Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tele man
re: "At no time did I say the water adds heat to the system."
I did not claim that you did, rather, I wrote that water, itself, did not add heat to the process and thus could not/did not provide energy (rebuffing the '...+25% More HP...').
Adding H2 to the intake AIR stream of an ICE is simply "adding" a second level of FUEL, albeit a pure gaseous rather than liquid hydrocarbon fuel. And, since the added H2 is gaseous, it displaces AIR and reduces O2 content available for combustion. Not a winning path.
Attempting to "create/generate" H2 (from water) on-the-fly is a genuine 'fools-errand' because it takes more ENERGY in creating the electrical energy from the engines power than the miniscule amounts of H2 can/could/will every produce, both: singularly, by its combustion (robbing O2 from the gasoline), as well as collectively, by its contibution to the now overly-rich gasoline combustion process.
I *DO* state that 100% hydrogen fuel would be greener for the atmosphere since it's combustion by-product is pure water vapor...which, while not as bad as CO2, is still actually a contributing green house gas.
|
. . . can change the pressure curve reducing the energy lost before and after the power stroke. The increase in effective BMEP ( brake-mean-effective-pressure ) results in more power - power that can more than compensate for the losses in producing the hydrogen/oxygen and that can compensate for the energy lost to the water interaction.
Can this result in a 25% gain in fuel efficiency? No, probably not. But can it result in a measurable gain? I say yes and I am willing to stand by that statement. Are you willing to stand by yours? I am willing to bet you are not as sure of your science as I am of mine.
And I can tell by your last post that you know very little of what actually goes on in a combustion chamber.