Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT-oxy/hyd mix to run internal combustion engines

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OT-oxy/hyd mix to run internal combustion engines

    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.
    Last edited by Carld; 03-16-2008, 12:28 PM.
    It's only ink and paper

  • #2
    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.
    Last edited by Evan; 03-16-2008, 12:30 PM.
    Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

    Comment


    • #3
      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?
      Last edited by Carld; 03-16-2008, 12:36 PM.
      It's only ink and paper

      Comment


      • #4
        Why are you attempting to distinguish between "combustion" and "chemical reaction"? Combustion IS a chemical reaction.
        ----------
        Try to make a living, not a killing. -- Utah Phillips
        Don't believe everything you know. -- Bumper sticker
        Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects. -- Will Rogers
        There are lots of people who mistake their imagination for their memory. - Josh Billings
        Law of Logical Argument - Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
        Don't own anything you have to feed or paint. - Hood River Blackie

        Comment


        • #5
          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.
          Last edited by Evan; 03-16-2008, 12:46 PM.
          Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

          Comment


          • #6
            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.
            Last edited by Carld; 03-16-2008, 01:07 PM.
            It's only ink and paper

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Carld
              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

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Carld
                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.)

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.
                      Last edited by Carld; 03-16-2008, 02:04 PM.
                      It's only ink and paper

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.
                        Gold is for the mistress - silver for the maid
                        Copper for the craftsman cunning in his trade.
                        "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall
                        But iron - cold iron is the master of them all.
                        Rudyard Kipling

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Benesesso
                            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.
                            Location: Jersey City NJ USA

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.
                              Free software for calculating bolt circles and similar: Click Here

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X