BioDieselNow - Renewable biodiesel fuel

I am a new comer & yes spelling is not my strong point. I found this site in a search looking for info on how to make biodiesel and here is a good place http://www.biodieselcommunity.org/mainpage/ also as for water will not burn, Yes you are right but, if you split the atom in H2O you get oxygen and hydrogen and hydrogen will burn and has like a 60% more energy out put than petro. If you go with Physics you are right you can not produce more energy than you consum but I don't belive in complete physics. I have done one project called the geet fuel processor and yes it did do as he sayed but he is being jailed for fraud but it does work as he said try it and you will See for yourself pluse its a fun project to try. http://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/articles/geet/geet.htm.

 I am in no way in with www.water-for-gas.com but is system is the about the same as many i have seen but you can make one your self if you do some searching on the net. there are also many patents owned by auto and fuel companys from high milage fuel systems to hydrogen and many others this is because they buy out the inventor. belive what you want and i will belive what i want.

thanks Jim

jap901:

I am a new comer & yes spelling is not my strong point. I found this site in a search looking for info on how to make biodiesel and here is a good place http://www.biodieselcommunity.org/mainpage/ also as for water will not burn, Yes you are right but, if you split the atom in H2O you get oxygen and hydrogen and hydrogen will burn and has like a 60% more energy out put than petro. If you go with Physics you are right you can not produce more energy than you consum but I don't belive in complete physics. I have done one project called the geet fuel processor and yes it did do as he sayed but he is being jailed for fraud but it does work as he said try it and you will See for yourself pluse its a fun project to try. http://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/articles/geet/geet.htm.

 I am in no way in with www.water-for-gas.com but is system is the about the same as many i have seen but you can make one your self if you do some searching on the net. there are also many patents owned by auto and fuel companys from high milage fuel systems to hydrogen and many others this is because they buy out the inventor. belive what you want and i will belive what i want.

thanks Jim

Old 300D,

Do you see my point yet?  Your going to have these guys coming on here making claims...and trying to sell you thier product. 

I think rather then argueing with them, I would simply ask to see an actual valid study that confirms what they claim.

This will shut them down every single time.

Right Jim...er Andre?

old300D,

 You say:  "Again, physics is not about belief or is something you vote upon."

 You seem to be pretty confident in your belief.  Are you 100% sure that this idea can give no more than 1-2% improvement?

 You may well be right, but what you have right now is your belief/confidence in your own understanding of the science involved.  

 Lots of smart people have been very confident about things that later turn out to be at least partly wrong.

I will look around for any testing that might shed light on the idea of supplemental hydrogen improving milage.  I'll post the best testing I can find, regardless of what it shows.

morris1524:

old300D,

 You say:  "Again, physics is not about belief or is something you vote upon."

 You seem to be pretty confident in your belief.  Are you 100% sure that this idea can give no more than 1-2% improvement?

 You may well be right, but what you have right now is your belief/confidence in your own understanding of the science involved.  

 Lots of smart people have been very confident about things that later turn out to be at least partly wrong.

I will look around for any testing that might shed light on the idea of supplemental hydrogen improving milage.  I'll post the best testing I can find, regardless of what it shows.

This discussion is going on with other forums

http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=447609751&f=269605551&m=3311067622&r=3851060142#3851060142

Same thing on this forum where there are people from both sides argueing back and forth.

What really needs to happen is to have a proper test by a well known and reputable research company.

My guess is, this will never happen...for obvious reasons

Consider Occam's Razor, 'all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best (paraphrased).'  If this technology worked, every automaker would immediately install it. It would save them a huge headache, as they could easily meet emissions and MPG regulations at very little (relatively) cost. The absolute absense of this application is telling.

As I stated before, these systems have been applied to reduce emissions within a narrow band of parameters with some success. It is not without use, but the claims being made are not supported but the evidence. For those that continue to request a study, there was a UW government-sponsored study done on this technology, linked here.

Regarding the "efficiency" dialogue, the >99% figure refers to the extraction of chemical energy (i.e., combustion reaction), which is what this process claims to enhance. This figure is can be verified by measuring exhaust emissions (looking for unburnt or partially-combustion fuel). This is not a discussion of Carnot efficiency (yes, there are better models), losses through mechanical inefficiency (friction) in the engine, transmission, or drivetrain, etc...

 Erik,

 I did not see the study you mention.  Do you recall which page it was on.  I just scanned through and did not see it, but probably missed it.

Andrew 

If this post is on page 7, it's 2 pages back. 

