives
awhile, nearly runs out of gas so they dump in 5 gallons from can...
then they get to station and fill up with 15 gallons again... takes the
miles driven and divides by 15 and gets an astounding fuel economy
number... That 5 gallons of gasoline is like the H2 being pumped into
the engine..
A bottle of H2 mixed with the gasoline is something entirely different
than this nonsense of using a gasoline engine to generate electricity to
make H2 and then mix the H2 with the gasoline and get a benefit. That
just doesn't work.
I wouldn't be surprised if having H2 mixed with gasoline has a benefit
on gasoline consumption. It's just not plausable when that H2 is created
from water by the same engine that is powered by the gasoline & H2 mix.
If we had giant windfarms that powered H2 production processes.. that
could actually save gasoline.
hanson
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"?...
>
Fred Kasner wrote to Andro:
> 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
>
... ahahaha... Yes Kaz, you posted a typical example of one
of the "the conning saviors" I have mentioned above. Then
there was the other fanatical Moron who lobbied for a Boron
Fuel driven economy... But these are all just specs of fly shit
on a windshield... behind which there is a by and large untold
story, know to all in the biz and even to all the folks in Europe,
Asia & South America. But here, in the US it is carefully brushed
under the carpet, because the finger points directly towards
and implicates the chief parasite of the USA... ahahahaha....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/8b67fce923b56a19
wherein it says:
(1) in the 1970's the Arabs turned off the oil tap to protest
and to send a message to the US (and EU) to change, in their
view, the pathological foreign policy of the West towards them,
the Arabs, in favor of Israel, the chief parasite of the USA.
>
(2) in 2001's the Arabs (the Saudis) sent another message
with the same intent on 9/11.....
>
(3) on 2/23-2003 the Saudis sent their next depeche in which
they told the US military to pack up and leave their land of
Sunni ass-venters... because Bush had kept on with sucking
off Neocon-Jew dicks at their expense... ahahaha...
>
(4) from 2007 on the Arabs sent yet a message once more.
But instead of turning off the oil tap fully, they 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 Goyim will carry that Jewish yoke &
burden... while we rake in the dough"... ahaha... AHAHA...
>
SoKaz, urge your ilk here and the ones in the USA's parasite
to change their tune and stop behaving like this one here does
at the grass roots level:
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9W3UsdRyM >
or in < http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f >
>
and urge your kin, here and there, to stop the corruption that
reaches all the way to the top, to Ehud Olmert , Israel's PM,
who may be indicated any time now for having accepted bribes
in the millions from JerUSAlem cockroach Morris Talansky
whose first loyalty belongs to Israel instead of the USA...
and, Olmert, whose only claim to fame is that HE created one
million new, additional homeless people (Lebanon) who now
hate Jews, because Ehud wanted to save, by irratrional force,
two young & less the bright forced conscripts of this army...
>
So, Kaz, urge them to LEAN to live in peace with their neighbors
and then the oil and the honey will flow easily again... and for ALL!
L'Chaim & Shalom, Kaz
hanson
jim
Well that is wrong. There have been several ways this has been done none
of them involved adding fuel from an outside source. I think the NASA
experiment used some kind of catalyst and the exhaust heat to extract
hydrogen from a small fraction of the gasoline. Others designs use
electrolysis. In any case, the fuel consumed to produce hydrogen is
counted as part of the fuel consumed.
> It's like someone fills up their car with 15 gallons of fuel... drives
> awhile, nearly runs out of gas so they dump in 5 gallons from can...
> then they get to station and fill up with 15 gallons again... takes the
> miles driven and divides by 15 and gets an astounding fuel economy
> number... That 5 gallons of gasoline is like the H2 being pumped into
> the engine..
>
> A bottle of H2 mixed with the gasoline is something entirely different
> than this nonsense of using a gasoline engine to generate electricity to
> make H2 and then mix the H2 with the gasoline and get a benefit. That
> just doesn't work.
I don't know where you arrived at the fictitious bottle of H2, but again
your conclusions are wrong. Hydrogen enrichment has been shown to work.
What you seem to miss is that you aren't likely to see any benefit unless
you design the engine around the fuel. Just adding some gadget on to a
street vehicle isn't going to be able to take advantages of the fuel's
properties.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if having H2 mixed with gasoline has a benefit
> on gasoline consumption. It's just not plausable when that H2 is created
> from water by the same engine that is powered by the gasoline & H2 mix.
