My latest brainwave on fuel.

Good videos! It's not complex to make a test unit. The real ones start gouging the old paycheck! Some guys are buying AC invertors for RV 110 Volts running off the Alternator (200 to 300 AMP) to get more production. The units they build are using 101 to 201 plates and special safety bubblers (simple materials, but tricky to locate). Kiss you're cargo area goodbye, more or less. They take up a spare tire space in a sedan, size-wise.

 

I wonder if it's really worth building.

 

I have my doubts too, honestly. The guys that are playing with it are getting closer, but some are side-tracked with the OBD computer issues and work-arounds for the different sensors. I know those are major issues, like how to control gasoline flow to use all the Hydrogen fuel being generated. How to get a mixture that optimizes the burn efficiency, etc. But we need stuff today, and I sure don't have the time to tinker during my renovation season. It would be a Winter project for me.

I do have the time to install an Advance Timing Curve Kit, and water injection for summer driving. That's an afternoon or two. I can get through the summer and early fall and save $500 or a bit more, hauling in my garden soil and driveway stones.

The Hydrogen-on-demand or this brainwave for Hydrogen-from-air just have to take a backseat for now, for me.

 

Guys, I am really sorry to interfere, but I have some questions. As you may have noticed, I have become increasingly more interested in these projects, but with my busy job, my study and the family, I have very little time to read up on all the things that are posted.
Maybe everything is already explained, but maybe you could do me a favour and answer some questions that came to my mind when reading this thread.
First, I can't imagine why increasing the underhood temp would increase fuel economy. What is the idea behind it?
Second, I watch the fuel pre-heat video. What is the theory behind this that can explain the increase of almost 25% fuel savings????
My last remark for now, I saw you talking about compression ratio and why not increase that. Is the main reason for the nowadays used compressionratios not the octane number (detonation?) If I am comming up with dumb remarks or questions that were already answered long before, please don't hesitate to say.

 

Senri,I maybe wrong. It seems to me the higher thee compression is the better the burn rate is in the combustion chamber.Like the Muscle cars of the 60's and early 70's the compression ratio was usually high say 10:00:1 or higher the same for big luxury cars of the same area. But what I have been reading for the past few years is that you don't need high compression to make a lot of horsepower or torque in a engine any more it can be achieved in several ways now the most common is working on the heads and matching a camshaft to work with it,along with a free flowing exhaust system like headers and hi flow cats,and mufflers

 

Actually, on a big 440 cid Chrysler engine with AC, the fan is so big that there's only a 10C temp increase. The liquid gasoline is vapourised and fed at the carburettor top with cold air. Since its gaseous, hot and expanded, it takes less to get a decent thrust on the piston. It actually heats up the incoming air because it is expanded. Timing does have to be adjusted for the engine. Mine was a big Carter 4-BBL carb.

 

Norman, you say only a 10c increase. Could explain further on that? Do you mean the air that enters the engine, the coolant, the fuel? Furthermore, I thought that the vapourization process almost always will draw heat from its surroundings, so cool the air in this case.
I believe that this is a bit more complicated though. At low speeds (rpm's) the fuel is actually vapourizing. At high rpm's this won't happen anymore as a result of the speed the fuel is added and the fuel will remain small droplets until it enters the combustion chamber, hence the extra timing advance of the ignition. The apparent octane number of the fuel goes up. (this is not with LPG as it is gasious when entering the engine at all times and that is why the ignition curve is much flatter). If the extra advance compensates for the power loss of the fuel not being completely vapour yet, I really don't know.

Further, if the fuel is preheated and the air as a result as well, and keeping in mind the optimal fuel/air ratio of 14 orso, the result in my opinion would be that you can get less mixture (as both are expanded) into the engine and so power loss.
Intercoolers have a great positive effect on power and fuel economy as they cool the warmed up air (from the pressurizing in the turbo) so more air, and with that air/fuel mixture, can enter the engine. Heating up the air should give the same results as heating up the fuel, if the reason this increases fuel economy is as you described above.

I like to appologize if I come with arguments you have already have past long ago. And I hope you don't mind my English! If I sometimes re-read my own posts......

 

Engine compartment heat goes up by 10C because the evaporator needs to get it's heat from the exhaust system (looped tube to and from the pipe just below the manifold. In fact, it's similar to cars with 4 tube headers on each side of a V8, in terms of additional heat source surfaces under the hood.

I wouldn't try it with a turbo-charged car. The original system from 1939 used what we call 'white gas'. Leaded fuel with no additives. When I did mine in the late 70's, unleaded was coming into the market, but leaded fuel was still around. It's what I ran in the Chrysler's 440 cid engine. The gasoline still had far more additives than 'white gas'. That allowed me to run the unit a bit hotter and it maintained it's vapour state even with cooler air coming into the carburetor.

