Quote:
Originally Posted by RedDevil
About flame speed...
From wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_speed
That has to do with turbulent versus laminar flame speed, as you can imagine in a cylinder head with swirling air and a spray of gas from the injectors the flame front won't be laminar for long.
The flame speed you described was based on laminar burn.
Even so, hydrogen does burn considerably faster.
When the pressure builds up the mixture starts to explode or even detonate, propagating the explosion front at speeds close to or surpassing the speed of sound.
In that too hydrogen will increase the speed.
When you heat up the electrolytic cells to 80°C and you feed it to the intake it will contain a large amount of water vapour. If you feed it in behind the throttle plate and the engine is at low load the vacuum may be strong enough to make the water in your cells boil by itself.
Adding steam may reduce pumping losses and therefore help the engine tick over, improving efficiency.
I'm running out of time here but you see, there are some loose ends in your story. Science is about tying them all together, proving that every step inevitably leads to the next. Scepticism is the tool to look for weak points in a theory; if there are viable alternate explanations then the theory loses credibility.
Scientists will first try to falsificate their own theories before they put them out in the open; such a shame to put your name on it if it can be blown away, a simple oversight maybe.
If you do science you should have your answers ready for proper criticism.
This is no science lab so there will be criticism that is not properly formulated or reasonable.
That unfortunately is a given. Take it with dignity, explain it away once and link to the explanation whenever the same point comes up again.
But most of all, stick to the topic. This explanation of yours is your best yet. It should be in its own thread instead of a discussion about etiquette. Now it sidelines that discussion. |
I have always welcomed discussion, not this demand to keep proving to people that I am not a "true believer" or a snake oil salesman. Asking me to show them calculations about electrolytic hydrogen as a fuel is missing the point of my discussion but was ignored. Thus the calls to make calculations that I did not need to make.
I understand what you said. I do not try to falsify my thoughts or science. I am open to discussion.
I fully understand the difference between the flame speed of a combustion chamber and that of a flame tube at standard temperature and pressure, end capped or open ended. It was used as an illustration of the difference in flame speeds not an indication of the actual.
And my electrolysis generator runs under 1 atm. of pressure. It is released through a solenoid valve much like a digital injector ( it is a modified injector as found in natural gas applications). Also, the volumes of gasses we are talking about are so small as to be insignificant to the overall volumetric efficiency of the engine. Think 1 part in hundreds or even thousands. 230 cc per minute in an engine ingesting 750 L of air in that time span for the 2.4 L engine I had used as an example. The displacement of the air by the steam is exceedingly small.
And remember, at these small additional volumes, hydrogen cannot burn. It needs to be at 4% by volume or above to ignite. So why does it affect and accelerate combustion if it is in a sub combustible mix? Glassman & Yetter, in Combustion, 4th edition, say it is because of radical interaction.
You ask for links. I often don't have links. I have white papers and textbooks that are worn and dog eared and a lifetime of experience between my ears. Sorry if I am old enough to get a discount at the local buffet without getting carded. But my education is not an internet degree.
And I will attempt to start a thread that will have more structure. I have in the past but family needs intervened and so did the usual characters. I will learn how to post pictures and charts and calculations from MathCad or from my hand notes. I know, I can program MicroPic controllers in machine code and I can't do the internet. I have my failures and I admit it.
I have to redo and extend the work I did almost two decades ago without the money and resources ( dynamometer ). I cannot reveal the data collected at that time. It is owned by those who paid for it. I was allowed to reveal the results and I have. They are not exciting. They are what would be expected for vehicles 1996 and earlier as that is what was tested. I am working on someway to make the addition of HHO visual.
I was hoping to drag my old smokey Mercedes diesel over to Ogden, but my wife refuses to go if that is the case as the car is stripped down to two seats, is slow and uncomfortable. That car is a visual indicator of HHO at work as simply turning the generator on and off is followed by the smoke from the tail pipe going off and on in response. She won't let me tow it either because it means she must ride in the big bouncy Dodge Cummins 3500 which I tow the flatbed with. It looks like I'll be doing something to one of the gasoline cars in the stable. But, how to make it a visual test? I have some ideas.