Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or Not ???

On 2008-05-28, jim <"sjedgingN0sp"@m> wrote:

> Well that is wrong. There have been several ways this has been done none
> of them involved adding fuel from an outside source. I think the NASA
> experiment used some kind of catalyst and the exhaust heat to extract
> hydrogen from a small fraction of the gasoline. Others designs use
> electrolysis. In any case, the fuel consumed to produce hydrogen is
> counted as part of the fuel consumed.

Then why don't you make a proper cite then?

> I don't know where you arrived at the fictitious bottle of H2, but again
> your conclusions are wrong.

Well, maybe you should maker proper cites. Otherwise I'll fill in the
blanks as I see fit.

> Hydrogen enrichment has been shown to work.

Did not say it had not.

> What you seem to miss is that you aren't likely to see any benefit unless
> you design the engine around the fuel. Just adding some gadget on to a
> street vehicle isn't going to be able to take advantages of the fuel's
> properties.

Didn't miss it at all.

>> I wouldn't be surprised if having H2 mixed with gasoline has a benefit
>> on gasoline consumption. It's just not plausable when that H2 is created
>> from water by the same engine that is powered by the gasoline & H2 mix.

> Not plausible? Take a look at an idling gasoline engine. Most of the work
> the engine is doing is pushing air thru a very narrow opening (closed
> throttle). The reason it must do this is that gasoline alone just simply
> won't burn if there is to much air. A diesel engine is much more efficient
> when idling because it doesn't throttle the air flow. That throttling
> amounts to a lot of wasted energy in a gas engine. When you use hydrogen
> mixed with gasoline the mix will burn cleanly at much leaner mixes than
> gasoline alone. That means if you are idling at 30:1 air to fuel you can
> have much less throttling to keep the engine running at the same speed and
> lot less energy expended, The energy savings is more than what it takes to
> produce the small amount of hydrogen that is need to make the process
> work. Basically you aren't violating any laws - the engine is just running
> with a lot less wasted heat. What is not plausible about that?

*sigh* it's the energy required to make H2 from water that makes it not
plausable, not the part about H2 changing combustion properties...
geebus.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
> *sigh* it's the energy required to make H2 from water that makes it not
> plausable, not the part about H2 changing combustion properties...
> geebus.

Absolutely, as these scams are presented, they appeal to the greed, and the
lack of scientific knowledge, of the reader..

There is still no free lunch.

Brent P wrote:
>
> On 2008-05-28, jim <"sjedgingN0sp"@m> wrote:
>
> > Well that is wrong. There have been several ways this has been done none
> > of them involved adding fuel from an outside source. I think the NASA
> > experiment used some kind of catalyst and the exhaust heat to extract
> > hydrogen from a small fraction of the gasoline. Others designs use
> > electrolysis. In any case, the fuel consumed to produce hydrogen is
> > counted as part of the fuel consumed.
>
> Then why don't you make a proper cite then?

Somebody else already cited the wikipedia article. That article looked
like it lists several studies. If you were interested you would have
already read the literature. It's not a big secret.

> > The energy savings is more than what it takes to
> > produce the small amount of hydrogen that is need to make the process
> > work. Basically you aren't violating any laws - the engine is just running
> > with a lot less wasted heat. What is not plausible about that?
>
> *sigh* it's the energy required to make H2 from water that makes it not
> plausable,

It takes energy to produce hydrogen. You only need to convert something
like a quart of water for every 1000 miles. If you use exhaust heat as the
energy source like the NASA experiment then that energy is free, but that
technology is expensive. Even if you use electrolysis the energy required
to produce the hydrogen can be less than the energy saved in increased
performance. But that depends on making the right modifications to engine
design and that isn't cheap either.
The problem isn't that it can't be done. The problem is with current
technology the initial capital investment doesn't make the return in
energy savings worthwhile. However, that is likely to change when the
technology gets cheaper or the cost of gasoline goes higher (or both).

Any one today who is trying to sell you something for $400 that they
promise will give you 50% better mileage is just going to take your money
and run. But that doesn't mean it isn't feasible.

-jim


>not the part about H2 changing combustion properties...
> geebus.


