My Rx-7 is now water powered ..... partially ;)
08-24-08, 07:34 PM
#101
I love RX-7s
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe next someone can try putting a boiler in the engine bay.... you can redirect the fuel lines to a burner which heats the water and produces steam, which can be cleverly used to turn the rotors and there you have it, water power! Its got to be efficient, it runs on water!
08-25-08, 07:01 PM
#102
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-25-08, 07:27 PM
#103
this is all fine and dandy, but i have yet to read about any HARD evidence that such a cheap method works. all im seeing are links to other threads that link to other threads and so on and so forth.
yes i am a skeptic, i always need to evidence of proof before i even begin to start brainstorming of convincing myself to shell out money for a crackpot invention that apparently has existed since the 70's or even earlier.
the only thing that i can put a label to this thing is a ghetto way for making water injection at a slow pace.... all your really doing here is steam cleaning the engine getting rid of the carbon deposits making for a cleaner burn, but not clean as a whistle.....
BTW.... real pure hydrogen is stored as a highly pressurized gas..... i doubt that PVC, metal blades, an electrical source, and a vacuum source can increase mpg by nearly 25%. sounds almost exactly like methanol/alcohol/water injection to me
i'd be more interested in seeing a diesel rotary be produced by crackpot inventors and conspiracy theorists than this..... i'd at least be able to see some hard evidence of the build up.... not just a list of materials or pictures of a complete kit.
some people think way far out of the box and stray away from reality..... and alot of people need to stop taking Alex Jones' websites and movies so seriously...... everyone has their own way of making explanations whether they are truth or speculation or fact. Alex Jones is far out there and i just consider him to be entertainment, he is on the local radio station every so often with his section called "Freedom Nugget".
and whoever linked to the Mythbusters' website/forum..... have you watched the episode at all? they so many things wrong with that alternative fuels episode
yes i am a skeptic, i always need to evidence of proof before i even begin to start brainstorming of convincing myself to shell out money for a crackpot invention that apparently has existed since the 70's or even earlier.
the only thing that i can put a label to this thing is a ghetto way for making water injection at a slow pace.... all your really doing here is steam cleaning the engine getting rid of the carbon deposits making for a cleaner burn, but not clean as a whistle.....
BTW.... real pure hydrogen is stored as a highly pressurized gas..... i doubt that PVC, metal blades, an electrical source, and a vacuum source can increase mpg by nearly 25%. sounds almost exactly like methanol/alcohol/water injection to me
i'd be more interested in seeing a diesel rotary be produced by crackpot inventors and conspiracy theorists than this..... i'd at least be able to see some hard evidence of the build up.... not just a list of materials or pictures of a complete kit.
some people think way far out of the box and stray away from reality..... and alot of people need to stop taking Alex Jones' websites and movies so seriously...... everyone has their own way of making explanations whether they are truth or speculation or fact. Alex Jones is far out there and i just consider him to be entertainment, he is on the local radio station every so often with his section called "Freedom Nugget".
and whoever linked to the Mythbusters' website/forum..... have you watched the episode at all? they so many things wrong with that alternative fuels episode
Last edited by cptpain; 08-25-08 at 07:37 PM.
08-25-08, 07:56 PM
#104
I think this running on water idea is a whole lot of hot air.
Here's something that is more likely to work:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/08/08/air.car/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/08/08/a...ml#cnnSTCVideo
Here's what the engine looks like:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/08/08/a...l#cnnSTCOther1
Here's something that is more likely to work:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/08/08/air.car/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/08/08/a...ml#cnnSTCVideo
Here's what the engine looks like:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/08/08/a...l#cnnSTCOther1
08-25-08, 09:47 PM
#105
Full Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just for thought. Hydrogen will burn at concentrations as little as 4% in air. So to entertain the idea of the hydrogen flame accelerating the combustion of the gasoline, you would need for a 1300cc engine 50cc of H2 per cycle. x + .04x = 1300 x = 1250
1300 - 1250 = 50cc. at 6000 RPM, you would need 50cc x 6000cycles/min = 300,000 cc/min or 5000cc/ second or 5 liters per second to maintain the minimum 4% molar concentration. Adding the gasses from this water tank is a stoich mix of H2 and O2 so the minimum concentration of H2 would be slightly less than 4%, but I'm not going to break out chemkin or anything.
FYI, this topic is not about basic thermodynamics I, it is more focused on chemical kinetics. So if you can speed up the flame speed in the combustion face, you can effectively retard your timing to the engines benefit.
If you run a turbo engine for example where your timing is retarded for safety and not performance, then you can gain performance by moving your ideal timing in a more retarded direction toward where your engine might be conservatively tuned.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ad...ure-d_996.html
that website lists the adiabatic flame temperature for H2 and Octane in air and pure oxygen. The H2 and O2 mix is 2/3 H2 and 1/3 O2 so adding this mix to 32% O2 air doesn't change the oxygen content so use the flame temps in air for this comparison. again, this isnt' exact but a reasonable set of assumptions for argument sake. the flame temperature of H2 is slightly higher than Octane, but not much so i wouldn't consider this a major source or the hypothetically gained efficiency. Besides, we already established that from Thermo we wouldn't have any gains from this energy source.
I would however argue that the hydrogen assumed to be mixed uniformly in the combustion chamber with air and fuel would facilitate the burning of the end gas. in effect, doing the same task that the trailing spark plug is assigned to do, only more effectively because this is not a point source of ignition as the trailing spark plug is, it is a flame front that travels through the mixture facilitating ignition of the unburnt gasses, ahead of the normal flame front that would pass though from a pure gasoline and air mixture. you could then, reduce the split timing between leading and trailing to be timed to the faster flame front.
my 2 cents + some beer talking.
