PDA

View Full Version : OT-oxy/hyd mix to run internal combustion engines



Carld
03-16-2008, 12:21 PM
I have joined an alternative energy group in Lou. Ky. and have been doing some searching about oxy/hyd gas.

There are companies that make small gererators that feed the oxy/hyd mix to the intake to fool the computer into leaning out the injector and making the engine run lean. They are rather expensive at $1000 plus.

There are companies that make a reprogramer to replace the program in the PCM (power control module) in a vehicle to get more power or more economy, you choose which program you want. These work and I know some that use them. They cost around $400 and I am getting ready to get one for my trk.

Now, what I am about to try is very interesting to me. Many people claim the oxy/hyd gas will run an engine and I really doubted it would but now I have questions. Someone said something about gasoline and I did a search and it appears they are right.

What they said is that gasoline is a mixture of hydro carbons and that when gasoline burns the hyd burns with the intake air and the carbons are expelled. The info I found on the web said that one gallon of gasoline contains from 5 to 6 pounds of carbon and it is expelled, not burned. I feel certain some of it may burn and I know some gets traped in the oil and engine.

What got me to thinking then was what really makes the piston go down. It's my understanding that a oxy/hyd burn is not an explosion but is an implosion. So the piston should be sucked up not pushed down. On the other hand, when the engine sucks in air and fuel and it is compressed and fired by the spark there is a flame that heats the excess air and that excess air is expanded and that is what forces the piston down. The oxy/hyd flame is just the heat force to cause air expansion to move the piston. That is what appears to be happening with gasoline as the fuel. I never gave it any thought as to what is really burning in the combustion chamber and am surprised to find the carbon isn't part of the combustion.

I was also interested to find that the fuels that evaporate off the crude are very low in carbon, 1 to 6 molocules or carbon, and burn clean with only the hyd air mix and don't need the carbon for combustion. Propane for instance.

I would like to know of some web sites that are into alternative fuels for internal combustion engines. Also, is there a site that explains what REALLY happens when gasoline burns inside an engine. It would probably be a chemical engineering site.

Are there any others on this site as curious as me about this?

Are you experimenting with alternative fuels?

Do you have a club/group in your area that are doing this?

Is there a forum where average joes are experimenting with the oxy/hyd mix? I can find lots of sites that are hyping their produce but I want honest experimenters to discuss with.

Please PM me if your interested in this.

Interesting discussion is wanted in this thread. I don't want to hear, "It won't work" with no valid reason why.

Also, if your an engineer or chemist don't spout a lot of techy talk that only a chemist or engineer would understand.

Evan
03-16-2008, 12:28 PM
What they said is that gasoline is a mixture of hydro carbons and that when gasoline burns the hyd burns with the intake air and the carbons are expelled. The info I found on the web said that one gallon of gasoline contains from 5 to 6 pounds of carbon and it is expelled, not burned. I feel certain some of it may burn and I know some gets traped in the oil and engine.
Don't get trapped by nonsense statments with no basis in science. The carbon is burned alright. Elements are not created or destroyed in chemical reactions, just recombined. The energy released in burning comes from the binding energy of the elements, not from destroying the element. Every single atom of the fuel that goes into an engine comes out of the engine unchanged after combustion. The only difference is that the atoms have a new circle of friends in what represent a lower state of binding energy.

Instead of getting sucked up in a nonsense nonscientific waste of time and money why not check into reprogramming the ECC for better economy? It doesn't require any added hydrogen to do this and there are plenty of aftermarket chips for various engines that will give real economy improvements.

Carld
03-16-2008, 12:33 PM
Evan, I am buying a reprogrammer to use on my trk and that's almost a done deal.

What I am interested in now is just what happens in the combustion chamber.

When the gas burns I know it creates water from the hyd and oxy joining but does the carbon in the gas mix become part of the combustion? That is, does it assist in the engergy force to move the piston or does it just combine chemically during the heat and pressure of combustion?

So, from what you said the carbon contributes to the force in the engine. If an engine will run on propane with only a few carbon molucules then why do we need any carbon molucules in the fuel?

SGW
03-16-2008, 12:37 PM
Why are you attempting to distinguish between "combustion" and "chemical reaction"? Combustion IS a chemical reaction.

Evan
03-16-2008, 12:43 PM
The carbon is part and parcel of the reaction. It combines with oxygen too to form CO2 and some CO. That combination expands with the heat released by the free binding energy and pushes the piston down just as the H2O from the combustion of the hydrogen does. You can't have one without the other when burning a hydrocarbon. Adding another fuel to the mix doesn't make it any more efficient, it just replaces one fuel with another provided there is enough oxidizer, the oxygen. Any improvent that is being seen is due to reprogramming the ECC, not the addition of hydrogen. There is already all the hydrogen required in the fuel and at a much higher energy density than there is in hydrogen gas.

If you really want to increase the efficiency then add oxygen, not hydrogen. You already have all the fuel you need, what the engine needs to run more efficiently is more oxygen. That's what a supercharger does. [added] It's also what injecting nitrous oxide does.

Carld
03-16-2008, 01:04 PM
Ok, so the carbon does contribute to the power to move the piston and according to the molucule charts I have seen for gasoline there is a lot of hyd.

Yes, a naturally asperated engine has an average volumetric efficiency of 70% and most the time the fuel mixture is rich and causes problems. A supercharger or turbo does increase the air charge and give a better burn. Unfortunately most engines use a positive boost rather than a neutral boost or slightly above neutral. If the supercharger were set to give 0 to 1 psi the fuel that was injected for the unblown engine would now be nearly used up. The problem is that it may be a little lean and cause high combustion temps.

It's kind of a dog chasing it's tail and if the oxy sensors and injector program are set for economy there may be a real clean burn but not much gain in hp. The problem is when you say supercharged or turboed people think WOW more hp. when they should think WOW more efficiency and economy.

The reason the after market reprogrammers work and sell is because the auto manufacturers won't put out an economy program because the public in general don't want a slow car/truck. I read and joined in some long discussion on some sites about fuel economy and reprogramming and why the manufacturers don't do it.

mechanicalmagic
03-16-2008, 01:09 PM
So, from what you said the carbon contributes to the force in the engine. If an engine will run on propane with only a few carbon molucules then why do we need any carbon molucules in the fuel?

Carld,
In terms of Carbon molecules in the fuel, Gasoline has 8 Carbon for 18 Hydrogen (44% by number). Propane is 3 Carbon to 8 Hydrogen (37%). So, Propane is not that much different from gasoline in terms of molecular content.

To answer your other question, Yes, you can probably run an automobile on pure Hydrogen and air. There may be extremely high heat, and too rapid of a burn. But Hydrogen will ignite at very low concentrations, so Air fuel mixtures are not critical.

Dave

fasto
03-16-2008, 01:22 PM
Yes, a naturally asperated engine has an average volumetric efficiency of 70% and most the time the fuel mixture is rich and causes problems.

This is not true at all. The mixture is as lean as will prevent engine meltdowns, unless full power is being used (when the excess fuel cools the piston by evaporation).

The problem with excessively lean burns is that lots of NOx is produced (as a result of much higher combustion temps), which is far worse for the environment than CO2, or even R-12.

Aside: in my turbo'd airplane I had a big red knob. It would vary the mixture from "so rich we're laying down a smoke trail that makes us look like a dogfight victim" to "so lean the engine just quit" and everywhere in between. I had a CHT/EGT instrument that let me see what exactly was going on in the engine. Broadly, I could choose cooler engine temps = longer engine life & higher fuel burn (or) higher engine temps = shorter engine life & lower fuel burn. When the engine is $30k+ to overhaul, well...
(I did not have the latest GAMI-jectors to run lean-of-peak.)

tattoomike68
03-16-2008, 01:24 PM
I did see on the show "Mythbusters" Adam and Jamie did get a car to run by just shooing hydrogen into the air cleaner.

I know cars run cleaner and more efficient with computer chips but I do wish that was not true. It would simplify things for us fat fingered sledge hammer style mechanics.

jdunmyer
03-16-2008, 01:31 PM
The reason the after market reprogrammers work and sell is because the auto manufacturers won't put out an economy program because the public in general don't want a slow car/truck. I read and joined in some long discussion on some sites about fuel economy and reprogramming and why the manufacturers don't do it.


This seems to me to be very hard to believe: it is in a manufacturer's interest to be able to advertise high fuel economy, why would they deliberatly program things to make the fuel economy lower than it could otherwise be? If all the aftermarket reprogrammers do is lower the performance, why can't you simply back off on the pedal and achieve the same thing?

Do a search on Pogue carburator for more information.

FWIW: I've found that I can easily change the fuel mileage on my Dodge CTD while towing by just changing the cruising speed. Dropping from 62-63 Mph to 60-61 will give me an additional 1 Mpg, checked over 2 or 3 tankfuls. Note that I NEVER trust a single tank measurement.

Carld
03-16-2008, 01:35 PM
Fasto, a naturally asperated engine has a volumetric efficiency of about 70% whether you want to belive it or not.

While your turbo engine airplane has a knob to adjust the fuel cars and trucks don't. They, in the past had to relie on the carb jets being right, which they never were except under the ideal spot, or a computer controled injection system.

Aircraft engines and automotive engines are like compairing apples and oranges.

Tattomike, yes it's done but it's low power and can be a hot burn, to lean.

jdunmyer, many of the after market programers are made by persons that worked in the automotive industry with the programmers building and designing them. The reason the auto makers can't sell economy is not many want a slow vehicle and when you have economy you don't have hp. You can't have high hp and economy at the same time. It's true you can drive with a feather foot and save gas but most don't. I grin when people post that they don't get good fuel mileage and then and describe how they drive or how they determined the fuel mileage. Most people don't know or understand how to drive for fuel mileage or how to correctly figure fuel mileage.

