GEET Reactor

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

What is the thermal efficiency of your diesel engine? 35%? 45%? How about some of the large power generating diesels and their 52% indicated thermal efficiency? Now, you will admit that with some co-generation, up to 60% thermal efficiency is possible - and beyond. Is that a unicorn pipe dream?

The kubota engines run at about 14% thermal efficiency at 2kw load.
The problem is nothing is going to make them much more efficient when spinning at 1800RPM at 1/3 load.
It doesn't matter how many GEET reactors or HHO generators you bolt on to it, they will do nothing to get around the pumping losses.
A turbocharger would be the best thing for them.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

You have already mentioned the turbocharger as a means of trapping lost exhaust heat. Most good turbochargers can increase thermal efficiency in the neighborhood of 5%.

Seems to have given me a +2mpg boost just driving around town.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

How about thermoelectric recovery?

Its not unicorn material at all.
I have priced it and its out of my price range, if the units I saw are even for sale yet.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The kubota engines run at about 14% thermal efficiency at 2kw load.
The problem is nothing is going to make them much more efficient when spinning at 1800RPM at 1/3 load.
It doesn't matter how many GEET reactors or HHO generators you bolt on to it, they will do nothing to get around the pumping losses.
A turbocharger would be the best thing for them.



Seems to have given me a +2mpg boost just driving around town.



Its not unicorn material at all.
I have priced it and its out of my price range, if the units I saw are even for sale yet.

I have given you principles that show how the GEET could work and on another thread, how the minute addition of hydrogen could work. These are not unicorn principles. And we have not even discussed the reshaping of combustion heat release.

I have given you examples of energy capture in the form of turbocharging and thermo-electric generation as a preamble to the use of waste heat in producing extra fuel value. I gave a logical set of stepping stones to fuel processing as a viable technology such as the others. You ramble in your argument. IF the two technologies are viable, how about the third? Is fuel processing a unicorn folly? I have shown how it is not in principle. Now, why don't you discuss via natural principles how your viewpoint of it as a unicorn technology is so.

I have seen Kubota diesels exceed 30% peak thermal efficiency. 14% seems like a misprint on your part. The pumping losses of diesels is minimal due to the lack of throttling. With turbocharging, some Kubota models exceed 40% peak thermal efficiency.

[ChazInMT]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

How about using the GEET IDEA of harnessing lost exhaust heat to produce syn gas ( producer gas or CO and H2) from gasoline (C9H[20]) and water. Instead of using their "magnetic plasma chamber" we substitute instead a common catalyst such as Nickel/Iron to reduce the temperature of reaction. When you look at the molar balanced equation, you see that you can get more energy out of the carbon monoxide and hydrogen than you did from just burning the gasoline directly. Where did the extra energy come from? The exhaust of course. Thus, the ability to increase our thermal efficiency - at least for the narrow range the GEET type system would run at.

Just so everyone knows, this paragraph is pure pseudoscience bull sh!t. Just cause someone knows the "Formula" for a particular molecule (one of many) that is in gasoline and can type Molar Balance does not make anything they say valid. They are just using big words to make it seem like they know what they're saying.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I think it amusing that you poo poo engine modifications that are way out there when this forum is full of vehicles that look dangerous to drive due to the crazy aero mods and are driven with techniques that beg accidents.

This paragraph makes you look like a complete idiot. You have the theory behind the atomic level altering GEET reactor down pat but can't seem to grasp the basics of mechanical engineering and aerodynamics.

I'm guessing you're a banned troll trying to resurrect this thread.

[Alternatively Sane Max]

I am by no means an expert. But i get the impression that GEET is supossed to increase the chemical energy available from fuel by breaking it down into less energy dense smaller molecules. I have only done high school chemistry but to me this seems like the opposite of what you want.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

Just so everyone knows, this paragraph is pure pseudoscience bull sh!t. Just cause someone knows the "Formula" for a particular molecule (one of many) that is in gasoline and can type Molar Balance does not make anything they say valid. They are just using big words to make it seem like they know what they're saying.




This paragraph makes you look like a complete idiot. You have the theory behind the atomic level altering GEET reactor down pat but can't seem to grasp the basics of mechanical engineering and aerodynamics.

I'm guessing you're a banned troll trying to resurrect this thread.

And I am guessing you are one of those people that find it easier to attack people than try to understand their position and debate accordingly. If you have any understanding, reply to the post instead of a venomous and illogical attack. Consider everything I have said is found in classical combustion texts and coursework. People on this forum brag that it is populated with smart scientific/engineering types. Your post does not do this forum justice.

I make light of the possible use of real reactions that the GEET type reactors might be using. I am not a proponent of the GEET reactor and the weirdness that surrounds it. I only tagged on to this thread because of the possible uses such a device could find in recovering lost heat. Do you agree or disagree that using waste heat to power a chemical reaction to increase the energy content of the fuel input stream is a possibility? That is the baseline question I have with the idea of the GEET and its cousin devices. Please answer to that and discuss accordingly.

And I made remark to the other posters disdain for advanced combustion as unicorn material since it was too far off the useful path when the mods in aerodynamics and driving techniques are also considered off the useful path when you speak to the average person on the street who has little concept on how these things work - just because you don't understand it, should you denigrate it?

And I do understand Mechanical Engineering, drag coefficients and Reynolds numbers, to some degree. I completed my ME coursework at the University of California and added extensive courses in physics, electronics and industrial chemistry. But I shouldn't have to put up my resume: the logic and content of my posts should be the judgement of my capability on this forum.

