Hydrogen Burning Engine, no gas storage... - Page 4 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > General Discussion> Hotrodders' Lounge
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2008, 02:23 AM
4 Jaw Chuck's Avatar
Hotrodders.com Moderator
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Age: 46
Posts: 4,821
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 64 Times in 52 Posts
The problem with using hydogen long term in a four stroke engine is hydrogen embrittlement not corrosion, all common metals are susceptible.

A small ceramic turbine burning hydrogen turning a inertial storage flywheel used to generate electricity on demand is what I think will be the next prime mover, no new tech involved. You can use any fuel you want in a turbine with the right nozzles.

Getting oil out of the tar sands make economic sense when the cost is over $85 a barrel, but its dropping fast.

Oil Sands Break Even Point Rises
Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2008, 10:00 AM
Member
 
Last wiki edit: Suspension: designs, shapes, sizes Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Yorkton
Posts: 154
Wiki Edits: 51

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
For new project this is true. However I worked up there at a few of the big sites doing some construction. The established sites need only $16 bucks a barrel to be sustainable.

As oil price drops and people start hurting for work construction costs should fall in line too. Its pretty retarded how much they pay guys. Hourly I didn't make that great of money but the amount of overtime I was able to put in I made 25 000 in 4 months before taxes. Thats a fair chunk of change however I was working 12-16 hours a day to do it.

If many people saw the amount that these companies blow first hand they would leave some brown goo in their pants. The biggest way they blow money is by contracting a company who contracts a company who contracts a company. I've seen the rates that I was being charge out at. On overtime on a holiday I maybe saw half of that. So when every company down the line does this its no wonder why costs skyrocket so much.

Not to mention that they are hiring guys up there who drink and smoke all thier money away then go out the next day and wreck a truck or whatever else. Accidents happen but the number of pure idiots up there just makes no sense.

On top of it all you know the big mining trucks? They have a habit of starting on fire. We aren't talking a little fire, like tourch the whole truck fire.

Yeah I can definatly see why the oil companies try and make the tar sands sound unsustainable at current prices. Cuz they have no fiscle discipline.


Hydrogen embrittlement isn't a problem just use the high cost alloys as mentiioned earlier. I mean these alloys would only make a cheap honda cost 100 grand but who cares right?


By turbine you mean like those trubonique things that were posted on here like a year or two ago. The ones the old drag cars had?
Cuz I want something that awesome.
Quick reply to this message
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2008, 07:05 PM
Cyberats's Avatar
Hydrogen Burning Engine, YES !
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California, USA
Age: 46
Posts: 48
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
alternative engine

So, you're saying our current engine is only 25% efficient, I got my number from the wrong media it seems, that is crap low to me.

Curtis73
If it takes 70amps, you're going to tell me without testing, research or development, that you cannot make a hydrogen engine more efficient than 25% ? Power issues can be resolved and fine tuned to require less. Why am I not leaving it at "you're right Curtis" ? Because you're fighting so hard to prove this doesn't work, even though you didn't do any testing yourself.
If the concept is so against engineering and the laws of physics as you claim, why was Stan Meyer killed ? Why was his project buggy stolen ? I would've let him continue and laugh at him later.
Are you saying it's impossible to get above 25% efficiency, I'd say you're crazy. I am not supporting 100% efficiency, I did not mention that, it was not the point of the original project. The rise in fuel efficiency is inconsequencial and matters less because we'd use water instead of gas. Salt water even better, draw out of the ocean and filter, no need to purify.
How was the variable compression engine working ? But that still relies on us depending on gas/diesel and the monopoly delivery system.
How much to convert a small car to an I-5 TDI ? I don't see the VW Rabbit diesel out on the market as they promised. Yes, I am not an engineer but I do know some physics, however I am not here to show you mathematical formulas or argue perpetual motion. Nor am I the SBS guy come in to curse you all, I am running some ideas by you and appreciate your input even when negative, but you keep quoting stuff that does not apply to the case or minor issues to be resolved later (like power delivery, poisonous substances and corrosion).