Look at the market, people still don't want to give up their high power for economy, they want both at the same time.

But that's not the theme of this thread. It is how is the gasoline consumed and that has been answered by Evan.

I plan to do some engine testing this summer on my own and with my findings and others like me I will understand the oxy/hyd mix better. BTW, water injection is used to cool the high temp that the oxy/hyd mix can have. As I understand it, the exhaust is entirely water vapor.

Benesesso
03-16-2008, 03:18 PM
If I had the time I'd love to build a small car that used a small highly turbo'd diesel for cruising, and a separate high HP lightweight "modern-ported" 2 stroke with muffled tuned pipes for lots of passing power. Should get ~50+ mpg cruising and easily outrun Vettes.

aboard_epsilon
03-16-2008, 03:36 PM
i hear the pogue carb .was very good ...
until the oilers caught on and put something in the fuel that left residue when fuel was evaporated ..

I've got this strange idea ...
and the idea is not lean burn ........or ramming more air in ...

and its going to sound antiquated

it's slow burn.


what if a car had a dual six foot cylinders running the Length of the car ...

and every drop of the fuel could be allowed to push on these pistons ...untill it was all burnt up ...

just as it burnt up the second cylinder fires ..and keeps the ball game rolling

with a system of gears etc...you would only need two .....you would probably get a high torque ...but not a monster performer .......but good economy.

all the best.markj

gellfex
03-16-2008, 04:20 PM
If I had the time I'd love to build a small car that used a small highly turbo'd diesel for cruising, and a separate high HP lightweight "modern-ported" 2 stroke with muffled tuned pipes for lots of passing power. Should get ~50+ mpg cruising and easily outrun Vettes.

That's basically the hybrid idea, plus you get regenerative braking to boot.

The whole hydrogen thing from all I've read is a red herring to put off real change by making the infrastructural change needed insurmountable. I have an E85 van, but the nearest pump is hundreds of miles away, and the technology is nearly identical. Hydrogen pumps are NEVER coming. Ethanol and Methanol are much easier to handle, I recall have higher energy density per #, and just as easy or easier to make. You can make methanol from electricity and airborne CO2. Corn ethanol is BS but there's real change there somewhere.

Evan
03-16-2008, 05:21 PM
Aftermarket chips for the ECC do work. You can choose higher fuel efficiency at the cost of lower performance or more horsepower and use more fuel. You can even change the programming while driving. You can also fiddle with the shift points in the auto transmission.

So, why don't the manufacturers program for best efficiency? After all, they have to meet fleet mileage standards. That's easy, it won't sell cars. They do it for the low end econo boxes and you won't find aftermarket chips for those because there is nothing to gain. For your average V-8 powered sled there is plenty to gain. This isn't where the main selling point is economy. It can be just about anything else including how the engine sounds. Ford went to a lot of trouble tuning one of their large engines to get just the right sound. They were looking for that sound you get on a 4 barrel when you floor it and it starts to suck all the air out of the near vicinity plus a manly rumble in the exhaust, no tinny CC baffles ringing, thank you.

If you are willing to risk the occasional stumble, a little hotter running and a little less acceleration plus harder shifting you can easily gain several mpg at the least.

That doesn't sell cars or SUVs or pickups though so they aren't programmed to run like that. Programming for maximum power also isn't good for business because even though mileage isn't the main concern of the buyers in that category it will get attention if it is too low.

gellfex
03-16-2008, 06:17 PM
Aftermarket chips for the ECC do work. You can choose higher fuel efficiency at the cost of lower performance or more horsepower and use more fuel. You can even change the programming while driving. You can also fiddle with the shift points in the auto transmission.

So, why don't the manufacturers program for best efficiency? After all, they have to meet fleet mileage standards. That's easy, it won't sell cars. They do it for the low end econo boxes and you won't find aftermarket chips for those because there is nothing to gain. For your average V-8 powered sled there is plenty to gain. This isn't where the main selling point is economy. It can be just about anything else including how the engine sounds. Ford went to a lot of trouble tuning one of their large engines to get just the right sound. They were looking for that sound you get on a 4 barrel when you floor it and it starts to suck all the air out of the near vicinity plus a manly rumble in the exhaust, no tinny CC baffles ringing, thank you.

If you are willing to risk the occasional stumble, a little hotter running and a little less acceleration plus harder shifting you can easily gain several mpg at the least.

That doesn't sell cars or SUVs or pickups though so they aren't programmed to run like that. Programming for maximum power also isn't good for business because even though mileage isn't the main concern of the buyers in that category it will get attention if it is too low.

Does that mean that any engine could be retuned for efficiency? I have a 2001 3.3L 180hp Caravan and had a 91 3.3L 150hp Caravan previously. I resented the fact that 10 years of engine design went to 20% power increase rather than mileage. Personally I think American cars are ridiculously overpowered, I drove that 91 cross country, and 100mph through Montana, and many mountain camping trips and thought it moved just fine. Yeah, some tow rigs need power, but many midsize sedans have 250+ hp.

Doc Nickel
03-16-2008, 07:05 PM
What got me to thinking then was what really makes the piston go down. It's my understanding that a oxy/hyd burn is not an explosion but is an implosion. So the piston should be sucked up not pushed down.

-In case this gets overlooked, I wanted to point out that this is complete and utter nonsense.

There are, or at least were, steam engines that utilized the principle of the cylinder charge contracting (cooling), but this isn't even remotely possible in an internal combustion engine, without truly radical modifications- as in jacking up the steering wheel and rolling an entirely new vehicle under it.

Even if it were possible, there would only be atmospheric pressure pushing the piston up- or about 14.7 psi at absolute best, assuming a total vacuum in the cylinder. On the other hand, actual combustion pressure can be 150 to 300 psi- with peak "moment of ignition" pressures being even higher for a few milliseconds.

In other words, even if the "implosion" idea worked, which it doesn't, the engine would produce at best, less than a tenth it's original HP using normal combustion.


[...]and don't need the carbon for combustion. Propane for instance.

-Propane contains carbon (C3H8) and it is very much part of the combustion cycle, producing carbon dioxide (CO2.)


I would like to know of some web sites that are into alternative fuels for internal combustion engines.

-There are, unfortunately, more quack and scam "alternative fuel" sites online than there are ones with legitimate science.

Injecting hydrogen and oxygen can indeed alter the preformance of your engine- to what degree is still up in the air- but will the cost of the kit, the cost of the hydrogen, and the reduced fuel economy due to the weight of the H2 tank and components be offset by the savings in fuel? Will you mind having to find hard-to-locate hydrogen supplies almost as often as you stop for gas?

That's turning into a problem for a lot of the veggie/fry-oil users; having to gather, store and process all your own fuel starts being very time consuming, and the minimal cost savings starts to disappear when you factor in time and raw-grease gathering/transport costs.

The concept of the H2/O2 "implosion" is typically only found on quack sites that also talk about junk like the "Joe Cell", "over unity" power production (IE, perpetual motion) and other nonsense.

Doc.

Carld
03-16-2008, 07:19 PM
Benesesso, that's an interesting concept that has been used in steam engines long ago. A small bore long stroke engine at constant rpm and a variable tranny may be a winner.

Mark, carburetors have serious problems, even the Fish and Pogue had issues. Electronic fuel injection is the only way to go.

My 2003 Ranger Edge 3.0L is a flex fuel that can use E85. I'll never use it. E85 is a looser. It costs to much to make it from corn and the gov is supporting about half the cost of making it. When that stops so will E85.

Evan is right, the aftermarket programmers are the easy way to go and that is why I am going there for my Ranger. I am getting my programmer from BamaChips Tuning if you are interested in checking them out. There are several that make chips to fool the engine computer but the Bama changes the program and like Evan said can change a lot more than the fuel flow but this is not the reason for this thread.

Hyd/oxy fuel by itself is not the best, it may not even be a solution. There has to be some solution to using gasoline. The problem is anything tried so far is not easily produced or stored other than gasoline, propane and other petroleum products. The group we have started have 5 or 6 energy sources we are studying. I chose internal combustion engines because that has been my interest since I was a small boy and still is. I was getting info about gas that I questioned and wanted to see if anyone here understood the burning of gas in the engine and Evan gave a good description. I still want more so I will keep searching.

The thing is much of the improvements are not found in big labs or companies because they tend to be myopic and have blinders on. Like most scientists and engineers they don't believe anyone but them can solve problems and the smarter they are the more arrogant they are. Advances are often found by home experimenters or someone saying, " have you tried such and such" and the light bulb flashes a solution.

There is one thing for sure, I am a skeptic about most anything and it has to be proven to me and I suggest everyone be the same. Don't fall into the HYPE trap. Someone is going to find an answer and it may be a simple but unheard of or an old forgotten method.

GNO
03-16-2008, 07:31 PM
get yourself a book;diesel and high compression gas engines.by an author of the name of kates.there is info on lean burn engines that were being installed in the1960s. I have worked on & run these engines & still do. they run on a very lean mix to keep from detoniating these engines are now being installed on locomotives and large trucks. do a search on duelfuel engines I came across a site in china where they were testing a farm tractor[about 10 hp!!! ]burning cotton seed oil & alcohol.

Carld
03-16-2008, 07:45 PM
Doc, that's what I thought about the implosion idea as well. You would only have atmospheric pressure moving the piston and that is not enough.

I too found that carbon is a side effect of all petroluem fuels and is why I am thinking and looking. Methane is the cleanest and is easy to make but hard to store. As a variation I guess we could all have charcoal generators on our vehicles but what a bummer they are.

Yep, lots of quak and scam sites but few honest sites. And then there are the ones with an agenda under the cover of concern for the World Health.

