Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction)

Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Real0ne -> Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/2/2007 5:21:36 AM)
http://www.rexresearch.com/celis/celis.htm To prove his invention works perfectly, Celis installed the device to test its effectiveness in a Ceres Liner Bus, a Jeep Star Bus, and jeepney operated by Ryan Transport Services, all based in Bacolod City last March and came up with the following results: the 174 horsepower (Hp) of the Ceres Bus increased to 199 Hp, while emission from 9.6K down to 0.21K, cutting down emission by 94 percent; The Jeep Star Bus from 137Hp to 144.83 Hp and from 9.9K to 2.29K or emission reduction by 76 percent; and The Ryan jeepney from 83 Hp to 87 Hp and from 9.9K to 0.82K or a reduction by 90 percent of its emission. A Pajero installed with "Hydrogasifier" saved fuel by 40 percent in city driving, and by as much as 87 percent in highway driving, Celis said. He said a 1994 Toyoto Corolla car using the device saved fuel by 50 percent in highway driving and up to 30 percent in city driving. This is some kind of seriously simple to build unit that i have no reason to doubt its effectiveness, which will vary considerably if no engine timing mods are made, but i expect more consistantly if the appropriate timing changes are made. i actually have done things like this when i was a kid, this is nothing new really and it will do what he says. The only danger is that if a person is set up really wrong on occasion people will burn holes in their pistons....but any good mechanic should understand how to avoid that. Basically get a 4" pipe and stick a 1 1/2" inside with a stainless condensor coil around it and a water tank. doesnt get much simpler than that and i posted the carbon reduction he was getting above, so if you are concerned about global warming and carbon there you have it! So how many of you are going to have one made for you now? LOL Since i am into hydrogen i will be adding a similar device to mine...

Sinergy -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/2/2007 8:09:39 PM)
The temperature required to split oxygen and hydrogen is in the 800+ degrees fahrenheit range. Increasing the pressure would drive the temperature down. The questions I come up with are. a) How much energy is required to drive the engine to the point of being able to split hydrogen. b) What energy source is used to get to that heat? c) What impact does running the engine at that temperature for long periods of time do to the mechanics of the engine? What bothers me about this post is that while the poster waxes eloquent about the horsepower increase, no mention is made of any other aspect of this engine. Sinergy

Real0ne -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/2/2007 8:29:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy The temperature required to split oxygen and hydrogen is in the 800+ degrees fahrenheit range. Increasing the pressure would drive the temperature down. The questions I come up with are. a) How much energy is required to drive the engine to the point of being able to split hydrogen. b) What energy source is used to get to that heat? c) What impact does running the engine at that temperature for long periods of time do to the mechanics of the engine? What bothers me about this post is that while the poster waxes eloquent about the horsepower increase, no mention is made of any other aspect of this engine. Sinergy Compression actually creates heat, think of an intercooler on a an air compressor. The reason car engines are so ineffecient is due to heat loss... That is being used as a heat recovery to recover the heat already being generated by the engine for normal driving. That is for a gasoline engine, however you can use any fuel for the engine. The carbon reduction is awesome on it, much like the GEET carbuerator workes. i am thinking that the way to go on this is to burn hydrogen and use the heat recovery to also create more. That way the timing can be correctly set up for a pure hydrogen burn instead of a hybrid since hydron does not burn at the same rate as gas. well some of those vehicles had virtually no increase in hp but in all cases had excellent reduction in hydrocarbon. (and here we sit with catalytic convertors) LOL The biggest danger is burning holes in your pistons if the timing is set up to early, but from every other aspect you will probly be able to go twice to 3 times longer on an oil change, (or more).

