Re: $50 Device Doubles Mileage: Isn't It Another #$%^& Scam?

formatting link

Some possibly reputable sources have suggested using a little
electricity from the alternator to generate a little H2 and O2 (2H2O +
electricity => 2H2 + O2) will in fact improve the combustion of
diesel or gasoline enough so that the higher efficiency of the fuel
combustion more than pays for the energy taked from the engine by the
higher load on the alternator belt.
But it ain't gonna be an 100% _overall_ increase in efficiency.
The first question in any efficiency improvement claim is "where was
the inefficiency in the first place?"
The hard fact of life is that most of the fuel is _already_ being
burned in a well tuned vehicle's cylinders.
GM claims they can improve fuel efficiency by 15% with better
combustion but that engine won't be out for at least 6 years.
So the real improvement in any after market enhanced combustion
approach to improving efficiency is less than 15%, probably much less.
The "mechanical engineer" on the videoclip was flat out lying about
the 70 mpg.
Back in the 70s GM had a way of dealing with scammers and crackpots:
They told them to bring their vehicle on down to their test track and
allow the attendant to weigh the vegicle. After so many laps they'ld
weigh the vehicle again.
The attendant didn't have to talk to many frauds because the frauds
knew better than to allow anyone to weigh their vehicles and count
laps.
There already is a $60 invention that will vastly improve miles/
gallon. It was invented over 150 years ago:
The bicycle.
Bret Cahill
> I am also posting this to an inventors n.g.
>
> > I now rationally assume that it doesn't do what is claimed, despite
> > this apparently phony or erroneous or doctored "news" video.
>
> > Because if it does do what is claimed, then the ^&*%() oil price would
> > be in decline.
>
> > Lesson #1, the internet as per ordinary reality is a jungle
>
> >
formatting link

> yeah, i've surely been punked, plinked and ponked:
Reply to
Bret Cahill
Loading thread data ...
Dear Bret Cahill:
...
It is "just" a matter of having maximum pressure at mid stroke.
...
How true. Of course, they are a little more than $60 for an adult... and kind of hard to put "spinners" on. ;>)
David A. Smith
Reply to
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Bret Cahill wrote in news:f863c08d-388c-4e86-9567- snipped-for-privacy@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
Talk to this guy
formatting link

