Quote:
Originally Posted by ChazInMT
Again Rusty....Only a bunch of gibberish and NO NUMBERS!!!!!
EXPLAIN The High School chemistry to me!!! You say a few percent gain can be achieved when I show that it takes more than a few percent chunk of your fuel to create it.
Tell us how much water is disassociated to create a fuel stream?
What percentage does one get of your magic ozone in this reaction and what percentage of efficiency does it contribute?...A Number please. Not "Gosh it sure is significant!!"
Tell us WHAT PERCENT efficiency gain is achieved in the combustion?
How much energy is required to disassociate the amount of water you are talking about and where does this come from?
These are all legitimate questions I am asking you for answers on since you are an expert in this field, you can tell me. If they're not legitimate questions explain why and tell me how it works.
These are real numbers you can tell us, with your "Post Doctorate" level of knowledge on the subject, it should be like flicking a fly off your shoulder.
And quit accusing me of being a low brow academically, I'm able to understand and comprehend anything you can explain to me.
I'm just asking you to explain this so I see it works.
BTW, I am fully aware that the HHO may indeed improve the combustion....I have never said that it won't help a small amount, it's just that for all the trouble and energy you would have to put into it, not to mention again that it takes far more energy to create the fuel than the added output from it. I say under ALL circumstances, even under your ideal edge of the envelope of combustion conditions, the idea that you can create HHO on board and utilize it to improve efficiency to generate more power than you would have otherwise to not only overcome the energy required to produce the HHO, but have a surplus that finds its way to driving the tires is unabashed crap.
Other than tell me I am stupid, and you are smart, then spew a bunch of crap about how a small amount of HHO may improve combustion (which I concede it may), you NEVER show numbers.
Never Show Any NUMBERS.
Why Don't you organize these, 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,., in such a way that they can let us all know that this can work.
You're good at saying we're all just too stupid to get it. Your good at throwing around a bunch of information on the intricacies of combustion. You really, really, suck at relating these improvements to NUMBERS that we all can understand that show how the
"Time is the other. During de-polymerization, highly reactive radicals such as H+, OH- , OOH, HOOH and so forth are created. Their existence was theorized decades ago and only in the last decade has instrumentation and detection techniques allowed us to verify them. These radicals are important in that they "rip apart" the long chain hydrocarbons into shorter species. By adding a small amount of H2 and O3 before the ignition point free radicals can be formed via the heat addition of compression, radiation and turbulence since the energy of dissociation for H2 and O3 is quite low. This rich cloud of active radicals is now ready to pounce on the long chain hydrocarbons and release even more hydrogen and form even more radicals in a domino effect. The seeding of the fuel mix with these radicals "railroads" some of the side reactions resulting in a faster flame front. No more energy is created in this reaction, but the combustion TIME is shorter." Effect
increases the efficiency of the engine using a NUMBER.
Do you get it Mr. Post Doc?
Numbers.
Show us NUMBERS.
Don't call me stupid anymore. I'm not.
Don't tell us about the whiz bang effects of 0³ & H² unless you are giving us...
Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!
Numbers!
|
You see, I don't disagree with anything you said in your original post. It is all correct. But, you cannot discuss anything greater than that it seems.
Can you not see that there is a great amount of wasted energy in an internal combustion engine? Fast burning fuels can minimize the wasted pressure rise before TDC. I am sure you know this as this is common knowledge. Are you familiar with BMEP? A common term and calculation done by mechanical engineers.
HP = BMEP x (displacement / 12) x RPM x power-pulses-per-revolution / 33000
A good discussion and derivation of the above formula can be found at
Brake Mean Effective Pressure (BMEP): The Performance Yardstick
Using the 2.4 liter engine I mentioned in an above post, our engine would need 75 psi of BMEP to output it's 20 HP cruise rating. If we could use no more fuel but use it to produce just 5 more psi of useful pressure, our output jumps to just below 22 HP. You can now lift off the gas pedal to maintain your current speed.
That engine needed 230 cc of HHO gas to produce that 22 HP along with the attendant fuel. That 230 cc of HHO was produced by running 10 amperes through a 4 cell series electrolyzer. At 14v alternator output, that represents 140 watts. Even with gross conversion efficiencies as low as 33%, you would spend 420 watts to produce a gain of 1490 for a net gain of 1070 watts.
I explained the thermochemical pathways to improving combustion via seeding and you could not understand the undergrad dialogue.
You may not be stupid. But your lack of understanding means this discussion will end at your level.
I simply say, HHO affects combustion. There are so many parameters to take into account that giving percentages gain without discussion of Arrehnius rate equations and free energies and so forth is pointless.