Thought i would start this thread,so as to no divert Graham's thread any more than we have,regarding VW engine's.
Just a fun project,and nothing much to do with free energy--but HHO will be included.
The end game here,is to have built an engine from bit's and pieces,that will be running on(or partly there of)HHO gas,where the HHO cell get's it's electrical energy from the engine driven generator it self.
First is to strip down the donor motor-and it dosnt look pretty :o
The motor build is going to be red necked,and not something that looks like it just came out of a machine shop.
In fact,the whole build will be done,using nothing more than tool's most have in there work shop--E.G,no lathe work/machining.
The idea is to see how efficient we can make an engine,that is built from nothing but scrap part's,lying around in junk pile's.
Once running(if it actually runs),we will then move on to fitting the generator, HHO,and control systems.
PT 1-the strip down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e0J4MCbOgc
Brad
It's OK Brad.
As " Domestic science " has become my forte I'll pop in the odd recipe for exhaust manifold cooking!!
>:-)
Cheers Graham.
Ouch! That teardown brings back too many bad memories of cracked pistons on my 67 bus engine.
I was also going through a separation at the time. Maybe I mixed all the emotions up. She got the 67 after it was rebuilt and strong. :-[
Just going to throw this little project in here as well.
The intention is to get it up and running on a vapor fuel system--if it runs again.
The VW project is still going on,and an update to come soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPCL6C2E0CY
Brad
Excellent video and very educational for the weekend engineer with limited means O0
Regards
mike 8)
Quote from: Centraflow
Excellent video and very educational for the weekend engineer with limited means O0
Aye, I'll second that! Looking forward to the continuing series!
Small air-cooled engines are fascinating. Bringing the old, neglected
ones back to life is very rewarding.
@tinman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPCL6C2E0CY
I built my first CHP unit about 40 years ago using a similar motor out of an old kick start washing machine. I used a belt drive to an old 52 merc generator to charge batteries for lighting and built my own exhaust tube shell heat exchanger to scavenge heat for my little shop. Damn thing would chug away for days and never miss a beat.
In my opinion the way to go is to use natural gas as a fuel on stationary engines. The setup is easy and you simply add a regulated gas supply upstream of the carb. I used a secondary linkage from the carb to a small ball valve to control the natural gas flow thus air/fuel ratio. I turn off the gasoline to the carb and open the natural gas valve to transition from gas to natural gas.
Another neat trick is to modulate the burn temperature with water vapor. The engine can run super lean without overheating or pre-detonating if water vapor is added. I added another linkage to a small ball valve feeding the water to an old carb jet to vaporize the water upstream of the carb/regulator. Your looking for a nice even light brown or tan color on your plugs when the combustion temperature is correct.
I would also ditch the stock ignition system and use the points to activate a high voltage joule thief circuit using an ignition coil. Another better option is the water spark plug circuit which I have tested and it works very well... sounds like a damn rifle when you get it right.
vapor/Gas indeed
here I believe the goal is an HHO run...
O0
Is it really true that adding water to the combustion chamber of an ICE, increases the mechanical power of that engine?
If "yes" - by what mechanism?
Verpies
QuoteIs it really true that adding water to the combustion chamber of an ICE, increases the mechanical power of that engine?
If "yes" - by what mechanism?
To some extent it's not what most think. First, adding water starts removing all the carbon build up inside the cylinder, valves and spark plug which does give more power and better efficiency. The carbon build up acts like ice on an air plane wing and creates unwanted turbulence. The carbon can also cause pre-detonation which prevents running leaner hotter fuel air ratio's.
It's not common knowledge but most engines run rich (more fuel than needed) to help cool the cylinder and keep the catalytic converter hot at low power. HHO acts like nitrous oxide and provides a faster burn which also means a more powerful cleaner burn. Think of it as adding a small amount of gasoline to a wood fire to help it burn hotter and faster producing less smoke or particulate carbon. Essentially we want a fast clean very hot burn of the fuel in the cylinder and adding more fuel which does not burn fast and hot is a losing proposition.
So HHO causes a clean fast burn and water injection modulates the burn to control high cylinder temperature. So far as the Stan Meyers and other stories go it had little to do with HHO it was his circuit and electrolyzer that produced massive amounts of Hydrogen with little or no input. Stan simply mated an OU circuit to an electrolyzer because that is what he knew. He could have just as well built a motionless OU device without all the HHO nonsense but there is a very steep learning curve involved. You need to look at timelines... inventors start with fairly primitive motional devices then progress to motionless devices then a select few move on to anti-gravity devices.
Think about it... they are learning as they go. One discovery leads to more understanding which leads to new ideas which leads to much more understanding and the whole process starts feeding on itself. Soon everything starts moving so fast they have moved a decade into the future of technology in the span of months. It is no wonder so few can make any sense of it because they are still stuck in the past dealing with antiquated concepts. How do you explain anti-gravity concepts to a person still trying to rub two sticks together to produce fire... can't be done.
Quote from: verpies on 2017.06.01, 21:58:01
Is it really true that adding water to the combustion chamber of an ICE, increases the mechanical power of that engine?
If "yes" - by what mechanism?
It allows the engine to be operated at higher manifold pressures and/or leaner fuel-air mixtures without destructive knocking. It does this by
slowing down the combustion so that the fuel-air mixture burns rather than detonates.
I can recall an ultrasonic water/fuel emulsifier on a TV program called tomorrow's world which switched on once the engine temp was high enough.
In the experimental stages they reported upto 33% water could be used. It also cleaned the combustion chamber of all the carbon buildup.
It must have been bought up by big oil as it died before it was available.
Late 70's or early 80's if I recall it.
Quote from: verpies on 2017.06.01, 21:58:01
Is it really true that adding water to the combustion chamber of an ICE, increases the mechanical power of that engine?
If "yes" - by what mechanism?
Whilst agreeing with the comments made, and owning a few engines fitted with water injection of the " teen " period of the 20th century. I personally feel the question hasn't been answered definitively.
A good answer could be found by running a small motor with a friction brake ( rope over pulley and weight ) , adding weights until RPM's start to drop, and then using a " micro fogger " to allow the water mist into the manifold and see if the engine can drive exta load.
Cheers Grum.
The smartphone app I have called Vibrations works pretty slick to measure RPM.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.julian.apps.VibrationsAds&hl=en
I also use this sound oscilloscope app which could detect the tone of the exhaust to measure RPM. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bolshakovdenis.soundoscilloscope&hl=en
Frequency is cycles per second times 60 gives cycles per minute and an exhaust stoke occurs every two revolutions of the crank in a four stroke engine. Therefore the exhaust frequency x 60 x 2 should give RPM...theoretically.
Hi Brad.
Could you post some pictures of the magneto please? ( from the little engine in your video )
Over here the common ones were Villiers and Wico, later Wipac.... Easy to graft an HT coil from a lawnmower as a cheap repair.
That engine might be a prime candidate for a simple water vapour load test? ;)
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.05.30, 07:58:38
Just going to throw this little project in here as well.
The intention is to get it up and running on a vapor fuel system--if it runs again.
The VW project is still going on,and an update to come soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPCL6C2E0CY
Brad
Brad, did you see this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5oK0Y-1UnY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5oK0Y-1UnY)
Ron
If I remember correctly the magneto and points are behind the flywheel like most old dirt bikes. It's not fun breaking a rusted flywheel loose and less fun adjusting the points. As well the carb has no float or needle and seat so you turn on the gas with the main valve and start kicking before it floods. The fuel/air mixture is set at the carb with the knob on top which is a metering valve. Note the higher the gas tank the more fuel due to gravity as it is a simple gravity fed carb.
The upside is the fuel/air ratio can easily be adjusted at the carb with the metering valve on the fly unlike most modern carburetors.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.02, 00:19:44
... and water injection modulates the burn to control high cylinder temperature.
...and how high does the temperature get in there?
Quote from: Verpies
...and how high does the temperature get in there?
Very interesting discussion regarding "lean mixtures."
Quote from: verpies on 2017.06.02, 18:31:36
...and how high does the temperature get in there?
Hot enough to turn Aluminium into " soft putty " !! :D
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.02, 18:22:17
If I remember correctly the magneto and points are behind the flywheel like most old dirt bikes. It's not fun breaking a rusted flywheel loose and less fun adjusting the points. As well the carb has no float or needle and seat so you turn on the gas with the main valve and start kicking before it floods. The fuel/air mixture is set at the carb with the knob on top which is a metering valve. Note the higher the gas tank the more fuel due to gravity as it is a simple gravity fed carb.
The upside is the fuel/air ratio can easily be adjusted at the carb with the metering valve on the fly unlike most modern carburetors.
In the 20's, here in the UK, there were several stationary engines that didn't use a float chamber for the carburettor. The fuel tank was positioned so that when full the fuel was just on the venturi level. A small Brass/Bronze ball was located under the main jet to stop the fuel from returning to the tank. These engines also had an atmospherically operated air valve to create a good vacuum between the carb and mechanically operated inlet valve.
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.06.02, 19:34:33
Hot enough to turn Aluminium into " soft putty " !! :D
That is not the info, I am after. Your answer suggests that the temperature in the combustion chamber is around the melting point of aluminum (660ºC).
I really would like to know what is temperature of the burning air/fuel mixture in the combustion chamber - not the temperature of the combustion chamber's walls.
I expect the temperature of the burning air/fuel mixture to be much higher, because these gasses have much lower density than the aluminum metal, so they must have a much higher temperature to compensate for this density difference, if they can transfer enough heat to the aluminum to get its temperature above 600ºC.
There is a difference between heat and temperature. That's how it is possible to freeze your butt in the Earth's
thermosphere (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere) despite it having a temperature above 2000ºC.
well diesel EGT can run around 1300F at the turbo inlet [higher temps are not good /sustainable without engine damage
would suffice to say temp of combustion chamber is quite close to this ?
of course there have been claims of water contributing to combustion when certain metal soaps are added [extremely small quantities]
it was claimed that the soaps lowered the temp of waters bond strength[disassociation] to approx 1000F.
the above was run on a dyno at 35KW load and 35-50% water [same output power as undiluted fuel strength].
the Japanese also had/have a claim for this with some type of proprietary conditioning of the water [upto 50%
in an oil burner /space heater
Quote from: Chet K on 2017.06.02, 23:31:53
well diesel EGT can run around 1300F at the turbo inlet [higher temps are not good /sustainable without engine damage
The turbo inlet does not constitute a combustion chamber, or does it?
Anyway, 1300ºF seems too low to me because open kerosene flame at atmospheric pressure burns at over 1800ºF (and a gasoline flame even a little higher) so it seems odd to me that a free raging flame would have a higher temperature than a flame contained in the combustion chamber (at the beginning of the power cycle, before expansion cooling occurs) which arises from a compressed, premixed and close to the stochiometric fuel/air ratio.
@verpies
QuoteAnyway, 1300ºF seems too low to me because open kerosene flame at atmospheric pressure burns at over 1800ºF (and a gasoline flame even a little higher) so it seems odd to me that a free raging flame would have a higher temperature than a flame contained in the combustion chamber (at the beginning of the power cycle, before expansion cooling occurs) which arises from a compressed, premixed and close to the stochiometric fuel/air ratio.
There is nothing like hands on experience and when you see the exhaust inlet to a turbo and the turbo case glowing red hot at night as an engine screams at full power you begin to understand the reality of the situation. I had a 1600cc dual port head VW engine in a sand rail burning 90% methanol, 5% octane booster and 5% gas. It had 8" exhaust pipes bent upward like a dragster and when I bagged the throttle there were 8" blue flames coming from each pipe. The plugs had a white residue on them and you could literally smell the heat baking the engine. The engine would not have lasted 1 hour running that hot so I added water injection to cool the cylinders moderating the burn while still generating ungodly power for such a small engine. It generated so much torque when I dumped the clutch it started shearing the 5 hardened pins mating the crank to the flywheel. Keep in mind this was 37 years ago and I have leaned a few tricks since then.
Googling stuff is fine but there is no replacing hands on experience like Tinman is doing. They don't teach that stuff in books... you make it up as you go along. The fact is this is not an open flame nor can it be compared to one, it's apples and oranges. We are speaking of a very fast clean burn where the internal pressure rise generates excess heat. Not a slow burn and I have first hand experience with pulse jet engines and pulse detonation engines. If you ever achieved a true detonation with a lean burn your engine heads would be laying on the neighbors lawn and the crank embedded in your driveway...trust me on this. I achieved a few pulses with my pulse detonation engine and it was rattling peoples windows down the block. You cannot even possibly imagine the sound that thing made and I swear my bones were rattling. I ran that bad boy up achieving true detonation one time and I realized I was in way the hell over my head. Have you ever shot a .50 cal ?, a detonation engine is 1000 times as loud and makes a .50 cal look like a BB gun.
So it's probably easier you understanding there are things you may never understand because until you have actually seen it and felt it up close and personal words just fail to describe the reality of the situation. Google is not reality... hands on right in front of you is reality. Thank god there are still some "old school" guys here.
Maybe me and Tinman can show you boys how the big dogs play. I have a few projects on the go but if Tinman wants to PM me all my engineering experience is at his disposal for this project. We can start here...http://www.rexresearch.com/singh/singh.htm. I proved Singh's theories are valid a decade ago with working engines. So I propose we turn Tinman's old 1920's washing machine engine into an HHO devouring spawn of Satan engine from hell.
We need to start doing some really crazy shite here boys. Apparently I'm just not happy unless I'm up to my elbows in motor oil with my eyebrows singed. Oh the life of a redneck... take care boys.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.03, 03:26:43
There is nothing like hands on experience
Of course there isn't. That's why I am asking here about the max temperature of the gases inside the combustion chamber.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.03, 03:26:43
and when you see the exhaust inlet to a turbo and the turbo case glowing red hot at night as an engine screams at full power you begin to understand the reality of the situation.
From that I can gather only the temperature of the exhaust inlet.
I am not after that information. I am after the temperature of the flame inside the combustion chamber.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.03, 03:26:43
I had a 1600cc dual port head VW engine in a sand rail burning 90% methanol, 5% octane booster and 5% gas. It had 8" exhaust pipes bent upward like a dragster and when I bagged the throttle there were 8" blue flames coming from each pipe.
The spectrum of the flame is a better indicator of its temperature than the color of the stuff heated by that flame.
Flames usually start to become blue above 3000ºC (5400ºF).
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.03, 03:26:43
The plugs had a white residue on them and you could literally smell the heat baking the engine.
Is that white residue a thermolysis product of some fuel ingredient (which one?) or the cylinder wall (aluminum) or the metals involved in the plug's construction ?
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.03, 03:26:43
The engine would not have lasted 1 hour running that hot so I added water injection to cool the cylinders moderating the burn while still generating ungodly power for such a small engine. It generated so much torque when I dumped the clutch it started shearing the 5 hardened pins mating the crank to the flywheel.
This means that the torque generated was above the engine's design tolerances.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.03, 03:26:43
Keep in mind this was 37 years ago and I have leaned a few tricks since then.
Evidently you are very experienced with ICEs.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.03, 03:26:43
Googling stuff is fine but there is no replacing hands on experience like Tinman is doing.
I am not suggesting a replacement for hands-on experience of Tinman's or yours.
I just want to know what conditions the burning fuel/air mixture molecules have to endure (at the beginning of the power cycle)
I can Google the pressure in there but for the temperature I am asking here.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.03, 03:26:43
The fact is this is not an open flame nor can it be compared to one, it's apples and oranges. We are speaking of a very fast clean burn where the internal pressure rise generates excess heat. Not a slow burn and I have first hand experience with pulse jet engines and pulse detonation engines.
Yes, the slow open flame and the fast internal flame are very different. In addition to the differences you listed, I can add that the open flame is laminar while the internal one is turbulent and the fuel/oxidizer that gives rise to the internal flame is prepressurized and premixed near the stochiometric ratio.
However, despite the different condition in which they take place, their temperature can be compared.
Which flame is hotter in your opinion?
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.03, 03:26:43
If you ever achieved a true detonation with a lean burn your engine heads would be laying on the neighbors lawn and the crank embedded in your driveway...trust me on this. I achieved a few pulses with my pulse detonation engine and it was rattling peoples windows down the block. You cannot even possibly imagine the sound that thing made and I swear my bones were rattling. I ran that bad boy up achieving true detonation one time and I realized I was in way the hell over my head. Have you ever shot a .50 cal ?, a detonation engine is 1000 times as loud and makes a .50 cal look like a BB gun.
I have never done anything like this but I am curious if detonation converts a given grams of fuel/oxidizer mixture to more joules of energy than non-detonating reaction? ...or it just converts it faster?
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2017.06.03, 03:26:43
So it's probably easier you understanding there are things you may never understand because until you have actually seen it and felt it up close and personal words just fail to describe the reality of the situation.
What things?
Surely I do not need hands-on experience to learn about the gas temperature inside a combustion chamber (not the temperature of the combustion chamber).
Anyway, taking the tidbit of info written by Allcanadian regarding the blue color of flame occuring somewhere down the exhaust path ...and running with it, I can reason out that the temperature of the gasses inside the combustion chamber is even higher than at the end of the exhaust pipe.
This probably means more than 3000ºC.
Note, that for the purpose of this analysis I don't care what the temperature of the solid engine parts is, although I could safely write that it is lower than the melting temperature of the metals involved. (e.g. 660ºC for aluminum) So what happens to water molecules at 3000ºC. The graph below leaves no doubts:
(http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3460.0;attach=25777)
Of course heating water consumes some energy and lowers the temperature but even at 2500ºC thermolysis still happens.
Quote from: Chet K on 2017.06.02, 23:31:53
of course there have been claims of water contributing to combustion when certain metal soaps are added [extremely small quantities] it was claimed that the soaps lowered the temp of waters bond strength[disassociation] to approx 1000F.
the above was run on a dyno at 35KW load and 35-50% water [same output power as undiluted fuel strength].
the Japanese also had/have a claim for this with some type of proprietary conditioning of the water [up to 50% in an oil burner /space heater
The exhaust flame color suggest that the temperature of the burning gasses in the combustion chamber is much higher than 1000ºF.
At 3000ºC (or even 2500ºC) some water will not survive and break down to di/monoatomic hydrogen, oxygen and OH radicals (see the graph above).
Adding metal soaps to water thermolysis products, puts you right into the
Randall Mills' territory (http://www.brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Hydrino-Blast-Power-Paper-060117b.pdf) ;)
Wow,i leave it for a couple of day's(due to long hours on the road),and there is a page full of post's.
OK,so i will try and answer all-1 at a time.
Grum
Quote: Could you post some pictures of the magneto please
Grum.
It is not a magneto as such,but just an ordinary coil,like those you speak of -like those in modern lawnmowers.
Difference being,this one uses points to trigger the HV coil,instead of the later solid state all in one units.
Points open-primary becomes open,and the collapsing magnetic field fires up the secondary.
TK quote: It allows the engine to be operated at higher manifold pressures
TK
I think you mean higher compression ratio's-higher compression pressures.
Quote Ronee: Brad, did you see this one?
What ever you do Ron,dont have anything to do with that Craig Westbrook.
He swindled a lot of people out of there hard earned cash with his lies.
Quote AC: If I remember correctly the magneto and points are behind the flywheel like most old dirt bikes. It's not fun breaking a rusted flywheel loose and less fun adjusting the points. As well the carb has no float or needle and seat so you turn on the gas with the main valve and start kicking before it floods. The fuel/air mixture is set at the carb with the knob on top which is a metering valve.
Indeed--spot on O0
Quote verpies: Is it really true that adding water to the combustion chamber of an ICE, increases the mechanical power of that engine?
If "yes" - by what mechanism?
OK,this one has a couple of reasons as to why it works-or increases engine power to fuel ratio.
First off-not water,but water mist/vapor. You do not want water droplets going into the engine.
Doing this works in two ways--if you get it right.
1st- it allows you to increase the compression ratio--(which is what i think TK meant to say),and eliminate engine knock,or pre-detonation as some call it,while still using standard fuel.
As soon as you raise the compression ratio,you raise the power,and increase fuel efficiency.
2nd- As you know,most of the fuels energy is transformed into waste heat,where only about 34% is converted into mechanical energy.
When we add the water vapor,some of this waste that was used to heat the engine,is now used to heat the water vapor,which in turn converts it to steam. As we know,when this happens,we get a second expansion event within the cylinder. Done right,this expanding steam takes place after the fuel/gas mix has burnt,and so we get an extra force pushing down on the piston for a longer part of the power stroke.
Have you ever noticed that extra power your car has,when you plant your foot on a cold foggy morning O0
Quote szaxx : I can recall an ultrasonic water/fuel emulsifier
Grum said : A good answer could be found by running a small motor with a friction brake ( rope over pulley and weight ) , adding weights until RPM's start to drop, and then using a " micro fogger " to allow the water mist into the manifold and see if the engine can drive exta load.
I just so happen to have a couple of these ultrasonic foggers O0
verpies quote: .and how high does the temperature get in there?
The temperature will vary greatly,depending on your engine of course.
In a standard 5HP 4 stroke engine,under full load,the gas temperature can be as high as 1400*C-but cools fast throughout the stroke. Once you start to bump up compression ratio's,then you up the burn temperature,and so pre-detonation becomes a problem. I had the compression ratio that high on my racing quad,the engine would continue to run once hot,with the spark plug lead removed--it would diesel ,as we called it back then.
Brad
Ah,you beat me to it verpies lol.
Well,as hard as we have tried,it would seem that an OU power source is not yet in reach.
In saying that,whats say we see how efficient we can make the ICE ?,as this we can do..
I have everything we need to get the show on the road,and i dare say that Grum and AC would also have what is needed.
There is a slight problem with the little garden engine,which you will see in the video tomorrow.
But i do have a nice new 2.5HP chonda (chinese honda)motor.
I also have a ultrasonic fogger unit,and an alternator we could use as a load on the ICE.
We can just keep shaving the head,raising the compression ratio,until we hit the max compression ratio the motor can handle.
I would think a 30% increase in efficiency, is well within reach--if we worked together on this--and we havnt even started on intercoolers yet.
Then there is HHO ;)
Brad
Verpies
Randall Mills playground would be an amazing trip indeed
http://www.brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/Hydrino-Blast-Power-Paper-060117b.pdf
perhaps Arie De Geus was already playing there ,and Johan has done this for many years with the "soap"[I see his Links are now gone]
there is no doubt, this house holds the most talent to play here too.
Water injection allows operation at _increased manifold pressure_ without detonation, in addition to the other effects noted by TinMan.
