Re: This NG sucks
From: Peter Lowrie (peterlowrie_at_consultant.com)
Date: 01/17/05
- Next message: Michael Davis: "Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming."
- Previous message: Peter Lowrie: "Re: try"
- Maybe in reply to: Peter Lowrie: "This NG sucks"
- Next in thread: Bok: "Re: This NG sucks"
- Reply: Bok: "Re: This NG sucks"
- Reply: Don Hills: "Re: This NG sucks"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:02:17 +1300
Geez, whatalota questions. If I knew all of the answers I'd probably be
marketing this by now. If you don't mind I'm going to post this useful
discussion to the egaspower group. Your intelligent questions make up for
the braindead diatribes of anonymous moronic mental midgets like Adder.
> Actually, the diagrams give no clue as to what proportion of the exhaust
gas
On purpose. And also the pipe dimensions from cell to cell are not given
either. IP.
Q1: Since the cells are in series, where does the
> heat come from for the rest of the cells?
It transfers adequately and the gas is quite hot too. The gas bubbling up
through the bottoms helps to release gas from the electrodes.
> Q2: Why are the cells in series?
> Why not in parallel?
Tried that and it didn't work. This mode of operation is based on Archie
Blues patent, and it works really well.
> (Note: Since writing the above, I have since seen the cell diagram you
> posted in egaspower, and it appears you are/were running the cells in
their
> endothermic region and would need to add heat, hence the addition of heat
> from the exhaust. I'm just mentioning this to show that I really am paying
> attention. My questions above stand, however.)
>
> Next, you were wrong by saying "You start with gases" in your earlier
post,
> and I called you on it. In fact, your diagrams clearly show that you start
> with distilled water and electrical energy. Q3: Does the electrical energy
> come from the alternator that you said you need to fit to your test
engine?
Yes.So far as the 'starting with gas' point I made, the sums make more sense
if you start with gas,thus:
2H + 0 -{1312kj}-> H2O.
H2O -{135kj}-> 2H + 0
Even this is not quite right as it's a simplification. The point is there is
about eight times the energy output upon combustion than is required for
electrolysis. This is the sticking point for most ppl.
> Q4: Why does the system need pressurisation?
To increase the B.P. and to free gases from electrodes on the way up.
> Don't you get that from the
> electrolysis process itself?
Bugger all.
> Q5: Why not heat the electrolyte with
> waste heat from the engine coolant (or electricity from a cold start, just
> as some cars electrically heat the catalytic converters from a cold
start)?
I have no problem with that.
Q6: Is this to increase the reaction rate?
Hmm, I dunno whether this is a factor.
> Q7: As a result of the rapidity of electrolysis needed to generate the gas
> volumes required, do you have a significant amount of water in the form of
> an aerosol escaping into the intake plumbing? I suspect you are, because
it
> appears you aren't actually getting detonation in the combustion chamber.
> Water has a well known detonation suppression effect. It absorbs heat from
> the reacting gases as it vaporises, and provides the moderator role
normally
> provided by the nitrogen in air.
You catch on quick.
>>The air intake is v.v.small, compared to other fuels - petrol, LPG the
>>engine runs almost fully choked. I have purposefully omitted dimension
>>details in the diagrams in order to protect my IP.
>
> Q8: Why do you need any intake air at all? You have a stoich mix already,
> you don't need extra oxygen.
You are quite right. I think what is going on here is that the v.v.small
amount of air helps with flow through the intake.
>>Strange as it may seem the pistons valves etc don't melt - this is what I
>>originally thought would happen, however parts of the exhaust get v.v.hot.
>>My current theory on this is that the detonation is so fast 3.9km/sec the
>>heat only catches up in the exhaust.
>
> First the detonation ("percussive" is the adjective you used earlier),
I think I said 'concussive'.
> sometime later the heat? All these years I've thought that it's the
> detonation that generates the heat. Q9: So what pushes the piston down?
The
> "hammer blow" of the detonation, or the expansion of the gases as they are
> heated by the reaction?
I dunno yet.
> I think you need to re-examine what might actually be happening here. If
> you're not getting almost instant engine damage (broken piston lands and
> crowns), then you're simply not getting the flame wavefront speeds that
Quite so.
> think you are. 1600cc Honda engines are not built strongly enough to
> withstand the peak pressures that would be reached in a detonation
scenario.
We've covered the quenching effect of water vapour.
>>Previous posts explain both the thermodynamics (which is also breakable in
>>other experiments) and the chemistry, please revisit to bone up on it.
>
> I did that, That's why I'm insistong on covering it again in words of one
> cylinder suitable for a bear of little brain such as myself, with no
> handwaving and obfuscation. I'll just restate my understanding, modified
> with the understandings gained today:
>
> You start with water and electricity and produce hydrogen and oxygen by
And electrolyte! KOH.
> electrolysis. You mix this with a small amount of air and admit it
> to the combustion chamber and detonate it, producing energy to the drive
> train and waste heat. It's not a closed cycle, as some people have
assumed,
Horaay,you've got it!
> because water and electrical energy is introduced at the beginning and the
> heat and water (vapour) produced is largely discarded.
>
> There is also a general assumption that you generate enough electricity
from
> the output of the engine to electrolyse enough gases to run it.
> Q10: is this
> correct? Your previous posts have implied that it is, but let's be sure.
Yes, lets be real sure, YES, look at the reaction sums infra. There is a
BIG misconception about energy-in energy-out that 99.999% of ppl get hung
up on. They ask how can you get more energy out than what goes in. I think
what is happening here is more a coefficient of power question, much like a
heat exchanger that can have a COP of 4 as opposed to some (stupid)
overunity issue where some ppl think they can get 4 times more output than
what goes in. It simply cant work like that, the whole universe is at unity
and overunity just does not exist (IMHO). Youknow I made the point once in
an earlier post somewhere about how perpetual motion = Newtons 1st law of
motion. I do not consider any of the work I've done approaches perpetual
motion or anywhere near it. But if youlook at the facts: before there were
molecules there were gases. All of the equations have to start at the
primordial level: gas+gas=molecule, not the other way around, ppl come
unstuck.
> The diagram of the cell power supply raises questions, too. It implies an
> unsmoothed rectified AC supply to the cells. This will vary the current
> density in the cell from zero to peak on each cycle, and in other posts
you
> have implied that the current density is fairly critical for maximum
> efficiency. Either you were wrong then, or the diagram is not
representative
> of your power supply setup. Q11: Which is it?
I'm notsure I understand exactly what this Q means, however: I do not find
that current desity is so critical as it relates to the surface area of
electrodes to disperse that current. 1/2 wave rectified current is
introduced to the electrodes which at circa 2 volts draws some 800 amps
(from a marine alternator rated at 24V 120A). The only way of modulating
current is at the alternator tickle by way of PWM. All other attempts to
control current have melted things.
Phew
Peter
- Next message: Michael Davis: "Re: But There Ain't No Global Warming."
- Previous message: Peter Lowrie: "Re: try"
- Maybe in reply to: Peter Lowrie: "This NG sucks"
- Next in thread: Bok: "Re: This NG sucks"
- Reply: Bok: "Re: This NG sucks"
- Reply: Don Hills: "Re: This NG sucks"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
