hydrogen generators: boosters and improve MPG?

[dyeager535]

Yes, alternators suck up more engine power the more load is placed on them. (universal law=nothing is free )

With a single small electric fan on at startup, my TPI setup had a hard time compensating for the additional load the engine immediately saw. That's a fairly large load.

You'd need to know exactly how much any additional items would draw in terms of engine load, and compare that to the amount of additional power gains (if any) seen from a power adder of any type.

 

[4by4bygod]

still hung up on Nox? If you had any experience you would know theres ways to reduce nox, but your only concern is how hot the engine gets.

Sled's right to be concerned about Nox.. over 400 counties have been designated as having too much particulate matter and ozone in the air, by the EPA.

Nox is the building block of ozone, and those counties that don't test for it soon will. States that have non attaining counties could lose highway funding if they don't fix the problem, and the solutions all center around increased testing, and laws limiting vehicle miles traveled.

Increased Nox is the downside of alternative fuels like CNG and biodiesel.

You can decrease Nox with EGR, but all that does is dump unburned hydrocarbons and pm back into the engine, doing wonders for ring seal and oil life.

Anyways, sorry to hijack.. Nox increases carry a consequence, that's all.

T

 

[ntsqd]

Combustion temp DRIVES coolant temp, therefore coolant temp can be an indicator of high NOx emmissions though a not terribly reliable one. If the temp of combustion using air (as opposed to a dedicated oxydizer) exceeds somewhere around 1000*C you WILL have NOx. We deal with this every day at work: propulsiontech.com

EGR puts inert gases (& likely pm etc.) into the combustion chamber. Were it pure inert gasses, then it's net total effect would be to quench the combustion and make the cylinder effectively less displacement. If the engine management system is doing it's job and the engine is healthy the pm & junk should be near non existant.

In any energy conversion there is a cost. No known energy conversion operates at 100% efficiency. My Physics Profs would scoff at the notion of a 100% efficient energy conversion. There are some good conversions, but there are far, far more bad ones. If you use power from combustion to turn an alternator to make electricity to drive the hydrolysis process to make fuel for the combustion, how efficient do you think all of those conversions can be?

Shelby, your info would be much more useful if you'd drop the 'tude.

 

[jarheadk5]

14.7 is really air, and not oxygen.

No, it's oxygen. The largest component (close to 80%) of the Earth's atmosphere is nitrogen, which isn't combustible, and therefore doesn't contribute anything useful to the internal combustion process.

Even todays cars dont run at 14.7 100% of the time, so running at the most efficient ratio isn't that important.

The reason today's cars don't run stoich all the time is because the materials automobile engines are made of won't withstand the combustion temperatures that running at stoich can generate.
Today's commercial jet engines, like the General Electric GE90 (on the Boeing 777) and the Rolls Royce Trent (Airbus A380, among others), run closer to stoich than any other IC engine on earth. They extract the maximum possible thrust, from the least possible amount of fuel, and do it without fail for thousands of operating hours. BUT, these are engines that cost $5 million each, mostly due to the exotic materials required to withstand spinning at tens of thousands of RPM while being blasted with 3000* gases at 500PSI. Airlines will foot the bills for the required R&D because they know they'll make it back in fuel savings. Automakers won't, because the average consumer won't buy a car that has doubled in price but gets 50% better fuel mileage.

People have been mounting a type of gas to their engines for a long time, they call it "nawz" nitrous oxide.

I know what nitrous is. Go ahead and run your vehicle through a Pennsylvania Enhanced Emissions test on nitrous. Let me know how that works out for ya...

 

[shelbyfordgt]

No, it's oxygen. The largest component (close to 80%) of the Earth's atmosphere is nitrogen, which isn't combustible, and therefore doesn't contribute anything useful to the internal combustion process.

The reason today's cars don't run stoich all the time is because the materials automobile engines are made of won't withstand the combustion temperatures that running at stoich can generate.

