Confusion in what makes power.

[Tempted]

I think a lot of people are under the misconception that more fuel = more power if put in the same combustion chamber. I also think that people believe premium fuel produces more power than regular. Both of those are very wrong. I was just speaking to someone about it who told be he prefers his engine to run "rich" because its better on it that running lean and it makes more power.

Gasoline makes 0 power. None. Fill a metal jar up to the brim with gasoline, then seal it. Now toss it in a fire. It won't do anything. If the jar fails, it will react with the air assuming there is some left(there is almost no oxygen available in the middle of a fire).

"An engine is an air pump." You hear it all the time, but a lot of people don't understand it. An engine isn't a fuel pump. The reason it needs fuel isn't to ignite it, it needs fuel to heat up the air in the combustion chamber. When air heats, it expands. When it expands, it pushes the piston down. The more air expansion, the harder it pushes the on the piston. If you could make the air in the cylinder heat up without adding gasoline then you wouldn't need it. If you can make the cool air coming in get hot and expand without any fuel then you never need any fuel. Just a supply of cold air. The reason I said that is to show you why adding more gasoline takes away power instead of adding it.

If a combustion chamber is 60ccs plus the fuel and the compression ratio is 10:1, it means you will be ramming 600ccs of air into the chamber every compression stroke. Stoichiometric ratio is 14.7 parts air per one part gasoline. A lot of people know this, but many don't know what it means. Stoich ratio is the number of parts of air that one part chemical can heat up to the point of max expansion. One part gasoline can heat up 15 parts air. So in order to heat up those 600ccs of air, the engine will need about 40 parts of fuel. This is the reason that putting more than 40 parts of gasoline in the chamber decreases both power and efficiency.

As I mentioned before, gasoline makes 0 power without air. Well, if you have 50ccs of fuel then you have the correct amount to heat up 750ccs of air. But, even though you can heat up 750ccs of air, the combustion chamber is still the same size. Except now, because you added more fuel, it no longer holds 600ccs of air. Now it holds 590ccs, the other 10 being used by the increased amount of fuel. So now you don't have as much air in the cylinder as you had before. Since the engine is an air pump, the less air you have available the less power you make.

So now you are pumping less air and making less power, but why does that mean you are getting less fuel mileage? Because now you are putting 20% more fuel in the cylinder while moving less air. The other huge issue is that you are cooling the cylinder and air in it. I thought we wanted cold air? Well we do, in the intake. But we want the air as hot as possible in the cylinder. The hotter it is, the more it expands. It doesn't expand as much when the excess fuel is acting like a cooling liquid rather than the heating element. So why can't we just run the engines with more air than the amount of fuel can ignite? It isn't like we are wasting anything since its just going to go back out of the tail pipe. The simple answer is, we can. And most of the time, we do. Fuel injected cars run up as high as 20:1 when there is a light load. But this is wasting space. Giant combustion chambers with low compression ratios will not make enough heat to hurt themselves most of the time no matter how little fuel we add. But if the combustion chamber is 100ccs and we run a 20:1 AFR then it would make the same amount of gross power as an engine with a 75cc chamber at the same compression ratio running 15:1 AFR. There won't be enough fuel to expand the other 25% of air. And if that motor was a 10:1 C/R, that means you are wasting 250ccs of air by not having enough fuel to heat them, what is know as a "lean burn". With a lean burn tune, you only get enough fuel to the cylinder to expand enough air to keep it running. It reduces fuel consumption but is less efficient at low power stages than a smaller engine due to it having more rotating mass. However, where this system is excellent is when you trounce the pedal. It can go from lean burn to stoich in an instant, giving you that extra fuel needed to ignite the wasted air. This mean that a 1.8 liter Stoich motor will be more efficient and have more useable power at light throttle, but it can't add any more fuel than what the smaller chambers can bring in. The bigger lean burn motor can add that fuel at any time.





Octane ratings are something else this gentleman brought up. He was under the impression that higher octane fuel means more power than low octane when used in the same engine. Again, not true at all. The can both heat up the same parts of air, 14.7, per part of fuel. Where the difference comes in is the auto ignition temperature. Auto ignition is the temperature at which a chemical will react without a spark. The reason you can make more power with premium is because the auto ignition point is higher while the flash point stays the same. When you compress air, it heats up. When you compress air to 10 times smaller than the atmosphere, it heats up a lot. Regular gasoline will detonate at super high compression ratios due to the heat build up. A premium fuel will allow a higher compression ratio without auto ignition. This means that if it take 250 degrees to auto ignite 87 octane and a 60cc chamber on a 12:1 compression ratio cylinder will develop 249 degrees max, you won't have premature detonation. It is compressing 720ccs into a 60cc chamber. But if you raise the compression to 15:1 it will compress 900ccs of air in that same space and thus build more heat. You'll need a fuel that can handle that heat without auto ignition. Running 93 octane in the 12:1 engine will not make the motor run better or stronger in any way. But using 87 in the 15:1 motor will most likely cause the gas to auto ignite before TDC and try to push the crankshaft backwards. This will result in bent rods if you're lucky. A thrown rod or worse if you're not.



You'll hear the term "dieseling" sometimes referred to in a gasoline engine. Usually this is caused by the engine running hot, then igniting the fuel without the ignition system being turned on but can happen by simply running too high of a compression with too low of a fuel grade. If you set the timing too far advanced on the motor, you get overheating due to the ignition system firing at TDC or before it. When you turn it off, the engine is still hot enough to keep running on the fuel left in the rails and lines even though it isn't getting a spark. Small block Chevys are bad about this because of how much timing you can add without other issues. People advance it too far for power and it starts trying to run backwards, which an engine can do.



Most of you are aware of this, just thought it might help someone who is curious about the issues.

[mpgmike]

Wow! You're thinking, and that's good. As for the stoic AFR, essentially every oxygen atom in the air will have just the perfect number of hydrogen and carbon atoms to deliver nothing but carbon dioxide and water vapor in the exhaust. Of course, that never works out to the perfect level.

Secondly, you identified what engineers call the "Expansion Medium", the air. The nitrogen in the air acts inertly in the oxidation process and expands as it heats. During the combustion process, water vapor and carbon dioxide are formed. Water vapor expands 12X for every BTU versus nitrogen. Water injection (or even high humidity days) add power because the same heat causes this water to push 12 times as hard as the nitrogen. Carbon dioxide has an even greater expansion ratio (don't have that number off the top of my head). I'm aware of a UK race team running H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) injection instead of nitrous. Nitrous Oxide is 1/3 oxygen and 2/3 nitrogen. The nitrogen element provides an expansion medium to take advantage of the additional heat generated. H2O2 injection provides additional water vapor to act as the expansion medium.

You pointed out that the greatest amount of heat is generated at Stoic. What this means is that less heat is generated at a 16:1 AFR than 14.7. Folks that are afraid of running 15.1:1 AFR (recommended by Edlebrock for their AFB Carb) should have no fear. Furthermore, with the new direct injection, they are running engines as lean as 60:1 under light load conditions! An interesting study is the Honda CVCC engine from the mid-70s.

It's good to see thinking people sharing.

Mike

[Tempted]

I think too much, its killing me! I've started 3 projects at once and now its a cluster. The Iroc R/T is getting prepped for my *attempt* at making it twin charged with an M90, similar to the VW system but less complicated and higher output. I started a little rotary engine project trying to prove or disprove a design that I think will work. Essentially a turbine but with a compression stage. Instead of having separate cylinders, it has only one with 4 blades. It means no vibration and no rods, pistons or crank to fail. So far all I've done is mounted the blades into an 8" steel tube and cut the exhaust and intake ports. I'm stuck on the ignition system. At first I want to run 1 plug with a hall effect sensor that trips the circuit. I think that doing it that way will limit the RPMs. I started thinking about running a distributor from a 4 cylinder and mounting all 4 plugs in the one combustion chamber, then letting them fire like blinking Christmas tree lights. It will distribute the load on each plug. The problem there is timing. It isn't going to be easy to time a 10k rpm engine with only one combustion chamber. The bright side is I'll have zero use for advancing or retarding the system while operating. My 3rd is an AWD 568 conversion but I'm thinking that its going on the back burner for a while. I need to finish the car before I do any more tinkering. I have a short attention span, when I get bored I move on.

