It would appear HHO really works
Mind you, if they used tax payers money to buy it and installed it to find they had been ripped off, i wonder if they would admit to the public their money was wasted on a scam LOL.
I see many people using this HHO but have found it hard to believe it really works, because the dam thing eats power, on this basis i have never followed that closely, so it's nice to find a positive response from using HHO.
It won't last. They don't know what they are doing. They've read some hype and fell for it. The system they are using is one of the crudest and least efficient out there. They must make a fortune from this scam, particularly if the cops are buying into it and it's making the news.
The cops haven't tested it thoroughly yet, though, have they - they're just plucking figures out of the air. They'll soon get fed up of cleaning out the crud in that jar every week, and once they start having problems, they'll ditch it.
Water4gas - it's a couple of coils of stainless steel wire that runs at around 2 amps and produces so little gas that it's laughable, yet you get some people claim that their miles per gallon doubles! Madness and bullshit. Water4gas even suggest using baking soda as the electrolyte.
http://plm.hubpages.com/hub/Does-Water4Gas-Work
http://makeyourownhydrogenfuelcell.com/
Try to get onto http://www.water4gas.com/
The cops have probably not considered that fitting those electrolysers will also invalidate the engine warranties.
This is more like it:
http://honeapathsc.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/rest-of-storygas-from-water.html
http://honeapathsc.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/honea-path-police-department-breaks.html
http://www.nlcpr.com/TexasVswater4gas.pdf
Quote from: DeepCut on 2012.11.04, 20:20:45
Can't believe they are only getting a 6-8 MPG increase.
These SUVs can be thirsty beasts. A Top Ten survey had them in the range 21 to 31 mpg
If they are in the middle, then their 25 mpg is going up to 32 mpg.
That is a 25% increase.
Not bad, but I am sure we could help them to be better rate.
Quote from: Paul-R on 2012.11.15, 22:41:13
These SUVs can be thirsty beasts. A Top Ten survey had them in the range 21 to 31 mpg
If they are in the middle, then their 25 mpg is going up to 32 mpg.
That is a 25% increase.
Not bad, but I am sure we could help them to be better rate.
???
Ease their foot off the accelerator pedal is the only way - is this a knee-jerk post? Did you not check out any of the links I posted?
Water Injection is much easier to implement
and is far more productive/beneficial.
Solar Distillation will provide all the needed
water at little cost.
Easing the foot off the accelerator is always
good strategy and it works every time.
I really don't think water injection will improve fuel economy - it's not a fuel.
The Water4Gas business was/is a major scam, and rather laughably, one of the things in their literature said that to get the maximum benefit from their units, you needed to alter your driving habits - if this was not done, you could not expect to see any results in fuel economy. That disclaimer really says it all.
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2012.11.15, 23:25:53
Did you not check out any of the links I posted?
Yes. I doubt the motives of some of those involved.
Water for Fuel is not really my thing, i am surprised it is shown to be a fraud though, there were some pioneers in the early 1900's that had supposed working devices and patents, i thought these had been witnessed as working and the guy who successfully patented a system was later persecuted by the government another Ed grey story.
There's a cart load of patented systems, most of which are not worth the paper they're printed on. Having a patent for something doesn't necessarily mean that the thing will even work at all, let alone work as suggested.
It seems you can get almost anything patented without having to provide even the slightest proof that it works! The bottom line is, patents are not proof that something actually works - in fact in this respect patents mean diddly-squat!
@FarrahDay
QuoteI really don't think water injection will improve fuel economy - it's not a fuel.
The Water4Gas business was/is a major scam, and rather laughably, one of the things in their literature said that to get the maximum benefit from their units, you needed to alter your driving habits - if this was not done, you could not expect to see any results in fuel economy. That disclaimer really says it all.
Water is not a fuel but it can drastically improve mileage however you have to get past the simplistic notion of cause and effect. I built my first system about 30 years ago, I was 16, a VW sand rail (tube frame) with a 1600cc engine with dual port heads and I not only drastically increased the mileage but also the power. You see you cannot understand how I did this because you cannot think in an abstract sense past simple cause and effect and the easiest gains are simple. I shaved the heads to increase compression,then I pre-heated the fuel, then I advanced the timing way the hell into no man's land where the massive amount of pre-detonation (pinging) would normally destroy an engine in minutes.
The first problem is that we can approximate the combustion temperature by the color of the residue on the spark plugs and normally they should be a sandy brown color... mine were almost white so I added proportional water injection below the carburator. This has two effects, one it moderates the internal temperature so that the engine cannot ping at any degree of timing and two we can run a super lean mixture at high compression ratio's which is where maximum efficiency is found. Maximum power at high compression ratio's and maximum efficiency when the air/fuel ratio is on the very lean side. I know this because the amount of fuel used was very much lower and the greater power was tearing up my drive train and clutches, so much that I was shearing the pins between the clutch plate/flywheel and the crank shaft.
