 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / January 2006Fuel Vaporization and fuel economy
Hi, my name's Cody and I think I'll make this place a regualr hangout. I'm 16 and have been driving for over 9 months. School is about 12 miles from my house. I drive a Dodge Neon so gas isn't that bad of a problem, though I'd like to get better gas mileage. I stumbled on this concept called "fuel vaporization." It's been here since the early 20th century. The process involves turning the liquid gas into a vapor (dry gas) before it hits the intake manifold. This would use a lot less gas. On a 400 cubic inch v8 it was said to have gotten 78 miles per gallon! Now I have a few websites on this: http://tinyurl.com/d26g6 http://www.rexresearch.com/ogle/1ogle.htm http://www.himacresearch.com/books/secret8.html http://tinyurl.com/7tfbo http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$26512 http://www.get113to138mpg.com/ I know I don't have much experience with cars and their emchanics and that's why I come to you guys. Do you guys think this is possible to fabricate something like this and you think it would get really good gas mileage using this process.  Signaturecody_e http://www.automotiveforums.com >Hi, my name's Cody and I think I'll make this place a regualr hangout. >I'm 16 and have been driving for over 9 months. School is about 12 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >fabricate something like this and you think it would get really good >gas mileage using this process. I have a way to dry out water before it hits the faucet at the kitchen sink. Since I've made this discovery, man you should see how my water bill dropped like a rock. go back to sleep kid Lg >Hi, my name's Cody and I think I'll make this place a regualr hangout. >I'm 16 and have been driving for over 9 months. School is about 12 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >fabricate something like this and you think it would get really good >gas mileage using this process. I suggest that you sit down with your science teacher, and discuss the issue of temperature of combustion with an extremely lean mixture (such as the one you describe), and the properties of the materials used in the construction of an automobile engine. Anyone can get 75 MPG from a 400 CID V8. But not for very long.... >>Hi, my name's Cody and I think I'll make this place a regualr hangout. >>I'm 16 and have been driving for over 9 months. School is about 12 [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Anyone can get 75 MPG from a 400 CID V8. But not for very long.... I once achieved 3,527 miles/gallon...but not for very long.... I had just turned off the engine and was coasting into my parking lot. Now if I could only figure out a Way! >>>Hi, my name's Cody and I think I'll make this place a regualr hangout. >>>I'm 16 and have been driving for over 9 months. School is about 12 [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > I had just turned off the engine and was coasting into my parking lot. > Now if I could only figure out a Way! You don't need to "really" figure out a way Larry. Just say you did and come up with a really good line of bullshit and a marketing scheme and a bunch of dumb a.ses will send you their money. I doubt you could live with yourself after that but apparently a lot of people can. Bob >>>>Hi, my name's Cody and I think I'll make this place a regualr hangout. >>>>I'm 16 and have been driving for over 9 months. School is about 12 [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >after that but apparently a lot of people can. > Bob Like the people who sell the fuel line magnets, that are supposed to take *hydrocarbon clusters* and break them up into *hydrocarbon molecules.* There otta be a Law. I even see this kind of $hit being sold at Harbor Freight. Buyer Beware. Lg No I'm serious they use this technique with natural gas engines and hydrogen engines. Check out the links. It's entirely possible. Signaturecody_e http://www.automotiveforums.com >No I'm serious they use this technique with natural gas engines and >hydrogen engines. Check out the links. It's entirely possible. ==================================================================== excerpt as follows: ==================================================================== From Keelynet at http://www.keelynet.com 01/31/99 - A History of Vapor Carburetors by Robert Felix Parascience #2, Winter,1998 ISSN 1464-6935 Domra Publications 65 Constable Road CORBY Northamptonshire NN18ORT United KingdomSubscriptions & Info: Tel/Fax: (01536) 201250 email:domra.prestel.co.uk Editor: Gerry Connelly NOTICE: This article may be downloaded and copied to BBS without let or hindrance; no part of the contents may be changed. Material in this heading concerning its printing/publication must not be changed or deleted. Readers who attempt to build a vapour carburetor apparatus are encouraged to add their commentaries/drawings as a secondary file. This file must be so labelled as a seperate addition in the writer's own words. Air pollution from internal combustion engines is caused by unburned hydrocarbons,i.e.pollution found in the exhaust. Only