Diesel/Hydrogen Hybrid Trawler

[KnottyBuoyz]

Originally Posted by apex1

Knotty was right snakeoil! But that´s a liquid, are there gases with similar qualities?

Oh, ok, how about "Snake Farts" then?

[apex1]

Originally Posted by kistinie

Can be produced with DC electricity (electrolyse)
This is the actual simplest solution as it uses basic low cost technology

Or many other ways, including, ocean thermodynamic effect (heat pump), light, bacteria, aluminium-gallium...that requires more skills

And you do all of that while underway? Electrolysys is "low cost" ? Simple? Have you ever seen a hydrogen plant?
And before you ask for a proof of common knowledge, what about a proof of the nonsense you posted about 1000´s of systems working efficient? All the industry and all of us boatbuilders are proven idiots? Just mr. kistinie is right?
I say it again: YOU ARE A DREAMER

[kistinie]

Originally Posted by apex1

I say it again: YOU ARE A DREAMER

Yes i am !!!



Most of dreams come true.

Cheers !


PS:
Look at this sophisticated hydrogen plant !
I guess the V2 and next will be terrific coupled to solar or thermoacoustics panels

http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/AddWaterV.1.htm

[apex1]

Originally Posted by kistinie

PS:
Look at this sophisticated hydrogen plant !
I guess the V2 and next will be terrific coupled to solar or thermoacoustics panels

http://quanthomme.free.fr/qhsuite/AddWaterV.1.htm

Sorry no, I do´nt look at your phantasies.

[kistinie]

Originally Posted by apex1

Sorry no, I do´nt look at your phantasies.

And the clowns are, universities, state research, private patent...

[Towboat Ed]

I dont know about thousands , but I do know there are probably hundreds of systems that do work. I attended the HHO Games & Exposition in Bradenton Fl in Nov. & again in Feb.of this year. Check out the links below. The promoter of these shows was told a number of times that this should not be called "games", because there were some very serious inventors present. There were also some "snake oil salesmen" with Junk that did not work.Many were dissappointed at the results when their unit was tested on "The Bench"...There were also some amazing units that produced large amounts of HHO. The test Bench belongs to the builder of the unit that is now on my boat. As a matter-of-fact, with the exception of the Flow Tubes, the unit on my boat is, electronically identical to the bench used at the show.....You can see The Bench in operation at the other link posted below. I am in some of the pics on both sites, I am the good-looking one. I have working relationships with several of these inventor/builders, and am working with the IHHOI to grow the industry...til later, Capt.Ed www.water4fuel4boats.com
www.hhogames.com
http://energyshowandtell.wetpaint.co...eageSeekersHHO

[thudpucker]

Whoa up here guys. I just wanted someone to send me a link to the process. Just how is the seperation done.

I got this from a guy on another site. Its a demonstration from yesteryears but I think its the 'current' way its being done. Just the details are different.
Its those Details I want to SEE for myself.

Read this:
I separated hydrogen when I was a kid. If I remember correctly all I used was two carbon rods from old D cells covered by test tubes and connected to an old train transformer. I figure a 12v battery or charger would work. Anyway you just invert the test tubes or other small glass container over the carbon rods and immerse the whole thing in water and watch as the water is pushed down inside the glass. One side will have hydrogen the other oxygen. The way to tell is see which one burns but be careful as it might go bam instead of pop if you collect too much hydrogen. I am not sure if you need carbon maybe any electrodes would work.

[thudpucker]

Originally Posted by KnottyBuoyz

Oh, ok, how about "Snake Farts" then?

Rick you get a little on the rasty side when your stuck on the beach eh?

[kistinie]

Very radical approach
Very new

To experiment ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caLgt...eature=related
http://divadjac.googlepages.com/alexbook

[marshmat]

Proof n. v. & adj. facts, evidence, argument, etc. establishing or helping to establish a fact.....

Claim v. & n. represent oneself as having or achieving; a contention or assertion......

If you disagree, explain technically why

Show me where I claimed that hydrogen in an engine doesn't work. To the best of my knowledge I have never made such a claim.

