What is Water For Gas?

HLS wrote:
>
> "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.

Yes you are. Too dishonest to admit it also.



> When work of this sort leads to something new, realistic and useful
> technology,
> I will be glad to hear it.

Oh let me see who should I pay attention to? Should I listen to the opinion of
some poster on usenet whose only technical argument is "there is no free lunch"
or should I listen to the researchers who have actually studied and tested
working models of hydrogen-enriched SI engines.

Here is a quote from a researcher at UC Davis who is studying hydrogen
enrichment.

There are two main categories
for the many theories as to why
hydrogen enrichment is such a
great benefit. There are the thermodynamic
benefits of hydrogen by means of a fast
flame speed, low ignition energy
and rapid diffusion. And then
there are the chemical benefits
like OH radical production and
the creation of new combustion mechanisms.



It has been demonstrated repeatedly that converting some of the hydrocarbon
fuel used in a SI engine to hydrogen and burning the combination under the right
conditions does improve engine efficiency. The question of whether hydrogen
defies the laws of thermodynamics ia not an issue. That is not to say there
aren't any serious design considerations to hydrogen enrichment. That just
happens to not be one of them.


>
> Where did you get the lousy attitude?

I don't have a lousy attitude. You have made statements that are factually
incorrect. Since when is correcting false statements a "lousy attitude"?
Hydrogen-enrichment does not defy the laws of thermo-dynamics. It has been shown
that it can improve thermal efficiency in IC engines by every reputable research
institution that has investigated the phenomenon. You on the other hand, just
theorize that it defies the laws of thermodynamics. There is no research to
support your position.

-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
...
Where did you get the lousy attitude?
>
> I don't have a lousy attitude. You have made statements that are factually
> incorrect. Since when is correcting false statements a "lousy attitude"?
> Hydrogen-enrichment does not defy the laws of thermo-dynamics. It has been
> shown
> that it can improve thermal efficiency in IC engines by every reputable
> research
> institution that has investigated the phenomenon. You on the other hand,
> just
> theorize that it defies the laws of thermodynamics. There is no research
> to
> support your position.
>
> -jim

I think you are probably just uneducated, Jim. Well, high school, maybe.

There is no doubt that hydrogen will burn in a properly designed engine, and
that
it can be mixed with standard fuels as well. There is considerable energy
in the
combustion of hydrogen. Most of the energy coming from the combustion of
gasoline or diesel has to do with oxidation of the hydrogen, not combustion
of the
carbon.

I have ridden in hydrogen fueled busses, where no other energy source was
used.
The airport busses in Frankfort, Germany have had this experiment for some
time.

Given a certain amount of fuel entering an engine, the efficiency is related
to the amount
which can be converted to mechanical energy. The rest is lost as heat
(cooling system,
radiation, convection, friction, and heat out the tailpipe). The difference
in temperature between
the gases entering the engine and the gases leaving are a rough measure of
efficiency.

The hotter the gases entering and the cooler the gases leaving (assuming
heat losses mentioned
above are constant), the more efficient is the process. (I am making some
generalizations, you lazy thermodynamics devils ;.)

Hydrogen is a power packed fuel. No doubt about it. But as far as it being
able to do magic
things which are beyond the ken and explanation of science, dont bet on it.

Now, if you continue to be insulting and abusive, I will have to lose my
temper and use words
that I really dont choose to use at the moment.

HLS wrote:
>
> "jim" > wrote in message
> ...
> Where did you get the lousy attitude?
> >
> > I don't have a lousy attitude. You have made statements that are factually
> > incorrect. Since when is correcting false statements a "lousy attitude"?
> > Hydrogen-enrichment does not defy the laws of thermo-dynamics. It has been
> > shown
> > that it can improve thermal efficiency in IC engines by every reputable
> > research
> > institution that has investigated the phenomenon. You on the other hand,
> > just
> > theorize that it defies the laws of thermodynamics. There is no research
> > to
> > support your position.
> >
> > -jim
>
> I think you are probably just uneducated, Jim. Well, high school, maybe.

I suppose you think the research done at UC Davis is done by high school
students?


>
> There is no doubt that hydrogen will burn in a properly designed engine, and
> that
> it can be mixed with standard fuels as well. There is considerable energy
> in the
> combustion of hydrogen. Most of the energy coming from the combustion of
> gasoline or diesel has to do with oxidation of the hydrogen, not combustion
> of the
> carbon.

If you are trying to prove that hydrogen enrichment doesn't increase the energy
input to the engine. No need to prove that - Of course it doesn't. By converting
some of the fuel to hydrogen the total energy available for combustion becomes
less. No need to prove something everybody agrees with. By converting some of
the hydrocarbon fuel to hydrogen (by whatever means one chooses) the net energy
contained in the fuel becomes less. That is undisputed.