gasoline vapor will explode, droplets end as pollution. Using heat or mechanical agitation to more completely vaporize the gasoline before it enters the intake manifold can result in more efficient operation and a reduction in unburned hydrocarbons. A list of over 500 'hidden' US patents using heat and mechanical action to vaporize gasoline is given; also instructions to access the US Patent Office over the Internet and download patents. ======================================================================== end excerpt ======================================================================== Unburned hydrocarbons, are pretty much addressed by the EGR system in modern day vehicles. The EPA sets limits on unburned hydrocarbons, and vehicles that exceed the limit are not allowd registration ( license plates ) until they are brought into specifications. You were saying? Nevertheless...there are X amount of BTU's per gallon of gasoline, and there is Y mass to a vehicle, including rolling and internal friction. It is an INERTIA calculation. A simple physics inertia calculation, figuring in that up to 60% of the BTU's are lost through convection, radiation, and conduction. Lg >>No I'm serious they use this technique with natural gas engines and >>hydrogen engines. Check out the links. It's entirely possible. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > >Lg I might add there are aerodynamics involved also, that eat up energy from a gallon of gasoline. There are many many factors, but it all comes down to this: inertia friction wind resistance heat losses More efficient translation of BTU's into work pushing on pistons, and less lost in the form of the above, but there are limits as to what can be done when you are moving a 2 ton vehicle around on wheels. But don't let me rain on your Parade. Go for it. Lg > Hi, my name's Cody and I think I'll make this place a regualr hangout. > I'm 16 and have been driving for over 9 months. School is about 12 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > fabricate something like this and you think it would get really good > gas mileage using this process. Keep dreaming and hoping and thinking and believing and experimenting, Cody. Quite a number of useful inventions have been developed by people with just your traits. I think it was Thomas Edison who said when confronted by someone taunting him with a 'failed' experiment: "It was no failure. It was a contribution to knowledge, as now we know yet another way it won't work."(or some similar words). Although there have been many untrue claims and hoaxes concerning fuel mileage, dreams have superceded many that worked out well. A couple of buddies of mine and I, while at Gen. Mtrs. Institute in Flint, Michigan around 1950's, joked around about futuristic ideas. One of them was the use of individual solenoids per cylinder to open intake valves at precise, electrically-controlled moments so as to accurately monitor/deliver fuel to each cylinder. Little did we know that Corvette would in our lifetimes develop the LT1 engine--didn't use solenoids, but did use electronically-controlled injectors to deliver fuel to each cylinder at precisely-optimal moments and amounts so as to produce both phenomenal power AND great fuel mileage. Good luck and welcome to this group. You'll learn a lot here and maybe one day contribute greatness to this field that we all love so dearly. My 2-cents' worth--and sometimes worth every dime! s >> Hi, my name's Cody and I think I'll make this place a regualr hangout. >> I'm 16 and have been driving for over 9 months. School is about 12 [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >one day contribute greatness to this field that we all love so dearly. > My 2-cents' worth--and sometimes worth every dime! s IOW, "don't let Reality slap you upside the head and wake you from your sleep." http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/20/literacy.college.students.ap/index.html >> Hi, my name's Cody and I think I'll make this place a regualr hangout. >> I'm 16 and have been driving for over 9 months. School is about 12 [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > one day contribute greatness to this field that we all love so dearly. > My 2-cents' worth--and sometimes worth every dime! s ....and avail yourself of all the disciplined, learned thought processes which can be absorbed at an accelerated rate through that system we call education.... (Sorry, LG, forgot to remind him of that; guess I ASSumed it was self-evident. Thanks for the reminder.).... s >>> Hi, my name's Cody and I think I'll make this place a regualr hangout. >>> I'm 16 and have been driving for over 9 months. School is about 12 [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> one day contribute greatness to this field that we all love so dearly. >> My 2-cents' worth--and sometimes worth every dime! s =============================================================== > ....and avail yourself of all the disciplined, learned thought processes >which can be absorbed at an accelerated rate through that system we call >education.... (Sorry, LG, forgot to remind him of that; guess