Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or Not ???
- From: jim <"sjedgingN0sp"@m@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 07:30:11 -0500
Brent P wrote:
On 2008-05-29, jim <"sjedgingN0sp"@m> wrote:
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.
Wikipedia has 16 citations for where their information came from your just
to lazy to look them up. They all appear to be reputable sources like
universities and testing labs. The NASA study was back in the seventies.
There are more current studies. The point I was making was the process has
been plausible for many years. 50 years ago Computers were "plausible" -
it just cost millions of dollars to own one. If you had said what you need
to do to make hydrogen enrichment work in your car isn't practical I
wouldn't argue - when you say it isn't plausible it is obvious you just
don't know. Simply saying it takes energy to produce hydrogen therefore
there can be no possible savings is simply a statement based on ignorance.
More than 70% of the gasoline used in automobiles is wasted. At idle
pretty much 100% is wasted. So for you to claim that the laws of
thermodynamics tell you there is no room for improvement seems to be what
is not plausible.
Here is another article - it looks like it cites a number of studies
(including the NASA one):
http://georgepehli.googlepages.com/HydrogenEnhancedCombustion_3_5_2006.pdf
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.
If you don't know then you shouldn't claim you do.
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...
Yes one could, but that would mean setting up a manufacturing and
distribution system. The generation of the hydrogen as it is needed is one
of the engineering hurdles but not the major hurdle. If the engine isn't
designed to take advantage of the faster leaner burning fuel it won't
produce the energy savings.
-jim
----== 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 =---
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Ethanol fuel may be harming your vehicle
- Next by Date: Re: 91 Hyundai Excel Running Rough - Smoking
- Previous by thread: Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or Not ???
- Next by thread: weird steering oscillation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
