H2 Combustion-Booster Claimed

Mike Rapoport wrote:
Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The water goes
in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes from
burning fuel.

Same thing is true of a steam engine. In a steam engine it is
the phase-change of the water that makes it possible to convert
the heat from burning fuel into mechanical energy.

It will always take more fuel to produce a given amount of
power with water injection than without. Water injection
does allow higher
MP or higher compression so the engine can produce more power.

The thermodynamic efficiency of a heat engine is a function of the
compression ratio. Increasing the compression ratio increases
the efficiency. That is not to say that with water injection
there are not also increased losses that negate that advantage,
but the fact remains that increased compression ratio, absent
other factors, increases efficiency.

Piston
engine fighters used it for more peak horsepower and some turbines use it
for the same purpose but it definately come at the price of higher fuel burn
per horsepower.


Ok, I believe you.

--

FF

wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Rapoport wrote:
Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The water
goes
in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes from
burning fuel.

Same thing is true of a steam engine. In a steam engine it is
the phase-change of the water that makes it possible to convert
the heat from burning fuel into mechanical energy.


Yes but the steam engine takes the high-energy water vapor and produces
mechanical energy while returning the water as a low energy liquid.

Mike

Mike

Yep

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:19:07 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The water goes
in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes from
burning fuel. It will always take more fuel to produce a given amount of
power with water injection than without. Water injection does allow higher
MP or higher compression so the engine can produce more power. Piston
engine fighters used it for more peak horsepower and some turbines use it
for the same purpose but it definately come at the price of higher fuel burn
per horsepower.

Mike


"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Some fellow is claiming he has a small device that will boost
combustion efficiency and save drivers lots of money, while reducing
emissions.

Obviously, plenty of claims have been made before, so I'm asking --
does this sound on the level?


Water injection has been around for a long time, both for internal
combustion and aircraft jet engines, it does improve efficiency, reduce
temperatures and reduce some emissions. It depends what is being claimed
for the actual device.

Regards
Jeff

"Bill Daniels" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The water
goes
in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes from
burning fuel. It will always take more fuel to produce a given amount of
power with water injection than without. Water injection does allow
higher
MP or higher compression so the engine can produce more power. Piston
engine fighters used it for more peak horsepower and some turbines use it
for the same purpose but it definately come at the price of higher fuel
burn
per horsepower.

Mike

Hmm, consulting my ancient copy of Ricardo's "High Speed Internal
Combustion
Engines", Sir Harry said that water injection can be substituted for any
excess fuel consumed for the purpose of reducing cylinder temperature
and/or
increasing detonation margin. Further, evaporation of the water reduces
the
intake charge temperature so as to reduce pumping losses. He goes on to
say
that, while there is energy lost to evaporating the water droplets, the
overall fuel economy of an aircraft engine at max power setting will be
improved by use of water injection particularly if the compression ratio
has
been increased to take advantage of the increased detonation margin.

Bill Daniels


Yes, water injection can replace fuel used for cooling. I was not precise
enough in my wording. In the case of using water injection at lower power
settings (where excess fuel for cooling is not used) efficiency will be
reduced. I used water injection in a Corvette that had 11:1 compression to
stop detonation. It worked but power was definately less than with high
octane gasoline and without water injection.

Mike

Mike Rapoport wrote:


"Bill Daniels" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The
water
goes
in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes
from
burning fuel. It will always take more fuel to produce a given
amount of
power with water injection than without. Water injection does
allow
higher
MP or higher compression so the engine can produce more power.
Piston engine fighters used it for more peak horsepower and some
turbines use it for the same purpose but it definately come at the
price of higher fuel
burn
per horsepower.

Mike

Hmm, consulting my ancient copy of Ricardo's "High Speed Internal
Combustion
Engines", Sir Harry said that water injection can be substituted
for any excess fuel consumed for the purpose of reducing cylinder
temperature and/or
increasing detonation margin. Further, evaporation of the water
reduces the
intake charge temperature so as to reduce pumping losses. He goes
on to say
that, while there is energy lost to evaporating the water droplets,
the overall fuel economy of an aircraft engine at max power setting
will be improved by use of water injection particularly if the
compression ratio has
been increased to take advantage of the increased detonation
margin.

Bill Daniels


Yes, water injection can replace fuel used for cooling. I was not
precise
enough in my wording. In the case of using water injection at lower
power settings (where excess fuel for cooling is not used)
efficiency will be
reduced. I used water injection in a Corvette that had 11:1
compression to
stop detonation. It worked but power was definately less than with
high octane gasoline and without water injection.