Have you ever heard a 1600cc VW engine pulling almost 6000 RPM and blowing blue flames 4 inches long out of it's 10" exhaust pipes (zoomy pipes)?, it is something to behold.
The water is not a fuel it is a moderator, it allows us to create the conditions for max power and efficiency by controlling the combustion process. Personally I think the mainsteam engineers are an embarrassment to the engineering community of which I am a part of, there is no real engineering in it only repetition. The fact is I did what they say cannot be done when I was 16 freaking years old with archaic technology, they are textbook hero's and I have little or no faith in there intelligence nor their abilities.
AC
Excellent write-up AllCanadian! You've covered
it well.
Water Injection has a long history and is made
use of today by commercial jet aircraft on takeoff
for increased thrust and power to get aloft smartly.
The military services have used it extensively too.
Sounds like you had to spend a lot of time and money on modifications to that VW, AC - given the cost of fuel as it currently is, are you not still employing this tactic nowadays?
@FarrahDay
QuoteSounds like you had to spend a lot of time and money on modifications to that VW, AC - given the cost of fuel as it currently is, are you not still employing this tactic nowadays?
I didn't spend a great deal of money as I had little at that age and most of the money I had was from hauling hay bales all summer and other chores. As well we were on the farm and had piles of old machinery and parts and old vehicles to scavenge from. I miss those days, when a person was young and could let their imagination run wild and had the time to fabricate things from almost nothing but piles of junk, lol, I made wind generators, co-generators, go-carts, motorcycles, hovercraft, iceboats, power boats from plywood and a 5hp B&S etc... . Sometimes we don't know how good we had it until it is gone, sigh.... time is not on our side.
The problem with this conversion in this day and age is all the darn electronics which are designed to operate a certain way and when a parameter is changed the computer starts correcting in the wrong direction or shuts down. In the good old days things were easy and when something went wrong I knew how to fix it on the spot, all I needed was my tool box and there was a very good chance it could be made to work.
If you are interested I can go through the exact process and answer any questions you may have as this system and the HHO system are similar. In themselves I think HHO and water mean little as you say they are not a fuel and I agree because there is always an issue of energy state and conversion losses. However there is no rule saying we cannot use them to make something already present better. I used water injected as a fine mist to moderate the combustion temperature since the latent heat of vaporization is 2257KJ/Kg and if the internal temperature can be moderated initially then pre-detonation can be controlled. My thoughts were that the combustion temp must remain high to produce a high power to weight ratio however not high during the entire cycle. We add enough water to get past the pre-detonation stage yet not so much it can carry a great deal of heat in the form of steam out the exhaust pipe which has not performed real work. There is also another benefit if the EGT is monitored because an engine could quite literally be impossible to overheat at any power level, we should remember that damage is a result of a high "average temperature" which is not to say the beginning can be cool and the end very hot. I remember the fact that I could run that darn little engine hard all day long at high revs and I wanted it to blow up to determine it's limitations but I never could, heat may make it work but in the same light it is too much heat which will destroy it. In this respect water is the perfect fluid because it can absorb a huge amount of energy during it's phase change to steam and do so in a very short span of time.
Here is an analogy, we are in a closed room full of fuel/air then in the corner a spark is initiated, next we see a wall of flame advancing towards us in slow motion. However since the room is closed the pressure starts rising and a wall of pressure is also advancing ahead of the wall of flames. Next this pressure wave ahead of the wall of flame hits the corners and fires break out at that point due to the heat from the last wall of flame. There is also radiant heat and while the wall of flame is a ways away from us we can feel the heat just as we feel the heat from a fireplace without being in it. We now have individual fires confined by a wave of pressure which generate their own pressure waves due to expansion at which point the pressure and heat causes the area around the flames to instantly combust all at once. These confined explosions are pre-detonations which limit the compression ratio and the fuel/air mixture.
Now we are in the same room full of fuel/air but there is also more water vapor present. The fuel/air is ignited and our wall of flame advances however this time the flame is obscured because there is a white mist in front of it which is from the water vapor flashing into steam. This limits the radiant heat from the wall of flame we felt before acting like a blanket of steam around it and the pressure wave which caused the individual fires to pre-ignite in the corners also are covered in a blanket of steam which appears the moment a flame appears. The heat is still present and the pressure is still present however the energy absorbed by the water vapor in it's transition from water to steam has moderated the speed at which the reactions occur, it causes the fuel/air burn to act like a true burn even when the pressure and heat would normally cause it to explode all at once. It is like taking a single stick of dynamite and spreading it out over a very large area and while the total energy may be the same the speed at which the reactions occur is not because the surface area is larger.