[mpgmike]

Pics or at least drawings would be awesome. I happen to do alot with petrochemical combustion processes, and if you want to toss questions my way I'd be happy to think things through with you.

Mike

[shadow88]

I like the way you think too. I have run a lean burn engine for almost a year and I'v had a bore scope down the plug holes a few times and nothing looks bad, worn, damaged or out of place. I tend to cruise at about 21:1. It's just an estimate because my wideband stops reading at 18:1

I have had a chat with a good friend of mine who's a machinist, welder, engine builder, and just a smart and handy guy to know. He says this about making power..... The key to making power is being able to burn as much oxygen as you can. You add the fuel to burn the oxygen at the ratio required to keep the engine alive.

Just thinking about this makes me want to try another water injection idea for the daily driver.

[Tempted]

Pics or at least drawings would be awesome. I happen to do alot with petrochemical combustion processes, and if you want to toss questions my way I'd be happy to think things through with you.

Mike

I've made a few changes. The new plans have a supercharger on top, eliminating the need for a combustion chamber valve. At atmospheric pressure plus one bar, this motor could theoretically produce the same output as a big V8 but with none of the vibrations or internal loss. Theory, though, is rarely easy to make work. I've also changed the design of the swing gate. Now it isn't cam driven, its spring driven and the rotors push it down. Once the rotors breaks contact, the gate's spring forces it back up before the next combustion. These are crude drawings, I'll take pictures of the engine and post them up. It isn't even close to operable now. In theory you should also be able to add a turbo to push through a carb which is on top of the blower. The carb would be both pushed and pulled in the same direction increasing flow. This is all assuming that the swing gate can close fast enough to sustain high RPMs. The way I think it will work, however, won't run at turbine speeds. It should be closer to standard piston engine speeds. Turbines have to spin that fast because they don't have a compression stroke or directed force. This will have a 1 bar combustion chamber pressure prior to ignition meaning twice the amount of air moved when compared to a turbine.


http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh15/wvxvxvxvw/Car stuff/Unstable.png
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh15/wvxvxvxvw/Car stuff/Stable.png

What I've been trying to accomplish is a symmetrical rotary engine. The Wankle, having an oblong movement, loses some efficiency in the direction change. If it were symmetrical it would make more power and be more efficient, however making a symmetrical rotary that also has an acceptable compression has yet to be cracked. If there was a giant injector that could provide both the fuel and air at high pressure, this symmetrical motor could be done easily. The injector would provide the compression itself and you would have no use for any force induction. This particular motor won't be powerful or efficient, but I'm hoping to get a baseline and set goals for improvement. The biggest benefit I've found is the size. You are talking about an engine with essentially 4 cylinders that will be half the size of a 2 liter bottle. The biggest component will be the supercharger. If it works it could be a perfect substitute for applications requiring big power but are limited on space. ATVs, small aircraft, etc.

[turbovanman²]

Subscribed but I disagree with you saying the air getting heated causes the piston to be pushed down. The exploding "gas" push's the piston down. Just look at diesels, they run 20:1+ compression but without the diesel being injected and ignited by the hot air, all you have is a hot air pump that fry's a starter and batteries in 30 mins, :p

[mpgmike]

When the diesel fuel is injected into the cylinder, the high compression creates sufficient heat and pressure to self-ignite the fuel. Once burning, it heats the air even more. Furthermore, as the piston begins its descent, the volume increases. The continued burning of the fuel provides an ongoing source of heat that perpetuates the expansion process (in spite of increasing volume).

Diesels have an additional benefit in that they not only have a high compression ratio, then also have a high expansion ratio. There is more time for the kinetic movement of the piston to absorb more of the expansion energy provided by the burning fuel heating the air. Mike Brown marketed cam & pistons for popular V-8s in the 1980's that delivered an extended intake valve opening with a static compression ratio of 16:1. With the intake valve hanging open, much of the air/fuel charge was drawn in during the intake stroke, swirled around the hot cylinder, vaporized and homogenized, then got pushed back into the intake plenum to be drawn in by the next cylinder. This created a dynamic compression ratio of about 8:1. When the plug fired, the expansion ratio was 16:1. These suckers would pull a house and deliver about 50% better fuel economy.

Mike

[shadow88]

Subscribed but I disagree with you saying the air getting heated causes the piston to be pushed down. The exploding "gas" push's the piston down. Just look at diesels, they run 20:1+ compression but without the diesel being injected and ignited by the hot air, all you have is a hot air pump that fry's a starter and batteries in 30 mins, :p

Can we agree the exploding "gas" is heated air (mostly nitrogen) and it's expaning due to this explosion and that pushes the piston down?

[turbovanman²]

Can we agree the exploding "gas" is heated air (mostly nitrogen) and it's expanding due to this explosion and that pushes the piston down?

I have more time to expand my initial reply-

Yes, we can, to a point. :thumb: but its not mostly nitrogen, its HC, CO, CO2, water and a few other chemicals, NOx is a part but its proportionate to the chamber temp. Also, its the explosion that causes the piston to move down, which in part, is air, just like a bomb, as that's what sorta happens, lol, the gas ignites like a bomb and push's the piston down.

[/COLOR]
When the diesel fuel is injected into the cylinder, the high compression creates sufficient heat and pressure to self-ignite the fuel. Once burning, it heats the air even more. Furthermore, as the piston begins its descent, the volume increases. The continued burning of the fuel provides an ongoing source of heat that perpetuates the expansion process (in spite of increasing volume).

Diesels have an additional benefit in that they not only have a high compression ratio, then also have a high expansion ratio. There is more time for the kinetic movement of the piston to absorb more of the expansion energy provided by the burning fuel heating the air. Mike Brown marketed cam & pistons for popular V-8s in the 1980's that delivered an extended intake valve opening with a static compression ratio of 16:1. With the intake valve hanging open, much of the air/fuel charge was drawn in during the intake stroke, swirled around the hot cylinder, vaporized and homogenized, then got pushed back into the intake plenum to be drawn in by the next cylinder. This created a dynamic compression ratio of about 8:1. When the plug fired, the expansion ratio was 16:1. These suckers would pull a house and deliver about 50% better fuel economy.

Mike

Correct, but its not just simply air doing the work as sorta noted by Shadow 88.

If it got better mpg and more power, why didn't they put it on every engine?

[Reaper1]

No. This is an exothermal chemical reaction. What goes into the cylinder is NOT what comes out!! It's got totally different chemical properties...hence, catalytic converters (which also causes an exothermal chemical reaction and is a source I think that is a missed opportunity to find more "free" power).

The chemical reaction is what runs the engine. This reaction is what produces the heat and pressure. The space shuttle main engines are nothing more than water cannons! Each of the substances entering the combustion chamber has its own chemical make-up. When an external source that spikes the temperature over the threshold of where these substances react, they form a new substance, and in that process it gives off self-sustaining heat to continue the process by building the pressure. This is where the power is made.

I've seen this argument before about other things being introduced into the combustion chamber will make less power (specifically with water injection because of the whole taking up space thing). If the substance being introduced to the chemical reaction is inert to that reaction completely, then this is a true statement. However, if it has the capability of oxidizing in that environment, it will not cause a loss in power provided it keeps the pressure and heat produced by the reaction below the "auto-ignition" threshold for the entire mixture for the entire time it takes for the reaction to occur. This is why water injection DOES work, and can work well beyond what most people would think. It is theoretically possible to run an engine on nothing but water (which then it becomes a steam engine that makes its own heat to boil the water).