There are some oxy/hyd generators that you add to your vehicle to trick the engine computer and as I said, they are very expensive. It's much cheaper to reprogram the computer rather than trick it.

The diesel cooking oil crowd are finding it harder to get oil is true and there are other issues poping up with using it.

As I said, someone is going to find an answer and I doubt it will come from the auto makers. The world is not running out of oil but they want us to think we are and it's in the best interest of the oil and auto companies to keep us using gasoline and diesel fuels.

Doc or Evan, do you know of any honest sites about internal combustion fuels?

Doc Nickel
03-16-2008, 07:46 PM
The thing is much of the improvements are not found in big labs or companies because they tend to be myopic and have blinders on. Like most scientists and engineers they don't believe anyone but them can solve problems and the smarter they are the more arrogant they are. Advances are often found by home experimenters or someone saying, " have you tried such and such" and the light bulb flashes a solution.

-Yeah, those guys with the $2.5 billion R&D budget and lab full of test equipment will never find anything, despite being under immense pressure from both the auto company bosses and the federal government to improve mileage and efficiency.

What it takes is some farmer to hose-clamp a cow magnet to the fuel line, or some RONCO mailorder hourse to develop a doodad that "swirls" the air entering the throttle body, to really make those breakthroughs. :D

No offense Carl, but I've been hearing similar nonsense since I first heard of the supposed "200mpg carburetor" that some big oil company was supposedly intentionally hiding- and that was over thirty years ago.

Doc.

John Stevenson
03-16-2008, 07:53 PM
Is there a forum where average joes are experimenting with the oxy/hyd mix? I can find lots of sites that are hyping their produce but I want honest experimenters to discuss with.



That could be an oxy/moron.......................

.

Carld
03-16-2008, 07:56 PM
I don't believe hype either but the big boys are not only ones finding new things and ways. If someone finds a working method someone with money will take it up and make it work. That is all I am talking about.

Haven't you ever been so involved in a problem that you could not see a solution and someone came along that wasn't involved and came up with an answer? But the question is, did you use that or did you fluff it off as rubbish from someone that didn't know what they are talking about?

I think ideas come from many sources and I don't discount everything untill I have worked it over in mind and action.

I'm sure you do the same.

Carld
03-16-2008, 08:05 PM
Only if their lying or ignorant.

It seems unless someone comes up with something interesting this subject has exhausted it's self. Thanks fellows.

Doc Nickel
03-16-2008, 08:34 PM
As I said, someone is going to find an answer and I doubt it will come from the auto makers.

-The low hanging fruit has been picked. There are no magical new fuels out there; we already know about, and have tried, everything from fuel cells, to alcohols, to electricity. "Wood gas" (Methane) was used in WW2 in Germany. A company in New York sold electric trucks in 1906. People have been burning vegetable oils in their diesels since the sixties. Alcohol's been a motor fuel for a hundred years, and regained some popularity as a race fuel in the late 50s.

None of this is new. We're only now taking another look at it thanks to the combined factors of carbon emissions and gasoline prices.

But the problem is, while one or two of us can build a single "alternative" car (convert an old Bug to electric, convert fry grease to biodiesel, etc.) for any of them to make a significant impact in use or emissions, we have to change an entire infrastructure. Electric charging stations, methanol pumps, hydrogen refineries, massive amounts of additional farmland for corn, switchgrass or soybeans, etc.

You and I can't make those changes. That's the kind of thing that can ONLY come from the automakers- in conjunction with oil suppliers and the Government.


The world is not running out of oil but they want us to think we are and it's in the best interest of the oil and auto companies to keep us using gasoline and diesel fuels.

-Horsepucky on both counts.

While we still have vast oil reserves, it's still a finite resource, and more and more of the supplies are getting more and more expensive to locate and drill. In the beginning, oil wells rarely had to go more than a few hundred feet, if that. Today we have to float massive offshore platforms costing billions of dollars, lower drills three miles down to the ocean floor and then drill another mile down to access the oil.

Yes, we still have oil, but it is very definitely costing more and more to find and produce.

As for it being in anyones' "best interest" to keep using oil, any automaker that could make significant gains in fuel mileage would corner the market overnight, especially now with today's gas prices. The auto makers care about selling cars- they don't care what kind of mileage each car gets, as long as it conforms to CAFE standards and sells. And right now, mileage sells. The auto makers didn't force big trucks on us because they wanted to, they made them because that's what we bought. In the next five years they won't be able to give SUVs away, and we'll all be buying midsizes and compacts. They react to the market, not the other way around.

As for oil companies, all of them make more than just gasoline and diesel, and typically- at least it was a few years ago- the motor fuels had the lowest profit margin for most refiners, due to competition.

But even without gas and diesel, oil is still used for making plastics and a whole litany of other products. Even entirely-electric cars and trucks will still need rubber for tires, plastics for body panels and wiring insulation, grease for bearings, oil for gearboxes, and so on.

Besides which, most of the big oil companies, like Exxon, BP and Shell, are also involved in the production of "alternative" fuels- most of them are currently expanding ethanol refining capabilities, BP has been researching fuel cell technology and gas-to-liquid systems for many years now, and so on. These companies are going to continue making money no matter what fuel you burn, so there is little or no reason for them to try and manipulate who uses what in which car.


Haven't you ever been so involved in a problem that you could not see a solution and someone came along that wasn't involved and came up with an answer? But the question is, did you use that or did you fluff it off as rubbish from someone that didn't know what they are talking about?

-The problem here is that automotive technology and the Otto-cycle engine is nothing new. It's been around for 100 to 150 years, it's been subject to countless man-years of research and refinement, and it's at the point where improvements come in the fractions of a percent.

No backyard chemist is going to invent some previously unknown fuel, or read an old issue of Popular Mechanix and rediscover some fuel from the 1900s that everyones' forgotten about.

Yes, there are some very bright private individuals tinkering madly away in their shops, but there's also a bunch more playing with magnets and motors that just knows there's a way to pull "free energy" out of the "aether" and that those evil, nasty, oil companies are hiding that known, proven, workable technology just so they can sell more oil.

The trick is being able to tell the difference. :D

Doc.

TGTool
03-16-2008, 08:51 PM
If you're interested in free energy I could hook you up with a friend of mine. He lives off the grid and has wind generators and battery banks to run his house. When I was there he was showing me the electronic box that charges his batteries from the generator. It has a display for amps coming in and amps going out.

He said, "This thing produces more power going out than coming in." Sure enough, there's more going amps out than coming in. I said, "You don't mean power do you, you mean amps." "No, he said, more power coming out."

Well, you could have fooled me. I always thought that power was volts x amps and his little box did voltage matching for the state of the battery charge, but what do I know?

So, here's a guy with the secret for free power. He's probably working on the patent as we speak.

Jan

jdunmyer
03-16-2008, 09:18 PM
Yeah, I have a free energy setup on our travel trailer, consisting of 2 solar panels (75-watt/each), 2 Golf Cart batteries, and a Solar Boost 2000 controller. We sit for weeks at a time and never run out of electricity for our lights, pump, TV, etc. It makes over 1/2 a KWHR every day when the sun is shining, that's easily 5 or 6 dollars worth each and every month. All at a cost of about $1200.00 at retail.

Love that "free" power! (tongue firmly in cheek)

The Solar Boost 2000 controller does give more power OUT than what's going IN to it, but it's not really magic. See: http://www.eventhorizonsolar.com/boost2000.html for some details. It's a function of how solar panels work, and are rated. What it really does is give you the RATED output of a solar panel(s) instead of the only 80% that you get by using other controllers.

J Tiers
03-16-2008, 10:00 PM
in reverse order......

The Solar boost is certainly not the only one of those, and it is DEFINITELY NOT THE BEST ONE.

All work by simply using the solar panel output at its peak power point, i.e. max product of voltage and current. The best ones allow you to series up solar panels to get a lower input current (lower resistive losses) and use input voltages up to 60V (in some cases far above that).

As far as fuels, anything that gets hot is a possible fuel, or fuel substitute. Hydrogen is one, obviously, although maybe not the best fuel, particularly with its various very nasty characteristics.....

Unburned material..........The ENTIRE collection of burnables gets burned if there is air available, and the fire is not "quenched" by cold surfaces, too-lean or too-rich mixtures, etc. The people who claim the carbon does nothing are best avoided, they are ignorant, clearly have no interest in science or truth, and may very likely be just working from an agenda. If it were true, coal would be nearly useless as a fuel.........

gellfex
03-16-2008, 10:30 PM
My 2003 Ranger Edge 3.0L is a flex fuel that can use E85. I'll never use it. E85 is a looser. It costs to much to make it from corn and the gov is supporting about half the cost of making it. When that stops so will E85.


I hate when people knock down ethanol by attacking the ridiculous corn boom. That's like evaluating the value of the internet in 1992 by criticizing Compuserve. It's simply one path, an artifact of how loud, well funded lobbies control our government. We create millions of tons of biomass each year that the cellulosic process can convert. How much of what we landfill each year could be used to create fuel?

The beauty of closing the loop from stuff already in our waste stream is compelling, and from what I've read cellulosic is much closer to market (pilot plants being built now) than the batteries needed for general use plugins. And plugins don't solve the issue of just where the energy originally comes from. I read a piece recently about creating gasoline synthetically, but it's far more difficult than distilling or rectifying alcohol.

TGTool
03-16-2008, 11:31 PM
There are a number of legitimate efforts to produce fuels from other sources. The Fischer Tropsch process has been around since the 1920's and has been used commercially, but isn't easy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process. I've got another friend working on catalysts for commercialization of cellulose timber waste to alcohol for a pilot plant under construction in the southeast. There are good efforts but miracles are pretty unlikely unless Jesus decides to reincarnate as a chemical engineer.

Carld
03-16-2008, 11:32 PM
gellfex, the corn ethanol is doomed in it's current state. The only way it can survive is for the government to quit subsidizing it and let the market take over.