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Androcles" > wrote in message
...
> "hanson" > wrote in message
> news:tOh%j.8558$nx6.7393@trnddc03...
> | "Androcles" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > "hanson" > wrote in message
> | > news:Zvg%j.33067$3j.5246@trnddc05...
> | > | "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" > wrote in message
> ...
> | > | > Mark Thorson > wrote:
> | > | >> A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
> | > | >> about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
> | > | >> into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.
> | > | >
> | > | "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" wrote:
> | > | > It is based on a myth. While it is well-known that the efficiency
> | > | > of the IC engine is around the 30-40% mark at best, the myth is
> | > | > that this is due to incomplete combustion, and that most of the
> | > | > fuel goes out the tailpipe. This is not true. Almost all fuel in
> | > | > a properly tunedengine is combusted. The two energy
> | > | > losses are heat into the cooling jacket of any cooled
> | > | > engine, and the energy (heat and pressure) in the exhaust. While
> | > | > there have been attempts at building uncooled (adiabatic) engines,
> | > | > the biggest hangup so far is the lubricants. When internal temps
> | > | > get too high all existing lubricants break down.
> | > | > Turbocharging does recover some exhaust energy, but we cannot
> | > | > take out too much exhaust energy, or it will limit engine's
> | > | > ability to breath,reducing horsepower for a given engine
> | > | > size. We can indeed increase thermal consumption by this
> | > | > road, but it results in a heavier engine.
> | > | > That is okay for a stationary engine, but any engine used in
> | > | > transportation, must be as light as possible. If a heavy but more
> | > | > fuel sufficient engine is used, the total vehicle weight goes up,
> | > | > requiringmore energy, so we end up still burning more fuel :-(
> | > | >
> | > | hanson wrote:
> | > | Don, you are kind but you won't change any minds in the
> | > | Alternative- or Hydrogen fuel cults. They have their minds
> | > | made up to get to their vapid heaven... with a religious passion.
> | > | Whenever the fuel prices rise you see 2 phenomena emerging:
> | > | (1) the compulsive savers who wish to beat the transportation
> | > | game at any cost and hence believe anything.
> | > | (2) the conning saviors who accommodate their fantasies
> | > | with any scam the can lay on (1)
> | > | Here is how the current dreams and schemes of (1) and (2)
> | > | will end up, since these 2 cults reject not only the iron existence
> | > | of the laws of thermodynamics but also refuse to believe in
> | > | games that the powerful oil boys play:
> | > | < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...67fce923b56a19 >
> | > | < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...a53c5ef7317f6b >
> | > | < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...4dbe2a7fac0a34 >
> | > | ahahaha.... ahahahanson
> | > |
> | Androlces wrote:
> | > I like the idea of hydrogen as a fuel, don't you?
> | > The problem I see with it is that it takes a lot of crude oil to
> | > electrolyze
> | > the water in the first place and you can't carry much hydrogen
> | > around in a compressed state without cooling it to way down
> | > low, which adds up to danger.
> | > What's needed is another Nobel, someone to come up with
> | > a way of making it as safe as nitro-glycerine in clay, there when
> | > you need it but safe enough to toss around. Don't you
> | > chemical whizzes know of something, a catalyst perhaps, that
> | > can do that? Perhaps if you bonded it with some inexpensive
> | > substance like carbon, there is plenty of coal still around...
> | > .
> | hanson wrote:
> | Yes, all the technologies for AF & H have been here for a long time.
> | But the issue is whether they will catch on widespread and for good.
> | I say no, because even after tapping and using up only 1% of all the
> | existing C&CH reserves, the real "Peak Oil" is at least 1500 years
> | in the future... See details of why in above links. The last time, in
> | the 1970's when has we such an oil spasm... Prez Carted ordered the
> | SYNFUEL project which the oil boys promptly bankrupted simply by
> | dropping the crude oil price to $10 (ten) / bbl... ahahaha...
> | This time around it boils down to a contest of wills:
> | ::: Is it cheaper to change the lifestyle of some 4 billion people
> | ::: (EU, US, IN, CH etc) by green preachings.... or to force a
> | ::: change of the behavior in a pitifully small fraction of 0.6% of
> | ::: that 4 billion, in some 25 million Iraqis? ...
> | ::: "Global oil demand has increased only by 1% last year,
> | ::: So why has the oil price risen by 200% in that same time"?...
> | >
> | ahahaha .. See the "why" details in the above links... ahaha..
>
Androcles wrote:
> You missed my grin.
> I don't write "hahaha" when I'm joking, that's your logo.
>
hanson wrote:
ahaha... I wondered what that [ :-))) ] was in Kasners
mangled post when I replied to him... Sorry about that, chief.
>
Androcles wrote:
> Even I know hydrogen bonded to carbon is fuel, whether in
> a potato, cellulose, polyethylene, gasoline or chicken ****.
> There really is not much
> difference between a carbohydrate and a hydrocarbon,
>
hanson wrote :
..... yeah, right AFA your remark on "energy is in the bond" but only
right, sort of, on "not much difference between a carbohydrate and
a hydrocarbon". See, written in a brutto fashion the Hydrocarbons
are essentially -(CH2)x ... which stores far more energy then do the
Carbohydrates which are essentially --(CH2O)x, wherefrom you
can easily see that CH2O can be rewritten into C + H2O or into
CO + H2... IOW, Carbohydrates are half burnt down Hydrocarbons
and carry much less energy in them. See here for more on the issue:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.c...be49f4be7ddb4b
wherein it says:
Methane or Octane is 100% fuel -- Ethanol is only 60% fuel and
Methanol even less with only 44% fuel... the rest is water...
ahahahaha....
>
Androcles wrote:
> the energy is in the bond, not the elements, and the economics
> is in the cost of extracting it. So when I suggested bonding
>hydrogen to carbon I was reinventing
> Nature's wheel.
> This was the first use of the all natural hydrogen energy system:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomen_steam_engine
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...27s_Rocket.jpg
> If the green ****s want it green, then this wood burner is as green as
> it gets: http://www.erichall.eu/images/USA2002/sw2026.jpg
> Not even the Iraqis want that.
>
hanson wrote:
No, the Iraqis don't need that in the first place, and the Green
****s wouldn't tolerate it neither because in many respects their
green gaja religion is as extremist and fanatical as are the
monotheistic religions, in particular the Jewish and the Islamic
cults. The Enviros must be implicated in the sick & silly oil game
as much as the kikes and Ass-venters are. To wit: Green terrorism:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c8b22b4ffedd09
wherein it says:
"If the green *******s would not have stymied all nuclear
reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
today plenty of cheap electricity, like France & Japan. We'd
have licked rad-chem disposal problems, we'd have modern
batteries and advanced capacitors in our cars instead of
gas-tanks and we would be driving in hi-powered nonpolluting
electric cars, and we would not be implicated and heavily
influenced by the irrational behavior of America's parasite, Israel
who has not managed to live in peace with its neighbors for
the last 60 years and has conned the US into treaty guarantees
that Israel will get all the oil it needs first, form the US, even if the
US must ration oil for it own citizens..... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
If it would not have been for the Green ****s, in all likelihood we
would also have the H-fusion problems licked, and we would not
be survival dependant on, & being held hostage by Venez-Hugos,
Imams, Sheiks & Nigerios.... all of'em fomenters and financiers of
terrorism against the West ... the same West which has brought
to these upstarts wealth and power in the first place.... ahahahaha....
ironic, isn't it... ahahaha... No good deep ever goes unpunished!
>
To boot, if the green cocksuckers would not have impeded the
development of nuclear reactors for the last 40 years we would
not have their latest issue neither they crying now over, their
alleged Anthropic Global Warming of today... ahahaha... ..
hahahaha... ahahahanson
>
>
> --
> Androcles wrote:
> Why did Einstein say
> the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same?
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>

