Searching \ for '[OT] 125 years of the Automobile' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=125+years+automobile
Search entire site for: '125 years of the Automobile'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] 125 years of the Automobile'
2011\01\26@153546 by Robert Csaba Molnar

picon face
You just gave me an idea for the weekend :) I'm will be in Mannheim this weekend with no real plans on what to do. I'll try to see if I can find a museum with the original patent of Carl Benz and take picture of it, maybe also with the original 3 wheeler.

--- On Wed, 1/26/11, spam_OUTalan.b.pearceTakeThisOuTspamstfc.ac.uk <.....alan.b.pearceKILLspamspam@spam@stfc.ac.uk> wrote:

From: alan.b.pearcespamKILLspamstfc.ac.uk <.....alan.b.pearceKILLspamspam.....stfc.ac.uk>
Subject: [EE] 125 years of the Automobile
To: EraseMEpiclistspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 11:55 AM

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14775005,00.html

And it was a 3 wheeler ...
-- Scanned by iCritical.

2011\01\26@154216 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
It is weird that diesel engine was invented before fuel engine.And first
diesel engine was working with bio-diesel.

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Robert Csaba Molnar
<molnar_rcsspamspam_OUTyahoo.com>wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>

2011\01\26@160603 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Yigit Turgut wrote:
> It is weird that diesel engine was invented before fuel engine.

So a diesel doesn't run on fuel?  Sounds like our energy problem is solved!!


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\01\26@162254 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
Yes it was under our very nose for decades!! You should have the credit
since you are the genius who pointed that out (:

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Olin Lathrop <RemoveMEolin_piclistspamTakeThisOuTembedinc.com>wrote:

> Yigit Turgut wrote:
> > It is weird that diesel engine was invented before fuel engine.
>
> So a diesel doesn't run on fuel?  Sounds like our energy problem is
> solved!!
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> (978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
>

2011\01\27@044330 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: So a diesel doesn't run on fuel?  Sounds like our energy problem
:: is solved!!

I supposed that as Yigit is Turkish(?) he might have opted for the wrong word in translation, after all many countries consider diesel to be bensin, benzin or benzine, I can think of one country (at least) that insists gas is the same as petroleum spirit, AKA petrol.

One sniff makes you fly like a seabird! :)

Colin
--
cdb, colinEraseMEspam.....btech-online.co.uk on 27/01/2011
Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk   Hosted by:  http://www.justhost.com.au
 

2011\01\27@045518 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> :: So a diesel doesn't run on fuel?  Sounds like our energy problem
> :: is solved!!
>
> I supposed that as Yigit is Turkish(?) he might have opted for the wrong
> word in translation, after all many countries consider diesel to be bensin,
> benzin or benzine, I can think of one country (at least) that insists gas
> is the same as petroleum spirit, AKA petrol.
>
> One sniff makes you fly like a seabird! :)

As I remember it from what I have read, Herr Diesels first engine ran on coal dust.
-- Scanned by iCritical.

2011\01\27@054007 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
Thats correct Colin, diesel and benzine that how they are called here. Also;
anyone tried hydrogen modules that can be assembled to any car (diesel or
benzine) ?

like >> http://www.hydrogen-fuel.ca/

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:43 AM, cdb <EraseMEcolinspambtech-online.co.uk> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>

2011\01\27@061039 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Jan 27, 2011, at 2:40 AM, Yigit Turgut wrote:

>  http://www.hydrogen-fuel.ca/

More obvious scam.  "We'll produce hyrdogen using electricity  generated by your alternator, feed it back into your intake, and get a  net improvement in milage."  Not going to happen!

When you see someone say "One of the most exciting things about  hydrogen is that it is virtually cost free since one can extract  hydrogen from distilled water", run away quickly...

BillW

2011\01\27@062407 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
What makes you say that I do not see any inconsistency. A friend of mine
applied this system (not the one on the link, but the same principle just a
different vendor) and there is significant difference. Only problem is that
it runs out very quickly thats why it is not the main fuel for combustion -
a supplementary  to your current system.

If you can explain why you think that way maybe you can enlighten us all.

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 1:10 PM, William "Chops" Westfield
<RemoveMEwestfwspam_OUTspamKILLspammac.com>wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>

2011\01\27@063956 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Jan 27, 2011, at 3:24 AM, Yigit Turgut wrote:

> If you can explain why you think that way

Splitting water using electrolysis is not particularly efficient.  For  any amount of energy N that you put into it, you might get enough  Hydrogen and oxygen out to produce 0.7*N of energy when you burn it.   Except that that process wouldn't be 100% efficient either, especially  by the time it goes through your car motor/alternator/etc.  It can't  even fuel itself, much less add efficiency to the propulsion of the car.

Claiming that you can improve mileage overall is like saying you'll  use a generator to electrolyze water, then use the hydrogen and oxygen  produced to run the generator.  Classic perpetual motion.
Except in this case they additionally claim that there will be extra  energy left over to help move the car.

I don't know enough about cars to explain the mechanisms by which you  might fool yourself into believing that it is working.  Running down  the battery is one possibility, I guess (for rather short measurement  cycles!)

Why would you possibly believe that this could work?  You might as  well throw in some nickel and claim that its doing "cold fusion."

BillW

2011\01\27@064748 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 27/01/2011 11:10, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> When you see someone say "One of the most exciting things about
> hydrogen is that it is virtually cost free since one can extract
> hydrogen from distilled water", run away quickly...
>
until we have cheap household or car installable fusion reactors.

In fact unless you live in a country where a significant part of Electricity is not made from imported hydrocarbons, any electric car is daft.

Loss in Electricity Transmission
Loss in battery recharging.