Sinergy -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/2/2007 8:38:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy The temperature required to split oxygen and hydrogen is in the 800+ degrees fahrenheit range. Increasing the pressure would drive the temperature down. The questions I come up with are. a) How much energy is required to drive the engine to the point of being able to split hydrogen. b) What energy source is used to get to that heat? c) What impact does running the engine at that temperature for long periods of time do to the mechanics of the engine? What bothers me about this post is that while the poster waxes eloquent about the horsepower increase, no mention is made of any other aspect of this engine. Sinergy Compression actually creates heat, think of an intercooler on a an air compressor. The reason car engines are so ineffecient is due to heat loss... That is being used as a heat recovery to recover the heat already being generated by the engine for normal driving. That is for a gasoline engine, however you can use any fuel for the engine. The carbon reduction is awesome on it, much like the GEET carbuerator workes. i am thinking that the way to go on this is to burn hydrogen and use the heat recovery to also create more. That way the timing can be correctly set up for a pure hydrogen burn instead of a hybrid since hydron does not burn at the same rate as gas. well some of those vehicles had virtually no increase in hp but in all cases had excellent reduction in hydrocarbon. (and here we sit with catalytic convertors) LOL The biggest danger is burning holes in your pistons if the timing is set up to early, but from every other aspect you will probly be able to go twice to 3 times longer on an oil change, (or more). Thank you for the response. Now, to be more clear about my questions. If it requires 800 degrees worth of heat to split hydrogen and oxygen, what method of increasing temperature is used to get the engine to that level of heat. Assuming that heat loss in an internal combustion engine is dramatic, how does one prevent the heat loss and cycle it back. How much does it cost to generate that heat. How much is saved by not continuing to use the method used to heat the engine block up. I imagine that water/antifreeze mix internal combustion engines run cooler than 800 degrees, so what effect is running at the temperature required to split off hydrogen going to have on the engine? This is most important when thinking of an engine one wants to get 60,000 miles or more out of. I am more interested in seeing actual math than I am about unsubstantiated claims about how wonderful this or that methodology is. Sinergy

Real0ne -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/2/2007 10:33:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy The temperature required to split oxygen and hydrogen is in the 800+ degrees fahrenheit range. Increasing the pressure would drive the temperature down. The questions I come up with are. a) How much energy is required to drive the engine to the point of being able to split hydrogen. b) What energy source is used to get to that heat? c) What impact does running the engine at that temperature for long periods of time do to the mechanics of the engine? What bothers me about this post is that while the poster waxes eloquent about the horsepower increase, no mention is made of any other aspect of this engine. Sinergy Compression actually creates heat, think of an intercooler on a an air compressor. The reason car engines are so ineffecient is due to heat loss... That is being used as a heat recovery to recover the heat already being generated by the engine for normal driving. That is for a gasoline engine, however you can use any fuel for the engine. The carbon reduction is awesome on it, much like the GEET carbuerator workes. i am thinking that the way to go on this is to burn hydrogen and use the heat recovery to also create more. That way the timing can be correctly set up for a pure hydrogen burn instead of a hybrid since hydron does not burn at the same rate as gas. well some of those vehicles had virtually no increase in hp but in all cases had excellent reduction in hydrocarbon. (and here we sit with catalytic convertors) LOL The biggest danger is burning holes in your pistons if the timing is set up to early, but from every other aspect you will probly be able to go twice to 3 times longer on an oil change, (or more). Thank you for the response. Now, to be more clear about my questions. If it requires 800 degrees worth of heat to split hydrogen and oxygen, what method of increasing temperature is used to get the engine to that level of heat. Assuming that heat loss in an internal combustion engine is dramatic, how does one prevent the heat loss and cycle it back. How much does it cost to generate that heat. How much is saved by not continuing to use the method used to heat the engine block up. I imagine that water/antifreeze mix internal combustion engines run cooler than 800 degrees, so what effect is running at the temperature required to split off hydrogen going to have on the engine? This is most important when thinking of an engine one wants to get 60,000 miles or more out of. I am more interested in seeing actual math than I am about unsubstantiated claims about how wonderful this or that methodology is. Sinergy Oh... LOL nope no math... it has been years since i putzed with this particular errr well a somewhat similer design. i was a kid in my 20's and could have cared less about math. this stuff has been around for a long time. i dont think a "typical" car engines exhaust gets much hotter than 600 degrees does it? The guy said in his abstract for the patent that it has to be directly off the manifold and then piped dircctly to the carb to work. The design i played with as a kid was a copper tube laid on the manifold and insulated. The only fear that i am aware of as far as engine longevity is if you time it to early it will burn a hole right through your pistons. That happened to a buddy of mine, and when i was a kid i couldnt afford a new engine and at the time we were not sure as to what caused it so i took my unit off to be safe than sorry LOL i did notice a power increase (not much) but it was definitely noticable so i would think maybe 25 ponies anyway on a 283 chev. Otherwise, anytime you get a cleaner burn you are being more kind to your engine. The heat doesnt matter beyond keeping your pistons in one piece, (no holes), as far as engine longevity. at least on water cooled motors, not sure i would be brave enough to try it on an air cooled vw. as for the temperature issue, if the engine is putting out less carbon which is the main theme, then one of 2 things are happening. either the gas burn temperature is increased simply by preheating then additionally from compression and burning at higher temperatures or some amount of hydrogen is being produced and results in a higher temperature burn. That is the only way you can get a significant reduction in carbon is to burn the fuel cleaner. The water/coolant system regulates the engine temp so i am not sure what your concern would be beyond that if that is what you are saying here? Otherwise its on the docket to be built here. probly a "long" one day job including installation. i really do not have any plans to trig it out first because to get reasonably good data i would have to do lots of testing just to get the numbers in the first place and in the end its just faster to build it and use empirical data, and in my case since i personally have some previous working experience with it its a go. My purposes however would be for increased efficiency on a full hydrogen setup rather than lowering carbon. The results for more ponies is not as consistant as the results for the hydro carbons. As far as governemtn testing (as if you can trust them anyway), i am not aware of any. The only reason i do not doubt it is because i have previouols experience with it. (oh yeh let me clarify the "heat doesnt matter statement i mae". That assumes that new car engines use the same piston tolerances as they did back when i was into it. If they for some reason decided to tighten up tolerances to the extreme, in termns of clearance, then we might have a problem where the increased temps could cause a siezure on the side walls. Otherwise i can only see benefits. unless you are saying he is lying and it is quackery, which i would reject based on my own personal experience. i never tested emissions but i do know i had more horsepower, so the rest sort of goes without saying imo.