On 2008-05-29, jim <"sjedgingN0sp"@m> wrote:
>
>
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> On 2008-05-28, jim <"sjedgingN0sp"@m> wrote:
>>
>> > Well that is wrong. There have been several ways this has been done none
>> > of them involved adding fuel from an outside source. I think the NASA
>> > experiment used some kind of catalyst and the exhaust heat to extract
>> > hydrogen from a small fraction of the gasoline. Others designs use
>> > electrolysis. In any case, the fuel consumed to produce hydrogen is
>> > counted as part of the fuel consumed.
>>
>> Then why don't you make a proper cite then?
>
> Somebody else already cited the wikipedia article. That article looked
> like it lists several studies. If you were interested you would have
> already read the literature. It's not a big secret.

wikipedia isn't a proper cite. You are citing a specific NASA cite but
not doing it such that there is any way to tell what it really says then
chastising me for not knowing it.

>> > The energy savings is more than what it takes to
>> > produce the small amount of hydrogen that is need to make the process
>> > work. Basically you aren't violating any laws - the engine is just running
>> > with a lot less wasted heat. What is not plausible about that?

>> *sigh* it's the energy required to make H2 from water that makes it not
>> plausable,

> It takes energy to produce hydrogen. You only need to convert something
> like a quart of water for every 1000 miles. If you use exhaust heat as the
> energy source like the NASA experiment then that energy is free, but that
> technology is expensive. Even if you use electrolysis the energy required
> to produce the hydrogen can be less than the energy saved in increased
> performance. But that depends on making the right modifications to engine
> design and that isn't cheap either.

If it was only the H2 from a quart of water for every 1000 miles one
could hook up a propane torch sized cylinder every 1000 miles...