Ok, the main idea was to create an alternative source of fuel for a new type of engine, one that will NOT leave us dependent on Oil products AND delivery, also cost less than those products. What do you all think would work ?

Last edited by Cyberats; 11-20-2008 at 07:43 PM.
Quick reply to this message
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2008, 07:10 PM
Cyberats's Avatar
Hydrogen Burning Engine, YES !
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California, USA
Age: 46
Posts: 48
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
turbines for electric power

Ok, you think electric engine(s) are the way, which kind ? 4x motors at the wheels or one central engine ?
What do you think of a micro nuclear power plant ?

Name some fuels that can be used in the turbine that we can get from common sources (like store bought chemicals) and what costs would be involved as well as MPGs.
Quick reply to this message
  #50 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2008, 09:29 PM
4 Jaw Chuck's Avatar
Hotrodders.com Moderator
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Age: 46
Posts: 4,821
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 64 Times in 52 Posts
I don't have a clue Cyberats, why not do some research and post your results?
Quick reply to this message
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 11-20-2008, 10:27 PM
Member
 
Last wiki edit: Suspension: designs, shapes, sizes Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Yorkton
Posts: 154
Wiki Edits: 51

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Fission is pretty hard to make happen creating enough heat under critical mass. It can be done but it gets extra hard and extra expensive.

You spend all this time to design this stuff that works, prove it. I mean ACTUALLY prove it unlike alot of other alternative energy people and I will invest all the money I have with you?

Sound good?
Quick reply to this message
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 11-21-2008, 04:13 AM
curtis73's Avatar
Hates: Liver. Loves: Diesel
 
Last wiki edit: How to find cheap parts
Last journal entry: 1999-2001: Getting it on the road
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 40
Posts: 5,128
Wiki Edits: 16

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyberats
So, you're saying our current engine is only 25% efficient, I got my number from the wrong media it seems, that is crap low to me.
Yup. Gasoline engines are 20-30% efficient and diesels are 30-38% efficient on the average. Its quite possible to get much more. The High School student example that I gave a few posts back is a great example of how a little research can provide awesome results, and how my work as an engineer gets squelched by bean counters. The automotive industry is quite possibly the most complex and insane business on the planet. You have huge corporations with very large departments on 4 continents. Progress is measured in memos and emails, and actual development is so hindered that it basically rests on the decision of the lawyers, who (depending on the company) are about as auto-savvy as my 5-year-old nephew. Its capitalism at its finest combined with a politically-correct, anti-libertarian atmosphere.

Quote:
Curtis73
If it takes 70amps, you're going to tell me without testing, research or development, that you cannot make a hydrogen engine more efficient than 25% ? Power issues can be resolved and fine tuned to require less.
First, let me apologize for my potentially caustic replies in they past. I moderate a few less tech-savvy forums where this topic comes up almost daily. You've chosen to start fresh with an objective attitude and I'd like to respond in kind.

I'm telling you that it doesn't require research, development, or testing.
A water-fueled car is like saying that you have a crane, a car, and a single human hair. You want to move the car with the crane and the hair. There is no research required. It violates the laws of physics to assume that a single human hair can lift a car.

I know I'm not the best writer, so maybe I wasn't clear in my last posts. Let's say it takes 100 units of energy to separate the water into H and O. Now, combust it in an engine. Let's say in an ideal world, it releases all 100 units of energy. In order to continue the cycle of hydrolysis and combustion, the engine has to make 100 units of energy available to go straight back to hydrolyze more water - simply to support combustion. That alone suggests perpetual motion. Take into consideration that an internal combustion engine eats up a large amount of that energy in friction and heat, plus you need a considerable amount to move the car, and you can understand that the amount of energy left over to drive the alternator and the hydrolysis is just not there. Think of it this way:

1- Energy required to split water = 100 units.
2- Energy released when you combust it = 100 units (which is theoretical and doesn't actually happen)
3- Energy transferred to the crankshaft as power = 25 units (75 units wasted as other energy)
4- Energy at the wheels to drive the car after accessories = 20 units.