Better to have  a Diesel engine

2011\01\27@071703 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesTakeThisOuTspamspammit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspamspamspamBeGonemit.edu] On
Behalf
> Of Yigit Turgut
> Sent: 27 January 2011 11:24
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] 125 years of the Automobile
>
> What makes you say that I do not see any inconsistency. A friend of
mine
> applied this system (not the one on the link, but the same principle
just
> a
> different vendor) and there is significant difference. Only problem is
> that
> it runs out very quickly thats why it is not the main fuel for
combustion
> -
> a supplementary  to your current system.
>
> If you can explain why you think that way maybe you can enlighten us
all.

Quite simply you expend *considerably* more energy electrolysing the
water than you get back from burning the hydrogen you collect.  Despite
the claims of various fraudsters, this is an absolutely fundamental
problem; you can't work around it.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2011\01\27@072720 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
That's I agree, but remember that alternator already generates huge amounts
of energy.
Car electronics + illumination draw negligible currents compared to output
of the alternator, the rest is used for electrolyze.


On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Michael Rigby-Jones <
RemoveMEMichael.Rigby-JonesKILLspamspamoclaro.com> wrote:

>
>
> > {Original Message removed}

2011\01\27@074215 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> That's I agree, but remember that alternator already generates huge amounts
> of energy.
> Car electronics + illumination draw negligible currents compared to output
> of the alternator, the rest is used for electrolyze.

Not in cars I have owned. In most the alternator is sized to run the headlights plus normal other current draws (radio, ECU, etc) plus a little bit to charge the battery. This becomes most observable when the battery is getting old, and the weather cold, and you do a run home from work in the evening, and the alternator has its work cut out to replenish the energy taken from the battery by starting the car.

One car I owned, a Triumph 2000, from the seventies, I found the fuel injected version had a bigger capacity alternator than the non-injected version. The difference in capacities was the power required to run the fuel pump.


-- Scanned by iCritical.

2011\01\27@075643 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

>> remember that alternator already generates huge amounts of energy.

No, the alternator converts mechanical power generated by the motor to  electricity.  If you draw more power from the alternator, you put more  mechanical load on the main engine and reduce milage.  There might be  some slight hybrid effect (the alternator would produce some power  when coasting or slowing down, even though you're not loading the  engine), but I'd be very surprised if it were significant.

BillW

2011\01\27@075836 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bouncesSTOPspamspamspam_OUTmit.edu [spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesSTOPspamspamEraseMEmit.edu] On
Behalf
> Of Yigit Turgut
> Sent: 27 January 2011 12:27
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] 125 years of the Automobile
>
> That's I agree, but remember that alternator already generates huge
> amounts
> of energy.
> Car electronics + illumination draw negligible currents compared to
output
> of the alternator, the rest is used for electrolyze.
>
Where do you think this electrical energy comes from?  From burning fuel
very inefficiently.  You can't get something for nothing, as soon as you
start drawing more current from the alternator, the engine has to burn
more fuel to provide it.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2011\01\27@080205 by RussellMc

face picon face
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Olin Lathrop <KILLspamolin_piclistspamBeGonespamembedinc.com>wrote:
>> So a diesel doesn't run on fuel?  Sounds like our energy problem is
>> solved!!

> Yes it was under our very nose for decades!! You should have the credit
> since you are the genius who pointed that out (:

Olin (for Columbine?) gets all the credit he deserves in that area
already, and maybe a bit more.
(He does a mean line in Panemone's as well)

I won't even start to rave on about English as a second language as
that, just possibly, may have been an attempt at a joke :-)


             R

2011\01\27@083523 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 27/1/2011 10:16, Michael Rigby-Jones escreveu:
{Quote hidden}

It has everything to do with the three laws of thermodynamics.

In other words they say:

1) You cannot win the game
2) You cannot tie the game
3) You cannot get out of the game

Isaac

__________________________________________________
Fale com seus amigos  de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger http://br.messenger.yahoo.com

2011\01\27@084233 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 27/1/2011 10:27, Yigit Turgut escreveu:
> That's I agree, but remember that alternator already generates huge amounts
> of energy.
> Car electronics + illumination draw negligible currents compared to output
> of the alternator, the rest is used for electrolyze.


But any energy it is outputting is just being supplied be the car's
engine, burning more fuel.
Every energy conversion wastes some energy, so Fuel -> Movement = loss;
Movement -> Electricity = loss; Electricity -> Hydrogen = loss;
Hydrgen(fuel) -> Movement = loss.

So, the fuel burned to obtain the hydrogen is more than the fuel that
would be saved by the use of that same hydrogen.

Isaac

__________________________________________________
Fale com seus amigos  de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger http://br.messenger.yahoo.com

2011\01\27@090315 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 27/01/2011 12:42, spamBeGonealan.b.pearcespamKILLspamstfc.ac.uk wrote:
>> That's I agree, but remember that alternator already generates huge amounts
>> of energy.
>> Car electronics + illumination draw negligible currents compared to output
>> of the alternator, the rest is used for electrolyze.
> Not in cars I have owned. In most the alternator is sized to run the headlights plus normal other current draws (radio, ECU, etc) plus a little bit to charge the battery. This becomes most observable when the battery is getting old, and the weather cold, and you do a run home from work in the evening, and the alternator has its work cut out to replenish the energy taken from the battery by starting the car.
>
> One car I owned, a Triumph 2000, from the seventies, I found the fuel injected version had a bigger capacity alternator than the non-injected version. The difference in capacities was the power required to run the fuel pump..
>
>
The "load" on the engine is related to the current drawn from Alternator. So using more current (power) on the Electrics will use more fuel.

At idle put everything on (headlamps, spots, heated rear window etc) , The Engine will rev up a little.

There is no "unused" alternator power being "wasted"

Obviously any given size alternator has friction and other mechanical losses. Above a certain size the magnetic losses are actually smaller. Compare power vs weight of 100W motor or generator and 200kW model.