I believe the electronics issues has negated mainstream use of this technology today however tomorrow is another issue. Vehicles are starting to use a technology we should have been using 50 years ago which is hybrid technology. A small super efficient engine running very lean at constant RPM to turn a generator which charges a battery bank or capacitors which carries the variable load of an electric motor, that is the future in my opinion.
AC
Yes, I tend to agree that modern cars with all the electronics would be difficult to play with, but I also think that modern cars would see little improvement in fuel economy anyway. Modern engines are now already so much more fuel efficient than older ones because of fuel management systems - a role that water injection might have been to some extent performing in older engines.
It seems to me that water injection was primarily used to enhance performance of high compression engines in that it prevented pre-ignition. The cooling effect of the water also allowed for leaner fuel mixtures without damaging the engine.
But perhaps there is something to be said for water entering the fuel/air mix of even standard ICEs. I found this and found it an extremely interesting read:
http://www.dave-cushman.net/misc/mannject.html
Bit of an eye-opener actually!
Thanks Farrah , I like those old articles.
When I started I had never heard of water injection however for as long as I can remember I have always noticed the little things. All the little things which continually happen around us that most people seem oblivious to. One was the fact that I always got much better mileage when driving in the rain and it was not just some of the time but every time. As well I noticed the coolant temp dropped even when pulling steep grades in the mountains.
I simply put two and two together, water vapor must help combustion and moderate the internal temperatures. I found that a windshield washer pump pumping water though a metering valve then to a small carb jet mounted below the carb at the intake worked the best. In this way the water was atomized before it entered the air stream and the metering valve could be set to add more or less water outside the context of the vacuum present for greater control. Later a solenoid was added to ensure the water could not enter the intake until the engine was running which is a good safety measure.
AC
So water basically modifies the combustion process, and engine efficiency can then be further enhanced by taking advantage of the water's cooling properties, by leaning out the fuel and adjusting the ignition timing.
I drive an old petrol Land Rover, and I too notice a difference in the way it drives on cold, misty mornings - always seems to run smoother. I think I always assumed it was the cold air allowing for a greater charge of fuel to reach the engine. I might have have a rethink!
Makes you think that perhaps it is the water vapour from tiny inefficient electrolysers entering the engine that is of far more significance than the pathetic amount of hydrogen being produced. And, now I come to think about it, I remember a communication from William Rhodes a few years ago, in which he described drawing the air intake of his car through a maze of water saturated nappies. The nappies were simply kept wet by a steady drip of water from a gallon container. He said that he noticed a marked improvement in engine efficiency. Ties in well with what I read in that link.
QuoteMakes you think that perhaps it is the water vapour from tiny inefficient electrolysers entering the engine that is of far more significance than the pathetic amount of hydrogen being produced. And, now I come to think about it, I remember a communication from William Rhodes a few years ago, in which he described drawing the air intake of his car through a maze of water saturated nappies. The nappies were simply kept wet by a steady drip of water from a gallon container. He said that he noticed a marked improvement in engine efficiency. Ties in well with what I read in that link.
There is a possibility many reactions are occuring, the water vapor from the electrolyzer may aid in combustion by moderating the internal temperatures and flame propagation which prevents pre-detonation which is basically like using high octane fuel. The higher the octane rating of the fuel the higher the compression before a fuel will detonate so water vapor could be considered as a lead free octane booster which prevents detonation. As well the article you posted is correct in that water vapor cleans all the internal components of hydrocarbon residue which also adds to the issue of detonation. I remember that on tear down of an engine the combustion chamber, valves, pistons and rings were always spotless and there was basically no carbon deposits of any kind anywhere. That is kind of funny when a person thinks about it, why would we pay an extra 20 cents per litre for high octane fuel containing a known poison (Lead) when we could achieve the same result using water?. I understand fuel in now lead free however I do not imagine the replacement is much better environmentally.
Concerning the hydrogen content we know that it should increase the rate at which the fuel combusts however I think we have two reactions occuring here. One the hydrogen increases the burn rate of the hydrocarbon fuel present and two the water vapor moderates the burn rate which would seem to be a bit of a contradiction. It may be we have the best of both worlds under certain circumstances where we have a faster burning fuel because of the increased hydrogen content which will not detonate at high compression ratio's and/or temperatures because of the increased water content. This may be why the results vary from one application to another because I would think there would be a perfect hydrogen to water vapor ratio for any given application allowing a faster yet moderated burn.
