Ideal Int Combust Fuel Blending

If one truly wants better conversion efficency, then one should change to *external* cumbustion, like the Stanley Steamer. Steam techniques have improved so that *no* true boiler is needed; the space "above" the piston head(s) become the flash boiler at the appropiate time in the cycle. It is easy to get *complete* combustion, meaning !less! pollution and no BS "need" for afterburners AKA catalytic converters. Also, in regards to BS, no re-breathing of unburnt exhaust which is KNOWN to decrease efficency (the dictatorship requires this in an internal combustion engine, to increase income to certain groups as well as taxes).

Or, you could go with the real reason, which is to lower combustion temperature.

Tom.

Probably hydrogen. No gunk due to no carbon. No knocking due to high autoignition temperature. High power due to having the fastest flame speed. However, these are numerous problems with hydrogen in terms of storage, transport, safety, and cost.

Then why not go for full oxidation and add water to cool the resultant gasses?

You get full oxidation with exhaust gas recirculation too. Exhaust gas is effectively inert. And it's "free" in systems terms. Water injection would have a very similar effect (and avoid some of the negatives with EGR), but you'd have to add a water tank, injection system, etc., etc. Why use water when you've already got exhaust?

Done properly, an EGR engine is more efficient than one without.

Tom.

*+- Probably hydrogen. No gunk due to no carbon. No knocking due to

In internal combustion engines?

- = - Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist

---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}--- [Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards] [Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos]

Sure. It works very well. The problem with hydrogen is refining and storage ($$$)...from a performance point of view, the engines love it. And it's about the greenest of fuels.

Tom.

"Knocking" is caused by the fuel igniting before the spark plug fires. In order for this to happen, the fuel/air mixture must be exposed to something hot enough to ignite it. In fuels with very high autoignition temperatures, such as hydrogen, it is much less likely to occur. The following reference lists the autoignition temperature of hydrogen at 968 degrees F:

The autoignition temperature of most other fuel components is below

500 degrees F:

The exhaust gas is most definitely *not* "inert"; why do many states require smog testing? All the unburnt hydrocarbons, NOx, COx etc pollute the air that is being fed into the combustion chamber.

To a certain extent, it does not matter what one burns in an external combustion engine as lomg as one gets complete combustion.

"Green" as long as one completely ignores how that hydrogen is made EG: electrolysis of water needs energy from burning coal/oil/??

"Robert Baer" wrote

It's *effectively* inert as far as combustion goes, which is what matters in this discussion (we were talking about getting full oxidation). No, it's not 100% inert. There are traces of unburned hydrocarbons and various partially oxidizable N and C compounds, which is why you have a catalytic converter. However, exhaust gas can't support combustion because it's oxygen content is *way* too low. So, for purposes of recycling in the combusion cycle, it's inert.

All those CH/N/C compounds would still be present if you didn't have EGR (there would be more NOx without EGR) anyway, so that's not really an argument against EGR.

Tom.

Of course. This whole thread started with "ignoring pollution and cost"...

Or solar, or hydro, or nuclear...it's not hydrogen's fault that some of the refining technologies aren't green.

Tom.

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 03:18:39 GMT, Robert Baer

This assumes that your fuel source has no sulfur or chlorine in it.

If one wished to ignore pollution and cost, then go back to 100 percent manuallabor digging out sulphurous coal to burn to generate electricity and ignore the radioactives in the stack fumes that are worse than TMI. .

For energy only (ignoring resultant toxic compounds), sulfur and chlorine are excellent energy sources (maybe not the best, but still quite useable).

If emissions were not of concern, I do not understand how the reference to "complete combustion" fits in. (I realize that the OP was not concerned with emissions.) Oxidizing sulfur would produce energy as you indicated. However, chlorine combines with hydrogen and carbon at high temperatures and tends to waste energy. Admittedly, you do not often find much chlorine in fuels unless you are burning solid waste materials.