An alternator is an AC motor in Reverse, on no load it may take little power from electricity (just overcoming mechanical, electrical and magnetic losses). Put a heavy load and see the electric consumption really rise.

Also at higher currents there is more copper losses and losses in the rectifiers of Alternator, so energy (fuel) of the engine is wasted

2011\01\27@093639 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Yigit Turgut wrote:
> That's I agree, but remember that alternator already generates huge
> amounts of energy.

No, it doesn't.

> Car electronics + illumination draw negligible currents compared to
> output of the alternator, the rest is used for electrolyze.

This is nonsense.  You need to go back to highschool physics and pay
attention this time.  The alternator is just a electric generator.
Mechanical power comes in, electric power comes out.  Of course it's not
100% efficient, so some heat comes out too.

It doesn't just "generate huge amounts of energy".  It may be capable of
generating a large amount of power, but the actual amount depends on the
actual electric load.  The car electronics is generally a light load,
meaning the generator could produce more power, but it doesn't actually do
so until there is more of a load.  You could put the extra capacity of the
generator to use doing other things, like splitting water into hydrogen and
oxygen, but that extra power isn't free.  It ultimately comes from the
mechanical input power, which comes from the engine.  Put another way, when
the generator ouptut is loaded more, it in turn becomes a bigger mechanical
load on the engine.  Put yet another way, the generator shaft is harder to
spin when there is a larger electrical load on its output.

What you described is called a "perpetual motion machine".  Look that up for
more details.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\01\27@121232 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Olin Lathrop <.....olin_piclistspam_OUTspamembedinc.com>wrote:

> Yigit Turgut wrote:
> > That's I agree, but remember that alternator already generates huge
> > amounts of energy.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> > Car electronics + illumination draw negligible currents compared to
> > output of the alternator, the rest is used for electrolyze.
>
> This is nonsense.  You need to go back to highschool physics and pay
> attention this time.  The alternator is just a electric generator.
> Mechanical power comes in, electric power comes out.  Of course it's not
> 100% efficient, so some heat comes out too.
>

A standart car alternator can generate up to 50A maybe more (instantly)
depending on the rpm. If you had looked into the electrolyze process (which
is the main topic here) you'd know that it's a linear function depending
only on time and current applied. Bottom line is alternator can generate
huge (instantenous) power at its output.This will obviously occur at higher
rpms. Of course it's input is the rotationary motion which is essentially
originating from the fuel. I think you are stuck at "generation" (: A system
working at this macro level can not  generate "energy", it can only convert
it from one form to another. Not worth mentioning, just saying..


> It doesn't just "generate huge amounts of energy".  It may be capable of
> generating a large amount of power, but the actual amount depends on the
> actual electric load.  The car electronics is generally a light load,
> meaning the generator could produce more power, but it doesn't actually do
> so until there is more of a load.


That case applies when the water runs out because water is the load here and
since the impedance increases between the probes of electrolyte system there
will be less current drawn fro the alternator.


>  You could put the extra capacity of the
> generator to use doing other things, like splitting water into hydrogen and
> oxygen, but that extra power isn't free.  It ultimately comes from the
> mechanical input power, which comes from the engine.  Put another way, when
> the generator ouptut is loaded more, it in turn becomes a bigger mechanical
> load on the engine.  Put yet another way, the generator shaft is harder to
> spin when there is a larger electrical load on its output.
>

It is true, but you'd know that  it's negligible if you had actually seen
the output of a car alternator or looked into how much current it is capable
of generating. Car is already an inefficient machine, you will not need to
burn extra fuel for electrolyze process.

I think you are stressed a little bit, a slim blunt can make your day! Also
you can ask Colin for a sniff (if he is into sharing, which I doubt in your
case)

2011\01\27@123207 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
On 27/01/2011 17:12, Yigit Turgut wrote:
> It is true, but you'd know that  it's negligible if you had actually seen
> the output of a car alternator or looked into how much current it is capable
> of generating. Car is already an inefficient machine, you will not need to
> burn extra fuel for electrolyze process.
yes you will. For anything more useful than a candle light.

It will waste fuel, not save it

2011\01\27@124259 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 27/1/2011 15:12, Yigit Turgut escreveu:
{Quote hidden}

If I remember it right, you need two Faraday of charge (not Farad,
Faraday is a measure of electric charge and is approximately 96000
Coulomb) to electrolyze one mol of H2. One mol of H2 masses around 2g.

At 50A, to produce 2 Faraday of charge it would take around 3840 seconds
(more than one hour), to produce 2g of hydrogen.

How far you can go with 2g of hydrogen?


Isaac

__________________________________________________
Fale com seus amigos  de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger http://br.messenger.yahoo.com

2011\01\27@131057 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Yigit Turgut wrote:
>> You could put the extra capacity of the
>> generator to use doing other things, like splitting water into
>> hydrogen and oxygen, but that extra power isn't free.  It ultimately
>> comes from the mechanical input power, which comes from the engine.
>> Put another way, when the generator ouptut is loaded more, it in
>> turn becomes a bigger mechanical load on the engine.  Put yet
>> another way, the generator shaft is harder to spin when there is a
>> larger electrical load on its output.
>
> It is true, but you'd know that  it's negligible if you had actually
> seen
> the output of a car alternator or looked into how much current it is
> capable of generating.

More nonsense.  In no case will the alternator put out more electrical power
than it is taking mechanical power from the engine.  There is no "free"
power to split water.

> Car is already an inefficient machine, you
> will not need to burn extra fuel for electrolyze process.

Yes a car is rather inefficient.  The only way this scheme could possibly
win is if you are able to run the engine at a more efficient operating point
when splitting water then when just letting it produce power to push the car
on demand.  This is basically the principle behind hybrids.  I have a Honda
Civic hybrid, and I can attest that it actually works.  I can reliably get
50 miles/gallon on the highway once the engine has reached its normal
operating temperature.

