Re: This NG sucks

From: Don Hills (dmhills_at_attglobal.net)
Date: 01/20/05 

Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:30:40 +1200

In article <1173243.KatAU2j3Ld@xbox.pelnet.net>,
Peter Lowrie <peterlowrie@consultant.com> wrote:
>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.

I work on the principle "If you don't know the answers, just ask." I hope
I'm setting you a good example.

>On purpose. And also the pipe dimensions from cell to cell are not given
>either. IP.

I have no problem with you witholding the information, but by doing so you
cannot use it as a point of refutation as you did. I don't see how the pipe
dimension from cell to cell could be critical either. They need to be short
and wide enough to minimise losses, surely that's all that's needed of them?

>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.

... and reduces the wetted surface of the electrodes somewhat by its
presence. I acknowledge that getting the evolved gas to detach from the
electrode surface is a problem that needs an effective answer. If I were to
look into it, my untutored mind would start investigating mechanical
agitation (electrodes rapidly counter-revolving in the electrolyte) or
hydrophilic coatings. I have no idea if anyone has prior art in this area.

>> 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.

What didn't work? Didn't you get enough gas? Given the amount of gas needed,
the last cells in the series chain won't be producing much gas - they'll be
largely full of bubbles due to the amount of gas from the previous cells
passing through them. This will result in a lot of water vapour (and
significant amounts of KOH, which won't do the engine internals any good at
all) in the gas mixture. This water must be added to the amount electrolysed
to gas, increasing the water "consumption" which must be made up from a
vehicle mounted tank. (Ditto for the KOH.) Just how much water is used per
kilometer (similar to petrol KM per litre) can wait until we get to the
numbers.

>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.

We'll get to the numbers soon. I haven't looked at them in detail, I intend
to start with the NACA paper you quoted. First we need to determine if the
system as you describe it would run at all.

>> Q4: Why does the system need pressurisation?
>
>To increase the B.P. and to free gases from electrodes on the way up.

Increase the boiling point? OK, you're running the cells at high
temperatures. Is this to increase the rate of gas production, or the overall
conversion effciency? This doesn't fit well with your apparent use of the
endothermic region. You'll need quite a lot of heat (maybe several
kilowatts) to maintain the temperature. See further down this post...

>> Don't you get that from the
>> electrolysis process itself?
>
>Bugger all.

... so you're not producing enough gas to run the engine. If you were
getting more than enough gas, the system would pressurise itself. That's
another thing you need to work on.

>Q6: Is this to increase the reaction rate?
>
>Hmm, I dunno whether this is a factor.

It'll become clearer when we get to the numbers.

>> 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.

... so you aren't actually getting detonation of the mixture in the
combustion chambers, as you claimed. You're getting "normal" (relatively
slow) burning rates. Here's a friendly hint: If you don't know how or why
something works, say so instead of trying to blind us with pseudoscience.
We'll think better of you for your honesty than for trying to baffle us with
bull***.

>>>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.

But you pass the gases and air through a mixer before feeding to the intake.
The only way it would help is if the air had a significantly lower viscosity
than the mixture coming from the cells, and then only if the amount of air
was significant rather than "v.v.small". This is another area you will have
to work on to adequately explain what the effect of the air really is. As
you have described it, every bogosity detector on the planet will be
quivering.

>>>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'.

You did. Sorry. Memory is the second thing to go with age. I forget what the
first one was.

Let's get the right words from your earlier posts:

>That H+O detonation is combustion is concussive having a flame temp of
>circa 6000 degrees and a flame front of 3.9km/sec ...

>My current theory on this is that the detonation is so fast 3.9km/sec the
>heat only catches up in the exhaust.

>> 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.

Well admitted. Now, think it through. You ignite the mixture, it goes
"bang". Now is it the noise that pushes the piston down, or the expansion of
the gases heated by the reaction? Can you have the noise without the
heat/expansion, or vice versa? I'm reminded of a skit from an old UK TV
comedy ("Brass", I think) where one of the characters was working on "SBD"
(Silent But Deadly) - a noiseless explosive.

>> ... I'll just restate my understanding, modified
>> with the understandings gained today:

>Horaay,you've got it!

I hope it isn't contagious... <g>

>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).

... so you have previously expressed admiration for Tom Bearden, but you
don't actually believe him. Uh huh... do you see how bad that looks?

In your heat exchanger example above you use 1 unit of energy to move 4
units from one place to another. The destination ends up with 5 units of
energy. You appear to be applying that analogy to your system by quoting
figures that show you apply 1 unit of energy to make the gas and end up with
8 units of energy in the combustion chamber after burning the gas.
Now here is a question that really needs to be answered:

WHERE DO THE OTHER 7 UNITS COME FROM?

>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.

You're not making sense again. Gas does not equate to molecule as you say.
There are atoms (elements) and there are molecules, which are assemblies of
atoms. A gas can be elemental (hydrogen) or molecular (Carbon Monoxide, for
example). Joining atoms together to make molecules can release energy or
absorb energy (exothermic or endothermic).

>> 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.

The point I was trying to make is that the current through the cell is
fairly critical if you want to run in the endothermic region, as you have
implied with your setting the cell voltages at 1.2 volts. With your design,
the voltage across (and current through) the cell is going to vary from zero
to maximum on every cycle. With this, and your quoted power dissipation for
each cell, it appears you aren't actually making any real attempt to run in
the endothermic (efficient) mode and are simply going for maximum gas output
in a highly exothermic regime. Since you are generating so much heat in each
cell ("up to 4 KW each", over 16 cells, which matches the "60KVA alternator"
you want to attach to the motor), I still wonder why you need to add exhaust
heat. I feel you haven't answered that question as well as you could.

A 1600cc Honda Civic engine running on gasoline produces about 76 to 90 KW
maximum at the flywheel depending on model. That doesn't leave a lot of
power over when running a 60 KVA alternator. I would not be surprised if the
inevitable losses in the system soak up much of the remaining power. Either
you are planning on getting much more power from the engine than standard,
or you are hoping to achieve considerable improvements in efficiency. Power
output figures for IC engines running on gasoline/air versus hydrogen/oxygen
are almost certainly available online somewhere, it will be interesting to
compare them.

There's a basic error on your "Electrolysis cell array" diagram. You say
"Electrolyte impedance 16 Ohms/cell x 16 = 256 Ohms" but the cells in the
diagram are clearly wired in parallel, not series. It should read "16
Ohms/cell / 16 = 1 Ohm". This leaves aside the question of the method of
measuring electrolyte impedance, because this was well explained by Don
Lancaster for you in the last day or so. Just as a matter of interest, if
you're dissipating up to 4 KW per cell that works out to 0.001 ohms per cell
(at 2 volts of course, the resistance would be different at a different
voltage). 

-- 
Don Hills    (dmhills at attglobaldotnet)     Wellington, New Zealand
It's ironic that people who are too smart to engage in politics
are governed by people who are not as smart.
Loading