Note the repeated references to its use in turbocharged and supercharged engines in the Wiki article below. The whole point of turbo/supercharging is to raise manifold pressure. This is similar to increasing compression ratios by shaving heads or increasing piston stroke but has further advantages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engine)
QuoteDue to the cooling effect of the water, Otto cycle aircraft engines with water injection can be made to produce more power through higher charge densities at the time of combustion. The additional charge density is typically achieved by allowing higher manifold pressures before the onset of detonation. This is normally done by adding or increasing the amount of forced induction or further opening of the throttle. However a similar result may be achieved via higher engine stoke. This has historically been the primary use of a water injection systems in aircraft.
QuoteHowever the most common use of water injection today is in vehicles with high performance aftermarket forced induction systems (such as turbochargers or superchargers); such engines are commonly tuned with a narrower margin of safety from detonation and hence benefit greatly from the cooling effects of vaporized water.
@verpies
I apologize for my post and it was not directed at you but more so thinking out loud as I often do. As an engineer I tend to try to cram as much information into a post as is practical but often get off topic.
@Tinman
QuoteWe can just keep shaving the head,raising the compression ratio,until we hit the max compression ratio the motor can handle.
When I was working with Somender Singh's squish band grooves on B&S engines I came up with a novel idea. I was taking away material on the head to make the grooves and I was getting really tired of having to shave them. So rather than shave the head I made a mild steel insert which was bolted to the inside of the combustion chamber. Think of a thick washer with two 1" bolts welded to it. Then I drilled two holes through the head with nuts on the outside of the head to hold the inner insert in place. The insert has now displaced a given internal volume which then raises the compression ratio. The insert controls the flow of combustion gasses within the cylinder and bumps the compression. It's a very easy way to shape the combustion space rather than welding the head with aluminum to build it up, grinding the head or shaving it. Hell I could drop different inserts into place in a matter of 10 minutes and the heads never gave any indication of undue stress or cracking around the holes I drilled. As well check your internal clearance between the valves and piston and the head before you light her up.
QuoteI would think a 30% increase in efficiency, is well within reach--if we worked together on this--and we havnt even started on intercoolers yet.
Now your thinking O0
At one point I wrapped my B&S engine with fibreglass insulation to retain the cylinder heat because the water vapor flashing to steam in the cylinder naturally cooled it. The engine cooling systems can be discarded and they are just a waste of time and energy. It then becomes a problem generating enough heat at which point an exhaust heat exchanger not unlike the GEET reactor is an option. We should retain the heat and use it in an internal process to generate more power and increase efficiency. Cracking some of the water vapor into HHO with a heated catalyst prior to combustion like the GEET reactor is a good start.
Hi Brad.
Yes, over here your ignition system would be known as a flywheel magneto.
Don't forget that on damp and foggy days the barometric pressure is also lower. ;)
" Induced swirl " was first looked at in the 1920's here in the UK by Harry Ricado he used an engine with Mica windows and a strobe and made some very simple changes to the cylinder heads of the early side valvers.
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.06.03, 15:11:41
Water injection allows operation at _increased manifold pressure_ without detonation, in addition to the other effects noted by TinMan.
Note the repeated references to its use in turbocharged and supercharged engines in the Wiki article below. The whole point of turbo/supercharging is to raise manifold pressure. This is similar to increasing compression ratios by shaving heads or increasing piston stroke but has further advantages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engine)
Ah,ok.
I thought we were talking about NA engine's here.
Added.
TK,i have to add this in,as there words bug me,and are some what misleading.
The way they word it,makes it sound like the water is being added,so as the manifold it self dose not detonate ???
The only reason you need to increase manifold pressure,is to increase the compression ratio within the cylinder.
Manifold pressure has nothing to do with increased performance of the engine in a sense,as the engine would run just as well without the manifold,as in -you could remove the manifold,and have the turbo bolted directly to the inlet port of the head,and the engine's performance would be the same-even a little better.
So,it's not a mater of increasing the manifold pressure that increases engine performance,but more so a bi-product of the need to increase cylinder pressure.
The reason for the water injection in such cases,is to decrease the temperature of the compressed gases within the manifold-because as you know,an increase in gas pressure means an increase in temperature,and a decrease in gas density-hence the use of intercoolers.
Brad
Quote from: Grumage on 2017.06.03, 18:20:42
Hi Brad.
Yes, over here your ignition system would be known as a flywheel magneto.
Don't forget that on damp and foggy days the barometric pressure is also lower. ;)
" Induced swirl " was first looked at in the 1920's here in the UK by Harry Ricado he used an engine with Mica windows and a strobe and made some very simple changes to the cylinder heads of the early side valvers.
Cheers Grum.
Then that would include all such modern day ignition systems as such-like the simple modern day lawn mower that has no points-any system that has a magnet wizzing passed a coil.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2017.06.04, 00:36:21
Ah,ok.
I thought we were talking about NA engine's here.
Added.
TK,i have to add this in,as there words bug me,and are some what misleading.
The way they word it,makes it sound like the water is being added,so as the manifold it self dose not detonate ???
The only reason you need to increase manifold pressure,is to increase the compression ratio within the cylinder.
Manifold pressure has nothing to do with increased performance of the engine in a sense,as the engine would run just as well without the manifold,as in -you could remove the manifold,and have the turbo bolted directly to the inlet port of the head,and the engine's performance would be the same-even a little better.
So,it's not a mater of increasing the manifold pressure that increases engine performance,but more so a bi-product of the need to increase cylinder pressure.
The reason for the water injection in such cases,is to decrease the temperature of the compressed gases within the manifold-because as you know,an increase in gas pressure means an increase in temperature,and a decrease in gas density-hence the use of intercoolers.
Brad
Ah.... no, not quite.
Manifold pressure (or vacuum) refers to the pressure, or vacuum, in the intake manifold. When the throttle is closed the manifold pressure is low (a vacuum) and when the throttle is fully open, in a normally aspirated engine, the manifold pressure is at or close to the ambient air pressure. Turbo/supercharging increases the manifold pressure over ambient, forcing more fuel-air mix into the cylinders for combustion. Manifold pressure is usually stated in inches of mercury, so the most you can get in a normally aspirated engine is 28 inches or so at sea level, and decreasing with increasing altitude above sea level. Turbo/supercharging boosts the manifold pressure so you can get, say, 40 inches at sea level. This is different from simply increasing compression ratio by permanently altering the size of the chamber and/or the piston stroke.
You don't actually need an "intake manifold" to have a manifold pressure. You could measure it directly at the intake valve(s) if you like. It is the pressure of the fuel-air mix as it is supplied to the combustion chamber (or in fuel injected engines the incoming air pressure). If it is below ambient (throttle closed or partially closed) you could call it "manifold vacuum" if you like, but the gauges that measure it are usually simply called "manifold pressure" gauges.
When you work the throttle on an engine you are controlling the manifold pressure, as well as fuel metering to match. This is why it is different from simply increasing the compression ratio: the CR is fixed or at least not readily adjustable in operation, whereas the manifold pressure is under the direct control of the operator or the engine control system. The purpose of turbo or superchargers is to raise the manifold pressure, thereby stuffing more fuel-air mix into the cylinder than it would normally draw simply by its own pump action. This of course increases the power in each power stroke.
This can cause detonation or pre-ignition, knocking and pinging, so water injection can be used to moderate the combustion. The water may be injected into the intake manifold or directly into the combustion chamber itself. Or indeed it may be mixed directly with the fuel along with an emulsifier such as a metal soap. Intercoolers function as you say, since compressing air heats it and this would contribute to the problem of preignition and detonation. Most modern automotive turbo systems don't use water injection any more since intercooling is enough, and they don't get into absurdly high MAPs anyway.
Hi Guys.
Verpies linked this video recently to me......
https://youtu.be/jdW1t8r8qYc?t=62
IMO the guy has deliberately richened the mixture to make the combustion process visible to the camera but WOW who'd have thought Polycarbonate could stand such punishment?
For me it would have been better if he had copied the correct internal shape rather than the " old style " slab heads of the early 20's.
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2017.06.04, 04:39:25
Ah.... no, not quite.
Manifold pressure (or vacuum) refers to the pressure, or vacuum, in the intake manifold. When the throttle is closed the manifold pressure is low (a vacuum) and when the throttle is fully open, in a normally aspirated engine, the manifold pressure is at or close to the ambient air pressure. Turbo/supercharging increases the manifold pressure over ambient, forcing more fuel-air mix into the cylinders for combustion. Manifold pressure is usually stated in inches of mercury, so the most you can get in a normally aspirated engine is 28 inches or so at sea level, and decreasing with increasing altitude above sea level. Turbo/supercharging boosts the manifold pressure so you can get, say, 40 inches at sea level. This is different from simply increasing compression ratio by permanently altering the size of the chamber and/or the piston stroke.
You don't actually need an "intake manifold" to have a manifold pressure. You could measure it directly at the intake valve(s) if you like. It is the pressure of the fuel-air mix as it is supplied to the combustion chamber (or in fuel injected engines the incoming air pressure). If it is below ambient (throttle closed or partially closed) you could call it "manifold vacuum" if you like, but the gauges that measure it are usually simply called "manifold pressure" gauges.
When you work the throttle on an engine you are controlling the manifold pressure, as well as fuel metering to match. This is why it is different from simply increasing the compression ratio: the CR is fixed or at least not readily adjustable in operation, whereas the manifold pressure is under the direct control of the operator or the engine control system. The purpose of turbo or superchargers is to raise the manifold pressure, thereby stuffing more fuel-air mix into the cylinder than it would normally draw simply by its own pump action. This of course increases the power in each power stroke.
This can cause detonation or pre-ignition, knocking and pinging, so water injection can be used to moderate the combustion. The water may be injected into the intake manifold or directly into the combustion chamber itself. Or indeed it may be mixed directly with the fuel along with an emulsifier such as a metal soap. Intercoolers function as you say, since compressing air heats it and this would contribute to the problem of preignition and detonation. Most modern automotive turbo systems don't use water injection any more since intercooling is enough, and they don't get into absurdly high MAPs anyway.
I agree with all you posted except what I highlighted. As you said inches of mercury is a measure of vacuum, but it cannot go to more than about 28 inches or so even at sea level like you said. When you add a turbo charger or super charger you now have positive pressure in the manifold which is measured in pounds per square inch or PSI.
Well,here is part two of the garden engine restore.
Not so good for the coil,nor the cam follower's (lifters)
Now leaning toward a plasma ignition system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iKGamF4yyg
Brad
Quote from: CITFTA on 2017.06.04, 10:37:36
I agree with all you posted except what I highlighted. As you said inches of mercury is a measure of vacuum, but it cannot go to more than about 28 inches or so even at sea level like you said. When you add a turbo charger or super charger you now have positive pressure in the manifold which is measured in pounds per square inch or PSI.
Did you not notice the image of the Manifold Pressure gauge I posted, that has its redline at 36 inches of mercury? Manifold pressure can get that high by the use of turbo/supercharging, and in engines that are controlled by the operator, with reference to a manifold pressure gauge, the readings are always cited in inches of mercury, or simply "inches". And since it is disconnected for the photograph, it is indicating the normal near-sea-level pressure of around 28 inches. Do you think two gauges are needed, one reading in Inches HG and the other reading in PSI, depending on whether the manifold pressure is above or below ambient?
And for those who are disturbed somehow by the use of the term "pressure" when referring to manifold _vacuum_ (pressures below ambient) , I just have this to say: What is the MAP sensor in your automobile measuring, and what do the initials MAP stand for?
I wasn't referring to your use of the word pressure. As you said pressure can be positive or negative. I was just trying to clarify that boost is measured in psi and not inches of mercury. Please see the attached picture of a vacuum boost gauge that shows the vacuum in inches of Hg. and the pressure in psi.
Respectfully,
Carroll
While the gauge you show is calibrated as you say, you can see that it is displaying _relative_ pressure/vaccum : relative to the atmospheric pressure at sea level, which causes it to read "zero" at sea level pressure. Whereas the manifold pressure gauge I showed is calibrated in absolute pressure, so it shows sea level pressure as about 30 inches of mercury, the same as a barometer would show (although a barometer is usually calibrated in millibars, with 1013 mB (101.3 kiloPascals) being sea level pressure.) The automotive gauge is somehow "backwards" in its indications, and having two different measurement systems in use on the same gauge, whether above or below "zero relative pressure" is somehow confusing, to say the least.
Since even when the throttle is completely open in a normally aspirated system, there will still be some "vacuum" produced, the normal manifold pressure with fully open throttle will still be a little below ambient, or around 28-29 inches at sea level. When "blown", the pressure rises above this ambient value. Why change measurement systems at that point? It makes a lot more sense (to me anyway, as an operator of various high-performance turbocharged aircraft engines that are generally operated at ambient pressures well below that at sea level) to stay with a simple and consistent measurement system. By varying the throttle setting, directly controlling manifold pressure, the power level of the engine can be maintained at whatever is necessary for the current operation or maneuver, despite wildly varying ambient pressure or engine RPM.
Hi TK,
Well I think your post explains why I was confused by what you posted and you were confused by what I posted. The only turbo-charged engines I have operated are in automobiles. And apparently you have only operated turbo-charged engines in aircraft. I don't know why they use different measurement systems on the automotive gauges. Maybe because most auto users understand psi better when dealing with above ambient pressure. As you might agree I think most auto users today wouldn't even be able to start an aircraft engine much less be able to read the gauges.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.05.03, 07:52:28
That is not a rational argument. For any overunity process or any new alleged phenomenon, it can be argued that it works, but that measuring devices cannot measure or detect it because they can only measure underunity or detect conventional phenomena.
Provide the measurement or detection protocol, data, and the difference in results between H2 + 1/2 O2 and alleged HHO. The rest is mythology.
First off,i do not recall stating anything being overunity,only an increase in thermal efficiency when HHO is added to the combusting mix of fuel/air in an ICE.
As i stated in the other thread--there is no point in introducing HHO into an engine with an ECU or other similar control mechanisms. As soon as a leaner exhaust gas(due to adding HHO) is detected by the O2 sensors of an engine fitted with such control unit's,the ECU will automatically increase the amount of fuel being delivered to the engine,as the ECU now thinks the engine is not receiving enough fuel,and is running to lean which may result in damage to the engine.
The best engine to use is one you have full control of-an engine that dose not have an ECU which adjusts things that do not need to be adjusted when using HHO-->like fuel ratio's.
The engine i used for my tests was a carbureted engine--an el-cheapo chinese version of the honda e200,which i call chonda engines.
Those that think they can just pump HHO gas into todays engines that have ECUs are just running a lost race.
Those that use the correct engines,and set those engines up to account for the addition of HHO gas,will see increases in efficiencies greater than any ECU controlled engine--and thats a fact.
QuoteProvide the measurement or detection protocol, data, and the difference in results between H2 + 1/2 O2 and alleged HHO. The rest is mythology.
First of water is the ash of the burned HHO,and so has nothing to do with the subject at hand,which is adding HHO to an engines fuel mix to increase efficiency--even when that engine provides the energy needed to produce the HHO in the first place.
Why dose it work?
1-you can lean out your fuel to air ratio when adding HHO,and have no loss in power.
2-you can increase the compression ratio of the engine when adding HHO to the fuel mix,while still using the standard fuel (which is 95 octane here in Oz) without running into detonation problems,which results in an increase in power while still using the same amount of gasoline fuel.
3-When HHO is added to the engines fuel/air mix,the flame velocity is increased. This means that the timing can be retarded so as ignition happens closer to TDC. This then means that more of the fuels energy is used to force the piston down after TDC,and less before TDC. This also results in a net power gain from the engine.
4- Due to higher compression ratio's,and the faster flame velocity,the thermal efficiency of the engine is also raised. This means that less of the fuels energy is transformed into waste heat,and more into mechanical energy.
Here is a video i did a long time ago.
Here we are using an unmodified cheap chonda engine,a HHO dry cell made from scrap i had lying around,and a dynamotor from the 1940's as the generator to drive the HHO cell. 3 very average,very in-efficient devices all mixed together. You will note that i have the air cleaner off the engine to insure the engine is running as lean as possible without modifying the carby.
The first run is with the generator unloaded,and no HHO going to the engine.
The second timed run is with the generator driving the HHO cell,and the produced HHO is sent to the engine.
You will note that we are now drawing around 250 watts from the generator during the second timed run.
So the old generator would be what--70% efficient at best?
The HHO cell made from scrape would be what--50% efficient at best?
So you have to ask,with all these losses,why do we get a longer run time on the same amount of fuel when the HHO system is in play?.
I now have better generators/alternators.
I now have a far better-far more efficient 15 plate dry cell for producing HHO.
Whats the bet i can increase the run time by 30%,using all my good gear-->care to make a wager F6FLT ? :)
I will even place a good fixed load on the motor/generator in both run's.
Brad
Hey Brad.
Nice to see you're back with a subject that I'm more familiar with, cheers. O0
You may remember this little fella running on pure HHO ?
https://youtu.be/RwjTDXR31KA
I know it's not a 4 stroke and I understand where you're coming from, improved efficiency.
However, we discovered that the ignition of solely HHO seemed to have a liking to a specific frequency of spark. We used a rather modern HT ignition coil driven by one of RM Cybernetics PWM's and found a " sweet spot " in the low KHZ range for best results.
I'm mentioning this so that you might like to add this in your test regime however implementation might prove a little difficult as it's more akin to the " trembler " systems of the early 1920's. Contact make rather than contact break.
Cheers Grum.
PS. Remember Rob's HHOP? ;)
https://youtu.be/rqBq5aTvCOE
Probably the best use of HHO ever?
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.03, 12:37:22
Hey Brad.
Nice to see you're back with a subject that I'm more familiar with, cheers. O0
You may remember this little fella running on pure HHO ?
https://youtu.be/RwjTDXR31KA
I know it's not a 4 stroke and I understand where you're coming from, improved efficiency.
However, we discovered that the ignition of solely HHO seemed to have a liking to a specific frequency of spark. We used a rather modern HT ignition coil driven by one of RM Cybernetics PWM's and found a " sweet spot " in the low KHZ range for best results.
I'm mentioning this so that you might like to add this in your test regime however implementation might prove a little difficult as it's more akin to the " trembler " systems of the early 1920's. Contact make rather than contact break.
Cheers Grum.
PS. Remember Rob's HHOP? ;)
https://youtu.be/rqBq5aTvCOE
Probably the best use of HHO ever?
I have always failed to see what is good about the HHOP.
In your video,you raise 50ml of water about 2 meters.
The energy required to do that is a very small 1 joule.'
So how much energy did the HHOP take to raise 50ml of water the 2 meters ?.
QuoteYou may remember this little fella running on pure HHO ?
https://youtu.be/RwjTDXR31KA
Yes,i remember that one well.
It sounds to me like the timing is to far advanced for HHO--sounds like it's knocking hard.
Retard the timing a bit,and she would run a lot better O0
Regarding the pulsed spark thing.
Most people dont know that the old points ignition system use to produce a very short series of sparks across the spark plug,and not just one strong spark. The primary of the coil and the condenser use to operate in a resonant tank circuit situation just as the points broke contact(become open),and this caused a rapid series of pulses in the secondary coil,resulting in a rapid series of sparks to jump the plug gap.This is why when you remove the condenser you will be struggling to keep the motor running,as the spark will then be only one very quick weak spark and not the rapid series of sparks you get when the condenser is playing it's part.
Being who you are,and what you do,i think you would already know this anyway.
Also,the propagating flame speed of HHO is very fast (hence the reason to retard your timing),and so there is no need to have a long series of sparks each firing,as the normal ignition system is well fit for doing the job well.
I think some people just jump in and quote what others say in regards to using HHO to increase efficiencies rather than taking a step back,and thinking about how it actually dose this-->which it dose.
I have watched many video's of self acclaimed guru's trying to debunk the use of HHO to increase the efficiency of the ICE,and they always lead them self down the garden path,and clearly have no idea as to how an ICE actually work's,or how the HHO increases the efficiency-->like this Aussie dropkick that calls him self an ex-spurt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OhICSDRySQ
Have you ever seen such an idiot,and yes,unfortunately he is our idiot.
He calls him self an ex-spurt,and an engineer. But like some here,he simply cannot grasp the needed fundamentals in increasing fuel efficiencies in the ICE. He keeps quoting the first law of thermodynamics,and yet cannot implement those very laws that disproves his idiotic claims.
Brad
IMHO a good test of an ICE with HHO injection would include:
1)Use of a standard available generator / engine combination such as the ready made gensets ( 3 or 5 kW) commonly available so that others can exactly replicate to compare test performance and data.
2)Use some of the electrical output of the generator to create the HHO
3)Put a kill-A -Watt meter on the remaining output of the generator and feed a kW resistive load so that elapsed KWHr's can be logged
4) Use some calorimetry method to data log and record waste heat from the engine / generator combo.
5) Tally the above to arrive at a total kWHr's produced for a given amount of fuel.
Unfortunately, run time alone is not a test of overall performance, as an engine can be leaned out and idle dropped down to be very fuel stingy, but the engine won't deliver much usable shaft HP. The test must include a reasonable load on the engine, hence the above test criteria.
FWIW
Regards
Brad,
There may be a misunderstanding.
What do you call "HHO"? A mixture of dihydrogen and dioxygen, or a mixture of monotamic H and O?
I'll make another answer based on yours.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.05.03, 15:29:17
Brad,
There may be a misunderstanding.
What do you call "HHO"? A mixture of dihydrogen and dioxygen, or a mixture of monotamic H and O?
I'll make another answer based on yours.
The gases produced by splitting water= Hydrogen,Hydrogen,Oxygen-->H2 O1.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.03, 16:45:44
The gases produced by splitting water= Hydrogen,Hydrogen,Oxygen-->H2 O1.
Brad
What is "O1"?
Is it "O" (monoatomic), or it is "1/2 O2", meaning half the quantity of diatomic oxygen compared to the quantity of H2.
We need to know what we're talking about. If it's diatomic molecules in any case, we could agree.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.03, 14:46:04
I have always failed to see what is good about the HHOP.
In your video,you raise 50ml of water about 2 meters.
The energy required to do that is a very small 1 joule.'
So how much energy did the HHOP take to raise 50ml of water the 2 meters ?.
https://youtu.be/RwjTDXR31KA
Yes,i remember that one well.
It sounds to me like the timing is to far advanced for HHO--sounds like it's knocking hard.
Retard the timing a bit,and she would run a lot better O0
Regarding the pulsed spark thing.
Most people dont know that the old points ignition system use to produce a very short series of sparks across the spark plug,and not just one strong spark. The primary of the coil and the condenser use to operate in a resonant tank circuit situation just as the points broke contact(become open),and this caused a rapid series of pulses in the secondary coil,resulting in a rapid series of sparks to jump the plug gap.This is why when you remove the condenser you will be struggling to keep the motor running,as the spark will then be only one very quick weak spark and not the rapid series of sparks you get when the condenser is playing it's part.