If this is your argument, then the path to splitting water and burning the
hydrogen in the engine has to not be too lossy as measured from the original
engine output power back to new engine output power.  In a hybrid like my
Honda Civic, the computer tries to keep the engine at a more efficient
operating point.  This means sometimes making it produce more power, which
runs a generator and is stored in batteries.  Sometimes it means draining
the batteries to run a electric motor (actually the same as the generator in
this case) so that the engine can be run at lower power.

This only works because the inefficiencies of whole loop are less than the
power saved by running the engine at a more efficient operating point.  In
this case the loop is generator to battery to motor.  In your case it is
generator to split water to the hydrogen/oxygen used as a fuel back into the
engine.  Since the initial generator is the same in both cases, lets forget
about it.  That leaves the storage efficiency of NiMH batteries and a
electric motor in my case, and the efficiency of splitting water and the
engine using the hydrogen/oxygen as a fuel in your case.  NiMH aren't too
bad, and electric motors can be downright good (over 90% for really good
ones, but I don't know what is actually in my car).  Look up the efficiency
of splitting water.  I think you'll find it's not as good as a NiMH battery..
Even if it is, the real problem with your method is the horrible efficiency
of the engine.  That's going to be way less than the efficiency of a
electric motor.

I'd be very surprised if you can show loop efficiencies high enough to not
swamp any win you get by running the engine at a more efficient operating
point.  Unless you can provide some hard numbers and evidence you actually
understand what's going on, I have to conclude you're just chasing another
perptual motion machine.

> I think you are stressed a little bit, a slim blunt can make your
> day! Also you can ask Colin for a sniff (if he is into sharing, which
> I doubt in your case).

I have no idea what this babble is supposed to mean.  However, it would be a
good idea for those that aren't too swift with physics to refrain from
trying to explain it to others.

2011\01\27@131945 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesKILLspamspamspamMIT.EDU [.....piclist-bouncesspamRemoveMEMIT.EDU] On
Behalf
> Of Yigit Turgut
> Sent: 27 January 2011 17:13
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] 125 years of the Automobile
>
>
> It is true, but you'd know that  it's negligible if you had actually
seen
> the output of a car alternator or looked into how much current it is
> capable
> of generating. Car is already an inefficient machine, you will not
need to
> burn extra fuel for electrolyze process.

Of course you will, this is very basic thermodynamics.  You can't get
extra power out of the alternator without burning extra fuel.  Engines
are very inefficient devices, a reasonable spark ignition four stroke
engine might convert about 30% of the fuels energy into mechanical power
under ideal conditions.  Automotive alternators also quite inefficient;
maybe getting only 60% of the mechanical power in as electrical energy
out.  So already only 18% of the energy in the fuel is being converted
to electrical energy, and then you have to add the efficiency of the
electrolysis (50%-80%).

Just because an alternator is capable of a certain output current, you
can't take that current without the engine noticing! A 12v 70 Amp
alternator run flat out will be absorbing in the region of 2 bhp from
the engine.  The amount of hydrogen you could generate from this will
probably be good for maybe 0.3-0.4 bhp, i.e. you are making the engine
LESS efficient with this scheme.

All of the electrolysis schemes I have seen for fuel saving in cars have
been complete scams, perpetuated by either dishonest people, or ignorant
people.  Don't be one of them.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2011\01\27@132342 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:24:06 +0200, "Yigit Turgut" said:
> What makes you say that I do not see any inconsistency. A friend of mine
> applied this system (not the one on the link, but the same principle just
> a
> different vendor) and there is significant difference. Only problem is
> that
> it runs out very quickly thats why it is not the main fuel for combustion
> -
> a supplementary  to your current system.
>
> If you can explain why you think that way maybe you can enlighten us all.
> >
> > >  http://www.hydrogen-fuel.ca/

There is no way to prove this works - probably because it doesn't work.
I doubt anyone with a scientific background would honestly say it has
any chance of working.
Testimonies of users of these systems is not enough to convince me. It
is driving style and traffic patterns that change. I have recorded the
fuel efficiency for several years of a vehicle that has no variation in
its use, yet the fuel economy varies + and - 15% because of my driving
style. 39.46 mpg average, 33.19 minimum, 46.84 maximum. Calculated per
tank since 2006 over the same daily commute.

The seasonal variation in fuel is also another factor that influences
fuel economy. Both diesel and gasoline are blended differently to match
the seasonal temperature changes.

And consuming an extra 30 to 50 amps of current does use power from the
engine, and that does use more fuel, even if it is only a few percent.
So any benefit from burning hydrogen is lost by the power used to
separate it from water.

Best regards,

Bob



-- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

2011\01\27@135717 by Robert Csaba Molnar

picon face
I remember the old times when I turned on the AC in my car to save fuel, but since than I reached the age of reason...
The only way this hydrogen fiasco could work is to attach a huge windmill on the car but than again the added resistance would decrease the mileage probably... or maybe when going downhill... but that would be gravity doing the job.
So why not attach a giant sail  of the top of the car and use wind power (ofc only when the wind direction if favorable).

Anyway, I'm gonna go on Saturday visit the Carl Benz museum and see how people traveled in a more simple and maybe more civilized time :)  


--- On Thu, 1/27/11, Bob Blick <RemoveMEbobblickspamspamBeGoneftml.net> wrote:

From: Bob Blick <spamBeGonebobblick@spam@spamspam_OUTftml.net>
Subject: Re: [OT] 125 years of the Automobile
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <TakeThisOuTpiclistspamspammit.edu>
Date: Thursday, January 27, 2011, 8:23 PM


On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:24:06 +0200, "Yigit Turgut" said:
{Quote hidden}

There is no way to prove this works - probably because it doesn't work.
I doubt anyone with a scientific background would honestly say it has
any chance of working.
Testimonies of users of these systems is not enough to convince me. It
is driving style and traffic patterns that change. I have recorded the
fuel efficiency for several years of a vehicle that has no variation in
its use, yet the fuel economy varies + and - 15% because of my driving
style. 39.46 mpg average, 33.19 minimum, 46.84 maximum. Calculated per
tank since 2006 over the same daily commute.

