H² + H²O = 25% More HP

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Thanks , I will.
I prefer the scientific type testing I proposed.





I've corrected you on this error previously ... that is not what I claimed.

It might be more productive and useful if you stuck to what I am actually writing, and claiming.

I've already listed other different types of Hydrogen and Water based system that can produce measurable gains.

The system you've proposed , will function ... in that sense it will work ... it will consume electrical energy , it will likely split water into H2 +O2 , etc ... but, not as you've claimed produce "Measurable Gains" ... and it will not as you have claimed "More than compensate for losses"... there is a significant difference between that and what you have incorrectly claimed about me.



I made no such claim.
Replying to actual claims I do make will be far more productive, and useful.

I've explained this before, but I'll try again.

This is basic stuff. The basis of scientific method taught even at the high school level. A professional researcher should already know this. But anyway.

The corner stone of scientific testing is to change as few variables in a before and after as possible. If you change 10 or more things you will have a very hard time to scientifically know which one of those is the cause of the resulting change being measured.

In Science (generally) a result is not significant unless you could not reasonably produce the same result in another 'random fluke' type of event. Scientifically 'reasonable'/'significant' usually means more than 2 standard deviations from the norm.

As soon as you want to change the ATF ratio to a Lean Burn mixture.

The correct scientific approach would be to determine the reasonable (greater than 2 standard deviation) expected limits that would come from just doing that ATF ratio change to lean burn without your Hydrogen and Water device.

Your device has to produce greater results than could be had by just making ATF ratio adjustments to run lean (without your device).

As it so happens , we have an example of that Lean Burning ICE without your device.

Without Hydrogen or Water device a properly adjusted Lean Burn ICE has already been properly documented and tested being able to:
Stable and smooth up to as high as 25.8:1 ATF
Achieve up to a 20% improvement to BSFC
Stable and smooth Lean at less than 30% ICE load... up through to.
Stable and smooth Lean at more than 90% ICE load.
Stable and smooth Lean bellow 1,500 RPMs
Stable and smooth Lean up to 3,000 RPMs

To know for to a scientific reasonable certainty that your device is producing any significant benefit , you have to do better than what the tuned Lean Burn ICE above can do without it.

Just like if you had a rocket engine strapped to the back of the car as well as your device. You have to also scientifically account for that other change (the rocket engine effects) in order to know if your results are from the rocket engine or from your device. You do not get to ignore the other change effects ... be they rocket engine, ATF, ICE Timing, electric motor on rear wheel, etc.



22:1 ATF is not enough to scientifically rule out that the gains are all coming from just the Lean Burn adjustment itself ... see above ... with no (Hydrogen or Water injection) device an ICE is able to get up to 25.8:1 ... meaning , scientifically 22:1 is not good enough to be significant.

If you only see 10% improved BSFC you are seeing 1/2 the gains of the 20% improved BSFC for the Lean Burn only (no Hydrogen + Water Device) ... which means that 10% is scientifically NOT good enough to be significant.



I never said you did.
I did define 100% reasonable scientific norms for testing, as the terms for my bet / challenge. Weather you like or accept scientific testing methods is entirely up to you.



What math of mine are you referring to?
I do not recall presenting to you flame front calculations here.

We can get into that science and math as well if you like. Sense a basic literature search is usually the 1st step in any professional research. Which specific ones (citation please) from the literature search you did prior to your research would you like to discuss? The ones I've already read won't offer you much net help here.

Also this claim of 'proof' is an unscientific leap. You need to rule out (to greater than 2 standard deviations) other reasonable explanations ... As long as there is a a Lean Burn ICE that gets 25.8:1 without Hydrogen or Water ... just getting 22:1 is not in itself scientifically significant... no matter how much you might want it to be... It isn't... just like 10% improved BSFC is not itself good enough to be scientifically significant... no matter how much you might want it to be... It isn't.



As has been asked previously multiple times.
Please list the professional peer reviewed journal it was published in, and under what title.