That's because you weren't running a lean mixture at high manifold
pressures while the water was going in. An integral part of ADI
(Anti Detonant Injection) systems on the big reciprocating airplane
engines was that the mixture would be leaned much closer to
stochiometric, and specific power and fuel burn would increase.
For example, the Wright R3350-32WA used on the P2V Neptune patrol
airplane, and on most Constellations and DC-7s, burned 45 lbs/minute
at max Dry Power (277 BMEP/2900 RPM), 'bout 3400 HP. The equivalent
info with ADI operating was 34 lbs/min at 301 BMEP/2900 RPM, giving
3700 HP. These engines generally ran on 115/145 Octane fuel.

While you can make water injection work by just dumping water in,
you don't get the full benefit unless you can adjust the fuel flow
properly.

--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

Mike Rapoport wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Rapoport wrote:
Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The water
goes
in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes from
burning fuel.

Same thing is true of a steam engine. In a steam engine it is
the phase-change of the water that makes it possible to convert
the heat from burning fuel into mechanical energy.


Yes but the steam engine takes the high-energy water vapor and produces
mechanical energy while returning the water as a low energy liquid.


Actually the conversion to mechanical energy ceases before the vapor
condenses. Condensate in a turbine or even a steam piston is
undesireable.

Regarding water-injection of an internal combustion engine
I would assume the water is injected during the intake stroke,
evaporates completely or almost so near TDC and then mechanical
energy is extracted from the water vapor, along with the combustion
products, during the power stroke. One of those combustion
products was already water, so it's not like such an engine
doesn't already extract energy from expanding water vapor.

There is an increase in entropy associated with the phase change.
That energy is irretreiveably lost and probably accounts for
why the water-injected engine is less efficient than a 'dry'
engine despite the improved thermodynamic efficiency resulting
from the higher compression ratio.

But I'm not about to attempt the math. Entropy always make my
brain hurt.

--

FF

wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Rapoport wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Rapoport wrote:
Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The water
goes
in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes
from
burning fuel.

Same thing is true of a steam engine. In a steam engine it is
the phase-change of the water that makes it possible to convert
the heat from burning fuel into mechanical energy.


Yes but the steam engine takes the high-energy water vapor and produces
mechanical energy while returning the water as a low energy liquid.


Actually the conversion to mechanical energy ceases before the vapor
condenses. Condensate in a turbine or even a steam piston is
undesireable.


Yes and No.

A properly designed condenser produces a partial vacuum which
greatly increases both the power and efficiency of the engine by
allowing the steam to expand much more in the engine

Keith

On 24 Sep 2005 08:10:59 -0700, wrote:

If this thread is true to the subject of H2 boosting, not H2O Or using
some method of cracking water to get Hydrogen it's unlikely it can do
any thing near what is claimed. To get H2 from water takes a lot of
energy. OTOH adding water to hot charcoal will produce a burnable gas
and is a regularly used process.

Surprisingly H2 does not have the flame temperature for which it is
often given credit. Nor does it have a high BTU content per unit
volume. What it does have is a small molecular structure which lets
you put a lot of it through a small tip on a torch providing a clean,
hot, flame with enough BTUs for melting glass and even quartz.

Water vapor in the fuel stream serves two purposes. It lowers the
combustion chamber temperature and it effectively increases the octane
rating of the gas under high compression. Introduced into the inlet
stream it can lower the temperature of the incoming fuel/air mixture
which will allow more mixture into the chamber for a given pressure.

Alcohol which has a low octane rating although it keeps getting credit
for a high one, when added to gas up to 10% by volume will increase
the octane rating of the fuel. 10% seems to be the maximum amount for
increasing the octane rating.

One side effect of water injection is nice clean cylinders and
cylinder heads. Water also adds a lot of weight, without adding much
else.

There really are no magic additives, or fuels that will give
tremendous savings on their own. Most cost far more than normal gas.
Even those who make the claims of tremendous added mileage by adding
battery capacity to a hybrid car are not taking into account all the
added costs including the cost of the electricity.

Some where in the $3.00 to $3.50 range per gallon of gas is the point
where alternative fuels begin to become economically viable
alternatives to non renewable hydrocarbons.

We see all kinds of claims using byproducts from one place or another,
but as soon as enough people use those products they no longer are
thrown away they will be right up there with the other alternative
fuels.