Somewhere in that cycle, you have to come up with 100 units of energy just to support hydrolysis for the next combustion cycle. Its not there. It can't be there because of the first law of physics. You have just rolled the rock up the hill expending 100 units of energy, let it roll back while retrieving 25 units of energy, and now you don't have enough energy to roll the rock back up the hill.

A fuel starts out at a high level of energy in a chemical bond. We use ignition to release it. Water has almost zero energy in its chemical form.

Think of it like this. When you burn something, you are combining something with oxygen and it gives off energy. Burn carbon (like charcoal) and you get heat and CO2. If you burn pure hydrogen, you get heat and H2O. Water has already given up its energy and "burned" to create water.

Fuels like crude oil have borrowed energy from the sun during photosynthesis of plants to make sugars. Then the heat and pressure of geological forces over millions of years created what we now use as fuel. It begins as a chemical compound including Hydrogen and Carbon. Burning it in the presence of Oxygen releases energy.

In order to make water into a fuel, you first have to add 100 units of energy to it. Then when you burn it you are simply recapturing a tiny fraction of it. Since you have to borrow from that tiny fraction in order to magically produce 100 units of energy to go straight back to turning water into more fuel, its not possible. It is a physical, chemical, factual truth that it is impossible.

It has nothing to do with research or testing. Let's revisit my earlier example where we increase the engine efficiency to 100% which simulates perpetual motion.

1- energy required to split water = 100 units
2- energy released during combustion = 100 units
3- energy transferred to the crankshaft = 100 units
4- energy taken to move the vehicle = 20 units.

That only leaves you 80 units of energy to continue the cycle. It won't work. It doesn't matter how efficient you make the engine, it will never be 100%. Even if it WERE 100%, you couldn't borrow any energy to move the car or the system will fail.

Quote:
Why am I not leaving it at "you're right Curtis" ? Because you're fighting so hard to prove this doesn't work, even though you didn't do any testing yourself.
I passed Jr. High physics. I don't need any testing.

Quote:
If the concept is so against engineering and the laws of physics as you claim, why was Stan Meyer killed ? Why was his project buggy stolen ? I would've let him continue and laugh at him later.
First of all, I am the FIRST person to believe a conspiracy theory. But this whole BS about Stan Meyer being killed and his buggy being stolen is one of the most bull**** myths I have ever heard. The dune buggy story that was aired on a local TV station in the 1980s was actually debunked WHILE they were running the story. The producer was trying to kill the story halfway through the broadcast with hand signals to the anchors but it was too late. The station ran a full apology on the 11 o'clock news but it was too late. The rumor had started and the whole Stan Myer (his name was a typo on the news) saga began. Soon there were stories about how he was approached by the military to buy his design and then subsequently shot by snipers. Then there was another story about how he was approached by three (or 20 depending on the story) NSA agents who took him away in a van and he was never seen again. Substitute NSA for any government agency; CIA, FBI, ATF, NASA, IRS - then substitute the Van for a sedan, unmarked police car, station wagon, scooter... the story has circled the globe a million times with as many variations as you can imagine. I read the same story in a conspiracy magazine that actually showed "stan" being tortured by government agents in these grainy photos with a supposed NSA agent in jeans with long hair. Its the biggest crock of hooey I've seen since George Bush was elected.

Its not that "stan" was killed for his idea, its that his idea was BS. It could not have worked then, it cannot work now, and it will not work in 5000 years. The only way to make it work is to find a way to violate the laws of physics.


Quote:
Are you saying it's impossible to get above 25% efficiency, I'd say you're crazy.
Absolutely not. There are engines right now being developed for the automotive industry that are pushing 60% efficiency.

