Posted on 07/31/2008 11:54:15 AM PDT by Red Badger
Prof, I disagree. On part of that. Yes, I have a scar on my forehead from a battery explosion. Hydrogen in a confined space does explode.
What I am disagreeing about is that putting something explosive in a car is any more dangerous than gasoline. Gasoline has MORE, much, much more explosive power than hydrogen. Sorry, that’s a physics fact. The “scientist” is talking out his ass.
When he said it was “dangerous” he was playing on emotions (something leftists are very well known for doing). He didn’t bother to say “Gas is MORE explosive than hydrogen”
Prof....
I know. You don’t have to teach me about physics. LOL
Please.
Let me say something so you’re all very clear on this
I think these things are a bunch of crap. Now get it out of your head that I somehow believe that these guys are selling something worth something. They aren’t.
I’m commenting on the people who are making the claims and I’m RIGHT, 100% on what I am saying. I’m not trying to defend junk science. I’m making statements based on the fact that I am VERY well versed in physics, and I’m trying my best not to do this in a negative way.
That someone says “more energy is being produced than is used” is a FACT. A CAR produces many horse powers of energy, and most of it goes to move the car. Anything extra produced by the engine is “considered extra energy” that is not being efficiently used, given off as heat in the engine or stored in batteries.
That someone can produce extra energy from an engine isn’t new. I NEVER said they could produce MORE energy than gasoline is capable of producing!
I’ll say this now. Car engines are extremely efficient devices and proof of this is in the amount of heat energy that is generated and dissipated in the engine as heat.
Now, you can all sit there with your weird science and say I’m wrong - but, facts is facts. (No, we’re NOT breaking the law of conservation of mass and energy here)... good grief! LOL!
Chill out guys. Look at the people making these devices and selling them, not me. I’ve got no interest in them other than the sheer science behind how things work.
Thanks. I know this too.
NO NO NO. I didn’t SAY perpetual MOTION, you did. I said EXCESS ENERGY! LOL
Come on people.
Excess energy is defined as energy that is being produced and not directly used right then.
This energy is almost ALWAYS in a car in particular dissipated in the form of heat energy. Don’t believe? Stick your hand on the alternator when the engine is running (keep your fingers out of the belts PLEASE). Or the engine.
That is ENERGY folks. It’s EXCESS and it’s NOT USED for ANYTHING?
I’m not talking about it producing MORE energy than is put into it.
An example... one cup of gasoline when mixed with the PROPER proportions of air (o2) has approximately the explosive power of five POUNDs of dynamite... That’s a LOT of energy.
Gas has one of the highest ratios of energy to mass ratios of pretty much anything used by a consumer on a daily basis. Alcohol, and other burnable materials don’t come close.
Hydrogen is VERY close to the same level (if I remember my chemistry, which I probably don’t).
All I’m saying here is that there is a LOT of energy produced in an efficient car engine that goes UNUSED - hence the phrase “excess”.
I’m NOT saying that there is ANY such thing as a machine that gives you more energy out than you put in. What I’m SAYING is that cars could be much more efficiently created and the energy from gas used better.
Sheesh
negative. Those half cycles aren’t discarded, full wave rectifiers are used. That means the missing half cycle is actually used...
The Hydrogen Injection System How Hydrogen Works (PDF)
The technology of using hydrogen as a combustion enhancement in internal combustion engines has been researched and proven for many years. The benefits are factual and well documented. Our own utilization of this technology. i.e. the CHEC HFI hydrogen injection system, has also been tested and proven both by institutions and in hundreds of practical applications in road vehicles.
Here is a synopsis of a sampling of the research that has been done:
In 1974 John Houseman and D.J/Cerini of the Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology produced a report for the Society of Automotive Engineers entitled “On-Board Hydrogen Generator for a Partial Hydrogen Injection Internal Combustion Engine”.
In 1974 F.W. Hoehn and M.W. Dowy of the Jet Propulsion Lab, prepared a report for the 9th Inter society Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, entitled “Feasibility Demonstration of a Road Vehicle Fueled with Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline.”