Lean burn works fine and the argument of using only the amount of chemical to make a big enough reaction to make the power needed to move the vehicle easily translates to most people as better fuel economy. There are other physical factors about the engine that make it possible to do this *well*. Swirl and tumble to create a homogeneous mixture is ESSENTIAL. Also, getting that mixture in the correct space to burn is critical. This means that port design, valve design, valve angle, valve seat design, head chamber design, and piston design ALL play a roll in how well an engine will lean burn. If you only have a small amount of mixture in a chamber and it is all spread out and not very well mixed, you are asking for trouble! Get it all in the same spot where you can control it...NOW you've got something! To put it mildly, our stock and even most of our modified engines we put together SUCK at this and it's why some people have found limits as to how lean they can burn until it misfires and starts to waste fuel.

Now, why can't we run the stoichiometric ratio at high boost without blowing the engine up? What about leaner because that will be less temperature, right? That's the argument that was just made! The answer was given in the same argument. The fuel cools down the mixture so that it takes more energy to get to the ignition point. If you are introducing a situation where there is more mass being compressed, you WILL get more heat. So, in order for the chemical reaction to not "blow up", we need to cool off the mixture so it can hold off the reaction until it is told to react by the spark plug. Hence the need to introduce more fuel than is needed to make the energy we are looking for. Remember, the reaction is what gives us the energy. So, the more reaction you can make, the more energy you can extract. More air gives is part of the mixture...you need more fuel to match it. BUT, now that mass will create more heat than is needed to ignite the reaction before it is told to, so you introduce more of the other part of the mixture to cool it off.

Now, here's something to think about: the more work that has to be done to get the mixture to the ignition point, the less efficient the process is. What if we could stabilize the temperature of the mixture across the entire operating range of the engine to just under where it is capable of igniting itself? Excessive timing advance would not be needed because the mixture is already thermally ready to react with just a little push. You still have to take into account the TIME it takes for the reaction to happen, but less energy will be spent heating up the mixture, and more on the pure reaction. This increases efficiency all over the place!

How can we do that? Monitor the combustion chamber temperature. Keep the fuel as HOT as you can without it cavititating (aka vapor lock) The higher the pressure in the line, the higher the temperature the fuel can be. Introduce the amount of fuel you require for the amount of energy you want from the reaction. The air temperature is also monitored. A known amount of fuel and air and known temperatures will gain a known amount of heat during compression. From this, it can now be determined how much energy we need to take out of the mixture to regulate its temperature, so we can inject another, cooler substance and hold the combustion chamber temperatures pretty steady. Of course direct injection would be best, but our crude ways of getting the mixture to the chamber can also be effective, just not as precise as is needed to really make this work to its highest efficiency level. To make it even more simple, if the temperature of the fuel could be varied, then no other substance would be needed. Monitoring of the combustion chamber temperature and pressure can be done via the ignition system by measuring the resistance to make a spark. This is already being done in some modern, mass produced engines.

For those that read Mike's comment about people using hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) as a power adder, please know this: they are NOT using the stuff in the brown bottles at the corner drug store! They are using a much more potent, condensed and pure version of it, which is very dangerous on many levels! DO NOT try to mess with that stuff unless you REALLY know what you are doing!

Octane does have to do with the point at which the fuel will ignite, however, it also has to do with how long it will take for the reaction to finish. The higher the octane, the longer it takes for the reaction to fully develop, so it makes the mixture react slower. This helps mitigate pressure spikes which result in temperature spikes, which can result in unwanted ignition of the mixture (known as knock to most of us). Introducing another agent to the reaction also changes this factor. This is the reason that engines that are naturally aspirated with lower compression ratios can actually LOOSE power using higher octane mixtures. In order to take advantage of it, they point at which the mixture is told to react needs to happen sooner in the cycle so that the maximum amount of energy released from the reaction can be captured. If the ignition point is left alone, then the engine is outside of where it can efficiently capture that energy mechanically.

Knowing this, IF we could get away with running lower octane fuel, we could actually have a more efficient engine because the energy released would be within the mechanical "sweet spot" to capture it!

The idea for the symmetrical rotary engine is neat, but without some way to control where the mixture is, and how condensed it is in the chamber, I think you will find exactly what all rotary fans already know...it is going to use a LOT of fuel to run correctly simply because it is impossible to make the mixture homogeneous enough to burn effectively to get the energy you want with the small amount of fuel you want to use.

You might want to check out the Mercury Marine Optimax system. It injects both air AND fuel into the chamber through the injectors. The OMC FICHT system might also spark your interest. The injectors are small, solenoid activated pistons that force the fuel through the pintle at very high pressure to atomize it. It's a great idea, but the system on those engines proved to be troublesome. I believe some direct injected diesels use the same idea.

[shadow88]

Do you offer a Coles notes version? lol

[turbovanman²]

No. This is an exothermal chemical reaction. What goes into the cylinder is NOT what comes out!! It's got totally different chemical properties...hence, catalytic converters (which also causes an exothermal chemical reaction and is a source I think that is a missed opportunity to find more "free" power).

.

Ala turbo's, :nod:

[Tempted]

Turbo vehicles are the monkey wrench. They are where efficiency is taken to the extreme. A 350 V8 TBI truck engine makes 190hp and is around 8.5:1 compression. Toss a big turbo on it and, if the block and rotating assembly hold, you can push 800hp out of the same engine. The thing about it is you don't always have to make that much power, with a turbo you can revert back to 190hp which will save the engine from excessive wear and save fuel. Imagine making 300hp from an N/A H22. Then do the same with a turbo H22. The turbo car will last longer and get better fuel economy. *My* idea behind that engine is that while the engine itself is tiny, the combustion chambers are rather large. It should push the same amount of air at a 2:1 C/R as a large 4 cylinder. I think where it holds merit is in the fact that 3 or 4 or more can be used in sequence while still being small. This being the case, you won't have to run them all at the same time. They are connected to the same crank but the cylinders are not the same block. Turn off the ones you don't need while you're cruising. Like a multi-rotor Wankle but with more control and more efficient.

[85boostbox]

Subscribed :thumbup:

[85boostbox]

So let me ask this? Why is it if you heat fuel aka running coolant line around fuel lines get better gas mileage. I understand the whole concept of vaporization to mix the fuel better. But what if you were to "cool" the fuel and run a higher compression ratio to get it further away from its flash point. Like get colder air and colder fuel. Wouldn't it technically take less fuel if you can keep it cool long enough before ignition before you get pre ignition?

[Force Fed Mopar]

There is a very similar discussion going on over on Speedtalk, although it is geared more towards finding a way to use the already-present nitrogen to increase power and efficiency.

[85boostbox]

I actually have a PM into mpgmike. I was reading about his Daytona and some of the mods. More particularly in the peltier chips. Those would be a EXCELLENT add on to a air to water inter cooler if they can efficiently cool and keep the water cool in the intercooler,. With one of those you might be able to "delete" the need for a radiator and a resovoir. Just run a smaller "chamber" to put the chip on and just have the coolant lines run through that.

[mpgmike]

Wow! I love these discussions, and they pop up about every 2 years. Of course, a discussions like this would never be complete without mention of the greatest engine and combustion efficiency Master to ever grace the planet, Larry Widmer (TheOldOne.com). He had a 1.8 liter Honda running 30 psi boost with 13:1 compression ON 93 OCTANE PUMP GAS!!!

To expound on Reaper's comments about exothermic reactions, vaporizing the fuel takes energy and is therefore endothermic; it takes energy to happen. To combine hydrogen with oxygen to form water requires first prying the hydrogens away from the HC fuel molecule. This is endothermic. Secondly, it takes energy to split the oxygen atoms away from the stable oxygen molecule. This too is endothermic. So far we have mentioned 3 energy absorbing processes:
1- vaporize the fuel
2- dismantle the HC molecule into hydrogen and carbon atoms
3- split the oxygen molecules into oxygen atoms

Once we have a free hydrogen radical, it is able to bond with an oxygen atom to form a hydroxyl OH- radical. This is exothermic. The OH- radical will attract another hydrogen atom to form stable water (H20). The same process happens with the carbon; first carbon monoxide (CO), then carbon dioxide (CO2). Both of these reactions are exothermic. About 65% of the harnessed energy comes from the formation of water, 30% from forming carbon monoxide, and only 5% from the formation of carbon dioxide.