Quote:
I am not supporting 100% efficiency, I did not mention that, it was not the point of the original project. The rise in fuel efficiency is inconsequencial and matters less because we'd use water instead of gas.
Two things I want to point out here. First, as I said before, even if you had an engine that was 100% efficient, the only thing it could feasibly do is support combustion on water. As soon as you borrow any of it to move the car, its a fail. Second (and I mean no offense, but this is big.) MPG has NOTHING to do with what we're talking about. Thermal and combustion efficiency is not even in the same ballpark as MPG. I think maybe this confusion is what is skewing your view of the facts.

Quote:
How was the variable compression engine working ? But that still relies on us depending on gas/diesel and the monopoly delivery system.
The Saab variable compression engine basically used a two-part block in which the head was "hinged" to be able to alter the combustion chamber volume. Compression ratios of anywhere from 8:1 up to 14:1 were achievable based on RPM and load. Brilliant idea. It made it into the 9-5 but not for long.

Quote:
I am running some ideas by you and appreciate your input even when negative, but you keep quoting stuff that does not apply to the case or minor issues to be resolved later (like power delivery, poisonous substances and corosion).
I agree that poisonous substances and corrosion are easily overcome... but the power delivery is not something up for debate. Its fixed by the laws of physics. It takes 100 units to split water, you get back 100 units when you combust it. Then as you give up 75% to loss and 20% to driving the vehicle, that leaves a mere 5% left over to generate the 100% energy you need to simply support combustion with more hydrolysis.

Quote:
Ok, the main idea was to create an alternative source of fuel for a new type of engine, one that will NOT leave us dependent on Oil products AND delivery, also cost less than those products. What do you all think would work
My opinion is this: Biofuels are the next thing. At the current energy demand in the US compared to the current surplus of biomass available for fuel, biofuels could only support about 10% of our energy consumption. I do believe that we could become energy solvent with biofuels, but our decadence is ridiculous. Monster SUVs used for daily commutes, lack of willingness to carpool, pathetic vehicle maintenance including simple things like tire pressure monitoring, and lack of consumer education are all huge factors. People don't want to know anything about their cars, they want to know that they get in, turn the key, it runs, and the extra fuel they burn is a viable trade-off for the fact that their monster SUV is "safer" than an economy car.

The American ignorance is so complete. We have advanced to this level of luxury that even the poorest street-dweller can appreciate. It seems like biofuels are so disruptive of the agriculture business, but it doesn't have to be. Current modeling of agricultural output is pretty interesting. Let's say for a moment that you as a human eat nothing but meat. The only things that go in your mouth are animal flesh and animal by-products. Standing beside you is someone who is Vegan. The only things that go in their mouth have no animal by-products at all; no eggs, no dairy, no animal protein.

You (the strictly meat-eater) would be responsible for nearly 15 times the agricultural impact as the Vegan. To put it another way, the amount of food you have to feed an animal in order for it to provide you with the same caloric nutrition from its flesh is 15 times greater than if you had just fed those grains directly to the Vegan. Placing grain in the mouths of animals, then eating those animals is a very inefficient way of using the grain. Only a tiny percentage of the grain's nutrition makes it to you as a steak. Not to mention the serious impact on the environment by the livestock industry. The amount of daily greenhouse gas production from livestock respiration and flatulation rivals that of emissions from IC engines. Seriously. Don't get me wrong... I love a good medium-rare porterhouse like anyone else, but if (theoretically speaking) every American went Vegan, we could almost completely supply the country with its energy needs just using the newly-liberated surplus of grain that we don't have to feed to an animal. Of course, every meat farmer in the country would now be bankrupt, so that debate is much like the proposed bailout of GM and Chrysler.

Forgive my farm-boy upbringing, but the other discrepancy I'd like to point out is that (partly due to our decadence) we have some seriously untapped resources in the form of agricultural waste. Right now, we have grain producers who supply three main things: grain products for human consumption like wheat, corn, and soy, grain products for livestock feed, and grain products for fat, like vegetable oil and margarine. Currently these three industries are mostly separated. Grain farmers sell their grain to one of those three industries. They don't need to be separated, and we would benefit if they weren't.