The fuel heater box was about 18" long X 5" X 5" with 1/2" tubes passing the exhaust gas through (same volumetric as the incoming/outgoing exhaust pipe diameter. The gasoline came into the vapour chamber from the fuel pump, once the unit was warm enough - temp sensor did the fuel cut-off/redirection, and the liquid fuel heated up something close to 8 LPM of vapourised gas. The temp sensor acted like a volume control - how much liquid fuel to allow into the chamber. Vapourising enough was never a problem. Since the car weighed about 5,400 lbs and had a 2.73:1 rear-end, it was the engine that generated high-speed acceleration. I did get the odd backfire because of the damp, humid morning drive air in British Columbia, because the vapourizer wasn't insulated, at first. After I wrapped it with insulation, I had no backfires.

 

Senri, like many communities in Canada, we have many newcomers from other cultures and countries. My wife speaks Spanish and English. I speak French, English and Spanish, and I often make, see and hear errors in spelling, pronunciation, so I focus on the message, not the vehicle. Heck most English speakers can't spell, and it's considered the Global Business Language.

You should try to read an engineering student's dissertation. You start wondering if they come from another planet!

I'm going to post a comment from another thread, where the guys are discussing (not arguing) why they try to avoid talking about their advances with Hydrogen/Oxygen cells.

The difference with their website specialty is not about producing it for fuel, but producing a entirely different energy field. Read the next post, OK?

 

To Tell or Not to Tell

Thread theme by some very serious independent fuel cell DIYers:

His was the first post in the thread. Read the replies that follow below it. Very insightful.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/joecellfreeenergydevice/message/22006

 

I have read the post and all the replies as well. Today I also read a bit further on it, on some other websites. Please excuse me, but I am a researcher (I would say by heart AND proffesion) and belong to the closed minded group according to the writer of the first post.
There are a few things, which may be exactly in line as I should behave as a closed minded scientist, I like to comment after reading all this.

I have the feeling that the ones in favour of the system seem to cause the negative reaction themself. I have read far from everything, but after spending some time on different forums, I have not seen any scientifical explanation why it should work. I have seen all kind of other explanations though. Nice ones, like that people didn't think we could fly etc. The big difference with this subject, is that in that time, the far ahead scientists already proved theoretical that it would be possible, and the scepsism came from the ones not understanding. Now, scientist say it is impossible while the not established scientist seem to be in favour.

The post you showed was for me a bit the drop. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seems like they hold a secret and don't want to tell. When discussions become a bit harder, they just use the fact that the opposer is not knowledgeable enough. Well, I would say: educate me!

After, I also read that they talked to friends with Phd's in physics etc, but I still have to see any real reference. Trying to put someone down by saying that the most scientifical artical he probably read is the BBC orso, only makes things worse.

This nose up attitude only makes reactions worse. I read and have read many scientifical works and non of the sites I have come across about this subject show anything in that sense.

I really hope it works, and I would be the last to try to say it won't work nomatter what, but some sort of explanation should be inplace to explain this phenomenon. The more you read, the more contradictory explanations you will come across.

Reading the replies on the post, did not really help me either. I found it became more and more fuzzy, to a point it sounded more like UFO magic then a scientifical process. Remarks like, and I quote "I believe it was peter who mentioned that there were a few people driving around on fuelless operation, and they didn't want to be known, "for obvious resaons" he said." make it too much of a conspiracy on my account.

All the things above are of course about the explanation of the process. Besides that, we have of course the fact that if it works, why would it notbe used on bigger scale? Are the oil people behind everything we do? Imagine a car brand, let's say Toyota would come out with a car that would run 40% more efficient. Wouldn't that be a seller??? And even if all the car manufacturers would be under the "control" of the oil people, what about transport companies? If you would have a transport company with 40 trucks orso, wouldn't you like to save 40% of fuel??? It would instantly make you win over any competition!

At my job (in fact in my department), we do research on fuel cells together with BMW. I can tell you, there is nothing mystical about it, it just is hard scientific work. Why would BMW and others spent so much time, energy and money on all this and other research about fuel efficiency and alternative fuels, if an extremely cheap solution would be available?

But that said, I do understand that this is no evidence either if the system works or not, and in fact, even brings me closer to the arguments they use.

Again, I really would like it to work, but all the dodgy websites selling this, all people in favour of it selling it as well, no real scientifical explanation or references, make me sceptical.

I really hope this will change soon.

Norman, may I ask you, as you seem to be less sceptical, why don't you buy or make a system. The costs seem to be so low, that the fuel savings will return the investment within no time? (this is a serious question)

 

Senri, I too have a pragmatic approach to all this stuff, and I'm willing to 'go with the flow' of ideas, until I see a serious flaw.

