|
|
 Welcome to the ProSoundWeb sound reinforcement forums, home of more than 50,000 audio professionals.
Important Notice: Full Names are required in the forum; please put your full name in the alias field in your profile.
Sign up for the PSW Product Showcase newsletter!
|
|
Forum Home » Sound Reinforcement » The Basement » OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
| OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share [message #321653] |
Sun, 11 May 2008 10:40  |
 Randy Frierson
Messages: 565
Registered: October 2004 |
Has No Life |
|
|
|
OK this drivewater thing works, i saw it first hand. my warehouse is next door to a businees who are arms dealers and they have to much free time...i saw them make hydrogen, and then i saw the device mounted to a Ford F150...they said they were getting around 12 miles prior and after their test they are now getting around 20..and all you do is add water every 2 weeks to this cannister..Now they built the basic unit and it worked but did not make them happy so they built a hybrid unit with better case to hold the plates, added more plates a check valve ect and made a lot more hydrogen...I swear it works. They are building me 4 units next week (we are very good neighbors) one unit will go on my FL 70 and one unit on my Hino..I will report back on their results..I believe in this so much that I am well putting one unit on my Toyota Land Cruiser...PM me for more info Randy
|
|
|
| Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share [message #321654 is a reply to message #321653 ] |
Sun, 11 May 2008 10:45  |
Steve Weiss
Messages: 371
Registered: July 2004
Location: Las Vegas |
Has No Life |
|
|
|
OK please tell me this is a late April fools joke????
[Updated on: Sun, 11 May 2008 10:57]
|
|
| | | | | | | |
| Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share [message #321706 is a reply to message #321698 ] |
Sun, 11 May 2008 14:16 |
Patrick Tracy
Messages: 1235
Registered: February 2006
Location: Boulder, CO |
Has No Life |
|
|
| Steven Jackson wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 12:54 |
So unless you had an alternator that only worked on downhills, you would be wasting fuel straight away.
|
Even then you have to burn fuel to get up the hill in the first place.
Seriously, if there are significant amounts of energy in the fuel that normally doesn't get used then there's at least the theoretical potential that a mechanism exists for getting it out. I'm no chemist so I have no idea if there is much energy going unused when fuel is burned.
Sheesh, there's energy everywhere, there's a nice grid for distributing it electrically and some pretty workable storage technology. I don't see why burning stuff has to be the way we get so much of our power, other than habit. As much as I have fond memories of the smell of racing fuel and the scream of engines I think we need a racing series for electric vehicles. I could learn to enjoy the smell of arcing brushes and the subtle whine of electric motors.
http://home.earthlink.net/~patrickgtracy
|
|
| |
| Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share [message #321724 is a reply to message #321679 ] |
Sun, 11 May 2008 15:08 |
|
| John Roberts {JR} wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 13:39 |
| Steve Weiss wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 10:45 |
OK please tell me this is a late April fools joke????
|
No, it's a separate the fools from their money joke. 
It takes electrical energy to perform electrolysis on the water, the H and O burn, releasing the energy that was put into it, zero sum game.
I will wait for Randy's actual gas mileage report, not what he believes will happen.
JR
|
Its actually a little worse than a zero sum game, JR. I just did the thermodynamics out to double-check.
The heat extractable to the surroundings from the decrease in entropy caused by the formation of the H2O from combustion of H2 and O2 will always be lower, in the case of a reversible, isothermal process (ie the best case scenario).
This is a function of the definition of entropy under these conditions: dS=dQ/T. Since, for irreversible processes dS>dQ/T real processes are worse than in the reversible case.
Even if you consider the behavior of the system as reversible, and use an ideal Carnot cycle (ie two isothermal steps linked to two constant entropy steps) The energy from the chemical reaction of combustion of the hydrogen and oxygen (which takes place at the high temperature point of the carnot cycle) has an inherent penalty.
Ach, that's still complicated. One more try:
1. Put a fixed Q into the system by a chemical reaction at some high temperature: dQ=T_high(dS), or after integration at constant T: deltaQ=T_high*deltaS That means you get an amount of entropy S for a given Q.
2. Now you cool the system to a lower temperature under constant entropy conditions, so S stays the same. dQ is now: dQ=T_low(dS) or deltaQ=T_low*deltaS. Since S is fixed, and T is smaller, the extractable Q is always less at T_low that the Q you put in at T_high.
The difference between the input Q at T_high, and the extracted Q at T_low then represents the total work done by engine during its cycle.
It should be clear then that the lower T_low is, the less heat you have to pull from the system to return to the beginning of the Carnot cycle, and the more was converted to (Pressure)*(Volume) work on the surroundings during the isentropic expansion phase. Hence the desire for the largest temperature gradient possible between the Q in (chemical reaction) and Q out (e.g. radiator sending heat into the ambient air). Since T_low is not 0 Kelvin, and dS for a real engine will be greater than dS_ideal for a reversible system, there is always a penalty for the extraction of mechanical work.
In a real system, the input Q is fixed per amount of fuel burned, in this case from the electrolysis of water.