Also mentioned is the Time factor. It typically takes less than 1 millisecond (ms) to completely burn a hexane (C6H14) molecule, but takes over 33 milliseconds to burn a dodecane (C12H26) molecule. Let's look at what this really means. Any engine running at 2000 rpm will have about 16.7 ms for the piston to travel from TDC to BDC. With this in mind, there are constituents in the fuel that simply cannot combust in the allotted time; and that is IF they are fully vaporized and homogenized so they can start burning AND have started the combustion process by TDC. Next, let's look at piston speed versus burn speed. Gasoline burns at 44.7 cm/sec. A 100 mm stroke 2.5 will have a piston speed at 90 degrees ATDC of 10.5 cm/sec. Next consider the exhaust valve opening at about 70 degrees ATDC. Bottom line is that there just isn't much time to burn all the fuel possible, and even after burning it, there is another time element in converting that heat into expansive pressure.

Suffice it to say, pre-vaporizing the fuel has successfully been tried in the past as a means of reducing the endothermic vaporization process and burn time elements. This is why pre-heating the fuel has an advantage.

Mike

[Tempted]

So let me ask this? Why is it if you heat fuel aka running coolant line around fuel lines get better gas mileage. I understand the whole concept of vaporization to mix the fuel better. But what if you were to "cool" the fuel and run a higher compression ratio to get it further away from its flash point. Like get colder air and colder fuel. Wouldn't it technically take less fuel if you can keep it cool long enough before ignition before you get pre ignition?

Well too cool is impossible in a gas burner. Gas has a flash point weigh below zero. And no, it would not take less fuel if the fuel was cold. It would take more. Cold fuel is denser. The denser it is, the more will pass the injector each pulse. Great for performance, not good for economy. Technically cold fuel is more efficient than hot fuel because it can expand more air. The thing is efficiency is at its highest when the motor is pushing 100% max power. Since cars rarely go into max power the engines are never operating at full efficiency. This means that you don't need that cold fuel most of the time, hot fuel will expand enough to keep the power you need while pushing less volume through the injector.





For the record, I'm no expert and rather than learning through other people's success I tend to come to my own conclusions. I might be wrong. I do have a steam turbine sitting here on my table that ran a 1.2v lightbulb for over 30 hours on one single 9 volt battery and a couple liters of water. I did my best to figure out how to self sustain using water only, but I couldn't do it. It takes power to make power holds true, but what made this work is the way I positioned everything. I have a 12v micro heating element at the bottom of a glass. I used a two liter bottle upside down with macro line acting as a flow restriction. By hanging the bottle upside down above the engine I provided some energy in the form of falling water. The cool water hits rotor on the right side, which delivers some of the energy I used by hanging the bottle. When the rotor spins it falls onto the heating element. That then creates a little steam, which pushes up on the left side of the rotor. I wired a micro DC motor to act like a generator and am driving it off of the rotor shaft wired to the battery/heating element circuit. The bulb is mounted below the glass in order to catch and recycle as much heat as possible back into the steam pot. With a large enough turbine this should be a pretty efficient power source and if you can figure a way to hook it into your plumbing then you'll be using the water companies power rather than your own.

[85boostbox]

Lmao I feel like I'm in chemistry and calculus class again. I agree mike that there is not a lot of conversations like this and I love it. Puts great minds together. This is how a thesis begins and is produced. Look at the greatest scientists and inventors. They bounced ideas off of other people and then something would "usually" be created.

Anyways. Let me get this straight. For the best reaction in combustion to happen you want "cold air" and then better "vaporized" fuel. That way you get the most "air" and lesser "fuel" to get a completer cleaner burn.

Paul

[85boostbox]

Well too cool is impossible in a gas burner. Gas has a flash point weigh below zero. And no, it would not take less fuel if the fuel was cold. It would take more. Cold fuel is denser. The denser it is, the more will pass the injector each pulse. Great for performance, not good for economy. Technically cold fuel is more efficient than hot fuel because it can expand more air. The thing is efficiency is at its highest when the motor is pushing 100% max power. Since cars rarely go into max power the engines are never operating at full efficiency. This means that you don't need that cold fuel most of the time, hot fuel will expand enough to keep the power you need while pushing less volume through the injector.

Ok this makes no sense to me. If you can get the fuel colder, I understand about the flash point, but if you get everything colder (farther away) from when the reaction happens wouldn't it technically take more heat to get pre ignition. I don't know I have the idea in my head just can't explain it right...

[Tempted]

Preignition is only and issue if the walls are too hot. A 15:1 AFR won't run cold no matter the fuel's temperature. The only time you ever want to cool a cylinder down is when it is too hot for the fuel to stay stable. The hotter, the better.

As for the cylinder running too cool, once the fuel ignites the temp is the same as it would have been with hot fuel if both have the same amount coming in. Preignition is going to happen at the same temperature. Making every cold before the injector doesn't make is burn cooler in the combustion chamber.

[85boostbox]

I understand about it will burn at the same temperature. Not trying to get the actual burn colder. Ok I'm on my cell phone. When I get home and at a computer I might be able to better explain what I am trying to say. LOL

[mpgmike]

Anyways. Let me get this straight. For the best reaction in combustion to happen you want "cold air" and then better "vaporized" fuel. That way you get the most "air" and lesser "fuel" to get a completer cleaner burn.

Paul
I have found with carb & TBI that hot air is good, since there is a long distance between the fuel source and the combustion chamber. With PFI, I have found no benefit from heated air; there isn't enough distance and time for the hot air to positively affect the vaporization process. Cold air and hot fuel have served me well on many applications (I really do play with this stuff regularly!).

As stated, the energy has to come from somewhere. In aiding the vaporization process by preheating the fuel with engine coolant (normally wasted thermal energy), less of the combustion energy is devoted to that process. That means more of that thermal energy is available to act on the expansion medium (nitrogen, water vapor, carbon dioxide, etc.) to create more power from the fuel consumed (better efficiency). About the only time cold fuel makes sense is when looking for the last HP on an extreme duty application AND the combustion chamber is designed to vaporize and homogenize the fuel once it gets there. For years that was the secret to making power in NASCAR with the restrictor plates.

Mike

[RoadWarrior222]

Few points..

Conventional 4 strokes are most efficient at about 90% max torque at 80-90% load, not 100% max power. Don't make me post BSFC graphs again, every time I do that the thread dies in a blizzard of blank stares :D

Nitrogen isn't NOx emissions, it's ~80% of normal air, the NOx emissions is just what part of that burns. To get your 1 part O2 to burn, you've gotta suck in 4 parts N that basically does a lot of the expanding when heated.

Don't confuse best power with best economy, though improving economy does not necessarily mean that you don't also increase power, though you may gain economy lose power, gain power gain economy, or gain power and lose economy.

[RoadWarrior222]

Expanding on Mike's points, in MPFI/Port injection, what happens, particularly in vacuum is the injector sprays, THEN the port opens and the air pushes the atomised fuel into the chamber, maybe 3 inches, ahead of the air... so the hot air, being heated way up the pipe from the fuel, doesn't really affect the fuel much.

However, if you get it VERY hot, there should be some pumping efficiency gain, due to having to open your throttle plate wider for the same weight of air induction. This may also bump you up the load curve (under those specific conditions) and make BSFC lower.... BUT will reduce maximum attainable power/torque.

[Force Fed Mopar]

The theory being discussed in the thread I mentioned had to do with trying to find a way to exite that 80% nitrogen more to increase power and efficiency without having to add more fuel, or maybe even use less.

85boostbox, I think what they are basically saying is that the cool air helps prevent preignition and the hot fuel atomizes better to promote a more complete burn.