You know I was quite content to have moved past this technology 30 years ago and I have very fond memories of tinkering away on a calm warm summers night, no worries, no rush, just happy to have the time to explore new things but now you have me thinking about it again. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not, lol.
AC
QuoteConcerning the hydrogen content we know that it should increase the rate at which the fuel combusts however I think we have two reactions occuring here. One the hydrogen increases the burn rate of the hydrocarbon fuel present and two the water vapor moderates the burn rate which would seem to be a bit of a contradiction. It may be we have the best of both worlds under certain circumstances where we have a faster burning fuel because of the increased hydrogen content which will not detonate at high compression ratio's and/or temperatures because of the increased water content.
Makes sense, but what has to be factored in is the energy required to electrolyse the water in the first place. So although the hydrogen by itself may make very little difference, the water vapour going with it just might.
Regarding your clean engine parts, and old engineers trick used to be dripping water into the carb with a dropper with the engine warm and running, precisely to clean the carbon deposits off the valves and piston heads.
My old engines have the vacuum advance pipe from the carb to the distributor so adding water injection similar to that described in that link would be extremely easy to do.
A few weeks ago i posted this article
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/exclusive-pioneering-scientists-turn-fresh-air-into-petrol-in-massive-boost-in-fight-against-energy-crisis-8217382.html
It's not earth shattering as they only produced 5 liters since august C.C
but look at the process they have used
Carbon Dioxide + water = petrol
burn petrol to get carbon dioxide & water
Add more water to the Carbon Dioxide & water exhaust to close the loop, in other words it is already viable to run a petrol engine on water.
What if someone found a faster way to convert the Carbon Dioxide & water into petrol.
Seems not so far fetched or am i missing something.
@Peterae
Carbon Dioxide + water = petrol
QuoteWhat if someone found a faster way to convert the Carbon Dioxide & water into petrol.
Seems not so far fetched or am i missing something.
It does not seem so far fetched if we consider that the common tree may have had the intelligence to have figured this out a few million years ago, I am quite confident that given the time and resources our intelligence may even exceed that of the common tree in a few million years.
AC
Good stuff.
They have the process, great, but for this to become viable the key factor is devising a method of effectively and efficiently requiring the CO2, otherwise this will be no different from any other energy intensive process - like electrolysis. Possibly a stepping stone to a better hydrocarbon fuel though.
The use of Carbon Dioxide for Methyl Alcohol
(Methanol) synthesis is old technology which
is industrially important.
But allcanadian is correct - living plants do it
better than we humans are able to. There are
many "vegetable oils" which can be directly used
as fuel in certain well designed diesel engines.
Volatile hydrocarbons such as gasoline can be
synthesized industrially rather easily from wood
and other vegetable matter but so long as oil
(petroleum) is abundant those competing
technologies will not be exploited.
I can only see a way to increase the efficiency of an internal combustion engine, what i am saying is that by injecting water under the correct conditions when mixed with the exhaust of an ICE then it maybe possible to create a small amount of petrol fumes which could be recirculated, as far as i understand this is exactly what had been shown to work in a patent that was pulled in the early 1900's.
Quote from: Peterae on 2012.11.19, 21:40:21
I can only see a way to increase the efficiency of an internal combustion engine, what i am saying is that by injecting water under the correct conditions when mixed with the exhaust of an ICE then it maybe possible to create a small amount of petrol fumes which could be recirculated, as far as i understand this is exactly what had been shown to work in a patent that was pulled in the early 1900's.
Surely this system would quickly produce diminishing results as each recirculation should in theory produce a cleaner exhaust gas than the last time... shouldn't it? ???
Agreed this is why it only increases efficiency, you still need to feed petrol into the system to keep it working, even if it were to save 25% fuel input that would be a great improvement for ICE efficiency
This topic contains excellent and accurate discussion and I think it deserves to be bumped back to the top of the list...
I will simply add, read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_material
Rob :)
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.11.16, 17:42:30
@FarrahDay
Water is not a fuel but it can drastically improve mileage however you have to get past the simplistic notion of cause and effect. I built my first system about 30 years ago, I was 16, a VW sand rail (tube frame) with a 1600cc engine with dual port heads and I not only drastically increased the mileage but also the power. You see you cannot understand how I did this because you cannot think in an abstract sense past simple cause and effect and the easiest gains are simple. I shaved the heads to increase compression,then I pre-heated the fuel, then I advanced the timing way the hell into no man's land where the massive amount of pre-detonation (pinging) would normally destroy an engine in minutes.