If you have 5% less energy but use that energy with 20% greater efficiency you
get a net gain in efficiency. That was the conclusion NASA arrived at when they
study hydrogen-enrichment.



>
> I have ridden in hydrogen fueled busses, where no other energy source was
> used.
> The airport busses in Frankfort, Germany have had this experiment for some
> time.
>
> Given a certain amount of fuel entering an engine, the efficiency is related
> to the amount
> which can be converted to mechanical energy. The rest is lost as heat
> (cooling system,
> radiation, convection, friction, and heat out the tailpipe). The difference
> in temperature between
> the gases entering the engine and the gases leaving are a rough measure of
> efficiency.

Yes. Obviously when you improve thermal efficiency less heat ends up in the
atmosphere. There no need for you to define efficiency. There is no disagreement
as to what efficiency means. No one has ever said your definition of efficiency
is flawed. You have defined efficiency adequately.


>
> The hotter the gases entering and the cooler the gases leaving (assuming
> heat losses mentioned
> above are constant), the more efficient is the process. (I am making some
> generalizations, you lazy thermodynamics devils ;.)

Yes and that is exactly the result researchers have found obtains when some of
the hydrocarbon fuel is first converted to hydrogen and the the 2 fractions are
burned in combination. That is, they have found for the same amount of fuel more
mechanical energy is produced and less energy is lost as heat.

In controlled laboratory conditions it has been shown the same amount of fuel
will produce more power and less heat lost to the atmosphere. It is well known
that the conversion of some of the fuel to hydrogen requires energy input and
the net amount of energy in the resulting fuel mix will be less. That part of
the process loses efficiency - the rest of the process gains efficiency.

What you seem to be unable to grasp is that modifying the way fuel burns can
be the key to altering the thermal efficiency of the process. This is not a new
idea. The best diesel engines are 45% more thermal efficient than the best
gasoline engines. And the reason for that greater thermal efficiency can pretty
well be boiled down to one thing - the diesel fuel burns differently than
gasoline. In other words, there are design deficiencies in gasoline engines not
present in diesel engines that are a direct consequence of the way the 2 fuels
burn. And one way to get around those design deficiencies is to change the way
that gasoline burns.

Lets imagine that you knew a process that could make gasoline burn just like
diesel. With that modification to the fuel you would be able to build gasoline
engines that get far better mileage than they do without your process. Why is
the concept that modifying the combustion characteristics of a fuel allows for
different thermal efficiencies so hard to grasp?

Don't be confused by the the hypothetical example given in the above
paragraph. Hydrogen enrichment of gasoline does not make it burn just like
diesel, but it does change the properties in a direction that help overcome some
of the serious liabilities that gasoline combustion has that diesel combustion
doesn't.


>
> Hydrogen is a power packed fuel. No doubt about it. But as far as it being
> able to do magic
> things which are beyond the ken and explanation of science, dont bet on it.


What magic things? When did anybody say magic things happen?

>
> Now, if you continue to be insulting and abusive, I will have to lose my
> temper and use words
> that I really dont choose to use at the moment.

You have utterly failed to make any sort of valid technical arguments. You only
belabor points that no one disputes. So now what? You make threats that you
will resort to additional invalid responses?

-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
...
> You have utterly failed to make any sort of valid technical arguments. You
> only
> belabor points that no one disputes. So now what? You make threats that
> you
> will resort to additional invalid responses?
>
> -jim

Jim, you are just a cyclic asshole....if you realized that you were an
asshole, you might
not choose to be one, but in being one you can never identify it...and you
will keep being
one.

Are you getting out of high school this year?

HLS wrote:
>
> "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 vaguely remember that. Ceramic coatings to reduce heat transfer to
metal parts (a fairly common practice now, other parts made entirely of
ceramics, turbocharged with no after-cooler to eliminate that heat loss,
waterless coolant, etc. etc. Good ideas, but the materials weren't up
to the challenge. And when you try to operate at very high induction
temps, you really have to go to a diesel cycle or detonation will be the
limiting factor.

>
> 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.
>

Given that large fixed-speed turbo-diesels (big generator sets for
example) are bumping up around 45% efficiency (measured as chemical
energy in the fuel versus mechanical energy at the output), further
progress is getting very hard to come by. That's darn close to the
theoretical Carnot efficiency in a typical operating environment.

Steve wrote:
>
> HLS wrote:
> >
> > "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 vaguely remember that. Ceramic coatings to reduce heat transfer to
> metal parts (a fairly common practice now, other parts made entirely of
> ceramics, turbocharged with no after-cooler to eliminate that heat loss,
> waterless coolant, etc. etc. Good ideas, but the materials weren't up
> to the challenge. And when you try to operate at very high induction
> temps, you really have to go to a diesel cycle or detonation will be the
> limiting factor.