[85boostbox]

Ok that makes a little more sense. What I was trying to get at was keeping the fuel more stable before the actual ignition. Meaning fuel will be more stable the the cooler and more dense it is. But I see where the math comes in at here though. Meaning the 14.7:1. Which is considered a perfect burn.

[85boostbox]

So in all reality take it our cars, we can run 14.7 as long as the air is cool enough to not cause the fuel to prematurely ignite.

[Tempted]

We can run 30:1 if we can figure out a way to keep the cylinder cooler than the auto ignition temperature. Running lean only hurts an engine if it overheats.

[mpgmike]

Actually, stoic creates the most heat. As you go leaner than 14.7:1, temps actually go down. I'm only aware of one invention that has created conditions where 30:1 is capable and that is the Firestorm Spark Plugs. Inventor Bob Krupa ran a '96 T-Bird at 30:1 at WOT and picked up 125 wheel HP in the process!

Mike

[RoadWarrior222]

Smokey Yunick was getting the mixture real lean, 26:1 was mentioned, but I dunno where he ultimately ended up...
Very good reads here and here...
http://books.google.ca/books?id=bfLnBTJ2nkYC&pg=PA71&dq=smokey+yunick+turbo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nDDnUKCGDvOq0AHt0YGICw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=smokey%20yunick%20turbo&f=false
http://books.google.ca/books?id=nruj6VeHNy8C&pg=PA48&dq=smokey+yunick+turbo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nDDnUKCGDvOq0AHt0YGICw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=smokey%20yunick%20turbo&f=false

Oh and one more I think, hadn't come across this one before...
http://books.google.ca/books?id=CplP5IwuFZkC&pg=PA105&dq=smokey+yunick+turbo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nDDnUKCGDvOq0AHt0YGICw&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=smokey%20yunick%20turbo&f=false

[turbovanman²]

For the record, I'm no expert and rather than learning through other people's success I tend to come to my own conclusions. I might be wrong. I do have a steam turbine sitting here on my table that ran a 1.2v lightbulb for over 30 hours on one single 9 volt battery and a couple liters of water. I did my best to figure out how to self sustain using water only, but I couldn't do it. It takes power to make power holds true, but what made this work is the way I positioned everything.

Your doing it wrong, you need an Arc Reactor, :p


Ok that makes a little more sense. What I was trying to get at was keeping the fuel more stable before the actual ignition. Meaning fuel will be more stable the the cooler and more dense it is. But I see where the math comes in at here though. Meaning the 14.7:1. Which is considered a perfect burn.

14.7:1 was picked because it creates the best exhaust mixture for a cat to light off and emit cleaner tail pipe emissions.

As said, you want cold air and hot fuel. Years ago, I remember reading about a 4.3 TBI engine, they moddified it to superheat the gas and put the vapour into the intake or something similar, sorry going off memory. It worked but it was a complicated process, too technical or impractical for an everyday Joe.

[OmniLuvr]

If it got better mpg and more power, why didn't they put it on every engine?

emmisions, you should know that...

[Tempted]

Your doing it wrong, you need an Arc Reactor, :p

I wonder what I could do with all these left over magnetrons laying around.... I build arc welders and the cheapest way to do it is with a few old microwaves. I'll build a 330v arc welder from three microwaves and have all the other parts left over. I re-wind the secondary coils to about 15-20 volts per transformer. Costs 20 bucks to build, makes a better arc welder than you can buy. And after you're done you have all these cool little leftover parts to play with. Magnetrons, hub motor fans, micro switches, super low speed/super high torque drive motors, timers, etc.

Thinking about it, why can't a magnetron be used for a steam engine heat source? Its about the most efficient way to produce heat on the planet. Almost no secondary waste and very little primary. If you can get the voltage/amperage/resistance just right, the transformer wouldn't hold any heat because the magnetron would be consuming all of its energy.

[turbovanman²]

I wonder what I could do with all these left over magnetrons laying around.... I build arc welders and the cheapest way to do it is with a few old microwaves. I'll build a 330v arc welder from three microwaves and have all the other parts left over. I re-wind the secondary coils to about 15-20 volts per transformer. Costs 20 bucks to build, makes a better arc welder than you can buy. And after you're done you have all these cool little leftover parts to play with. Magnetrons, hub motor fans, micro switches, super low speed/super high torque drive motors, timers, etc.

Thinking about it, why can't a magnetron be used for a steam engine heat source? Its about the most efficient way to produce heat on the planet. Almost no secondary waste and very little primary. If you can get the voltage/amperage/resistance just right, the transformer wouldn't hold any heat because the magnetron would be consuming all of its energy.

Great idea's but my post was in jest, it was from Iron Man.

[Reaper1]

Why do people keep saying the nitrogen is expanding? The atoms don't get any larger! LOL Nitrogen is being released and excited (let's see if I get this right), so the enthalpy is increased which is what is measured as pressure.

14.7:1 is based on chemistry. Basically this is the mixture ratio where the chemical reaction will completely consume all the things making up the mixture equally so there is none of either left once the reaction is complete. Yes, there is stuff left over, but it is a completely new chemical or compound.

Mike, have you ever monitored EGT's while lean burning? I know Larry (TOO) did. He documented having an engine that was lean burning with his "Soft Head" design and some other crazy things he does with VERY low EGT's...like 700*F low!

---------- Post added at 08:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------


I wonder what I could do with all these left over magnetrons laying around.... I build arc welders and the cheapest way to do it is with a few old microwaves. I'll build a 330v arc welder from three microwaves and have all the other parts left over. I re-wind the secondary coils to about 15-20 volts per transformer. Costs 20 bucks to build, makes a better arc welder than you can buy. And after you're done you have all these cool little leftover parts to play with. Magnetrons, hub motor fans, micro switches, super low speed/super high torque drive motors, timers, etc.

Thinking about it, why can't a magnetron be used for a steam engine heat source? Its about the most efficient way to produce heat on the planet. Almost no secondary waste and very little primary. If you can get the voltage/amperage/resistance just right, the transformer wouldn't hold any heat because the magnetron would be consuming all of its energy.

I think you could probably get the idea to work, but I don't think it would be self-sustaining. You aren't going to be able to recover enough energy to run the magnetrons soley off of the turbine. You could get close, though! Man, now I have ideas spinning in my head about how to make that work! LOL

[RoadWarrior222]

It's essentially quite simple, you print some quantum dots on the inside of nanotubes, that restrict the degrees of freedom of vibrational freedom of the molecules, pass superheated steam through them and program them to catalytically dissociate hydrogen and oxygen, which gives you fuel to burn and make/heat more steam....

[Tempted]

I think you could probably get the idea to work, but I don't think it would be self-sustaining. You aren't going to be able to recover enough energy to run the magnetrons soley off of the turbine. You could get close, though! Man, now I have ideas spinning in my head about how to make that work! LOL


I've just about given up on my quest to find a free energy. Instead I'm looking for low input, high result energy. That is where electric cars come in, but the weight is what kills them. If you can run a steam or turbine engine on minimal input, then run a generator from them that powers a battery pack I think you could get into the 90% range, Instead of the engine idling down when you come to a halt, it will keep spinning full RPMs and store the power rather than waste it(an internal combustion piston engine is 0% efficient at idle speed). Combine it with regenerative braking and solar panels and we might actually get the impossible 100mpg passenger car. There are some major drawbacks though. One, you would need to carry an enormous amount of water. While you could use a cooling chimney that reverts steam back into water before it leaves the exhaust, you'll never pull as many MPGs with steamed water as you would an ignited fuel. The nice part is you don't have to worry about how clean the water is. High mineral content will cause the water to boil faster. Another major issue is that of the weight of the system. Between the electric motors, generator head and boiler you would have 500 pounds of extra weight. You could offset it by removing the piston engine but then you won't have a continuous way to power the heating element. This is were something like a 50cc scooter motor mated to a 20 amp alternator might come into play. Use the small engine as a power source for the heating element and let the big steam turbine run at max speed all the time and store excess power in small batteries. One brilliant thing about steam powered engines is the fact that if you do experience an element failure, just pick up some wood off the side of the road and light a fire under the boiler until you can get it fixed. Steam turbine output is low but continuous. Heck leave it running over night attached to your power grid and use it to run some of your electronics.