I ASSumed it >was self-evident. Thanks for the reminder.).... s You are Right in your encouragement, as I have recently finished reviewing the experiments of the Wright Brothers at the National Archives. Dare to Believe. Also, expect an exceptionally tough journey, as most of the planet has already tried to address many of these current day problems with the best of brainpower and lots of cash. Great Things are happening, but at the consortium level, rather than the individual level. For some reason, in this New Age of Information, the group-think and the Venture Capitol are what moves projects along. The single guy out back in the shed tragically seems to be on the short end of the stick in the ability to compete with the Mega Global Corporate Conspiracy. Is there a carburetor that can get 100 miles to a gallon? OF COURSE THERE IS! It's out in my garage right now, on my lawnmower instead of my bicycle! All I have to do is make the switch! Voila! 100 miles/gallon. Well...I admire this kids chutzpah anyhow. Dare to Dream. As an anecdote, a friend's grandfather developed the first automatic transmission for Chrysler. He never got the credit, he got a little money, the car company made millions/billions, he got a *few bucks* and a pat on the back. It is called "Intellectual Property of the Company." IIRC it was called the HydraMatic transmission or somesuch. So if you're going to invent something, do it on your own time. And use your own resources. If they company you work for has any of their assets involved, you don't own the invention, the company does. And if you use any of their patented technology in your work, they also own the invention. Lg > You are Right in your encouragement, as I have recently finished > reviewing the experiments of the Wright Brothers at the National [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Lg Hey, LG, I was fortunate enough to work in a Chev Assy Plant's suggestions department, where aN employee would receive something like an amt. of $ equal to up to 6 months' savings it offered the company--up to a maximum, like $2500(I really don't remember, but quite a paltry sum for big money-makers/savers.) If no monetary value, it'd be subjective. I read the suggestion submitted by a worker on final assembly in the truck dept. which paid an employee only subjective monetary rewards. Engineers had been working for years(?) trying to stop the old air brakes from *arting when applied/released. His proposal read something like"If they would stretch that return spring or make it longer, it wouldn't make that noise when you used the brakes". He received the maximum $. I always felt they treated him fairly *under the circumstances*, BUT I felt the max. was way low on his suggestion. Guess who won? Chev, of course. s > Hey, LG, I was fortunate enough to work in a Chev Assy Plant's >suggestions department, where aN employee would receive something like an [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >felt the max. was way low on his suggestion. Guess who won? Chev, of >course. s I think if you invent something that is totally unrelated to the industry you are employed in, and do it on your own time, you're in a better position to claim title to the invention than your employer is. All this is usually spelled out in the fine print when you sign up for the job. Most of the machines I worked on were so complicated, that the only suggestions I would be able to offer would be something like "why the hell did you ever built this nightmare to begin with?" I rather doubt that would have added anything to my bank account. As a reminder, I worked on factory robots that assembled circuit boards. And other factory production machines. Too complicated. In fact, so complex, that entire teams of engineers would be responsible for ONE part of the design, and there of course would be a master group responsible for the integration of it all. I am surprised any of this stuff worked. It not only worked at blinding speed, but with incredible precision and accuracy. Wave to Japan and Germany for this *stuff.* None of it was invented or assembled in the USA. Which might explain why FORD is going to be laying off 30,000 employees and closing 14 plants in the USA and Canada by 2012. These assembly robots, guided by computers and video cameras, were accurate to within the width of a human hair, placing components at up to 10/second. Humans were kept around for programming them, and feeding them components. With these *things,* you get better, faster, cheaper as the economies of scale take over. It is the only way to build 1,000,000 telephones or TV sets a year at 1 plant. Humans can't work that fast or accurately, to keep up with consumer demand. What is left for us? Repairing them when they break, and sweeping the floor around them to keep them clean. I don't even do that anymore, thank my lucky stars. Sad story but true, at Caterpillar, the *new hires* are being drafted at $10/hour instead of the original $20/hour that used to be the starting wage at Decatur, Illinois. And people are supposed to raise a family on this? Between the robots taking over production and assembly, and