In the early eighties George Vosper P. Eng., ex-professor of Dynamics and Canadian inventor, designed and patented a device to transform internal combustion engines to run on hydrogen. He later affirms: “A small amount of hydrogen added to the air intake of a gasoline engine would enhance the flame velocity and thus permit the engine to operate with leaner air to gasoline mixture than otherwise possible. The result, far less pollution with more power and better mileage.” In 1995, Wagner, Jamal and Wyszynski, at the Birmingham, of University Engineering, Mechanical and Manufacturing>, demonstrated the advantages of “Fractional addition of hydrogen to internal combustion engines by exhaust gas fuel reforming.” The process yielded benefits in improved combustion stability and reduced nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions.
Roy MacAlister, PE of the American Hydrogen Association states the “Use of mixtures of hydrogen in small quantities and conventional fuels offers significant reductions in exhaust emissions” and that “Using hydrogen as a combustion stimulant it is possible for other fuels to meet future requirements for lower exhaust emissions in California and an increasing number of additional states. Relatively small amounts of hydrogen can dramatically increase horsepower and reduce exhaust emissions.”
At the HYPOTHESIS Conference, University of Cassino, Italy, June 26-29, 1995, a group of scientists from the University of Birmingham, UK, presented a study about hydrogen as a fraction of the fuel. In the abstract of that study it stated: “Hydrogen, when used as a fractional additive at extreme lean engine operation, yields benefits in improved combustion stability and reduced nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions.”
In the Spring of 1997, at an international conference held by the University of Calgary, a team of scientists representing the Department of Energy Engineering, Zhejiang University, China, presented a mathematical model for the process of formation and restraint of toxic emissions in hydrogen-gasoline mixture fueled engines. Using the theory of chemical dynamics of combustion, the group elaborated an explanation of the mechanism of forming toxic emissions in spark ignition engines. The results of their experimental investigation conclude that because of the characteristics of hydrogen, the mixture can rapidly burn in hydrogen-gasoline mixture fueled engines, thus toxic emissions are restrained. These studies and other research on hydrogen as a fuel supplement generated big efforts in trying to develop practical systems to enhance internal combustion engine performance. A few of them materialized in patented devices that didn’t’t reach the level of performance, safety or feasibility that would allow them to reach marketing stages.
California Environmental Engineering (CEE) has tested this technology and found reduction on all exhaust emissions. They subsequently stated: “CEE feels that the result of this test verifies that this technology is a viable source for reducing emissions and fuel consumption on large diesel engines.”
The American Hydrogen Association Test Lab tested this technology and proved that: “Emissions test results indicate that a decrease of toxic emissions was realized.” Again, zero emissions were observed on CO. Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. Vehicle subjected to dynamometer loading in controlled conditions showed drastic reduction of emissions and improved horsepower.
Corrections Canada tested several systems and concluded, “The hydrogen system is a valuable tool in helping Corrections Canada meet the overall Green Plan by: reducing vehicle emissions down to an acceptable level and meeting the stringent emissions standard set out by California and British Columbia; reducing the amount of fuel consumed by increased mileage.”
Additionally, their analysis pointed out that this solution is the most cost effective. For their research they granted the C.S.C. Environmental Award.
We also conducted extensive testing in our facility in order to prove reliability (MTBF, life expectancy, etc.) and determine safety and performance of the components and the entire system. As a result of these tests, we achieved important breakthroughs as far as the designs of the components were concerned. We have since increased the hydrogen/oxygen production significantly. This has resulted in increased effectiveness on engine performance.
The results of these tests were able to confirm the claims made about this technology: the emissions will be reduced, the horsepower will increase and the fuel consumption will be reduced.
http://www.chechfi.ca/tehisyst.htm
My understanding of alternators is that they produce what is demanded of them. If there is no load on the alternator, nothing connected, then the only mechanical demand from it to the engine is to overcome the friction of spinning it. Any additional mechanical demand is the direct result of the output current demanded of it, with consideration for output efficiency.
An alternator can produce more than is typically demanded; there is excess capacity. But that's not the same as excess production or output.
So any increase in electrical demand on the alternator will just result in extra mechanical demand, and it takes more mechanical power going in than electrical power going out because alternators are not 100% efficient. That, plus the fact that electrolysis is not 100% efficient, that is, you won't get the same hydrogen energy out of the process as the electrical energy you put into it, means that the Mechanical (engine) --> ( < 100% efficient) --> Electrical (alternator) --> ( < 100% efficient) --> Chemical (Hydrogen electrolysis) chain cannot result in a net gain.
I believe the author is correct.
First, there’s no such thing as “100% efficiency” - so I am not saying the author doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I question the author’s remarks regarding certain things I’ve already laid out.