I have commented on many of these hydrogen fuel threads over the last few years. In all cases, I have taken one of two approaches:

1) Shoot down a clearly wrong or inaccurate claim, or a clearly false explanation of what a device does. I do this when I see things like:
"you can get free energy by using your battery to turn water into hho then burn that in your engine"
"you can run your car on water using free energy from the vacuum ether"
"it is so advanced it is beyond what any conventional engineer or physicist can understand"
"conventional thermodynamics doesn't apply"

2) Ask the person making the claim for a more thorough explanation and additional test data. I do this when I see things like:
"injecting a small amount of hydrogen along with the normal fuel improves combustion"
"this device resulted in a 30% fuel savings in my car"

(Note that I can get a 50% fuel savings in my own car, simply by changing how I shift and how hard I accelerate. Claims of fuel savings, without scientific evidence and a plausible physical explanation, are just empty claims.)

There is a distinct difference. In the former case, the person making the claim is clearly not understanding their own device or what it does, and is so far out in dreamland that no rational explanation is likely to be found. In the latter case, the person making the claim may have something right, but either doesn't know exactly why it works, thinks they know but have something wrong, or simply don't have enough test data to know.

Let me quote myself from another thread, on the subject of what might actually be happening in a hydrogen-enriched combustion chamber. This is speculation, of course, but is based on sound physical principles and the known properties of hydrogen-oxygen combustion reactions. Most credible university and corporate research in hydrogen-enriched hydrocarbon combustion is based on some variant of the explanation below.

Originally Posted by marshmat

Hydrogen has an extremely high burn velocity, and will burn at much leaner ratios than most hydrocarbons. Thus, it is possible that the addition of trace amounts of hydrogen serves to cause a rapid, hot flame to move away from the ignition point faster than the main flame front, igniting the hydrocarbon fuel as it goes. The combustion time would thus be shortened, which would tend to increase the peak pressure, and thus the IMEP, BMEP and torque, for a given RPM and fuel mass. A higher peak pressure leads to a higher peak temperature and higher thermal efficiency. It is also conceivable that this would allow for a leaner mix, although that would cause NOx problems and screw up a catalytic converter if one is fitted.

So improving efficiency by injecting small amounts of hydrogen to accelerate combustion is plausible and possibly beneficial. "Run your car on water", ie. using hydrogen generated by on-board electrolysis as the primary or only fuel, is clearly not plausible.

The question thus becomes: Given a particular engine running on hydrocarbon fuel, does the increase in power output that results from a faster combustion speed offset the 0.2 to 0.3 kW that is required to generate trace amounts of hydrogen? And by how much?

The way to find out would be to use an engine set up for dyno testing with an in-cylinder pressure transducer. Comparison of the cylinder pressure curves running on pure gasoline and with a few percent (say up to 10%) hydrogen blended in would certainly reveal exactly what benefit, if any, the concept has.

It is not at all difficult to efficiently produce hydrogen and oxygen from water. This is century-old technology, and the energy you recover by burning the hydrogen is always- ALWAYS- less than the amount of electrical energy used to separate that hydrogen in the first place. Thus, any on-board electrolysis scheme will have a net negative energy balance. To bring this balance positive (and thus have some benefit in fuel savings), the combustion process must be sufficiently accelerated (compared to normal hydrocarbon-only combustion) that the increase in the area bounded by the cycle P-V curve outweighs the energy used to separate the hydrogen in the first place.

Believe me, hydrogen-enhanced combustion will be taken seriously as soon as people stop claiming it's "free energy" and instead devote their efforts to understanding exactly what the effect on the combustion process is. When people claim "I use my battery to make hydrogen from water so I use less (or no) fuel" without knowing what is actually happening, the entire field takes a big credibility hit.

On-board hydrogen generation from metal alloys, borohydrides, etc. is simply a way of substituting a different fuel source other than gasoline.

[Towboat Ed]

Thank you MM. You are right in post #9...I should have re-worded it. I agree 100%. You obviously understand the whole process better than I do, and I mean this sincerely. But, I am learning every day. Please give me your take on this quote that I heard somewhere..."Conservation-of-energy does not apply, because you are adding energy to the equasion with the chemical reaction ."