I am not uncertain at all.
Despite your repeated attempts to try to twist what I claim into that.

If you are certain of your science... as I am of actual science.

And it has already been published in a peer reviewed publication as you claim. Stop being intentionally vague, and dodging questions. List the Title and professional peer reviewed journal where it (this white paper with the supporting science) is published. Agree to proper scientific testing.

I have not yet seen sufficient reason to justify the trip.

Can YOU in your infinite wisdom explain HOW a vehicle that cannot run at 22:1 AFR will run with the addition of small amount of HHO and water vapor? It is obvious you are a mental giant and I know so little! Come on oh master of everything! And while you are at it, will you tell us how that same engine, which cannot even fire up, is able to run at 28:1 AFR with the only change being the addition of HHO/vapor derived from an on board generator using alternator current? I see these engines doing these things on the dyno and I don't know why they do it! I will gladly show you the very same phenomenon, but you must explain it first because you are the ONE WHO KNOWS ALL!

I am jesting. I will discuss the science of hydrogen seeding. Sandia Labs through the CRF ( Combustion Research Facility ) is methodically researching many of these very questions.

Though, you know nothing of white papers and probably have never published one. I have a white paper on my desk that is over 1000 pages - it outlines a possible use for nuclear accelerators. It was published in 1985. But, you will never see it. It was published for internal use in government labs. I have worked for numerous corporations where white papers were not published until a specified time. Many are never published.

[niky]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

If an engine cannot operate at 20:1 AFR and I stretch the ability to run and still maintain the same torque output but at 22:1 AFR, I don't see why I cannot claim the 10% gain since it is only attributable to the addition of HHO.

Of course we are talking about a system add on, not a simple performance part.

And, as I was pointing out, you can run very, very lean AFRs with water injection because of the knock prevention. AFRs far in excess of 20:1 are achieveable with water injection (with proper injection timing and nozzle sizes).

Actually, with certain motors, you can achieve 22:1 at cruise under lean burn without water... but obviously, not under load. My motor would see 18:1 to 22:1 after retuning (and still making more power!). And that was without water injection. Merely fuel and ignition adjustment.

This is why you need to break down the effects.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...then don't TELL us about them! We certainly wouldn't want the NSA goons shooting you for spilling any beans (you know, those documents they have you sign).

I was not born and raised in this country. An immediate red flag for top government security jobs.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by niky

And, as I was pointing out, you can run very, very lean AFRs with water injection because of the knock prevention. AFRs far in excess of 20:1 are achieveable with water injection (with proper injection timing and nozzle sizes).

Actually, with certain motors, you can achieve 22:1 at cruise under lean burn without water... but obviously, not under load. My motor would see 18:1 to 22:1 after retuning (and still making more power!). And that was without water injection. Merely fuel and ignition adjustment.

This is why you need to break down the effects.

I KNOW the energy is derived from the gasoline. I have just been plucking IamIan's nose hairs. But, I can tell you this, I can run my engine much much leaner than you could tune your engine using any of your methods if gasoline and air is the only thing you are introducing into your cylinders. Add a measured amount of water, and maybe you can extend into the low 20s for air fuel ratios. But how about 26:1? Or 28:1? Have you ever run a gasoline vehicle that lean and yet provide enough motive force to even cruise at normal surface road speeds? I can, with just HHO. I can reach 35:1 AFR ( estimated )with sub combustible hydrogen addition ( <4% by volume ) and the addition of pre-combustion heat. So, what mechanism would you say is allowing this to occur? It can't be your normal tuning. You can't even begin to approach those levels unless you are running a set up like pgfpro is building - a setup that adds boost and turbulence. I used 20 - 22 as an AFR example because that is the area my little 3 cylinder hemi head engine starts failing. It depends on your target output of course, but it could hold the target load up through 19:1 AFR but it started falling off beyond that. At 22:1, the engine was miss firing. It did not matter what you would do with timing, or even with the addition of a more energetic spark system, it couldn't run smoothly and make the target torque. With the addition of HHO, it could make the target output with a dramatic decrease in timing. And the torque fall off was not as severe as expected up to the limit of the test ( 28:1 AFR ).