corporations slashing workforces to compete with overseas markets, I don't see how the USA can stay glued together much longer. On a related note: ============================================================= Line blurs for U.S. automakers in patriotic approach By Rick Popely and Deborah Horan Tribune staff reporters Published January 23, 2006, 8:46 PM CST When domestic automakers had their backs to the wall 25 years ago, they could count on a "Buy American" sentiment to keep some customers from defecting to fuel-efficient foreign cars. Today, many loyal domestic vehicle owners say they would be comfortable buying an import. Chuck Sonne, a Country Club Hills electrician, drives a 1997 Chevrolet pick-up and has owned two Fords in the past, but asked if he would only buy an American vehicle in the future, Sonne said, "No, whatever runs better and is cheaper." As Fordwhich announced a massive restructuring Mondaytries along with struggling GM to regain market share in the U.S., it faces an uphill climb. Asian rivals, such as Honda, Toyota and Hyundai, are luring buyers with a relentless supply of new and compelling models. continued at.... http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-060123automakers,1,7069893.story?coll =chi-news-hed Lg Well this could give American auto makers the edge if they'd adapt this technology. Honestly I think it's BS that all those employees have to lose their jobs over MANAGEMENT mistakes. I know it takes 3 years to plan everything out for a car but 3 years ago gas was on the rise. Managment kept telling the workers to crank out SUV's despite the rising gas prices and lagging sales. Maybe if I find another way that's unpatented I could get a patent and then get this thing cranking out in cars. I'm pretty sure this is possible. I've been researching it a ton. They have been using this technology in tractors at the turn of last century. Most variations were created by 1 guy messing around in the shop or shed. Signaturecody_e http://www.automotiveforums.com >Well this could give American auto makers the edge if they'd adapt this >technology. Honestly I think it's BS that all those employees have to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >century. Most variations were created by 1 guy messing around in the >shop or shed. I don't know what you can do with a fuel injected vehicle, that atomizes the fuel as it squirts out the nozzle. You have to get a certain _amount_ ( quantity ) of fuel into any given particular cylinder in thousandths of a second. If your engine is turning at 2,000 revolutions per minute, you don't have all day to get the required amount of fuel into the cylinder before the compression stroke begins. This means...it has to go in as an atomized liquid. Less concentration of the fuel will cause the engine to always run too lean. Think of the cylinder as the rocket nozzle. You have to keep fuel flowing at a minimum rate to keep the thing providing optimum thrust. Anything less, and the rocket goes nowhere...it is just an expensive candle. Your proposal to pre-atomize the fuel may work for a carbureted vehicle, but the idea behind the injector is to get as much fuel as required ( controlled by pulse width ) into the cylinder in a very very short interval. The more fuel and air you can cram into the cylinder in a given interval, the more energy you can get out of each power stroke. Lg kid, come up with a decent layout and give it a shot. You need help, drop me a line. This country needs fresh ideas if its going to go anywhere in this area. Not saying your ideas are valid or not, but your thinking and thats great. > Well this could give American auto makers the edge if they'd adapt this > technology. Honestly I think it's BS that all those employees have to > lose their jobs over MANAGEMENT mistakes. I know it takes 3 years to > plan everything out for a car but 3 years ago gas was on the rise. > Managment kept telling the workers to crank out SUV's despite the > rising gas prices and lagging sales. Maybe if I find another way that's > unpatented I could get a patent and then get this thing cranking out in > cars. What lagging sales? Sales didn't start lagging until last year, when gas prices were up. 3 years ago gas prices were pretty low. Dec 2002 average retail prices was 1.316 /gallon, a buck lower than it is now. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html I wish I was working at Ford and was getting laid off. They get a pretty sweet deal for 2 years. 