Using corn is not a cost effective way but using waste plant products as they do in South Amer. works. Corn just costs to much to produce and then convert to ethanol and is best done with waste products.

It's not that I don't like the concept of the ethanol, I don't agree with the way the gov is doing it and refuse to particapate in it. Untill they are using the waste products to generate energy to produce the ethanol as they do in So. Amer. it is a waste of energy here in the US.

In other parts of the world cars run on striaight ethanol as I understand it. We have the E85 so it can't be drank as whiskey here in the states and commonwealths. Oh BTW, you can make it yourself if you want to jump through the hoops but it's a major operation to run a still in the USA.

gellfex
03-17-2008, 12:18 AM
gellfex, the corn ethanol is doomed in it's current state. The only way it can survive is for the government to quit subsidizing it and let the market take over.

Using corn is not a cost effective way but using waste plant products as they do in South Amer. works. Corn just costs to much to produce and then convert to ethanol and is best done with waste products.

It's not that I don't like the concept of the ethanol, I don't agree with the way the gov is doing it and refuse to particapate in it. Untill they are using the waste products to generate energy to produce the ethanol as they do in So. Amer. it is a waste of energy here in the US.

In other parts of the world cars run on striaight ethanol as I understand it. We have the E85 so it can't be drank as whiskey here in the states and commonwealths. Oh BTW, you can make it yourself if you want to jump through the hoops but it's a major operation to run a still in the USA.

I agree 100%, if I wasn't clear enough in my post. I do however see a silver lining in the current corn boondoggle: creating a market for and expanding the distribution system for ethanol in a way a more infant (and less politically connected) industry like cellulosic wouldn't have the muscle to do.

TGTOOL, why so pessimistic? I've read there are several independent paths to cellulosic, including bacterial and straight chemical catalysis. It seem much more likely than the long promised battery technologies to make EV's truly practical other than for niche markets and applications. See the "lithium-ion automotive hybrid" thread.

ckelloug
03-17-2008, 12:22 AM
I've probably posted this before but for some friends a few years ago I once ran about 6 controlled tests of adding hydrogen and oxygen from a small electrolyzer to the engine air intake on a Staturn sedan and a small GMC SUV.

The runs with the electrolyzer appeared somewhat better than the control tests but my friends lost interest and decided that risking vehicles to such testing was not their cup of tea. As a result, the test program was discontinued before any statistically significant data was obtained.

It is obvious that an electrolyzer run from the alternator cannot possibly produce enough hydrogen and oxygen to fuel the engine however an external source of hydrogen could undoubtedly be adapted to work. Running pure hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is most likely a complete waste of time since all internal combustion processes are subject to Carnot's law which says roughly that the efficiency is proportional to the difference between ambient temperature and cylinder temperature.

My recollection from the calculations I did was that it is possible for a small electrolyzer to change the oxygen content of the air intake by maybe a percent. It's also possible that there is some type of effect of the hydrogen causing the cylinder combustion to proceed differently due to its extreme combustion velocity.

One effect that was observed is that at about 75amps at 5 volts of electrolyzer current, the gas stream was enough to make the engine want to stall. The electrolyzer also caused the check engine light to come on sometimes.

I never determined a reaction mechanism for the apparent improvement but I assumed it either had something to do with either tricking the engine controller, the hydrogen flame front, or the slight addition of oxygen.

In general, the thermodynamic efficiency of an engine is not all that high so the idea that it could be improved is not impossible. Any improvement that raises the exhaust temperatures substantially would cause an improvement although perhaps at the detriment of the engine.

On to opinions:

I'd have to say that I think ethanol from corn is a lousy idea. It's only a good idea when the actual costs to produce the corn are ignored and "paid" for by a subsidy. Were the government to do something useful, the would fund something like cellulosic ethanol which creates fuel from waste materials rather than fuel from food.

From a security standpoint, I'd say the US would be better off doing just about anything to see more energy was produced domestically but that's politics, not machining.

Regards all,

Cameron

Evan
03-17-2008, 03:52 AM
all internal combustion processes are subject to Carnot's law which says roughly that the efficiency is proportional to the difference between ambient temperature and cylinder temperature.

Umm, I believe it is the proportional difference between the hot side and the cold side each referenced to absolute zero. That makes a big difference to the math at ordinary combustion temperatures.

Carl,

The combustion process is very completely understood. It is elementary chemistry and physics. The operation of an internal combustion engine is also very well characterized and can be simulated via computer to a very close approximation of the real item in real operation. When a simulation agrees with the observed behavior of something then it is a good sign that all the relevant factors are correctly accounted for.

There aren't any mysterious gaps in our knowledge of how these things work, none at all. Of course by "our" I mean the people with the education and training to really understand the science that "we" have discovered over the years that chemistry and physics have been studied. We understand chemistry so well now in these areas that a modern oil refinery doesn't just cook a barrel of oil and separate out whatever that produces into the various light and heavy fractions. They utilize the raw crude oil as a feedstock for a chemical synthesis process that can be controlled to make pretty much whatever they want from that barrel of oil. They can turn almost the entire barrel into heating oil or gasoline or feed stocks for the manufacture of plastics. It's their choice because the chemistry is precisely known and is controlled at will to make what they want.

Even though we know how to extract virtually every possible watt of energy from a fuel that doesn't mean your next vehicle will do so. All sorts of practical considerations prevent that as well as a host of political/ environmental issues and plain old greed and avarice in the form of the imperative to make a profit in order to stay in business.

One thing you can depend on is that simple answers such as merely adding something to the fuel no longer exist. They have all been tried or can be shown to be a waste of time or otherwise quantified by means of a few scribbles on a black board using the well established mathematics and physical science that describes the process. The only reason that these ideas continue to circulate and gain a foothold is that very few people have the education to understand those scribbles on the blackboard. It's a simple and very lamentable fact that science education is a very low priority in the educational systems of most countries and when taught is often taught by teachers with little training in the field who are following an outdated curriculum using outdated texts and are hamstrung on top of it by various irrelevant political and legal concerns.

J Tiers
03-17-2008, 08:34 AM
The only reason that these ideas continue to circulate and gain a foothold is that very few people have the education to understand those scribbles on the blackboard. It's a simple and very lamentable fact that science education is a very low priority in the educational systems of most countries and when taught is often taught by teachers with little training in the field who are following an outdated curriculum using outdated texts and are hamstrung on top of it by various irrelevant political and legal concerns.

Partly, of course.

The REAL reason is that it is part and parcel of the "get rich quick" mentality.

People WANT to believe that "the big fat cats" really have the answers and won't let us have them, and that some little guy can solve the riddle and make everyone rich in spite of the fat cats.

They WANT to believe that its really quite simple when you know how.

They are basically in denial of the fact that there ain't no free lunch.

So I will here state that ANYONE who believes that stuff is being taken in by a "get rich quick" scheme, and needs to be careful or the perpetrator will indeed "get rich quick", at their expense.

Right now, the farmers are 'getting rich quick", to an extent, although it's really others. The investors in these single-purpose corn-to-ethanol plants are getting fleeced and don't know it.

TGTool
03-17-2008, 10:17 AM
TGTOOL, why so pessimistic? I've read there are several independent paths to cellulosic, including bacterial and straight chemical catalysis. It seem much more likely than the long promised battery technologies to make EV's truly practical other than for niche markets and applications. See the "lithium-ion automotive hybrid" thread.

Oh, I'm not pessimistic. I'm cheering for all these lines of endeavor, but I'm trying to be realistic about how quickly it will change. While I'd love to make cellulosic ethanol or diesel fuel in my garage, it would require a huge capital investment for anything more than drops and dribbles. And, although the politics of government support for research and implementation can occasionally turn on a dime, more often there's enormous inertia caused by the vested interests who pay for lobbying to maintain their own prosperity and protect their investment.

We need these technologies to replace fossil fuels and their geopolitical supply problems but I'm not seeing the real will to make it happen. We're still in the mindset of the obese person who says they want to lose weight. Are they really saying, "Wouldn't it be nice if I lost weight" or have they actually decided to make the often difficult changes required?

Carld
03-17-2008, 10:46 AM
I am glad there has not been to many naysayers and that we have discussed rather than demeaned.

This has been an interesting thread. ckelloug, Evan and J Tiers bring up valid points. It's true that there are few if any new fuels or methods to find.

It's my feeling that most the energy seekers I have talked to are looking for a solution they can use and not really concerned with making money from it. In fact there was discussion at the last meeting that it is not worth getting a patent for any of our findings and that showing ownership by making it public domain is best for anyone today. The patent process is just to difficult and expensive.

When I worked at Cummins I got to read about some experiments they were doing on heat loss and engine efficiency. After some time they decided it was not something they could use on the open market because of the drivers. They had trouble making the effiecent engine foolproof enough for the public. The fact that of the combustion energy 1/3 is motive force, 1/3 is lost to the cooling system and 1/3 is lost to the exhaust. These are approximate figures so don't get your underwear in a wad.

There is an on going effort to reduce the heat losses and the engines are more efficient than in the past. It's debatable as to how much more efficient they can get. Personally I don't hold much hope for internal recprocating engines in the long run but thats all we have for now.

There seems to be a lot of people out there using the methods that many say won't work on their own vehicles and not making an issue out of it and getting better fuel mileage.

The real problem comes when someone tries to market it and puts out a lot of hype and untrue statements. One system I know of uses the oxy/hyd gas to fool the engine programmer and then has it's own programmer to modify the system. I have a real problem with that method. Why would you want to do that when a reprogrammer is available cheaper and with better results.

It's really my thinking that any changes to use the oxy/hyd needs to be well thought out and maybe it will have to be a combination of fuels that work. The real gain in fuel mileage will come from a more efficient engine and not necessarily a different fuel is my line of thinking but how to do that is the issue.