We are most likely going to soon see $3.50 per gallon for a short time
here in the states. That will affect world wide prices which should
only be for a few months depending on how fast refining capacity can
be put back on line.

The scary part is the news tonight was reporting a gas leak out in the
gulf where the lines come together before the gas is brought to shore.
Wait till you see your LP and natural gas bills this winter. Most
commercial electricity is produced by burning natural gas.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger" wrote

The scary part is the news tonight was reporting a gas leak out in the
gulf where the lines come together before the gas is brought to shore.
Wait till you see your LP and natural gas bills this winter. Most
commercial electricity is produced by burning natural gas.

I heard this, but only as a quick blurb.

What is said to have caused this leak? My guess (if someone had a gun to my
head forcing me to speculate) would be a dragging "super anchor" from a
floating oil platform.
--
Jim in NC

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On 24 Sep 2005 08:10:59 -0700, wrote:

If this thread is true to the subject of H2 boosting, not H2O

The subject has drifted, it happens.

Or using
some method of cracking water to get Hydrogen it's unlikely it can do
any thing near what is claimed. To get H2 from water takes a lot of
energy. OTOH adding water to hot charcoal will produce a burnable gas
and is a regularly used process.


Well it was back in the days when we made town gas from coke.
The gas produced was of course mainly carbon monoxide
which would modern safety officials a fit.

Surprisingly H2 does not have the flame temperature for which it is
often given credit. Nor does it have a high BTU content per unit
volume. What it does have is a small molecular structure which lets
you put a lot of it through a small tip on a torch providing a clean,
hot, flame with enough BTUs for melting glass and even quartz.

Water vapor in the fuel stream serves two purposes. It lowers the
combustion chamber temperature and it effectively increases the octane
rating of the gas under high compression. Introduced into the inlet
stream it can lower the temperature of the incoming fuel/air mixture
which will allow more mixture into the chamber for a given pressure.


Indeed

Alcohol which has a low octane rating although it keeps getting credit
for a high one, when added to gas up to 10% by volume will increase
the octane rating of the fuel. 10% seems to be the maximum amount for
increasing the octane rating.

One side effect of water injection is nice clean cylinders and
cylinder heads. Water also adds a lot of weight, without adding much
else.

There really are no magic additives, or fuels that will give
tremendous savings on their own.

Well there is one, tetraethyl lead boosts the octane rating
allowing you to use much higher compression ratios.
Of course there certain drawbacks which caused it to
be banned.

Most cost far more than normal gas.
Even those who make the claims of tremendous added mileage by adding
battery capacity to a hybrid car are not taking into account all the
added costs including the cost of the electricity.


Not exactly. Using battery technology allows the IC engine to run only
at its max efficiency setting and allows the use of regenerative braking

Its easily shown that hybrid cars do give better gas mileage

Some where in the $3.00 to $3.50 range per gallon of gas is the point
where alternative fuels begin to become economically viable
alternatives to non renewable hydrocarbons.


They have been well above that level in Europe for at least a decade. The
result has been a large scale switch to more efficient diesel
engines and the proeuction of relatively small amounts of bio-diesel.
Beyond that there have been relatively few such advances.

Current gas prices here in the UK are around $6.8 per gallon

We see all kinds of claims using byproducts from one place or another,
but as soon as enough people use those products they no longer are
thrown away they will be right up there with the other alternative
fuels.

We are most likely going to soon see $3.50 per gallon for a short time
here in the states. That will affect world wide prices which should
only be for a few months depending on how fast refining capacity can
be put back on line.


Dont bet on it. World demand is rising faster than supply, specifically
the Chinese are rapidly building a massive automotive industry
and Chinese demand for oil is rising at around 1 bbpd / year

In 2004 China became the worlds second largest importer of petroleum
products surpassing Japan. That demand is now at approx 40% that of
the USA having risen by 300% since 1990

The scary part is the news tonight was reporting a gas leak out in the
gulf where the lines come together before the gas is brought to shore.
Wait till you see your LP and natural gas bills this winter. Most
commercial electricity is produced by burning natural gas.



Only if you include dual fired units, the stats in 2004 were
(million kilowatts)


Coal 313.3
Oil 36.9
Gas 222.9
Dual Fuel 175.4
Hydro 79
Nuclear 99.6

Electricity production is of course much easier to switch
to non fossil fuels than automotive fuel use but the USA
hasnt built any commercial nuclear plants since the
1980's unlike France which now generates almost 90%
of its electricity from nuclear sources.

Keith