1300 - 1250 = 50cc. at 6000 RPM, you would need 50cc x 6000cycles/min = 300,000 cc/min or 5000cc/ second or 5 liters per second to maintain the minimum 4% molar concentration. Adding the gasses from this water tank is a stoich mix of H2 and O2 so the minimum concentration of H2 would be slightly less than 4%, but I'm not going to break out chemkin or anything.
FYI, this topic is not about basic thermodynamics I, it is more focused on chemical kinetics. So if you can speed up the flame speed in the combustion face, you can effectively retard your timing to the engines benefit.
If you run a turbo engine for example where your timing is retarded for safety and not performance, then you can gain performance by moving your ideal timing in a more retarded direction toward where your engine might be conservatively tuned.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ad...ure-d_996.html
that website lists the adiabatic flame temperature for H2 and Octane in air and pure oxygen. The H2 and O2 mix is 2/3 H2 and 1/3 O2 so adding this mix to 32% O2 air doesn't change the oxygen content so use the flame temps in air for this comparison. again, this isnt' exact but a reasonable set of assumptions for argument sake. the flame temperature of H2 is slightly higher than Octane, but not much so i wouldn't consider this a major source or the hypothetically gained efficiency. Besides, we already established that from Thermo we wouldn't have any gains from this energy source.
I would however argue that the hydrogen assumed to be mixed uniformly in the combustion chamber with air and fuel would facilitate the burning of the end gas. in effect, doing the same task that the trailing spark plug is assigned to do, only more effectively because this is not a point source of ignition as the trailing spark plug is, it is a flame front that travels through the mixture facilitating ignition of the unburnt gasses, ahead of the normal flame front that would pass though from a pure gasoline and air mixture. you could then, reduce the split timing between leading and trailing to be timed to the faster flame front.
my 2 cents + some beer talking.
03-30-09, 02:20 PM
#106
Yeah, I have a long memory for the bogus; occupational hazard.
Myth, BUSTED:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...o/4310717.html
The money shot:
Chalk up another victory for the laws of thermodynamics.
Myth, BUSTED:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...o/4310717.html
The money shot:
Then we took the car to a specialist who installed, for nearly $1900(!), a hydrogen generator and a system of other enhancements. There was a fuel heater, fuel-line magnets (which I debunked here), and several inscrutable boxes full of electronics designed to fool the car's computer into using less fuel. There was even a bottle of acetone to add to the fuel. (This is something that I've mentioned doesn't work here and here). The specialist guaranteed major improvements in fuel consumption. One week and nearly two grand later, the producer from NBC (who still hadn't identified himself as anyone except a guy who was tired of spending $50 to fill up his tank) picked up the car. He got a gas receipt proving the installer had seen 96 mpg, nearly triple the original economy.
We took the car straight back to that same EPA lab for another round of testing. It was followed shortly by a week's worth of road testing, dyno testing and general poking about to see what we could discover.
You can guess, right? The total improvement in fuel economy after $1800 plus of expenditure? Bupkis. Too small to measure. Nada. In fact, if you look at the EPA tests with the system switched on and then off, there's a tiny increase in fuel consumption when the system is turned on. I attribute this to the 15 amps or so of current the electrolysis cell consumes to produce hydrogen. That current uses horsepower to spin the generator, and that consumes gasoline. The hydrogen "boost" couldn't even compensate for its own losses.
We took the car straight back to that same EPA lab for another round of testing. It was followed shortly by a week's worth of road testing, dyno testing and general poking about to see what we could discover.
You can guess, right? The total improvement in fuel economy after $1800 plus of expenditure? Bupkis. Too small to measure. Nada. In fact, if you look at the EPA tests with the system switched on and then off, there's a tiny increase in fuel consumption when the system is turned on. I attribute this to the 15 amps or so of current the electrolysis cell consumes to produce hydrogen. That current uses horsepower to spin the generator, and that consumes gasoline. The hydrogen "boost" couldn't even compensate for its own losses.
03-30-09, 03:25 PM
#107
making paper cranes
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know why this needed to be proved, it should be evident to anyone who took a basic science class.
You can't convert electrical energy into chemical energy then into physical energy and then expect to not only replenish the original electrical energy but generate more. Every conversion looses power to heat and light so it's impossible to maintain a stable energy cycle, let alone making a surplus.
You can't convert electrical energy into chemical energy then into physical energy and then expect to not only replenish the original electrical energy but generate more. Every conversion looses power to heat and light so it's impossible to maintain a stable energy cycle, let alone making a surplus.
03-30-09, 03:35 PM
#108
Yeah, I have a long memory for the bogus; occupational hazard.
Myth, BUSTED:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...o/4310717.html
The money shot:
Chalk up another victory for the laws of thermodynamics.
Myth, BUSTED:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...o/4310717.html
The money shot:
Chalk up another victory for the laws of thermodynamics.
03-30-09, 10:52 PM
#111
SNIKT!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UT
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-31-09, 09:21 AM
#114
Yeah, no one's throwing bricks at you, Xberserker - - you decided to try something out, to learn how it worked. Nothing wrong with that. Without experiment, theory is just dirt on paper.
The laughter is aimed at the folks who refuse to accept clear evidence when it's placed before them.
The laughter is aimed at the folks who refuse to accept clear evidence when it's placed before them.
04-02-09, 09:51 AM
#116
SNIKT!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UT
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
sherff
Adaptronic Engine Mgmt - AUS
9
02-24-19 12:09 PM
befarrer
Microtech
3
08-22-15 05:52 PM