Being who you are,and what you do,i think you would already know this anyway.
Also,the propagating flame speed of HHO is very fast (hence the reason to retard your timing),and so there is no need to have a long series of sparks each firing,as the normal ignition system is well fit for doing the job well.
I think some people just jump in and quote what others say in regards to using HHO to increase efficiencies rather than taking a step back,and thinking about how it actually dose this-->which it dose.
I have watched many video's of self acclaimed guru's trying to debunk the use of HHO to increase the efficiency of the ICE,and they always lead them self down the garden path,and clearly have no idea as to how an ICE actually work's,or how the HHO increases the efficiency-->like this Aussie dropkick that calls him self an ex-spurt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OhICSDRySQ
Have you ever seen such an idiot,and yes,unfortunately he is our idiot.
He calls him self an ex-spurt,and an engineer. But like some here,he simply cannot grasp the needed fundamentals in increasing fuel efficiencies in the ICE. He keeps quoting the first law of thermodynamics,and yet cannot implement those very laws that disproves his idiotic claims.
Brad
Good morning Brad.
The HHOP idea makes a very simple water pump, just one moving part ( non return valve ) and a low input energy level.
You wrote 1 Joule? I don't think so, the cell was using 6W and took approximately 45 seconds between each cycle. This would be 270 Joules to lift 50 ML of water per cycle.
What sets HHOP apart from other water pumps is that same 6 W or 6 Jules can be used to lift the water much greater distances! It would depend upon the physical construction of the cell as to how high you could go.
Onto my little engine....
Built around the late 1890/1900 period it is a simple " expansion " ( non compression ) cycle principle. It would have used " Town gas " as the fuel. From TDC the piston draws in fuel and air and at half the stroke opens a port in the side of the cylinder, the ignition port. A pilot flame would have then ignited the charge and the remaining " power? " stroke would continue to BDC. From BDC the whole of the return stroke is exhaust. Returning to TDC for the next cycle. We replaced the pilot flame with a modified sparkplug and used a contact maker to drive the PWM to provide electrical HT ignition. In essence a two stroke/cycle non compression engine.
Obviously, very different to the engine that you're currently using! The ignition timing being set by the port.
You may recall a former member of OUR, Matt Watts? He built a very expensive high output HHO unit that he fitted to his very large Diesel engine'd pickup truck. In conversation he said that rather than his fuel consumption going down, quite the reverse! The power consumption of the multi plate cell was directly added to the overall consumption of the truck. He mentioned the term " many Benjamin's " spent, a term lost to this Welshman!
I will be following your progress with great interest Brad, rest assured! O0
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.04, 11:26:14
You may recall a former member of OUR, Matt Watts? He built a very expensive high output HHO unit that he fitted to his very large Diesel engine'd pickup truck. In conversation he said that rather than his fuel consumption going down, quite the reverse! The power consumption of the multi plate cell was directly added to the overall consumption of the truck. He mentioned the term " many Benjamin's " spent, a term lost to this Welshman!
I will be following your progress with great interest Brad, rest assured! O0
Cheers Grum.
Good morning Grum.
That quote reminds me of the old adage that if a little is good a lot is not always better. Or in other words too much of anything can be bad. I say that because my son and I both had increased mileage with our small HHO units added to our large diesel pickup trucks. Our increase was around 10 to 15 percent with more power and less smoke and noise. We did do some tuning of our units to determine just how much HHO would give us the best mileage and we found there was a sweet spot of HHO to air that gave the best performance. We have no way to measure that ratio but we surmised that the proper ration gave us an amount of HHO that when converted to water and of course then steam added to the power of the power stroke without being so much it cooled the cylinder temperature or added too much load to the alternator to produce the HHO. Just guessing I would think maybe a ratio of less than 5% HHO to air was what we ended up with. It is all a matter of proper balance and tuning.
I also am looking forward to Brad's new project.
Take care,
Carroll
PS: I think the term, many Benjamins spent, refers to the 100 dollar bill which has Benjamin Franklin's picture on it.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.05.04, 09:25:34
What is "O1"?
Is it "O" (monoatomic), or it is "1/2 O2", meaning half the quantity of diatomic oxygen compared to the quantity of H2.
We need to know what we're talking about. If it's diatomic molecules in any case, we could agree.
Ok,this is harder than i think it should be.
We are(as we have always been)talking about splitting water into 2 parts hydrogen,and 1 part oxygen(H2 O1) via electrolysis. This gas mix is then sent into the ICE,along with the gasoline/air mix the ICE consumes.
Brad
Hi Carroll.
Thanks for the note, pun intended, about the " Benjamin ' O0
I have to ask how old were your trucks? I think Matt's was quite new with all the " bells and whistles " that would probably over fuel from seeing what appeared to be a reduction in the exhaust gases.
Many years ago I used to run a 2 Litre " Bedford " truck, fitted with an Isuzu Diesel engine. It was a great tool but heavy on fuel. I read about people that had fitted Propane injection systems that both improved MPG and emissions.
Needless to say I tried a " homespun " system myself, just a simple demand LP gas regulator that I could turn on and off from inside the cab. It made a big difference, particularly on hill climbs, drastically reduced Black smoke and improved " pull " the downside was I couldn't carry a passenger because the bottle sat in the footwell! This was back in the days of non intelligent engine management.
As I see it we're trying to make a Diesel engine do what was never intended, smoke!!
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.04, 11:26:14
Good morning Brad.
The HHOP idea makes a very simple water pump, just one moving part ( non return valve ) and a low input energy level.
You wrote 1 Joule? I don't think so, the cell was using 6W and took approximately 45 seconds between each cycle. This would be 270 Joules to lift 50 ML of water per cycle.
What sets HHOP apart from other water pumps is that same 6 W or 6 Jules can be used to lift the water much greater distances! It would depend upon the physical construction of the cell as to how high you could go.
Onto my little engine....
Built around the late 1890/1900 period it is a simple " expansion " ( non compression ) cycle principle. It would have used " Town gas " as the fuel. From TDC the piston draws in fuel and air and at half the stroke opens a port in the side of the cylinder, the ignition port. A pilot flame would have then ignited the charge and the remaining " power? " stroke would continue to BDC. From BDC the whole of the return stroke is exhaust. Returning to TDC for the next cycle. We replaced the pilot flame with a modified sparkplug and used a contact maker to drive the PWM to provide electrical HT ignition. In essence a two stroke/cycle non compression engine.
Obviously, very different to the engine that you're currently using! The ignition timing being set by the port.
You may recall a former member of OUR, Matt Watts? He built a very expensive high output HHO unit that he fitted to his very large Diesel engine'd pickup truck. In conversation he said that rather than his fuel consumption going down, quite the reverse! The power consumption of the multi plate cell was directly added to the overall consumption of the truck. He mentioned the term " many Benjamin's " spent, a term lost to this Welshman!
I will be following your progress with great interest Brad, rest assured! O0
Cheers Grum.
QuoteYou wrote 1 Joule? I don't think so,
I was stating the required energy to achieve the feat.
50ml of water at 2 meters has a potential energy of 1 joule,which means that it only takes the same amount to raise the same mass 2 meters.
That is a most interesting engine,and i did not know it operated that way.
So no compression,which would mean no loss in power trying to compress the gasses.
But it also means a bigger loss in the power stroke,as compressed gasses are more volatile.
It would seem that with this type of engine,there would have to be some sort of valve closing off the inlet when the gasses ignite--perhaps just some form of vacuum operated valve?
You may have already stated how it work's,but seems i missed that bit somewhere.
I would so love to have a small desktop engine like that to experiment with.
I wonder if you could drive some form of pump/supercharger just big enough to pump a small volume of gas into the cylinder from TDC to 80* ATDC,and then fire the mix ?.
I bet that little motor would run like a gem with just a gasoline vapour system.
I recon i could build me one of those type engines out of bits and pieces from the scrap pile. O0
In fact,you could convert a 4 stroke engine to run this way.
Just change the 2:1 came ratio out for a 1:1 ratio,double the duration on the exhaust lobe,and place a spark plug into the bore half way down. So now it will exhaust for a full upward stroke,intake would open at TDC,and close at 90*,then the spark plug would fire. We could grind and decrease the inlet lobe on the cam,so as it closed at say just 70* from TDC,and that would give us a longer power stroke O0
So we now have a 2 stroke that dose not need oil mixed in with the fuel for lubrication,as it would retain the 4 stroke lubrication method.
Imagine that,a very clean 2 stroke engine :D
Wow,i think i just talked myself into it ;D
Brad
Hey Brad.
The answer to your statement about the valve is done both mechanically and by pressure. The fuel is admitted via a mechanical action, timed by a cam on the sideshaft. The air is admitted via an auxiliary vertical valve that " hangs " open to allow air in but is " blown " shut when it fires. It's really simple!! By the way, my engine in the video was considered a toy at that time. It was made by a company called the British Electrical, Engineering Company of Leek, Staffordshire or BEECo for short.
As you know my passion is with the IC engine, particularly its early history. Before NA Otto patented the four stroke/cycle most engines were of an atmospheric construction. Otto, amongst others had discovered that by compressing the charge prior to ignition a much higher power output could be achieved. Otto was the first to make an engine that didn't " self destruct " when it fired!
Diesel's engine came about from his employment at Linde, where he tried using refrigerants as a working fluid but later moved onto a more safe approach with compressed air and oil fuel. The self ignition side surprised him at the time, his first prototype engine had been fitted with HT ignition. This was found to be unnecessary as " auto ignition " occurred because of the temperature of the air was raised during the compression stroke.
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.04, 14:22:51
Hey Brad.
The answer to your statement about the valve is done both mechanically and by pressure. The fuel is admitted via a mechanical action, timed by a cam on the sideshaft. The air is admitted via an auxiliary vertical valve that " hangs " open to allow air in but is " blown " shut when it fires. It's really simple!!
Cheers Grum.
Ok,so it's like !fuel injected!,and vacuum operated air intake.
Have you tried a gasoline vapour setup on it ?,where the !fuel injection! part would be not used,and the gasoline vapour would just go into the air inlet with the air.
I recon that would work well,and the engine would be very efficient.
Brad
Hi again Grum,
Yes you are correct. Both of our trucks were 1998 trucks with straight mechanical injection pumps and no computers. As Brad has correctly stated trying to over come the modern electronic controls usually only causes your mileage to do down. The only way I know of to overcome that is to reprogram your engine control computer so that you can adjust things on the fly from a laptop or tablet while trying the engine under varying conditions. And I think for most of us that is more complicated than we want to get into.
I am pretty amazed though at what some companies have been able to do with modern controls on a diesel engine. I have a 2007 motor home that is built on the Dodge Sprinter chassis. The engine is a turbo charged v6 diesel engine built by Mercedes. This is a smaller motor home that is only 24 feet long and weighs about 12,000 pounds. Yet at 65 miles per hour on the interstate it still get around 15 miles per gallon of fuel. And the exhaust pipe looks like an almost new piece of pipe with only a tiny bit of surface rust in it and absolutely no soot at all! This engine is before the newer DEF systems that use the urea based additive to achieve the clean burn.
Carroll
Having done a reasonable amount of programming and tuning on GM's LS series engines, it shouldn't be that difficult to accommodate hydrogen or any fuel as far as that goes with a computer controlled engine. What is needed is to know the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio for the desired fuel or the stoich AFR. This is the mixture that most effectively burns the mixture but is not the best for high performance. For gasoline the stoich AFR is 14.7 and for hydrogen it is 34. With some adjustments to the engine's ECU regarding the AFR, hydrogen could be used effectively.
For tuning using professional sensors and equipment, these numbers are usually set to Lambda or referenced to "1". Then, the air/fuel tables are simply adjusted in percentages in the direction required while monitoring during driving or on a dyno. It is possible to accommodate various fuel mixtures on the fly as is done in flex fuel engines using the proper sensors so I think this should be possible using hydrogen/gasoline.
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.04, 13:08:04
Ok,this is harder than i think it should be.
We are(as we have always been)talking about splitting water into 2 parts hydrogen,and 1 part oxygen(H2 O1) via electrolysis. This gas mix is then sent into the ICE,along with the gasoline/air mix the ICE consumes.
Brad
Hi Brad,
If the physical or chemical names are used, "HHO" would mean a mixture of 2 hydrogen atoms for 1 oxygen atom. I deny that this would be producible by electrolysis and remains stable after production.
Electrolysis gives us 2 volumes of dihydrogen to 1 volume of dioxygen, so molecular gases, not pure atoms, I agree with you.
It is not surprising that the mixture of H2 + 1/2 O2 as written by chemists, added to the air and gasoline in the carburetor, has significant effects. We are moving towards a hybrid engine using partly hydrogen, and increasing the oxygen in the mixture.
I do not deny that such a mixture has a real effect, in particular it would reduce CO emissions. According to some users, there would be a slight fuel saving for diesel engines (not necessarily more than the energy spent on electrolysis, it is to be verified) and according to others, no effect, except on their wallet when they bought the KIT. The "HHO" KITs are not scientifically validated but the magic word "HHO" makes buyers dream. In any case, car manufacturers do not offer it natively, and given the competition they face for fuel consumption, it is certainly because the effect is minimal or there are other worse disadvantages, and requires more research but without real promises or for the moment very little.
Here are three papers on the topic:
Thanks MudPed for the papers.
It seems they back up what I have seen in my own use of HHO.
Take care,
Carroll
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.05.04, 16:14:12
Hi Brad,
If the physical or chemical names are used, "HHO" would mean a mixture of 2 hydrogen atoms for 1 oxygen atom. I deny that this would be producible by electrolysis and remains stable after production.
Electrolysis gives us 2 volumes of dihydrogen to 1 volume of dioxygen, so molecular gases, not pure atoms, I agree with you.
It is not surprising that the mixture of H2 + 1/2 O2 as written by chemists, added to the air and gasoline in the carburetor, has significant effects. We are moving towards a hybrid engine using partly hydrogen, and increasing the oxygen in the mixture.
I do not deny that such a mixture has a real effect, in particular it would reduce CO emissions. According to some users, there would be a slight fuel saving for diesel engines (not necessarily more than the energy spent on electrolysis, it is to be verified) and according to others, no effect, except on their wallet when they bought the KIT. The "HHO" KITs are not scientifically validated but the magic word "HHO" makes buyers dream. In any case, car manufacturers do not offer it natively, and given the competition they face for fuel consumption, it is certainly because the effect is minimal or there are other worse disadvantages, and requires more research but without real promises or for the moment very little.
I for one(as are many others) am not one to get into using exact scientific names,but more so use the terms most widely used. When i say HHO injection,then 99% of the people here will know exactly what i am referring to.
First i would say that most of the small cheap ebay HHO cells are a waste of time and money,and not much(if any) gain would be had with such cells. Also,both the engine and management system have to be built and setup to take into account the HHO additive to take full advantage of the added HHO. Once done correctly,60 to 65% thermal efficiencies are not out of reach with an ICE.
The ultimate system would be something like this--
1-A very low compression ratio during the compression stroke up until 3 to 4*TDC,at which point the compression ratio would be raised high enough at TDC in order to achieve compression ignition.
2-Fuel (gasoline) would enter the engine as a gas along with the air--so a gasoline vapour system would be used instead of fuel injection.
3-HHO would also enter the engine along with the fuel vapour/air mix. 5 to 7% HHO to air/fuel vapour volume would be all that is required.
To implement a HHO system into a vehicle is no harder that installing a good stereo system.
Brad
Ok,i have decided to make up a test bench,so as we can tests all claimed efficiency increase methods.
Those being things like HHO,gasoline vapour systems,and the likes.
First i will get the test bench all set up,and then do a couple of runs with the motor in standard trim.
Once that information has been collected,we will then make modifications to the engine and fuel system.
We will do 1 thing at a time,and then do a run each time we make any changes,and see if we made any improvements to our fuel consumption per watt hours output.
So here is a quick video of the motor and generator i will be using as the DUT.
The motor is a cheap chinese 2HP side valve motor,and the generator is a 24 volt-1HP DC motor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycDEmg5zNlk
This video is unlisted,and i have also removed adds.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.05, 01:53:29
I for one(as are many others) am not one to get into using exact scientific names,but more so use the terms most widely used.
...
I suspected that, Brad, and I think it is a mistake to avoid the effort of clarity of vocabulary, especially when like here, it is ambiguous.
If I asked myself about the alleged nature of the "HHO" you were talking about, it is because it has been claimed here and there in the "free energy movement", that monoatomic oxygen and hydrogen were produced, and that is what makes the difference. It is even for this reason that some would have called it "HHO" instead of H2 + O2.
So there are several conceptions of what it would be.
Then the word "HHO" is precisely made to fool the user, who believes in a new gas when it is a simple basic mixture of molecular oxygen and hydrogen. "HHO" is used as a commercial argument, and also by charlatans who claim to explain to us the alleged "secrets" of "free energy".
Finally, more generally, we must see why we need to formalize what we are talking about. For me it goes back to Galileo. At that time, it was realized that everyday language was no longer sufficient to describe the world. Galileo needed to conduct experiments, especially those with the inclined plane, and only mathematics had the rigour necessary to deal with them unambiguously. It is at this time that I see the separation of philosophy/theology and science, the two being mixed in older times.
If we want to deal with things of science and technology, without ambiguity, then we must use a very precise language, its own, which is neither that of commerce, nor that of preachers nor even that of the general public. Otherwise, we go around in circles, because everyone will redefine the notions over and over again rather than use them, and we get bogged down.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.05.05, 10:14:35
I suspected that, Brad, and I think it is a mistake to avoid the effort of clarity of vocabulary, especially when like here, it is ambiguous.
If I asked myself about the alleged nature of the "HHO" you were talking about, it is because it has been claimed here and there in the "free energy movement", that monoatomic oxygen and hydrogen were produced, and that is what makes the difference. It is even for this reason that some would have called it "HHO" instead of H2 + O2.
So there are several conceptions of what it would be.
Then the word "HHO" is precisely made to fool the user, who believes in a new gas when it is a simple basic mixture of molecular oxygen and hydrogen. "HHO" is used as a commercial argument, and also by charlatans who claim to explain to us the alleged "secrets" of "free energy".
Finally, more generally, we must see why we need to formalize what we are talking about. For me it goes back to Galileo. At that time, it was realized that everyday language was no longer sufficient to describe the world. Galileo needed to conduct experiments, especially those with the inclined plane, and only mathematics had the rigour necessary to deal with them unambiguously. It is at this time that I see the separation of philosophy/theology and science, the two being mixed in older times.
If we want to deal with things of science and technology, without ambiguity, then we must use a very precise language, its own, which is neither that of commerce, nor that of preachers nor even that of the general public. Otherwise, we go around in circles, because everyone will redefine the notions over and over again rather than use them, and we get bogged down.
I believe that the term HHO arrived due to the fact that when you split water,you get 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. So some one just decided to call it HHO for simplicity,and that term has stuck.
As far as overunity or free energy go's,well i have yet to see anyone produce such figures.
Yes,there are many that try and peddle the !HHO free energy! garbage,but they are the very same people that never produce any evidence or reliable data to back up there claim.
Im not going to state that it is not possible,but that i am as yet to see any OU -free energy from HHO.
But i do believe that it can increase the efficiency of an ICE,and when you start to understand as to what is needed to take the efficiency of an ICE higher,then you start to see how HHO gas can do that.
First of all,your introducing a higher oxygen content to the air/fuel mix,and this alone allows for a cleaner faster burn. Then your adding hydrogen,which allows for higher compression ratio's,which results in a higher mechanical power output from the engine. When you add the two together,you are also able to reduce fuel/air ratio's,which results in lower fuel consumption for the same power output.
Anyway,lets see how we go,and how much higher we can raise the fuel efficiency of this cheap side valve motor.
Brad
The test bed setup so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhKZ7Nnw5Po
Brad
O0
Sweet set up ..
Here is the first data recording run,with the motor in standard trim--not touched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKFmyi0LgA0
I can tell just by listening to the motor that it is running slightly rich.
So i will see if i can adjust the float level a bit,and if that dose not help,i will have a go at making a variable main jet.
I will get the mixture as lean as is safe,and then we will give it another run.
After getting it running as efficiently as i can,i intend on removing the head,and shaving a mil of at a time,until we are on the verge of knocking/preigniting. I may be limited on how much i can shave off the head,due to it being a side valve motor. Clearance between the valves and head will determine just how far we can go with the compression ratio.
After we have done that,maybe we should try water injection,via the fogger system seen in some of my other video's,and see if that has any effect?.
The next step would be to try the HHO,and see how we go.
Before we can see any large advantages of using HHO,i will have to mount the coil on a slide,so as i can retard the timing when needed. This will be needed when raising the compression ratio even higher--if we can,so as to make full use of the gains to be had with adding HHO.
After doing all that,i think we could give a gasoline vapour setup a try,and see if anymore gains could be had.
For this i will have to build some form of vapourizer tank with a float valve to maintain a set fuel level in the tank,which is feed by our clear 100ml fuel tank.
So lot's to do.
Lets get some real answers.
Brad
As usual, most excellent work TinMan.
Precisely what needs doing by way of comparison
to answer the HHO question.
Would it be possible to add another enhancement
possibility? Water Injection is reputed to accomplish
increased efficiency. Some sort of fogger or vaporizer
is most often used to produce what is needed for injection
into the air input of the motor.
Some have used both water and HHO injection.
For those of us who are temporarily lacking our
lab equipment and facility your work is especially
helpful and appreciated. Many thanks!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
After reading your last post above:
Ha! Dunno how I missed your last post. I'd just
watched your three latest vids and somehow skipped
past it to make my reply. Another one of those
mysterious Senior Moments no doubt. :o
Quote from: muDped on 2019.05.06, 00:13:33
As usual, most excellent work TinMan.
Precisely what needs doing by way of comparison
to answer the HHO question.
Would it be possible to add another enhancement
possibility? Water Injection is reputed to accomplish
increased efficiency. Some sort of fogger or vaporizer
is most often used to produce what is needed for injection
into the air input of the motor.
Some have used both water and HHO injection.
For those of us who are temporarily lacking our
lab equipment and facility your work is especially
helpful and appreciated. Many thanks!
Hi muDped
Please re-read my last post O0
Brad
Here is the video of the installation of a variable main jet.
As you will see in the video,the result was good O0
We went from 1.82ml of gasoline per watt hour,to 1.18ml of gasoline per watt hour O0
I will also be adding the the graph below every change we make along the way,and will post the updated graph along with each video in regards the the results from each modification we make. This way we can see how big an effect each modification has on our efficiency.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgm67okSzRA
Brad
Wow,so little interest.
