What is Water For Gas?

On Aug 31, 12:31*pm, jim > wrote:
> Don Stauffer in Minnes
> * * * * Making Hydrogen with electrolysis has energy losses (duh).. However burning
> gasoline in a IC engine has a lot more energy losses.
> -jim

But those energy losses in an IC engine are NOT due to poor combustion
with gasoline. They are energy losses that will occur WHATEVER fuel
is burned. With a properly operating carburetor or FI, virtually ALL
the gasoline is burned.

The losses are HEAT losses. When an IC engine in a car is operating
near peak efficiency, about 1/3 of the heat energy from combustion is
used to generate mechanical horsepower. A further third goes into the
cooling jacket as part of the cooling process to keep from melting
metal parts and coking the lubricant. The last 1/3 goes out the
tailpipe as enthalpy of the exhaust gases. While a turbocharger does
use some of this last third, attempts to use too much of the exhaust
energy leads to poor breathing and the need to use a slower turning
engine with less horsepower per pound.

These losses remain even if we DO burn hydrogen.

"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" > wrote in message
news:16c74edc-dab0-

These losses remain even if we DO burn hydrogen.

Exactly. Fuel cells using hydrogen could possibly improve this thermal
energy loss quite a
bit, but for internal combustion engines (which are THE reality right now),
heat losses are
hard to avoid.

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
>
> On Aug 31, 12:31 pm, jim > wrote:
> > Don Stauffer in Minnes
> > Making Hydrogen with electrolysis has energy losses (duh). However burning
> > gasoline in a IC engine has a lot more energy losses.
> > -jim
>
> But those energy losses in an IC engine are NOT due to poor combustion
> with gasoline.

Yes the losses are. due to poor combustion. That is, if you define the
difference between poor combustion and good combustion as delivering more
pressure onto the piston at the top of stroke - thus requiring less fuel to move
the car the same distance. It has little to do with the amount of energy
produced. Using the energy efficiently is the issue.

> They are energy losses that will occur WHATEVER fuel
> is burned. With a properly operating carburetor or FI, virtually ALL
> the gasoline is burned.


So what? That has nothing to do with whether the fuel is utilized efficiently.
Imagine if an engine burned 90% of the fuel in it's exhaust system. In that
engine "virtually ALL the gasoline is burned". So what? I would guess that even
you can see that would be a very inefficient engine.

There are 2 things that IC design engineers know limit fuel efficiency with
spark ignition engines. They are the lean limit and the knock limit. If the fuel
and engine design can be modified to overcome those limits significant increases
in fuel efficiency are possible. That has been known for close to 100 years.
If you can run an engine with a significant increase in air and EGR (i. e. get
past the lean limit) pumping losses are reduced drastically. Spark ignition
engines as currently designed, running on regular gasoline, are efficient heat
pumps. They pump heat into the atmosphere. The air conditioner in your car has a
throttle just like your engine does. Remove that throttle (or open it up) and
the air conditioner will consume a lot less energy and it will pump a lot less
heat into the atmosphere. The throttle on your engine only exists because the
fuel properties require it. Changing the fuel properties can mean you can get by
with a lot less throttling.
Getting past the knock limit means engines can be deigned to apply more
pressure at the TDC thus more work is accomplished with the same amount of fuel.
MIT studies have shown that with enhanced fuels and engine design it is possible
to have spark ignition engines run with internal pressures of as much as 4 times
greater than is possible on today's engines running on regular gasoline. Running
engines with much higher internal pressures significantly increases the work to
heat loss ratio as well as allowing you to build much lighter engines that
deliver the same amount of power.

>
> The losses are HEAT losses. When an IC engine in a car is operating
> near peak efficiency, about 1/3 of the heat energy from combustion is
> used to generate mechanical horsepower.

Most vehicles are getting closer to a ratio of 1/4 used to 3/4 lost, but yes,
even if your numbers were correct that means 2/3 is wasted.

> A further third goes into the
> cooling jacket as part of the cooling process to keep from melting
> metal parts and coking the lubricant.