The seasonal variation in fuel is also another factor that influences
fuel economy. Both diesel and gasoline are blended differently to match
the seasonal temperature changes.

And consuming an extra 30 to 50 amps of current does use power from the
engine, and that does use more fuel, even if it is only a few percent.
So any benefit from burning hydrogen is lost by the power used to
separate it from water.

Best regards,

Bob



-- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

2011\01\27@142343 by John Gardner

picon face
In the early 80s high-power (100W+) car stereos got popular in Hawaii -
Installing one of these often led to a dead battery/alternator a few weeks
to months later.

"Often" because not everybody drives around with the stereo cranked,
but enough do that it was a real problem for battery vendors, whose
products usually carry some kind of warranty.

After a conversation with my local Midas franchisee he started sending me
customers with aftermarket stereos for load testing - Unsurprisingly, many
systems simply did'nt have the capacity for the extra load. In fact very few of
the popular small cars of the period had much reserve capacity; extra load
required more alternator & battery capacity.

 Jac

2011\01\27@172817 by IVP

face picon face
> maybe getting only 60% of the mechanical power in as electrical energy
> out.  So already only 18% of the energy in the fuel is being converted
> to electrical energy, and then you have to add the efficiency of the
> electrolysis (50%-80%).

Like, duh, so you put a couple of Power Pandas in there, a magnetic
fuel saver and a Dreamcatcher hanging off the rear vision mirror

You'll be selling juice back to the grid in no time

;-

2011\01\27@233128 by Yigit Turgut

picon face
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Olin Lathrop <olin_piclistEraseMEspamembedinc.com>wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Ok leaving every discussion behind, assuming I am %100 wrong , there is a
practical observation which is that the power of the engine increases
significantly with this system. I am not saying go and do it and I will also
won't do it to my baby (Volvo C30 T5) but if hydrogen is not efficiently
seperated from oxygen how come there is a change in the performance ? If it
is set to come into equation at higher rpms (5-6k) it might be a good
trade-off, you can't know it from sitting there. You might stuck
theoretically at a point explaining how this can work thus label it as not
doable. For this very case, we are talking about the efficiency - output of
a system which is observable and a measurable quantity. Equations are -not
always- stronger than observations. That's not how we do it > you might
think you fully get the theory and you can also insist that yours is true,
but once you realize that someone else actually does something which you
tagged as impossible > you need to accept the fact and update your theory.
That's what I am doing, trying to make sense from experimental results
because I can see that some men on Earth is obviously capable of doing it >
which leads us that this is permitted by nature and you just don't have the
precise parameters to conduct the same.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20021736-48.htm

2011\01\27@235636 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 28/01/2011 04:31, Yigit Turgut wrote:
{Quote hidden}

The link you provide there is to a seemingly reasonable proposal to extract hydrogen from *gasoline* using a method purporting to be ~%85 efficient, to increase their mileage by 155 miles.
The original link you provided was to something that looks extremely dodgy/scamlike, which sources the hydrogen from *water* and claiming to do all manner of things: save you %25 on fuel, give you extra horsepower, uses an inch of water for 200 miles, save the environment etc etc.
Two very different things IMHO..

2011\01\28@002813 by Josh Koffman

face picon face
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Oli Glaser <RemoveMEoli.glaserEraseMEspamspam_OUTtalktalk.net> wrote:
> The original link you provided was to something that looks extremely
> dodgy/scamlike, which sources the hydrogen from *water* and claiming to
> do all manner of things: save you %25 on fuel, give you extra
> horsepower, uses an inch of water for 200 miles, save the environment
> etc etc.

I also can't figure out how to buy it on that site. The buy it now
links aren't working for me. I was curious how they would deal with
the "3 months no payments" thing.

Josh
-- A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools.
        -Douglas Adams

2011\01\28@005641 by RussellMc

face picon face
> I'd be very surprised if you can show loop efficiencies high enough to not
> swamp any win you get by running the engine at a more efficient operating
> point.

It is "just possible" that what some may be trying to do is to make
use of mechanical energy which "becomes surplus" during some operating
conditions'. Braking would be one such. The pretty glowing brake disks
in formula one cars demonstrate how much unwanted  energy can be on
hand in extreme situations and recovery of a lesser amount in more
mundane systems MAY be useful.

While I have little doubt that a fair few of the people who try to
achieve energy recovery using alternator systems have little grasp of
the overall energy balance, it is entirely conceivable that the
alternator could happily be used as part of a regenerative braking
system. Power levels are liable to be modest unless the alternator was
vastly oversized for the task.

> Unless you can provide some hard numbers and evidence you actually
> understand what's going on, I have to conclude you're just chasing another
> perptual motion machine.

Why? Hard or even semi hard concepts should be enough. No?

> > I think you are stressed a little bit, a slim blunt can make your
> > day! Also you can ask Colin for a sniff (if he is into sharing, which
> > I doubt in your case).

> I have no idea what this babble is supposed to mean.

I don't understand it precisely, but having "no idea" suggests a lack of effort.

I suggest you start with working hypotheses of 'long black" and "deep
toke"  and see if you may be able to Mentat it from there. Maybe not.

BUT  " ...this babble ..."
a it is inconceivable that the knowledge of and awareness of the
implications of how "English as a second language" apply here, that's
pretty unacceptable. No?