Perhaps im just wasting my time C.C
Brad
Hi Brad,
Maybe the rest are like me. Just watching and waiting for your final results. I have no doubt you will be proving that HHO does make a difference. How much difference will maybe open some eyes for those that insist HHO is a scam.
Thanks for all your efforts. Great work as always from you.
Take care,
Carroll
No sound on my PC (it is old) so I don't watch many videos here. Your method of obtaining watt hours against quantity of gasoline used is exactly what is needed. Looking forward to seeing your engine modifications and the results.
Smudge
Ok,on we go.
For the next step,i welded up a patch on the outside of the head,so as i could drill and tap it to insert a hot bolt.
The video explains what the hot bolt is.
Upon pulling the head off,i found the piston to be very clean.
So i would say this engine has done very little work O0
Anyway,another small gain made--our graph is getting better all the time O0
She's a long video,so grab your popcorn and coke.
If you wish to know all i am doing along the way,with good explanations,then some lone video's are to be expected and needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fChJndmoNNM
So now the motor is running at optimum,it's time to get some definitive answers on claims made.
First we are going to answer the fuel vapour question-->is there a gain using fuel vapour?
Well,we should know in a couple of days,as it will take me a couple of nights to make a good fuel vapour system.
Brad
I have just looked up the energy content (calorific value) of gasoline as 33.7 MJ per litre. Using that figure and reading your latest result as 95 watt-hours for 100 milli-litres I calculate the efficiency to be 101.48%. :D
Smudge
My calculation gives an efficiency of one tenth:
95 Wh = 342 KJ = 0.342 MJ => 3.42 MJ/l => efficiency: 10.148%
Guys
You are looking at it all wrong.
We are not doing this to calculate overall efficiency of the system,but only efficiency increases of the engine.
The generator is a motor,and in no way an efficient generator.
In fact,ATM it is an extremely poor generator.
But what it is is a constant fixed load on the motor,and gives us a good base load to work with. This is a good way to show increases of motor efficiency with every mod we make.
So ,were not looking at generator efficiency,were looking at increases in motor efficiency.
As the load has remained a constant--the generators efficiency has remained a constant,then it can only be motor efficiency that has risen.
So ATM we have increased motor efficiency by just over 75%.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.07, 22:32:45
Guys
You are looking at it all wrong.
We are not doing this to calculate overall efficiency of the system,but only efficiency increases of the engine.
...
Hi Brad,
We are certainly not wrong. It's just that you didn't see why the calculation was done.
If the overall efficiency of the system had been more than 100%, as the first calculation showed, then the rest is secondary. This information would be of primary importance.
But I think there is a decimal error, which is why I provided my calculation, not to evaluate your system.
Then the improvement in performance is to be measured and only you can do it. You announce 75%, it's much more than what's commonly reported, so it would be nice if you could provide the synoptic diagram, the measurement protocol and the data tables in a more formalized way, a youtube video being not enough for me (in addition this effort of clarity often allows to see the possible errors).
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.05.08, 09:25:14
Hi Brad,
We are certainly not wrong. It's just that you didn't see why the calculation was done.
If the overall efficiency of the system had been more than 100%, as the first calculation showed, then the rest is secondary. This information would be of primary importance.
But I think there is a decimal error, which is why I provided my calculation, not to evaluate your system.
Then the improvement in performance is to be measured and only you can do it. You announce 75%, it's much more than what's commonly reported, so it would be nice if you could provide the synoptic diagram, the measurement protocol and the data tables in a more formalized way, a youtube video being not enough for me (in addition this effort of clarity often allows to see the possible errors).
Yes well of course the system as a whole is not over 100% efficient--never will be.
Also,i do not see any need for any other information other than that supplied in the video's,and the graphs i have posted--it cant get any clearer than that.
The RPM remains a constant,+/- 5% for each test.
The generators efficiency remains a constant for each test.
The amount of fuel remains a constant for each test.
The load remains a constant for each test.
So,if the watt hours and run time increase each time we run the test after each modification,then that is a very clear indication that the thermal efficiency of the engine is increasing.
The first run with the motor in standard factory trim produced 54.7 watt hours for that 100ml volume of fuel,and ran for 8:47.
The third run produced 94.4 watt hours,and ran for 14:46.
Each test consumed 100ml of fuel.
So 94.4/54.7x100=172.5.
So a 72.5% increase in efficiency.
I dont know what more could be needed ?.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.08, 14:48:18
Yes well of course the system as a whole is not over 100% efficient--never will be.
Also,i do not see any need for any other information other than that supplied in the video's,and the graphs i have posted--it cant get any clearer than that.
...
Others see this need. As you made a video for others, not for yourself I guess, it's their opinion that counts.
I don't consider a video as a report or technical analysis, but as an illustration, so the only subject matter I can answer is what is written here.
Imho if you want relevant technical advice, and not just remarks like "nice work", "impressive" and so on, which does not bring anything on the substance, you have to synthesize it in the right forms.
Quote
The RPM remains a constant,+/- 5% for each test.
The generators efficiency remains a constant for each test.
The amount of fuel remains a constant for each test.
The load remains a constant for each test.
So,if the watt hours and run time increase each time we run the test after each modification,then that is a very clear indication that the thermal efficiency of the engine is increasing.
The first run with the motor in standard factory trim produced 54.7 watt hours for that 100ml volume of fuel,and ran for 8:47.
The third run produced 94.4 watt hours,and ran for 14:46.
Each test consumed 100ml of fuel.
So 94.4/54.7x100=172.5.
So a 72.5% increase in efficiency.
I dont know what more could be needed ?
This partial synthesis is a first step. For example I don't know which is the RPM. The improvement could occur at a particularly unfavourable rotation regime that is not the cruise regime, which would explain the deviation from what is usually reported. I don't know if the energy to produce HHO is well counted for the efficiency calculation.... Maybe all this is said in the video, but what a waste of time when at a glance you could see it on a diagram. Being forced to go back to the video for every question you ask yourself, to look for the answer wherever, is beyond my strength. You have your experiment in mind but others don't.
Great test work as usual Brad O0
Now that you have the engine carburetor ideally tuned it would be nice to compared a liquid gas vs vapor gas test.
I've done it in the past but never could prove a gain in efficiency since (in the long run) I would always end up with a portion of the liquid gas that would no longer make vapors.
Don't know if you ever had that issue?
Anyways, great work and thanks for taking the time to share your results and looking forward to the HHO test results.
Cheers
Luc
Hi Guys.
I'm sure I read about an additive to Petrol/Gasoline to reduce vapourisation that's become effective.
This might hamper your tests. With most vehicles, cars and motorcycles fuel injection is now King. The humble carburettor cast aside in its favour. This device was capable of atomising the fuel in the same way as an injector albeit further away from the cylinder intake port. As Brad has found we can adjust the carburettor for maximum efficiency for a fixed load.
Brad, are you going to try using some of the exhaust gases to " preheat " the vapouriser?
Cheers Graham.
Hi Brad,
Another great job as usual. I am curious where you got the idea for the hot bolt. I have not seen that before. It is clear that it made a measurable difference.
I would not pay too much attention to those that are too lazy to watch the video. Your explanations are clear. I understand why you made such a long video. If you had started and stopped the video to make it shorter I am sure some would have said you cheated some way. Showing the engine running from start to finish makes it clear the results are real.
Thanks again,
Carroll
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.08, 17:49:11
Hi Guys.
I'm sure I read about an additive to Petrol/Gasoline to reduce vapourisation that's become effective.
This might hamper your tests. With most vehicles, cars and motorcycles fuel injection is now King. The humble carburettor cast aside in its favour. This device was capable of atomising the fuel in the same way as an injector albeit further away from the cylinder intake port. As Brad has found we can adjust the carburettor for maximum efficiency for a fixed load.
Brad, are you going to try using some of the exhaust gases to " preheat " the vapouriser?
Cheers Graham.
Yes Graham, that could be what was going on in my gas vapor tests.
I heard white gas (camping stove fuel) aka naphtha is clean of additives but quite costly @ $13. gal. in US
It may be the only thing that is clean enough to truly show if there's a difference between liquid vs vapors.
Also, heating the white gas vapor (with exhaust) may also provide an efficiency boost. That's how camping stoves work, they have part of the metal gas line tube go though the burner flame.
Cheers
Luc
Brings back some memories from the long ago past
when gasoline engines for washing machines were
readily available.
Their carburetors were incredibly simple with just
a needle valve to control fuel intake into the Input
Port of the motors. It was very easy to run the
motors on Kerosene or Paint Thinner. We had to
squirt either Alcohol or Gasoline into the input for
startup but once running were able to adjust the
needle valve for best operation.
Love your work TinMan. You keep it simple and
uncomplicated. Straight to the point.
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.05.08, 16:44:13
Great test work as usual Brad O0
Now that you have the engine carburetor ideally tuned it would be nice to compared a liquid gas vs vapor gas test.
I've done it in the past but never could prove a gain in efficiency since (in the long run) I would always end up with a portion of the liquid gas that would no longer make vapors.
Don't know if you ever had that issue?
Anyways, great work and thanks for taking the time to share your results and looking forward to the HHO test results.
Cheers
Luc
Hi Luc
Yes,as stated in my last video,and a few posts back,the next test will be using a vapour system.
I am half way through building the vapour system now.
Unlike most you see,mine will be able to be finely adjusted for optimum fuel/air mix--just like the variable main jet.
To many use ball valves in there systems,and you just cant get fine adjustments will ball valves. Mine has gate valves,so very fine adjustments can be made.
Brad
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.08, 17:49:11
Brad, are you going to try using some of the exhaust gases to " preheat " the vapouriser?
Cheers Graham.
First i will just do a cold vapour system,as the colder the gasses entering the motor the better. This way we get a larger volume expansion in the expansion chamber,hence why intercoolers increase power. The hot bolt should vapourise any droplets that make it through. But i think my vapour system will deliver pure gas only.
Brad
I have completed the vapour system.
Tomorrow we find out if the !claim! is true-->will fuel vapour turn out to be more efficient than standard fuel systems?.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbJVmkbguAI
Brad
Amazing amount of work on that mate O0
I was wondering how you were going to solve the 100ml liquid fuel measurement.
I hope it'll work as you say, because I'm having a hard time visualizing a float valve in such a large tank give a linear reading on such a small fuel measurement (100ml)
Thanks for sharing
Cheers
Luc
Just so as you all know,i run each test 3 time's,and video the last run.
This is so as i know we can get consistent results.
Now the fuel vapour run and result's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIn6Od327m0
It seems that using fuel vapour is no more efficient than a well tuned carby :(
I was hoping for better result's,but !my! system did not show any.
Also tried heating the vapour tank in one run,and it was quite warm--but no increase in fuel efficiency showed up.
The slight gain seen i would say is due to a leaner mix going into the engine,which shows on the spark plug coloring.
So fuel vapour system is a no gain system--well in my case anyway.
But all is not lost.
Please see next video O0 O0 O0
Brad
Hi Brad.
Loved the setup, but not the noise! :)
Out of interest are you checking your Barometric pressure for these tests? I remember one of my vintage hit and miss engines changing drastically as a thunderstorm approached at a rally, many years ago.
So....
What's to come? Micro fogged water with the air, foggy day!! ;)
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.11, 10:44:21
Hi Brad.
Loved the setup, but not the noise! :)
Out of interest are you checking your Barometric pressure for these tests? I remember one of my vintage hit and miss engines changing drastically as a thunderstorm approached at a rally, many years ago.
So....
What's to come? Micro fogged water with the air, foggy day!! ;)
Cheers Graham.
Yep
Its uploading now.
Clear dry days here ATM Graham O0
Brad
Water mist injection-->a clear winner O0 O0 O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQTzEKHMjj4
Brad
Thanks for the test results Brad
It would be interesting to see if there's any difference between cold vs hot water vapor.
Which ever is the winner it would be interesting to then test it with a timing retard to bring it closer to TDC to see if the water fog or vapor is acting as a ignition retardant or adding to the power stroke as a steam engine.
Great to have someone as qualified as you correctly do these tests.
Cheers
Luc
Excellent, just what was expected. O0
However I'm still wondering about Barometric pressure as we know that on rainy, damp and foggy days it's a result of low pressure and would allow a little more air into the combustion chamber.
Out of interest Brad, did you mention what the " fogger " was using, energy wise? My apologies if I missed it.
Are you going to try steam? I also noticed the reduction in both exhaust and block temperature thanks to the water droplets.
If not steam I presume your next video will show the results of HHO injection?
Like Luc, I would like to thank you for doing these tests. O0
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.11, 15:55:46
Excellent, just what was expected. O0
However I'm still wondering about Barometric pressure as we know that on rainy, damp and foggy days it's a result of low pressure and would allow a little more air into the combustion chamber.
Out of interest Brad, did you mention what the " fogger " was using, energy wise? My apologies if I missed it.
Are you going to try steam? I also noticed the reduction in both exhaust and block temperature thanks to the water droplets.
If not steam I presume your next video will show the results of HHO injection?
Like Luc, I would like to thank you for doing these tests. O0
Cheers Graham.
I would think there is two effects--
1-on a cold dry morning,the air is more dense,and thus a larger volume enters the cylinder.
2-On a damp foggy morning it would be much like the mist injection,where i believe that the water mist is turning to steam,and causing a larger expansion in the chamber.
That fogger unit uses 24 watts.
I believe that we have taken the side valve motor as far as we can,and so i have found a couple of OHV engines to convert. I am switching engines because the OHV engine allows for far better performance,and i can change the ignition system on the OHV engine,so as to remove the waste spark--which we do not want with HHO when retarding the timing to TDC. I can also raise the compression ratio up to around 20-22:1
I dont plan to just show that HHO can improve fuel efficiency,i plan to run the engine solly on HHO O0
Brad
Thanks Brad for all you have done with this series of tests. They have been very interesting. You didn't answer my question about where you got the idea for the hot bolt. I have not seen that before and the results were impressive.
Definitely looking forward to your next tests with the OHV engine.
Take care,
Carroll
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.05.12, 01:47:01
Thanks Brad for all you have done with this series of tests. They have been very interesting. You didn't answer my question about where you got the idea for the hot bolt. I have not seen that before and the results were impressive.
Definitely looking forward to your next tests with the OHV engine.
Take care,
Carroll
The hot bolt was my idea.
It is part of my CIGE (compression ignition gasoline engine).
What i needed was a glow plug that doesn't get hot enough to glow,but hot enough to vapourize the fuel.
The added benefit is that it increases the compression ratio as well.
Brad
Bloody awesome build and tests Brad. Looking forward to the next build
Good morning Brad.
So you're moving into the " super " Diesel territory eh? Way back, here in the UK some of the larger locomotives were fitted with the English Electric " Deltic " engine, they ran at 25:1 compression ratio. Workers were warned about the rather nasty carcinogenic exhaust fumes, not to get too close! Perfect for the environment though??
Not that the above is of any real concern to your endeavours, do we have any definitive data on the Autoignition pressure of HHO. I remember watching an unlisted video made by one of OUR members taking the gas to 200 PSI without incident.
Are you going to push a converted Petrol/Gasoline engine to the limit or perhaps use one of the many small Diesel engines now available? I'm wondering if you'll have enough " flywheel " to get you over TDC ?
I'm enjoying the journey Brad, thanks for the ride!! O0
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.12, 11:00:59
Good morning Brad.
So you're moving into the " super " Diesel territory eh? Way back, here in the UK some of the larger locomotives were fitted with the English Electric " Deltic " engine, they ran at 25:1 compression ratio. Workers were warned about the rather nasty carcinogenic exhaust fumes, not to get too close! Perfect for the environment though??
Not that the above is of any real concern to your endeavours,
Are you going to push a converted Petrol/Gasoline engine to the limit or perhaps use one of the many small Diesel engines now available? I'm wondering if you'll have enough " flywheel " to get you over TDC ?
I'm enjoying the journey Brad, thanks for the ride!! O0
Cheers Graham.
Well i might have to move to a small diesel engine,as i have already cracked one head,and right through the valve seat--just so i cant weld it C.C
Quotedo we have any definitive data on the Autoignition pressure of HHO. I remember watching an unlisted video made by one of OUR members taking the gas to 200 PSI without incident.
So here is where the confusion starts,and almost everyone i know falls for it.
Both gasoline/air mix and HHO have no autoignition !pressure! :o
What they do have is an autoignition !temperature! O0
The autoignition temperature of gasoline/air mix is about 230*C,so easy enough to reach during a compression stroke.
The autoignition temperature of a stoichiometric mixture 2:1 hydrogen:oxygen(HHO) is around 570*C--not so easy to reach in the compression stroke of an ICE. We would be looking at a compression ratio of around 28:1 C.C
There is simply no reason to go this high,as HHO only requires a measly 20 microjoules to ignite it,and with gasoline/air mix it is 10 times that.
Brad
Here is a video explaining as to why i am changing motors before continuing on with this HHO experiment.
In short,we simply cannot modify the small side valve motor any more,and we need to get the compression ratio higher,which we simply cannot do with the side valve motor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15qpvCl0SLo
Brad
First run of the new engine under load.
We now have a base line for this engine.
After i made the video,i pulled the head off,and machined 2mm off it.
The measured compression ratio is now 13:1 O0
I also added the variable main jet,and tuned the engine under load.
This engine is now more efficient than the previous 2HP side valve motor we were experimenting with O0
In the next video(which is uploading ATM),we give the HHO cell a test run O0
Darrell (youtube name Darrell's realm)built this cell,and sent it to me many years ago as a donation O0 O0 O0 .
Man this cell produces a lot of gas for the P/in.
Anyway,this video first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-AlpUE5rXg
Brad
Dusted off the cell,and gave her a run on the generator.
Plenty of gas there O0
I should get the bubbler and dryer done by tomorrow night,and then we can give it a run O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTBL3dgZPQA
Brad
Thanks for sharing O0
Cheers
Luc
Reminder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAbuHe9X_cs
Quote from: Aking.21 on 2019.05.12, 17:39:10
Reminder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAbuHe9X_cs
"Joe and his followers are unwittingly swept into a world of conspiracy & scientific heresy." C.C
Another great suppressed invention! ;D
It's amazing how many great inventions have been suppressed. In fact, all of them. Not a single brilliant invention escaped this massacre, and we are still looking for overunity.
Of course we have no evidence that these inventions worked (their suppression is very effective), and we have no evidence that they have been suppressed (their suppression is really very effective).
Fortunately, there is still a mythology of it, with stories worthy of the Odyssey of Ulysses, now on youtube. We have no evidence that sirens or cyclopses existed, but that was certainly true since some who believe in this story tell us so.
I think that instead of alleging the causes of the lack of free energy every time a pseudo-invention has revealed its limit or failure, it would be more positive for those who want to talk to us about failures to explain why this path has not kept its promises, and where we could go in a more intelligent direction.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.05.13, 07:55:19
"Joe and his followers are unwittingly swept into a world of conspiracy & scientific heresy." C.C
Another great suppressed invention! ;D
It's amazing how many great inventions have been suppressed. In fact, all of them. Not a single brilliant invention escaped this massacre, and we are still looking for overunity.
Of course we have no evidence that these inventions worked (their suppression is very effective), and we have no evidence that they have been suppressed (their suppression is really very effective).
Fortunately, there is still a mythology of it, with stories worthy of the Odyssey of Ulysses, now on youtube. We have no evidence that sirens or cyclopses existed, but that was certainly true since some who believe in this story tell us so.
I think that instead of alleging the causes of the lack of free energy every time a pseudo-invention has revealed its limit or failure, it would be more positive for those who want to talk to us about failures to explain why this path has not kept its promises, and where we could go in a more intelligent direction.
That is why i am doing what i am--sorting out fact from fiction.
So far,it would seem that the gasoline vapour system dose not show the gains claimed. Oddly enough,water mist injection shows a clear increase in efficiency of the ICE.
So one claim dispelled,and one proven correct so far.
Will HHO show an increase in efficiency that is worth the effort ?
Time will tell.
As far as the Joe cell go's,well that video did it no favours. It was like watching something filmed by a hippy community back in the 70's--to much woopy weed i think.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.12, 12:05:41
So here is where the confusion starts,and almost everyone i know falls for it.
Both gasoline/air mix and HHO have no autoignition !pressure! :o
What they do have is an autoignition !temperature! O0
Brad
Hi Brad.
I'm having a little trouble with the above statement. Surely there must be a " pressure " value?
A fixed quantity of gas, air in our case, when rapidly compressed
WILL increase its temperature to a point where the fuel carried with it auto ignites.
I spent yesterday, off and on, trying to find a definitive reference but it seems the mathematics are rather complex with many variables to consider. Things like the cylinders ability to remove the heat generated etc.
So, what pressure do we need to achieve a temperature of 570 degrees Celsius? Over to the mathematicians.
Cheers Graham.
Hi Grum,
I hope Brad doesn't mind if I jump in here. But I think what he means is that if we keep the temperature down then the pressure can be extremely high and those fuel mixtures will not self ignite. But as you correctly stated compressing the mixture will normally raise the temperature.
My son recently fixed a supposedly worn out diesel tractor by simply adjusting the valves. The valve seats and valves had worn to the point the valves were not fully closing causing the compression pressure to be too low to raise the temperature high enough to ignite the diesel fuel. When he got the valves adjusted properly the pressure went from 195 psi to over 300 psi and the engine then started and ran fine.
Brad seems to have a very clear understanding of what it takes to make an engine run more efficiently and cleaner. I am really looking forward to his HHO tests. Then we will know for sure if that is a good avenue to follow.
Thanks again Brad for all your efforts.
Carroll
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.13, 10:04:03
Hi Brad.
I'm having a little trouble with the above statement. Surely there must be a " pressure " value?
A fixed quantity of gas, air in our case, when rapidly compressed WILL increase its temperature to a point where the fuel carried with it auto ignites.
I spent yesterday, off and on, trying to find a definitive reference but it seems the mathematics are rather complex with many variables to consider. Things like the cylinders ability to remove the heat generated etc.
Over to the mathematicians.
Cheers Graham.
Ok,i will try and explain a little better.
As stated,it is the temperature that auto ignites the air/fuel mix-not the pressure
This temperature is created by compressing gas at speed. If we compress the gas slowly,so as no heat is generated(dissipated as fast as it builds),then you can compress all you like,and the gas will not ignite.
QuoteSo, what pressure do we need to achieve a temperature of 570 degrees Celsius?
There is no clear answer to this question,as there are to many variables that need to be considered.
1-how fast will the gas be compressed ?
2-what is the compression ratio?
3-Is the engine cold or hot-what is it's running temperature?.
The 3rd question might sound silly,but ask your self-->why do we need more fuel to start an engine when it's cold?,even though the compression ratio remains the same as that when it's hot.