"hanson" > wrote in message
news:zHn%j.15470$9H6.5014@trnddc04...
|
| "Androcles" > wrote in message
| ...
| > "hanson" > wrote in message
| > news:tOh%j.8558$nx6.7393@trnddc03...
| > | "Androcles" > wrote in message
| > | ...
| > | > "hanson" > wrote in message
| > | > news:Zvg%j.33067$3j.5246@trnddc05...
| > | > | "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" > wrote in
message
| >
...
| > | > | > Mark Thorson > wrote:
| > | > | >> A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
| > | > | >> about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
| > | > | >> into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.
| > | > | >
| > | > | "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" wrote:
| > | > | > It is based on a myth. While it is well-known that the
efficiency
| > | > | > of the IC engine is around the 30-40% mark at best, the myth is
| > | > | > that this is due to incomplete combustion, and that most of the
| > | > | > fuel goes out the tailpipe. This is not true. Almost all fuel
in
| > | > | > a properly tunedengine is combusted. The two energy
| > | > | > losses are heat into the cooling jacket of any cooled
| > | > | > engine, and the energy (heat and pressure) in the exhaust.
While
| > | > | > there have been attempts at building uncooled (adiabatic)
engines,
| > | > | > the biggest hangup so far is the lubricants. When internal
temps
| > | > | > get too high all existing lubricants break down.
| > | > | > Turbocharging does recover some exhaust energy, but we cannot
| > | > | > take out too much exhaust energy, or it will limit engine's
| > | > | > ability to breath,reducing horsepower for a given engine
| > | > | > size. We can indeed increase thermal consumption by this
| > | > | > road, but it results in a heavier engine.
| > | > | > That is okay for a stationary engine, but any engine used in
| > | > | > transportation, must be as light as possible. If a heavy but
more
| > | > | > fuel sufficient engine is used, the total vehicle weight goes
up,
| > | > | > requiringmore energy, so we end up still burning more fuel :-(
| > | > | >
| > | > | hanson wrote:
| > | > | Don, you are kind but you won't change any minds in the
| > | > | Alternative- or Hydrogen fuel cults. They have their minds
| > | > | made up to get to their vapid heaven... with a religious passion.
| > | > | Whenever the fuel prices rise you see 2 phenomena emerging:
| > | > | (1) the compulsive savers who wish to beat the transportation
| > | > | game at any cost and hence believe anything.
| > | > | (2) the conning saviors who accommodate their fantasies
| > | > | with any scam the can lay on (1)
| > | > | Here is how the current dreams and schemes of (1) and (2)
| > | > | will end up, since these 2 cults reject not only the iron
existence
| > | > | of the laws of thermodynamics but also refuse to believe in
| > | > | games that the powerful oil boys play:
| > | > | < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...67fce923b56a19 >
| > | > | < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...a53c5ef7317f6b >
| > | > | < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...4dbe2a7fac0a34 >
| > | > | ahahaha.... ahahahanson
| > | > |
| > | Androlces wrote:
| > | > I like the idea of hydrogen as a fuel, don't you?
| > | > The problem I see with it is that it takes a lot of crude oil to
| > | > electrolyze
| > | > the water in the first place and you can't carry much hydrogen
| > | > around in a compressed state without cooling it to way down
| > | > low, which adds up to danger.
| > | > What's needed is another Nobel, someone to come up with
| > | > a way of making it as safe as nitro-glycerine in clay, there when
| > | > you need it but safe enough to toss around. Don't you
| > | > chemical whizzes know of something, a catalyst perhaps, that
| > | > can do that? Perhaps if you bonded it with some inexpensive
| > | > substance like carbon, there is plenty of coal still around...
| > | > .
| > | hanson wrote:
| > | Yes, all the technologies for AF & H have been here for a long time.
| > | But the issue is whether they will catch on widespread and for good.
| > | I say no, because even after tapping and using up only 1% of all the
| > | existing C&CH reserves, the real "Peak Oil" is at least 1500 years
| > | in the future... See details of why in above links. The last time, in
| > | the 1970's when has we such an oil spasm... Prez Carted ordered the
| > | SYNFUEL project which the oil boys promptly bankrupted simply by
| > | dropping the crude oil price to $10 (ten) / bbl... ahahaha...
| > | This time around it boils down to a contest of wills:
| > | ::: Is it cheaper to change the lifestyle of some 4 billion people
| > | ::: (EU, US, IN, CH etc) by green preachings.... or to force a
| > | ::: change of the behavior in a pitifully small fraction of 0.6% of
| > | ::: that 4 billion, in some 25 million Iraqis? ...
| > | ::: "Global oil demand has increased only by 1% last year,
| > | ::: So why has the oil price risen by 200% in that same time"?...
| > | >
| > | ahahaha .. See the "why" details in the above links... ahaha..
| >
| Androcles wrote:
| > You missed my grin.
| > I don't write "hahaha" when I'm joking, that's your logo.
| >
| hanson wrote:
| ahaha... I wondered what that [ :-))) ] was in Kasners
| mangled post when I replied to him... Sorry about that, chief.
| >
| Androcles wrote:
| > Even I know hydrogen bonded to carbon is fuel, whether in
| > a potato, cellulose, polyethylene, gasoline or chicken ****.
| > There really is not much
| > difference between a carbohydrate and a hydrocarbon,
| >
| hanson wrote :
| .... yeah, right AFA your remark on "energy is in the bond" but only
| right, sort of, on "not much difference between a carbohydrate and
| a hydrocarbon". See, written in a brutto fashion the Hydrocarbons
| are essentially -(CH2)x ... which stores far more energy then do the
| Carbohydrates which are essentially --(CH2O)x, wherefrom you
| can easily see that CH2O can be rewritten into C + H2O or into
| CO + H2... IOW, Carbohydrates are half burnt down Hydrocarbons
| and carry much less energy in them.