And, given what has been said here in the immediate past about who is
doing what, and various other interesting things

> However, it would be a
> good idea for those that aren't too swift with physics to refrain from
> trying to explain it to others.

is both a long bow to draw, a considered (probably)  insult
(certainly) and arguably beneath even you. (Was that considered enough
? :-) ).

It's worth notong that those who ARE too swift with Physics may be  in
evidence here :-)

Trying just a tiny bit harder may be wise.


Russel

2011\01\28@005704 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 28/01/2011 05:28, Josh Koffman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Oli Glaser<@spam@oli.glaserRemoveMEspamEraseMEtalktalk.net>  wrote:
>> The original link you provided was to something that looks extremely
>> dodgy/scamlike, which sources the hydrogen from *water* and claiming to
>> do all manner of things: save you %25 on fuel, give you extra
>> horsepower, uses an inch of water for 200 miles, save the environment
>> etc etc.
> I also can't figure out how to buy it on that site. The buy it now
> links aren't working for me. I was curious how they would deal with
> the "3 months no payments" thing.
>

None work for me either - maybe they've figured there's more money to be made selling Power Pandas... :-)


2011\01\28@005758 by RussellMc

face picon face
Red Herring.

Various high performance aircraft of past ages, and some today, use
water injection to assist top end performance :-).

2011\01\28@033700 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam@spam@mit.edu [@spam@piclist-bouncesspam_OUTspam.....mit.edu] On
Behalf
> Of RussellMc
> Sent: 28 January 2011 05:57
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] 125 years of the Automobile
>
> Red Herring.
>
> Various high performance aircraft of past ages, and some today, use
> water injection to assist top end performance :-).

Usually to delay the onset of detonation via charge cooling, enabling
higher supercharger boost pressures.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2011\01\28@040924 by Robert Csaba Molnar

picon face
I really don't understand why educated people, regardless of their physics knowledge do not see past a simple scam.

Just a few examples:
1. turn on the AC in your car and gas consumption will increase with 1 liter (more or less) every 100km (assuming a medium sized engine 2L/85kW; average alternator)
2. in idle mode, the rpm is instantly increased when significant power is drawn from the alternator (turning of the power steering, turning on the lighs + stereo +  windscreen wiper + electirc windows)

Most modern cars have just the right size alternator. Having an oversized alternator would use up engine power, so mileage would be lower because of this waste of energy. So in order to reduce mileage you could just fit your car with a smaller alternator... which would be by far more efficient...

The concept might work under certain conditions:
- assuming you are hardly drawing power from the alternator and there is excess power to be used for hydrogen separation - you have a big gassgusler engine that generates excess power.... yet again, opting for a smaller engine with more efficient fuel use would be the solution

These are just my observations as a layman, with only high school level physics background, much of it forgotten.
Anyway, I'm considering using one of these hydrogen gizmos on my car, also connect my wipers, windows and stereo to a power panada.
This would reduce power consumption and leave alot of extra for separating hydrogen from water.




--- On Fri, 1/28/11, RussellMc <spamBeGoneapptechnzEraseMEspamgmail.com> wrote:

From: RussellMc <apptechnzspamBeGonespamgmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OT] 125 years of the Automobile
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <RemoveMEpiclist@spam@spamspamBeGonemit.edu>
Date: Friday, January 28, 2011, 7:57 AM

Red Herring.

Various high performance aircraft of past ages, and some today, use
water injection to assist top end performance :-).

2011\01\28@041943 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> Ok leaving every discussion behind, assuming I am %100 wrong , there is a
> practical observation which is that the power of the engine increases
> significantly with this system. I am not saying go and do it and I will also
> won't do it to my baby (Volvo C30 T5) but if hydrogen is not efficiently
> seperated from oxygen how come there is a change in the performance ?
You are probably seeing the same sort of performance change that one gets using 'water injection', a scheme whereby a very small quantity of water is added at the air intake by an atomiser.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines) for an explanation.
-- Scanned by iCritical.

2011\01\28@051552 by RussellMc

face picon face
>> Red Herring.

>> Various high performance aircraft of past ages, and some today, use
>> water injection to assist top end performance :-).

> Usually to delay the onset of detonation via charge cooling, enabling
> higher supercharger boost pressures.

Approximately, yes.
But you didn't mention the Herring.


2011\01\28@054332 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 28/1/2011 02:31, Yigit Turgut escreveu:
{Quote hidden}

Don't forget the placebo effect: people expect things to work, then
unconsciously change their behavior so some positive effect actually
happens.

Quoting an older post from myself:

"If I remember it right, you need two Faraday of charge (not Farad,
Faraday is a measure of electric charge and is approximately 96000
Coulomb) to electrolyze one mol of H2. One mol of H2 masses around 2g.

At 50A, to produce 2 Faraday of charge it would take around 3840 seconds
(more than one hour), to produce 2g of hydrogen.

How far you can go with 2g of hydrogen?"


I don't think you will get any substantial amount of hydrogen to show
any appreciable effect.

Isaac

__________________________________________________
Fale com seus amigos  de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger http://br.messenger.yahoo.com

2011\01\28@055215 by RussellMc

face picon face
> I really don't understand why educated people, regardless of their physics
> knowledge do not see past a simple scam.

If you were meaning the original concept, the comment is fine enough.

But you quoted my "Red Herring" post when replying ie.

>> Various high performance aircraft of past ages, and some today, use
>> water injection to assist top end performance :-).

Which they do, the Physics is good, and it works in practice.
But, it has nothing to do with getting extra energy from the water.
The injected water is used to improve the combustion environment so
that detonation under pressure is less likely to occur, so you either
get a smoother running engine or can run higher compression ratios all
else being equal.

For general interest, the term "Red Herring" is  used to refer to a
misleading comment - one which is intended to lead people astray or
one which is not especially or at all related to the subject at hand.