For instance, if I were a corn farmer (which I used to be), I could grow my corn and press it for oil to be used as a biofuel. Then (since fat has nothing to do with fermentation) I could ferment the remaining corn mash and produce ethanol fuel. Then, the leftover corn beer can still be used as livestock feed. Granted, it has lost some of its starch to the fermentation, but the protein is left intact. There is no need for single-use grain. We can refine it just like we do crude oil; strip it of one component that leaves the other components to be used by other industries.

In many ways, agriculture is like crude oil. Right now we have farmers supplying grain to one of those three industries and the industry discards the waste as junk. If we treat agriculture like oil, we can do so much more with it. With crude oil you start evaporating off the little stuff like natural gas, then evaporate off things like propane, then heat and separate things like gasoline and diesel, then crack off things like oils and grease. Even the things left over like parafin and jelly are used. Just think if we did that with our agriculture; press grain for its oil, then ferment it for its alcohol, then use the remainder for its starch instead of just using it for one purpose.

The best part is that the fat products from grains can be used in SO many ways. The waste oil can be used directly as fuel, or converted to biodiesel. Some forms of WVO can be converted to use as low-stress lubricants like chainsaw bar and chain oil, bicycle chain lube, household lubricants, and such. The ways in which we use vegetable fats alter its fatty-acid content, but don't reduce the energy available from the fatty esters in the product itself; that is to say, use oil for its heat-transferring qualities in a fryer, then use it for its stored energy by burning it.

Ok, I'm really shutting up now.

Last edited by curtis73; 11-21-2008 at 04:37 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 11-21-2008, 11:56 AM
sbchevfreak's Avatar
Licenced Automotive Technician
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Land of big Easter eggs, Alberta
Age: 34
Posts: 1,604
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 8
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by curtis73


Well said, especially the agriculture info. Nail on the head.
Quick reply to this message
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 11-21-2008, 05:03 PM
curtis73's Avatar
Hates: Liver. Loves: Diesel
 
Last wiki edit: How to find cheap parts
Last journal entry: 1999-2001: Getting it on the road
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 40
Posts: 5,128
Wiki Edits: 16

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Plus, the impact on the environment would be infinitely smaller. If we're using carbon that is already in the biosphere, we won't be adding more from crude oil underground.

Quick reply to this message
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 11-21-2008, 08:03 PM
Cyberats's Avatar
Hydrogen Burning Engine, YES !
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California, USA
Age: 46
Posts: 48
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
If that is farmboy upbringing, there is no better way to be raised.

I still need something cleared...
You and others keep saying the system Needs to make water after extracting the HHO, maybe that step can be eliminated ? Discard the excess, it's only water, in a full HHO system you have a tank full not 1/2gal. ? I thought the bubbler module was only a safety device to prove the hydrolysis is still running, after all the plates need replaced. Sorry about prolonging this, I am kind of like SPOCK from Star Trek, why it's not supposed to work still doesn't fit into place cause of specific details. They sell boosters that are supposedly putting out 6Liter/min. for max. 15amps, how much HHO/min. would you need without the presence of gasoline ? (say a 5L V8, mpg aside) The alternator keeps "charging" amps when battery is full (I know a portion still goes to spark plugs and onboard systems, but battery also powers those), so you tell me, how many constant amps are wasted at idle and high speed ? Most alternators put out between 75-125amp, isn't that enough ? Using that wasted energy makes the system more efficient in a percent of a percent. So the biggest loss of the system is between the burning and delivery ? (we might need to get rid of the pushrod/crank V design in general, what would you suggest as efficient ? Is this doable - crankshaft and drive axle being the same, eliminate transmission ?) Doesn't HHO burn at higher temps and more explosive (thus requiring hard alloys, so an engine replace is in order, no straight conversions) but delivers more power (than gas) per fuel used ? So it'd be easier to achieve higher efficiency with HHO than gas.

My hopes of a water running car aside, let me ask you, wouldn't you like it better if you controlled the prices of your own fuel and did not depend on Corps. and Taxes ?