I remember something about experiments using ceramic blocks and pistons. Very
little heat transfer out of the cylinders. It did improve efficiency but the
parts didn't last long.


>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Given that large fixed-speed turbo-diesels (big generator sets for
> example) are bumping up around 45% efficiency (measured as chemical
> energy in the fuel versus mechanical energy at the output), further
> progress is getting very hard to come by. That's darn close to the
> theoretical Carnot efficiency in a typical operating environment.

But there is still lots of room for efficiency improvement in gasoline motors.
If the typical automobile gasoline engine achieved that same 45% efficiency it
would travel about 80% farther on each gallon of gas then it does now.

-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:

>>>
>> Given that large fixed-speed turbo-diesels (big generator sets for
>> example) are bumping up around 45% efficiency (measured as chemical
>> energy in the fuel versus mechanical energy at the output), further
>> progress is getting very hard to come by. That's darn close to the
>> theoretical Carnot efficiency in a typical operating environment.
>
> But there is still lots of room for efficiency improvement in gasoline motors.
> If the typical automobile gasoline engine achieved that same 45% efficiency it
> would travel about 80% farther on each gallon of gas then it does now.
>
> -jim

No argument, but the obstacles to overcome are bigger. You have to
maintain efficiency over a broad RPM and load range (hybrids at least
partially get away from that and let you operate at one or two
predetermined speeds). But as I alluded to in an earlier paragraph,
diesels let you run enormous intake pressures and temperatures (if
desired) which allow more heat recovery than is likely possible with a
spark-ignition cycle, at least without direct fuel injection ala Wright
3350 (more 1950s technology for ya....)

Steve wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
>
> >>>
> >> Given that large fixed-speed turbo-diesels (big generator sets for
> >> example) are bumping up around 45% efficiency (measured as chemical
> >> energy in the fuel versus mechanical energy at the output), further
> >> progress is getting very hard to come by. That's darn close to the
> >> theoretical Carnot efficiency in a typical operating environment.
> >
> > But there is still lots of room for efficiency improvement in gasoline motors.
> > If the typical automobile gasoline engine achieved that same 45% efficiency it
> > would travel about 80% farther on each gallon of gas then it does now.
> >
> > -jim
>
> No argument, but the obstacles to overcome are bigger. You have to
> maintain efficiency over a broad RPM and load range (hybrids at least
> partially get away from that and let you operate at one or two
> predetermined speeds). But as I alluded to in an earlier paragraph,
> diesels let you run enormous intake pressures and temperatures (if
> desired) which allow more heat recovery than is likely possible with a
> spark-ignition cycle, at least without direct fuel injection ala Wright
> 3350 (more 1950s technology for ya....)

Does direct injection of gasoline change things much? Stratified charge is sort
of direct injection and they allow you to run leaner but the difference is much
in the way of changing efficiency.

There isn't an option to get a refund on that fraction of a barrel of imported
crude oil that goes to gasoline or an option of converting that portion of crude
to other products economically. So we're stuck with a lot of gasoline and making
the SI engine more efficient is the only viable option for using that fuel
efficiently. And yes the key to improving efficiency in burning gasoline should
be high intake pressures and low exhaust temps. But you need to make changes to
the way the fuel burns or you can't get around the obstacles.

According to MIT studies, Adding hydrogen to gasoline (converting some of the
fuel energy from gasoline to hydrogen) can make it possible for a spark engine
to idle at up to 50:1 Air fuel ratios. That means idling with higher intake
pressure and a reduction in heat out of the exhaust and radiator. They claim
this produces thermal efficiency approaching 95% of diesels (this is only for
the light load mode of operating). Large amounts of EGR are also possible with
hydrogen enrichment and improvement in emissions.
The other idea the same lab is working on is direct injection of ethanol as an
addition to gasoline. This improves efficiency for operating under heavy loads.
The vehicle would have 2 fuel tanks one for E85 and one for regular gas. When
the engine is under load ethanol would be injected directly into the cylinders
to supplement the gasoline - the amount of gasoline stays fairly steady and the
amount of ethanol injected would be proportional to engine load. That creates
the possibility of cylinder pressures 4 times higher that what is now possible
(with only gasoline) without causing detonation. The MIT research estimates are
that the per cent of ethanol to gasoline needed for this would work out to an
average of around 10%-15% (much higher when accelerating hard and much lower
when not). Part of the gain in efficiency would be that engines could be made
smaller and still put out the same power.
Both of these methods are designed to overcome the limitations that are there
due to the way gasoline burns in current designs.

-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 =---