And I have been reading this forum since it's earliest inception as some of the forum personel followed various AXP teams and posted on here.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Alternatively Sane Max

I am by no means an expert. But i get the impression that GEET is supossed to increase the chemical energy available from fuel by breaking it down into less energy dense smaller molecules. I have only done high school chemistry but to me this seems like the opposite of what you want.

Carbon monoxide is considered a low energy fuel. But coupled with the hydrogen output, you can change your combustion characteristics considerably, and to advantage at the crankshaft.

Because you are using exhaust heat as the energy to drive the endothermic steam reaction, you have a greater molar mass of fuel at the output of the so called fuel processor. Of course, running this exhaust heat driven fuel processor at optimum will be nigh near impossible due to the varying amount of exhaust energy available.

[Alternatively Sane Max]

Why is hydrogen better than petrol? Much lower RON and you have essentially removed some of the stored chemical energy (covalent bonds) before it reaches the combustion chamber.

Disclaimer. I only half know what i am talking about just a guy trying to figure it out.

[ChazInMT]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Do you agree or disagree that using waste heat to power a chemical reaction to increase the energy content of the fuel input stream is a possibility?

OK, Show what the energy content of gasoline is and show what the theoretical energy content of gasoline’s constituents is arranged however you like.

Then show the chemical reactions that take place to create the constituents, specifically what temperatures, pressures, flow rates, and catalyst surface areas are required within a GEET reactor to make the "Syn-Gas". I’m particularly curious about the source of the “Waste Heat” you speak of that increases the energy content of the gasoline and/or its constituent parts.

Show how these constituents AKA "Syn-Gas" can be introduced to an ordinary car engine with yet more air, detailing their temperatures and ratios, and explain how this would create a more efficient consumption of the fuel outside the 98-99% combustion that already exists.

We can then discuss that.

Once you give me the details, I'll run them by my Uncle who was a petroleum engineer working for Sun Oil in Toledo for 27 years and is known in the industry as an expert on trouble shooting fluid catalytic crackers to see if what you say makes sense to him.

I look forward to your reply.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

Once you give me the details, I'll run them by my Uncle who was a petroleum engineer working for Sun Oil in Toledo for 27 years and is known in the industry as an expert on trouble shooting fluid catalytic crackers to see if what you say makes sense to him.

I look forward to your reply.

I will pick-and-choose to reply to your questions as I see fit, as many of your questions will need more than a precursory answer. Also, you seem to assume I have a finished product on the shelf with every detail worked out. This is not true. I am here to discuss the possibilities. Can something of use be built afterwards? That is the point of this forum isn't it? Maybe it can be. And maybe someday this can be moved out of the unicorn corral.

And I would appreciate the input of your uncle's expertise.

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

OK, Show what the energy content of gasoline is and show what the theoretical energy content of gasoline’s constituents is arranged however you like.

It is common knowledge that gasoline is made up of many compounds. Substitute fuels are used by industry to correlate lab results with numerical models. I choose to use the average carbon chain found in gasoline (C9) to make my model calculations. From there, we will have to do tests to see the correlation.

I will see if I can more fully flesh out my reply over the weekend. I will have to see how I may transfer work I have in a white paper, into post material.

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

Then show the chemical reactions that take place to create the constituents, specifically what temperatures, pressures, flow rates, and catalyst surface areas are required within a GEET reactor to make the "Syn-Gas". I’m particularly curious about the source of the “Waste Heat” you speak of that increases the energy content of the gasoline and/or its constituent parts.

Again, I will answer more fully in the near future - work and family allowing.

But I will remark on the "waste heat" - you are kidding right? Grams per second of high heat content gasses are passing out the exhaust every second. Since our fuel processor ( let us drop the use of GEET since it is a known unicorn commodity and carries confusing baggage) needs heat to run it's chemical reaction it is an obvious source of energy that is there for the taking.

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

Show how these constituents AKA "Syn-Gas" can be introduced to an ordinary car engine with yet more air, detailing their temperatures and ratios, and explain how this would create a more efficient consumption of the fuel outside the 98-99% combustion that already exists.

We can then discuss that.

As I mentioned above, many details are yet to be worked out. And your mention of combustion completeness indicates you are missing the point of the whole exercise - to provide a greater amount of fuel and energy to the engine via waste heat recovery. It is common knowledge that modern engines combust upwards of 98% of the fuel input. We haven't discussed combustion shaping as that is another large subject in and of itself, but is ultimately our goal. But that goal needs hydrogen. Producer gas has that hydrogen.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Alternatively Sane Max

Why is hydrogen better than petrol? Much lower RON and you have essentially removed some of the stored chemical energy (covalent bonds) before it reaches the combustion chamber.

Disclaimer. I only half know what i am talking about just a guy trying to figure it out.

The reason we want to introduce hydrogen into our fuel mix is for multiple reasons. But the most important ones are its diffusivity, extended flammability limit and reactivity. Also, its' much more rapid flame front than most hydrocarbon fuels is of advantage.

Hydrogen's RON is listed at 130+ by several sources.

The energy in covalent bonds is not lost in the production of syn-gas as CO carries that energy.

The net energy from the fuel exiting the process is greater than that which entered not by any magic, but by the simple fact that there is more fuel mass due to the reaction of water driven by heat.

But, I am not proposing to run the vehicle engine totally on syn-gas, but to augment the combustion of current engines with hydrogen in specific drive regimes.

Feel free to follow along with the thought process and throw in when you can with applicable information and questions.