Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDevil
I see an overwhelming lack of data, rather.
The properties of oxyhydrogen gas are well known (see the Encyclopedia Brittannica link) and it is obvious that mixing such a highly explosive gas with the intake air does have an effect on the combustion process.
What we need is hard data proving that the benefit is stronger than the cost of separating hydrogen and oxygen.
If it is out there I could not find it. Nor can you, apparently.
Don't tell me you can, just show what you found.
Sure, science does have its pitfalls but science does its best to avoid them, so much so that the occasional glitch makes the headlines.
So science is stigmatized and therefore does not recognize the benefit of oxyhydrogen?
Scientists simply refuse to get involved with a device that can seriously reduce fuel consumption, for no reason at all?
Who would believe that?
I rather believe that scientists do understand the process and when they test it they find the expected result namely no usable positive effect.
Élaborating the obvious does not get attention, that's why it is so hard to find.
Ìf science does not cut it nothing does.
|
Those are very well known branches of science and you have ignored them in your searches.
Science research does not work on what one wants. It works on grant money. I've been there and done that. One often has to look through oblique and circuitous paths in research.
If you feel it is a dead end, then why don't you drop out of the conversation. If you just want to heap your Google research on the subject, I can't stop you. But why don't you put into Google "ozone 40ppm combustion" and see a link to Reasearchgate and download a pdf from the SAE on how small amounts of ozone measurably affect combustion. As I have said in the past. We often ignore the oxygen aspect of HHO. It is not pure. The presence of impurities in the electrolyte causes this. HCCI research is heavily dependent on chemical kinetics.
And I cannot give you a link to a hardcover book on my desk "Combustion by Glassman & Yetter". Look into the first chapter and the table 1.1 on heats of formation and the realization that the 250 KJ/mol of heat isn't just miraculously released but goes through a myriad number of pathways, some endothermic, some exothermic. Compounds such as benzene, acetylene and hydrazine are formed in the flame front, decomposed and go on and form other compounds. In this whole mix are the highly reactive radicals of H+ (free hydrogen) and OH- (Hydroxyl radical). These short lived radicals are key in the rate of reaction. Hydrogen gas is not consumed instantly as some presume. It becomes an active participant in the depolymerization of the base hydrocarbon and only fully oxidizes when all that is left is CO and H. This is not hocus pocus but well known principles of combustion.
But, what if you add enough hydrogen so that you don't have to exothermically absorb 410 kj/mol of energy ( you have to wait for that energy to develop) to cleave a H atom from the hydrocarbon? With the water that is often present in HHO systems bubblers, the 218 kj/mol to split the H2 molecule can be as low as 23 kj/mol. Now, can you see how HHO in the intake tract to a hot, turbulent combustion chamber, can change the chemical kinetics of the fuel mix even before combustion starts by virtue of providing a measure of the important H+ and OH- radicals?
If none of this makes sense to you, simply put - the addition of HHO into the intake tract of a gasoline fueled spark ignited engine can change the balance of chemical species before the onset of ignition.
The question is, can it accelerate the combustion sequence? And, by how much?
Given some time and space I can tell you.