The first problem is that we can approximate the combustion temperature by the color of the residue on the spark plugs and normally they should be a sandy brown color... mine were almost white so I added proportional water injection below the carburator. This has two effects, one it moderates the internal temperature so that the engine cannot ping at any degree of timing and two we can run a super lean mixture at high compression ratio's which is where maximum efficiency is found. Maximum power at high compression ratio's and maximum efficiency when the air/fuel ratio is on the very lean side. I know this because the amount of fuel used was very much lower and the greater power was tearing up my drive train and clutches, so much that I was shearing the pins between the clutch plate/flywheel and the crank shaft.
Have you ever heard a 1600cc VW engine pulling almost 6000 RPM and blowing blue flames 4 inches long out of it's 10" exhaust pipes (zoomy pipes)?, it is something to behold.
The water is not a fuel it is a moderator, it allows us to create the conditions for max power and efficiency by controlling the combustion process. Personally I think the mainsteam engineers are an embarrassment to the engineering community of which I am a part of, there is no real engineering in it only repetition. The fact is I did what they say cannot be done when I was 16 freaking years old with archaic technology, they are textbook hero's and I have little or no faith in there intelligence nor their abilities.
AC
I would agree with that allcanadians post here, and add that the water itself adds to the compression factor as well as the cooling effect and whatever else, for HHO systems for cars, water injection would be a good way to regulate the burn temp I think. A friend of mine had an Ford xy falcon with a 351 Cleveland engine with water injection, as well as other (machining type) modifications, and that was so powerful it was almost undriveable under full acceleration, a big heavy stiff car and it just twisted it up like a playing card when the power was applied, it was street legal and with such a low cost and simple modification the increase in power was incredible, even difficult to believe.
They used water injection on WW2 war planes such as the Spitfires and Hurricanes ect. from what I have read anyway. Not sure if it was a standard fitting or not.
Bottom line water injection is good, my friend used it for more power but it could be used for better efficiency as well I'll bet.
AC, I was racing dirt track speedway at 15 and mostly paying my own way as well as doing most of the modifications to the cars. It's fairly common except I got My CAMS license 1 year before I should have (clerical error) ;).
My speedway cars were mostly Chryslers with Hemi 245-265 ci 6cyl engines, for their purpose they didn't need much modifications, that's why I like them. :) Weak part was the timing chains. >:(
Chrysler released some cars with "lean burn" 6 cyl Hemi engines that had very good fuel economy, but I never had one. It only lasted a short time though. Of course. Far too efficient. They mysteriously went out of production.
Was there any "lean burn" Chryslers released there ?
On reflection, could the Chrysler "lean burn" system have been similar to what SeaMonkey describes earlier in the thread I wonder.
Cheers
Speaking of the cold or wet weather driving efficiency, I think a lot of people have noticed that but also a lot are ignorant about a lot of stuff and wouldn't notice many things. I know I noticed it early on in my driving experiences and I think it does have something to do with the cold allowing an increased "charge" of fuel into the chamber due to being "more fuel in less volume" kind of thing. I think it could also have something to do with the oxygen ratio in the air. It could also be partly due to increased compression from water droplets/mist as well. Usually things have multiple effects in some way or another.
I am the type of person who never drives with loud music, maybe some radio and I like to have my windows down because I like to hear the machine, not so much the engine or exhaust but everything I can hear and if something changes I know what it is, due to an accumulated volume of knowledge from experience. (well I did with older cars, i have a newer type vehicle myself now.) I think they (newer cars with engine management systems) de-tune themselves near to service time. >:( Mine is almost due for service and I think it sounds different and has less power all of a sudden. I would like to have access to be able to change the engine management systems parameters in a user friendly environment.
As far as I can remember my friends cars water injection system pumped the water in under pressure through a special nozzle, and it was "atomized" I think was the term he used, maybe he should have said vaporized, I'm not sure, I've never looked right into it. Just recently I think (here at least) on "pimp my ride" tv show they installed water injection on an old car. A great many people know of it and the process has been pretty much perfected I think. I would not be surprised if some specialty or custom manufactured cars use it now. In fact I have no doubt they do use it but for increased power, not efficiency. Maybe increased power can lead to better efficiency, but only when the car is driven the same. Generally more power means we would need to use less accelerator pedal. But in reality the novelty of more power would cause the opposite with most folks.
Would be good to have an older car again, I'm looking for a good classic with muscle car potential. Preferably a Holden or a Chrysler, it would be good to experiment with the water injection system to see if an older car could be both more powerful and more efficient than a newer car of similar engine capacity and with an engine management system.
The injected water simply must increase the compression factor because water is virtually incompressible, if too much water is allowed to enter the chamber at too high of a rpm the engine will be damaged due to it, holed pistons ,broken rods or head gasket damage, possibly with alloy heads the head/s could fly off the engine if no gaskets are used. An internal combustion engine can only take so much water before damage will occur. Certain factors would be limiting factors to it's use for extra power, just like anything I guess.