[85boostbox]

I've always had in my head an idea about electric cars. I'm on my phone again but later I will post an idea about how it might be able to work. Pretty much it would be a self sustaining electric system. I strongly believe it could be done. As a matter of fact I know it could be done it would just take some engineering and a lot of patience to do it.

[turbovanman²]

I've always had in my head an idea about electric cars. I'm on my phone again but later I will post an idea about how it might be able to work. Pretty much it would be a self sustaining electric system. I strongly believe it could be done. As a matter of fact I know it could be done it would just take some engineering and a lot of patience to do it.

If you can make it work, you'd be so rich your head would spin.

[Reaper1]

A 100% self sustaining system that creates energy to keep itself going AND for something else to use...nope. Not gonna happen.

You can get CLOSE, but it will not self-sustain. There WILL be inefficiencies that will cause the system to loose some of the energy over time and eventually it will stop.

[mpgmike]

A 100% self sustaining system that creates energy to keep itself going AND for something else to use...nope. Not gonna happen.

You can get CLOSE, but it will not self-sustain. There WILL be inefficiencies that will cause the system to loose some of the energy over time and eventually it will stop.
Check into EV Grey's electric motor.

Mike

[85boostbox]

A 100% self sustaining system that creates energy to keep itself going AND for something else to use...nope. Not gonna happen.

You can get CLOSE, but it will not self-sustain. There WILL be inefficiencies that will cause the system to loose some of the energy over time and eventually it will stop.

That is not true. You will always have wearable parts. But if you can create more power than power being used it will be 100% self sustaining. It will actually be more than 100% cause you will excess power.

You car in technical terms self sustains electrical power. Until you run out of gas of course. But... the alternator runs the car and all of electronics, and charges the battery at the same time. Now put that same theory into motion.

I will make a drawing here in about a half an hour.

[85boostbox]

If you can make it work, you'd be so rich your head would spin.

I don't look for it as in money. Money brings more problems than what it would be worth to me. I would do it more or less to prove it could and can be done. Auto companies have the capabilities to do it but they won't. It would create such a wave in the auto industry and oil industry our country would go under.

[85boostbox]

43252



Hopefully the pic uploads....

But here it is if it does. I was going to do this on a go kart to start with. Start off on a small scale and see what comes of it. and with simple car parts. But it is quite a simple system. You will need the battery to take off and accelerate but once you get a to a cruise speed you will be able to more or less run the motor with just one alternator running off of a pulley while the wheels are turning, while the other alternator is running and turning off the other side with a pulley it is already charging the battery back up. NOw one alternator will be dedicated to the battery while the other one while under cruise speed will be dedicated to motor only. BUt the nice thing about this setup is is that even while accelerating and taking off the alternator dedicated for the battery will be turning and already throwing a charge back into the battery. Now of course this setup would have to havev some sort of regulator and switches but that I would have to figure out once i start this project. Let me know what you guys think of it.


Paul

[mpgmike]

The second law of thermodynamics says the battery dies. I'm betting my money on Faraday.

Mike

[RoadWarrior222]

With typical "off the shelf" small DC traction motor and alternator efficiencies, running it with the wheels off the ground, and neglecting drivetrain and frinctional losses, it would only put about 36% of the power back in the battery. In fact, because of the losses, the battery would not get you as far as if you just deleted the alternators... if you wanted to rig them for regen braking, that's a different story.

[85boostbox]

The second law of thermodynamics says the battery dies. I'm betting my money on Faraday.

Mike

I see what your saying. That is why I said engineering and patience would have to be put into it. But I think your forgetting what creates heat. And you missed a VERY key point in what I put in the writing... LOW AMP High torque motor.[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added at 09:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------


With typical "off the shelf" small DC traction motor and alternator efficiencies, running it with the wheels off the ground, and neglecting drivetrain and frinctional losses, it would only put about 36% of the power back in the battery. In fact, because of the losses, the battery would not get you as far as if you just deleted the alternators... if you wanted to rig them for regen braking, that's a different story.

Your forgetting about the wonderful world of Pulleys

[black86glhs]

I got you all beat. Money makes more power than any of the things you can come up with.:p

[shadow88]

I see what your saying. That is why I said engineering and patience would have to be put into it. But I think your forgetting what creates heat. And you missed a VERY key point in what I put in the writing... LOW AMP High torque motor.[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added at 09:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------



Your forgetting about the wonderful world of Pulleys

Do you have a link to the motor you would hope to use? Just so we know how much torque and how low amps we're talking. Also, the voltage input would be handy.

[RoadWarrior222]

Your forgetting about the wonderful world of PulleysWell that puts me in my place then don't it....

... apart from 2:1 gearing gets you twice the speed and half the torque, or twice the torque and half the speed, whichever way you like to look at it.

[85boostbox]

As stated it would take some thought. Oh well. It could be worth a shot. Anyways here is a link of a motor. http://www.cloudelectric.com/product-p/mo-me0909.htm

[Reaper1]

Check into EV Grey's electric motor.

Mike

I looked at it a bit on my phone while I was eating. I'll look at it more tomorrow, but I smell stink all over that! Something doesn't add up. I'll take a look at the patents and see where they take me.


43252



Hopefully the pic uploads....

But here it is if it does. I was going to do this on a go kart to start with. Start off on a small scale and see what comes of it. and with simple car parts. But it is quite a simple system. You will need the battery to take off and accelerate but once you get a to a cruise speed you will be able to more or less run the motor with just one alternator running off of a pulley while the wheels are turning, while the other alternator is running and turning off the other side with a pulley it is already charging the battery back up. NOw one alternator will be dedicated to the battery while the other one while under cruise speed will be dedicated to motor only. BUt the nice thing about this setup is is that even while accelerating and taking off the alternator dedicated for the battery will be turning and already throwing a charge back into the battery. Now of course this setup would have to havev some sort of regulator and switches but that I would have to figure out once i start this project. Let me know what you guys think of it.


Paul

Interesting idea, but you can't get more energy out of something than you put in. The entire universe works this way.


I see what your saying. That is why I said engineering and patience would have to be put into it. But I think your forgetting what creates heat. And you missed a VERY key point in what I put in the writing... LOW AMP High torque motor.[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added at 09:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------



Your forgetting about the wonderful world of Pulleys

With pulleys you are introducing more mechanical losses. The more direct the drive, the better. I have to keep remembering something: "free" energy isn't "free" at all. It HAS to come from somewhere. Losses in systems, no matter how efficient, WILL eventually lead to the system stopping without the introduction of more energy.

BTW, your car actually runs off of the battery. The alternator is there simply to keep it topped off. The battery acts as a reservoir and is continuously being drawn down. The alternator acts like a dam...it lets enough energy trickle back into the battery to keep things going. If a new system is activated, the battery has the capacity to turn that system on and keep it going, then the alternator reacts to that large drain, and tops the battery back off. The alternator reacts ALMOST instantaneously, but there is a small delay. This is inefficiency in the system. Yes, a car can keep running with a dead battery and the alternator working. But, you can't start the car with the alternator because it takes the battery to start the engine, which runs the alternator. The alternator does not store any energy, it simply converts mechanical energy into electrical. The battery stores energy and uses a chemical reaction to release the energy.