Ok, I did not know that, although I knew oxygen was involved. Seems
to me that biological systems have to operate slower than is actually
possible for evolutionary reasons, although hydrocarbons and
carbohydrates are both biological in origin. (Unless you go along with
the god idea, in which case Allah dumped it in the ground exactly as He
made it, where His chosen people, the Arabs, could find it and get rich
on the backs of Shell and BP.)
Speaking of which I had a Jehovah's Witness banging on my door this
morning, I told the crank to **** off and quit bothering me when I'm
busy.


See here for more on the issue:
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.c...be49f4be7ddb4b
| wherein it says:
| Methane or Octane is 100% fuel -- Ethanol is only 60% fuel and
| Methanol even less with only 44% fuel... the rest is water...
| ahahahaha....
| >
| Androcles wrote:
| > the energy is in the bond, not the elements, and the economics
| > is in the cost of extracting it. So when I suggested bonding
| >hydrogen to carbon I was reinventing
| > Nature's wheel.
| > This was the first use of the all natural hydrogen energy system:
| > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomen_steam_engine
| > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...27s_Rocket.jpg
| > If the green ****s want it green, then this wood burner is as green as
| > it gets: http://www.erichall.eu/images/USA2002/sw2026.jpg
| > Not even the Iraqis want that.
| >
| hanson wrote:
| No, the Iraqis don't need that in the first place, and the Green
| ****s wouldn't tolerate it neither because in many respects their
| green gaja religion is as extremist and fanatical as are the
| monotheistic religions, in particular the Jewish and the Islamic
| cults. The Enviros must be implicated in the sick & silly oil game
| as much as the kikes and Ass-venters are. To wit: Green terrorism:
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c8b22b4ffedd09
| wherein it says:
| "If the green *******s would not have stymied all nuclear
| reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
| today plenty of cheap electricity, like France & Japan. We'd
| have licked rad-chem disposal problems, we'd have modern
| batteries and advanced capacitors in our cars instead of
| gas-tanks and we would be driving in hi-powered nonpolluting
| electric cars, and we would not be implicated and heavily
| influenced by the irrational behavior of America's parasite, Israel
| who has not managed to live in peace with its neighbors for
| the last 60 years and has conned the US into treaty guarantees
| that Israel will get all the oil it needs first, form the US, even if the
| US must ration oil for it own citizens..... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
| >
| If it would not have been for the Green ****s, in all likelihood we
| would also have the H-fusion problems licked, and we would not
| be survival dependant on, & being held hostage by Venez-Hugos,
| Imams, Sheiks & Nigerios.... all of'em fomenters and financiers of
| terrorism against the West ... the same West which has brought
| to these upstarts wealth and power in the first place.... ahahahaha....
| ironic, isn't it... ahahaha... No good deep ever goes unpunished!
| >
| To boot, if the green cocksuckers would not have impeded the
| development of nuclear reactors for the last 40 years we would
| not have their latest issue neither they crying now over, their
| alleged Anthropic Global Warming of today... ahahaha... ..
| hahahaha... ahahahanson

I'd be careful with fusion. It's a theory only and could be right for
the wrong reasons. H-bombs do exist but it takes a fission bomb's
energy to light up hydrogen. I have as much faith in Tokomaks
ever working as I do in the alchemists turning base metal into gold,
even if anyone succeeds the cost outweighs the advantages.
What with cranks like Hawking providing the influence over the bright
young sparks of tomorrow just as the crank Einstein influenced him,
it will be a slow and painful process.

The pity of it all is that the energy is wasted; if society went in for
greater efficiency - things like better insulation, heat pumps, washing
containers instead of melting them down to make new containers
the costs would be dramatically reduced. I was watching a show
on TV about the construction of the science base at the south pole
and although I don't give a flying **** about Big Bang theories
or Dark Energy, I was impressed by the construction of the base
which is scavenging every bit of heat from the motor generators.
Building high tech in those conditions is tough, I take my hat off
to all those guys. When you have to use duct tape to prevent
frost bite from taking your nose off then you are not working in
the most comfortable place.


| >
| >
| > --
| > Androcles wrote:
| > Why did Einstein say
| > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
| > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
| > the "time" each way is the same?
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
| >
|
|
|
|