Cheers
P.S. Rather than thinking inside or outside the box, getting rid of the box altogether is a better way to think. :D
Lot's of information to digest then my comments in a separate post later today, got some chores to do first.
OK here we go:
Rob :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel
Fuels are any materials that store potential energy in forms that can be practicably released and used as heat energy. The concept originally applied solely to those materials storing energy in the form of chemical energy that could be released through combustion,[1] but the concept has since been also applied to other sources of heat energy such as nuclear energy (via nuclear fission or nuclear fusion), as well as releases of chemical energy released through non-combustion oxidation (such as in cellular biology or in fuel cells).
The heat energy released by many fuels is harnessed into mechanical energy via an engine. Other times the heat itself is valued for warmth, cooking, or industrial processes, as well as the illumination that comes with combustion. Fuels are also used in the cells of organisms in a process known as cellular respiration, where organic molecules are oxidized to release un-usable energy. Hydrocarbons are by far the most common source of fuel used by humans, but other substances, including radioactive metals, are also utilized.
Fuels are contrasted with other methods of storing potential energy, such as those that directly release electrical energy (such as batteries and capacitors) or mechanical energy (such as flywheels, springs, compressed air, or water in a reservoir).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel
Energy
Once manufactured, hydrogen is an energy carrier (i.e. a store for energy first generated by other means). The energy is eventually delivered as heat when the hydrogen is burned. The heat in a hydrogen flame is a radiant emission from the newly formed water molecules. The water molecules are in an excited state on initial formation and then transition to a ground state; the transition unleashing thermal radiation. When burning in air, the temperature is roughly 2000°C.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen
Oxyhydrogen is a mixture of hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) gases. This gaseous mixture is used for torches for the processing of refractory materials and was the first[1] gaseous mixture used for welding. Theoretically, a ratio of 2:1 hydrogen:oxygen is enough to achieve maximum efficiency; in practice a ratio 4:1 or 5:1 is required to avoid an oxidizing flame.[2]
This mixture may sometimes be called by an old term knallgas (German; "bang-gas"), although some authors used to define knallgas to be a generic term for the mixture of fuel with precise amount of oxygen required for complete combustion, thus 2:1 oxyhydrogen would be called "hydrogen-knallgas".[3]
Brown's gas[4] and HHO are fringe science terms for a 2:1 mixture of oxyhydrogen allegedly endowed with special properties.
Properties
Oxyhydrogen will combust when brought to its autoignition temperature. For a stoichiometric mixture at normal atmospheric pressure, autoignition occurs at about 570 °C (1065 °F).[5] The minimum energy required to ignite such a mixture with a spark is about 20 microjoules.[5] At standard temperature and pressure, oxyhydrogen can burn when it is between about 4% and 95% hydrogen by volume.[5]
When ignited, the gas mixture releases energy and converts to water vapor, which sustains the reaction: 241.8 kJ of energy (LHV) for every mole of H2 burned. The amount of heat energy released is independent of the mode of combustion, but the temperature of the flame varies.[6] The maximum temperature of about 2800 °C is achieved with a pure stoichiometric mixture, about 700 degrees hotter than a hydrogen flame in air.[7][8][9] When either of the gases are mixed in excess of this ratio, or when mixed with an inert gas like nitrogen, the heat must spread throughout a greater quantity of matter and the temperature will be lower.[6]
Water torch
A "water torch" is a portable oxyhydrogen torch that combines a DC power supply and an electrolytic cell with a pressure gauge and flashback arrestor. Water is decomposed on-demand into oxyhydrogen, obviating the need for separate hydrogen and oxygen tanks. The original was designed in 1962 by William Rhodes and Raymond Henes of the Henes Manufacturing Co.[13] (now Arizona Hydrogen Manufacturing, Inc.) and marketed under the trade mark "Water Welder". A hypodermic needle was originally used for the torch tip.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
Flammability
Like other alkanes, gasoline burns in a limited range of its vapor phase and, coupled with its volatility, this makes leaks highly dangerous when sources of ignition are present. Gasoline has a lower explosion limit of 1.4% by volume and an upper explosion limit of 7.6%. If the concentration is below 1.4% the air-gasoline mixture is too lean and will not ignite. If the concentration is above 7.6% the mixture is too rich and also will not ignite. However, gasoline vapor rapidly mixes and spreads with air, making unconstrained gasoline quickly flammable. Many accidents involve gasoline being used to get bonfires going; the gasoline readily vaporizes after being poured and mixes with the surrounding air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_fuel_cell
A home fuel cell, one of the available technologies for micro combined heat and power (microCHP) or microgeneration, is a residential-scaled energy system. A home fuel cell is an alternative energy technology that increases efficiency by simultaneously generating power and heat from one unit, on-site within a home. This allows a residence to reduce overall fossil fuel consumption, reduce carbon emissions and reduce overall utility costs, while being able to operate 24 hours a day.