Not plausible? Take a look at an idling gasoline engine. Most of the work
the engine is doing is pushing air thru a very narrow opening (closed
throttle). The reason it must do this is that gasoline alone just simply
won't burn if there is to much air. A diesel engine is much more efficient
when idling because it doesn't throttle the air flow. That throttling
amounts to a lot of wasted energy in a gas engine. When you use hydrogen
mixed with gasoline the mix will burn cleanly at much leaner mixes than
gasoline alone. That means if you are idling at 30:1 air to fuel you can
have much less throttling to keep the engine running at the same speed and
lot less energy expended, The energy savings is more than what it takes to
produce the small amount of hydrogen that is need to make the process
work. Basically you aren't violating any laws - the engine is just running
with a lot less wasted heat. What is not plausible about that?
That said - don't go out and buy one of these internet advertised kits.
The engines that have made this work involve a complete redesign of both
the engine and engine control units.
-jim
>
> If we had giant windfarms that powered H2 production processes.. that
> could actually save gasoline.
Brent P
> Well that is wrong. There have been several ways this has been done none
> of them involved adding fuel from an outside source. I think the NASA
> experiment used some kind of catalyst and the exhaust heat to extract
> hydrogen from a small fraction of the gasoline. Others designs use
> electrolysis. In any case, the fuel consumed to produce hydrogen is
> counted as part of the fuel consumed.
Then why don't you make a proper cite then?
> I don't know where you arrived at the fictitious bottle of H2, but again
> your conclusions are wrong.
Well, maybe you should maker proper cites. Otherwise I'll fill in the
blanks as I see fit.
> Hydrogen enrichment has been shown to work.
Did not say it had not.
> What you seem to miss is that you aren't likely to see any benefit unless
> you design the engine around the fuel. Just adding some gadget on to a
> street vehicle isn't going to be able to take advantages of the fuel's
> properties.
Didn't miss it at all.
>> I wouldn't be surprised if having H2 mixed with gasoline has a benefit
>> on gasoline consumption. It's just not plausable when that H2 is created
>> from water by the same engine that is powered by the gasoline & H2 mix.
> Not plausible? Take a look at an idling gasoline engine. Most of the work
> the engine is doing is pushing air thru a very narrow opening (closed
> throttle). The reason it must do this is that gasoline alone just simply
> won't burn if there is to much air. A diesel engine is much more efficient
> when idling because it doesn't throttle the air flow. That throttling
> amounts to a lot of wasted energy in a gas engine. When you use hydrogen
> mixed with gasoline the mix will burn cleanly at much leaner mixes than
> gasoline alone. That means if you are idling at 30:1 air to fuel you can
> have much less throttling to keep the engine running at the same speed and
> lot less energy expended, The energy savings is more than what it takes to
> produce the small amount of hydrogen that is need to make the process
> work. Basically you aren't violating any laws - the engine is just running
> with a lot less wasted heat. What is not plausible about that?
*sigh* it's the energy required to make H2 from water that makes it not
plausable, not the part about H2 changing combustion properties...
geebus.
HLS
"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> plausable, not the part about H2 changing combustion properties...
> geebus.
Absolutely, as these scams are presented, they appeal to the greed, and the
lack of scientific knowledge, of the reader..
There is still no free lunch.
jim
Brent P wrote:
>
> On 2008-05-28, jim <"sjedgingN0sp"@m> wrote:
>
> > Well that is wrong. There have been several ways this has been done none
> > of them involved adding fuel from an outside source. I think the NASA
> > experiment used some kind of catalyst and the exhaust heat to extract
> > hydrogen from a small fraction of the gasoline. Others designs use
> > electrolysis. In any case, the fuel consumed to produce hydrogen is
> > counted as part of the fuel consumed.
>
> Then why don't you make a proper cite then?
Somebody else already cited the wikipedia article. That article looked
like it lists several studies. If you were interested you would have
already read the literature. It's not a big secret.
> > The energy savings is more than what it takes to
> > produce the small amount of hydrogen that is need to make the process
> > work. Basically you aren't violating any laws - the engine is just running
> > with a lot less wasted heat. What is not plausible about that?