Real0ne -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/3/2007 12:06:27 AM)
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Home-Building/1979-09-01/Water-Injection-Wizardry.aspx otherwise here is the opposite approach where you cool it using water as a mist and get better gas mileage that way... this system also has been around for many years but requires a lot of mods to do right,,,,

Einzelganger -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/3/2007 1:49:13 AM)
I can only speak for BMW, Mercedes Benz, Porsche, Ferrari, and Jaguar, as they are the only types that I know like the back of my hand, but the piston clearances I recall are all 0.002 - 0.003. I'm also wondering how an internal combustion engine is going to run at 800 degrees. Melted pistons would be the least of your worries. There's no way this engine could be a lightweight unit utilizing aluminum block/cylinder head components, either. Those cylinder heads would be so warped after a minute near that temperature (if they didn't just crack) that you wouldn't need a straight edge to see that they can't even be refinished. Assuming all materials used are old-school, such as cast-iron, I still don't see how the gaskets, seals, etc. are going to put up with that heat. And then there's the issue of heatsoak through the front firewall if it's a front-engined car. The list goes on, but that sort of heat would kill pretty much everything under the hood. Even your boots/ball joints etc. on the front suspension would experience a reduced lifespan. Furthermore, assuming the cooling system was somehow upgraded to withstand a 400% increase in its workload (which is beyond me), there would still be hot spots here and there to be worked out. So, correct me if I'm still not getting it, or if I missed something, but I cannot begin to fathom how any ICE would operate for more than a few seconds at such temperatures. -Einzelgänger

CuriousLord -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/3/2007 2:27:42 AM)
It's a wonderful idea. It really is. But.. well.. equilibrium. PV = nRT (Ideal Gas Law- See Van der Waal's Equation for a more practical version, though the IDL is chosen for its simplicity in this example). P == pressure V == volume n == mole quantity R == ideal gas constant T == temperature Pressure, the attribute which moves a piston, can be restated as P = nRT/V. Note P, pressure, is proportional to T, temperature. In other words, temperature drops, so does pressure. This leads to the conclusion that this setup diminishes the power of the gas piston. Provided the assumption that this setup is forced to work- which I would argue isn't beyond reasonable methods for an engine designed for it- it wouldn't be producing a gain. It'd only sap the engine power, run it through another loop, lose efficiency, then spit it back out. For a simple demonstration of this, measure the torque of your engine on a cold winter's day and on a hot summer's day. Compare the torque. You'll find it lower in the winter. By using this setup, you're inducing a chill on your engine- just like winter does.