Combined heat and power (CHP) fuel cells have demonstrated superior efficiency for years in industrial plants, universities, hotels and hospitals. Residential and small-scale commercial fuel cells are now becoming available to fulfill both electricity and heat demand from one system. Fuel cell technology in a compact system converts natural gas, propane, and eventually biofuels—into both electricity and heat, producing carbon dioxide (and small amounts of NOx) as exhaust. In the future, new developments in fuel cell technologies will likely allow these power systems to run off of biomass instead of natural gas, directly converting a home fuel cell into a renewable energy technology.
Disadvantages are slow ramping up and down rates, high cost and short lifetime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxy-fuel_combustion_process
Oxy-fuel combustion is the process of burning a fuel using pure oxygen instead of air as the primary oxidant. Since the nitrogen component of air is not heated, fuel consumption is reduced, and higher flame temperatures are possible. Historically, the primary use of oxy-fuel combustion has been in welding and cutting of metals, especially steel, since oxy-fuel allows for higher flame temperatures than can be achieved with an air-fuel flame.
There is currently research being done in firing fossil-fueled power plants with an oxygen-enriched gas mix instead of air. Almost all of the nitrogen is removed from input air, yielding a stream that is approximately 95% oxygen. Firing with pure oxygen would result in too high a flame temperature, so the mixture is diluted by mixing with recycled flue gas, or staged combustion. The recycled flue gas can also be used to carry fuel into the boiler and ensure adequate convective heat transfer to all boiler areas. Oxy-fuel combustion produces approximately 75% less flue gas than air fueled combustion and produces exhaust consisting primarily of CO2 and H2O (see figure).
The justification for using oxy-fuel is to produce a CO2 rich flue gas ready for sequestration. Oxy-fuel combustion has significant advantages over traditional air-fired plants. Among these are:
The mass and volume of the flue gas are reduced by approximately 75%.
Because the flue gas volume is reduced, less heat is lost in the flue gas.
The size of the flue gas treatment equipment can be reduced by 75%.
The flue gas is primarily CO2, suitable for sequestration.
The concentration of pollutants in the flue gas is higher, making separation easier.
Most of the flue gases are condensable; this makes compression separation possible.
Heat of condensation can be captured and reused rather than lost in the flue gas.
Because nitrogen from air is not allowed in, nitrogen oxide production is greatly reduced.
Economically speaking this method costs more than a traditional air-fired plant. The main problem has been separating oxygen from the air. This process needs lots of energy, nearly 15% of production by a coal-fired power station can be consumed for this process. However, a new technology which is not yet practical called chemical looping combustion[1] can be used to reduce this cost. At present in the absence of any need to reduce CO2 emissions, oxy-fuel is not competitive. However, oxy-fuel is a viable alternative to removing CO2 from the flue gas from a conventional air-fired fossil fuel plant. However, an oxygen concentrator might be able to help, as it simply removes nitrogen.
In industries other than power generation, oxy-fuel combustion can be competitive due to higher sensible heat availability.
Oxy-fuel combustion is common in various aspects of metal production.
The glass industry has been converting to oxy-fuel since the early 1990s because glass furnaces require a temperature of approximately 2800 degrees F, which is not attainable at adiabatic flame temperatures for air-fuel combustion unless heat is regenerated between the flue stream and the incoming air stream. Historically, glass furnace regenerators were large and expensive high temperature brick ducts filled with brick arranged in a checkerboard pattern to capture heat as flue gas exits the furnace. When the flue duct is thoroughly heated, air flow is reversed and the flue duct becomes the air inlet, releasing its heat into the incoming air, and allowing for higher furnace temperatures than can be attained with air-fuel only. Two sets of regenerative flue ducts allowed for the air flow to be reversed at regular intervals, and thus maintain a high temperature in the incoming air. By allowing new furnaces to be built without the expense of regenerators, and especially with the added benefit of nitrogen oxide reduction, which allows glass plants to meet emission restrictions, oxy-fuel is cost effective without the need to reduce CO2 emissions. Oxy-fuel combustion also reduces CO2 release at the glass plant location, although this may be offset by CO2 production due to electric power generation which is necessary to produce oxygen for the combustion process.
Oxy-fuel combustion may also be cost effective in the incineration of low BTU value hazardous waste fuels.