An example is-if we have an engine with a compression ratio of say 10:1,and we spin that engine at say 1000rpm,then the temperature of the compressed gas may reach say 180*C at 6*BTDC. If we spin that engine at 2000rpm,then the temperature of the compressed gas may reach 200*C at 6*BTDC. This is the reason that compression ignition gasoline engines are so very hard to control. You might get it to run right at say 1500rpm,and then trouble starts at 2000rpm,as the gas heats up to auto ignition temperature well before it did at 1500rpm,and so you get engine knock. This is where my design come into play. As the RPM increases,the compression ratio decreases,which keeps the gas temperature a constant in relation to piston position within the bore.
As with other auto ignition engines,the ignition point advances with RPM--which you do not want. With my system,the ignition point remains the same throughout the rev range.
Then there are a whole lot of other things to look at,where the measured compression ratio is not the be all-end all. We then need to know the effective compression ratio. This takes into account valve overlap,valve timing etc.
It is extremely hard to control a true compression ignition gasoline engine,and so it's just easier to use a spark plug. Even Mazda's new skyactiv X engine has spark plugs to ignite the fuel,but they call it a compression ignition engine. They cheated a little,and stretched the term !compression ignition! to fit there claim. But in reality,it is not a true compression ignition gasoline engine.
Sometimes i wonder just what kind of !engineers! these companies employ.
These guys have millions of dollars at there disposal,and this is the best they can come up with.
I have a few bucks and a scrap pile,and i can achieve what they cannot.
The sad thing is,my design will probably never see the light of day.
Anyway,for now lets answer the old HHO question O0
I've been at this for 9 days and nights straight,so im taking tonight off to kick back and relax.
Brad
With pure HHO,we could raise the compression ratio to 25:1,and still need to ignite it with a spark plug.
This is how mazda's !claimed compression ignition engine works.
Still has spark plugs C.C
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNSxow3W7ek&t=467s
Brad
Thank you Brad. :)
As you also stated " there are too many variables " this was the situation that I found yesterday.
I'll leave it at that.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.13, 13:15:03
Thank you Brad. :)
As you also stated " there are too many variables " this was the situation that I found yesterday.
I'll leave it at that.
All those variables can be negated with one simple mechanism,which can be fitted to any ICE without much trouble O0. Once fitted,you can then run your gasoline engine without a spark plug--a true compression ignition gasoline engine. O0
Brad
The two things which caught my attention with the film which I agree was made to ridicule are "phase conjugate", and the fact that Meyer was claimed to be more advanced than we thought. Also remember Dave Lawton's discovery of "conditioning" of "water caps" when he replicated Stanley Meyer.
Re "Phase conjugate" mirror was a discovery by Gabriel Kron in resonant circuits and network analysis - specifically relating to large numbers of connected rlc circuits in resonance. Bearden speculates that the physical reason for the effect is the use of the Heavyside component in the circuits.
The sad fact is that almost all physics books are wrong about Kirchhoff's loop law. This includes electrical engineering books at phd level.
So we get comments by learned individuals who have never done any experiments and they mislead everyone else. Faraday's equations should be used instead.
The fact is that Kirchhoff's law is ony relevant in exceptional circuits where there is no inductor present. They ignore Faraday's "action at a distance". I am going to enjoy destroying their egos.
They will discover that they were as wrong as those physicists who taught that the earth is flat.
Well Brad....
That'll be interesting for sure!
The many variables could be reduced by also thinking on the lines of a fixed speed and fixed load condition rather than for automotive purposes.
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.13, 15:38:34
Well Brad....
That'll be interesting for sure!
The many variables could be reduced by also thinking on the lines of a fixed speed and fixed load condition rather than for automotive purposes.
Cheers Graham.
When it comes to HHO and Faradays limit,i wonder if that holds true when the HHO is compressed and heated and then ignited,such as it is in an ICE ?.
Brad
Another fuel that works exceptionally well in the
gasoline engine is Alcohol. Particularly in the high
compression engines such as you've achieved with
your air-cooled OHV single cylinder.
Race cars us pure Methanol or Ethanol by rule and
I don't believe water injection is permitted, again by
rule.
I know from my own experience that ordinary Rubbing
Alcohol (70% Isopropyl Alcohol and 30% Water) will
run a small engine as will high strength Alcohol (90+%.)
The advantage of using Rubbing Alcohol or equivalent
mixture with Ethanol is the the water injection is "built
in" since water and alcohol are miscible in all proportions.
TinMan, have you thought about expanding your comparisons
to Alcohol + Water in various proportions? I did some testing
quite a few years ago with a lawn mower engine with such
mixtures when I had my setup and equipment available and
accessible. I found that even 50% Alcohol will run and engine
but I wasn't able at the time to make extensive comparisons.
I'd love to do it all again as I still have the engine, but unfortunately,
I'm in a temporary situation where I'm not able to do anything
at the moment due to family emergency lodging. Perhaps in
a year more I'll be able to resume.
Again, many thanks for what you're doing presently. Great videos
with great explanations and Solid Science!
Quote from: muDped on 2019.05.14, 03:28:35
Another fuel that works exceptionally well in the
gasoline engine is Alcohol. Particularly in the high
compression engines such as you've achieved with
your air-cooled OHV single cylinder.
Race cars us pure Methanol or Ethanol by rule and
I don't believe water injection is permitted, again by
rule.
I know from my own experience that ordinary Rubbing
Alcohol (70% Isopropyl Alcohol and 30% Water) will
run a small engine as will high strength Alcohol (90+%.)
The advantage of using Rubbing Alcohol or equivalent
mixture with Ethanol is the the water injection is "built
in" since water and alcohol are miscible in all proportions.
TinMan, have you thought about expanding your comparisons
to Alcohol + Water in various proportions? I did some testing
quite a few years ago with a lawn mower engine with such
mixtures when I had my setup and equipment available and
accessible. I found that even 50% Alcohol will run and engine
but I wasn't able at the time to make extensive comparisons.
I'd love to do it all again as I still have the engine, but unfortunately,
I'm in a temporary situation where I'm not able to do anything
at the moment due to family emergency lodging. Perhaps in
a year more I'll be able to resume.
Again, many thanks for what you're doing presently. Great videos
with great explanations and Solid Science!
I can give that a try muDped O0
30% water-70% rubbing alcohol coming up tonight.
Brad
It reminds me of that 1974 water engine story (https://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=fr&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Factu.fr%2Fnormandie%2Frouen_76540%2Fhistoire-ce-rouennais-inventeur-dun-moteur-eau-alcool-contraint-sexiler-bresil_20432026.html) (google translation). The underlying miracle of this engine would have been the cracking of the water molecule.
It turned out that my chemistry teacher had participated in the expertise, and had summarized it for us in class:
- "the engine runs on alcohol, not water"
- "the more water is put in, the less effective it is, until it stops, but the inventor nevertheless hopes to succeed in completely eliminating alcohol"
We see in this article that there were already conspiracy theories at the time: "He [the inventor] was completely denigrated" (probably because my chemistry teacher was saying the facts rather than the inventor's illusions). And there were also promises that were never kept: "According to the daily newspaper Le Havre Libre of August 20, 1979, "the Brazilian car industry will produce from next year, 300,000 vehicles consuming alcohol mixed with water ". ;D
It's like the overunity announcements: "free lunch", but only tomorrow.
Alcohol has a low energy density compared to petrol, mixed with water it's even worse, it doesn't act as a catalyst, so without new element I don't see much point in turning around the bad ideas of the past.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.05.14, 08:16:16
It reminds me of that 1974 water engine story (https://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=fr&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Factu.fr%2Fnormandie%2Frouen_76540%2Fhistoire-ce-rouennais-inventeur-dun-moteur-eau-alcool-contraint-sexiler-bresil_20432026.html) (google translation). The underlying miracle of this engine would have been the cracking of the water molecule.
It turned out that my chemistry teacher had participated in the expertise, and had summarized it for us in class:
- "the engine runs on alcohol, not water"
- "the more water is put in, the less effective it is, until it stops, but the inventor nevertheless hopes to succeed in completely eliminating alcohol"
We see in this article that there were already conspiracy theories at the time: "He [the inventor] was completely denigrated" (probably because my chemistry teacher was saying the facts rather than the inventor's illusions). And there were also promises that were never kept: "According to the daily newspaper Le Havre Libre of August 20, 1979, "the Brazilian car industry will produce from next year, 300,000 vehicles consuming alcohol mixed with water ". ;D
It's like the overunity announcements: "free lunch", but only tomorrow.
Alcohol has a low energy density compared to petrol, mixed with water it's even worse, it doesn't act as a catalyst, so without new element I don't see much point in turning around the bad ideas of the past.
I had to give it a try F6FLT,as the setup was all there ready to go.
As it turned out muDped,it's exactly as F6FLT states.
At just 10% water,i had to have the choke half on to keep it running while the generator was loaded.
This decreased the run time for the 100ml of fuel by nearly half of that of using gasoline.
At 15% water,i could not keep it running without full choke,and that was only just.
Adding water to the combustion gasses like this did not yield any positive result's-only negative ones.
Test done,and results had O0
Brad
Water plus fuel and Lithium soap ?
Here is a video showing how and where i inject my HHO into the engine.
Also do a compression test,and we are already at 13.6:1 :o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t421kwdsXs
Brad
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.05.14, 12:32:55
Water plus fuel and Lithium soap ?
Hi Chet.
I couldn't say anything about Petrol/Gasoline with soap and water....
However, a one-off test with Diesel oil, washing up liquid and water with the fuel and oil ratio of 50/50 by volume ran my Petter AV 1 for several minutes.
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: TinMan
As it turned out muDped,it's exactly as F6FLT states.
At just 10% water,i had to have the choke half on to
keep it running while the generator was loaded.
This decreased the run time for the 100ml of fuel by
nearly half of that of using gasoline.
At 15% water,i could not keep it running without full
choke,and that was only just.
Adding water to the combustion gasses like this did
not yield any positive result's-only negative ones.
Test done,and results had O0
Many thanks for the testing TinMan.
It is true that in order to make use of Alcohol/Water
mixtures certain "adjustments" must be made.
To optimize performance requires that some other
modifications be done as well.
While at first glance the result attained may show
that Alcohol is a poor fuel replacement for gasoline,
it does present a challenge for further exploration.
With creativity and ingenuity it may be discovered
that certain conditions must be met...
Again, many thanks TinMan. Well done!
Perhaps not relevant to this topic, but....
I read this article many years ago from PJ Kelley, what's the concensus?
I feel that with the modifications that Brad has done in his last video, to the engine that is, perhaps yet another urban myth could be either " busted " or proven true?
There was the mention of a rather " special " sparkplug, does anyone know if they were ever produced commercially?
Cheers Graham.
last time I spoke with Johan [the source of Lithium soap contribution for water and diesel [over 60% mix same power out on Dyno]
he was working on the next step....a 3 plug water motor....
should ring him for "tips"
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.15, 11:37:57
I feel that with the modifications that Brad has done in his last video, to the engine that is, perhaps yet another urban myth could be either " busted " or proven true?
Cheers Graham.
So i read the posted pictures of the paper,now my eyes hurt lol.
But almost sounds feasible O0
I wonder what temperature the nano droplets would flash steam?
Once the flash steaming started,the pressure would increase rapidly,and also the temperature==a cascade effect.
Oh,just had a thought.
The more pressure you have,the higher the boiling point of water.
At 1 atmosphere,the boiling point is 100*C. At 145psi,that boiling point temperature rises to 184*C
At the moment,my compression pressure is 200psi-or 13.6:1
QuoteThere was the mention of a rather " special " sparkplug, does anyone know if they were ever produced commercially?
Ah,i remember the firestorm spark plug's.
Back in my younger days,when fitting big cams to our engines,the firestorm spark plugs use to come with the cam kit. Cant remember if it was with the crow cam kit's,or the crane cam kits though.
There is another high performance plug you can buy--it's called the Brisk plug.
But (brain storm here) i think there is a better one again ;)--i'll see if i can pick one up tomorrow O0
Now,im also wondering if we could place a cap across the spark plug,feed via a battery resistor combo,to get the !water spark plug ! effect ?-->i think we could O0
Will give it a shot after the HHO testing is done Graham.
Perhaps just set the fogger back up,and turn the fuel off while it's running,and see what happens :D
Perhaps we have been going about it all wrong.
Brad
Like this Brad?
:D
My apologies, I only have my aged iPad which doesn't lend itself well for transferring links to PDF's and the likes.
I can tell you, with all honesty, that we tried this with a Honda 50 motorcycle engine held in the workshop bench vice. I still laugh remembering Mathew standing on the bench kicking over the motor. Needless to say we didn't have any success, I blamed the ignition system at the time. With your setup and electric start, to boot, I don't think you'll have much trouble either way.
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.15, 12:54:19
Like this Brad?
:D
My apologies, I only have my aged iPad which doesn't lend itself well for transferring links to PDF's and the likes.
I can tell you, with all honesty, that we tried this with a Honda 50 motorcycle engine held in the workshop bench vice. I still laugh remembering Mathew standing on the bench kicking over the motor. Needless to say we didn't have any success, I blamed the ignition system at the time. With your setup and electric start, to boot, I don't think you'll have much trouble either way.
Cheers Graham.
Ok,i have come up with an idea for a plasma ignition booster(water spark plug) :D
Old Aaron the rookie will have a hissy fit lol-if it works.
Now,after some hunting,i have found a graph that shows peak gas temperatures reached in a cylinder in relation to compression ratio.
Now,it only go's up to a 10:1 compression ratio,and i have around 13:1 ATM,so i'll leave the peak temp calculation of my engine open ATM. But it looks as though it should be close to 500*C :o
Brad
Hi Brad
Some good work you are doing O0 I have attached a photo I took some time back of Stans engine, the compression ratio if I remember correctly was increased to 11:1, note where the HHO input is, it is the SS fexitube from the laser unit.
I would say it is more or less where you are putting it, of course he is not using petrol but only a gas vapor mixture ;)
I did have many photos but I had them removed from my computer.
Keep up the good work
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.15, 13:28:18
Ok,i have come up with an idea for a plasma ignition booster(water spark plug) :D
Old Aaron the rookie will have a hissy fit lol-if it works.
Now,after some hunting,i have found a graph that shows peak gas temperatures reached in a cylinder in relation to compression ratio.
Now,it only go's up to a 10:1 compression ratio,and i have around 13:1 ATM,so i'll leave the peak temp calculation of my engine open ATM. But it looks as though it should be close to 500*C :o
Brad
There you go Brad.
That graph says it all! If memory serves me right 15:1 ( Mr average for small/medium Diesels ) you're looking at a temperature of nearly 600 degrees Celsius.
As Mike has just written, the " Petrolheads " amongst us here are all enjoying the ride, thanks. O0
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.15, 17:09:21
There you go Brad.
That graph says it all! If memory serves me right 15:1 ( Mr average for small/medium Diesels ) you're looking at a temperature of nearly 600 degrees Celsius.
As Mike has just written, the " Petrolheads " amongst us here are all enjoying the ride, thanks. O0
I think that the compression increase of the VW was to 15:1, Graham sort of nudged my failing memory :'(
On that photo the pipes I am talking about are the ones you can just see (a little dark), you need to enlarge the photo to see them properly.
One is HHO, second is exhaust gases and the third is water vapor. The three electric valves are controlled for the right mix, the laser unit is to keep the H and O agitated (monoatomic), the air gives 78%N2 and 20.5% O2, the exhaust gases give N2O (nitrous oxide) and some NH3 (ammonia), but the main thing is what happens with the high compression with this mix, a smaller explosion in what is already hot nitrogen expansion me thinks ^-^ a coctail in the right atmosphere.
Regards
Mike 8)
Ah, this series of experiments by TinMan are
getting quite "delicious!" Answers to some
truly intriguing questions are no doubt forthcoming.
The one thing that is difficult with small engines is
devising some way to adjust ignition timing in order
to squeeze the absolute maximum power from the
various fuel combinations.
Fuels like alcohol and other high octane fuels demand
a much advanced spark due to their slower burn so
that maximum cylinder power pressure occurs just past
TDC.
TinMan has got the fuel/air mix ratio able to be adjusted
which is also exceedingly important for best performance.
This is getting really exciting to say the least!
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.15, 17:09:21
There you go Brad.
That graph says it all! If memory serves me right 15:1 ( Mr average for small/medium Diesels ) you're looking at a temperature of nearly 600 degrees Celsius.
As Mike has just written, the " Petrolheads " amongst us here are all enjoying the ride, thanks. O0
I've been thinking a little about the flash steaming.
If a diesel engine already has the compression pressure and temperature,why won't it run on water mist ?
Do you have a small diesel Graham that you could try it on ?
As we seen,there was a definite increase in running the water mist into the engine in my test,but it would be good to work out why--what was the water mist doing to increase the efficiency?.
Was it flash steaming in the cylinder during the power stroke,causing a larger or longer gas expansion?
Or was it cooling the input gasses,resulting in a much denser/greater volume of gas entering the combustion chamber each cycle--much like an intercooler works.
Brad
Hi Brad.
I'm not good with the actual " science " that governs the workings of the ICE, just know how to fix and run them!
I'd say it's a mixture of the two, the water droplets are helping to keep the air cooler on the induction stroke, more in the cylinder. Then upon combustion the steam generated increasing pressure upon the piston powe stroke.
I do have a medium sized single cylinder Diesel engine but it doesn't have electric start. I'm not strong enough to turn her over these days. I'll try and get one of the lads pressed into service.
Cheers Graham.
Comment removed from this thread will be posted in more appropriate spot when experiments can be done
Well guy's,by the time i got home from work,set up the HHO system,and gave it a run,it was to late to film.
But i did do a couple of quick run's,and at this stage i am the bearer of bad news.
3 runs without the HHO,and cell off,i got 70 watt hours each time per 100ml of fuel
1st run with the HHO,i got 44 watt hours for our 100ml of fuel.
I then retarded the timing by 3*,ran the test again,and got 47 watt hours for our 100ml of fuel.
So far,we are loosing around 32% efficiency with the HHO. :o
The 3rd run without the HHO was with the timing retarded that 3*,and oddly enough it made no difference to the outcome,as we still got our 70 watt hours for the 100ml of fuel.
I will keep trying to tweak the system over the weekend,but it's not looking good ATM.
I was hoping for far better result's,but i have to deliver the truth,whether or not it is what we wanted to see.
I may actually have to much HHO going to the engine,and drawing to much from the generator?
The generator it self may become very inefficient once over a given power output?
But as it stands ATM,we are running a severe loss,and i do not see any tweaks that will give us back our lost 32%,or anything over that so as we actually have a gain.
I was thinking as to why i seen a gain all those years ago,and then it dawned on me-->i never tweaked that motor back then like i have this one. The other motor from the tests carried out years ago was in standard form,and the gain back then was far less than the gain i got in these tests simply by adding the variable main jet,and getting the mixture spot on. So the gain back then was most likely due to leaning of the fuel when the HHO started flowing into the motor.
Like i said,i will try tuning it better over the weekend,and get a video up for you to see,but it's not looking good.
But all is not lost with the water,as we got a 10.6% gain with the water mist/fog injection.
All we need is a way to create this mist with the motor,and not a power supply.
So any idea's on that would be welcome.
Sorry for the bad news guy's,but i have to be honest with myself and all of you guys,whether the outcome is good or bad..
Brad
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.16, 10:20:02
Hi Brad.
I'm not good with the actual " science " that governs the workings of the ICE, just know how to fix and run them!
I'd say it's a mixture of the two, the water droplets are helping to keep the air cooler on the induction stroke, more in the cylinder. Then upon combustion the steam generated increasing pressure upon the piston powe stroke.
I do have a medium sized single cylinder Diesel engine but it doesn't have electric start. I'm not strong enough to turn her over these days. I'll try and get one of the lads pressed into service.
Cheers Graham.
Set up a small pony motor to get that diesel spinning quick grun. That would be the easy way out O0
Anyway,over the next week i will be building a hydraulic dynamometer,so as we can get some true HP and efficiency numbers. This will get rid of the generator losses we have ATM. O0
What im really interested in ATM is the water mist/fog injection,and we need a true account of power and efficiency increase with different amounts of water mist.
We need to somehow use the waste heat to make the water mist,so as it comes at not cost to the fuel efficiency.
Any idea's anyone?.
Brad
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.16, 10:20:02
Hi Brad.
I'm not good with the actual " science " that governs the workings of the ICE, just know how to fix and run them!
I'd say it's a mixture of the two, the water droplets are helping to keep the air cooler on the induction stroke, more in the cylinder. Then upon combustion the steam generated increasing pressure upon the piston powe stroke.
graham
From wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engine)
Quote: In a piston engine, the initial injection of water cools the fuel-air mixture significantly, which increases its density and hence the amount of mixture that enters the cylinder. The water (if in small liquid droplets) may absorb heat (and lower the pressure) as the charge is compressed, thus reducing compression work.[1] An additional effect comes later during combustion when the water absorbs large amounts of heat as it vaporizes, reducing peak temperature and resultant NOx formation, and reducing the amount of heat energy absorbed into the cylinder walls. This also converts part of combustion energy from the form of heat to the form of pressure. As the water droplets vaporize by absorbing heat, they turn to high pressure steam.
So,spot on my friend O0
Brad
Brad, that is indeed disappointing news!! :'(
With regard to your earlier question, although " Steam " can be considered as water vapour it would need to be cooled drastically for our benefit, wouldn't it?
Perhaps we should consider the " scent spray " approach and atomise the liquid via compressed air? For automotive use virtually every Diesel engine'd car has a vacuum pump for the servo assisted brakes, use the exhaust!! ;)
A Venturi perhaps? There's probably several ways to get our mist but those " fogger's " certainly do a damned good job for a few Watts.
Cheers Graham.
Maybe this will help
http://www.vias.org/genchem/atommasses_12431_03.html
Read it carefully and you will see that at a constant temperature and pressure 2ltrs of hydrogen and 1ltr of oxygen will give you only 2ltrs of water vapor when detonated.
So we will lose 1/3rd of the volume when it is HHO to water mist, but we would gain 1ltr of volume if we were converting water mist to HHO O0 now you can see where your loss is quite easily ;)
So now you need to consider where in the stroke you create HHO and where do you detonate it all taking place in the cylinder.
Think hard about what I have said and the result after where you detonate the HHO, also if you are using petrol at the same time then things are going to get complicated because of one creating a vacuum and the other expansion all at the same time.
There is more on this but I do not think this is the right place to talk about it
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: TinMan
Sorry for the bad news guy's,but i have to be honest with
myself and all of you guys,whether the outcome is good
or bad..
Test results with new technologies can often be disappointing.
Now the thinking begins to figure out why and how to
overcome the seemingly negative result.
Often the solution is a matter of "tuning" to find the best
Air/Fuel mix and Spark Timing and amount of Water Injection
to complement the addition of HHO.