People seem to think I am applying some hocus pocus logic to all of this, but it is rather simple - the hydrogen addition, even at the seemingly useless amounts ( less than 4% by volume, hydrogen's lower combustion limit ) changes and accelerates the reaction rate of combustion. A small change, as you already know, means a reduction in the ignition lead time and a reduction in the wasted pressure before top dead center which works against you and reduces your BMEP ( brake-mean-effective-pressure). In the slow flame fronts of lean burn, this wasted pressure area is a significant percentage of the total.

So where does the energy to move the vehicle come from? The gasoline of course. At these levels of augmentation, the hydrogen heat contribution is very small. But by seeding the mixture before hand, there can be a domino effect of H+ ions knocking off more H atoms from the hydrocarbon chain to quickly become a significant part of the combustion mix leading to the process following the classic combustion studies for augmented levels above 4%. This is a simplification of course - a simplification to the point it is somewhat erroneous, but it serves to make the point.

I will extend the discussion of this process while attempting to make it presentable to the lay person in following posts.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Can YOU in your infinite wisdom explain HOW a vehicle that cannot run at 22:1 AFR will run with the addition of small amount of HHO and water vapor? It is obvious you are a mental giant and I know so little! Come on oh master of everything! And while you are at it, will you tell us how that same engine, which cannot even fire up, is able to run at 28:1 AFR with the only change being the addition of HHO/vapor derived from an on board generator using alternator current? I see these engines doing these things on the dyno and I don't know why they do it! I will gladly show you the very same phenomenon, but you must explain it first because you are the ONE WHO KNOWS ALL!

I am jesting.

I'm glad you added the last bit about jesting. Because I've never claimed those grandiose things you were falsely claiming above it.

You also completely side stepped and missed the point entirely.

The scientific method is about falsifiability. You don't have to be able to explain how or why gravity works to be able to test a falsifiable claim about weather an apple will fall.

When you claim your method / device as "measurebale gains" and "More than compensate for losses" you've made falsifiable claims about the source of the results you are getting.

In order to scientifically be able to make the kinds of 'source of results' claims you are making , you have to rule out the 'other reasonable causes'.

In the case of the apple falling we would have to rule out other possible causes as well.

You do not get to ignore the rocket you strapped to the car. You do not get to ignore the electric motor you put on the rear wheel. You do not get to ignore the ability for ICE's to run Lean without your method or device. You do not get to ignore the costs of your device being on the vehicle and for it's operation.

The scientific base line for what an ICE can do without your method and or device has been listed. Weather you like how high that Lean Burn performance is or not doesn't change reality.

- - - - -

As for your other requests.
We have examples of Lean Burn ICEs running without your method or device at up to and over 28:1 AFR ... your failure to run one over 22:1 does not remove the 28:1 (without your method or device) from being a reality... nor from it's effect on what is scientifically expected from your device/method ... At least in order for your claims to be scientific about your method/device being responsible for the results achieved.

I'm not psychic, I wasn't there when you had your failure to run whatever it was you ran at over 22:1 ... nor do I have the data to know how you tried to do it ... It is not reasonable to expect me to be able to know why you failed in such a test I don't have sufficient data about... even if I did have that data ... It would still not remove the 28:1 without your method/device.

There is well established science for the effects of injecting things into an ICE. Be it Hyrdogen, or non-cobustables like water. As I've written about before we know their effects. We also know the costs. The system you propose will not as you claim have "measurebale gains" and "More than compensate for losses". We can see up to 20% BSFC gains from Lean AFR without your method or device. Anything less than 20% is not itself scientifically good enough to be evidence your method/device is as you claim: "measurebale gains" and "More than compensate for losses"

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I will discuss the science of hydrogen seeding. Sandia Labs through the CRF ( Combustion Research Facility ) is methodically researching many of these very questions.

