GEET Reactor

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by orion411

How much experience do you have working with monoatomic hydrogen?

None its a waste of time.

Originally Posted by orion411

"A rotary engine is especially well-suited for burning hydrogen since it
uses separate chambers for induction and combustion. This overcomes the
backfiring issues often faced when using hydrogen in piston engines."
"The Wankel engine success for direct hydrogen combustion comes from its
intake and combustion stratification."

When I lived in japan I worked on RX7 rotary engines a fair amount. I do know that when you start messing with them and do cause detonation or pre-ignition the engines fail very quickly.
So good luck.

Originally Posted by orion411

Obviously you're not paying attention, because I did give the year, make and model of the 1989 SR5 Toyota with the lawn mower carb. What is such a mystery about a lawn mower carb? It could be a 10CC model airplane engine. Specifics are a mute point there.

I saw the part about the toyota, I don't care about that. I specificly asked for details about the lawn mower carb. At this point it appears to be a unicorn brand lawn mower carb.

Originally Posted by orion411

Ultrasonic vapor injection to the reactor would give the best results. It does better reforming a fuel that is provided in the smallest molecule size possible.

Why not just use a fuel that is naturally in a super heated state when at room temperature and atmospheric pressure?

[gone-ot]

...not ALL "chain-reactions" require a "chain."

[oil pan 4]

Another great thing about negative pressure supercharging is it doesn't kick in till above 6,000rpms on most engines and you don't see volumemetric efficiencies above 100% until you get above 7,000 or 8,000 RPMs.
Running at 6,000+ is great for fuel economy.

My second engine, the holset HE351VE turbocharger starts building boost by 1,500rpms, putting my V.E. at or above 100%. If I increased my fuel injection rate on the diesel enigne I could be above 200% V.E. well under 3000rpm. But I'm not messing with the fuel injection rate until the intercooler, water injection go back on and the improved cooling mods get done.

I hand fitted file fitted narrow gap piston rings to each cylinider bore (0.018'' top, 0.014'' second and 0.015'' oil rings), excess heat will cause the ring gap to close and seize in the bore.
This can not be allowed.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

@ Orion - I wouldn't believe you until we filled your Subaru with gas and then chit chatted with you for a few hours as we drive 200 miles or so then refill your tank with only 3 gallons of Gas. Something tells me that would never happen, either you wouldn't allow the company, or 6+ gallons would be added.

Here in Ecomodder, we understand where the inefficiencies exist in the turn gasoline into miles traveled equation, and unless you've somehow doubled the chemical energy potential of gasoline, this has no chance of working as claimed. Basic laws of chemistry, thermodynamics, and physics can't be changed by a fancy fuel intake system. You'd be better off letting this drop here rather than try and convince a bunch of smart people that this works. You've just flown into a hornets nest of intelligent skeptics, don't think we're just going to take your word for anything. Be prepared to explain things well.

And for the love of God, DO NOT proclaim that we need to prove to you that it doesn't work, this will instantly make you a moron of the highest order and unworthy of having a conversation with.

The problem is that it is buried under so much fecal secretion that it can be difficult to see the gold lying under it all.

The GEET device runs. That is not in question. HOW it runs is. Can it produce fuel gains? That is the other question.

If you are broadly trained and experienced you should be able to answer both questions.

[oil pan 4]

It might be able to produce gains in the lab, in the real world on road, no I dont think so.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

It might be able to produce gains in the lab, in the real world on road, no I dont think so.

The fact that it has difficulty working in the field is an exercise in engineering not a lack of working principles.

Re-assessment of the working principles should allow some form of successful field re-application.

[oil pan 4]

It works or it doesn't.
To me it sounds a lot like it doesn't.

Why bother with this fringe science stuff that makes all these claims that no one else can ever seem to reproduce?

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

It works or it doesn't.
To me it sounds a lot like it doesn't.

Why bother with this fringe science stuff that makes all these claims that no one else can ever seem to reproduce?

And they run into the same snag - undriveable except in a narrow operating regime.

The system works outside the hocus pocus verbiage the inventor uses by leveraging the principles of thermal depolymerization and steam reformation. It has been called a small refinery by experts. However, the lack of true closed loop controls means it is an iffy thing to run the GEET system. Also, being a heat process, starting it is dependent on the light evaporative components of the fuel. And, when the exhaust temperature drops below a certain point, the process stops and reverts back to running on the lighter fuel components which may have been already consumed to a large degree - so the engine sputters and stops.

Measurement of the exhaust using an O2 sensor has shown lean burn in excess of a ratio of 28:1 - far beyond what the Honda Lean Burn system can reliably produce. Can you see an application as an augmenting device?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

when the exhaust temperature drops below a certain point, the process stops and reverts back to running on the lighter fuel components which may have been already consumed to a large degree - so the engine sputters and stops.

Measurement of the exhaust using an O2 sensor has shown lean burn in excess of a ratio of 28:1 - far beyond what the Honda Lean Burn system can reliably produce. Can you see an application as an augmenting device?

Sounds like it might work to power a generator under a fixed load.
But I already know of the perfect engine for running generator at fixed load:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post332707
It will run for thousands of hours, under a wide range of conditions from -25'F to 120'F.

A lot of these unicorn engines have a few things in common. They want to run a real lean A/F, they want high compression and maybe a turbocharger to recover energy from heat that tries to go out the exhaust.
I already have one and it drove me to and from work today.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Sounds like it might work to power a generator under a fixed load.
But I already know of the perfect engine for running generator at fixed load:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post332707
It will run for thousands of hours, under a wide range of conditions from -25'F to 120'F.

A lot of these unicorn engines have a few things in common. They want to run a real lean A/F, they want high compression and maybe a turbocharger to recover energy from heat that tries to go out the exhaust.
I already have one and it drove me to and from work today.

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?

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%. How about thermoelectric recovery? There are those who have research units that can produce enough electricity to reduce the drag on the alternator gaining a few more percentage points.

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.

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.

There are other engine techs out there, HCCI, PCCI and LTC regime engines. Unfortunately, energy return via fuel processing with exhaust and cooling heat got off on the wrong foot because of Paul Pantone and his GEET.