90% of their pay, and they can go and get another job in the meantime. > Hi, my name's Cody and I think I'll make this place a regualr hangout. > I'm 16 and have been driving for over 9 months. School is about 12 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > fabricate something like this and you think it would get really good > gas mileage using this process. A biosolid to vapour convertor is probably a better conversion for your Neon. You basically just sh.t in your fuel tank and then turn the key. The more passengers you can get to sh.t in your fuel tank the better your mileage will be. Ford and GM could use this technology to compete with the upcoming Chinese auto manufacturers. The myth that insufficient vaporization is the cause of the IC engine inefficiency has been around for a long time, but it is incorrect. While it is true that current engines get only about 30% efficiency (energy out per chemical fuel energy in), the reason is not that only 30% of the fuel burns. In fact, in modern engines almost ALL the fuel is vaporized and burns. The inefficiency is due to heat losses. About 1/3 of heat generated by burning fuel goes into useful work, 1/3 goes to the radiator as waste heat, and 1/3 goes out the tailpipe as heat and pressure. No schemes that perport to increase vaporization of fuel will do any good. Fuel gets vaporized well enough in current engines, especially FI ones. > Hi, my name's Cody and I think I'll make this place a regualr hangout. > I'm 16 and have been driving for over 9 months. School is about 12 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > fabricate something like this and you think it would get really good > gas mileage using this process. It's already out there. Natural gas or propane powered engines are readily available. You will notice that MPG doesn't change much with them. >The myth that insufficient vaporization is the cause of the IC engine >inefficiency has been around for a long time, but it is incorrect. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> fabricate something like this and you think it would get really good >> gas mileage using this process. ***************** Santose for PRESIDENT !!!! Thank You kgsAT@msbx.net To reply to this email please remove the AT after the kgs in the reply to address as shown above. > Hi, my name's Cody and I think I'll make this place a regualr hangout. > I'm 16 and have been driving for over 9 months. School is about 12 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > gas) before it hits the intake manifold. This would use a lot less gas. > On a 400 cubic inch v8 it was said to have gotten 78 miles per gallon! While it is certainly true that internal combustion engines tend to operate more efficiently when the fuel is well vaporized, there are limits to how much mileage benefit there is. Think about it- your fuel injected Neon doesn't get 78 mpg, does it? So why would you think it's possible to get 78 MPG out of a 400 inch v8, no matter how perfectly the fuel is vaporized? Or to look at it more scientifically, vaporization only helps ensure 100% combustion and prevents/reduces the amount of unburned fuel that gets sent out the exhaust pipe. But even with PERFECT vaporization, you still need to burn enough fuel to overcome friction and air resistance, and allow for the other loss mechanisms (such as thermal loss from the combustion chamber to the cylinder walls). Some benefit can be had from leaning the mixture beyond stoichiometric (the perfect amount of oxygen to burn each and every fuel molecule), but not much and you begin to trigger excessive NOx emissions. No, further improvments in fuel efficiency aren't going to come from miracle carburetors or fuel injectors. They're going to come from more optimized utilization of the engine's power curve (hybrid cars, for example, once we get better battery packs) and better thermal efficiency inside the engine (insulating coatings inside the combustion chamber, higher temperature engine materials that can survive without cooling, altered combustion cycles, etc.) Cody, I have a bridge to sell you. Well built and in good shape. Great location, Brooklyn. I sell it to you at a really good price too. ----------------- Alex Any real advancements to the IC engine is not going to come from more efficiently atomizing the fuel. Unfortunately the engine has to operate at a specific temperature to operate efficiently. Someone needs to develop some way to regulate heat lose and convert it into some type of useful energy with sucking the performance out of the vehicle. Much like a hybrid takes the energy from stopping and recycles it. Chris > Any real advancements to the IC engine is not going to come from more > efficiently atomizing the fuel. Unfortunately the engine has to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Chris you mean like an exhaust driven turbocharger does? It's all been done before. You can't get something for nothing. (but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try because sometimes you CAN get something for ALMOST nothing.) Here's an example: My Trans Am. 325 HP. 30 MPG. Clean tailpipe. 13.11 second quarter mile time. 20 years ago, you would have thought I was full of it. Pretty cool, huh? here's the catch: money. It takes a lot more money to buy one than it used to, and a lot more money to maintain it than it used to. Cheap, fast, good. Pick any two. That's my philosophy. You CAN build a car that gets 100mpg. It's either going to be so slow, or so expensive that no one will buy it. You CAN build a car that will last for 500,000 miles with no maintenance, but who's going to pay the $100,000 for one? to the OP: I believe Mercedes has done work on direct injection for gasoline engines. They've been trying for years to get ceramics for engine internals to work so they can run the engine hotter and not need a cooling system (or a lot smaller of one.) Ray >> Any real advancements to the IC engine is not going to come from more >> efficiently atomizing the fuel. The way to increase performance in an IC engine is to get more fuel and more air into the cylinder in a shorter amount of time. Atomizing the fuel to increase the volume makes it _harder_ to do this rather than easier. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." I wasn't talking about exhaust, I was talking about the cooling system and heat loss. For example if they could find a fuel that works at a lower temperature. The cooling system of the car is literally sucking energy out of the engine and releasing it. If there is some way to use the heat energy and turn it into electrical or mechanical energy while lowering the overall temperature maybe the over all efficiency could be raised. The all-mighty dollar will always be the determining factor in the success or failure of any new technology. Right now people are just beginning to realize the fuel is a finite source of energy. In the long run spending gross amounts of money to develope more efficient use of a finite source of fuel doesn't make sense. There better off starting from scratch. blur Wrote: > If there is some way to use > the heat energy and turn it into electrical or mechanical energy while > lowering the overall temperature maybe the over all efficiency could be > raised. This is what this thing would do. > The all-mighty dollar will always be the determining factor in the > success or failure of any new technology. Right now people are just > beginning to realize the fuel is a finite source of energy. In the > long run spending gross amounts of money to develope more efficient use > of a finite source of fuel doesn't make sense. There better off > starting from scratch. Yes you have a finite amount of energy but it's better to use it mroe conservatively while you are perfecting a new type of vehicles based on a new energy source. Signaturecody_e http://www.automotiveforums.com Consider that GM and Ford are big owners in oil - domestic and foreign. The Bush family is heavy in politics and oil. Pro and con!! Vehicles are pretty much running at the top efficiency that they are going to ever going to reach. You can add all the magnets or air turbines you want but these engines are tapped out as far as mpg goes. And not one of the aftermarket gadgets have ever been proven to make a fraction of a difference. Most have actually reduced performance and mileage. Invest heavily in hydrogen fuels - but it usually involves fossil fuels to separate the hydrogen for those fuel cells. Electric cars seem well off, when you consider that a full charge allows a round trip of 50 miles a charge. This is our future but better batteries need to be developed to allow travel before this is effective. Alcohol does seem to be the prime answer. Current engines run too hot on alcohol, but it seems this could be worked around. Many protest, but you can make alcohol in your backyard. I still wonder why they complain about this ?? Much of our garbage can be made into alcohol, most is being thrown away. Living here in CA they are using a mix of alcohol in out fuel. Everytime fuel cost goes up there is suspicion and con men. People are fooled by scams and deceived by thoughts of better MPG. Hydrogen seems to be the next naturally occurring consumable and it would be the storage of the fuel rather than the combustion of said fuel which is the problem. If we are to stay with a combustion engine, and from the way the industry is, it looks like we're gonna have it for a long time to come, using oil or not as fuel. (My other reference was more directed at coal powered steam engines) > Hydrogen seems to be the next naturally occurring consumable and it would be > the storage of the fuel rather than the combustion of said fuel which is the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (My other reference was more directed at coal powered steam engines) WHERE is it naturally occuring? I know there is free hydrogen in outer space, but extremely little here on earth. On earth if is too reactive and is combined with other elements in compounds. The very fact that you get a lot of energy from combining it with other elements means you need a LOT of energy to get it back free again. I think hydrogen would be a GREAT vehicle fuel once someone comes up with an economical way to generate/liberate hydrogen. Till then, however, not much usefulness. I think the government and auto research labs should be working much harder on this "source" of hydrogen than on fuel cells. We don't NEED fuel cells to use hydrogen in automobiles. Current IC engines can readily be adapted to burn hydrogen, with same favorable environmental impact. >> Hydrogen seems to be the next naturally occurring consumable and it would be >> the storage of the fuel rather than the combustion of said fuel which is the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >readily be adapted to burn hydrogen, with same favorable environmental >impact. Hydrogen can be made with electrolysis, but that is a very