At this point , I doubt it.
You've been intentionally vague and dodged the vast majority of any technical question leveled at you. And , you've dodged and refused to provide the title of the white paper you site nor the professional peer reviewed journal it is supposedly published in. And, you refuse to discuss any of the science and technology in depth.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Though, you know nothing of white papers and probably have never published one.

Hint = You're not psychic , nor are you qualified to decide what other people know or do not know.

As of right now... You've never yet provided the citations you claim to have ... so far all the science you claim to have ... and the 100+ page white paper you claim to have already published in a peer reviewed profession journal ... all only seem to exist in your mind as a piece of fiction... This is science , your word that it is there isn't good enough... and if you are what you say you are (professional researcher) ... than you should already know this, and be expecting the kind of skepticism and rejection you are getting , given what you refuse to provide.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

People seem to think I am applying some hocus pocus logic to all of this,

I for one think do not think it's 'hocus pocus' ... I think you are being very unscientific about what you are contributing as the source of the results you are measuring ... and you are willfully and intentionally being vague and refusing to provide the science nor references you claim to have ( as such they only seem to exist in you mind ).

[niky]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

So, what mechanism would you say is allowing this to occur?

Again: We know hydrogen will allow an engine to run leaner.

What we have to know is: Will it allow an engine to run lean enough to offset the fuel cost of its own production?

That's the long and short of it, is all.

Demonstration: proof of concept.

This engine, at this timing, at this rpm, can only run x lean without hydrogen, at n consumption rate, producing a power. Timing cannot be advanced any further without causing knock.

It can run x+y lean with hydrogen, at n-m consumption rate, producing at least a power or a+b power, with timing adjusted to take advantage of enrichment. Also without discharging the battery, mind... ergo... must demonstrate non-depletion of battery power reserves.

It can run x+z lean with water injection, at n-o consumption rate, producing a power or a+c power, with timing adjusted to take advantage of enrichment and water injection nozzle adjusted properly for the engine. If hydrogen is superior, all these values will be worse than the test with hydrogen.

In each case, timing is advanced up to a certain knock count, then advanced no further. NOx and EGTs are recorded. Other parameters are recorded to assess engine health.

Simple, right?

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by IamIan

I'm glad you added the last bit about jesting. Because I've never claimed those grandiose things you were falsely claiming above it.

You also completely side stepped and missed the point entirely.

The scientific method is about falsifiability. You don't have to be able to explain how or why gravity works to be able to test a falsifiable claim about weather an apple will fall.

When you claim your method / device as "measurebale gains" and "More than compensate for losses" you've made falsifiable claims about the source of the results you are getting.

In order to scientifically be able to make the kinds of 'source of results' claims you are making , you have to rule out the 'other reasonable causes'.

In the case of the apple falling we would have to rule out other possible causes as well.

You do not get to ignore the rocket you strapped to the car. You do not get to ignore the electric motor you put on the rear wheel. You do not get to ignore the ability for ICE's to run Lean without your method or device. You do not get to ignore the costs of your device being on the vehicle and for it's operation.

The scientific base line for what an ICE can do without your method and or device has been listed. Weather you like how high that Lean Burn performance is or not doesn't change reality.

- - - - -

As for your other requests.
We have examples of Lean Burn ICEs running without your method or device at up to and over 28:1 AFR ... your failure to run one over 22:1 does not remove the 28:1 (without your method or device) from being a reality... nor from it's effect on what is scientifically expected from your device/method ... At least in order for your claims to be scientific about your method/device being responsible for the results achieved.

I'm not psychic, I wasn't there when you had your failure to run whatever it was you ran at over 22:1 ... nor do I have the data to know how you tried to do it ... It is not reasonable to expect me to be able to know why you failed in such a test I don't have sufficient data about... even if I did have that data ... It would still not remove the 28:1 without your method/device.