Others who've done similar testing have reported that with
HHO sometimes less accomplishes more but not always.
There seem to be several variables.
TinMan you've accomplished so much in such a short amount
of time. It's a very challenging project and you're performing
"miracles" as the Prime Mover for this research. We are all
very grateful for what you are doing and know that "at the end
of the day" a solution will be found.
Quote from: Centraflow on 2019.05.16, 16:44:42
Maybe this will help
http://www.vias.org/genchem/atommasses_12431_03.html
Read it carefully and you will see that at a constant temperature and pressure 2ltrs of hydrogen and 1ltr of oxygen will give you only 2ltrs of water vapor when detonated.
So we will lose 1/3rd of the volume when it is HHO to water mist, but we would gain 1ltr of volume if we were converting water mist to HHO O0 now you can see where your loss is quite easily ;)
So now you need to consider where in the stroke you create HHO and where do you detonate it all taking place in the cylinder.
Think hard about what I have said and the result after where you detonate the HHO, also if you are using petrol at the same time then things are going to get complicated because of one creating a vacuum and the other expansion all at the same time.
There is more on this but I do not think this is the right place to talk about it
Regards
Mike 8)
Good morning Mike.
Well that explains why my little Leek ran so well. O0
https://youtu.be/RwjTDXR31KA
The immediate vacuum that follows the expansion was using atmospheric pressure on the exhaust stroke.
Cheers Graham.
Back in the early 90's, at the insistence of a friend I shelled out the cash to attend Dennis Lee's demonstrations in a large stadium, one of which was a large V8 running on HHO.
He claimed he detonated at bottom dead center and the vacuum produced pulled the pistons up. The engine ran well on pure HHO and he drank the exhaust water droplets. You can probably find these videos on line somewhere.
Another demo he did was an extended piston in a clear plastic cylinder pulling a large weight up when the HHO gas implosion took place.
So when mixing HHO with petrol, its implosion working against explosion as far as I can tell, just as Mike said.
Other things to consider:
Although the compression ratio can be increased on small engines, the castings, rods and pistons etc are not designed to take the increased explosive pressure and it will seriously shorten engine life. This is why diesels are so robust. Every hotrodder who has only paid attention to the top half of the engine with supercharging, compression increase and valve timing, soon finds that he has blown the bottom half of the engine.
AFAIK, Adding water to diesel fuel is not a recommended practice as it can chew up piston heads from cavitation
Of course I am probably wrong about all this as my active motorhead days ended many decades ago, although presently I am rebuilding the top of a Toyota 4cyl VVT engine. Most other times I am just repairing small lawn tractor engines.
P.S. I know Dennis Lee is a bit of a shady character, but he puts on a good carnival act.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.17, 10:26:39
Good morning Mike.
Well that explains why my little Leek ran so well. O0
https://youtu.be/RwjTDXR31KA
The immediate vacuum that follows the expansion was using atmospheric pressure on the exhaust stroke.
Cheers Graham.
And therein lies part of the Stan Meyer secret.
Hi ion,
Well if you think hard about all this and add a little chemistry you can have power on "part" of the downstroke and also "part" of the upstroke, of course, your timings are going to have to be changed along with the camshaft, the exhaust valves open at +- 1/3rd the upstroke and close just before TDC as ion has said in his post.
The fast flame front of HHO is a problem, it has to be slowed so as the ignition is just before BDC, probably 2/3rds from TDC :-\ The relatively long intake stroke draws in the mix of HHO+H2O vapour+
recycled exhaust gas (mainly NO2+H2O) all controlled by 3 electric valves. The ignition was laser controlled because accuracy was very very important, that is why he changed it to his patented laser distributor ;) and I expect HF, VHV discharge.
Now I probably be damed for the rest of my life :'(
Regards
Mike 8)
Why all that may be true when using just HHO as a fuel,it is not the case when using HHO with the existing gasoline/air mix.
The ratio of HHO to gasoline/air mix being injected into the engine is very small,and so there will be no implosions as there would be with pure HHO as the fuel.
To work the ratio out,we do some simple math.
The engine is 160cc,and so draws in 160cc of air/gasoline mix every 2nd revolution.
At 3000rpm that would mean an intake of air/gasoline mix of 240 liters a minute.
I am adding about 2 liters a minute of HHO,and so the ratio is 120:1
So as you can see,there is no way in hell there is going to be any sort of implosion event taking place here.
It is all well and good to talk about how Stan Myers WFC worked,but as it is apparent,not one single person has been able to replicate Stan's WFC.
This thread is dedicated to actual recorded events and effect's,and dose not include that of un-unreplicable !claimed! events of the past as being reality. If anyone !!anyone!! can reproduce SM's water powered engine,and present it here,then i will be more than happy to take the time-and spend the cash reproducing it. Until such time,any claimed effects SM used are just here say.
A video coming up soon.
One Graham might like O0
We now have a small diesel engine to experiment with as well.
Brad
What is it Graham ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEfp0iROS64
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.19, 01:53:26
What is it Graham ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEfp0iROS64
Brad
Hi Brad.
You
do know that's a little younger than my area of interest?
However, I think it's a Petter AA1 or an AB1 Diesel engine and yes they were definitely a well made motor!
http://www.ijdonline.co.uk/main/engines/petter_ab1/petter_ab1.asp
Cheers Graham.
PS. This suggestion or an answer thereto, might be better coming from ION but whilst the engine is in bits how difficult would it be to fit a Thermocouple into the combustion chamber?
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.19, 10:51:24
Hi Brad.
You do know that's a little younger than my area of interest?
However, I think it's a Petter AA1 or an AB1 Diesel engine and yes they were definitely a well made motor!
http://www.ijdonline.co.uk/main/engines/petter_ab1/petter_ab1.asp
Cheers Graham.
PS. This suggestion or an answer thereto, might be better coming from ION but whilst the engine is in bits how difficult would it be to fit a Thermocouple into the combustion chamber?
It could be done,but it would have to be one good thermocouple to take that sort of heat and pressure.
Anyway,i spent another day on sunday working/tuning the HHO system,but to no avail.
There is simply nothing for the HHO to improve on,in that the engine is already burning the fuel very efficiently,and so the HHO has no effect of increasing what is already at a maximum value.
I tried .5LPM,1LPM,2LPM,and 3LPM,along with various ratio's of electrolyte.
I still could not match the efficiency that the engine is already at.
So then i decided to push this little engine harder,and shaved another mm of the head.
The compression ratio is now 15.6:1 ;D
I know it will not last,but i have many of them now.
Now,here is the good news. The engine is now running on a fuel mix of--30% gasoline--40% diesel--20% water--and 10% emulsion fluid.
The efficiency has now risen another 23.4% for the 100ml of fuel mix(that includes the 20ml of water),and the engine runs extremely clean and crisp. It is now very responsive in regards to acceleration--no smoke,and sounds strong. No knocks or bangs yet,but at this high compression ratio i have no doubt that there coming lol.
I have two more later model diesel engines coming this week,and i think they would be more suited to the water mist to steam experiments O0
Brad
That's an interesting fuel combo Brad!!
Pressure fed bearings would be first on my list!! ;)
You're on an interesting path Brad O0
Thanks for sharing
Luc
It maybe worth dissolving 0.5gramm of boric acid to your water just to add some nuclear fusion heat to the expansion cycle, not too much though as its a flame retardant, if you don't want to ruin your water you could brush your spark plug outer electrode with a saturated solution of boric acid ;)
If it were to work the head might blow off and also for it to work you need a hot engine.
Quote from: Peterae on 2019.05.20, 17:23:50
It maybe worth dissolving 0.5gramm of boric acid to your water just to add some nuclear fusion heat to the expansion cycle, not too much though as its a flame retardant, if you don't want to ruin your water you could brush your spark plug outer electrode with a saturated solution of boric acid ;)
If it were to work the head might blow off and also for it to work you need a hot engine.
Nuclear fusion :o
Is this safe?
Brad
TinMan, you're able to accomplish easily what many
of us Dream about!
If I were a younger specimen I'd be very much tempted
to visit Oz and the TinMan just to observe how you do
all that you do!
You're definitely taking this line of research into new
and higher levels of observation. Amazing Stuff!
Could your work be an historical first?
Rudolph Gunnerman has done a lot of work developing
fuel/water mixtures for gasoline and diesel engines. (http://www.rbbi.com/folders/fuel/a-21.htm)
Quote from: muDped on 2019.05.21, 00:06:13
TinMan, you're able to accomplish easily what many
of us Dream about!
If I were a younger specimen I'd be very much tempted
to visit Oz and the TinMan just to observe how you do
all that you do!
You're definitely taking this line of research into new
and higher levels of observation. Amazing Stuff!
Could your work be an historical first?
Rudolph Gunnerman has done a lot of work developing
fuel/water mixtures for gasoline and diesel engines. (http://www.rbbi.com/folders/fuel/a-21.htm)
First i must correct a mistake i have made throughout the thread and video's.
I stated i was using 95 fuel,when in fact i have been using 91.
I got this mixed up as i run 95 in my vehicle,not 91.
So all this testing so far has been with 91 octane fuel--not 95 as stated.
muDped
If only i had started this journey on a serious note 10 years ago,i think things would have progressed far beyond what we have now.
I am starting to get a very good understanding of what is and is not possible.
But conflict comes with that along the way,and what i was taught all those years ago dose not seem to be the entire truth.
It was stated by my lecturers back in my training days that water was not a fuel,and no power/energy could be gained by adding water in any way shape or form.It is stated so often here by some that water is not a fuel.
I also see,reading that article you posted the link to above,that even the high end guru's say the same thing
Quote:David Kittelson, University of Minnesota director of the Center for Diesel Research sighs mightily when called. Kittelson, a professor of mechanical engineering, calls Gunnerman's claims "absolute nonsense. They're violating the second law of thermodynamics."
"It sort of opens up a Pandora's box - that's why I sighed when we first started talking," Kittelson added. "People in universities have an awful lot to do. We're going through periods where we're having dramatic changes in funding structures . . . because of that it's very difficult to do what we're supposed to do and that is sort of seek out the truth. Getting into this water-fuel issue involves a lot of time . . . a lot of time . . . and not much payback."
Michael Seal, director of the Vehicle Research Institute at Bellingham's Western Washington University, agrees. Seal conducts engine research and built an award-winning hybrid vehicle that runs electrically and on natural gas.
Adding 10 gallons of water to 10 gallons of fuel might give only nine gallons of power, Seal said. "I could be wrong - but I'd like to know how I'm wrong. It's pretty well-known that water doesn't burn and there's no way of getting energy from it," Seal said. "Basically, you lose in some way. The best you could hope to do is break even."
As you have seen,even with a highly modified-fuel efficient engine,i show a very clear gain by adding water in form of a vapour. And we are not talking small gains here,we are talking in excess of 18% with the simplest of setups that anyone can try.
In order to make any claims,we have to provide a sound explanation of the mechanisms at work.
I then decided to research what constitutes a fuel-->what is a fuel?.
Here is what i found to be a general answer.
Quote:A fuel is any material that can be made to react with other substances so that it releases energy ,so as it can do useful work.
This being the case,then water by definition is a fuel when you look at the events taking place within the cylinder of an ICE during both compression and power strokes.
As already stated by Graham and myself--
1-On the intake stroke,the water mist cools the air. This makes the air more dense,and so a larger volume of mixed gasses enter the cylinder. This results in a much larger explosive force during the power stroke.
2-During the power stroke,the water droplets are super heated,and this results in flash steaming,which also increases both the volume in the cylinder,and the pressure pushing down on the piston.
But as i take a closer look,there is more than this going on.
Im sure you have all heard of pumping losses within the ICE.
As it stands,the gasoline engine has higher pumping losses than that of the diesel engine.
This is due to how the gasoline engine closes of air flow volume to the engine to govern it's speed,where as the diesel engines speed is governed by how much fuel is delivered to it.
So when air flow is restricted on the inlet side of the gasoline engine,a vacuum is formed within the inlet manifold and cylinder. This is one pumping loss that the diesel dose not have.
The second pumping loss is during the compression stroke,where compressing the gasses is another pumping loss.
3-By adding water in form of a mist,the gasses within the cylinder are colder,and so the pumping losses associated with the compression stroke are reduced.
A fuel is any material that can be made to react with other substances so that it releases energy ,so as it can do useful work
So, by the very definition of a fuel,when water is added to an internal combustion engine,and reacts with the other substances within that combustion chamber,it is then a fuel.
It go's through a phase change,it expands and performs useful work,and it gets hot.
If it was not acting like a fuel,then it would cause the opposite effect,and reduce the efficiency or amount of work a given volume of gasoline could deliver.
Adding the water mist did not decrease the amount of work our given volume of gasoline could perform--we did not break even-->we increase the amount of work being done for that given volume of gasoline.
I believe this can be taken even further.
By increasing the compression ratio even further,we can add even more water(in the form of mist) into the engine,and get even more work out of it.
The larger volume of water mist will allow our 91 octane fuel to be used in an engine with a compression ratio of greater than 16:1. This will also lead to higher combustion temperature's--which lead to a higher expansion ratio of our water flashing over to steam.
In saying that,i think i have already exceeded the limits of my cheap chinese engine.
I am already pushing the friendship with a compression ratio of 15.6:1.
This means that the compression pressure has already exceeded 230psi--and who knows what the ignition pressure is at ATM. But,we are also not pushing the engine to hard as far as load go's. With the HHO cell running as well as the load,we have a 1.12kW load on the engine,and even more if we take into account the generators inefficiencies. Lets say a 1.4kW load.
But me being me,another 500 microns comes off the head tomorrow night O0
This will take us to a compression ratio of 16.2:1.
Along with that will come the larger misting unit,which i bought all the parts for today.
This should be enough to keep detonation(knocking) away from our engine.
From then on in,we will be switching to the stronger diesel engine,but where we will be running it on a gasoline and water mist system.
Brad
Hi Brad.
Philosophically speaking, water has provided mankind with the " fuel " of industry since the dawn of civilisation. It's only in the last century and a half or so that Oil took its place.
Going back to the early 20th century many agricultural engines that used a much cheaper lower octane fuel, Paraffin/Kerosene were fitted with a water injection system to allow a greater degree of ignition advance. The water stopped them " pinking " or " knocking " whilst under load.
I'm curious to know what method you're using to determine the compression ratio? Physically, by measuring the volume of a liquid in the combustion space against the cylinder volume? Or mathematically?
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.21, 12:51:30
Hi Brad.
Philosophically speaking, water has provided mankind with the " fuel " of industry since the dawn of civilisation. It's only in the last century and a half or so that Oil took its place.
Going back to the early 20th century many agricultural engines that used a much cheaper lower octane fuel, Paraffin/Kerosene were fitted with a water injection system to allow a greater degree of ignition advance. The water stopped them " pinking " or " knocking " whilst under load.
I'm curious to know what method you're using to determine the compression ratio? Physically, by measuring the volume of a liquid in the combustion space against the cylinder volume? Or mathematically?
Cheers Graham.
I am calculating the effective compression ratio,not the static(mechanical) compression ratio.
The effective compression ratio takes into account valve timing and blowby,where static compression ratio dose not.
Effective compression ratio is calculated using a compression testing gauge.
The peak pressure in psig reached during the spinning of the motor at cranking speed is then divided by 14.7-close enough. So, as i now get 230psi on the compression gauge at cranking speed,the effective compression ratio is calculated as 230/14.7=15.64:1
Yes,the water stop's knocking by cooling the gas in the cylinder. This means the temperatures reached during compression are lower,and thus the compression pressure is lower. this allows a higher compression ratio to be used when water injection is done correctly.
Brad
Bump....
Going back a page I posted this. https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3460.msg74575#msg74575
I've been trawling eBay for fogger's, mist makers etc.
Sadly for most listings there's no data on the " actual " delivery of fog. The article stated an output of 250mL per hour for the 200 CC engine.
I found one unit, a 10 head version that could easily provide the volume but at £90.00 it can stay with the vendor!!
Perhaps a few more " heads " could research this subject to see if any vendors are providing water consumption data around the world?
Using a converted Diesel engine for this experiment with its higher compression ratio and therefore much higher internal cylinder temperature we might see something interesting?
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.25, 10:30:30
Bump....
Going back a page I posted this. https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3460.msg74575#msg74575
I've been trawling eBay for fogger's, mist makers etc.
Sadly for most listings there's no data on the " actual " delivery of fog. The article stated an output of 250mL per hour for the 200 CC engine.
I found one unit, a 10 head version that could easily provide the volume but at £90.00 it can stay with the vendor!!
Perhaps a few more " heads " could research this subject to see if any vendors are providing water consumption data around the world?
Using a converted Diesel engine for this experiment with its higher compression ratio and therefore much higher internal cylinder temperature we might see something interesting?
Cheers Graham.
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/400W-500W-RGB-LED-Wireless-Remote-Control-Fog-Smoke-Machine-Disco-Party-Effect/183192825369?var=&hash=item2aa724ae19&enc=AQADAAADAFjVrDbVsZ8oH%2F8PNHtt9VX4%2Fw7FZcmMuqsX8uaFEduVvjxkgS%2FaSxE3rfbZdU5UnTK2QQJmUrDuguBrlokXXKh3ozKZ5IM0kkzrNokS75teBSGHXbjKg2C1Q75%2FiJSpgg1Pmc%2FHUEkNTajkR3Ahf9570o4kPWDOuYDAO1DRatRCIbafkqguI5OL1CUYa6cRXyJ1t4xfl4VKRINKoXwqWGCLozR9LSKpZuo4f4r59w4SSOMT6z5w8UDMcUXNCy1pWGscUoUIZZh3doZ9d4zqVIaHYFIVrPB6YmKuMDSNZk77p0PZIs4HPyqVgN%2BOnzFO3hb8t8sZ6DxHCqWnIyICf%2BOQ%2FKCk7Istqgradatx9eI8wV02fFJVXqJSnhivYhqVefcqbHumPHCeyXXSwa3RqHZCpSt7OTfWy8wDZ9pIy%2F%2BaD1BaYe%2BxcKSDq3C5J54e7fmQmewHaRcx8jxNpCw4RrFQJPm5zx9HvzVfQuTboeo0Y%2Fhfh0Kr6Y%2FomfNr225nXhQX4tXfBrWLAacBFkLajXr%2Bef%2F%2BHTJpo9Vd4SRkAjAQEGnoRjuts8Oj2hRjDt7a45HuGqqfphuzOxIJqzsw9C0ssjqjv9h0K8%2BLJH0NHHDIH%2BOOm0CqA7h8u0BHmpHG9hktH%2Br94%2FqMSbJIKr6VUI%2BsR3bdJE%2FyyE33Ys0JqDpCXp%2FIZ3vsXRS3ZdKzS%2BODz2pWZULZ%2B0nWl3vfQnNo3PIGFmQ4KkbclvR0Rn5XW8itqz%2BrVvXgNvmsOwz6NsHlMXrf2KwwAw6m7pJBVKUAOQ%2FwTNDeVJp2SCjcQzirC8ig5Pu0sHcotrUhaWOD1OvD50A0qfE%2B9iUQYqRbTKWSCscWSY%2FYtj5Uci5SMRTOL4L6b4V3kBkxbd6yFcopG6GEIDtixmcc4iDABdOdWR9U2y9z9DJjbXuzJk2be5QljQ6GvHia39NNjZ%2FolceTr0R5wXddlxQ2qH3jji75VYV6xTWVL8XC6G2hteZ%2Fh2xC3N5Zfavy%2FcFKE5BbfOb7qZ0ZCw%3D%3D&checksum=1831928253698b222e8370014104964c8df1a39d94e7
Hi Brad.
Can you try Tiny URL please ?
My iPad nearly exploded!! :D
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.25, 11:15:07
Hi Brad.
Can you try Tiny URL please ?
My iPad nearly exploded!! :D
https://tinyurl.com/y3gwtfgq
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.25, 11:17:59
https://tinyurl.com/y3gwtfgq
Thanks Brad, could you delete your previous post please? I still need my telescope to read the page!
The photo shows only half of your link, LOL.
Cheers Graham.
Hi Brad.
Ok, that's not what we need. It uses a special liquid, I don't think it's water.
I'll jump onto my PC, more to come.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/10-Head-Fogger-Humidifier-Ultrasonic-Mist-Maker-Transformer-Fog-Making-Machine/362514693623?epid=19023958601&hash=item54678f3df7:g:NEwAAOSwMflcHLVv
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.25, 12:33:58
Hi Brad.
Ok, that's not what we need. It uses a special liquid, I don't think it's water.
I'll jump onto my PC, more to come.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/10-Head-Fogger-Humidifier-Ultrasonic-Mist-Maker-Transformer-Fog-Making-Machine/362514693623?epid=19023958601&hash=item54678f3df7:g:NEwAAOSwMflcHLVv
Hi Graham
While the fogger system works,it is limited in how much volume of water it can mist.
Yesterday i went to the hardware shop,and bought some outdoor misting nozzles.
We have had these on our outdoor patio area for years,and it only just occurred to me that they put out a very fine mist ,using mains water pressure (40-48 psi).Not as fine as a fog,but very close to,and would result in the same outcome once in the combustion chamber.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv8NGPtOsYo
Brad
Hi Brad.
Yes, that might be a workable alternative. The link I gave was for at least 3 litres per hour, that PDF suggested 0.25 Litres per hour for a 200 CC engine.
Whilst speaking to Chet a few days we wondered whether a nozzle from Oil fired boilers might also work to provide a fine mist.
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.25, 13:43:27
Hi Brad.
Yes, that might be a workable alternative. The link I gave was for at least 3 litres per hour, that PDF suggested 0.25 Litres per hour for a 200 CC engine.
Whilst speaking to Chet a few days we wondered whether a nozzle from Oil fired boilers might also work to provide a fine mist.
Cheers Graham.
What about a diesel injector it self?
Perhaps the injector pump would also be ok for small periods of time to send water through.
You would of course have to change the injector timing,so as the water would be sprayed through the injector at the bottom of the compression stroke,and not the top as they are.
Brad
The more I think about water mist induction into a high compression engine I feel there might be some promise.
At normal atmospheric pressure with a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius water expands to roughly 1700 times its volume! Obviously we have some " differentials " because we are heating the water under pressure, damn where's Rob when you need him?
Brad. Do you have a Water fogger to hand? You've already done a compression test to determine your compression ratio, could you retest with added moisture? The results will determine whether the project is viable, IMO.
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.26, 12:52:32
The more I think about water mist induction into a high compression engine I feel there might be some promise.
At normal atmospheric pressure with a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius water expands to roughly 1700 times its volume! Obviously we have some " differentials " because we are heating the water under pressure, damn where's Rob when you need him?