You can't chang the laws of physics so you have to change the engine and or fuel. A more efficient engine and man made fuels may be the future of transportation.

Evan
03-17-2008, 11:25 AM
The potential efficiency that can be realized from an engine is naturally governed by physics. One of the primary principles that governs heat loss is the cube/square ratio of mass to surface area. When the dimensions of something are doubled the surface area increases as the square but the volume goes up as the cube. For instance, if we take an ordinary 4 cylinder engine and scale it up to double the size, the area of the engine components such as cylinder walls, exhaust pipes and the outer surface of the engine itself go up by four times. However, the volume of the cylinders etc go up by eight times. That means the available area to lose heat on the larger engine is half that of the smaller engine per unit of displacement.

The effect of this is simply that bigger engines are inherently more efficient at full power than small engines at full power. An example of this is the frequently linked to worlds largest diesel engine (http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/). It has an operating efficiency double that of most small automotive engines and comes close to the theoretical Carnot limit for a heat engine. As a direct result it consumes half the fuel per horsepower that an average automotive engine does.

Stationary combined cycle powerplants are even better. When I said we know how to extract nearly every watt of power this is what I meant. A modern gas turbine system with triple stage heat recovery systems can approach the Carnot limit to within a few percent. It is physically impossible to recover exactly the Carnot limit energy as there will always be losses so we are about as close as can be achieved regardless of what may be discovered or invented.

There is room to improve the heat efficiency of small engines but to do so requires making them run hotter since it isn't practical to try to stop the heat losses on such a small object. Running hotter is a big problem for an internal combustion engine because of the pollution it produces. The efficiency of the regular Otto cycle piston engine is determined by the cylinder peak combustion temperature as the hot side and the exhaust temperature as the cold side when it exits the cylinder and all possible work has been done. The only practical way to improve that is to make the fire hotter causing greater expansion of the combustion byproducts. Straight hydrogen does exactly that which makes it theoretically a more efficient fuel but at the cost of greatly increased NOx emissions, never mind all the other technical and practical problems.

The maximum possible efficiency for a Carnot limited heat engine can be calculated without reference to the design of the engine. It is about 60 to 65 percent for a internal combustion piston engine burning petroleum based fuels. That means that about 40% of the fuel's heat energy is automatically lost regardless of how good the engine is. Then on top of that are the losses because the engine cannot meet the Carnot limit. For an average car that amounts to another 30% to 40 % so the total amount of heat loss is around 70 to 80 percent. Then the other losses are calculated which includes frictional losses, wind resistance etc and the real efficiency of the car as a mechanical system converting energy to motion is perhaps no more than five to ten percent.

Further, Virtually all of that is lost too since the energy of motion produced is nearly all thrown away every time the vehicle is brought to a stop. The actual efficiency of a transportation device is calculated by the amount of mass that ends up being moved from point A to point B. That efficiency is only a fraction of 1 percent for an individual automobile which is why public transit is so much more efficient than personal transportation.

gellfex
03-17-2008, 12:00 PM
SNIP
Stationary combined cycle powerplants are even better. When I said we know how to extract nearly every watt of power this is what I meant. A modern gas turbine system with triple stage heat recovery systems can approach the Carnot limit to within a few percent. It is physically impossible to recover exactly the Carnot limit energy as there will always be losses so we are about as close as can be achieved regardless of what may be discovered or invented.
SNIP
Further, Virtually all of that is lost too since the energy of motion produced is nearly all thrown away every time the vehicle is brought to a stop. The actual efficiency of a transportation device is calculated by the amount of mass that ends up being moved from point A to point B. That efficiency is only a fraction of 1 percent for an individual automobile which is why public transit is so much more efficient than personal transportation.

Great educational post. It seems a clear argument for plugins, since the stationary electric plants can operate at much higher efficiencies than any engine, and the electrical drives are very efficient plus recovering braking energy. Can we assume alcohol burning IC engines don't fare much better than gas in terms of efficiency?

Orrin
03-17-2008, 12:55 PM
J Tiers said:
Unburned material..........The ENTIRE collection of burnables gets burned if there is air available, and the fire is not "quenched" by cold surfaces, too-lean or too-rich mixtures, etc. The people who claim the carbon does nothing are best avoided, they are ignorant, clearly have no interest in science or truth, and may very likely be just working from an agenda. If it were true, coal would be nearly useless as a fuel......... (Emphasis added.)

...and I agree!

A long time ago I learned that it is impossible to argue with ignorance. :)

Orrin

Carld
03-17-2008, 03:34 PM
I agree with J Tiers statement too.


Orrin, you might add, "or arrogance" to your statement.

gellfex, which takes us back to the small bore long stroke constant rpm engine with a variable tranny.


Evan, that was a good post. I also read your disclaimer:eek: wow, that covers it pretty good:D .

TGTool
03-17-2008, 04:14 PM
A long time ago I learned that it is impossible to argue with ignorance. :)

Orrin

You could challenge them to duel of wits if you have no scruples attacking an unarmed man.

.

gellfex
03-17-2008, 04:51 PM
gellfex, which takes us back to the small bore long stroke constant rpm engine with a variable tranny.


Exactly how? Evan's post pretty much said IC is an extremely inefficient use of precious energy. If I read Evan right, gallon of gasoline burned in a highly efficient electrical plant renders effective mileage of at least 5x the IC engine. So maybe that cellulosic plant needs to take it all the way to electrical generation. Whether you're trying to save money, reduce carbon or other pollutant emissions, or reduce fossil fuel imports, it seems we need to solve the EV puzzle, if not with batteries then perhaps with methanol fuel cells charging a carbon nanotube supercapacitor. At best ethanol IC cars appear to be a gap measure if you want to create a world where we don't destroy ourselves or our planet to get the transportation we need.

doctor demo
03-17-2008, 05:06 PM
[QUOTE=mechanicalmagic]Carld,
In terms of Carbon molecules in the fuel, Gasoline has 8 Carbon for 18 Hydrogen (44% by number). Propane is 3 Carbon to 8 Hydrogen (37%). So, Propane is not that much different from gasoline in terms of molecular content.

I don,t want to steal this thread ,but what is the ratio in diesel fuel? And is there a way to convert $3.25 a gal. regular gas into something i can use in my diesel truck other than the $4.10 a gal. diesel that i'm forced to buy?

Steve

Evan
03-17-2008, 05:10 PM
Alcohols as fuel are less efficient than gasoline because they burn cooler and also have lower energy density. Electric is a different story. It isn't subject to the Carnot limit since an electric motor and a battery are not a heat engine. Neither is a solar panel or a fuel cell. Electric motor efficiencies can reach the high 90 percent range at converting electric energy to motion.

While that sounds promising there are many complications, the biggest one being the method of energy storage. Batteries just plain suck for energy density so you are hauling around a LOT of weight to store the small amount of energy contained. Regenerative braking and other neat tricks help it out but still not enough to make a very big difference. Battery charging is typically very inefficient. I don't have accurate numbers for that in my head but is probably only about 50 or 60% efficient at best. That's why batteries get warm when charged.

If you count in the extra weight and the charging losses plus the considerable energy expense of making the batteries and the relatively short life span then electric may be no better or even worse than an IC engine.

gellfex
03-17-2008, 06:16 PM
If you count in the extra weight and the charging losses plus the considerable energy expense of making the batteries and the relatively short life span then electric may be no better or even worse than an IC engine.

Batteries definitely need a paradigm shifting development to fill our needs. That's why I mentioned fuel cells.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-ethanol_fuel_cell

Technofil has produced a 1.5 W Direct Ethanol Fuel Cell prototype. The prototype consists of two monoplanar fuel cells giving an output voltage of 0.9 to 0.5 V depending on the load.

On 13th of May 2007 a team from the University of Applied Sciences in Offenburg did present world's first vehicle powered by a DEFC at Shell's Eco-marathon in France. The car "Schluckspecht" attended a successful test drive on Nogaro Circuit powered by a DEFC stack giving an output voltage of 20 to 45 V (depending on load).

http://www.schluckspecht.net/Eng/HomePage

"We drove a fantastic 2716 km using the equivalent energy of 1 Liter Super Fuel"

Plus they had the sense to put the cute fraulines front and center
http://www.schluckspecht.net/uploads/Gruppenbild07.jpg

J Tiers
03-17-2008, 06:58 PM
Battery charging is typically very inefficient. I don't have accurate numbers for that in my head but is probably only about 50 or 60% efficient at best. That's why batteries get warm when charged.

If you count in the extra weight and the charging losses plus the considerable energy expense of making the batteries and the relatively short life span then electric may be no better or even worse than an IC engine.

The bad old lead-acid battery is about 80% efficient for suitable types. You typically put in about 120% of the energy that you get out. That is what most smart charging systems assume as a default.

Not only that, if you limit the discharge to perhaps 70% of capacity, and recharge without delay, you can get 1000 cycles from a decent battery.

I have over 15 years and I don't know how many cycles on my solar system batteries, and they are just now getting to where I might need to replace them. I blame a couple deep discharges and slow recharges for them being degraded so early.

The figures for Li-ion batteries are much worse. They seem to last 3 years whether you use them or not. They seem to get 300 cycles at best, according to most figures I have seen.

This is confirmed by my experience. I have MAYBE 20 cycles on my camera batteries. They no longer re-charge well, the camera screams about batteries shortly after the original set are recharged and re-installed. They are about 4 years old. Obviously, I have under 10% of the cycles *typical*, and I tend to recharge prior to need, rarely seeing the battery indicator (once that I recall, other than with this bad set).