[kistinie]

with a 160watts (1.6mx0,8m) max solar panel ...you get free energy
With a battery...all day !
Energy for electrolyse is solar or wind...
FREE

Cheers

[apex1]

Thank you very much MATT for your valuable explanations.
I fear they will remain unheard by our "specialists" which are able to produce Hydrogen "cheap and simple" (never heard about negative energy balance), increase torque by 50%, and run their boats more efficient than we idiots do.

I do´nt have the patience and I´m for shure not polite enough to reply in such a nice manner to childish statements of total laymen. I must earn my living as a developer by making honest, proven, and straight forward calculations and statements, politeness is not asked for.
And as a boatbuilder I am responsible for the safety and (sometimes) for the life of my customers. Unmature claims, dreams or wishes of a client are refused in a frank, honest, straight forward and therefore usually unpolite manner. They have to love it or leave it.

So our irrational, childish, uneducated smartasses have to love it or leave it that their claims are based on phantasy (as knotty mentioned "snake fart" in this case, `cos snakeoil is liquid).

quote kistinie:
with a 160watts (1.6mx0,8m) max solar panel ...you get free energy
With a battery...all day !
Energy for electrolyse is solar or wind...
FREE
qoute end

Yeahh and I´ve forgotten... PV naturally is "energy for free" as is the battery, inverter, charger and so on! THEY ARE NOT TO CURE ! ! ! just kids playing in a adult playground and wasting our time and effort.

Regards
Richard

[marshmat]

"Conservation-of-energy does not apply, because you are adding energy to the equasion with the chemical reaction ."

Conservation of energy always applies. Sometimes, though, it's not very obvious, and even the best engineers often spend many hours trying to figure out exactly where all the energy is going.

Energy can be tied up, or stored, in chemical bonds. Chemical reactions rearrange the atoms and the bonds between them. If, after the reaction, the total energy tied up in bonds is less than it was before, the rest comes out as heat or light. An example is the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen:
2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O
The enthalpy of formation of water is negative: there is less energy tied up in the bonds in the water than in the molecular hydrogen and oxygen. Thus, this reaction releases heat.
We can reverse this reaction:
2 H2O -> 2 H2 + O2
which is what happens in a working electrolysis cell. Because we are changing these atoms from a low energy state to a higher energy state, we must add energy. Not coincidentally, we have to add the exact same amount of energy as was liberated in the combustion process.

Since no process is perfectly efficient (damned entropy getting in the way), there are always losses, tiny though they may be. So in the electrolysis, we have to put a bit more energy in- maybe 110% of what we theoretically should have to put in- because some of that energy will inevitably do something we don't want it to do, like heating up the water.


Solar energy does not come from nowhere, and is not free. Working backwards:
We get electricity....
which comes from a potential bias across a p-n junction.....
which is created when electrons get kicked out of their proper places by photons...
which have been travelling through space for about eight minutes since they were emitted from the outer layers of the sun....
where they were emitted by the radiative decay of an electron from an excited to a lower state in some random atom....
because that electron had been kicked into a higher state by thermal energy....
which came from yet another photon, this one a high-energy gamma....
that had been emitted from deeper within the sun and carried the energy equivalent of a small amount of mass.....
that had been converted to energy during the fusion of two hydrogen nuclei.

The free energy from your solar panel started out as a little bit of a subatomic particle somewhere deep inside the sun. Not so free after all

[kistinie]

Solar energy is not free of course, but once paid for it...it's free energy (natural short cut after using it for years...sorry)

Do you think we can count on industry to give us a motor running for a third of the actual needed energy ?
No, to struggling for the economy that refuses this kind of fast changes.
The deal is for less money and a new explosive gas to generate



Almost any injection of water, O², H², butane, propane, to any engine inlet show important improvements.
Water to outlet works too.

All this devices can co generate, recycle water from exhaust (Renault patent 2005)

About what is science, what is not, please remember other anomalies exist :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

So being open is a kind of, minimum, if we want to progress.

Ether from Tesla, and other joe cell, should be studied, just like space: aware (JCVD)