So what your telling me is the engine is sucking in pure oxygen? 14.7 isn't pure oxygen. It is "air" a mix of nitrogen, oxygen, and small percentage of other molecules.
I wonder why people say what "air/fuel" ratio are you running and not what "oxygen/fuel" ratio.

And the engines running hot because of perfect combustion isn't true how fuel injection works. I run carb vehicles at perfect 14.7 and there is no issues. And cars run hotter in a lean condition. And just like dyeager said, car companies adjust fuel injection to run leaner for better fuel mileage.

Today's commercial jet engines, like the General Electric GE90 (on the Boeing 777) and the Rolls Royce Trent (Airbus A380, among others), run closer to stoich than any other IC engine on earth. They extract the maximum possible thrust, from the least possible amount of fuel, and do it without fail for thousands of operating hours. BUT, these are engines that cost $5 million each, mostly due to the exotic materials required to withstand spinning at tens of thousands of RPM while being blasted with 3000* gases at 500PSI. Airlines will foot the bills for the required R&D because they know they'll make it back in fuel savings. Automakers won't, because the average consumer won't buy a car that has doubled in price but gets 50% better fuel mileage.

jet engines are a totally different design then a combustion engine. So why are you bothering even?

I know what nitrous is. Go ahead and run your vehicle through a Pennsylvania Enhanced Emissions test on nitrous. Let me know how that works out for ya...

If you tune it properly using the correct jetting, it will pass emissions. A majority of new cars are tested via OBDII interface and not exhaust sniff test. The subject is introducing hydrogen and oxygen at a certain level to improve fuel mileage of gasoline. Nitrous is an example of people who have introduced other gases, also propane, to help engine performance.

Have you ever touched a car?

 

[shelbyfordgt]

Combustion temp DRIVES coolant temp, therefore coolant temp can be an indicator of high NOx emmissions though a not terribly reliable one. If the temp of combustion using air (as opposed to a dedicated oxydizer) exceeds somewhere around 1000*C you WILL have NOx. We deal with this every day at work: propulsiontech.com

EGR puts inert gases (& likely pm etc.) into the combustion chamber. Were it pure inert gasses, then it's net total effect would be to quench the combustion and make the cylinder effectively less displacement. If the engine management system is doing it's job and the engine is healthy the pm & junk should be near non existant.

if you remember physics class. Heat is transfered. Engine design and cooling system design helps transfer heat from the combustion chamber. There are tolerances in an automotive engine that needs to be met for heat transfer, otherwise parts will melt.

And like i said before. Who cares about the heat. We have something called a catalytic converter to fix the Nox issue. If they were engineering this idea, they would take it at one step at a time.

 

[dyeager535]

The reason today's cars don't run stoich all the time is because the materials automobile engines are made of won't withstand the combustion temperatures that running at stoich can generate.

My understanding of aluminum is that (generally, since I'm sure different AL alloys melt at different temps) under normal combustion, the melting point of the piston material is exceeded every single combustion event. Right around 800*, at least for some aluminum.

As you mentioned with 5 million $ jet engines, companies can afford this, individual consumers can't. In a vehicular engine, to make it easy, say a TBI truck like one of ours, you are measuring *8* combustion events with ONE sensor, and governing the air fuel mix based on that one sensor. (crude explanation) The system can do nothing but average the results from all cylinders and hope that all cylinders are within a certain range of each other, to be accurate. However, one "failure" on one cylinder offsets the balance so much that it upsets that average. In any case, 8 cylinders being exactly the same in regards to fueling needs and efficiency isn't possible. The A/F ratio jumps around because the events in an internal combustion engine are "broken up" due to firing order, combustion efficiency being different on each ecylinder being different, slightly different injector flow rates, etc.

I would doubt (again, me theorizing) that temperature has anything to do with not running 14.7:1 ALL the time (besides it's not the best mix for power, etc.) in an automotive application. First and foremost is economy. I'm sure that if you had a system capable of monitoring each cylinders performance independently, the steadiness of the A/F ratio would be exponentially greater. However, O2 sensors alone are expensive if talking about 8x the cost over millions of vehicles, and there is no requirement at this point (at least federally) for that kind of efficiency. If there was, the consumer would pay that cost, and the manufacturers would do that, or something less costly, but as effective.

