A friend just put a hydrogen boost system on his 2007 Duramax, initially he is reporting a 25% MPG increase on his stock rig. Went from 20 to 25 mpg driving it back and forth to work. He's got my attention. He's going to take a 3200 mile trip in a couple weeks, that will be a good test. The $600 unit will pay for itself in 12,000. miles at 25%.

Anyone have any experience with a system like this?

Sounds too good to be true...

Moved to Alternative Fuels! ;)

A friend just put a hydrogen boost system on his 2007 Duramax, initially he is reporting a 25% MPG increase on his stock rig. Went from 20 to 25 mpg driving it back and forth to work. He's got my attention. He's going to take a 3200 mile trip in a couple weeks, that will be a good test. The $600 unit will pay for itself in 12,000. miles at 25%.

Anyone have any experience with a system like this?

Sounds too good to be true...


How about pics of it on the D max and a link to the mfg website of it?

...Sounds too good to be true...

That's because it is.

Without details of his system it's hard to tell much, but there's no free lunch. The energy to make the hydrogen has to be coming from somewhere.

I saw the system on his truck yesterday, all it is is a twin cell, a cooler, and 12 volts going to it, a clear tube feeding the intake just past the filter

$600 for 25 MPG?

I think he said go to hydrogenboost.com, not sure though

I will get some pics and post them next week

Have him (or you?) post his fuel logs so we can see the improvement.

I'm from Missouri - Show Me!

It's a 99% certainty that there is no gain, but on the off chance that it is real, let's see the fuel log with dates, gallons and miles for before and after. He should be prouder than a peacock to share that information! (I would be)

jb

It's at: http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/index.html

Maybe some of you guys can help me with this. I can sort of see both sides of the question. I don't know if these questions could be answered outside of a lab or not but, let me see if I really understand what we are talking about here.
The hydrogen booster is powered by the alternator, which is powered by the engine so it takes X energy to produce Y cubic feet of hydrogen through electrolysis.
That Y cubic feet of hydrogen is then burned in the engine. The ammount of energy produced by burning the hydrogen has to be less than it takes to produce it.
That I am ok with. What I want to know is if that hydrogen is used to increase the efficiency of the burn of the diesel fuel, how inefficient does my engine have to be to benefit from it, and how much hydrogen must I add to the engine to get the better burn?
And how much better does the burn have to be to offset the energy used to produce the hydrogen?
It seems to me if I had a real dog and could increase my diesel burn from like 30% to 80% with 2 cfm of hydrogen it might be a winner. But have no clue what the real world numbers might be. In fact I have no clue how much energy one of these things would use to make 2 cfm!

It seems to me if I had a real dog and could increase my diesel burn from like 30% to 80% with 2 cfm of hydrogen it might be a winner. But have no clue what the real world numbers might be.
The "making the fuel burn more efficiently" proposition doesn't work either because in a properly functioning diesel or gasoline engine, 99% or more of the fuel is combusted, less than 1% of the fuel is not. The potential improvement in combustion efficiency is minuscule.

...It seems to me if I had a real dog and could increase my diesel burn from like 30% to 80% with 2 cfm of hydrogen it might be a winner...

If you were only burning 30% of the fuel going through your motor, you'd have diesel literally pouring out of your exhaust. Even at 80% combustion you'd still be throwing out so much smoke you'd be a traffic hazard.

Electrolysis efficiency is about 20% in a decent system. Maybe up to 30% in an dedicated industrial system with feedback controls etc. A PVC pipe with a couple slabs of metal in a solution mixed up by feel, component added without precision balance, not pH monitored etc - will be closer to 10-15%.

That means for every kw of potential energy from the H2 gas burning with O2, you have to provide 7-10x more energy.

Couple that with the 35-40% efficiency a diesel has at turning combustion energy into rotational energy and you are looking at 20 to 30x more energy needed to make the H2.

Oh, don't forget that an alternator is not 100% efficient either!


But the technical side of things is worse. The flame propagation speed of hydrogen is 8 ft per second. That's right --> 8 ft per second. Calculate the linear speed of the pistons and you find out that the piston is moving down faster than the flame is advancing! That sure sounds helpful to me >>> NOT! By the way, gas/air mix flame propagation speed is 70 to 170 ft/s. That's why gas engines can spin up to a high rpm. Diesel/air is slower and that's why you can only productively rev up to 4000-4500. What would the rpm be in a H2 engine? 500 rpm redline? (too lazy to do the math...)


