10 to 30 % fuel saving with much lower emission, for or against ?

Discussion in 'Propulsion' started by kistinie, Jun 6, 2009.

  1. kerosene
    Joined: Jul 2006
    Posts: 1,285
    Likes: 203, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 358
    Location: finland

    kerosene Senior Member

    Jimbo - your arguments are very solid and accurate - however - more or less same arguments have been laid out before to Kistinie and other HHO fanatics. None have been able to explain where this extra energy comes from.

    I recommend unsubscribe from the thread and forget this discussion - it will save your brain and plenty of time. No point in reasoning, it will be just waste of time.
     
  2. AmbitiousAmatur
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Woodville, Alabama, USA

    AmbitiousAmatur Junior Member

     
  3. AmbitiousAmatur
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Woodville, Alabama, USA

    AmbitiousAmatur Junior Member

    I can see some legitimacy to a device that separates water through electrolysis as hydrogen does have 3 times the energy per mass of octane by volume. You are actually using surplus energy from your alternator so it still fits into the law of conservation. The question then becomes how much extra strain is produced by extra draw against the alternator vs. how much extra power is achieved. Injecting the oxygen part of water works similarly to NO2 on a smaller scale so I could see some benefit there, but once again all things considered is there an actual gain overall?

    Some companies are now pitching a propane injection system for diesels that claims to fill wasted space at the top of the cylinder with propane because it exist as a gas in its natural state. but as any educated person knows:
    a.) propane when compressed to 30,000 PSI in a cylinder turns back into a liquid.
    b.) If this does in fact work, too much will blow the head right off of an engine.
     
  4. AmbitiousAmatur
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Woodville, Alabama, USA

    AmbitiousAmatur Junior Member

    Does this work on Turkduckens too?
     
  5. AmbitiousAmatur
    Joined: Jun 2009
    Posts: 20
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Woodville, Alabama, USA

    AmbitiousAmatur Junior Member

    I do however have to say that an Indian car company has developed an engine that runs on compressed air. It has a range of close to 150 miles and speeds up to 80 mph. The main problem that I see is that the tank is compressed to 4500 PSI. It would take quite a blunt force to cause rupture with that amount of internal pressure, but a puncture would cause quite the catastrophy.
     
  6. kistinie
    Joined: Aug 2007
    Posts: 493
    Likes: 8, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: -74
    Location: france

    kistinie Hybrid corsair

    Or just the opposite ?
    ;-)
     
  7. kerosene
    Joined: Jul 2006
    Posts: 1,285
    Likes: 203, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 358
    Location: finland

    kerosene Senior Member

    Nope - alternator's resistance depends on the load running the electrolysis setup adds load to the engine - there is no "surplus alternator power".

    Besides that 100w of electricity even when with 100% efficient electrolysis would give 30w from the engine as the combustion engine has efficiency in 30% range (at best).

    However these dudes advertise 30-90% fuel consumption reductions.
     
  8. kerosene
    Joined: Jul 2006
    Posts: 1,285
    Likes: 203, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 358
    Location: finland

    kerosene Senior Member

    No point wasting time, it will be just reasoning?

    nope that makes no sense.
     
  9. mudman
    Joined: Mar 2007
    Posts: 88
    Likes: 5, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 72
    Location: Madisonville, LA

    mudman Junior Member

    I believe that when trains made the conversion from steam to diesel electric, they were running on compressed air. The only problem was that they had to have so many fill stations to keep the train going and it proved unacceptable.

    Newer designs of compressed air engines though recirculate the expended air back into the holding tank. If it works, and is cost effective, I believe that I'd take the chance of the tank going boom. I mean, right now I drive with 20 gallons of highly combustable material under the floor.

    I think that the pnumatic motors are far more likely to be used than some HHO nonsense.
     
  10. kerosene
    Joined: Jul 2006
    Posts: 1,285
    Likes: 203, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 358
    Location: finland

    kerosene Senior Member

    pneumatic systems are interesting - there are some french city cars that use it and other small "non-constant-use" vehicles like fork lifts I believe.

    Energy intensity is not the greatest but still pretty promising tech. There was a thread in the forum about using it for boats.

    But its worth stressing that the air works as a store of energy (battery really) rather than source of energy. You need outside source to run the compressors.
     

  11. mydauphin
    Joined: Apr 2007
    Posts: 2,161
    Likes: 53, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 575
    Location: Florida

    mydauphin Senior Member

    Air is a very bad store energy. You need 60hp to compress to get 30hp out.
    A battery/capacitor is more efficient and can store a lot more per Cubic whatever size. A hydraulic drive is more efficient but not for storing.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.