That aside, you are absolutely right Curtis, trying to find new fuels and new energy does not excuse the excessive waste going on today. Guess who is still responsible for that waste mostly - the rich, corporations and gov.
I knew a farmer from MI who was told to close up the pig farm and get paid for keeping it closed. The problem with America is Corporation GREED not need, I mean importing pigs ???
The three ways of using corn and/or other vegetables to create oil/ethanol and feed are excellent and I think you should push that issue.
As far as making everyone in America a Vegan just for "green" it's going to become another "tax the meat eaters" if you know your fat rich people and politicians. However, can you come up with a distribution of oil and ethanol that will be competitive and independent, prevent monopoly ?
Or do we buy it all at your farm at whatever price you feel like at the time ? That is the only problem I have with those alternative fuels as well as CNG.
I am talking about individual independence, divorce if you will, from fuel and delivery system companies, they cost us enough so far.
Although CNG maybe can be made from the cities' already existing "water reclamation systems" or otherwise known as sewage. Those places always have a few burning stacks, why waste that ? I always joked about the CNG car seat being uncomfortable, cause of the pipe up your darkside.
Far as electrical systems, they still need a better built, current ones last less than an hour (which is ok for maybe 50% of people's commutes), not enough to be caught in traffic or long highway driving. Electric company still owns your money for that kind of "fuel".

It still takes revolution to do the right things, I don't see leaving bad enough alone is going to improve our situation in the near or far future.
What's my excuse for so many questions, a brain forever voyaging I guess.
Quick reply to this message
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 11-21-2008, 08:35 PM
4 Jaw Chuck's Avatar
Hotrodders.com Moderator
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Age: 46
Posts: 4,821
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 64 Times in 52 Posts
Mr Spock, this is Scott from the engine room...

I can't change the laws of physics!
Quick reply to this message
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 11-21-2008, 08:35 PM
Cyberats's Avatar
Hydrogen Burning Engine, YES !
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California, USA
Age: 46
Posts: 48
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Variable Compression And Variable Cylinders ?

I forget the name but there was an engine that worked on activating cylinders when more power was needed, cylinders ran like 4-6-8 or 2-4-6-8. Do you think both designs can be combined ? That's what I would call a dynamic on demand running engine.
Quick reply to this message
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 11-21-2008, 08:38 PM
Cyberats's Avatar
Hydrogen Burning Engine, YES !
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California, USA
Age: 46
Posts: 48
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
4 Jaw Chuck

We need the laws of physics changed, bent, broken or mangled in 2 hours Mr. Scott or else these Romulans and Klingons will have us for dinner, On the Plate !!! What's that 2 weeks ? You have one hour !
Quick reply to this message
  #59 (permalink)  
Old 11-23-2008, 04:19 AM
curtis73's Avatar
Hates: Liver. Loves: Diesel
 
Last wiki edit: How to find cheap parts
Last journal entry: 1999-2001: Getting it on the road
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 40
Posts: 5,128
Wiki Edits: 16

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyberats
I still need something cleared...
You and others keep saying the system Needs to make water after extracting the HHO, maybe that step can be eliminated ? Discard the excess, it's only water, in a full HHO system you have a tank full not 1/2gal. ?
We're not saying it needs to make water, we're saying it must continue splitting water into H and O. You split water into H and O, then you burn it. It makes water. Then you have to use energy to continue splitting water into H and O so you can continue running the engine.

Quote:
I thought the bubbler module was only a safety device to prove the hydrolysis is still running, after all the plates need replaced.
No, the bubbler is the SOURCE of all the H and O that the engine ingests.

Quote:
Sorry about prolonging this, I am kind of like SPOCK from Star Trek, why it's not supposed to work still doesn't fit into place cause of specific details.
Sorry to put it this way... because 99% of the consumer base believes just like you do. You don't have the facts on the subject, so they can fill your head with whatever BS they want.