I fixed the internal links so they point to the correct post by Perotter. Here a link to a text copy of the article. Read the thread comments that follow the study; they provide a bit of context.

Hi, I've read all the posts (and even some of the supporting documentation that has been posted) and am VERY skeptical of this system.  However, at times I cringe at some of the lack of understanding of some the people who post on this site seem to demonstrate.  A car produces electricity through an alternator.  (Duh)  This alternator is linked directly to the car's crank shaft through the serpentine belt, which means that so long as the car is running the alternator is spinning and it is producing electricity regardless of how much electricity the car might be using.  In my car that has a big inefficient V-8 engine, the alternator produces about 13 volts on average.  Just because I turn on the lights or crank the radio or run a car hand vacuum, the car DOES NOT produce any more or less electricity.  The car produces a constant amount, it doesn't change based on how much the vehicle is using at any one point.  AND, because the alternator is hooked directly to the crank shaft, IT NEVER STOPS SPINNING, and thus NEVER will increased use of the electricity that your car ALREADY produces cause your gas mileage to increase or decrease!  NEVER!  What that stupid water4gas thing puports is that because your car doesn't use all the electricy it will make (which is true for ALL cars), it will take the excess electricity that your car overproduces (sorry for the redundancy, but that point is very important) and runs it through its "magic fruit jar" to split atoms and create hydrogen gas stuff (I'm not a scientist, just a mechanic).  You cannot decrease the amount of electricity your car produces by turning off your headlight or unpluging your cell phone charger.  Your alternator constantly produces the same amount of energy all the time, what isn't used by the car itself is either stored in the battery (your car battery, like all batteries, can only hold so much electricty) or it just doesn't get used and goes the way of all bad ideas.  Please remember this when making your arguments against the "magic fruit jar."  Even though it might take more energy to split the hydrogen that it produces when it is burned (as is the case with all non-perpetual motion machines), if the car is producing the extra engery anyway at no extra cost to the car (which it is), then it could very well be used to split hydrogen or water or do whatever you want to do with it.  (I think I'll use my extra electricity to play my radio).

Thanks

thinkthrice:

This alternator is linked directly to the car's crank shaft through the serpentine belt, which means that so long as the car is running the alternator is spinning and it is producing electricity regardless of how much electricity the car might be using.  In my car that has a big inefficient V-8 engine, the alternator produces about 13 volts on average.  Just because I turn on the lights or crank the radio or run a car hand vacuum, the car DOES NOT produce any more or less electricity.  The car produces a constant amount, it doesn't change based on how much the vehicle is using at any one point.!

A simple demonstration that will work on almost any vehicle (if you have the refined ear of a motorhead): 1) Turn off most / all electrical options and open the vehicle hood. 2) Start the vehicle, let the engine reach a normal idle, and LISTEN to the engine 3) turn on a bunch of electrical accessories (lights, heater, etc), and listen to the change in engine performance. The engine must do more work because of the additional load place on it by the alternator which itself, is compensating for increased load.

See 1, 2

Thinkthrice,

 Erik is correct, if you are not loading your electrical system, your alternator is not making "free electricity".  Any load you place on the alternator will load your engine, especially if you are trying to split water.  If you want to make enough hydrogen to add 1 horsepower, the electrical load on your alternator (which it cannot support) will be greater than 2 horsepower due to inefficiencies generating the electricity and energy input into splitting water.  This will not save fuel, it will cost fuel, and your mileage will go DOWN.

It's high time somone admitted when they are wrong on this thread, so allow me to be the first.  According to all the research I could find to prove you responses on the alternator theory wrong, I learned that you were right.  Thanks for helping me sort out the confusion! :)

I have a question.  The water4gas website says something about not actually burning the fart gas (browns gas) from the "magic fruit jar."  Instead, it says that it makes the gas that we use already more easily and efficiently burned thereby creating more power.  I have read many of the posts on the site talking about how our cars burn at 99% effcientcy and find that rather unbelievable.  Why would we be required to have gas-robbing catalytic coverters if we were truly burning at 99%.  That seems very backwards considering the converter causes a mpg drop of far more than1%.  They want us to use more gas to push exhaust past a catalytic converter (thereby producing more pollution) in order to stop 1% of unburned gas from leaving the vehicle's tailpipe? 

Somebody who knows more about chemistry than I do, please explain how a mixture of hydrogen fart gas and gasoline can cause our gas to burn cleaner and more efficiently enough to offset the extra electrical pull that the system would place on the engine via the alternator.

Thanks for setting me straight Erik!