And no, you and several others have made the comment that “alternators don’t” do anything unless a load is demanded of them.
Technically... unless there is a “complete circuit” - which in very simple terms is a complete path for current flow, a resistance and a potential difference of electrons (that would be a battery or another voltage source) there is NO demand, therefore there is only “potential energy”.
This means that basically ANY generator that is turning (AC, DC doesn’t matter) has a set of coil windings that being moved in a stationary magnetic field, or a moving magnetic field around stationary coils) whether CONNECTED to a circuit or NOT is a “potential energy source”.
If there is a path - which in a running engine, there IS (at the very least to power the charging circuits for the battery) current flow. More current will flow as the load increases. (This means as the RESISTANCE DROPS more CURRENT flows - which means more electrons flow in the circuit.)
The fact is that generators/alternators in cars are capable of producing much more current in most cases than they actually produce.
In proper engineering you always over design a circuit... so if your circuit will use say, 1 Amp, you design the circuit to have devices that can handle roughly double that so you have little chance of overheating components etc.
(Using heavier wire than the minimum necessary is good practice. Using 2 watt resistors in a circuit instead of the 1 w resistors that are all you need is good practice. Putting in an alternator capable of handling EVERYTHING in the car plus extra items that might be added on - as in my case, radio systems and a different stereo system than came iwth the jeep... is GOOD practice)
You may need this for your calculations.
None of that discussed or compared the energy required to produce the hydrogen. If you only look at half the system, you can pretend whatever you want.
This is exactly what I said in my post. An alternator has excess capacity, but not excess output.
Yes, the alternator usually has the capacity to produce more than the electrical system of the vehicle typically demands, but that's not excess output, it's excess capacity.
None of that makes the hyrogen electrolysis unit create a net gain in engine efficiency. It simply can't, unless there is some part of the process which is greater than 100% efficient.
“Never ever state that something is entirely impossible before you study every possible aspect of what is taking place with the actual device in question.”
This one is ENTIRELY IMPOSSIBLE.
“by using excess alternator power”
There is NO excess alternator power.
And like the engine, if more power output is required, more power energy input is simultaneously required.
If you add electrical load to the alternator, you have to increase power input to the alternator. If the RPM’s are kept constant, the additional power required to match the increased force by the increased electromagnetic fields is supplied by additional torque. This requires additional fuel from the engine. All this additional load has the same inefficiencies of the engine, friction and the alternator so even more fuel energy is consumed than the electrical energy produced.
“Hydrogen in a confined space does explode.”
Only if the Hydrogen-Oxygen mixture is of the right proportions.
“Gasoline has MORE, much, much more explosive power than hydrogen. Sorry, that’s a physics fact.”
Hydrogen bomb versus Gasoline bomb?
” Gasoline has MORE, much, much more explosive power than hydrogen.”
Hydrogen 61,100 BTUs per pound versus 20,900 BTUs per pound of gasoline.
Sorry... if you have a battery that is being charged or overcharged as what happened when I experienced the accident *I* was in, there was no “hydrogen-oxygen” mixture.
There was hydrogen only in the confined space. The hydrogen forced all the air out and the spark ignited the leaking hydrogen at the hole, which in turn attempted to burn through and then exploded. Sure, there was air, but not in the “proper quantities”. The thing blew up and the cover hit me in the head knocking me unconscious. I obviously didn’t have time to check the fuel-air mixture, but I know for a fact there was a LOT more hydrogen available than there was oxygen! LOL
A “hydrogen bomb” is not a hydrogen. It’s a PLUTONIUM bomb. They are historically called “hydrogen bombs” based on fusion of tritium and deuterium (isotopes of hydrogen) which are injected into the weapon split seconds before detonation. The bombs are not based on the explosion of hydrogen, rather the FUSION of hydrogen atoms to helium (or heavier elements).
Hydrogen that explodes combines with oxygen and is NOT a fusion reaction (which is a NUCLEAR reaction), but instead is a chemical reaction of two elements that liberates energy in the form of heat and light through chemically combining two atoms.
(Nuclear reactions take place at a much lower level, at the nucleus of atoms. Chemical reactions take place at the valence electron levels...)
So you’re talking apples and oranges.
Have you observed this device in person?
Have you studied the device in person?
If not, then I don’t care what your comment is.
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.