I'm pretty unfamiliar with how fuel is "governed" in a jet engine, (I'm assuming no O2 sensors for instance) but the functional differences between an 8 cylinder 4 stroke and a turbine engine are probably so great that there is no way that both could be monitored and run the exact same way.

In the most crude possible explanation, as compared to a multi cylinder 4 stroke engine, isn't a turbine essentially one "cylinder"? As in, you don't dump fuel into 8 seperate chambers and hope they combust in a turbine engine, isn't it more of multiple injectors into one chamber? Therefore monitoring exhaust temp (for instance) would be a very easy way of measuring a turbine engines operation, while measuring 8 cylinders with exhaust gas temps might give you an idea something is wrong, but not WHERE the problem is, just like an O2 sensor.

At least those are how I see it.

 

[sled_dog]

And like i said before. Who cares about the heat. We have something called a catalytic converter to fix the Nox issue. If they were engineering this idea, they would take it at one step at a time.

My absolute last post in this thread, not going to start or at least continue an argument, just not worth it.

The best way to reduce emissions, is to not create them to begin with. A cat and EGR can only do so much, in fact many catylitic converters do NOTHING to reduce NOx. Only three way cats reduce NOx.

 

[shelbyfordgt]

My absolute last post in this thread, not going to start or at least continue an argument, just not worth it.

The best way to reduce emissions, is to not create them to begin with. A cat and EGR can only do so much, in fact many catylitic converters do NOTHING to reduce NOx. Only three way cats reduce NOx.

reducing emissions is something that evolves through time. It took 20 years for cars to get into decent emission numbers while not hurting performance. The same will go with hydrogen technology.

didn't i say, use a catalytic converter? There are more then one cat used in the automotive field. Pretty obvious which one i was refering too. And didn't you say, the EGR was the only thing to reduce emissions before? I told you, finish school first. There are cars without EGRs that can reduce nox, wow, i wonder how that works.

 

[dyeager535]

I knew I had read something about converters being "too good to be true"

As with everything, can't believe what you read though, I like the catalytic converters being introduced in 1981 part.

 

[sled_dog]

didn't i say, use a catalytic converter? There are more then one cat used in the automotive field. Pretty obvious which one i was refering too. And didn't you say, the EGR was the only thing to reduce emissions before? I told you, finish school first. There are cars without EGRs that can reduce nox, wow, i wonder how that works.

OK you know what, you are pissing me off to a point I have to say something.

The only way to keep the cylinder temperatures in check would be the increased use of an EGR and increased fuel. -Sled_Dog

Thanks for quoting me on something I didn't say. I was mistaken in my choice of words, combustion temperature would have been a better choice, and of course fuel choice(no I don't mean Octane, I mean gas, propane, diesel, blah blah blah) has an effect.

 

[shelbyfordgt]

I knew I had read something about converters being "too good to be true"

i have read an article similiar to that. But we should be more worried about pigs asses like in the picture.

Give it time and r134 will be determined to be bad too.

 

[shelbyfordgt]

OK you know what, you are pissing me off to a point I have to say something.


Thanks for quoting me on something I didn't say. I was mistaken in my choice of words, combustion temperature would have been a better choice, and of course fuel choice(no I don't mean Octane, I mean gas, propane, diesel, blah blah blah) has an effect.

I am just correcting you, just like your professor or instructor. Do you tell them, you know more then them while in class. They have been doing it for years and you tell them they are wrong because you just started doing it last month.

The applications to reduce Nox varies with each car. EGR isn't the only way to accomplish that task.

 

[Triaged]

Coming full circle...