 As others and I wrote previously, combustion efficiency gains are quite limited, but can be realized by adding a small amount of hydrogen.  If you add more hydrogen than is necessary to achieve 100% combustion efficiency, your mileage will go down because of the energy required to make the addition hydrogen costs you more than the tank fuel would directly burn in the engine.  You use more fuel to generate electricity to generate hydrogen to re-burn in the engine than burning fuel in the engien directly.  You do see how that is a net energy loss, right?

 There still seems to be some confusion about the difference between combustion efficiency and brake thermal efficiency. Kind talking apples & plums.

Having 100% combustion efficiency will give clean exhaust emissions. But is no direct measure of hp output/mpg. 

Brake thermal efficiency is the measure that is related to hp/mpg. The bte in a gas engine is about 28%. The same as it was in the 1930s.

 About 85% of the power that is produced by an engine is in the 1st 15-25 degrees atdc. Each btu of fuel that is burned after that adds less to the engines hp. Gasoline burns to slowly to have a good bte. 

Hydrogen burn very fast. In fact, so fast in an engine that if used by itself there is problems. The idea behind the adding of hydrogen(with its fast burn speed) is to get the gasoline to burn sooner atdc. 

The fuel in engine combustion is usually shown like this:

fuel + heat(spark plug) + air  = power + CO2 + H2O)

Closer is this:

fuel + heat(spark plug) + air  =  CO + H2 + air + heat(from burned fuel) = power + CO2 + H2O

Closer yet is this:

fuel + heat(spark plug) + air  =  newly created fuel chemicals + heat + air = next newly created fuel chemicals + heat + air = the next new created fuel chemicals ..repeat until = CO + H2 = power + CO2 + H20

The fast burning H2 creates the heat to break the different chemical bonds faster/sooner than the real fuel. Therefore the increased bte = more hp/mpg.

Fuel combustion is very complex. Burning(becoming CO2 & H2O) ethanol, chemically simpler than gasoline, goes like this:

1. ethanol becomes one of 2 different chemicals

2 . those 2 chemicals becomes one of 15 different chemicals

3. and it continues on. 

Forum member Wee Willy understands fuel chemistry much better than me. 

H2 added to a spark ICE will/can improve bte. I don't know if the amount of H2 produced this way would help.

This isn't new knowledge. Old ideas sometimes get put on the shelf & forgotten, but this one?

Martin   

perotter:

H2 added to a spark ICE will/can improve bte. I don't know if the amount of H2 produced this way would help.

This isn't new knowledge. Old ideas sometimes get put on the shelf & forgotten, but this one?

Martin   

 

 

perotter:

Here is the title of a report SAE report, Apr. 2007, about about using 1% H2.

  "The Effect of Hydrogen Enrichment on EGR Tolerance in Spark Ignited Engines"

Just a few of the many other SAE papers:
 

"An Experimental Study on Combustion of Gasoline-Hydrogen Mixed Fuel" 1989 

"Effects of Hydrogen Addition to SI Engine on Knock Behavior"  2004 - Note, Done by Toyota Motor Corp. The abstract has in it "hydrogen was added to the gasoline engine as a means of increasing the burning velocity".

"A Study of Combustion of Hydrogen-Enriched Gasoline in a Spark Ignition Engine" 1996 - Note, Small amount & "increase of brake thermal efficiency".

"Combustion Characteristics of Small Spark Ignition Engines Using Hydrogen Supplemented Fuel Mixtures" 1981 Note, "overall increase in engine efficiency".

old300d, 

Read the above SAE reports.  

Also,  reread the 1st few paragraphs of report by Zollinger . Before the sub-title "Making it Work".  For example:

“The JPL concept has unquestionably demonstrated that the addition of small quantities of gaseous hydrogen to the primary gasoline significantly reduces CO and NOx exhaust emissions while improving engine thermal efficiency.” (6)

Again, bte is the how many btu's of the fuel is converted to power. Combustion efficency is the % of the fuel burned - regardless of wether the heat of combustion goes for making hp, heating the metal in the engine or as heat going out the exhaust. 

Alright, your point is made.  The study is concerned with emissions only, and stated hydrogen can clean it up, but offers no numbers in terms of BTE increase.  If you, or anyone, thinks they can improve an engines thermal efficiency enough to compensate for the energy inputs and inefficiencies involved with making brown gas from water, go right ahead.  It won't add up, and you can credit me later as having told you so.

Martin,

Thanks for jumping in to the discussion.

I know Erik address this issue of the alternator, but it left me with one question:

Is there a baseline output from the alternator, that is there regardless of demand, or when the demand is 0 (no electronics on, battery fully charged), does the alternator produce 0?