Posted on 08/11/2008 7:17:09 PM PDT by M.K. Borders
Dihydrogen monoxide is the silent killer and must be stopped at all costs.
The water, in the steam-expansion phase, extracts heat from the cylinder walls, and converts it to mechanical power.
Just as the piston expanding, extracts energy from the combusion gas (and heated nitrogen) and converts it to mechanical power.
Good point!
Wickopedia rates it at 30% Well, I am playing with it, if I get the time to get it done I will see. Am playing with a 1300 cc engine with a target of 2 liter per minute output. One good test would be to compress air with the 7.5 compression ratio and add the 1 cc to 200 cc and compress at 7.5 ratio then spark it and see if I can get it to pop. If it will not pop, ain't enough HHO to work. Good idea.
I do not want to push the electrical system beyond 30 amps, that is half the alternator output. This is a fun project. I have upgraded the Alternator to a 60A unit and replaced the ignition to a wasted spark coil per cylinder with a microprocessor control. So I have complete control of the spark now.
Now on to the HHO part.
Thanks for your input, I will have to play with that experiment to see just how what HHO ratio is necessary to get a reliable pop at 140psi.
That makes sense, using the engine heat to further expansion pressure.
You are confusing efficiency of combustion with efficiency of fuel input to energy used for movement.
Wickopedia rates it at 30%
You are confusing burning efficiency to overall efficiency. I still stand by the statement that 95% or more of the fuel is burnt. Overall efficiency compares the heat energy generated by burning the fuel to the kinetic energy produced by the engine. In THAT case, the efficiency is about 30-35%.
I'll bet that you see absolutely no change at all.
The NOx to N2 reaction is endothermic. The catalytic converter needs excess hydrocarbons or carbon monoxide in the raw exhaust stream to fuel the NOx reduction. Engine controls thus run engines on a richer mixture than would be optimal for fuel economy.
No, it doesn't. The unburnt fuel plays no part in the process. The catalyst in the catalytic converter directly converts the NOx into N2 and O2 and the CO into CO2. The unburnt hydrocarbons play no part. In fact if your oxygen sensor fails and the engine runs too rich, it will destroy the catalytic converter by melting it. Look it up.
So, I repeat, THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH UNBURNT FUEL GOING OUT THE EXHAUST.
No it does not.
The reduction catalyst is the first stage of the catalytic converter. It uses platinum and rhodium to help reduce the NOx emissions. When an NO or NO2 molecule contacts the catalyst, the catalyst rips the nitrogen atom out of the molecule and holds on to it, freeing the oxygen in the form of O2. The nitrogen atoms bond with other nitrogen atoms that are also stuck to the catalyst, forming N2. For example:
2NO => N2 + O2 or 2NO2 => N2 + 2O2
The oxidation catalyst is the second stage of the catalytic converter. It reduces the unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide by burning (oxidizing) them over a platinum and palladium catalyst. This catalyst aids the reaction of the CO and hydrocarbons with the remaining oxygen in the exhaust gas. For example:
2CO + O2 => 2CO2
Of course it does. Many older carburetted Ford vehicles had two converters, and air pumps. The factory did this to game the PPM requirements. Prior to this they stank of nasty eye-watering fumes.
It converts CO to CO2
CO is also a fuel, and a function of incomplete combustion. Gasification vehicles run on CO. Modern cars are over 95% efficient in completely burning gasoline.
You really blew your credibility with this statement. Although technically true, just burning gasoline (your dollars) is not the real desired end result.
An engine is about 25% efficient in converting fuel to rotary motion.
The problem is that the burning of the fuel produces much more heat than is good for the engine and heat represents energy.
Why do you think the exhaust manifold is hot? Because there is a constant fire inside the cast iron part. Have you not seen an engine with minimal exhaust exhausting flame?
Most of the heat goes out the tailpipe
Bingo, thanks for making the point. That is exactly what they are trying to eliminate.
Following your logic, doubling combustion chamber efficiency should radically reduce fuel consumption.
By the way, the oxygen sensor doesn't actually measure oxygen, it measures heat.
No, YOU are the one who has no idea how an engine runs.
Yes, an engine would be more efficient if you could run it hotter, but if you try to eliminate heat going out the manifold, you will only have to remove the heat from the block and pistons with a larger cooling system or else you will burn up the pistons and warp the heads. You could go to exotic materials for the heads and pistons but then you start running into problems of the high temperature breaking down the oil.
But go ahead and waste your time and money. Popular Mechanics has already tried it and found out that it does absolutely NOTHING.
BTW, the “fire” you see coming out of an exhaust port isn’t fuel still burning, it is the mixture that has been super heated by the burning process until the molecules are excited to the two or three higher states of energy and then give off that energy in the form of a particles of light. First, as a particle of visible light, then as a particle of infrared light as it cools.
No, the whole idea here is to run the engine cooler, and use less fuel in the process. The flames coming out the exhaust ports is fuel mixture still burning.
Guess you don't know any guys who are playing with these. There are probably several hundred thousand high mileage enthusiasts working with these now and getting results.
I know several guys with purchased units, having significant positive results, and that due to the various levels of dial-in. I haven't spent a dime, but I plan to build my own gear.
The EFI tweaking is pretty much the opposite of performance mods, the hydrolyzer allows you to run it lean without pinging or burning pistons and valves.
You do believe that more horsepower can be achieved through aftermarket technology don't you, or are you just a luddite?
Do you “know” these people supposedly getting higher fuel economy by injecting less than 0.125 cc of HHO in each cylinder or have you read about them? I’m betting you read about them.
They constantly are making adjustments, then heading for the gas station to top it off and check the results of their latest tweak.
injecting less than 0.125 cc of HHO in each cylinder
I told you it's more of an additive, or burn characteristic modifier rather than a substitute fuel.
They are finding more is not necessarily better, and a lesser volume of the gas can do the job, and subsequently lessen the demand on the alternator.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.