AlanHaisley
03-18-2008, 02:21 AM
Further, Virtually all of that is lost too since the energy of motion produced is nearly all thrown away every time the vehicle is brought to a stop. The actual efficiency of a transportation device is calculated by the amount of mass that ends up being moved from point A to point B. That efficiency is only a fraction of 1 percent for an individual automobile which is why public transit is so much more efficient than personal transportation.
Is this an argument for hybrid cars using dynamic braking to recover at least some of the loss?

Alan

AlanHaisley
03-18-2008, 02:32 AM
Exactly how? Evan's post pretty much said IC is an extremely inefficient use of precious energy. If I read Evan right, gallon of gasoline burned in a highly efficient electrical plant renders effective mileage of at least 5x the IC engine. So maybe that cellulosic plant needs to take it all the way to electrical generation. Whether you're trying to save money, reduce carbon or other pollutant emissions, or reduce fossil fuel imports, it seems we need to solve the EV puzzle, if not with batteries then perhaps with methanol fuel cells charging a carbon nanotube supercapacitor. At best ethanol IC cars appear to be a gap measure if you want to create a world where we don't destroy ourselves or our planet to get the transportation we need.
When considering this, don't forget to allow for transmission losses. Also allow for building a lot of new generating plants.

Another problem with electric power generation is that it will be more difficult to balance production with consumption if there are electric cars recharging all over the place.

Alan

J Tiers
03-18-2008, 08:18 AM
When considering this, don't forget to allow for transmission losses. Also allow for building a lot of new generating plants.

Another problem with electric power generation is that it will be more difficult to balance production with consumption if there are electric cars recharging all over the place.

Alan

Doom and gloom is fun, but reality is that MOST recharging will be done overnight, which is a traditional low usage time.

A certain amount of that is good for load balancing.

Overnight is when the pumped storage plants are "recharged", for instance. If not used, steam plants have to be shut down to minimum, or off, then re-started to get the day's power made.

Natturally, the yuppies will recharge in the day, regardless of whether they need to or not, so that they can lead-foot it home again, or because they live a full charge away from the office in urban sprawl areas.

2ManyHobbies
03-18-2008, 09:06 AM
An oxygen-hydrogen reaction is exothermic. The heat given off causes expansion.

I can't see an oxygen-hydrogen feed into a car as being that efficient. It would be inefficient to drag around an oxidizer considering that one is readily available in atmosphere. If you were using green energy to perform electrolysis of water and stored the resulting hydrogen for use in a fuel cell or combustion engine, then you could possibly be coming out ahead -- depending on your costs to set the whole thing up and your definition of "green energy". If you are using a carbon based power source (coal, oil, natural gas) for your input, then your numbers are worse than burning carbon...

Carld
03-18-2008, 10:23 AM
hobbies, all the fuels used in our internal combustion cars and trks are exothermic. They all expand the compressed gas from the heat of combustion. That is what drives the piston down. Thats a given.

The issue is, is there a fuel better than gasoline. So far the answer is no. As far as I know it's imposible to generate enough oxy/hyd gas to run a car while it is being driven and storage is, so far, imposible. Even though the oxy/hyd gas alone can power the engine it's not practicle as a single source fuel. Thats one reason the steam cars died out, not the only reason, but one of them.

Used in combination with other fuels it may have posibilities. Straight alcohol is used in some countries other than the USA as a common fuel for cars. Alcohol and oxy/hyd gas and alcohol have been tried together and it works.

Any combination has issues and gasoline is the least troublesome of the fuels available. Untill something better than gasoline is found that is all there is.

Some people can use combination fuels but the general public would have problems because it takes some attention. Anything out of the ordinary would have issues. Drivers don't even check their tire pressure, water, oil, etc untill they have to so you can't give them a system that takes daily attention. It won't work for the general public.

Electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion engines ever will be. I really think personal transportantion, cars and mini pickups, will end up being electric powered. What powers the motor is anyones guess. All the present sources have issues. I can't see any change from diesel engines for the trucking industry for a long time in the future.

My intent of this thread is to promote thought and discussion on the combustion process, fuels and alternative sourses and methods.

AlanHaisley
03-18-2008, 12:42 PM
Doom and gloom is fun, but reality is that MOST recharging will be done overnight, which is a traditional low usage time.

A certain amount of that is good for load balancing.

Overnight is when the pumped storage plants are "recharged", for instance. If not used, steam plants have to be shut down to minimum, or off, then re-started to get the day's power made.

Natturally, the yuppies will recharge in the day, regardless of whether they need to or not, so that they can lead-foot it home again, or because they live a full charge away from the office in urban sprawl areas.

I didn't mean to sound the doom trumpet, it's just that many ideas that could work for a handful of people run into major scaling issues when you try to apply them to the population of a nation. Or there can be unintended consequences like the effect on food prices created by the corn alcohol program.

In the case of electric cars it may turn out to be more efficient to use replaceable fuel cells rather than recharge batteries. That would change the equation from one of building power plants and distributing power to building factories to produce and recycle the fuel cells.

Norman Atkinson
03-18-2008, 01:00 PM
I got 50.1 mpg although we had been on the top of the highest road in the UK and stuck in an almost hour long jam inbetween Perth and the Forth Road Bridge going back to Newcastle. The car was a Mercedes C270 CDI Estate.
We had hit snow and rain but were averaging the legal limits of 70 and 60- and gone round the Edinburgh ring road. It was a good result although my wife has a leaden foot.

When we got home, I read the Scottish copy of the Sunday Times of the 'race' between a BMW520 and a Toyota Prius between London and Geneva in Switzerland. Contrary to expectations, the 'Beemer' was the more economical. Try the ST website if you want to read more

Who wants an electric car with this sort of performance?

gellfex
03-18-2008, 01:42 PM
I got 50.1 mpg although we had been on the top of the highest road in the UK and stuck in an almost hour long jam inbetween Perth and the Forth Road Bridge going back to Newcastle. The car was a Mercedes C270 CDI Estate.
We had hit snow and rain but were averaging the legal limits of 70 and 60- and gone round the Edinburgh ring road. It was a good result although my wife has a leaden foot.

When we got home, I read the Scottish copy of the Sunday Times of the 'race' between a BMW520 and a Toyota Prius between London and Geneva in Switzerland. Contrary to expectations, the 'Beemer' was the more economical. Try the ST website if you want to read more

Who wants an electric car with this sort of performance?

Highway driving is the hybrid's weakest point compared to a well driven not overpowered car. It's city stop and go where they really shine.

Norman Atkinson
03-18-2008, 02:33 PM
Do forgive me but the North Eastern Electricity Board of which I was employed had electric cars in the 70's.

As far as the hybrid is concerned, one of my associates has had one for some years.

I can say that at this moment, the Diesel with warts and all, is still the leader.

At this stage is the hybrid is like the Dodo- from Mad a gas car!

Sorry about the delicious pun but I drive a Diesel Mercedes, I drive a Sports Petrol Merc, a Petrol MiniCooper and a little 'High and Dry' Petrol 1.1 litre Getz in Spain. For the record, the Getz in Diesel form gives 75mpg.

The US simply cannot get its head around the fact that where economy is concerned it simply hasn't a clue. The French have 'le Diesel', the Spanish are coming out of the donkey cart age finally with its Seat 500's and 850's and the Brits are moving into an era where a gas guzzler bought new is going to cost £2000 more to move it from the forecourt.

As the news is, I wonder how many people will have jobs after 12 months.
Cars are- going to be an afterthought- a peccadillo?

2ManyHobbies
03-18-2008, 06:07 PM
Personally, I think the whole alternate fuels discussion has almost as many motivations as voting. I support sustainable energy though the trick is in the wording.

If you want to be rich, be the guy that invents a carbon-dioxide scrubber that runs on water and a wall socket, exhausts oxygen, and packages some non-toxic hydrogen-carbon compound for easy consumer use -- all with roughly the same maintenance requirements and dimensions of a water heater.

For near term, flex fuel hybrids are the winners because they are more efficient and are the logical step between fuel cell cars or pure electrics. An all electric drive-train will eventually change the auto industry the same way that steel structures changed buildings and bridges. The mere fact that electrical cables are a few thousand times more flexible than a drive-shaft and axle setup hasn't really sunk in yet. When it does, there will be a whole generation of vehicles that redefine how we think about automobiles.

Long term, the piston engine will cease to be the main power plant. It may be supplanted by micro-turbines, fuel cells, or batteries. I'd be tickled to find out the succession happens in that order, though I'm unlikely to bet on it. It will be a fight between energy density (J per L and J per kg), conversion efficiency, and usability. There is no reason why modular hybrids couldn't start to become popular. Commuting 10 miles each way? Plug it in at home. Going on a long road trip? Buy or rent a power plant that uses fuel. Swap it out with your large capacity battery and hit the road.

Until superconductors are common place though, batteries will suffer the scourge of charge time. Say a good 4 hour run on the interstate in some sleek vehicle requires 50 hp to maintain speed. If that came loss-free from a battery, that is 149.2 kWhr of power or 537,120,000 J that needs to be put back in with a recharge. If the goal was a 10 minute recharge, that is 895,200 J/s that would need to be pushed back in. At 1800 V, that requires nearly 500 A. Nothing impossible according to physics, but the logistics are somewhat frightening. Pull into the substation for a quick recharge, plug in a 6" chiller line, and watch thermal emissions that rival most data centers!

The future will be fun, I hope I'm here to see it. Between now and then though, I hope the path isn't strewn with too many Betamax solutions...

J Tiers
03-18-2008, 11:12 PM
Electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion engines ever will be. I really think personal transportantion, cars and mini pickups, will end up being electric powered.


Electric motors are HORRIBLY INEFFICIENT.

If you look at the GLOBAL efficiency, the E-motor has a rather bad rating, comparable to a gas car.