>
> *sigh* it's the energy required to make H2 from water that makes it not
> plausable,
It takes energy to produce hydrogen. You only need to convert something
like a quart of water for every 1000 miles. If you use exhaust heat as the
energy source like the NASA experiment then that energy is free, but that
technology is expensive. Even if you use electrolysis the energy required
to produce the hydrogen can be less than the energy saved in increased
performance. But that depends on making the right modifications to engine
design and that isn't cheap either.
The problem isn't that it can't be done. The problem is with current
technology the initial capital investment doesn't make the return in
energy savings worthwhile. However, that is likely to change when the
technology gets cheaper or the cost of gasoline goes higher (or both).
Any one today who is trying to sell you something for $400 that they
promise will give you 50% better mileage is just going to take your money
and run. But that doesn't mean it isn't feasible.
-jim
>not the part about H2 changing combustion properties...
> geebus.
hanson
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:tOh%j.8558$nx6.7393@trnddc03...
> | "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
> | news:nnh%j.35882$_c7....@newsfe16.ams2...
> | > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> | > news:Zvg%j.33067$3j.5246@trnddc05...
> | > | "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
> news:0675a4e0-3d55-40f2...@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
> | > | > 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
> | > | > 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
> | > | > requiringmore energy, so we end up still burning more fuel :-(
> | 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"?...
> | >
>
Androcles wrote:
> You missed my grin.
> I don't write "hahaha" when I'm joking, that's your logo.
>
ahaha... I wondered what that [ :-))) ] was in Kasners
mangled post when I replied to him... Sorry about that, chief.
>
Androcles wrote:
> 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,
>
.... yeah, right AFA your remark on "energy is in the bond" but only
right, sort of, on "not much difference between a carbohydrate and
a hydrocarbon". See, written in a brutto fashion the Hydrocarbons
are essentially -(CH2)x ... which stores far more energy then do the
Carbohydrates which are essentially --(CH2O)x, wherefrom you
can easily see that CH2O can be rewritten into C + H2O or into
CO + H2... IOW, Carbohydrates are half burnt down Hydrocarbons
and carry much less energy in them. See here for more on the issue:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/35be49f4be7ddb4b
wherein it says:
Methane or Octane is 100% fuel -- Ethanol is only 60% fuel and
Methanol even less with only 44% fuel... the rest is water...
ahahahaha....
>
Androcles wrote:
> 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.
>
No, the Iraqis don't need that in the first place, and the Green
shits wouldn't tolerate it neither because in many respects their
green gaja religion is as extremist and fanatical as are the
monotheistic religions, in particular the Jewish and the Islamic
cults. 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...
>
If it would not have been for the Green shits, in all likelihood we
would also have the H-fusion problems licked, and we would not
be survival dependant on, & being held hostage by Venez-Hugos,
Imams, Sheiks & Nigerios.... all of'em fomenters and financiers of
terrorism against the West ... the same West which has brought
to these upstarts wealth and power in the first place.... ahahahaha....
ironic, isn't it... ahahaha... No good deep ever goes unpunished!
>
To boot, if the green cocksuckers would not have impeded the
development of nuclear reactors for the last 40 years we would
not have their latest issue neither they crying now over, their
alleged Anthropic Global Warming of today... ahahaha... ..
hahahaha... ahahahanson
>
>
> --
Brent P
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> On 2008-05-28, jim <"sjedgingN0sp"@m> wrote:
>>
>> > Well that is wrong. There have been several ways this has been done none
>> > of them involved adding fuel from an outside source. I think the NASA
>> > experiment used some kind of catalyst and the exhaust heat to extract
>> > hydrogen from a small fraction of the gasoline. Others designs use
>> > electrolysis. In any case, the fuel consumed to produce hydrogen is
>> > counted as part of the fuel consumed.
>>
>> Then why don't you make a proper cite then?
>
> Somebody else already cited the wikipedia article. That article looked
> like it lists several studies. If you were interested you would have
> already read the literature. It's not a big secret.
wikipedia isn't a proper cite. You are citing a specific NASA cite but
not doing it such that there is any way to tell what it really says then
chastising me for not knowing it.
>> > The energy savings is more than what it takes to
>> > produce the small amount of hydrogen that is need to make the process
>> > work. Basically you aren't violating any laws - the engine is just running
>> > with a lot less wasted heat. What is not plausible about that?