Brent P wrote:
>
> On 2008-05-29, jim <"sjedgingN0sp"@m> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Brent P wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2008-05-28, jim <"sjedgingN0sp"@m> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well that is wrong. There have been several ways this has been done none
> >> > of them involved adding fuel from an outside source. I think the NASA
> >> > experiment used some kind of catalyst and the exhaust heat to extract
> >> > hydrogen from a small fraction of the gasoline. Others designs use
> >> > electrolysis. In any case, the fuel consumed to produce hydrogen is
> >> > counted as part of the fuel consumed.
> >>
> >> Then why don't you make a proper cite then?
> >
> > Somebody else already cited the wikipedia article. That article looked
> > like it lists several studies. If you were interested you would have
> > already read the literature. It's not a big secret.
>
> wikipedia isn't a proper cite.


Wikipedia has 16 citations for where their information came from your just
to lazy to look them up. They all appear to be reputable sources like
universities and testing labs. The NASA study was back in the seventies.
There are more current studies. The point I was making was the process has
been plausible for many years. 50 years ago Computers were "plausible" -
it just cost millions of dollars to own one. If you had said what you need
to do to make hydrogen enrichment work in your car isn't practical I
wouldn't argue - when you say it isn't plausible it is obvious you just
don't know. Simply saying it takes energy to produce hydrogen therefore
there can be no possible savings is simply a statement based on ignorance.
More than 70% of the gasoline used in automobiles is wasted. At idle
pretty much 100% is wasted. So for you to claim that the laws of
thermodynamics tell you there is no room for improvement seems to be what
is not plausible.

Here is another article - it looks like it cites a number of studies
(including the NASA one):

http://georgepehli.googlepages.com/H...n_3_5_2006.pdf

> You are citing a specific NASA cite but
> not doing it such that there is any way to tell what it really says then
> chastising me for not knowing it.


If you don't know then you shouldn't claim you do.


>
> >> > The energy savings is more than what it takes to
> >> > produce the small amount of hydrogen that is need to make the process
> >> > work. Basically you aren't violating any laws - the engine is just running
> >> > with a lot less wasted heat. What is not plausible about that?
>
> >> *sigh* it's the energy required to make H2 from water that makes it not
> >> plausable,
>
> > It takes energy to produce hydrogen. You only need to convert something
> > like a quart of water for every 1000 miles. If you use exhaust heat as the
> > energy source like the NASA experiment then that energy is free, but that
> > technology is expensive. Even if you use electrolysis the energy required
> > to produce the hydrogen can be less than the energy saved in increased
> > performance. But that depends on making the right modifications to engine
> > design and that isn't cheap either.
>
> If it was only the H2 from a quart of water for every 1000 miles one
> could hook up a propane torch sized cylinder every 1000 miles...

Yes one could, but that would mean setting up a manufacturing and
distribution system. The generation of the hydrogen as it is needed is one
of the engineering hurdles but not the major hurdle. If the engine isn't
designed to take advantage of the faster leaner burning fuel it won't
produce the energy savings.