So what? Some engines have no cooling jacket (air cooled).

>The last 1/3 goes out the
> tailpipe as enthalpy of the exhaust gases. While a turbocharger does
> use some of this last third, attempts to use too much of the exhaust
> energy leads to poor breathing and the need to use a slower turning
> engine with less horsepower per pound.
>

All of your statements are true only if you assume no enhancement to the fuel.



> These losses remain even if we DO burn hydrogen.

No, everything can change when you change the fuel properties. Reputable
laboratories such as NASA's Jet propulsion Laboratory and MIT's Plasma research
center have studied this and have built working models of engines that run on
hydrogen enriched gasoline and their conclusion was that there is no doubt
modifying the fuel before it enters the engine can lead to increases in fuel
efficiency. Do you suppose they never heard of your thermo laws?
Also there are vehicles being built and on the road today that run on hydrogen
enriched natural gas that are operating at 40% efficiency (60% is still wasted).
That is a 30% increase in efficiency over the best they can do without hydrogen.

-jim


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"jim" > wrote in message
...

Jim, I have read your post, and I am sure you have been fed this
information.

Honestly, I got a little sleepy with the replays of the HHO boys "physics".

There is STILL no free lunch.

HLS wrote:
>
> "jim" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Jim, I have read your post, and I am sure you have been fed this
> information.
I read the information directly from the research institutions that published
it. Where are you getting your information?

>
> Honestly, I got a little sleepy with the replays of the HHO boys "physics".

I don't know who you mean by HHO boys. Did you know that Delphi this summer
announced that it is developing hydrogen generating system for hydrogen
enrichment of gasoline engines. They say their unit will be about the size of a
twelve oz. can and may improve mileage by up to 25%. The press release didn't go
into details. Is Delphi who you are calling HHO boys?

I suppose NASA and MIT no nothing about physics?

When you say "sleepy", do you mean you are too lazy to read the research?

-jim


>
> There is STILL no free lunch.


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"jim" > wrote in message
...

> When you say "sleepy", do you mean you are too lazy to read the research?
>
> -jim

No, I am not to lazy to read research.
When work of this sort leads to something new, realistic and useful
technology,
I will be glad to hear it.

Where did you get the lousy attitude? Are you a researcher and have you
been offended?

On Sep 1, 11:20*am, jim > wrote:

> > They are energy losses that will occur WHATEVER fuel
> > is burned. *With a properly operating carburetor or FI, virtually ALL
> > the gasoline is burned.
>
> So what? That has nothing to do with whether the fuel *is utilized efficiently.
> Imagine if an engine burned 90% of the fuel in it's exhaust system. In that
> engine "virtually ALL the gasoline is burned". So what? I would guess that even
> you can see that would be a very inefficient engine.
>
Thermal efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work out of
the engine to the energy value of the fuel input. So these losses DO
affect, by a large degree, the thermal efficiency. In effect, the
engine is not using, it is wasting, a high percentage of the enthalpy
(which is a function of temperature, among other things) resulting
from the combustion. If you raise the temperature of the working
fluid, the cooling losses would be even greater.

"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" > wrote in message
news:0d6b3b88-7cbf->
Thermal efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work out of
the engine to the energy value of the fuel input. So these losses DO
affect, by a large degree, the thermal efficiency. In effect, the
engine is not using, it is wasting, a high percentage of the enthalpy
(which is a function of temperature, among other things) resulting
from the combustion. If you raise the temperature of the working
fluid, the cooling losses would be even greater.

*******************
Don,
You probably remember the "adiabatic" engine that ol' Smokey Yunick
worked on for a while. I cant remember all the details, but IIRC, he
was trying to reduce the heat losses.

I guess that there has been progress made in internal combustion
engine efficiency over the decades, buy IMO the steps have been
relatively small and predictable ones.