He's been investigating the use of hydrogen as a combustion modifier for decades. They call it HAJI.
By improving the combustion process they get a bigger gain than the energy it takes to make the hydrogen in the first place. Basically they use the hydrogen to allow an engine to run reliably when running very lean.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Reply to
Greg Locock
Running lean might help at reduced loads but it ain't gonna double efficiency.
It doesn't fundamentally change the adiabatic ICE thermocycle -- about 1/2 Carnot efficiency.
Bret Cahill
Reply to
Bret Cahill
Maybe $100 at Walmart but we weren't talking new stuff anyway. The fuel scam was aftermarket.
Bret Cahill
Reply to
Bret Cahill
Well actually for an idling gasoline engine it is possible. Much of the waste in an idling gas engine is due to the very restricted intake (throttle). Allowing a lot more air to flow through the engine without increasing RPM can mean a large reduction in fuel use. Of course that is only while idling (no load and low rpm) and it only will work if the engine is designed to run very lean. Just injecting hydrogen alone isn't going to make this happen. =
Even under load with open throttle there are increased efficiencies possible. This is not because fuel is burned more completely. It is because a small amount of hydrogen mixed with gas can cause the fuel to burn faster without detonating. That means more energy delivered to the wheels because with the conventional gas engine combustion that occurs late in the power stroke is largely wasted. And it requires surprisingly little hydrogen to get the needed combustion modification. =
However, it is doubtful that the current wave of internet marketed kits that are being sold are going to do much because they really don't make the necessary design changes which would cost a lot more than $50. There is a company in Canada that is considered to be reputable that retrofits cars for hydrogen enrichment. It costs thousands of dollars to modify a vehicle and the overall fuel savings are in the 10%-20% range.
-jim
=
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
formatting link
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Reply to
jim
The only way to make significant improvements in efficiency of ICE is to play with the thermo cycle itself, i. e., recuperated low pressure ratio.
Use different machinery to compress the air and expand the gas and use the exhaust to preheat the air after it is compressed but before it is combusted in or before the expander.
The engine is considerably larger for the power than high compression ratio but engine size is just not an issue in many applications, i. e., ships. The cost of _bunker_ is the issue on ships.
Even plug in series hybrids like the Volt with small 15kW engines might be able to devote 3X more space under the hood if the efficiency was over 50%.
Bret Cahill
Reply to
Bret Cahill
I'm willing to bet that 15% mileage increase would result from driving technique alone. I still see people racing to get to red lights and all the other bad habits that have to do with the reptile brain or something like that.
-tg
Reply to
tg
Dear Bret Cahill:
No, that is not the only way. One could look at "non-circular cranking", so that the enitre downward sweep of the piston was delivering energy to the transmission (rather than just increasing stress in the members).
How one would accomplish this in any sort of mechanism that would operate as trouble-free as a Piston-ConnectingRod-Crank arrangement, remains an exercise for the reader. Maybe that is where turbines come in.
David A. Smith
Reply to
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Dear tg:
...
I agree with at least 10% in driving habits. Additionally, keeping a clean air filter can add another 10% (or more).
David A. Smith
Reply to
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
The more waste heat can be recuperated, however, the more the diagram starts to approach isothermal.
Place an adiabatic engine cycle inside a T-S diagram of a Carnot or other isothermal cycle, Stirling or Ericsson II, and it's almost as sorry as a triangular cycle ~ 1/2 Carnot.
If the simple thermo cycle isn't a parallelogram, no amount of tweaking will make a dramatic difference.
There just isn't any way to get much more than 40% overall efficiency from ICE without using some waste heat recovery scheme, i. e., combined cycle or regeneration or recuperation.
That's how it was easy to know the guy in the video was lying about doubling efficiency.
The most efficient engine in the world, the 100 ton GE industrial gas turbine, is only 60% efficient.
Brayton is just another adiabatic engine cycle.
Wilson turbines is trying to make an ultra high efficient regenerated low compression ratio engine.
If they can keep the pressure drop in the regenerator -- his patent is for the regenerator -- low the engine could be 55% efficient as he claims.
A Prius could then get 70 mpg instead of 50.
I made a spread sheet to compare the mechanical energy required to accomplish the necessary heat transfer at different velocities. Some engineer claimed that if the flow rates are low enough [a big regenerator] then it is possible. He was correct.
I'ld like to see someone try recuperation or regeneration with a 2 stroke vessel diesel.
They would need 3X the displacement for the same power, a low pressure ratio compressor, reciprocating or turbo, some way to heat and ignite the 6-oil, and a huge recuperator that was easy to clean.
The [unrecuperated] version of the engine cycle might be more Otto than Diesel by injecting and burning the fuel as fast as possible at top dead center. Otto is more efficient than Diesel for a given compression ratio.
Low pressure ratio greatly reduces smog as well so they could put a tiger on it, talking the Port Authorities of Long Beach and LA to go after the vessel owners.
Bret Cahill
Reply to
Bret Cahill
A side issue, talking about situations where size doesn't matter: what about combined heat and power (CHP) micro-generation applications?
I know there are efforts to produce a domestic-sized central heating boiler that generates a few kW of electricity, and that there are some devices on the market. These are based on various technologies other than the tried and tested piston engine, I presume the main target is to minimise maintenance (although this parameter is conspicuous by its absence in the marketing literature). With the long duty, a conventional automotive engine would need stripping every few months which would defeat any cost benefits.
It occurs to me that one could build an system based on a regular car engine, using the established LPG conversion technology to burn natural gas, and revving very slow, maybe around 100rpm, using an oversized flywheel. Efficiency will be reduced due to conductive cooling during the power cycle, but it is not really an issue here as the primary output is heat, and mean electrical output required less than 10% of that.
Once you have electrical and rotating power available it is relatively cheap to add on heat pumping systems to maximise the efficiency of the heating side.
Just a thought.
Tim Jackson the
formatting link
one
Reply to
Tim Jackson
Dear Bret Cahill:
Which is where the turbo comes in.
Well excuse me, but isn't 40% a significant improvement over ~13%? (And I may have themal efficiency in mind, rather than percentage of Carnot...)
Seems like 30% efficiency would be double the usualy 13-15% we get now, and well within your "40%".
The big piston engines on ships are / were very efficient, because they were slow.
It is sure easier to go after the two or three hundred biggest engines, rather than the million or so engines that put out far more and consume far more... but tend to carry more votes.
Tax gasoline to $10 per gallon, and spend the money on mass transit infrastructure.
Put a turbine in a Prius.
David A. Smith
Reply to
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Very interesting concept. All you want in CHP is complete combustion. High mechanical efficiency is desired but not really all that important if you are burning 2 oil anyway.
There certainly won't be any shortage of large used SUV engines that can be acquired at a low price.
They could be put to good use helping charge up your EV.
The Japanese are on ICE microCHP so it wouldn't be anything completely new.
Alternatively, instead of low rpm the SUV engines might be modified for low compression ratio recuperated.
The power would still be well above the 10 kW wiring of a typical house so some reduction in RPM would still be necessary.
Bret Cahill
Reply to
Bret Cahill
Jane's lists thousands of motor vessels but you are basically correct.
There are two kinds of economies of scale, individual copy size and volume size.
It's a whole lot easier to prototype a big engine that is more or less custom made anyway than trying to retool an entire high volume production line.
The P. As. of LA and Long Beach don't mess around. They don't want smoggy high compression combustion anywhere near the coast.
Either that or give everyone a revenue neutral rebate and let the market sort it out.
Right now petroleum is sucking all resources including labor from sustainability. Geo and solar thermal are suffering.
Series plug in hybrids like the Volt would be even better. The small "box" size would allow for more batteries.
You could lose a 15 kW gas turbine in a shoe box.
Bret Cahill
Reply to
Bret Cahill
Lloyds, not Jane's, lists all the motor vessels.
I've been in the desert too long.
Bret Cahill
Reply to
Bret Cahill
Dear Bret Cahill:
It's the 111 degfF temp.
David A. Smith
Reply to
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
That's when I start to get creative, "low entropy" being the thermodynamic term for "opportunity."
Bret Cahill
"It is true that around each man a fatal circle is traced beyond which he may not pass. But within the wide verge of that circle, he is powerful and free. As it is with individuals so it is with nations."
-- DeTocqueville
Reply to
Bret Cahill
It takes energy to compress. What's maximum in your theory? 15:1? 30:1? And ratio of oxidant to fuel? What fuel? Get real.
Hot air/fuel is inefficient. A cool mixture gives more power per volume.
Could it be y'all are heading down the same path the 500 mile-per-gallon carburetor nutz have gone?
Reply to
John
True. The best solution remains the most efficient carry of goods and humans with the least fuel. Walk. Ride a bike. Take a train. Sleep in.
Reply to
John

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.