Quote:
They sell boosters that are supposedly putting out 6Liter/min. for max. 15amps, how much HHO/min. would you need without the presence of gasoline ? (say a 5L V8, mpg aside)
Let's do the math. First of all, 15 amps of 12v DC current (mathematically speaking) is only capable of about 1/2 liter per minute. So, let's take your 5.0L engine. Every revolution of the engine, it theoretically takes in 2.5 liters. Since that engine might redline at 6000 rpms, that would mean the engine could theoretically pass 15,000 liters of gas per minute. Giving it the benefit of the doubt and saying that it only operates at 90% VE, that translates to 13,500 liters per minute. That's a pretty far cry from 6 liters per minute. Even further from 1/2 liter per minute.

Quote:
The alternator keeps "charging" amps when battery is full (I know a portion still goes to spark plugs and onboard systems, but battery also powers those), so you tell me, how many constant amps are wasted at idle and high speed ? Most alternators put out between 75-125amp, isn't that enough ?
Not even close. I really mean no offense, but you just don't get it... in no way, shape, or form. I don't know how much clearer I can be. Of the energy you get from burning H and O, only about 1% makes it to the alternator. How on earth can you get enough energy from 1% of the work to make 100% of the energy required to split water into H and O?

Start with water. Zero energy. Add 100 units of energy to it to split it into H and O. Burn it. Get back 100 units of energy. 75% of it is instantly lost as heat. You can't get it back. That means you have 25 units of energy left to work with. From that 25 units, you have to take some to run accessories, some to move the car, and some to run the radio, A/C, windshield wipers, etc. So you have 1 unit left after you power all of those things. That 1 unit goes to the alternator where it produces electricity. How are you going to use 1 unit of energy to magically create the 100 units of energy that you need to turn water into fuel???? It CAN'T HAPPEN. The only way it can happen is if you find a way to magically turn 1 unit of energy into 100 units.

Remember the old trick where you had a glass that was full and a glass that was empty? You poured water back and forth between the glasses. After 50 times of doing that, you probably only had a 1/2 a glass left. Now imagine doing that, but every time you poured the water, you lost 75% of it. It would only take 2 or 3 times before you were almost completely out of water. That's what this reaction suggests, except you are actually starting with two empty glasses. You have to expend energy to fill one glass. Then when you start the motor, you are pouring the water from one glass to the other... only you are spilling 75% of it. Now in order for the reaction to work the other way, you have to have 100% available to pour back into the other glass... but you don't. You only have 25%. Its an instant fail.

Quote:
So the biggest loss of the system is between the burning and delivery ? (we might need to get rid of the pushrod/crank V design in general, what would you suggest as efficient ? Is this doable - crankshaft and drive axle being the same, eliminate transmission ?)
IT DOESN'T MATTER what kind of engine it is. Like I said, it doesn't matter if you have a 100% efficient engine (which is impossible) you still can't do it. I don't care if you magically make an engine that is 150% efficient, you still can't do it. I don't care if you use prayer and chanting. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. This isn't about making it efficient enough to make it work, it WILL NOT WORK, PERIOD.

Quote:
Doesn't HHO burn at higher temps and more explosive (thus requiring hard alloys, so an engine replace is in order, no straight conversions) but delivers more power (than gas) per fuel used ? So it'd be easier to achieve higher efficiency with HHO than gas.
Again, it doesn't matter. I don't care how efficient the motor is, it will never support perpetual motion.

Quote:
My hopes of a water running car aside, let me ask you, wouldn't you like it better if you controlled the prices of your own fuel and did not depend on Corps. and Taxes ?
For the most part, I do. I get fuel for my wife's car for free. I filter it and dump it in her tank. She burns WVO in her Mercedes. I don't pay taxes, and actually some of the restaurants pay ME to haul away their oil.

Quote:
I am talking about individual independence, divorce if you will, from fuel and delivery system companies, they cost us enough so far.
As a voting libertarian, I can give you a firm "amen" to that.