-jim


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Androcles" > wrote in message
...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.c...7060fff6c23741
"hanson" > wrote in message
news:zHn%j.15470$9H6.5014@trnddc04...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.c...8ff20673edb656
about the oil crisis, its players and the games they play, like here
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...67fce923b56a19 >
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...a53c5ef7317f6b >
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...4dbe2a7fac0a34 >
including the use of alternative / Bio fuels
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.c...be49f4be7ddb4b >
and how Prez Carter's SYNFUEL project got ruined/bankrupted
after the 1970 oil crisis, in which the Arabs turned the oil spigot
off, because of the USA's policy preferences towards its parasite,
Israel but, why in/from 2007 on the Arabs, instead of turning off
the oil tap fully again, they let the oil run and simply said:
"Let the dumb ****ing goyim PAY US, THE ARABS, for their
love of and their dependency on the Jews... We'll see how
much and how long the gyoim will carry that Jewish yoke &
burden.. while we rake in the dough"... which is seen in that:
::: "Global oil demand has increased only by 1% last year,
::: So why has the oil price risen by 200% in that same time"?...
>
Also, the Enviros must be implicated in the sick & silly oil game
as much as the kikes and Ass-venters are. To wit: Green terrorism:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c8b22b4ffedd09
wherein it says:
"If the green *******s would not have stymied all nuclear
reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
today plenty of cheap electricity, like France & Japan. We'd
have licked rad-chem disposal problems, we'd have modern
batteries and advanced capacitors in our cars instead of
gas-tanks and we would be driving in hi-powered nonpolluting
electric cars, and we would not be implicated and heavily
influenced by the irrational behavior of America's parasite, Israel
who has not managed to live in peace with its neighbors for
the last 60 years and has conned the US into treaty guarantees
that Israel will get all the oil it needs first, form the US, even if the
US must ration oil for it own citizens..... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
>
Androcles wrote:
The pity of it all is that the energy is wasted; if society went in for
greater efficiency - things like better insulation, heat pumps, washing
containers instead of melting them down to make new containers
the costs would be dramatically reduced. I was watching a show
on TV about the construction of the science base at the south pole
and although I don't give a flying **** about Big Bang theories
or Dark Energy, I was impressed by the construction of the base
which is scavenging every bit of heat from the motor generators.
Building high tech in those conditions is tough, I take my hat off
to all those guys. When you have to use duct tape to prevent
frost bite from taking your nose off then you are not working in
the most comfortable place.
>
hanson wrote:
Interesting observation, Andro, though we are drifting off the
immediate subject matter now, it is so true what you say.
Like the S-pole station staffers, almost any desired condition
can be achieved in small isolated communities, or under stress
conditions in large societies as well, like for instance during
times of war ...where people do or must think alike & fall in line.
>
True, recycling and its benefits are great and much less
wasteful than the way we live now. However consider what
Enviros now call "waste" is someone else's **income**, the
bread and butter on the tables for those millions of people,
who do produce and bring you these "through away" items
of convenience. --- Strictly, academically speaking there is
never any waste. "Waste", like beauty, is in the eye of the
beholder. "Waste" is simply an energy- & goods consumption
format which others do disagree with.... ahahaha...
>
Remember, during WWII we had all kinds of recycling programs
in place, as mandates... but as soon as that hardship was over
we began to enjoy life's more pleasant annuities to the hilt...
.... until the Green ****s appeared and saw golden chances to
fatten their wallets, via permit charges, user fees, enviro sur-
taxes, recycling prepays and now a looming Carbon head tax,
all legalized extortions which they the institutionalized, after scaring
the people, by declaring that everything was polluted and that the
earth must be saved. The Green ****s operated strictly according
to the edicts of their green Bible that says:
Green Genesis:
1 "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
= believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
2 "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
= accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
3 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
= up on the spot... for the mass-media today... the truth is irrelevant."
= -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
Revelations:
4 "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
= mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
= -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
= a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
5 "to attract great funding you have to scare the public by making
= things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
= --Petr Chylek, Prof. Atmospheric Sci., Dalhousie Uni, Halifax
6 "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the
= right thing" -- Sen.Tim Wirth, Admin of Ted Turner's $1Billion UN-gift.
7 "No matter if the science is all phony, Climate change [provides]
= equality in the world." -- Christine Stewart, Can. Enviro Minister
8 "It is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presen-
= tations" -- Al Gore, Chairman, Gen. Investment Management Bank
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...968cc3ee9939d4
hanson