The game-stopper for me is that Hydrogen is not a renewable resource within our atmosphere. The second one is the easy explosion danger level involved just to make one. I didn't go through 60 years to get fried or blown up for a moment of curiosity.

What I like about these far out amateur attempts is their passion and commitment to look for whatever keeps them focussed. Right or wrong, they are determined. An undeveloped quality in most of us.

 

I fully agree with you. Although there are other words for people who are determined to go against the laws of nature....
I wrote the above last night and I have to admit that I thought about it lying in bed. The post you linked is from a group who have the "Joe Cell". This is far more vacquely then the Hydrogen Booster and I even tend to believe this whole group is even ment sarcasticly. Have you seen the description of this group on Yahoo? I won't quote it here completely but the following bits should make the picture:

"You have reached a truly extraordinary group. It is a place where people come to learn how to run their car without petrol, or any other conventional fuel, by means of device known as a Joe Cell. Incredible, but true!

The device, though apparently simple, is hard to build and commission. The reasons are:-

(i) build must be compliant with Joe's design. The design is well known to the group and replication is within the ability of any determined person

(ii) materials selection is critical but the means to getting this right are incomplete

(iii) alignment of the cell is important but the means to getting this right are incomplete

(iv) the device uses a form of energy that is strongly influenced by the energy field of the operator ("Y factor"). The single technical means to overcoming a problematic Y-factor of which the group is aware is cumbersome and beyond the discipline of the majority of experimenters

These four account for the low success rate. Since the inception of this group in 2001 we have had only eight members that have succeeded in running a car solely by means of the cell and who have reported this to the group; two are still with us. There may be others who have succeeded but not reported - this is unknown. There have been many more experimenters who have succeeded in improving their fuel economy using "shandy mode".

The cost of a complete set-up excluding a suitable car is usually between zero and USD1000."

But about the Hydrogen Booster. The most used explanation why it works is that your fuel will be burned more efficiently. I think most will agree that just burning the Hydrogen can't be enough to increase fuel economy this much. Just think that my 5.0 liter V8 is sucking 5 liter air every 4 strokes. If my engine is running at 1500rpm this comes to a theoretical volume of 3750 liter/min. Volumetric efficiency can be up to 120% with DOHC engine, but let's be very cautious and say my old 307 is only 90%. Then the engine is using over 200.000 liter of air per hour! The unit sold by SaveFuel suitable for engines up to 450ci produces 75liters of oxy-Hydrogen per hour. This is only 0.037% of what the engines uses.

Burning fuel more efficiently. Hmmm.... an increase of 40% on fuel efficiency (even with modern engines) implies that at this moment, at least 40% of my fuel is not burned. I think this would end up in having petrol dripping out of the exhaust with these big engines!

But I can't stress enough, that although it all goes fully against my logical reasoning, there is still a part that is really curious. I have been interested in conspiricy theories, UFO sightings and other more odd stuff all my life. My collegues call me the different one, as this interest is of course almost opposite to my scientifical nature.

Last I like to thank you about your understanding towards my English. As you may know, here in Holland we have an incredible amount of foreigners as well. Well, my wife is Italian and I have lived in Switserland and Sweden and at home we speak English. Technical people seem to be more concerned with the message then the form, but as my wife is a linguist, my mistakes get pointed out often! Although sometimes irritating (certainly in fights!), I love her for it, as she did bring me to a higher level!
Sorry for this of-topic part.....

 

I have a larger Spanish vocabulary than my wife does. She doesn't correct me anymore. AND she makes more typing mistakes in Spanish than I do. I wait until she checks an English word with me.

The JoeCell technology seems to attempt to apply Nikola Tesla's patents and theories, and throw on another 'mystical' layer as a distraction. I often wonder if some of the posters are trying to manipulate those who have no scientific discipline to frustrate them into quitting.

 

That seems to be the case, yes, but very interesting nevertheless!!! I have read up more about the Joe Cell...
I just got an article (I can give you the link, but it is in Dutch) about a University here in Holland, that have build a Hydrogen booster in an old ship (build 1908). It has a 500hp diesel engine (modern) and they claim to reach about 15% fuel efficiency and much lower emmisions!
The old ship they have build it in, is used as demo ship for clean energy...
Important about this article it is the first one I see that at least raises a corner of the veil of how it works. The hydrogen unit measures 30x20x20 cm.
It seems I have to let me scepsism sail (dutch expression)....

By the way, i also saw an article on a new car that is running on compressed air. It is French and is based on a normal Otto engine. Maybe I should open a new topic about this?