What about bump starting a car? You know, dead battery, push it, pop the clutch and she starts up. Well, you converted mechanical energy to electrical energy and it was just enough to start the engine. Note, almost ALL modern cars require that the battery be able to at LEAST power up the computer. Most newer cars have a safety cutoff in them around 10V, so anything below that and they won't turn on to protect the electronics from drawing too much amperage and burning up. Older cars with mechanical fuel pumps, carbs, and non-electronic ignition you can get away without this because the only thing the alternator needs to do is make just enough power to run the ignition system, which isn't much. In theory, you could drive one of those cars without a battery if you wanted to either park on a hill all the time, or get really good at push starting it. I suppose you could crank start it as well. Note, it takes converting potential energy into mechanical energy into electrical energy to do this! See....nothing is free!

As my detail design professor said: "There is no free lunch". Man, did he ever have that one right!

[Tempted]

100% efficiency isn't possible. In order to move a 100lb object with a 100lb motor/power source it would need to be 200% efficient. No way is that going to happen. If you are thinking about mechanical wear parts, its no different than gasoline. Gasoline is a wear item. You use it, it then wears out and isn't useable again. That is why I want to make something powered by water. Heating water produces no direct harmful emissions and depending on the heat source no indirect either. The process of turning water into steam also requires no water preparation like fuel. You can pour lake water into a boiler and heat it up. Since its the most common and accessable chemical, it also would not requires enclosed systems. You could vent the exhaust and not worry about waste. That would reduce the size and complexity of the engine. The more impurities in the water, the more intense the boiling will be. I've not verified this but it leads me to believe that salt water would be better than freshwater, and would be a huge benefit. The amount of diesel burned by a container ship from China to the US is absolutely mind boggling. If it could be done with that water they ride on, it would save billions a year while also being more friendly to the environment. The entire problem comes back to a heat source. In nuclear power plants they use the uranium reaction to heat water, then spin turbines with the steam. The efficiency is truly astounding. If we could get one 1/000th of that reaction in our home it would be enough to power the entire city block and their cars.

[Tempted]

Hey think about this used as a generator engine. Its a hybrid gas/steam turbine in one unit. When excess power isn't needed you can reduce the fuel input and rely on the built up heat to steam the water which in turn keeps the motor at "idle" more or less. If you use propane and a flame tube you will not need an intelligent ignition system or fuel pump. Just a control valve to limit the propane flow. No spark plugs, a simple constant flame like gas water heaters use that can be remotely ignited. No pre-ignition is possible meaning no heat restriction, which in turn means it would run at insane RPMs if needed.

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh15/wvxvxvxvw/Car stuff/HybridSteam.png

[85boostbox]

100% efficiency isn't possible. In order to move a 100lb object with a 100lb motor/power source it would need to be 200% efficient. No way is that going to happen. If you are thinking about mechanical wear parts, its no different than gasoline. Gasoline is a wear item. You use it, it then wears out and isn't useable again. That is why I want to make something powered by water. Heating water produces no direct harmful emissions and depending on the heat source no indirect either. The process of turning water into steam also requires no water preparation like fuel. You can pour lake water into a boiler and heat it up. Since its the most common and accessable chemical, it also would not requires enclosed systems. You could vent the exhaust and not worry about waste. That would reduce the size and complexity of the engine. The more impurities in the water, the more intense the boiling will be. I've not verified this but it leads me to believe that salt water would be better than freshwater, and would be a huge benefit. The amount of diesel burned by a container ship from China to the US is absolutely mind boggling. If it could be done with that water they ride on, it would save billions a year while also being more friendly to the environment. The entire problem comes back to a heat source. In nuclear power plants they use the uranium reaction to heat water, then spin turbines with the steam. The efficiency is truly astounding. If we could get one 1/000th of that reaction in our home it would be enough to power the entire city block and their cars.

I know all about nuclear power plants lmao. I work on naval ships. Most of the work I do is on aircraft carriers.

[85boostbox]

The navy has been experimenting and implementing things in there ships to use less fuel. Look up LHD 8. That ship is called USS Makin Island. Think you would find it a interesting read.

[RoadWarrior222]

That's more interesting. Though I'd want to go to kerosene, because... then you can use steam continuously to increase efficiency and hydrocrack the fuel at the same time. (I think it would just swamp the propane, in any quantity, using them together) There's basically no reason why the same sort of principle wouldn't work with a modified 4 stroke motor. If you capture and use a mere third of the rejected heat, the fuel economy would double!

[85boostbox]

That's more interesting. Though I'd want to go to kerosene, because... then you can use steam continuously to increase efficiency and hydrocrack the fuel at the same time. (I think it would just swamp the propane, in any quantity, using them together) There's basically no reason why the same sort of principle wouldn't work with a modified 4 stroke motor. If you capture and use a mere third of the rejected heat, the fuel economy would double!

I am having some serious issues with my account

---------- Post added at 12:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 AM ----------

Ok have a PM into Frank now.

---------- Post added at 12:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 PM ----------

But to go off of what you said RW. Our military has been doing something like this for years. Most of our military vehicles run off of almost any sort of fossil fuel. Diesel, Gasoline, Kerosene so on and so forth. HHHMmmm something could be into that.

Also Chris you should know a lot about kerosens considering that most planes run off of it.

[Tempted]

That's more interesting. Though I'd want to go to kerosene, because... then you can use steam continuously to increase efficiency and hydrocrack the fuel at the same time. (I think it would just swamp the propane, in any quantity, using them together) There's basically no reason why the same sort of principle wouldn't work with a modified 4 stroke motor. If you capture and use a mere third of the rejected heat, the fuel economy would double!

Because the way a modern four stroke is designed is insanely inefficient. The heat transfer from the coolant to the radiator is an immense loss of energy. But with a piston engine you have thermal and speed limitations. Turbines have no thermal limitation other than the material's max heat range. In short that means that a piston engine makes more power at fewer RPMs due to the compression stroke which, at some point, will heat the cylinder to beyond the fuel's auto ignition temperature. Since a turbine doesn't have an actual stroke the fuel can be dumped in a chamber regardless of heat. Thing is since there is no real compression it takes many many more RPM to move the same amount of air which means a long time to reach the same amount of power as the piston engine. A turbine is only more efficient when running at speeds that no piston engine ever could, but the reason the turbine is more efficient at those speeds is because it wastes no fuel. All the fuel is being burned and there is typically an excess of air available making running rich all but impossible. I think that once a turbine is at a speed that produces enough power to run a vehicle, be it directly through a gearbox or indirectly through a generator and motor, it could sustain on less fuel if you add more water for steam pressure. Then the heat bleed wouldn't be wasted, it would be captured and transformed into a gas that spins the turbine. Since water is the easiest and cheapest element, it would be a perfect choice and it won't harm the atmosphere. Once cooled it will simply fall back to earth in the form of rain and be ready to use again.

[Tempted]

That's more interesting. Though I'd want to go to kerosene, because... then you can use steam continuously to increase efficiency and hydrocrack the fuel at the same time. (I think it would just swamp the propane, in any quantity, using them together) There's basically no reason why the same sort of principle wouldn't work with a modified 4 stroke motor. If you capture and use a mere third of the rejected heat, the fuel economy would double!

Wait I think I see what you mean. I think if you put a boiler in the exhaust manifolds that spins a small turbine you could recoup the lost energy and use it to power things like accessories. It would give you both more useable power and better fuel economy. You would have to hold the exhaust in the boiler room long enough for the water to suck most of its heat, my guess would be that you could use what is essentially a massively corkscrewed long tube header encompassed by an adiabatic boiler box made of something like ceramic. Once the heat is transferred to the water, the water will eventually heat up to the point of steam and the steam will start spinning the turbine. That actually would work with little engineering.....

[Force Fed Mopar]

Well this thread took a left turn :D

[Reaper1]

Turbines are like diesels in that they are designed to be run at a nearly constant load and power level for extended periods of time. They can be optimized for this condition and be much more efficient at extracting the energy from the fuel being introduced.

I have a friend that just got his masters in aerospace engineering, and he concentrated on propulsion. I know he took combustion classes and could run circles around my best understanding of this stuff. He's WAY better at chemistry than I am as well! LOL (I do think it's flattering that he comes to me for advice on modifying his vehicles though! I just think he needs to gain some imagination and he'd be WAY ahead of me!!).