> Most modern cars have just the right size alternator.

Yes. But that's mainly a matter of capital cost. Bigger alternators
use more steel, and more copper and may require larger capacity wiring
to connect to the system. Sizing the alternator "just large enough" is
often produces the cheapest overall cost.

> Having an oversized alternator would use up engine power, so mileage would be lower because
> of this waste of energy. So in order to reduce mileage you could just fit your
> car with a smaller alternator... which would be by far more efficient...

A larger than needed alternator MAY take more energy from the car
(more windage and friction, more bearing drag, higher field losses
(maybe)  ...) but MAY consume less energy due to eg larger diameter
and/or lower resistance wiring  has less losses at a given current,
magnetic design MAY be improved etc. The alternators capability and
what output it produces at a given time are not tightly linked as
output can be regulated.

> The concept might work under certain conditions:

As I've noted, an oversized alternator COULD be used for regenerative
braking, although the result would be modest at any reasonable
expenditure levels. If a kW of braking was available if may be able to
return say 500 W.s of energy to the system per second of braking by
hydrogen injection. The energy value alone would be veru unlikely to
make this worthwhile. The Hydrogen would need to modify the standard
combustion process in some manner to make the system worthwhile. Most
who sell such systems would probably neither know or care if this was
possible. Some may.


Russel

2011\01\28@060627 by RussellMc

face picon face
> At 50A, to produce 2 Faraday of charge it would take around 3840 seconds
> (more than one hour), to produce 2g of hydrogen.

> How far you can go with 2g of hydrogen?"

> I don't think you will get any substantial amount of hydrogen to show
> any appreciable effect.

The amount of Hydrogen is not of relevance for considering what can be achieved.
H2 here, a in many systems that use it, is simply a medium for energy
storage, transfer and conversion.

What is of relevance is the amount of "excess" energy that goes into
(mechanical) and out of (electrical) the alternator, and how
efficiently this is used to produce Hydrogen (electrolytic cell).
Hydrogen can be burned at close to 100% efficiency so if thermal gain
is all it's used for then energy into alternator and energy out of
Hydrogen are the only metrics that matter.


           Russel

2011\01\28@061839 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 27/1/2011 09:46, Michael Watterson escreveu:
> On 27/01/2011 11:10, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
>> When you see someone say "One of the most exciting things about
>> hydrogen is that it is virtually cost free since one can extract
>> hydrogen from distilled water", run away quickly...
>>
> until we have cheap household or car installable fusion reactors.
>
> In fact unless you live in a country where a significant part of
> Electricity is not made from imported hydrocarbons, any electric car is
> daft.
>
> Loss in Electricity Transmission
> Loss in battery recharging.
>
> Better to have  a Diesel engine.


I'm not sure, but I think that diesel engines are more efficient than
gasoline engines because of the cycle it uses (the Diesel Cycle is
closer to the Carnot Cycle than the Otto Cycle).

Would it be advantageous to make an engine burning gasoline but running
on the Diesel Cycle?
The compression ratio could be much increased without early-detonation
because there is no fuel inside the cylinder in the compression stroke.
Isn't the water-injection trick used to allow higher compression ratio
so the efficiency increases?


Best regards,

Isaac

__________________________________________________
Fale com seus amigos  de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger http://br.messenger.yahoo.com

2011\01\28@063155 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 28/1/2011 09:05, RussellMc escreveu:
>> At 50A, to produce 2 Faraday of charge it would take around 3840 seconds
>> (more than one hour), to produce 2g of hydrogen.
>> How far you can go with 2g of hydrogen?"
>> I don't think you will get any substantial amount of hydrogen to show
>> any appreciable effect.
> The amount of Hydrogen is not of relevance for considering what can be achieved.
> H2 here, a in many systems that use it, is simply a medium for energy
> storage, transfer and conversion.


What I mean is, 2g of hydrogen burned slowly during one hour would
restore too little energy even to be measured against the background
"noise".


> What is of relevance is the amount of "excess" energy that goes into
> (mechanical) and out of (electrical) the alternator, and how
> efficiently this is used to produce Hydrogen (electrolytic cell).
> Hydrogen can be burned at close to 100% efficiency


For any thermal machine to achieve 100% efficiency the cold-source must
be at 0K, so in this universe 100% efficiency is not feasible. The
hotter the environment (and inside a car engine it is HOT), the less
efficient the thermal machine.


>  so if thermal gain
> is all it's used for then energy into alternator and energy out of
> Hydrogen are the only metrics that matter.


There is no way to save energy in this complicated cycle, with too many
energy conversion steps
(chemical->mechanical->electric->chemical->mechanical...). we know that
each step looses energy.
The only way to gain anything is to shorten this cycle.


Isaac

__________________________________________________
Fale com seus amigos  de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger http://br.messenger.yahoo.com

2011\01\28@072955 by Michael Rigby-Jones

flavicon
face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: .....piclist-bounces@spam@spamEraseMEmit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesRemoveMEspammit.edu] On
Behalf
{Quote hidden}

is
{Quote hidden}

running
> on the Diesel Cycle?
> The compression ratio could be much increased without early-detonation
> because there is no fuel inside the cylinder in the compression
stroke.
> Isn't the water-injection trick used to allow higher compression ratio
> so the efficiency increases?

Compression ignition gasoline engines are being developed, but will most
likely use homogenous charge compression ignition rather than direct
injection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCCI

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2011\01\28@074827 by cdb

flavicon
face


:: 1. turn on the AC in your car and gas consumption will increase
:: with 1 liter (more or less) every 100km (assuming a medium sized engine
:: 2L/85kW;average alternator)

And yet strangely, my Peugeot both the 308 and the current 207 appear to use more diesel and feel lumpy if I switch the air conditioning off (not advisable with current temperatures).  (average is 5.6lt/100klm which in proper measurement is 50 odd milish to the gallon if my maths are OK, with AC off it lacks oomph and the klms per lt rise to 5.9lt).