Real0ne -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/3/2007 6:37:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord It's a wonderful idea. It really is. But.. well.. equilibrium. PV = nRT (Ideal Gas Law- See Van der Waal's Equation for a more practical version, though the IDL is chosen for its simplicity in this example). P == pressure V == volume n == mole quantity R == ideal gas constant T == temperature Pressure, the attribute which moves a piston, can be restated as P = nRT/V. Note P, pressure, is proportional to T, temperature. In other words, temperature drops, so does pressure. This leads to the conclusion that this setup diminishes the power of the gas piston. Provided the assumption that this setup is forced to work- which I would argue isn't beyond reasonable methods for an engine designed for it- it wouldn't be producing a gain. It'd only sap the engine power, run it through another loop, lose efficiency, then spit it back out. For a simple demonstration of this, measure the torque of your engine on a cold winter's day and on a hot summer's day. Compare the torque. You'll find it lower in the winter. By using this setup, you're inducing a chill on your engine- just like winter does. ah but here again you are not taking everything into consideration. remember the injection method was used on military planes too. That would mean the military was out for less power according to your post. the military used it so they could run higher compression ratios and more fuel/air in the cylinder to get more power.

mnottertail -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/3/2007 6:55:41 AM)
800 degrees is in the cold forging range for steel. stainless won't work cause it would warp like a son of a bitch. Inconel and nickel would be the start of OK for metals end of it I suppose--------- Nah, it would have to be at least ceramic, just about in totality, which is its own set of problems. Ron

Real0ne -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/3/2007 7:09:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Einzelganger I'm also wondering how an internal combustion engine is going to run at 800 degrees. So, correct me if I'm still not getting it, or if I missed something, but I cannot begin to fathom how any ICE would operate for more than a few seconds at such temperatures. -Einzelgänger No its not the engine that would need to be at 800 degrees. It is the temperature of the gas flowing out of the exhaust ports and into the exhaut pipe that would be the only aspect of real heat. Dont forget a hydro carbon burn is roughly 1500C on every explosion in the cylinder but is integrated over time so your engine with the help of the cooling system is easily kept to a reasonable level. You know it been so long i forget all the finer points of rebuilding but i think we used to allow about .001 per inch diameter of piston and a little extra maybe +.001 up to +.002 if you were going to run it hard on a track. Then there are the fire breathers, dragsters, that blow flames out each exhaust port that run port temps at the the burn temperature of alcohol. The exhaust manifolds to the best of my knowledge are all cast with soft iron gaskets. i would be very cautious tho trying these things on an aluminum block, i have never been able to fully buy into the alum block even for typical car. ICE!!!! NOw there is the archilles heel!!! Good one! That has been bugging me! i am tossing around my options on that and the only thing i can think of that is practical would be to drain the water from the producing reservoir and pipe exhaust into the main reservoir. then when the key is turned on use the battery to warm the producer and exhaust to warm the main. Excellent thoughts on that! i am plagued with trying to come up with something convenient there too... i suppose another approach might be to have a small bottle of hydrogen gas compressed to start the car then heat, (melt) the ice from both the producer and the main tanks with exhaust and then when hyd production begins switch over... yeh no doubt a few hurdles to overcome.

Sinergy -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/3/2007 7:33:28 AM)
I disagree with your point about the gas moving through an engine being the only thing that needs to be 800 degrees, Real0ne. Heat bleeds off into everything in an engine, and the component parts simply grow hotter over time. While the engine might fire and run efficiently for a mile or two, my concern is after a 6 hour drive through the high desert, or after 100,000 miles. Since everything in the engine compartment has to be rated to run at higher temperatures. As has been pointed out, there are few metal products which are hard enough, long lasting enough, and capable of dealing with high temperatures over long periods of time. Go to ceramic and one ends up with a shorter life span. CuriousLord, thank you for the math formulas for pressure. My next comment comes with the increased internal pressure over time. The entire engine has to be rebuilt to deal with that. Throw in all the wires and gaskets and tubes and everything else that has to survive at that temperature to work, I am a bit dubious since the author of the link you provided does not seem to take any of these issues into consideration. Just me, etc. Sinergy

Real0ne -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/3/2007 8:59:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I disagree with your point about the gas moving through an engine being the only thing that needs to be 800 degrees, Real0ne. Heat bleeds off into everything in an engine, and the component parts simply grow hotter over time. yes and no. yes heat does bleed off into the parts of the engine, no it will not cause the engine to grow conitually hotter because of the water jackets throughout the block and heads. The water pump via the water flowing through the radiator and the fan behind the radiator in conjunction with the water thermostat is designed to keep the engine block at a constant temperature. With how cheap and "closely" designed somethings are on cars now days some cars cant make it across the desert as is off the shelf, but that is a result of cheap. The water system via thermostat keeps the engine at a reasonably constant temp. That is why the engine itself will be fine and holes will be in the pistons, as the only cooling the tops of the pisons get is the splashers on the oil system. a cooler block would draw heat off of the exhaust gas faster but the exhaust gas at road speeds would still be very hot flowing through the exhast ports because it does not sit in the cylinder long enough to transfer the bulk of the heat to the block and rather goes out the pipe. here is apretty good diagram and parts used list that i think makes both your point and mine. http://www.centuryperformance.com/coolingsys.asp