Quote:
I always joked about the CNG car seat being uncomfortable, cause of the pipe up your darkside.
Now THAT's funny

Quote:
Far as electrical systems, they still need a better built, current ones last less than an hour (which is ok for maybe 50% of people's commutes), not enough to be caught in traffic or long highway driving. Electric company still owns your money for that kind of "fuel".
I agree, and since over 60% of our electricity is still produced by burning fossil fuels, that simply means we're making the pollution at the power plant instead of the tailpipe.

Quote:
It still takes revolution to do the right things, I don't see leaving bad enough alone is going to improve our situation in the near or far future.
What's my excuse for so many questions, a brain forever voyaging I guess.
I am with you 100% on that one. I just am trying to make sure people are on the right track... making sure they're backing the right technology instead of working toward machines that can't work. I think those of us in the progressive energy lobby need to be educated and make sure we are focusing our efforts on the right set of potential future solutions. One of the problems we face is that the government has the monopoly on progress. I think its time we citizens took back the stronghold on capitalism and flex OUR muscle instead of letting the government tell us which muscles we should flex.

Last edited by curtis73; 11-23-2008 at 04:27 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #60 (permalink)  
Old 11-23-2008, 06:55 PM
Cyberats's Avatar
Hydrogen Burning Engine, YES !
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California, USA
Age: 46
Posts: 48
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
wow, thanks for all the info...

13,500 Liters/min. ? No, I guess not !!! This is what I didn't know. That's why it works as a booster but not a main engine. It's also why the small dune buggy 2cyl. might run but not a real engine.

Re-editing this - By the same numbers you are counting, my engine uses 2500 gal./min. of gas at 50% fuel-air mix ??? Wow I have a big gas tank. You all focus on a sidetrack issue I never seen anyone sustain, the perpetual motion machine, reclaiming the water from used gas, That Was Not the Point of the Experiment. You have an average tank of 16gal. of water which at 50mpgs can run you 800mi., no point in reclaiming water. Still cheaper even when buying a box of baking soda for catalyst. The point was a water running engine which did work as in the dune buggy and many garage enthusiasts converting lawn mowers. My engine uses about 1gal./hr. of gas at idle and maybe 4gal./hr. driving in the city, if it was 50% gas let's say 24L/hr. of HHO is needed or 0.4L/min. let's say engine is innefficient and 4L/min. is needed, kits can achieve that today, even if using two hydrolitics, yes an engine redesign is needed for the alloys and reminder Oxygen CAN be dumped, good for all of us. THE SYSTEM DOES WORK. So it's not a straight conversion big whoop, $5K (cost of engine) in gasoline you make up in a few short years.

NASA has been using hydrogen as rocket fuel for many years, don't care how they assassinated Stan Meyer, maybe they wanted the tech. for army use ONLY, after all they work in conjuction with petroleum corps., that is the why, of course they wanted the broadcast stopped, all media is moderated by gov.. If you believe everything the media sells you, I bet you believe 9/11 was perpetrated by a dumb arab from the caves of Afghanistan which to this day with all our sattelite tech. we cannot find, or is it Obama ?


How about designing a more efficient gas engine ? I never understood why the V design or the new VW W8, it always seemed the pistons struggle against each other. Do you find Inline or Flat designs to be more efficient ?

A jet like turbine hooked to the transmission ?

Curtis, what does it cost to convert a diesel engine to use re-fried oils ?

Any hopes to combine variable compression with variable cylinders ?

What different engineering do you all think will make a gas engine more efficient ? (not just engine, transmission, gears, power to the wheel)

Last edited by Cyberats; 11-24-2008 at 12:12 PM.
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread

Recent Hotrodders' Lounge posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Octane Booster Info SLR_65 Engine 46 09-30-2007 09:01 AM
Engine dies after letting off gas oldschoolrods Engine 6 08-09-2005 07:08 AM
why not radial engines? inspiron Hotrodders' Lounge 34 06-11-2005 10:56 AM
Carb Getting Gas But Engine not Starting zeeman19 Engine 1 07-07-2002 04:20 PM
Engine storage ? tjk2000us2000 Engine 2 06-18-2002 11:03 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.