>> *sigh* it's the energy required to make H2 from water that makes it not
>> plausable,
> It takes energy to produce hydrogen. You only need to convert something
> like a quart of water for every 1000 miles. If you use exhaust heat as the
> energy source like the NASA experiment then that energy is free, but that
> technology is expensive. Even if you use electrolysis the energy required
> to produce the hydrogen can be less than the energy saved in increased
> performance. But that depends on making the right modifications to engine
> design and that isn't cheap either.
If it was only the H2 from a quart of water for every 1000 miles one
could hook up a propane torch sized cylinder every 1000 miles...
Androcles
Ok, I did not know that, although I knew oxygen was involved. Seems
to me that biological systems have to operate slower than is actually
possible for evolutionary reasons, although hydrocarbons and
carbohydrates are both biological in origin. (Unless you go along with
the god idea, in which case Allah dumped it in the ground exactly as He
made it, where His chosen people, the Arabs, could find it and get rich
on the backs of Shell and BP.)
Speaking of which I had a Jehovah's Witness banging on my door this
morning, I told the crank to fuck off and quit bothering me when I'm
busy.
I'd be careful with fusion. It's a theory only and could be right for
the wrong reasons. H-bombs do exist but it takes a fission bomb's
energy to light up hydrogen. I have as much faith in Tokomaks
ever working as I do in the alchemists turning base metal into gold,
even if anyone succeeds the cost outweighs the advantages.
What with cranks like Hawking providing the influence over the bright
young sparks of tomorrow just as the crank Einstein influenced him,
it will be a slow and painful process.
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
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/e67060fff6c23741http://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 >
< 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
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"?...
>
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...
>
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.
>
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 Bank
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/14968cc3ee9939d4
hanson
Take care, old pal, ...
hanson
Androcles
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. To me that is waste, using two cars when one will do.
My old mate was a miser, hoarding his money for a rainy day. Now the
rainy day has come and gone, and his worthless son is getting a tan in
Cyprus while his equally worthless daughter is fighting to get her
half share of his money. The only good I can see coming out of it is his
16-yr-old grandson is doing well in school, wants to go into forensics and
should do well. Let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
--
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.vanlin...@epfl.ch
Androcles
Robert J. Kolker
> |
> 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
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.
> into account. To me that is waste, using two cars when one will do.
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).
Bob Kolker
John S.
> 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.
>
I'm generally suspicious of web-based sites that claim miraculous
energy savings so I can't say much about those sites. I do know that
the U.S. Department of Energy at it's Argonne laboratory is working on
blended fuel vehicles that use hydrogen. You might want to visit the
DOE website.
hanson
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DvydnXhTkb4jZqLV...@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 -
>
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@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
>
Androcles wrote:
To me that is waste, using two cars when one will do. [1]
>
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@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
>
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...
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. 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
Eeyore
hanson wrote:
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....
You can get treatment for that you know.
Graham
hanson
wrote in message news:484025A8...@hotmail.com...
>
hanson wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/c3fa876a8c2128b8
ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....
>
Eyesore wrote"
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 ----
>
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
Eeyore
hanson wrote:
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....
> ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.... ***
> ahaha...AHAHAHA
> ahahaha... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA....
> ahahaha... ahahahahanson
Androcles
| ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....
| "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
| news:DvydnXhTkb4jZqLV...@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" <bobk...@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" <bobk...@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.vanlin...@epfl.ch
Androcles
hanson
wrote in message news:484025A8...@hotmail.com...
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/c3fa876a8c2128b8
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....
>
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
zzbu...@netscape.net
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
>
> news:taq%j.20560$Zs3....@newsfe20.ams2...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/e67060fff6c23741"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
>
> news:zHn%j.15470$9H6.5014@trnddc04...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/cd8ff20673edb656
Yes it is a 1000% scamola.
Since it took 100 years to convince the I.C.E hack idiots that
hydro-carbons
have so litte to do with hydrogen, that's mostly why people
developed digital processing,
solar energy, fiber optics, lasers, and robots for the idiots,
> = tations" -- Al Gore, Chairman, Gen. Investment Management Bankhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/14968cc3ee9939d4
> hanson
>
> Take care, old pal, ...
> hanson
>
>
>
>
>
> > | > --
> > | > Androcles wrote:
> > | > Why did Einstein say
> > | > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> > | > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> > | > the "time" each way is the same?
> > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
join...@gmail.com
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
>
> news:nnh%j.35882$_c7....@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> > "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
> >news:Zvg%j.33067$3j.5246@trnddc05...
> ::: 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
Matt
> 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?
Matt
> 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.
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>
> 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
Matt
> 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.
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
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.
jim
Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
>
The octane rating for hydrogen is something like 135 I don't know if there
is anything else higher than that?
-jim
>Running a car
> engine on hydrogen requires a lot of EGR or some other method to
> control detonation.
Fred Kasner
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
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
If you want to get rid of the lye just wash it off with vinegar, or hose
it down with CO2 etc.
Fred Kasner
Yeah, we'll have big tanks of vinegar stationed on every street corner
to wash off all those pedestrians and auto passengers before their skin
falls off from lye attack from a street collision.
FK
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Just like we have for washing that gasoline from their bodies now?
Steve W.
In case you don't know this. Gasoline getting splashed on you is
uncomfortable and may sting a bit, BUT simply wash it off and you will
be fine.
As opposed to the fact that if you get a bath in Lye you will look a lot
like the wicked witch and you can literally watch as your skin and flesh
melt off from the reaction of the Lye on your skin. It is a highly
concentrated and powerful caustic compound.
BIG difference.
--
Steve W.
Fred Kasner
Having spilled gasoline on my hands on a few occasions I know that it
evaporates quite rapidly. It is not a good thing to do as some is
absorbed into the body but in those rare cases when a person has his
clothes soaked in gasoline it is just a matter of keeping them away from
a flame. Never offer a cigarette to a person who has just been doused
with gasoline. In other words we leave this prospect to be dealt with by
emergency personnel. But waiting around for the emergency people to
arrive while soaked in sodium hydroxide solution is not quite the same
as keeping away from flames while waiting for them to arrive and save
you from your dousing in gasoline. Very different degree of hazard indeed.
FK
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
We are talking car crash scenarios.
What percentage of people in crashes get covered in gasoline?
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
And you got this gasoline on your hands in a car crash?
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
As a teenager I worked in a filling station. One day the hose broke as
I was pumping gas, and got absolutely drenched from just above the
waist on down. It was really uncomfortable. I got out of the uniform
and put a clean one on, tried to scrub myself down in the station's
bathroom, but that was not enough- I had to go home and take a bath.
Still, never been drenched with gas except that time- never in a car
accident.
Matt
I had a friend who told me somehow he got a faceful when he was pumping
gas. He said it made his eyes burn like hell.
Matt
No, I think the amounts are rather similar. As I said, about a pint of
the caustic solution, and I don't think it is very strong.
> Now I've demonstrated the perspective you invoked. And as such your
> argument is found wanting.
>
> FK
One thing I think is true about caustic is that it doesn't cause much
immediate pain when in contact with the skin, so you may not know your
skin is turning to soapy leather or so. That can be a problem if you
touch your eyes. You are aware immediately When you get a drop of
strong sulfuric on the skin.
Other than that, I don't see much difference in degree of hazard between
a hydroxy converter and a lead-acid battery. Just douse the spill with
plenty of water.
I think somehow you have acquired caustophobia.
Fred Kasner
... snip ...
>
> We are talking car crash scenarios.
> What percentage of people in crashes get covered in gasoline?
>
Hard to say. I doubt that statistics are available about such
percentages. However most car crashes do not involve either explosion or
ignition of the gasoline that may be spilled. This is contrary to the
fantasies of motion pictures of course.
FK
Fred Kasner
What difference does that make. Gasoline spilled on a person is not a
pleasant experience for that person. However, save for some common
atrocities in less than civilized places, most people are not immolated
following a dousing with some gasoline. I've had both kinds of accidents
an inadvertant spilling of gasoline and an inadvertant spilling of a
solution of NaOH on my skin. Whereas the significant damage from
gasoline required a further accident (ignition) the significant damage
from a solution of NaOH requires no further accent save failure to
quickly wash away the liquid.
FK
Fred Kasner
... snip ...
>
> As a teenager I worked in a filling station. One day the hose broke as
> I was pumping gas, and got absolutely drenched from just above the
> waist on down. It was really uncomfortable. I got out of the uniform
> and put a clean one on, tried to scrub myself down in the station's
> bathroom, but that was not enough- I had to go home and take a bath.
> Still, never been drenched with gas except that time- never in a car
> accident.