Sinergy -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/3/2007 9:29:56 AM)
Thank you for the link, Real0ne. I understand how an automotive engine works. As a method of self-abuse, I owned a '74 Fiat Spyder for a few years, after I had learned how to keep my Volkswagen alive as a complete idiot. An engine runs at a certain temperature because of the combustion, which is lowered by the cooling system involved. I understand it would be possible to cool the engine. The link you provided talks about an engine where the heat of combustion is used to heat up water to break up the hydrogen and oxygen bond in water, which occurs at around 800 degrees. Accordingly, some set of components in that engine needs to be designed to withstand constant temperatures of 800 or more degrees. This component would, based on design, have to be the parts where combustion (pistons, cylinders, etc) occurs. These parts move. Abrade. Require oil. Have gaskets and tubes and cogs and things going into them. In engine design, there is a trade off between weight and durability. It is possible to make an engine out of something like nickel that could withstand insanely high temperatures, but this engine would weigh 4x+ what a normal magnesium / aluminum alloy engine weighs. Since energy required to move something is a function including energy and weight, the more something weighs, the more energy required to move it. The more energy required to move it, the less efficient a drive system you have. So the question I am asking is how the engine will be designed to withstand almost constant 800+ temperatures (to sustain breaking the Hydrogen / Oxygen bond) while still being able to drive 100,000 miles. The author of the link you provided did not really go in depth into the physics behind how his engine would function over time. I would love to hear an analysis of it. Sinergy edited for way => weigh

CuriousLord -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/3/2007 11:29:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne ah but here again you are not taking everything into consideration. remember the injection method was used on military planes too. That would mean the military was out for less power according to your post. the military used it so they could run higher compression ratios and more fuel/air in the cylinder to get more power. Ah, excuse me. I tend to forget how the laws of Physics bend when you misreepresent a military aircraft design. Come to think of it, don't the new Martian "X-35 UFOz Xtreme!" models use this, too? And they can hit warp 3.5! Actually, an edit (annexation). The people in the other thread are sure God is magical and violates all rules of Physics, not having any Physics about his own body. Like God is one big, disjointed idea and he can't tell one part of himself from others. So, I'm sort of getting used to the notion people are gulliable enough to believe incredibly stupid, contradicting points just for the sake of wanting to. I guess you just want to believe in technology more than an omnipotent being?

Real0ne -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/3/2007 11:58:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne ah but here again you are not taking everything into consideration. remember the injection method was used on military planes too. That would mean the military was out for less power according to your post. the military used it so they could run higher compression ratios and more fuel/air in the cylinder to get more power. Ah, excuse me. I tend to forget how the laws of Physics bend when you misreepresent a military aircraft design. Come to think of it, don't the new Martian "X-35 UFOz Xtreme!" models use this, too? And they can hit warp 3.5! Actually, an edit (annexation). The people in the other thread are sure God is magical and violates all rules of Physics, not having any Physics about his own body. Like God is one big, disjointed idea and he can't tell one part of himself from others. So, I'm sort of getting used to the notion people are gulliable enough to believe incredibly stupid, contradicting points just for the sake of wanting to. I guess you just want to believe in technology more than an omnipotent being? well explain how you feel i misrepresented the laws of physics or whatever you are trying to say there. Hey you are the one who put the speed limit sign at c claiming it would take infinite energy to go beyond it..... and i informed you that lem is faster but you were not happy with that since you did not respond to my post. for the god war you are confusing me with luckydog, if anything i tried to play referee in that and that is the extent that i will on god issues. i stopped arguing god years ago