1) power generation......... under 50% right there

2) distribution..... whack another 5% to 10% off the numbers

3) Conversion and charging....... chop off another 25% or more

4) Finally we have got to the motor...... 80% or better, possibly a lot better, depending.

5) but wait...... the battery is only about 95% efficient at giving you BACK your power at high current

so......... 0.5 * 0.9 * 0.75 * 0.9 *.95 result net efficiency of 30% maybe.....

Remind me again how efficient the electric motor is, please...............
.
.
.


Diesel.........

Diesel WAS efficient, until the EPA came along and required changes to the fuel and emissions, the net effect of which is at least a 10% reduction in efficiency of new diesels.

Well, you say, we'll keep the old ones............

Sure, and go to jail.......... the old ones have a schedule according to which they have to be off the roads by a certain time.

We've already seen the price of diesel........ well above gasoline, by MORE than the mileage difference.

It's nice that very high end european luxury car diesels can get good mileage........ If they were legal to import to the US, they'd have to have that cut down a lot. And, of course, Mercedes has traditionally been 3x or 4x the european cost in the US.

Lots of Mercedes taxis in the EC, you'd have to pay a premium to ride in them here, nobody could afford to run them as taxis, they cost too much. AND THAT WAS WHEN THE DOLLAR WAS STRONGER.

Norman Atkinson
03-19-2008, 03:47 AM
Unfortunately 'J' has got part right and part wrong.
Whilst Mercedes are top of the range vehicles, they are not on a pinnacle all alone. There are plenty of fine cars in the EC which were not made in Stuttgart. What has to be said is that the prices are competitive here.
Somehow, I suspect that 'J' is writing about 'All our yesterdays' when his comments could have been true. Suffice to repeat that once laughable Skodas are now competing for home use and excellent taxis today.Those who buy them will find that they don't cost a handful of Czech korunas!

As for the ageing Merc which seems to go on forever, they are to be found in Third World countries- as taxis.

On a very personal note, we have 2 Mercs but the choice was because 6 years ago, my wife and I had a massive 'Italian Job' crash and the construction of that Merc saved our lives when others that day were dying.
That was 6 years ago and there is little difference between cars of similar size, year and price.

Sorry, 'J' but you must keep up to date. Meantime, my kindest remarks and greetings.

Norman

J Tiers
03-19-2008, 08:19 AM
Sorry, 'J' but you must keep up to date. Meantime, my kindest remarks and greetings.

Norman

Unfortunately for you, "up-to-date" means high prices here. Higher than before. Lots of Mercs there 10 years ago, if less now, so much the worse for you.

And, the Skodas etc are apparently totally incapable of meeting pollution restrictions here. At least, if they WERE capable of it, they'd probably be imported, but as far as I know (or care to know) they are not.

At least we don't have flocks of Trabants shedding plastic parts on our streets, so I presume they are illegal here, (a good thing). Even the You-Go has "gone". The Red Star tractor factory will have to find a new product to export here.

The EPA and the People's Republic of Kalifornia have restrictions on pollution that have apparently not made it to the EC yet. If it wasn't made to be sold here, it's illegal to import it. So all those vehicles are irrelevant because they are presumed to be gross polluters (and they may well be).

Bottom line is still impressed by the overweight into the seats of large vehicles here, although I would suspect they will soon be turned into cheap chinese goods when nobody wants to buy them used.

Regrettably, so far the very economical vehicles have also proven to in many cases be quite NOx-ious. Unacceptable here, and that unacceptability will become more restrictive soon.

Evan
03-19-2008, 08:44 AM
Mercedes make a wide range of models that are not sold in North America, taxis are just one of them. They also make delivery vans and trucks, even dump trucks.

Ian B
03-19-2008, 09:12 AM
Norman,

When you refer to Skodas, I guess you mean the Volkswagens in a cheap frock. The old and universally loathed swing-axle monstrosities are a thing of the past. I can understand badge engineering (which is what VW did), but why on earth pick a name long known for lousy cars? What's next? A Lada 530D?

Ian

Norman Atkinson
03-19-2008, 09:17 AM
Ho Ho! JT!

First, the Yugo of ancient memory. It was removed rather forcibly by 'some of my friends' The pollution, I am led to understand, was rather high when the GR4's sort of interfered.( Hoorah, for the new boys with the Star of India on their suits)

And now to the Skodas. I really cannot understand this remark. Today's Skodas are built with 'common rail' engines which are fitted to VW and Seat.

If you are still in the days of Dubchek and the Russian tank in the middle of Prague(Praha), you might as well add Tatras. I recall Skoda MB1000's and a minefield in Bratislava but I was driving a Ford 'Anglebox' and it cost $2 per day to be there! ( Am I that old?)

As for Merc taxis???? We use ordinary saloons. Oddly, the small Merc vans have the common rail saloon engines. My SLK may have a fancy motor but my C Class 270cc has the same power unit as 'White van man' has to deliver parcels. As Ruddy Hard Kipling said 'Nor lose the Common Touch' Err , uhm!

Cheers

N

NickH
03-19-2008, 10:25 AM
hobbies, all the fuels used in our internal combustion cars and trks are exothermic. They all expand the compressed gas from the heat of combustion. That is what drives the piston down. Thats a given.

The issue is, is there a fuel better than gasoline. So far the answer is no. As far as I know it's imposible to generate enough oxy/hyd gas to run a car while it is being driven and storage is, so far, imposible. Even though the oxy/hyd gas alone can power the engine it's not practicle as a single source fuel. Thats one reason the steam cars died out, not the only reason, but one of them.

Used in combination with other fuels it may have posibilities. Straight alcohol is used in some countries other than the USA as a common fuel for cars. Alcohol and oxy/hyd gas and alcohol have been tried together and it works.

Any combination has issues and gasoline is the least troublesome of the fuels available. Untill something better than gasoline is found that is all there is.

Some people can use combination fuels but the general public would have problems because it takes some attention. Anything out of the ordinary would have issues. Drivers don't even check their tire pressure, water, oil, etc untill they have to so you can't give them a system that takes daily attention. It won't work for the general public.

Electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion engines ever will be. I really think personal transportantion, cars and mini pickups, will end up being electric powered. What powers the motor is anyones guess. All the present sources have issues. I can't see any change from diesel engines for the trucking industry for a long time in the future.

My intent of this thread is to promote thought and discussion on the combustion process, fuels and alternative sourses and methods.

Steam cars died out because instant electric start was introduced on IC engined cars - and the flash boilers on the steam cars really did use a lot of fuel, some idiots who haven't researched the subject properly seem to have mistaken the water usage for fuel consumption:eek:
Nick

Carld
03-19-2008, 01:28 PM
There were a lot of reasons steam cars didn't make it. Water froze overnite and had to be drained and refiled for long idle spells during cold weather, warm up time, constant attention to water levels, lubrication, adjustments of boiler system, and a few more I can't think of right now. While fuel, water and lube were major concerns it was the inconvience that killed it.

With modern controls it could be as simple as filling the fuel tank and water tank and oil tank and driving it. Steam powered cars may be more efficient than internal combustion engines but are they worth the trouble?

A book I have called Steam Cars 1770-1970 lists 193 different makers of steam cars through those years. That's a pretty impressive number if they were worthless.

Evan
03-19-2008, 01:50 PM
There is a fuel that is more efficient than gasoline, and by quite a bit too. Nitromethane. While it has about 1/4 the energy density of gasoline it carries it's own oxygen so more than eight times as much can be packed into a cylinder than a gasoline/air mixture. It produces more than twice as much power per stroke as gas and also has a higher flame temperature which raises the possible Carnot efficiency level.

It also has a very unfortunate tendency to explode via detonation, not conflagration. Some of the worst industrial accidents have been due to nitromethane explosions. This also applies to other high energy fuels so gasoline is about as far as it is safe to go in terms of volatility and flammability.

Doc Nickel
03-19-2008, 04:12 PM
It also has a very unfortunate tendency to explode via detonation, not conflagration.

-It'll also sear yer eyeballs.

I did some trackside photography a couple of Labor Days ago, eventually getting into the infield just a few car lengths past the tree. (I was allowed.) Earplugs were a must, and I had to keep my eyes open for cars getting squirrley (none did, but it'd happened in the past) but I got some great shots.

Then, they had the nitro funnycars make a pass. It was kind of only an exhibition, but they were doing full-power runs just as if it were an actual race. One of them pitched a belt just as it passed me.

But anyway, the exhaust was toxic. Hurt the throat, seared the eyes, and I worried for my lens coatings. :D

'Course, they're pushing near-hydraulic-lock mixtures, so there was undoubtedly a vast amount of unburned nitro in that vapor, but I'm told even the more "normal" mixtures are pretty nasty too.

Oh, and the fact the stuff is- or was a couple of years ago- over $90 a gallon kinda limits it's utility. :D There's also only one refinery in the entire US that produces the stuff...

Doc.

Evan
03-20-2008, 09:27 AM
What you probably encountered Doc was somebody spiking the nitro with hydrazine. That pumps up the power even more but hydrazine is very nasty stuff. It's why the shuttle astronauts don't just hop out the door when they land. They have to bring in large fans to make sure any vapors from the attitude thrusters (they use hydrazine) are blown away from the crew.

Nitromethane isn't that volatile. I have used it in making model airplane fuel with up to 40% in methanol. It has a strong odor but isn't really irritating, either in the unburned form or in the exhaust.

BTW, since a rail car load of nitromethane detonated in the 50s it can't be shipped in larger than one barrel at a time.

HTRN
03-20-2008, 03:02 PM
Evan, it isn't spiked with Hydrazine, burning Nitro just has a nasty smell. The burning gagging odor is pretty much normal.

I knew somebody who was heavily involved in the vintage fueler scene, and have some first hand experience with Nitro in internal combustion engines.