expensive process. The big problem at the moment, as I understand it, is storing it in a form that isn't explosively dangerous to the public. Remember the Hindenberg. Lg > Hydrogen can be made with electrolysis, but that is a very expensive > process. The big problem at the moment, as I understand it, is > storing it in a form that isn't explosively dangerous to the public. > Remember the Hindenberg. > > Lg The Hindenberg crash was three-quarters of a century ago. We've made great strides in handling hydrogen since then. NASA in particular did very good work- they use it on many launch vehicles and the shuttle. Natural gas and propane are quite explosive too, though not as bad as hydrogen. Still, we use natural gas and propane all the time. When gasoline was first proposed as a motor fuel many laughed at the idea- way too explosive. No, we can handle it- the problem is the source. Yeah, you can electrolyze water, but it takes more energy to do that than the energy you get from the Hydrogen. Now, if we ever get a low cost source of electricity, then using electrolysis to generate H2 as transportation fuel would be okay. >> Hydrogen can be made with electrolysis, but that is a very expensive >> process. The big problem at the moment, as I understand it, is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Natural gas and propane are quite explosive too, though not as bad as > hydrogen. Still, we use natural gas and propane all the time. The problems with hydrogen are similar to those with natural gas. Storage. Propane and butane liquify at relatively high temperatures and low pressures, so you can take a steel propane bottle that ways 20 pounds or so and fill it with 5 gallons of liquid propane that will run your gas grill for a LONG time (or a 30 gallon bottle that will run your car a LONG time). Natural gas and hydrogen can be liquified, but it takes low temperature and/or much higher pressure, neither of which are practical for on-the-road vehicles. Natural gas vehicles use *compressed* (but not liquified) natural gas, and the tanks are very heavy to handle the high pressures and they still aren't good for enough fuel to travel long ranges. Its not a safety question so much as it is a question of getting high energy density in the storage tank. > The problems with hydrogen are similar to those with natural gas. > Storage. Propane and butane liquify at relatively high temperatures and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > fuel to travel long ranges. Its not a safety question so much as it is a > question of getting high energy density in the storage tank. What is wrong with metal hydrides for hydrogen storage? > > Hydrogen can be made with electrolysis, but that is a very expensive > > process. The big problem at the moment, as I understand it, is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The Hindenberg crash was three-quarters of a century ago. Not to mention that the Hindenberg crash/fire was the aluminum powder in cellulose binder that the skin was painted with, for all intents and purposes the Hindenberg skin was literally solid rocket fuel. Best guess on ignition was corona discharge, actually witnessed by one of the witnesses. Hydrogen burns in the UV and isn't visible to the eye or to camera technology of that era, so the flames seen had nothing to do with the hydrogen. In fact, the slow rate of fall of the airframe was due to the fact that the rubber bladders were withstanding the flames and maintaining their integrity for a fairly long period of time, and when each bladder finally failed from the fire the hydrogen, not having enough oxygen to combine with, simply sailed up through the skin flames until it was far enough above the craft to ignite, where it burned invisibly. It takes so much disposable and nearly free electricity to make and cryo commercial quantities of hydrogen that it would be cheaper per mile driven to distribute the electricity directly to homes to charge fully electric cars. The only viable sources for large quantities of hydrogen now and for the foreseeable future are natural gas and related hydrocarbons, which is why Bush wants to develop a "hydrogen" economy, he's just looking out for number one. JazzMan Signature********************************************************** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ********************************************************** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ********************************************************** > Consider that GM and Ford are big owners in oil - domestic and foreign. > The Bush family is heavy in politics and oil I was wondering how long it would take the slack-jawed raving nut-jobs to hijack this thread. <plonk!