Brad. Do you have a Water fogger to hand? You've already done a compression test to determine your compression ratio, could you retest with added moisture? The results will determine whether the project is viable, IMO.
Cheers Graham.
Hi Graham
Yes,water expands 1700 times at 100*C,but that is at atmospheric pressure-->14.7psi
The question i have asked my self regarding this idea,is why dose a diesel engine stops when water gets through the fuel system,to the injector ?.
One would think if it was going to work,it would work in this situation,where the injector injects the water as a mist through the injector just before TDC when the compressed air inside the combustion chamber is at peak temperature.
With a diesel,that is close to 600*C
Yes,i have a misting unit i am putting together ATM.
I will run the test as soon as it is complete.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.26, 13:39:15
Hi Graham
Yes,water expands 1700 times at 100*C,but that is at atmospheric pressure-->14.7psi
The question i have asked my self regarding this idea,is why dose a diesel engine stops when water gets through the fuel system,to the injector ?.
One would think if it was going to work,it would work in this situation,where the injector injects the water as a mist through the injector just before TDC when the compressed air inside the combustion chamber is at peak temperature.
With a diesel,that is close to 600*C
Yes,i have a misting unit i am putting together ATM.
I will run the test as soon as it is complete.
Brad
Hi Brad.
Hmmm, yes when you replace the Diesel fuel with water, ( which isn't a fuel in itself but is, once converted ) via the injector.
As stated previously a dry compression test versus a wet one might show a pressure increase, if so the project might be feasible.
I'm eagerly awaiting your next test Brad.
Cheers Graham.
Brad. I'm sorry, I missed a bit out. I'm wondering if there's a difference by the addition of the water during the intake
and following compression stroke rather than via the injector just before TDC ? Perhaps the " cooling " effect plays an important part?
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.26, 14:03:52
Hi Brad.
Hmmm, yes when you replace the Diesel fuel with water, ( which isn't a fuel in itself but is, once converted ) via the injector.
As stated previously a dry compression test versus a wet one might show a pressure increase, if so the project might be feasible.
I'm eagerly awaiting your next test Brad.
Cheers Graham.
Brad. I'm sorry, I missed a bit out. I'm wondering if there's a difference by the addition of the water during the intake
and following compression stroke rather than via the injector just before TDC ? Perhaps the " cooling " effect plays an important part?
yes the cooling of the gasses at the intake would result in a denser gas mix entering the combustion chamber.
As the mechanical compression ratio remains the same,this larger volume of gas would now have to be compressed into that same mechanical volume at TDC. This is why turbo chargers increase power and torque,as do intercoolers.
One would think the pressure would increase with the addition of water,due to the extra liquid in the cylinder now sealing the rings a little better. We see this when we do a dry and wet compression test.
Now,if the load was lifted a little from my electric motor that spins my ICE over when the water was added,that may indicate a motoring action .
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.26, 23:17:15
Now,if the load was lifted a little from my electric motor that spins my ICE over when the water was added,that may indicate a motoring action .
Brad
Now you're talking Brad!! O0
The " Firestorm " sparkplug....
Addendum.
Well it's a typical Bankholiday, fuel is falling by the Gallon! That's an Imperial Gallon by the way Chet! :)
Does anyone know if these Sparkplugs were made commercially, perhaps in the USA? I've done some eBay trawling but nothing seems to be available here in the UK.
I can see the logic behind the design, having a much larger spherical electrode would mean that a higher voltage will be required to " breakout " a streamer.
I suppose the alternative would be to try and make one, any suggestions as to the sphere material?
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.27, 10:52:41
The " Firestorm " sparkplug....
Addendum.
Well it's a typical Bankholiday, fuel is falling by the Gallon! That's an Imperial Gallon by the way Chet! :)
Does anyone know if these Sparkplugs were made commercially, perhaps in the USA? I've done some eBay trawling but nothing seems to be available here in the UK.
I can see the logic behind the design, having a much larger spherical electrode would mean that a higher voltage will be required to " breakout " a streamer.
I suppose the alternative would be to try and make one, any suggestions as to the sphere material?
Forget them,there old news.
What you need is some pulstar plasma plugs O0
I bought a couple the other day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w962iS-7ELQ
Just a suggestion but it may be as important to test an opposite engine action (vacuum stroke) when water is concerned.
Water behaves quite differently under vacuum, even physicist can't explain what this man has found: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY8pucNaaH0
Cheers
Luc
Don't stop Brad, this was shared by Ron
Breakthrough in 99% water and 1% gasoline running an engine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCZLQD4IgQ0
"Announcing ! the H2G Water BUS tour of USA. An RV / Bus will leave Tampa for Washington DC to Demonstrate the H2G clean water fuel technology that will run this bus across America and back, WITHOUT STOPPING FOR FUEL. The tour is from Tampa to DC to Silicon Valley, Ca. and many stops in between. There we meet with Scientists, Technicians and Financial VIPs from around the globe to introduce our technology. H2 Global invented this unique process based on studies of lightning, and charged particles. It extracts water from the air, like a dehumidifier, and that water is converted in our 4" CUBEs to a clean near zero emission fuel which improves by 5-10 x the mpg. It runs on 99% water. It replaces toxic fossil fuels. An engine test run is posted on our site https://www.h2ge.com/ or https://www.h4gas.com which shows an engine running on 99% water. There is also a downloadable document on the website which describes in more detail this historic event. We will be doing media interviews across America as we go. We will be riding Congresspersons on the bus at a demo in DC, Some celebrities have asked to ride. You can actually participate and may ride in the bus. Email h2ge@... to find out how, You can help spread the word just by sharing this. This will be a ride into history and mark the turning point from toxic fossil fuels to a clean energy future. H2G has a solution for climate change."
So what could be done to the water for it to work so well?... maybe a Ionic charged?
Cheers
Luc
Document explanation
How does the H2G clean fuel process work? Most of it is proprietary, as some patents are still in progress globally. The essentials that can be discussed include a process which was discovered after a long study of lightning, and how it worked. Lightning releases one of the most powerful bursts of energy in micro seconds. From a series of experiments, a new theory was developed. It was refined and translated into a practical method of restructuring water so it could be used as a fuel replacement in internal combustion engines. In practice, fresh or seawater is fed into a 4 inch cube. Two of these cubes working together convert water into a burnable fuel, in real time, on demand. One box has electronics and one is a wet-box, the mix takes place in it. Inside the box the water is reformed and changes to the covalence bond angles and magnetic influences are affected. The result is a new bonded particle. Very explosive. This process is proprietary. The mix is a percentage, usually 5% gasoline and 95% water. Recently we ran a test engine on 1.1% percent gasoline and nearly 99% water. A video of that test is available in the download section on our web page, H2GE.com. ( or H4GAS.com )
This H2G process is based on new discoveries, not prior art. It has absolutely nothing to do with electrolysis, which has been around for more than century. In terms of efficiency, there is no comparison. H2G clean fuel processes can run entire engines using as little input energy as 160 milliamps @ 24 volts DC. Electrolysis could never extract enough energy from water to run an engine even with a hundred times more input power. In fact, most electrolysis systems just boost mpg on a gas fueled engines. But, electrolysis would never be effective as a primary fuel source at these low input power levels. While our inventor spoke of electrolysis & hydrogen in early interviews and videos, later that process was left on a back burner while new processes were being tested. Some, who view our videos and don't pay attention to the timeline get confused and mistakenly think we are still extracting hydrogen and oxygen from water and then using it as a fuel to be moved into a combustion chamber. Nothing is farther from the truth. Our process is quite different. Our process captures and extracts all the sources of energy in water, and may extract some that are not yet fully established empirically. Hydrogen and oxygen are not the primary components in our process. Lightning and plasma are.
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.05.28, 18:05:31
But, electrolysis would never be effective as a primary fuel source at these low input power levels.
Hi all :)
It depends. If you put whole tank into ultrasound chamber and keep passing low current through. Then exploit water cavitation effect and seeing how it affects gas production with 2 processes going on water at once... I am sure that is where most of patents are taking into.
The nature of nuclear magnetic resonance is always same.
P.S> On ultrasound and effect on water - https://youtu.be/RcqCgge_Fxs?t=90 - see "tiny bubbles" which are weakening bonds of water molecules. The DC current will do the rest.
Cheers!
What could the "restructuring" process actually accomplish?
A real brain-teaser for sure.
The Fourth Phase of Water (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-T7tCMUDXU)
A further talk on Water, Cells and Life (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9UC0chfXcg) which may have some
relevance.
Water has some amazing electrical properties at the
molecular level. The re-structuring process of H2G
does require electricity. Will we be able to figure it out?
What is going on in the Wet Box? Is some sort of vapor
being produced which is piped to the engine where it
is mixed with air? Might it be an ultrasonic fogger?
The engine obviously runs on whatever it is. I wonder
how much power is produced compared to straight
gasoline?
Would it be necessary for such fuel as H2G to modify the
ignition system in order to produce Plasma Discharge
rather than simple spark?
Another question comes to mind: While running on H2G
does the engine heat up as with straight gasoline?
Quote from: muDped on 2019.05.29, 04:42:42
I wonder how much power is produced compared to straight gasoline?
Apparently they did a dyno test on a scooter (gasoline vs water)
Results look good
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.05.28, 17:53:36
Don't stop Brad, this was shared by Ron
Breakthrough in 99% water and 1% gasoline running an engine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCZLQD4IgQ0
"Announcing ! the H2G Water BUS tour of USA. An RV / Bus will leave Tampa for Washington DC to Demonstrate the H2G clean water fuel technology that will run this bus across America and back, WITHOUT STOPPING FOR FUEL. The tour is from Tampa to DC to Silicon Valley, Ca. and many stops in between. There we meet with Scientists, Technicians and Financial VIPs from around the globe to introduce our technology. H2 Global invented this unique process based on studies of lightning, and charged particles. It extracts water from the air, like a dehumidifier, and that water is converted in our 4" CUBEs to a clean near zero emission fuel which improves by 5-10 x the mpg. It runs on 99% water. It replaces toxic fossil fuels. An engine test run is posted on our site https://www.h2ge.com/ or https://www.h4gas.com which shows an engine running on 99% water. There is also a downloadable document on the website which describes in more detail this historic event. We will be doing media interviews across America as we go. We will be riding Congresspersons on the bus at a demo in DC, Some celebrities have asked to ride. You can actually participate and may ride in the bus. Email h2ge@... to find out how, You can help spread the word just by sharing this. This will be a ride into history and mark the turning point from toxic fossil fuels to a clean energy future. H2G has a solution for climate change."
So what could be done to the water for it to work so well?... maybe a Ionic charged?
Cheers
Luc
Mmm
I wonder how exactly they got the fuel to mix with water without an emulsifier ?
Why the need for the fuel at all if the water becomes the fuel ?
It dose look good,but i would urge caution here.
As we know,and have seen over the years--if it looks to good to be true,it probably is not true.
Now,gasoline in my fogger unit will fog exactly like water.
In fact,it fogs up better than the water,due to it being less dense.
I tried diesel,but my unit will not create a fog from diesel,as it is to thick.
I have not experimented with a gasoline/water mix in the fogger unit yet--i wonder what the outcome would be.
Anyway,i have taken a weeks holiday from work beginning next monday,so as i can concentrate on the experimentation i have been conducting with the engine and fuel systems.
If any more information comes about regarding the h2G system,let me know,and we'll see what we can come up with.
But if this is for real,then i would think they would be garding it's secrets very strongly,as this would be a multi billion dollar device.
So lets brainstorm it a bit.
We do not need HHO gas,but we would need both the oxygen and hydrogen atoms separated into there liquid forms--maybe some form of electrical barrier between them ?
I dont know,im not a chemist,and just having a stab in the dark here.
ATM,i would be happy with a 50/50 water/gasoline fuel ratio,without loss of performance.
So far i am up to 30% water(in form of vapour),and 70% gasoline,without loss of performance.
I am going to machine another 1mm of the head,and raise the compression ratio to 16.5:1-or close to,and see if that allows a higher ratio of water.
!!But!! we are heading toward the engines upper limit of mechanical strength tolerance here,and i do not think it will hold up to long with such a high compression ratio.
But i have 5 more of them now ;D
Brad
Note : was writing this while TinMan was posting above.
I will be trying to reach out for someone who has more info on this,[an odd path the claim has taken over the years ?
on another note and perhaps related ... Smudge did post a link to a new science [for me anyway]
CANR here
https://earthtech.org/excess-energy-claims/
IMO what Johan 1955 shared is related to a CANR event [or similar] as the lithium soap lowers the bond strength
of the water molecule substantially [50 % less heat to disassociate]
I havent called Johan yet ,will ring him tomorrow
maybe this HG group has stumbled onto a CANR or ??
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.05.28, 18:55:11
Norman Wootan posted this in EVGray
https://www.h2ge.com/
"Announcing ! the H2G Water BUS tour of USA. An RV / Bus will leave Tampa for Washington DC to Demonstrate the H2G clean water fuel technology that will run this bus across America and back, WITHOUT STOPPING FOR FUEL. The tour is from Tampa to DC to Silicon Valley, Ca. and many stops in between. There we meet with Scientists, Technicians and Financial VIPs from around the globe to introduce our technology. H2 Global invented this unique process based on studies of lightning, and charged particles. It extracts water from the air, like a dehumidifier, and that water is converted in our 4" CUBEs to a clean near zero emission fuel which improves by 5-10 x the mpg. It runs on 99% water. It replaces toxic fossil fuels. An engine test run is posted on our site h2ge.com or h4gas.com which shows an engine running on 99% water. There is also a downloadable document on the website which describes in more detail this historic event. We will be doing media interviews across America as we go. We will be riding Congresspersons on the bus at a demo in DC, Some celebrities have asked to ride. You can actually participate and may ride in the bus. Email h2ge@... to find out how, You can help spread the word just by sharing this. This will be a ride into history and mark the turning point from toxic fossil fuels to a clean energy future. H2G has a solution for climate change."
.
Lol.
Had to be a VW dune buggy--didnt it lol.
Ou well,bed time now.
I'll sleep on it. O0
Brad
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.05.28, 17:53:36
Don't stop Brad, this was shared by Ron
Breakthrough in 99% water and 1% gasoline running an engine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCZLQD4IgQ0
"Announcing ! the H2G Water BUS tour of USA. An RV / Bus will leave Tampa for Washington DC to Demonstrate the H2G clean water fuel technology that will run this bus across America and back, WITHOUT STOPPING FOR FUEL. The tour is from Tampa to DC to Silicon Valley, Ca. and many stops in between. There we meet with Scientists, Technicians and Financial VIPs from around the globe to introduce our technology. H2 Global invented this unique process based on studies of lightning, and charged particles. It extracts water from the air, like a dehumidifier, and that water is converted in our 4" CUBEs to a clean near zero emission fuel which improves by 5-10 x the mpg. It runs on 99% water. It replaces toxic fossil fuels. An engine test run is posted on our site https://www.h2ge.com/ or https://www.h4gas.com which shows an engine running on 99% water. There is also a downloadable document on the website which describes in more detail this historic event. We will be doing media interviews across America as we go. We will be riding Congresspersons on the bus at a demo in DC, Some celebrities have asked to ride. You can actually participate and may ride in the bus. Email h2ge@... to find out how, You can help spread the word just by sharing this. This will be a ride into history and mark the turning point from toxic fossil fuels to a clean energy future. H2G has a solution for climate change."
So what could be done to the water for it to work so well?... maybe a Ionic charged?
Cheers
Luc
I clicked on the first link https://www.h2ge.com/ to look at what this is about. Downloaded their first paper "How does the H2G clean fuel process work.docx" and my Chrome went into overdrive consuming 97% of my CPU. Only way to stop it was to exit that link. Won't do that again.
Smudge
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.05.29, 13:27:43
Note : was writing this while TinMan was posting above.
I will be trying to reach out for someone who has more info on this,[an odd path the claim has taken over the years ?
on another note and perhaps related ... Smudge did post a link to a new science [for me anyway]
CANR here
https://earthtech.org/excess-energy-claims/
IMO what Johan 1955 shared is related to a CANR event [or similar] as the lithium soap lowers the bond strength
of the water molecule substantially [50 % less heat to disassociate]
I havent called Johan yet ,will ring him tomorrow
maybe this HG group has stumbled onto a CANR or ??
Glow discharge or to use it's real name dielectric barrier discharge as I have stated some years back and working with Alex in Italy, was used by us to reform the molecular structure in gases and water to produce new products, namely in my case CH4.
When used with just air it produces huge amounts of NOX gases
instantlyThe way it is configured it is producing RF and why readings are difficult to make, especially with DMM's. I had some very bad RF burns on my arm working with this.
If water vapor was used as the dielectric then I would expect changes in the molecular structure of the vapor and the small amount of petrol, and if injected into the engine who knows what will happen within a plasma compression situation :-\ Testing is the only way and something I have never done with an engine :)
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.05.29, 15:27:42
I clicked on the first link https://www.h2ge.com/ to look at what this is about. Downloaded their first paper "How does the H2G clean fuel process work.docx" and my Chrome went into overdrive consuming 97% of my CPU. Only way to stop it was to exit that link. Won't do that again.
Smudge
What firewall are you using? I'm using McAfee and it blocked around 30K after looking at the history, but did open the word doc. so something was there ;)
Regards
Mike 8)
I have just invested $14 on Moray B King's book Water, The Key to New Energy. Most interesting. I think we should all read it.
SMUDGE
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.05.29, 17:08:03
I have just invested $14 on Moray B King's book Water, The Key to New Energy. Most interesting. I think we should all read it.
SMUDGE
Here is an extensive review
https://quieteccentric.wordpress.com/2018/10/05/review-water-they-key-to-new-energy-by-moray-b-king-book-2017/comment-page-1/
Regards
Mike 8)
He brings together data from numerous experimenters such as Grenau, Shoulders, Meyer etc to talk about nano-bubbles, cavitation, plasmoids, ball lightning, HHO, Brown's gas, to suggest an overriding feature of ZPE coherence. This form of energy is likened to creating a thunderclap inside the cylinder of the internal combustion engine. It is not the burning of hydrogen gas. His final words are
"The microscopic ball lightning converts an internal combustion engine into a pulsed plasmoid engine. The huge anomalous force is sourced from the zero-point energy. Mimic a thunderclap and change the world."
Smudge
Quote from: Centraflow on 2019.05.29, 16:49:25
What firewall are you using? I'm using McAfee and it blocked around 30K after looking at the history, but did open the word doc. so something was there ;)
Regards
Mike 8)
My computer is old, runs Windows Vista hence doesn't use the latest Chrome because it doesn't support Vista. I have Norton for protection, a throw back from working for Chava LLC who supplied it free of charge. Had no trouble downloading and opening the various documents. I was interested to see that Mark Goldes was among the people listed on their web site, have known him for some years.
Smudge
Quote from: Centraflow on 2019.05.29, 16:49:25
What firewall are you using? I'm using McAfee and it blocked around 30K after looking at the history, but did open the word doc. so something was there ;)
Regards
Mike 8)
Probably just the CPU/os unable to cope with those videos and their player. Edit. Omg just checked out the site. 1999 called and wants it back. Just screams confidence for investors...not. And it's built in wix ffs. Their marketing is an issue I can tell you that.
Quote from: Smudge
My computer is old, runs Windows Vista hence doesn't
use the latest Chrome because it doesn't support Vista.
That is why I use Puppy Linux. Even old computers
are made compatible with modern demands. My
"newest" computer is more than 15 years old.
I love the power of Linux. And, it is free!
Many old computers are free too!
Ok,first problem i found with the video.
As he is using the same type of engine,it is easy for me to make verifications.
There 5ml of fuel is not enough to reach the pickups on the main jet tube.
It requires 13ml of fuel befor the engine will even fire up for a few seconds.
Brad
As you know,my engine has a 470 watt load on it,and i see no load on there engine.
With that 470 watt load,my engine will run for 14 minutes on 100ml of gasoline. That give us 8.4 seconds for every ml of fuel. So for 5ml of fuel,my engine will run for 42 seconds driving a 470 watt load,where as theres runs for 17 seconds on the same amount of fuel with no load on the engine.
Just another observation.
Brad
Quote from: Centraflow on 2019.05.29, 15:37:50
Glow discharge or to use it's real name dielectric barrier discharge as I have stated some years back and working with Alex in Italy, was used by us to reform the molecular structure in gases and water to produce new products, namely in my case CH4.
When used with just air it produces huge amounts of NOX gases instantly
The way it is configured it is producing RF and why readings are difficult to make, especially with DMM's. I had some very bad RF burns on my arm working with this.
If water vapor was used as the dielectric then I would expect changes in the molecular structure of the vapor and the small amount of petrol, and if injected into the engine who knows what will happen within a plasma compression situation :-\ Testing is the only way and something I have never done with an engine :)
Regards
Mike 8)
Hi All.
After following up on Mikes post about NOX.... I've taken a quote from the Wikipedia article.
" Water Injection technology, whereby water is introduced into the combustion chamber, is also becoming an important means of NO
x reduction through increased efficiency in the overall combustion process. Alternatively, the water (e.g. 10 to 50%) is emulsified into the fuel oil before the injection and combustion. This emulsification can either be made in-line (unstabilized) just before the injection or as a drop-in fuel with chemical additives for long term emulsion stability (stabilized). Inline emulsified fuel/water mixtures show NO
x reductions between 4 and 83% "
I found it quite interesting, are we now paying for Water in our fuel?
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.30, 10:54:47
Hi All.
After following up on Mikes post about NOX.... I've taken a quote from the Wikipedia article.
" Water Injection technology, whereby water is introduced into the combustion chamber, is also becoming an important means of NO
x reduction through increased efficiency in the overall combustion process. Alternatively, the water (e.g. 10 to 50%) is emulsified into the fuel oil before the injection and combustion. This emulsification can either be made in-line (unstabilized) just before the injection or as a drop-in fuel with chemical additives for long term emulsion stability (stabilized). Inline emulsified fuel/water mixtures show NO
x reductions between 4 and 83% "
I found it quite interesting, are we now paying for Water in our fuel?
Cheers Graham.
I really think it is more beneficial to inject the water as a mist into the intake of the engine,and the further away from the intake port the better. The colder you can make the air going into the engine-the better.
Having the water mixed with the fuel shows less benefit-no cooling effect of the intake air.
Im betting we can get the compression ratio up to 17:1 using water mist injection,and still run 91 octane fuel O0
Grum
I have come up with a simple solution for the mist injection,and it works an absolute treat.
I have used an expired 3 liter fire extinguisher as my reservoir.
I welded in an outlet in the bottom,and fitted a gate valve.
I put 1 liter of water in it,and then pump it up with air from my compressor to 50psi.