Clearly emissions is an issue, but I still wonder if the booster really makes a difference. Some earlier posts mentioned 'not getting something for nothing.' Regarding this, does an alternator require more HP to turn if it needs to generate more power (like for the electrodes?). If so is this a wash? If not, what other factors (other than emmisions) are to consider? Would today's engines be able to appropriately compensate for the new ratios of fuel/fuel/air (gas/hyd/air)? Long term use and heat buildup, are these problems? How about particulate deposited from moisture created when hydrogen and oxygen combust? By this I mean minerals, salts, and other impurities in the water that would be necessary for it the conduct electricity anyway...

I'm soaking it up guys... Ya'll know your stuff.

G

The alt takes more power to spin if more current is being drawn.
Because of that (and the laws of thermodynamics) it won't work and the rest of your questions don't matter...IT WON'T WORK!

 

[ntsqd]

QUOTE=shelbyfordgt]if you remember physics class. Heat is transfered. Engine design and cooling system design helps transfer heat from the combustion chamber. There are tolerances in an automotive engine that needs to be met for heat transfer, otherwise parts will melt.

And like i said before. Who cares about the heat. We have something called a catalytic converter to fix the Nox issue. If they were engineering this idea, they would take it at one step at a time.[/QUOTE]

I am at a complete loss as to how this applies to my post.
As previously stated, the best way to 'cure' NOx is to not generate it in the first place.

 

[jarheadk5]

jet engines are a totally different design then a combustion engine. So why are you bothering even?

Because turbine engines are a form of internal combustion engine; go look it up.
The point I was trying to make (and seem to have missed) is that ultimate efficiency can be obtained; it just takes the usual methods - R&D and expensive materials. Some industries will spend the money, others won't.

If you tune it properly using the correct jetting, it will pass emissions. A majority of new cars are tested via OBDII interface and not exhaust sniff test.

Which is why I specified PA Enhanced Emissions test, which entails OBDII interface, dyno, and sniffer. Again, go look it up.

Have you ever touched a car?

You're starting to remind me of someone who used to be here...
Judging solely by the maturity level exhibited in your posts in this thread, I've got more time with a wrench in my hand than you've got walking upright.

I'm through with this one...

 

[shelbyfordgt]

Because turbine engines are a form of internal combustion engine; go look it up.
The point I was trying to make (and seem to have missed) is that ultimate efficiency can be obtained; it just takes the usual methods - R&D and expensive materials. Some industries will spend the money, others won't.

it is a form, but it isn't driven by pistons. older airplanes were piston driven. And you will never obtain ultimate efficiency from a internal combustion chamber. Are you going to tell me a car will beat the 30% efficiency rate with better metals? There are people in here who have degrees in thermodynamics who can describe why it will never happen.

Which is why I specified PA Enhanced Emissions test, which entails OBDII interface, dyno, and sniffer. Again, go look it up.

a majority of emissions test facilities already have all three. New cars are tested via OBDII interface and older cars are tested on dyno and sniffer. So now what is your point about an emissions facility?

I've got more time with a wrench in my hand than you've got walking upright.

you must be gifted to have a wrench in your hand. I have a book in mine. If you had a book, you would have realized that it is air to fuel ratio and not oxygen to fuel. If you have been a mechanic, you are a poor one. I know more about airplanes flying them then you fixing them.


Im surprised you didn't answer dyeagers question about fuel delivery to turbine engines. Supposibly you work on them? Why dont you get into how efficient they are when the oxygen levels are lower while the plane is higher. Or the fact they need to work harder?

 

[Triaged]

it is a form, but it isn't driven by pistons. older airplanes were piston driven. And you will never obtain ultimate efficiency from a internal combustion chamber. Are you going to tell me a car will beat the 30% efficiency rate with better metals? There are people in here who have degrees in thermodynamics who can describe why it will never happen.

Sorry no degree in thermo...just a lowly mechanical engineer here...

This is a piston engine that gets about 50% efficiency.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/

 

[tRustyK5]

ShelbyFordGT

This is your warning. Your methods of posting here are not acceptable and fall well outside the rules. The cheap shots and condescending tone is going to end or you'll find yourself playing with the banned...

I'm locking this thread.

Rene