One of the worst (save burns after ignition) disasters of gasoline
dousing is the absorbtion of tetraethyl lead into the skin. The stuff is
a nasty poison. It is no longer used in the US and so we don't even have
it in the atmosphere as we used to when (C2H5)4Pb was employed years ago.
FK
Fred Kasner
... snip ...
>
>
> I had a friend who told me somehow he got a faceful when he was pumping
> gas. He said it made his eyes burn like hell.
Not surprising. Eyes are very sensitive. Lots of stuff cause great
discomfort when the eyes are exposed to them.
FK
Fred Kasner
... snip ...
>
> One thing I think is true about caustic is that it doesn't cause much
> immediate pain when in contact with the skin, so you may not know your
> skin is turning to soapy leather or so. That can be a problem if you
> touch your eyes. You are aware immediately When you get a drop of
> strong sulfuric on the skin.
>
> Other than that, I don't see much difference in degree of hazard between
> a hydroxy converter and a lead-acid battery. Just douse the spill with
> plenty of water.
>
> I think somehow you have acquired caustophobia.
Quantity, my boy, quantity. The amount of water carried along with the
reaction material to make hydrogen that is needed to carry a vehicle for
more than just a run to the grocery down the block is quite large. Near
the end of the tank of water that has been converted to a concentrated
solution of something such as NaOH there is a lot of caustic there.
Whereas there is only a small amount of H2SO4 in the battery of a
automobile.
One winter, the two batteries (under the rear seat) of my MGB ruptured
and there was very little damage to the garage floor from the amount of
sulfuric acid that was released. They pool of liquid didn't even get to
the tires and attack them.
FK
Mark Thorson
>
> One of the worst (save burns after ignition) disasters of gasoline
> dousing is the absorbtion of tetraethyl lead into the skin. The stuff is
> a nasty poison. It is no longer used in the US and so we don't even have
> it in the atmosphere as we used to when (C2H5)4Pb was employed years ago.
A fun fact is that the same guy invented both
the use of tetraethyl lead as an antiknock additive
and Freon refrigerants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley
He died in an odd way -- he was strangled by
a device he invented to get himself out of bed,
following his disability from contracting polio.
jim
Fred Kasner wrote:
>
> Matt wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>
> >
> > One thing I think is true about caustic is that it doesn't cause much
> > immediate pain when in contact with the skin, so you may not know your
> > skin is turning to soapy leather or so. That can be a problem if you
> > touch your eyes. You are aware immediately When you get a drop of
> > strong sulfuric on the skin.
> >
> > Other than that, I don't see much difference in degree of hazard between
> > a hydroxy converter and a lead-acid battery. Just douse the spill with
> > plenty of water.
> >
> > I think somehow you have acquired caustophobia.
>
> Quantity, my boy, quantity. The amount of water carried along with the
> reaction material to make hydrogen that is needed to carry a vehicle for
> more than just a run to the grocery down the block is quite large.
I haven't been following this thread closely. The original topic was
hydrogen-boosted combustion. Assuming you are still discussing the same thing,
the amount of water needed in a typical system that derives hydrogen from water
is about a quart per 1000 miles. How far is your grocery store?
-jim
> Near
> the end of the tank of water that has been converted to a concentrated
> solution of something such as NaOH there is a lot of caustic there.
> Whereas there is only a small amount of H2SO4 in the battery of a
> automobile.
>
> One winter, the two batteries (under the rear seat) of my MGB ruptured
> and there was very little damage to the garage floor from the amount of
> sulfuric acid that was released. They pool of liquid didn't even get to
> the tires and attack them.
>
> FK
Matt
>
> Fred Kasner wrote:
>>> I think somehow you have acquired caustophobia.
>> Quantity, my boy, quantity. The amount of water carried along with the
>> reaction material to make hydrogen that is needed to carry a vehicle for
>> more than just a run to the grocery down the block is quite large.
>
> I haven't been following this thread closely. The original topic was
> hydrogen-boosted combustion. Assuming you are still discussing the same thing,
> the amount of water needed in a typical system that derives hydrogen from water
> is about a quart per 1000 miles. How far is your grocery store?
I understand that the hydrogen produced is about 1/1000 the amount of
gasoline burned. Stoichiometry would imply that the water used is 9
times that, or around 1/100 of the gasoline burned. So if you fill the
converter when you fill the gas tank, you would be adding say 1 1/4
pints. Maybe the converter's volume is twice that?