Oxy-fuel combustion is often combined with staged combustion for nitrogen oxide reduction, since pure oxygen can stabilize combustion characteristics of a flame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency
Engine efficiency of thermal engines is the relationship between the total energy contained in the fuel, and the amount of energy used to perform useful work. There are two classifications of thermal engines-
1. Internal combustion (gasoline, diesel and gas turbine, i.e., Brayton cycle engines) and
2. External combustion engines (steam piston, steam turbine, and the Stirling cycle engine).
Each of these engines has thermal efficiency characteristics that are unique to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_combustion_engines
An external combustion engine (EC engine) is a heat engine where an (internal) working fluid is heated by combustion in an external source, through the engine wall or a heat exchanger. The fluid then, by expanding and acting on the mechanism of the engine, produces motion and usable work.[1] The fluid is then cooled, compressed and reused (closed cycle), or (less commonly) dumped, and cool fluid pulled in (open cycle air engine).
"Combustion" refers to burning fuel with an oxidizer, to supply the heat. Engines of similar (or even identical) configuration and operation may use a supply of heat from other sources such as nuclear, solar, geothermal or exothermic reactions not involving combustion; but aren't then strictly classed as external combustion engines, but as external thermal engines.
Working fluid
The working fluid can be of any composition and the system may be single phase (liquid only or gas only) or dual phase (liquid/gas).
Single phase
Gas is used in a Stirling engine. Single-phase liquid may sometimes be used.
Dual phase
Steam, as in a steam engine, is another option. In the case of the steam engine, or the Organic Rankine cycle the fluid changes phases between liquid and gas.
Hopefully those that are interested by the few cut and paste snippets from Wikipedia clicked on the links and further explored the subjects.
The definition of Fuel is rather interesting when combined with the Hydrogen Fuel link below it. A fuel is any material that stores potential energy in a form that can be practicably released and used as heat energy to do work, Hydrogen being a particularly effective energy carrier.
Water in itself cannot be strictly considered a fuel, but once processed via electrolysis for example, it becomes highly reactive and is in a natural stoichiometric ratio, releasing it's thermal energy when it recombines into water which is it's ground state.
This brings up an very interesting point, most of the fuels that we use do not exist in end user form until they have been processed, we are talking about fuels like petroleum and diesel etc. When the efficiency of these fuels as used in an internal combustion engine is discussed we often hear a figure of 25% efficient for example. What is very important to realise is that the processing cost from crude oil to diesel has not been accounted for in that calculation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_refinery
If the energy used to process the material from it's ground state to end user form were included in the end user efficiency calculation that 25% figure would drop considerably. HHO is processed on demand by the end user who pays that energy cost and the cost is included in the end user efficiency calculation. All of a sudden HHO doesn't seem quite such a bad deal anymore!
When we look at the flammability rating of the fuels we see that Petroleum for example has a very narrow range within which it will burn, Hydrogen by contrast has a very large range and it is very difficult to get it not to burn. This allows for the potential to use Hydrogen on demand as a primer, setting off a secondary charge of more difficult to burn fuel, that burns more slowly.
Did you know that the low pressure gas expansion from the electrolysis process is capable of pumping water by itself through a small vertical head height ? Well it is, and I have done it many times. The reason this is important to me is because when I first turn the wet cell on I use the pressure to raise a quantity of water through a vertical height in the gravitational field. If I were then to allow that water to drop in two separate streams through a Kelvin water dropper I can generate a spark capable of igniting Hydrogen. The HHO can then be used through a Water Flame Torch and I have a small burner with a very hot flame. From a single 12V DC car battery I have now pumped water, created a repeating spark ignition source, processed my fuel, and powered an external burner (or internal ;). The only thing I now need is an External Combustion Engine to do work.
I have gone another route to the ECE, I am going to be using an ECP... An External Combustion Pump...
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2057.0
The Supersonic Pulsometer is an External Combustion Pump that is a combination closed cycle and open cycle air engine:
"An external combustion engine (EC engine) is a heat engine where an (internal) working fluid is heated by combustion in an external source, through the engine wall or a heat exchanger. The fluid then, by expanding and acting on the mechanism of the engine, produces motion and usable work.[1] The fluid is then cooled, compressed and reused (closed cycle), or (less commonly) dumped, and cool fluid pulled in (open cycle air engine)"
It is also a Hydraulic and Pneumatic hybrid with a Dual Phase Working Fluid (in multiple parts of the system) that will allow me to drive a Hydro Turbine Generator system, because that system can operate at 90% system efficiency.
Once I have this Processing Plant and External Combustion Pump powering my Hydro Turbine Generator I can charge a battery bank, and an electric car... and it all runs automatically from a single DC electrical input... or it will do when I have finished it...
Have fun :)
Rob :)