> think of it. We are running our cars on some clunky technology from the early 1900's. We're on step up from a damn steam engine. Surely... in Area51 or some other place, there is a technology just waiting to be distributed to solve all this and get away from deriving power from synchronized contained little explosions and fossil fuel. >think of it. We are running our cars on some clunky technology from the >early 1900's. >We're on step up from a damn steam engine. You're nuts. Nuclear IS a steam engine, turning a generator/turbine. Hardly anything is more efficient at a complete range of revs/minute than a steam engine. And the fuel is (almost) free, that being water. >Surely... in Area51 or some other place, there is a technology just waiting >to be distributed to solve all this and get away from deriving power from >synchronized contained little explosions and fossil fuel. Don't hold your breath. See that big tank that the big shuttle is attached to? That's full of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen IIRC. 18th century technology...the same sh.t Goddard used in -his- liquid fuel rockets. Lg > think of it. We are running our cars on some clunky technology from the > early 1900's. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to be distributed to solve all this and get away from deriving power from > synchronized contained little explosions and fossil fuel. Present cars are a LONG way from the 1900s. In the first decade of the twentieth century carburetors were so primitive that many cars used ignition timing to control speed. Carburetors evolved until in the seventies a carburetor was a very sophisticated fluidic computer. Fuel injection has evolved similarly. Early FI had such bad drivability that it was useful only on race cars. FI required true computers to make it work properly, first analog computers and then digital fuel control computers. Even in my car owning lifetime (about fifty years) I can see tremendous advances. If you got a hundred thousand miles from a car when I was a kid you were doing great. Now, that is more like 200K. Metallurgy and manufacturing tolerances have improved tremendously. So has gasoline and lubricating oil. Twenty thousand was good milage on a set of tires. Now I can go fifty thou. Brakes are far superior. Clutch throwout bearing replacement seems to be a thing of the past instead of a frequent repair. Mufflers used to last two or three years. General reliability is way up, as is performance. I still hear people say, "they don't make cars like they used to." I say thank goodness. > I still hear people say, "they don't make cars like they used to." I > say thank goodness. Having owned cars from 1970,1975,1976,1977,1980,1982,1984,1986,1990,2001 you can see the evolution over time - each car is slightly different, but not radically changed, but if you compare 30 years there's not much the same. That said, it's still ~3000 pounds of steel and glass, 4 tires and engine, and anything called a "car" will probably always have a similar layout. Ray Wouldn't this gas compress better because the molecules are expanded more before hitting the intake manifold? Signaturecody_e http://www.automotiveforums.com > Wouldn't this gas compress better because the molecules are expanded > more before hitting the intake manifold? The main thing you are compressing inside the cylinder is air. The fuel is by percentage only about 1/15th of what you are compressing. So the state of the fuel has little bearing on the compression. The only time when there is a problem is during a starting situation when so much liquid fuel has entered a cylinder that it FILLS the cylinder and you can get hydraulic lock. This is a problem with radial aircraft engines who have cylinders pointed downward, or in race cars that have push starting, but extremely rare in passenger cars. I swear I can make this work. If they got it to work in the early 20th entury I think I'll be able to get this to work. Look up the Fordson tractor. Signaturecody_e http://www.automotiveforums.com Alcohol is good but it reduces gas mileage. Plus there's not enough land to meet our energy needs if you grew it in corn. How come I can read 5 different patents along with a big history and easily find information on the internet when this is supposedly a "scam?" Signaturecody_e http://www.automotiveforums.com > Alcohol is good but it reduces gas mileage. Plus there's not enough > land to meet our energy needs if you grew it in corn. The primary reason there are more forested acres in North America now than in 1920 is because we're not feeding the work animals that ran the economy back then. Any idea how much horses and oxen eat? The same people that are proposing that we run our cars on booze are the same ones that will scream blue bloody murder when they see all those forests ploughed under again. ("But where will our spotted owls live now? Sob!"). > Alcohol is good but it reduces gas mileage. Plus there's not enough land > to meet our energy needs if you grew it in corn. How come I can read 5 > different patents along with a big history and easily find information > on the internet when this is supposedly a "scam?" Just because you can patent something doesn't mean it's a product that can be feasably manufactured and sold at a profit. A patent is nothing more than a piece of paper and some drawings and text that describe HOW your invention works. It doesn't say whether or not you can currently build such a device. Do a quick google for "patent perpetual motion." Ray |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.