CuriousLord -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/3/2007 12:24:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne well explain how you feel i misrepresented the laws of physics or whatever you are trying to say there. A 'please' would work nicely; though I'd take it as granted. I said you misrepresented a military design. Not Physics. You're ignoring Physics altogether. You said a military airplane used this design. I can assure you that a successful aircraft did not. If you would like to cite this model, feel free. If you tell me the model is top-secret, and therefore uncited, I'm liable to disregard such an answer or to tease you about UFO's again. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Hey you are the one who put the speed limit sign at c claiming it would take infinite energy to go beyond it..... and i informed you that lem is faster but you were not happy with that since you did not respond to my post. Actually, while I would like to take credit, that was Einstein. You know, Real.. I try to teach. I've argued to my peers before, as close as I should have them, that it's possible to teach a common man many things. That children can embrace Calculus and that adults could learn about the great things my company would have debated. This is the only argument, I fear, that I may have lost; it was emotionally-driven out of desperation to see others as more significant. I do not understand the depravity which might cause one to violate sense so deeply. Perhaps, I have lost my sanity far less than others? Still, most people continue to ignore truth and believe in their emotional fantascies instead of substaince. You must be aware, my friend, that you will not find anything great in these fictional designs and sensationalist stories of great, inexpliciably unutilized stories. Certainly, you are aware that your grasp on the reality of science is weak, at best. So why is it you follow such stories? Do you honestly feel that you can do no better than to be bathed in the paper-thin support of fiction to the demands of a passionate mind? Or is fiction more comfortable? Or do you simply love to be opposition? I cannot see why one such as yourself would not study in earnest- to increase your understanding. Are you unable? Or do you believe your chances at your goals better, if taken on long-shots at glory? I'm at my wits' end, trying to explain things to others that are so basic that I simply take for granted. I suppose I can not empathize with my audience; this likely makes me a poor teacher. So, anyhow, I don't always respond. I just have to try to. I simply ask you, and all others, consider logic presented. That they make a legitimate attempt to understand. Insanity, the willing and blantant contradiction of logic, is truly a disgusting thing, leading to all sorts of inhumane ends.

mnottertail -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/3/2007 1:01:57 PM)
quote: Actually, while I would like to take credit, that was Einstein. You know, Real.. I try to teach. I've argued to my p Look, I aint gonna get all metaphsyical here-----but Einsteins Invarients theory covers a whole lotta shit. copuple of problems in space time. one is up and one is down --- you re spin em and how do it know------- but back to maxwell-or Farraday or Schroedigers cat or anyone of the fuckin stories. 800 degrees. I live in Minnesota, and will by all reasonable means force an uncomfortable airflow over this mass, say in the days of 40 below, and how is it (this mass) supposed to overcome the mundane physical properties of its being ponderable mass??????/ I asked once, and whether you agree or dont--this is a bench experience, but I am unsure of the reasonable usefullness in the range of life. Respond. Ron

DomKen -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/3/2007 1:27:06 PM)
So you're going to use waste heat from an ICE to break hydrogen to then add H2 back into the combustion cycle. This would only reduce the amount of CO2 released as it reduced gas consumption. Now let's get down to the nuts and bolts. How much does this system weigh? How much does the water tank weigh full? IOW when the system is full of fuel how much more does the car weigh? Do you have a design for the monitoring equipment needed to measure the hydrogen flow and alter the engine timing as the engine warms up? How much does this gear weigh? The inventor claims his invention creates a fuel savings of 30 to 50% but a 94% reduction in carbon emission. That is obviously not correct. All the carbon from 70 to 50% of the usual fuel consumption has to still exist. It is possible that he used diesel engines specifically to confuse laymen. The Diesel emissions were probably checked after the engine warmed up to operating temp and therefore after the system had reached optimum efficiency unfortunately that process takes a while and with a system designed to trap heat from the exhaust gases cold combustion with its attendant emmision of all sorts of incomplete combustion byproducts at lower temperatures than will be attained once the diesel is operating at temp.will also result in a fairly lengthy period where the system in question is too cold to function. Also looking over the press release in question the final paragraph quote: The dissociated hydrogen and oxygen gases are immediately sucked and burned with the fuel in the combustion chamber. Since hydrogen burns 7 times faster than gasoline and diesel fuels, and releases high amounts of heat energy upon combustion, it therefore causes the fuel to burn completely to prevent carbon emission, save fuel, add mileage, power and speed to the engine. is at best a mischaracterization if not an outright lie. Complete combustion of gas or diesel will always release CO2 that is what burning does, combine oxygen with the material in question. Therefore no matter how complete the combustion of a hydrocarbon gets you will get CO2 and H2O as end products..

mnottertail -> RE: Hydrogasifier - (Extreme Carbon Footprint Reduction) (6/3/2007 1:34:00 PM)
Weight should not concern us, this is FREE..........and abundant. Like corn and ethanol...... LOL. Ron (I for one only see a couple of problems)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875