Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
You are saying that:
"The addition of water and or the products of electrolytically splitting the water via on-board production, added to the combustion process of an internal combustion engine cannot in any way, shape or form increase the said power and efficiency of the engine when consuming hydrocarbon fuels and air".
Please review your position statement as I have written it and make modifications as you see fit. But, don't back off or retract your challenge.
|
I'm not backing off or retracting my challenge at all.
I'm all for ironing out the details. Setting up the kick starter to get the 'pot' large enough to do the measurement. I'm certain of the science.
As for corrections.
I see several things wrong in your 'version' of my position.
#1> I have not claimed 'in any way, shape or form' ... That could and would include many things not being discussed here at all ... Fusion of Hydrogen ... Water reacting with other materials (sodium, etc) ... a 6 cycle engine using a steam power 'cooling' stroke ... Converting potential energy of water held higher above the ground as you let it fall down to the ground with gravity... etc.
I am instead staying on topic of the kind of device described here in this thread. Opening it up with that kind of claim like you wrote is not this discussion in this thread at all. We are not discussing here 'any' method ... what is being discussed here is a far more specific method.
- - - - - - - -
#2> I have not claimed it could not increase the power and efficiency ... power and efficiency are two completely different topics here... The one I posted about was efficiency ... and I already posted that you could get some efficiency improvements ... we already know that from the NASA papers that always seem to get pulled up in these discussions.
But any tiny bit above 0% still counts as an improvement in efficiency ... that is not the same as what you've already claimed of "More than compensate for losses" ... and "measurable gains".
For example:
If you improve a 30% Efficient ICE to 30.1% it is an improvement ... but may not be enough to also accomplish your claim of "more than compensate for losses" and "measurable gains".
If you have to consume 0.1% to gain 0.1% you don't have enough gain to be better off than not taking the 0.1% in the first place.
Also the device and the water itself adds weight and such to the vehicle ... that weight is an automatic penalty ... in order to "more than compensate for losses" ... and have "measurable gains" ... you need to result in more not just breaking even.
Take 100 Joules of Mechanical energy and convert it with many automotive alternators to electrical energy ... and you will get out less than 80 joules of electrical energy ... take that 80 joules of electrical energy and use it in many devices for the electrolysis of water and you will get back less than 60 joules of chemical energy in H2 +O2 ... Use that 60 joules of H2 + O2 in a ~30% efficient ICE to covert it to mechanical energy ... and you get less than 20 joules of mechanical energy.
For the 100 joules of mechanical energy you took away ... you got 20 back ... such a system would have to improve the original Gasoline ICE chemical to mechanical conversion by 80 joules of additional / new mechanical energy output for every 100 joules it takes ... and at that point it is still just dead weight ... no better than carrying around a equally heavy bag of sand.
Now when we look at the % of ICE efficiency improvement that NASA verified ... and how much Hydrogen they needed to use to do get that ... we know it won't work... it will not "more than compensate for losses" and have "measurable gains"... the gap is too big.
- - - - - - - - - -
#3> A key part of what I wrote that you completely left out.
Controlled test results... Simple Road tests are just not good enough ... There are too many uncontrolled variables from a simple road test to be able to get meaningful results.
For example:
For the Gen-1 Insight I know of a someone who got as low as 19 MPG on a tank of gas ... in the same vehicle no equipment improvements I know of someone else who got up to as high as 164 MPG ... that giant swing from 19 to 164 had absolutely nothing at all to do with equipment ... no ICE or vehicle efficiency improvements , etc ... that giant 145 MPG difference is completely from driving conditions and driving methods... So to have meaningful results we need a good dino to put the vehicle under controlled test conditions before and after in order to remove all those other effects that can give false result... and completely remove those illusionary benefits that have nothing to do with the device in question on this thread.
- - - - - - - -
#4> You have to try and compare as close to apples to apples as you can.
So if you are just running the engine leaner ... than you have to compare apples to apples ... and also run it lean without the water and electrolysis.
You don't get to run a ICE at say 20% efficiency ... then 'fix' it to 30% ... then add your system ... and call the 50% improvement the result of the water or electrolysis... the fixing of it to 30% is the actual cause of / source of the gains.
- - - - - - - -
#5> Even if it gets you some tiny % ... it is not a net benefit "measurable gain" ... unless it does a better job than alternatives it is competing with.
For example:
As for running lean ... Honda made the Gen-1 Insight Run as lean as 25.8 to 1 Air to Fuel Ratio and achieved as much as 20% improved BSFC from it ... and they did it all without water or electrolysis ... if the water and electrolysis can't beat what honda did without it ... than the water and electrolysis are not a "measurable gain"... at best it is an inferior "less gain" method of doing the same thing... and people would be better off doing the "more gain" thing than the "less gain"
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
I am saying that:
"The addition of water and or the products of electrolytically splitting the water via on-board production, added to the combustion process of an internal combustion engine does improve the said power and efficiency of the engine a measurable amount when consuming hydrocarbon fuels and when certain conditions are in place."
As you can see, I do not believe you can simply slap an electrolyzer on an engine and see measurable gains. I, more than most people, can see the futility of that exercise. But, under specific conditions, there can be benefits.
|
The problem is you re-phrased position there is too vague.
You might not even be on-topic for this thread anymore.
A 6 stroke engine with water as a cooling stroke would meet your overly vague re-phrased description ... but would not at all be the device being discussed here in this thread.
Your overly vague re-phrasing can also include fusion of hydrogen ... which is not being discussed here in this thread.
etc ... etc.
- - - - -
Further ... adding the phrase 'under specific conditions' just screams to me of building yourself an escape hatch to an already overly vague re-phrasing.
What are the specific conditions you want to make a claim about ? ... define the method of water and electrolysis specifically ... if it is the concept that is on-topic for this thread ... than it will not ... have "measurable gains" ... and will not "More than compensate for losses".