I think the reoccurring themes I keep seeing is using a hydrocarbon based fuel (or a biofuel would also work, but that, too is usually based on hydrocarbons in some way), and either running that straight to try and extract everything we can out of it, or introducing water to the mix to utilize the phase change process to extract more energy.

One thing about water...you do NOT want to use any sort of water with minerals in it unless you have a way to extract those minerals. You will get scaling which acts as am insulator and on top of it reduces flow. Home water heaters fight with this all the time!

I think we need to split this thread...one for talk about where power comes from in the internal combustion engine that we use, and one for the talk about alternative power plants.

[mpgmike]

Yea, it shifted from "Combustion Efficiency" to "Turbine Engines" to "Over-Unity Electric Motors". Where are we now?!?!?!?!?

Mike

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

Reaper, did you know the only difference between a peanut oil molecule and a diesel oil molecule is one single oxygen atom? You are correct when you say that petroleum and organic compounds are very closely related. Whereas our bodies recognize the extra oxygen atom as a "secret handshake" (we can internally consume peanut oil with no ill effects), engines don't. A diesel engine will run just fine with or without that oxygen atom.

Mike

[85boostbox]

Yea, it shifted from "Combustion Efficiency" to "Turbine Engines" to "Over-Unity Electric Motors". Where are we now?!?!?!?!?

Mike

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

Reaper, did you know the only difference between a peanut oil molecule and a diesel oil molecule is one single oxygen atom? You are correct when you say that petroleum and organic compounds are very closely related. Whereas our bodies recognize the extra oxygen atom as a "secret handshake" (we can internally consume peanut oil with no ill effects), engines don't. A diesel engine will run just fine with or without that oxygen atom.

Mike

And now the great thing of biodiesel.

[Reaper1]

Actually, I was more going for the whole enthanol thing, where is still takes heat to refine it to get out a usable fuel. Most people forget that, or choose to ignore it. So, the claims of it being better for the environment...total BS!!! You STILL have to burn something to introduce heat in order to refine it...most of the time this is some sort of non-renueable resource such as natural gas, fuel oil, diesel, ect.

Anyway...enough of that crap! LOL

[Tempted]

I think the reoccurring themes I keep seeing is using a hydrocarbon based fuel (or a biofuel would also work, but that, too is usually based on hydrocarbons in some way), and either running that straight to try and extract everything we can out of it, or introducing water to the mix to utilize the phase change process to extract more energy.

One thing about water...you do NOT want to use any sort of water with minerals in it unless you have a way to extract those minerals. You will get scaling which acts as am insulator and on top of it reduces flow. Home water heaters fight with this all the time!

Well, you could try to figure out how to run solid fuels in a combustion engine. Solid fuels are more dense and have a higher energy per weight. Black powder comes to mind. The amount of black powder it takes to fire a .223 round 500 yards is a fraction of the amount of gasoline it would take.


With a turbine engine the water and its minerals would be evacuated through the exhaust. That is another reason why I would want an open steam turbine rather than a water recycling unit. Using a hybrid gas/steam turbine would get rid of the impurities. Water heaters have no evacuation of the minerals when they are at idle. The water is just sitting and cooking.




Well this thread took a left turn :D

I think it took a U-turn. But its at least an interesting turn that people can share thoughts on.

[85boostbox]

Actually, I was more going for the whole enthanol thing, where is still takes heat to refine it to get out a usable fuel. Most people forget that, or choose to ignore it. So, the claims of it being better for the environment...total BS!!! You STILL have to burn something to introduce heat in order to refine it...most of the time this is some sort of non-renueable resource such as natural gas, fuel oil, diesel, ect.

Anyway...enough of that crap! LOL

Biodiesel can be made in home with a water heater. Which in effect can be a electric water heater. Which can be powered by a nuclear power plant. No fossil fuel being burned. Have you ever made biodiesel? It is really not that hard and is better for the environment than ordinary diesel. 10 fold. I know in my school 1 of my teachers made biodiesel for his Mercedes and it ended up costing him around 25 cents a gallon when it was said and done.

Can I ask you something and I am not trying to be mean. But it seems you call BS on everything. Sometimes it takes requiring thinking outside of the box to get something to work.

[Tempted]

Hey I just thought about something. That hybrid turbine theory I posted, I wonder if that could be made into a turbocharger on demand system. Instead of injecting water, run it on straight fuel. Use a separate fuel system from the primary engine that activates only when you want it to. Instead of using a generator attached to the shaft, use a standard turbocharger compressor that diverts air into the intake. It would remove the turbine wheel from the exhaust which will increase engine efficiency since there won't be a blockage when the turbo isn't needed(which is most of the time). The greatest benefit is that you would be able to control the turbocharger's RPM separately from the engine meaning you can keep it at its most efficient speed at all times. No unburned fuel, no wastegate bleed. Depending on where you mount it you could also reduce under hood temperatures. When cruising, the turbine fuel is off and there is no boost or blockage in the exhaust. Flip a switch, the turbine spools up and you have the extra power with none of the lag or turbine wheel power drain.

[mpgmike]

FWIW, the diesel engine was originally designed to run on coal dust. The delivery method proved troublesome, and medium hydrocarbon fuels seemed to be easier.

Mike

[Tempted]

The only benefit I can see using solid fuel is you wouldn't have to refuel as often.

[RoadWarrior222]

Hmmm let's see, I can get corn starch for about a buck a pound...

[Reaper1]

Biodiesel can be made in home with a water heater. Which in effect can be a electric water heater. Which can be powered by a nuclear power plant. No fossil fuel being burned. Have you ever made biodiesel? It is really not that hard and is better for the environment than ordinary diesel. 10 fold. I know in my school 1 of my teachers made biodiesel for his Mercedes and it ended up costing him around 25 cents a gallon when it was said and done.

Can I ask you something and I am not trying to be mean. But it seems you call BS on everything. Sometimes it takes requiring thinking outside of the box to get something to work.

That nuclear fuel came from somehwere! I can 99.999% garanty that some sort of fossil fuel was burned in order to get it to the power station.

I do agree that biodiesel is a very good alternative and is realatively easy to make.

No offense taken. I do tend to call BS a bit. I do agree that innovation comes from stepping outside the ordinary. However, when claims step outside the bounds of logic, that's when I wave my BS flag. I could be wrong, and if I am whether I prove it to myself, or it is proven to me, I'll admit my error and learn from my mistake.

Ground based turbines (electric generating stations) do use solid fuels. Depending on the turbine they have the ability to run either oil or coal dust as mentioned. The injectors can be serviced while the turbine is still running! The biggest issue running solid fuel is deposits building up on the turbine blades.

[black86glhs]

Hey, what about something that allows us to shove corn cobs in a device that takes place of the exh manifold and allows us to make ethanol and popcorn??? Food and snacks in one compact unit!:D

[Tempted]

Hey, what about something that allows us to shove corn cobs in a device that takes place of the exh manifold and allows us to make ethanol and popcorn??? Food and snacks in one compact unit!:D

Been done. Except they call it a "cold air intake" even though the metal they used to make it retains more heat than the rubber they removed.

[shadow88]

Wait I think I see what you mean. I think if you put a boiler in the exhaust manifolds that spins a small turbine you could recoup the lost energy and use it to power things like accessories. It would give you both more useable power and better fuel economy. You would have to hold the exhaust in the boiler room long enough for the water to suck most of its heat, my guess would be that you could use what is essentially a massively corkscrewed long tube header encompassed by an adiabatic boiler box made of something like ceramic. Once the heat is transferred to the water, the water will eventually heat up to the point of steam and the steam will start spinning the turbine. That actually would work with little engineering.....

Look into the DD15 engine from Detroit Diesel. They run an exhaust turbine, post turbo, that (through some serious gearing reduction) can add as much as 50 hp back into the flywheel under heavy load conditions. I'm sure somethign similar could be used to drive accessories.