At a minimum you therefore take the Carnot efficiency penalty, and the efficiency penalty of the battery/alternator combination.
The are only two ways the system would seem to come out ahead. First would be with the production of the hydrogen by an external battery, which of course is just passing the buck for input Q.
The second way the system might possibly come out ahead would be if the injection of H2 and O2 dramatically increased the T_high for the car's engine (ie increasing the average internal cylinder temperature). The efficiency of a Carnot engine is related to the difference in (T_high-T_low)/Absolute temperature. I give this a remote, at best possibility of happening, but it is at least conceivable.
BTW, if anyone reads this and feels just totally confused, don't feel bad! I had two semesters of undergraduate thermodynamics/kinetics, and two semesters of graduate thermo/kinetics, and THEN TA'ed for a graduate level thermodynamics class. It didn't start to make any real sense to me until graduate school and TA'ing. J. W. Gibbs was a genius!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle
Phill Graham
Doctoral Candidate
Georgia Tech
|
|
|
| Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share [message #321731 is a reply to message #321706 ] |
Sun, 11 May 2008 15:25 |
Charlie Zureki
Messages: 523
Registered: April 2008
Location: Detroit Area |
Has No Life |
|
|
Patrick,
We burn stuff because currently it's cheaper, more efficient, and that it is the technology afforded to us at the moment.
The "grid for distributing it electrically", the majority of power from this grid is from burning. (some from hydro, wind and solar, but a very small percentage)
The laws of Physics are quite clear, you cannot create or destroy matter, all that you can do is change it's form. That the changing of it's form is where we get our "energy". We can only create energy through, Chemical, Mechanical, or Thermal methods.
The idea of using this "Brown water" is great except that the Mechanical limitations of the automobile engine would not show any signs of benefit. They've made hotter burning spark plugs and glow plugs, but the internal combustion engines have seem their limit. Some fuel will not be burnt, no matter what.
It always amazed me that people are hung up on Automakers fuel efficiency reports on a car that they buy. Those reports go out the window because most people don't drive under the ideal conditions that the Maker used. The petroleum engines have pretty much topped out on the fuel efficiencies. They'll either need to switch to another type of "engine" or make the car weigh less. You'd probably see an increase in efficiency if one's car was tuned up, tire pressure was accurate and the driver slowed down,
Helium 3 would be a great source for Reactors, nonhazardous waste, controllable, but, there is no one lobbying for it.
If you really want to save money on gasoline... always purchase your gas in the morning hours 4-6am. Gasoline pumps use volumetric measurements, not by weight. When the Gas temperature is the coolest it is more dense.
Cheers,
Hammer
Be prepared, you'll need it!
|
|
|
| Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share [message #321735 is a reply to message #321713 ] |
Sun, 11 May 2008 15:45 |
|
| Randy Frierson wrote on Sun, 11 May 2008 15:45 |
Look i don't want to argue just share of what i have seen myself.
these guys are serious and very smart, i can't explain the process (YET) but I know it does work, upon initial tests they got 10 to 12 %, and that did not satisfy them, they are working with other such like them across the US and tried a better container, different plates and now they are approaching figures like 40-50 %..the car does not run on water it's more like a process to make it more efficient..Every 2 weeks you open this cannister that holds about a quart maybe less and add water. I'm not asking anyone for money and I was skeptical as well but i seen it and now i'm a believer..like i said i am having the device installed on my Hino truck. I will run the truck on a tank of fuel back and forth to tampa from delray beach, and then check my MPG, i then will run same truck empty as before w device back and forth to tampa (same route) and then check my MPG, then i will report back..I believe my friend next door and he said his truck got on avg 9-12 MPG and after a week he is getting 18-20..Period..If it's Voodoo then I'm now into Voodoo..I'm just reporting do with it what you want...Randy
|
Randy,
If this method indeed provides any gain (color me a major skeptic) it is only going to come by increasing what is known as the adiabatic flame temperature inside the combustion system. There is simply no way to come out ahead on this system without modifying the Carnot efficiency of your engine. This is achieved through greater heat at combustion, cooler outflow, or some combination thereof.
While I am skeptical that the system is injecting enough hydrogen/oxygen to successfully increase the adiabatic flame temperature inside the cylinders, I would be concerned about the long term reliability of the motor system if it succeeds.
If the system is merely a atomized water injection system (ie no electrolysis) then this is nothing new, and was in fact used by the German's extensively during WWII to increase the power of their fighter airplane engines. This, also, has potential ramifications on the long term reliability of your engines.
I am not rejecting the concept outright. Applied under careful computer control at the right points on an acceleration curve it might do "something good" for your fuel economy. However, I would be very leery of trusting the mechanical longevity of my engines to something that is sold using a large amount of pseudoscience and snake oil tactics.
Phill Graham
Doctoral Candidate
Georgia Tech
|
|
| | |
| Pages (14): [1 ] |
  |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Jul 6 04:40:54 CDT 2008
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.13035 seconds |
|
Forum Home
Login
Forum Search
Register
FAQ
Re: OK off Topic but this is useful to us all and i will share