Take care, old pal, ...
hanson


>
> | > --
> | > Androcles wrote:
> | > Why did Einstein say
> | > the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
> | > the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
> | > the "time" each way is the same?
> | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"hanson" > wrote in message
news:lTJ%j.31883$9H6.22661@trnddc04...
| "Androcles" > wrote in message
| ...
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.c...7060fff6c23741
| "hanson" > wrote in message
| news:zHn%j.15470$9H6.5014@trnddc04...
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.c...8ff20673edb656
| about the oil crisis, its players and the games they play, like here
| < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...67fce923b56a19 >
| < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...a53c5ef7317f6b >
| < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...4dbe2a7fac0a34 >
| including the use of alternative / Bio fuels
| < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.c...be49f4be7ddb4b >
| and how Prez Carter's SYNFUEL project got ruined/bankrupted
| after the 1970 oil crisis, in which the Arabs turned the oil spigot
| off, because of the USA's policy preferences towards its parasite,
| Israel but, why in/from 2007 on the Arabs, instead of turning off
| the oil tap fully again, they let the oil run and simply said:
| "Let the dumb ****ing goyim PAY US, THE ARABS, for their
| love of and their dependency on the Jews... We'll see how
| much and how long the gyoim will carry that Jewish yoke &
| burden.. while we rake in the dough"... which is seen in that:
| ::: "Global oil demand has increased only by 1% last year,
| ::: So why has the oil price risen by 200% in that same time"?...
| >
| Also, the Enviros must be implicated in the sick & silly oil game
| as much as the kikes and Ass-venters are. To wit: Green terrorism:
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c8b22b4ffedd09
| wherein it says:
| "If the green *******s would not have stymied all nuclear
| reactor developments, for the last 40 years, we would have
| today plenty of cheap electricity, like France & Japan. We'd
| have licked rad-chem disposal problems, we'd have modern
| batteries and advanced capacitors in our cars instead of
| gas-tanks and we would be driving in hi-powered nonpolluting
| electric cars, and we would not be implicated and heavily
| influenced by the irrational behavior of America's parasite, Israel
| who has not managed to live in peace with its neighbors for
| the last 60 years and has conned the US into treaty guarantees
| that Israel will get all the oil it needs first, form the US, even if the
| US must ration oil for it own citizens..... ahahaha... AHAHAHA...
| >
| Androcles wrote:
| The pity of it all is that the energy is wasted; if society went in for
| greater efficiency - things like better insulation, heat pumps, washing
| containers instead of melting them down to make new containers
| the costs would be dramatically reduced. I was watching a show
| on TV about the construction of the science base at the south pole
| and although I don't give a flying **** about Big Bang theories
| or Dark Energy, I was impressed by the construction of the base
| which is scavenging every bit of heat from the motor generators.
| Building high tech in those conditions is tough, I take my hat off
| to all those guys. When you have to use duct tape to prevent
| frost bite from taking your nose off then you are not working in
| the most comfortable place.
| >
| hanson wrote:
| Interesting observation, Andro, though we are drifting off the
| immediate subject matter now, it is so true what you say.
| Like the S-pole station staffers, almost any desired condition
| can be achieved in small isolated communities, or under stress
| conditions in large societies as well, like for instance during
| times of war ...where people do or must think alike & fall in line.
| >
| True, recycling and its benefits are great and much less
| wasteful than the way we live now. However consider what
| Enviros now call "waste" is someone else's **income**, the
| bread and butter on the tables for those millions of people,
| who do produce and bring you these "through away" items
| of convenience. --- Strictly, academically speaking there is
| never any waste. "Waste", like beauty, is in the eye of the
| beholder. "Waste" is simply an energy- & goods consumption
| format which others do disagree with.... ahahaha...
| >
| Remember, during WWII we had all kinds of recycling programs
| in place, as mandates... but as soon as that hardship was over
| we began to enjoy life's more pleasant annuities to the hilt...
| ... until the Green ****s appeared and saw golden chances to
| fatten their wallets, via permit charges, user fees, enviro sur-
| taxes, recycling prepays and now a looming Carbon head tax,
| all legalized extortions which they the institutionalized, after scaring
| the people, by declaring that everything was polluted and that the
| earth must be saved. The Green ****s operated strictly according
| to the edicts of their green Bible that says:
| Green Genesis:
| 1 "It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what people
| = believe is true. -- Paul Watson, Sea Shepard/ex-Greenpeace, &...
| 2 "A lot of environmental [sci/soc/pol] messages are simply not
| = accurate. We use hype." -- Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, UoW, and...
| 3 "If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then .... make it
| = up on the spot... for the mass-media today... the truth is irrelevant."
| = -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth Warrior's Guide to Strategy.
| Revelations:
| 4 "We make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
| = mention of any doubts we may have [about] being honest."
| = -- Stephen Schneider (Stanford prof. who first sought fame as
| = a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a global warmer)
| 5 "to attract great funding you have to scare the public by making
| = things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
| = --Petr Chylek, Prof. Atmospheric Sci., Dalhousie Uni, Halifax
| 6 "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the
| = right thing" -- Sen.Tim Wirth, Admin of Ted Turner's $1Billion UN-gift.
| 7 "No matter if the science is all phony, Climate change [provides]
| = equality in the world." -- Christine Stewart, Can. Enviro Minister
| 8 "It is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presen-
| = tations" -- Al Gore, Chairman, Gen. Investment Management Bank
| http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...968cc3ee9939d4
| hanson
|
Which is your political slant on it. Waste is using more when less will do.
What I find amusing is that a car stored in a garage for 25 years becomes
a "classic" and its value increases - or at least stays the same, taking
inflation
into account. To me that is waste, using two cars when one will do.
My old mate was a miser, hoarding his money for a rainy day. Now the
rainy day has come and gone, and his worthless son is getting a tan in
Cyprus while his equally worthless daughter is fighting to get her
half share of his money. The only good I can see coming out of it is his
16-yr-old grandson is doing well in school, wants to go into forensics and
should do well. Let us eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

--
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt

Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin

Androcles

Androcles wrote:


> |
> Which is your political slant on it. Waste is using more when less will do.
> What I find amusing is that a car stored in a garage for 25 years becomes
> a "classic" and its value increases - or at least stays the same, taking
> inflation

That is the law of supply and demand in action. There is no such thing
as a "just" or inhrenet price. The price of goods for sale is determined
by supply and demand. No one will produce goods at a loss for any great
length of time, so actual costs of production have to be factored into
supply. Economics 101. The Just Price concepts is bogus and an artifact
of Catholic theoplogy.



> into account. To me that is waste, using two cars when one will do.

So do not do what you consider wasteful. Anything you want to buy or
rent and you have the money for, you may rightfully acquire (short of
hiring someone to do a contract murder).

Bob Kolker