I'm pretty sure the engine management unit is designed, as is the dimensions of the battery and alternator, to run most efficiently with the AC on rather than off, the somewhat useless user manual even states the car is designed to run the AC at all times.

Mind you the annoying economy mode witch switches the radio off after 30 minutes if the engine isn't running is most annoying!

Colin
--
cdb, .....colinSTOPspamspam@spam@btech-online.co.uk on 28/01/2011
Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk   Hosted by:  http://www.justhost.com.au
 

2011\01\28@082317 by Isaac Marino Bavaresco

flavicon
face
Em 28/1/2011 10:48, cdb escreveu:
>
> :: 1. turn on the AC in your car and gas consumption will increase
> :: with 1 liter (more or less) every 100km (assuming a medium sized engine
> :: 2L/85kW;average alternator)
>
> And yet strangely, my Peugeot both the 308 and the current 207 appear to
> use more diesel and feel lumpy if I switch the air conditioning off (not
> advisable with current temperatures).  (average is 5.6lt/100klm which in
> proper measurement is 50 odd milish to the gallon if my maths are OK, with
> AC off it lacks oomph and the klms per lt rise to 5.9lt).
>
> I'm pretty sure the engine management unit is designed, as is the
> dimensions of the battery and alternator, to run most efficiently with the
> AC on rather than off, the somewhat useless user manual even states the car
> is designed to run the AC at all times.


The usual explanation for that turning on the A/C saves fuel (I don't
know if it is true) is the fact that you also close the windows, which
reduce the aerodynamic drag of the whole vehicle.


One simple test would be to drive one full tank with the A/C on and the
windows open, but I don't know if it is possible now in the higher
latitudes of the northern hemisphere.


> Mind you the annoying economy mode witch switches the radio off after 30
> minutes if the engine isn't running is most annoying!


This may have been designed for not draining the battery too much when
the alternator is not charging it, preventing the car from starting the
next time.


Best regards,

Isaac

__________________________________________________
Fale com seus amigos  de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger http://br.messenger.yahoo.com

2011\01\28@082356 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Yigit Turgut wrote:
> That's what I am doing, trying to make sense from
> experimental results because I can see that some men
> on Earth is obviously capable of doing it

Not obvious.  So far you have offered only mere anecdotal evidence, which is
no evidence at all.  This business also seems to be a strong attractant to
those that don't understand science enough to run properly controlled
meaningful experiments, and also to dirtbags committing deliberate fraud.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2011\01\28@105938 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Yigit Turgut <y.turgutEraseMEspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Ok leaving every discussion behind, assuming I am %100 wrong , there is a
> practical observation which is that the power of the engine increases
> significantly with this system.

What type of engine?  Normally aspirated, turbocharged, supercharged?

How was this performance measured?  Dyno, quarter mile times at a
dragstrip, ... ?

I've found that there is a significant placebo effect with the 'seat
of your pants' dyno. :

2011\01\28@111019 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
Grief, I set out to supply an interesting looking link to some history, and we get 50 messages going nowhere ...
-- Scanned by iCritical.


'[OT] 125 years of the Automobile'
2011\02\12@181852 by IVP
face picon face
>> Various high performance aircraft of past ages, and some today, use
>> water injection to assist top end performance :-).
>
> Usually to delay the onset of detonation via charge cooling, enabling
> higher supercharger boost pressures.

An acquaintance asked me on Friday to look around for a kit or DIY
water injection. He's not too good on the web so I said I'd have a look
when time permitted

Time's not really permitting and, not being a car person, don't know
what would be a quality result anyway without probably going into
the whole turbo/performance/opinion debate

Can anyone suggest something good/cheap/easy (all 3 would be super).
Methods or links appreciated

He mentioned some local unit for NZ$700 and didn't want to pay that
much. Would rather DIY if possible

TIA

Jpo

2011\02\12@222833 by John Gardner

picon face
Hi Joe -

More than your buddy may wish to know...

http://www.amazon.com/Internal-Combustion-Engine-Theory-Practice/dp/0262700263/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297565774&sr=1-1-spell

http://www.amazon.com/Internal-Combustion-Engine-Theory-Practice/dp/0262700271/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1297565774&sr=1-2-spell

SIr Harry Ricardo's works are seminal; Prof. Taylor's works are more recent..

Water injection is usually employed to reduce octane
sensitivity/charge-air mixture
temperature - Pretty much interchangeable in IC engines...

If your buddy's app is supercharge/NO2 injection he needs to do the math.
Or have very deep pockets. Or pay someone who has done the math (slightly
less expensive, occasionally).

HP Books published a number of related "cookbook" pubs once upon a time -
Worth reading if you can find them.

A sometimes insufficiently appreciated gotcha is that if your WI system can
pump/syphon water into your cylinders while the engine is shut down, the re-
sultant "hydraulic lock" will likely destroy the engine, next time it's started.

Jac

2011\02\12@225830 by John Gardner

picon face
> You are probably seeing the same sort of performance change that one gets using 'water injection', a scheme whereby a very small quantity of water is added at the air intake by an atomiser.

Without comment on the role of herring, water injection can reduce the octane
sensitivity of a normally aspirated IC engine sufficiently that a
lower octane fuel
(cheaper, usually) can be employed.

I'm reasonably sure about this, because a VW Bus I ran around back in the
day sported a 10:1 compression ratio, and ran fine on 87 octane gas, with DIY
water injection.

I was in the business, and charging up steep grades at 70 mph, passing Datsuns
in a VW Bus, sold engines  :)

Jack








On 2/12/11, John Gardner <RemoveMEgoflo3spamspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2011 , 2012 only
- Today
- New search...