There is well established science for the effects of injecting things into an ICE. Be it Hyrdogen, or non-cobustables like water. As I've written about before we know their effects. We also know the costs. The system you propose will not as you claim have "measurebale gains" and "More than compensate for losses". We can see up to 20% BSFC gains from Lean AFR without your method or device. Anything less than 20% is not itself scientifically good enough to be evidence your method/device is as you claim: "measurebale gains" and "More than compensate for losses"



At this point , I doubt it.
You've been intentionally vague and dodged the vast majority of any technical question leveled at you. And , you've dodged and refused to provide the title of the white paper you site nor the professional peer reviewed journal it is supposedly published in. And, you refuse to discuss any of the science and technology in depth.



Hint = You're not psychic , nor are you qualified to decide what other people know or do not know.

As of right now... You've never yet provided the citations you claim to have ... so far all the science you claim to have ... and the 100+ page white paper you claim to have already published in a peer reviewed profession journal ... all only seem to exist in your mind as a piece of fiction... This is science , your word that it is there isn't good enough... and if you are what you say you are (professional researcher) ... than you should already know this, and be expecting the kind of skepticism and rejection you are getting , given what you refuse to provide.



I for one think do not think it's 'hocus pocus' ... I think you are being very unscientific about what you are contributing as the source of the results you are measuring ... and you are willfully and intentionally being vague and refusing to provide the science nor references you claim to have ( as such they only seem to exist in you mind ).

and more blah blah blah.

It is clear to the reader that your only interest is to discredit me. This is neither productive nor informative. It reflects badly on you.

So, let us see if you can do this simple calculation. And we will go from there.

Please calculate the brake mean effective pressure (BMEP) for a 1 liter displacement engine running at 2000 rpm and producing 12 hp.

We will build on this concept and refer to this.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by niky

Again: We know hydrogen will allow an engine to run leaner.

What we have to know is: Will it allow an engine to run lean enough to offset the fuel cost of its own production?

That's the long and short of it, is all.

Demonstration: proof of concept.

This engine, at this timing, at this rpm, can only run x lean without hydrogen, at n consumption rate, producing a power. Timing cannot be advanced any further without causing knock.

It can run x+y lean with hydrogen, at n-m consumption rate, producing at least a power or a+b power, with timing adjusted to take advantage of enrichment. Also without discharging the battery, mind... ergo... must demonstrate non-depletion of battery power reserves.

It can run x+z lean with water injection, at n-o consumption rate, producing a power or a+c power, with timing adjusted to take advantage of enrichment and water injection nozzle adjusted properly for the engine. If hydrogen is superior, all these values will be worse than the test with hydrogen.

In each case, timing is advanced up to a certain knock count, then advanced no further. NOx and EGTs are recorded. Other parameters are recorded to assess engine health.

Simple, right?

. . . when the AFR becomes extremely lean, all else being equal.

I am attempting to pull this thread back to the original post intent.

Please calculate the BMEP of an engine of 1 liter displacement, running at 2000 rpm and producing 12 hp.

I will be referring to this example.

[gone-ot]

Like this (1L = 61.024 cid) quick answer:

T = (hp × 5,252)/(rpm)
T = (12hp × 5,252)/(2,000 rpm) = 31.512 lb·ft

BMEP = 150.8 × (T/D)
BMEP = 150.8 × (31.512 / 61.024) = 77.871 psi

However, more specific engine data is needed for meaningful results--like bore & stroke, CR, VE, value timings--for determining piston velocities, dwell times, assumed intake/exhaust flow rates, etc.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I am attempting to pull this thread back to the original post intent.

Please calculate the BMEP of an engine of 1 liter displacement, running at 2000 rpm and producing 12 hp.

I will be referring to this example.

See previous post by others.

however.
I would have personally replied , that "There is insufficient data"

You did not include some of the other data that can effect the outcome.
Things like:

• Volumetric Efficiency of the engine in question
• If the engine in question is running like some Honda's in a 'Air Spring' like mode.
• Etc.

But by all means please proceed.