Like Evan mentioned, it carries it's own oxygen, which means there's no need to worry about Stoichiemetric ratio, just stuff more of it in there. Most Top Fuel engines run close to hydraulic lock with the amount of fuel pumped in - even in the socalled "vintage" classes, using 392 Hemis, an Enderle 110 pump can drain a 5 gallon tank in one pass. Start overdriving them, using bigger pumps..

The power you can get from Nitro is unreal - Tony was getting over 3500HP from his 8-71 std helix 426 with only a single Mallory 44 mag and Enderle pump. That's 60's era technology in the fuel ranks.

Of course, what it does to engines is considered "unreal" too - what's considered "normal" in a fuel motor, is generally the sign of immenent demise in a gas engine - visible metal fragments are normal in the oil pan, only when you start seeing bigger stuff do you get worried.


HTRN

Doc Nickel
03-20-2008, 04:26 PM
What you probably encountered Doc was somebody spiking the nitro with hydrazine.

-Nope, that would be illegal by the rules, and even if they (the crew members) did, in fact, want to cheat, as I said, it was essentially an exhibition pass. No points, no standings, just showing off for the crowd and getting some practice in.

A few ounces of a thin mixture in an RC engine is nothing compared to getting blasted with the gallons of near-100% nitro the car burned as it passed from the starting tree to beyond where I was standing. What do they use, some six gallons per pass? :D

Doc.

Evan
03-20-2008, 04:51 PM
I'll take your word on it. I have never been a fan of drag racing. I used to be involved in road racing and rally though back in California. I even built the entire monocoque chassis for a Can-Am car one summer when we lived in Victoria. I sure wish I could find the pictures of that.

jdunmyer
03-20-2008, 05:55 PM
Well, our worries about fuel costs will soon be a thing of the past:
http://www.progressive.com/progressive-insurance/autoxprize.aspx?code=8004055144

They have 2 categories, "Specialty" and "Family". The latter must be a 4-door sedan with climate control, 4 wheels, 0-61 in <12 seconds, top end of 100 Mph. And, of course, be able to get 100+ Mpg. Contest is to be run in 2009-2010.

Here's more: http://www.xprize.org/auto/press-release/x-prize-foundation-progressive-insurance-join-forces-to-officially-announce-the-1

Joel
03-20-2008, 06:07 PM
HTRN and Doc are quite correct and the 'experience' of Nitro is an unforgettable one. The unpleasant aspects are normally easy to avoid - just don't place yourself near the exhaust of a running vehicle, especially one that is running particularly rich.


I'll take your word on it. I have never been a fan of drag racing.

Too bad. The feeling as a top-fueler does its burnout or blasts by at 300mph is quite unique. The unbelievable power permeates everything around; your body, the ground, the air, everything. It is a very interesting feeling and worth experiencing at least once IMHO.

HTRN
03-20-2008, 06:29 PM
I've heard it described as being strapped to Rocket.

Top Fuellers are the fastest accelerating manned vehicles on the planet - 0-100 in less than a second. Most pull over 5G's during the entire run until they pop the chute.

The really scary part is they're not as fast as they could be.:eek:


HTRN

Evan
03-20-2008, 11:09 PM
Top Fuellers are the fastest accelerating manned vehicles on the planet - 0-100 in less than a second.

Second fastest. I don't think anyone will ever beat Colonel John Stapp at 46 gees in his rocket sled experiments. Ejection seats also may exceed 20 gees.

Joel
03-21-2008, 02:12 AM
Second fastest. I don't think anyone will ever beat Colonel John Stapp at 46 gees in his rocket sled experiments.

Not really comparable, eh?

Doc Nickel
03-21-2008, 04:41 AM
Not really comparable, eh?

-No, but Evan has a need to always have the last word/link/bit-of-trivia in a discussion, so it's best just to let it slide. :D

Doc.

Evan
03-21-2008, 07:34 AM
Not really comparable, eh?

Are you implying the rocket sled is not a vehicle? Lets's compare. It's restricted to a special track and can't be used on public roads. It burns a special fuel. The sole object is to acclerate as fast as possible over a short distance and to then stop, always in a straight line. The total period of operation is never more than a few seconds. It makes a lot of loud noise in the process accompanied by smoke and noxious fumes. Both require special braking apparatus.

The rocket sled approaches the speed of sound.

The dragster does not.

JCHannum
03-21-2008, 08:10 AM
The rocket sled more closely meets the definition of projectile than vehicle. The occupant is strapped in, and has little, if any control of the operation, and in fact is probably uncounscious for most of the ride. A dragster driver has the vehicle under his complete control.

A dragster stops after 1/4 mile, a rocket sled does not, so the true potential of a dragster has never been achieved.

In my misspent early years, I spent a lot of time crewing a AA gas dragster, and I can assure you they are indeed operated on public roads. They also have been operated on aircraft carriers and many other locations. They are really quite portable.

Evan
03-21-2008, 08:54 AM
A dragster stops after 1/4 mile, a rocket sled does not, so the true potential of a dragster has never been achieved.

It all depends on when you apply the brakes. As for going further than a quarter mile that would require different gearing which would reduce the acceleration potential. Although I haven't had much to do with fuelers I am quite certain that they are set up to max out by the end of the run. Giving it more track wouldn't result in a faster run, just longer, if the engine lasted that long.

Joel
03-21-2008, 02:37 PM
Are you implying the rocket sled is not a vehicle?
Not in particular.
I thought he said “accelerating”. I won’t bother debating what the accepted definition of “vehicle” may be.

HTRN didn’t say or imply negative acceleration, (which is certainly much simpler to achieve). While I am sure that Stapp was accelerated quite aggressively, I believe that he achieved the 46 g figure you cite when hitting the water brakes. If you want to count deceleration, then I suppose everyone who has had a really hard wreck qualifies as ‘beating’ him.

‘Course, I don’t think that’s comparable either…

I believe there are or were rocket ‘cars’ that are even faster than top fuelers, but the top fuel racers do it consistently, reliably and as often as they can get away with it.
While deceleration is much simpler and cheaper to achieve, it sure isn't nearly as much fun to experience. :D


Although I haven't had much to do with fuelers
How much? Not being an IO, just curious.

Joel
03-21-2008, 02:43 PM
A quick Google returns this from Wiki:
Every Formula One car has an ADR (Accident Data Recovery) device installed, which records speed and g-force. According to the FIA Robert Kubica of BMW Sauber experienced 75 g during his 2007 Montreal GP crash.

Evan
03-21-2008, 02:58 PM
He reached those gees on acceleration too. His fastest sled ride was zero to 632 mph in 5 seconds.

Stapp did these runs repeatedly, over and over.



Dr. John Paul Stapp was not only the "fastest human on earth;" he was the quickest to stop. In 1954, America's original Rocketman attained a then-world record land speed of 632 mph, going from a standstill to a speed faster than a .45 bullet in five seconds on an especially-designed rocket sled, and then screeched to a dead stop in 1.4 seconds, sustaining more than 40g's of thrust, all in the interest of safety.

By December 1954, he had volunteered for 29 rocket sled deceleration and windblast experiments, sustaining an average of 25g's.

Stapp is also credited with coining one of the most famous phrases in American history. One of his assistants, Capt. Edward A. Murphy Jr., rigged a harness incorrectly and it failed to register the strains Stapp was being subjected to. After he discovered what happened, Stapp observed that "Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong." It's been called "Murphy's Law" ever since.



http://www.af.mil/history/person.asp?dec=&pid=123006472

They don't mention that in those five seconds he also traveled nearly half a mile.

HTRN
03-21-2008, 04:47 PM
Evan, A rocket sled isn't a vehicle, technically. It's a bit of test apparatus.

Other vehicles can reach higher G's, but not on straightforward accelleration. The current record is 4.428 Sec for time, and 336 MPH for speed.

No vehicle on this planet goes from a standing start to that speed that fast. PERIOD.


HTRN

Doc Nickel
03-21-2008, 06:41 PM
Joel- I told ya so. :D

HTRN-Did you ever catch that tidbit that was being posted around, listing some of the notable points of a Top Fuel engine and/or car? Many of the details were a bit off, a few wildly exaggerated, and one or two made up out of whole cloth, but the ending bit about a fueler vs. a Callaway Turbo Corvette was pretty much spot-on.

To paraphrase, you could take a Callaway 'Vette (capable of some 220mph) and give it a head start. IE, the 'Vette could start however behind the starting line/christmas tree it needed to, so that when it passed the 'tree, it'd be going 220 mph.

And at the instant it passed the tree, the fueler would launch.

And despite the fuler having spotted the 'Vette a 220mph head start, the dragster would catch and pass it halfway down the track, and beat it to the finish line by better than a full second.

I thought that Top Gear did a similar test, and no, I don't mean the Lambo vs. the Typhoon, but I may be misremembering.

Doc.

HTRN
03-21-2008, 06:55 PM
Yeah, I saw that, probably 2 years ago. One of the bits that is true is how much Horsepower it takes to drive those 14-71's with the amount of overdrive they use - something like 350HP(I know this, because I have somewhere, an issue of SS&DI that had an article about Blower Dynos).

Drag racers in general tend to be a half a bubble off center, but the Nitro guys? They're really nuts. My Buddy Tony for instance, got rid of his Nitro Altered when he tired of getting told he can't run it at NHRA tracks. So he sold the motor and the frame seperately, and then went out and bought a Nitro drag bike. He kept trying to talk me into a FED, to race good guys, but the little voice kept whispering "Yaknow, the reason they went to RED in the first place is because guys kept loosing their feet".

I did seriously consider running a Alky Altered in the fast bracket classes using a Hemi with one of those aftermarket PG transmissions that can take different bellhousings. I instead decided I liked occasionally eating something other than Ramen.:D


HTRN