What is the concentration of caustic in the converter? I thought it was
rather far from saturation whereas battery acid is rather near saturation.
jim
Matt wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> > Fred Kasner wrote:
>
> >>> I think somehow you have acquired caustophobia.
> >> Quantity, my boy, quantity. The amount of water carried along with the
> >> reaction material to make hydrogen that is needed to carry a vehicle for
> >> more than just a run to the grocery down the block is quite large.
> >
> > I haven't been following this thread closely. The original topic was
> > hydrogen-boosted combustion. Assuming you are still discussing the same thing,
> > the amount of water needed in a typical system that derives hydrogen from water
> > is about a quart per 1000 miles. How far is your grocery store?
>
> I understand that the hydrogen produced is about 1/1000 the amount of
> gasoline burned.
Your comparing mass?
> Stoichiometry would imply that the water used is 9
> times that, or around 1/100 of the gasoline burned.
If you mean 1% the mass - that is about right. By those numbers a car that gets
29 mpg would use about a quart of water in 1000 miles. That is pretty close to
the amounts I've read. At any rate the amounts involved are actually pretty
small. Everyone seems to focus on the quantity of energy. The energy involved
is also pretty small. The energy to convert the water to gas is less than needed
to run the headlights so the energy losses that everyone focuses on are really
quite tiny compared to the total energy a car uses.
> So if you fill the
> converter when you fill the gas tank, you would be adding say 1 1/4
> pints. Maybe the converter's volume is twice that?
>
That quantity sounds about right, but I would think there are a lot of problems
with getting this to work effectively. To work efficiently the water would have
to be fed into the converter at more or less the same rate as it is used to
maintain electrolyte concentration. Also, water itself is problematic because it
freezes.
There are a lot of other technological problems to be solved to make this work.
The gas has to be generated and fed to the engine at a rate that is needed and
that alone is not easy. And every laboratory that has studied this has concluded
that in order to take advantage of the altered combustion properties of hydrogen
enriched fuel there need to be significant changes to engine design. That means
things like higher compression ratio and redesign of fuel management and
ignition and valve timing.
It just doesn't seem likely that the kit that you buy on the internet are going
to be up to the technology challenges involved to make this work.
> What is the concentration of caustic in the converter? I thought it was
> rather far from saturation whereas battery acid is rather near saturation.
I don't know. But I rather doubt the amount of caustic used is as much as the
amount in a can of Drano. And I expect there are whole semi loads of drano out
on the highways.
-jim
dale_peterson
probably makes it less dangerous then gasoline liquid or fumes. In a
confined area it could collect I suppose, but so could gasoline fumes.
diddly
Fred Kasner
A quart is with a rough approximation a liter. Another rough
approximation is that a quart is about two pounds or about 900 grams.
And since about 1/16 of the mass of water is hydrogen you have about
900/16 grams of hydrogen or about 56 grams of hydrogen. And you really
think you can drive a car on 56 grams of hydrogen for 1000 miles? I
won't even bother to convert the available energy for complete
combustion of 56 grams of H2 as the super fuel you believe it is. 56
grams of gasoline (a much more energetic fuel than H2 provides as a
fuel) will never get you even started on your 1000 mile trip. Better
math required for you vehicle.
FK
jim
Fred Kasner wrote:
>
> A quart is with a rough approximation a liter. Another rough
> approximation is that a quart is about two pounds or about 900 grams.
> And since about 1/16 of the mass of water is hydrogen you have about
> 900/16 grams of hydrogen or about 56 grams of hydrogen. And you really
> think you can drive a car on 56 grams of hydrogen for 1000 miles?
That is what I thought. You don't have a clue. The answer to your question is
yes. That is roughly the quantity of hydrogen used.
>I
> won't even bother to convert the available energy for complete
> combustion of 56 grams of H2 as the super fuel you believe it is. 56
> grams of gasoline (a much more energetic fuel than H2 provides as a
> fuel) will never get you even started on your 1000 mile trip. Better
> math required for you vehicle.
The vehicle doesn't derive energy from math it runs on gasoline. The function of
the hydrogen is to alter the way gasoline burns. The total energy in the
hydrogen is quite small (<1%) compared to the amount of gasoline used.
-jim