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
>
> On Sep 1, 11:20 am, jim > wrote:
>
> > > They are energy losses that will occur WHATEVER fuel
> > > is burned. With a properly operating carburetor or FI, virtually ALL
> > > the gasoline is burned.
> >
> > So what? That has nothing to do with whether the fuel is utilized efficiently.
> > Imagine if an engine burned 90% of the fuel in it's exhaust system. In that
> > engine "virtually ALL the gasoline is burned". So what? I would guess that even
> > you can see that would be a very inefficient engine.
> >
> Thermal efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work out of
> the engine to the energy value of the fuel input.

Yes.

The fuel is gasoline. Modifying the combustion properties of that fuel can lead
to significant increases in thermal efficiency. If the fuel burned so slowly
that most of it was burning in the exhaust and late in the power stroke that
would be very inefficient. Adding hydrogen to the fuel causes the combustion to
complete earlier in the cycle (without detonation). That leads to better thermal
efficiency for the same reason that having the combustion complete late in the
cycle produces worse thermal efficiency.

> So these losses DO
> affect, by a large degree, the thermal efficiency.

What losses are you referring to? Are you are talking about the losses in the
example I gave? You made the claim that how the fuel burns makes no difference
as long as it burns completely. I offered a counter-example to illustrate your
claim was false.



> In effect, the
> engine is not using, it is wasting, a high percentage of the enthalpy
> (which is a function of temperature, among other things) resulting
> from the combustion. If you raise the temperature of the working
> fluid, the cooling losses would be even greater.

So who said anything about raising the temperature of some fluid?

The air conditioner in your car is supposed to be a heat pump by design. Your
gasoline engine is not supposed to be a heat pump. The only reason it is
designed as a heat pump is that the fuel won't burn if it isn't designed like
that. Modify the combustion properties of the fuel so that it is able to burn
with less pumping losses and the result is improved thermal efficiency.

-jim


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Don,
I know you could recommend a book on thermodynamics to him.


"jim" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 1, 11:20 am, jim > wrote:
>>
>> > > They are energy losses that will occur WHATEVER fuel
>> > > is burned. With a properly operating carburetor or FI, virtually ALL
>> > > the gasoline is burned.
>> >
>> > So what? That has nothing to do with whether the fuel is utilized
>> > efficiently.
>> > Imagine if an engine burned 90% of the fuel in it's exhaust system. In
>> > that
>> > engine "virtually ALL the gasoline is burned". So what? I would guess
>> > that even
>> > you can see that would be a very inefficient engine.
>> >
>> Thermal efficiency is defined as the ratio of mechanical work out of
>> the engine to the energy value of the fuel input.
>
> Yes.
>
> The fuel is gasoline. Modifying the combustion properties of that fuel can
> lead
> to significant increases in thermal efficiency. If the fuel burned so
> slowly
> that most of it was burning in the exhaust and late in the power stroke
> that
> would be very inefficient. Adding hydrogen to the fuel causes the
> combustion to
> complete earlier in the cycle (without detonation). That leads to better
> thermal
> efficiency for the same reason that having the combustion complete late in
> the
> cycle produces worse thermal efficiency.
>
>> So these losses DO
>> affect, by a large degree, the thermal efficiency.
>
> What losses are you referring to? Are you are talking about the losses in
> the
> example I gave? You made the claim that how the fuel burns makes no
> difference
> as long as it burns completely. I offered a counter-example to illustrate
> your
> claim was false.
>
>
>
>> In effect, the
>> engine is not using, it is wasting, a high percentage of the enthalpy
>> (which is a function of temperature, among other things) resulting
>> from the combustion. If you raise the temperature of the working
>> fluid, the cooling losses would be even greater.
>
> So who said anything about raising the temperature of some fluid?
>
> The air conditioner in your car is supposed to be a heat pump by design.
> Your
> gasoline engine is not supposed to be a heat pump. The only reason it is
> designed as a heat pump is that the fuel won't burn if it isn't designed
> like
> that. Modify the combustion properties of the fuel so that it is able to
> burn
> with less pumping losses and the result is improved thermal efficiency.
>
> -jim
>
>
> ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
> Newsgroups
> ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---