When i turn on the gate valve,i get a very nice fine mist from the misting nozzle.
I get 1/2 an hour run time from this setup,without having to pump more air into it. O0
Brad
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.30, 10:54:47
Hi All.
After following up on Mikes post about NOX.... I've taken a quote from the Wikipedia article.
" Water Injection technology, whereby water is introduced into the combustion chamber, is also becoming an important means of NO
x reduction through increased efficiency in the overall combustion process. Alternatively, the water (e.g. 10 to 50%) is emulsified into the fuel oil before the injection and combustion. This emulsification can either be made in-line (unstabilized) just before the injection or as a drop-in fuel with chemical additives for long term emulsion stability (stabilized). Inline emulsified fuel/water mixtures show NO
x reductions between 4 and 83% "
I found it quite interesting, are we now paying for Water in our fuel?
Cheers Graham.
HI Graham
Using my phone on my terraze having a beer >:-) here in Spain we have Neox fuel, they do not say what is in it but I think we can guess fairly accurately C.C C.C, we pay a premium for this and they call it neotech ;D ;D ;D
Regards
Mike 8)
Brad
The smaller the droplets in a fixed area the greater the surface area for reaction.
I will explain later
Regards
Mike
Ok,so after a bit of searching,i have found the circuit board they are using.
Below is a screen shot from there video,as well as the complete board i found.
So something is amiss here,as the PS-05 power supplies only come in 5 and 12 volt's,and the bloke in the video said 24 volts. The watt meter on the wall also seems to be plugged into a mains multi board,and so that would be 282mA at 110 volts in America--240 volts here in Oz.
Link to the power supply boards.
https://www.soigeneris.com/meanwell-ps-05-power-supplies
They also state the electronics are proprietary,and in the process of patents.
Obviously they are not.
Im smelling a rat here.
Added
The R5V board they are using is only 5 volts output.
So things are looking not so good so far.
Brad
Hi Brad.
Which video? Do you have a link?
I've been thinking a lot about this project. As Mike states, the finer the mist the better.
What could be done with the Petter Diesel is to put an adjustable packer under the fuel pump so that it just " blips " it. You could then have a mainly water saturated compression stroke followed by a minuscule Hydrocarbon ignition event.
Cheers Graham.
Good investigating Brad O0... that is without a doubt the same circuit.
When I saw it in the video I didn't believe that was their proprietary circuit.
If this is real we can only assume it's a power supply for their circuit.
I also agree and had noticed the power meter they used is a grid meter.
Hope you will continue your experiments and that Michael N. and Smudge can further assist... I like the Plasmoid action Smudge mentioned.
Cheers
Luc
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.30, 13:27:17
Hi Brad.
Which video? Do you have a link?
I've been thinking a lot about this project. As Mike states, the finer the mist the better.
What could be done with the Petter Diesel is to put an adjustable packer under the fuel pump so that it just " blips " it. You could then have a mainly water saturated compression stroke followed by a minuscule Hydrocarbon ignition event.
Cheers Graham.
The video of the small blue 7.5hp engine they show running on there system.
I agree,the finer the mist the better.
I found that as i increased the pressure of the garden/cooling mister,the finer the mist.
In fact,at 65psi it was that fine that it floated up and away--almost as fine as the fogger i used earlier.
I think if the air/mist mix was drawn through an intercooler of some sort,it would be that cold that we could almost double the volume of air entering the cylinder. This is one thing i will be experimenting with in the coming week.
Tomorrow is my last day at work for 9 days,so tomorrow night will be the first of many long nights.
My intention is to push the limits on the engine i have ATM,until she lets go.
What i do need is a high power plasma ignition circuit.
If anyone can help out there in way of a circuit or idea,that would be great O0
Brad
Ok, I found the video....
Could it be as simple as a "fogger " under the water finely mixing the Petrol ( floating on top ) with the water?
I wonder if an " intercooler " might end up recombining the mist back to water Brad? Worth a try though eh?
Cheers Graham.
Moray B King suggests that nanobubbles are the key to all this. They are stable and he thinks they somehow cohere the ZPE to become miniature ball lightning. All the improved electrolyzers create bubbles by cavitation and it is those bubbles that produce the anomalous energy. I have taken the liberty of extracting 5 pages from his introduction and reproduced them here. That gives clues to the working of this revolutionary new water engine, and a US patent number (US 20120186557).
Smudge
And here is the patent.
Smudge
Thank you Smudge O0 well that is a copy of Stans injector system for sure.
Here are some points to think about.
1. Water in a vacuum boils at a lower temperature.
2. When the water boils in this vacuum the temperature of the water also drops due to the change of state of the water.
3. If the vacuum was sudden and the vacuum high enough the water would freeze.
4. The dielectric constant of water changes depending on which state it is in (solid, liquid or gaseous)
5. The fourth state of water, if we can call it that, would be a charged water dielectric.
6. Considering 5, lightning is this dielectric breakdown.
7. The star in a jar as it is known is a plasmoid formed by acoustics creating vibrations to a single bubble of air.
8. Considering 7, I would think a nano pulse from 15kv+ to 15kv- (30kv peak to peak) would be needed :-\
Just thinking allowed here ;)
Regards
Mike 8)
I purchased Moray King's book "Tapping the Zero Point Energy" when it first came out in 1989. It is basically a compilation of his earlier papers dating back to the 1970's and later. I found it had many interesting chapters.
Later that year I had the opportunity to meet with Moray at a symposium where he was a speaker. I tried, after his presentation, when he was "milling around" to explore further with him some of the concepts which were interesting to me, but he seemed to be aloof and not very communicative, so I dropped it and ended the one sided "conversation".
I still refer to that book and also have some of his later books which seem to rehash some of the same themes.
He is no doubt an interesting guy, and presents some neat ideas for experimentation.
Hopefully his new "Water" book also has some meat to sink our teeth into, I will trust Smudge's opinion on that.
As far as water injection, Brad might be interested in the "Fischer Cycle"engines, but are they vaporware? pun intended.
Regards
Dr. Gerald Pollack explains water has a forth phase and claims it's free energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-T7tCMUDXU
Marcia Barbosa (TED talk) explains water accelerates going through Nano tubes or just if there's more water volume.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OLFwkfPxCg
Cheers
Luc
Yes indeed, excellent research so far.
Additional info here (https://waterfuel.tesla3.com/water-explosionreview-of-available-technologies/) at the Water as Fuel website.
I believe some of you already have nearly
figured it out. Many breakthroughs do tend to
be simple to comprehend and fairly easy to
duplicate.
After a nights sleep and with regard to this video....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCZLQD4IgQ0
I'm 99% certain that the engine is running on a mixture of " atomised " Petrol and water closely related to the PDF pictures I posted a couple of pages back.
Brad has also mentioned that Petrol " mists " just as easily as water using a " fogger " and as it floats upon the water the two will be carried into the combustion chamber.
I'm wondering, like Brad, if the engine hasn't got the strength to " pull the skin off a rice pudding " ? A load applied would verify this aspect.
Following muDped's link posted this morning it was pointed out that " flash steam " if admitted into a cold cylinder can actually condense so quickly as to be ineffective. I'm wondering if that is what was happening in the video where the demonstrator needed help to readjust the settings, presumably the engine was warming up?
A " busmen's " holiday awaits, eh Brad? ;)
Cheers Graham.
author=Grumage link=topic=3460.msg74918#msg74918 date=1559305769]
QuoteAfter a nights sleep and with regard to this video....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCZLQD4IgQ0
Hi Graham
QuoteI'm 99% certain that the engine is running on a mixture of " atomised " Petrol and water closely related to the PDF pictures I posted a couple of pages back.
I have watched the video about 10 times now,and in full screen.
The video is of low quality,and some things are hard to make out .
But what i do know is that the electronics board they showed(which i identified)is only a 5 volt board,and not 24 volts as they claim. It is also just a DC power supply,and is not an ultrasonic driver board.
It also has a power output rating of only 5 watts,which is also not enough to drive an ultrasonic unit.
QuoteBrad has also mentioned that Petrol " mists " just as easily as water using a " fogger " and as it floats upon the water the two will be carried into the combustion chamber.
Yes,i did say that the fogger unit will atomise gasoline--no problem there.
What i do not know is what will happen when both water and gasoline are placed in the fogger unit,as i have not tried it yet. I believe that the water will not be atomised until the gasoline has been depleted,so the two will not atomise together. But we will know for sure by tomorrow evening O0
QuoteI'm wondering, like Brad, if the engine hasn't got the strength to " pull the skin off a rice pudding " ? A load applied would verify this aspect.
Im smelling a rat with this one.
So far we know what the electronic board is,and it is not what they say it is--strike 1
Then,after watching the video many times,it seems to me that there manual air inlet valve(the chopped up T piece) seems to be closed while running the second test--strike 2
And as you know,i spent a fair bit of time making the gasoline vapour setup i tested,and even using gate valves that could be very finely adjusted,it still took me a good 10 minutes to get the mixture just right,so as the motor would run quite smooth. This guy is twisting a very !non accurate! valve (the cut away T piece),and his engine starts right up,and runs very smooth. So thats is a strike 3 for me.
Now,the pipe plumbing they have going on there dose not make much sense to me.
To the average joe,it may look like it should,but i wonder if anyone will see/note what i did about that maze of PVC pipes and boxes. Strike 4 for me there.
And then there is the watt meter showing 282mA.
The bloke in the video says that particular unit uses 282mA @ 24v.
But,that watt meter is plugged into mains,not 24 volts,and so is using 282mA @ 110v(assuming it's in America)
That is 31 watts of power,and not 6.76 watts as he claims.= strike 5.
So either he is being very deceptive,or there is something else going on there some where.
Things are just not adding up here.
QuoteFollowing muDped's link posted this morning it was pointed out that " flash steam " if admitted into a cold cylinder can actually condense so quickly as to be ineffective. I'm wondering if that is what was happening in the video where the demonstrator needed help to readjust the settings, presumably the engine was warming up?
Well you would be the man to answer this one Graham,as im guessing that you must have had something to do with steam engines in the past ?
What happens when you inject steam into a cold cylinder?.
I would think that when you inject water vapour into a volume of hot air,that is some what close to 500-600*C,it would turn to steam. The pressure would increase,and push the piston down.As the piston is pushed down the bore,and the pressure drops rapidly,the steam would once again condense to water droplets,but i would think that would be after it provided useful work. I don't know,as i have not made it that far yet.
QuoteA " busmen's " holiday awaits, eh Brad? ;)
Not sure what you mean there Grum ?.
Are you referring to the big bus trip H2G are taking all those people on ?.
Brad
Quote from: ion on 2019.05.30, 17:19:32
As far as water injection, Brad might be interested in the "Fischer Cycle"engines, but are they vaporware? pun intended.
Regards
Hi ION
Well i had never heard of that one before,and another Aussie invention O0
So i found this page explaining the operation of said engine.
http://rexresearch.com/fischer/fischer.htm
An interesting idea,but 3100 psig at 700*F :o
It would only take one small mistake,and it's hello 6 foot hole in the ground.
At those pressures and temperatures,you would cut limbs off with a burst hose.
And if the boiler ever went bang--game over.
I think i might give that one a miss,as interesting as it sound's.
And beside's,i do not have anything that would stand up to those pressures.
Brad
Hi Brad.
The board could simply be " eye candy " couldn't it? The 31 Watts is reasonable for some " fogger's " as they vary upon size.
The 5 mL of petrol spread across the 450mL of water would be literally a thin film and I think easily atomised, but we shall see, thanks to you. O0
The first steam engines from the likes of Savery, Newcomen, and Watt were all " atmospheric " by injection of steam into a cold cylinder. Watt improved the efficiency by inventing the " separate condensor " where the steam condensed in a " cold " chamber allowing the cylinder to remain warm all the time.
A " Busman's holiday " sorry about the earlier typo....
Simply means a person having a holiday/vacation but doing virtually the same thing as though at work! :)
Have a great holiday Brad.... O0
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.31, 14:18:45
Hi ION
Well i had never heard of that one before,and another Aussie invention O0
So i found this page explaining the operation of said engine.
http://rexresearch.com/fischer/fischer.htm
An interesting idea,but 3100 psig at 700*F :o
It would only take one small mistake,and it's hello 6 foot hole in the ground.
At those pressures and temperatures,you would cut limbs off with a burst hose.
And if the boiler ever went bang--game over.
I think i might give that one a miss,as interesting as it sound's.
And beside's,i do not have anything that would stand up to those pressures.
Brad
Thing about it is there is no large external boiler, water is super heated inside a tiny chamber that is part of the injector assembly, which then opens and flashes the
liquid to steam in the cylinder AFAIK, or at least that's how Dennis Lee reported it to work at one of his demo's.
Graham
Quote:
Brad has also mentioned that Petrol " mists " just as easily as water using a " fogger " and as it floats upon the water the two will be carried into the combustion chamber.
I expect the petrol will form a film around the water droplet, a perfect distribution.
If the intake valve opens after a vacuum has been created within the cylinder (25% of downstroke!!!!) at 20ºc the vapor will flash boil along with that petrol film, just maybe you apply the plasma at near BDC. That star in a jar just might be many stars 8)
Again thinking aloud to inspire others ;)
Regards
Mike 8)
The thing I find most interesting in that patent application US2012/0186557A1 is Figure 4 and the description given beginning at para 0049. He say this breaks the covalent bond between hydrogen and oxygen in the mist particles to separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen. IMO that really is turning the water mist into a fuel. (He also says this achieves the protonation and or proton spin of the water particles, whatever that means.) It appears the process goes on over the full downstroke thus requiring the spark plug to repeatedly fire during that stroke. It seems Brad could be busy for some time if he tries out different mist conditioning regimes.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2019.05.31, 19:12:49
The thing I find most interesting in that patent application US2012/0186557A1 is Figure 4 and the description given beginning at para 0049. He say this breaks the covalent bond between hydrogen and oxygen in the mist particles to separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen. IMO that really is turning the water mist into a fuel. (He also says this achieves the protonation and or proton spin of the water particles, whatever that means.) It appears the process goes on over the full downstroke thus requiring the spark plug to repeatedly fire during that stroke. It seems Brad could be busy for some time if he tries out different mist conditioning regimes.
Smudge
Since i have been fooling around with those foggers,i have always thought about passing the fog between two highly charged plates.
Not sure why,or what that would do,but just a thought i had.
Brad
Quote from: Centraflow on 2019.05.31, 16:43:29
Graham
Quote:
Brad has also mentioned that Petrol " mists " just as easily as water using a " fogger " and as it floats upon the water the two will be carried into the combustion chamber.
I expect the petrol will form a film around the water droplet, a perfect distribution.
If the intake valve opens after a vacuum has been created within the cylinder (25% of downstroke!!!!) at 20ºc the vapor will flash boil along with that petrol film, just maybe you apply the plasma at near BDC. That star in a jar just might be many stars 8)
Again thinking aloud to inspire others ;)
Regards
Mike 8)
Thanks Mike. O0
My thought processes run slow these days but....
He measured a very " specific " amount of water and not just ordinary tap water. If I remember correctly the fogger's don't take kindly to Chlorine and the other chemicals that can be present in our domestic water.
Perhaps they found that there's a " critical " depth where the water and Petrol will " mist " together?
Following from Brad's previous post, didn't TK perform some test, with video, on water droplets with HV? I remember mentioning " fogger's " to him not long after.
Cheers Graham.
I was chatting with Evolvingape ( Rob ) last night.
He recommended one of these for use as a " Plasma " arc generator.
Ok,so here is how it went today.
First i tried just bottled water in the fogger--no problem there.
Then i tried just gasoline in the fogger--no problem there.
Then i added 50ml of gasoline to about 150ml of water,and no fog at all-nothing.
So then i drained that mix,and added 100 odd ml of water,and about 3ml of gasoline,and there was fog.
It did smell slightly of gasoline,so i decided to try and light the fog with my gas torch,but no go.
In fact,the fog retarded the hot flame of the gas torch,like it was trying to blow it out.
Video uploading ATM,and i will post it as soon as it's done.
There is another video to come after that one :D
Just some fun with the gasoline fog ;D
Brad.
Gasoline/water fogger results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAJCFJHAAok
ion,
An Aladdin's cave :D I like the sound of that, you never know what might turn up in places like that, very 8)
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.01, 12:25:07
Gasoline/water fogger results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAJCFJHAAok
Thanks Brad. O0
We've seen the " fountain " effect many times when the water level is wrong, instead of mist you get a column forming.
We also noticed the colour of the flame change, showing the presence of the Hydrocarbon. ( Orange/Yellow ) tinge.
I suppose all that is left is to " pipe up " and keep fingers crossed?
Tomorrow would be good as I clock up another year!
Oooh, I almost forgot, what is the driving wattage of your fogger? Is it a " homespun " one?
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.06.02, 10:37:30
Thanks Brad. O0
We've seen the " fountain " effect many times when the water level is wrong, instead of mist you get a column forming.
We also noticed the colour of the flame change, showing the presence of the Hydrocarbon. ( Orange/Yellow ) tinge.
I suppose all that is left is to " pipe up " and keep fingers crossed?
Tomorrow would be good as I clock up another year!
Oooh, I almost forgot, what is the driving wattage of your fogger? Is it a " homespun " one?
Cheers Graham.
The fogger unit i use will still create fog in a depth of 150mm,so depth is not the issue here.
The unit (from memory) uses 46 watts,but that includes the LED and fan.
Ah,birthday tomorrow O0
Early happy birthday to you Graham.
I have just about completed the mister/intercooler setup,and will be running that tomorrow.
I have set it up so as i can run the fogger unit into it as well O0.
Brad
Ok,so as you all know why i have not posted any testing results for the last 2 day--weellll i have something for you all to see. I just need to get everything set up very clearly,so as you know there is no hokey pokey going on here.
You could say we have !zapped! some life into our water ;)
I'll be back as soon as i have it set up properly.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.30, 14:10:28
What i do need is a high power plasma ignition circuit.
If anyone can help out there in way of a circuit or idea,that would be great O0
Brad
Here is a replication of my basic plasma spark circuit that reacts with a fine water mist which I shared a week before Aaron even started his topic.
https://youtu.be/tRvGIUUOzSU
Cheers
Luc
ADDED I better make it clear that in both cases (regular vs plasma spark) it is the same Joule energy of 22uf @ 180vdc = 350mJ going in the coil primary. The only difference is when I engage the diode path the capacitor can also travel to the park plug. So there is no extra Energy cost to make the plasma spark, the only cost is adding the diodes.
MORE ADDED I just looked at the video and noticed the spark (in plasma mode) is not always visible by the camera but you can hear it which means the spark is much faster then the cameras 30fps video frame rate. It would be interesting to use a high frame rate camera to find out exactly how much faster the spark is in plasma mode compered to the regular HV spark.
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.06.04, 17:05:52
Here is a replication of my basic plasma spark circuit that reacts with a fine water mist which I shared a week before Aaron even started his topic.
https://youtu.be/tRvGIUUOzSU
Cheers
Luc
ADDED I better make it clear that in both cases (regular vs plasma spark) it is the same Joule energy of 22uf @ 180vdc = 350mJ going in the coil primary. The only difference is when I engage the diode path the capacitor can also travel to the park plug. So there is no extra Energy cost to make the plasma spark, the only cost is adding the diodes.
MORE ADDED I just looked at the video and noticed the spark (in plasma mode) is not always visible by the camera but you can hear it which means the spark is much faster then the cameras 30fps video frame rate. It would be interesting to use a high frame rate camera to find out exactly how much faster the spark is in plasma mode compered to the regular HV spark.
Thanks for doing that Luc.
I am just wondering as to how it would perform at a 50Hz cycle rate for 3000rpm ?.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.05, 01:27:22
Thanks for doing that Luc.
I am just wondering as to how it would perform at a 50Hz cycle rate for 3000rpm ?.
Brad
Well, a mechanical switching version of it wouldn't work well ;D... but I see no reason why a solid state version couldn't reach 6000rpm.
These guys designed, built and marketed many (2, 4, 6 & 8 cylinder) versions from the basic principle: http://www.aquapulser.com/performance_ignition/
Out of respect they added my name to the inventor list when they patented their circuit design even though I had nothing to do with the development... but I guess it was their way of confirming they knew I was the first to share this method.
Peter Lindemann did the same when he made the first water spark video and credited me
"Based on Luc's (gotoluc) Method" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOhNtRhJ5Rw&t=3s
However, having my name on the patent came in handy when they had a dispute and separated. I was able to team up with one owner and dissolve the patent so it couldn't get out of hand and the tech stay in public domain which was my priority.
Then Aaron somehow found out and had a shit and stated publicly accusing me of thief and insisted it be re-patented with my name removed and his name in place.
None of us agreed to his bullying including the patent attorney. In the end we agreed to add his name in condition he took down the topics accusing me of fraud and so on, which he agreed to at the time. However, he has recently revived those topics even though he had agreed to take them down.
Says much about his word and character.
Anyways, hope you can do something useful with it.
Cheers
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on 2019.06.05, 14:40:37
Well, a mechanical switching version of it wouldn't work well ;D... but I see no reason why a solid state version couldn't reach 6000rpm.
These guys designed, built and marketed many (2, 4, 6 & 8 cylinder) versions from the basic principle: http://www.aquapulser.com/performance_ignition/
Out of respect they added my name to the inventor list when they patented their circuit design even though I had nothing to do with the development... but I guess it was their way of confirming they knew I was the first to share this method.
Peter Lindemann did the same when he made the first water spark video and credited me "Based on Luc's (gotoluc) Method" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOhNtRhJ5Rw&t=3s
However, having my name on the patent came in handy when they had a dispute and separated. I was able to team up with one owner and dissolve the patent so it couldn't get out of hand and the tech stay in public domain which was my priority.
Then Aaron somehow found out and had a shit and stated publicly accusing me of thief and insisted it be re-patented with my name removed and his name in place.
None of us agreed to his bullying including the patent attorney. In the end we agreed to add his name in condition he took down the topics accusing me of fraud and so on, which he agreed to at the time. However, he has recently revived those topics even though he had agreed to take them down.
Says much about his word and character.
Anyways, hope you can do something useful with it.
Cheers
Luc
Yes,that is Aaron to a T.
Take some one else's work,make a slight modification,and then claim it as his own.
A very good example of why cautions must be taken when experimenting in the public domain.
Brad
Two useful articles I found today by David French, patent attorney, relating to LENR patents:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/FrenchDpatentsand.pdf
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedy.pdf#page=103
Mr. French passed away in December 2018. http://www.infinite-energy.com/resources/david-french.html
https://coldfusionnow.org/podcast/Ruby-Carat-David-French-Cold-Fusion-Now-008.mp3
provides an insightful interview with patent attorney David French.