I know people that swore that strapping a couple of "cow magnets" to the fuel line aligned the fuel molecules and promoted better combustion resulting in 10-20% better economy. Oddly enough, after they quit feather peddling the gas the gains went away and long term there was no difference ---> because magnetizing fuel is BS. Just like this "Brown's Gas" --> total BS.

Remember the ho-ha about "cold fusion" in the '90's? Well meaning, but easly fooled people thought it was real. Even though the real experts said it was total BS. Nobody listened to them for a long time. Finally enough failed experiments were done to prove that the tech was BS. If people had only stayed awake in chemistry class and physics class they wouldn't get fooled by this 8th grade level mumbo jumbo.

jb

Thanks for the responses guys!
I figured it was a situation pretty much as you all have described it but didn't have the scientific knowledge to really figure it out for myself. I figured if there really was something to this it would have been on market for decades now. It doesn't seem like we are talking about any new technology here and if the economic gains were that significant the over the road trucking companies would have been doing this for years.

Cougar,
I was just thinking about something. I understand what you are saying about the piston speed, but with the rotation of the crank, piston speed is insconsistant right? I mean, what is the speed of the piston from say 22* BTDC to 22* ATDC? I would expect it to significantly slower than our average. Could it be slow enough that the hydrogen would have an effect maybe at lower engine speeds?

Yep, that's correct. The piston slows, stops and reverses direction then speeds up - frequently.

8 ft/s means that to cross the combustion chamber (call it 4" diameter) will take 1/24th of a second. Hmm, that doesn't tell us too much...

At highway speed the typical engines turn 2000rpm or 33.33 revs per second. A little more detail needed...

Your point is about 22BTDC to 22ATDC, or 44 degrees of rotation. That's 44/360 of a complete rotation (full circle is 360 degrees). So, the time the piston is in that region is (44/360) * (1/33.33) seconds or 44/(360*33.33) = 0.003667 seconds.

How far could a flame go in 0.003667 seconds at 8ft/s flame propagation speed?

8 ft/sec = 8*12 in/sec = 96 inch/s

96in/s * 0.003667 seconds = 0.352 inches. (For reference 3/8th inch = 0.375)

So, at highway speeds with engine 2000 rpm, the hydrogen flame front can move just about 3/8th of an inch while the piston is in the high energy rotational zone. That's about the width of your pinky finger nail.... Unless some serious magic is happening there, it ain't that big of a deal, eh?

jb

Electrolysis efficiency is about 20% in a decent system. Maybe up to 30% in an dedicated industrial system with feedback controls etc. A PVC pipe with a couple slabs of metal in a solution mixed up by feel, component added without precision balance, not pH monitored etc - will be closer to 10-15%.
From what you're saying, it's even worse than in the calculation I did previously to show that it's pointless to use the alternator to generate hydrogen via electrolysis, and then feed that hydrogen into an internal combustion engine...
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2680149&postcount=15
It's a net loser for the user from the get-go. I guess it may work well for the sellers' bank accounts, though.

If small-scale electrolysis is only 20% efficient, for each 745.7 watt-hours (1 horsepower-hour, or 2,544 Btu-equivalent) of mechanical energy provided by the engine, less than 600 watt-hours (0.8 horsepower-hours, or 2,047 Btu-equivalent) of electricity is produced by the alternator, and at 20% electrolysis efficiency, the amount of hydrogen produced would when combusted yield less than 409 Btus (120 watt-hours, or 0.16 horsepower-hours) of heat energy. An internal combustion engine might convert 25% of that heat into mechanical energy, yielding 0.04 horsepower-hours.

To recap: If electrolysis is only 20% efficient, for every 1 horsepower you take from the engine over any given period of time to drive an electrolysis system, you get back something like 0.04 horsepower. That's only 4% of what you put in.

Even if electrolysis was 100% efficient (which it most certainly is not), for every 1 horsepower you take from the engine, you get back something like 0.2 horsepower.

What a winner, huh? :rolleyes:

That's why no auto manufacturer is pursuing this.
If it worked, they'd jump all over it as a way to help meet CAFE standards.

Ok Cougar and Elvis I think I follow you here. So even if we had the gas magically produced and say pumped in from a tank that was produced elsewhere (hence no drawing power from the truck) it still would not be much impact at highway speeds. But now at idle we might see more of an effect right? Slower rotation slower piston speed the flame front could move further. But still it would only cross about an inch.
Does pressure have any effect on how fast the hydrogen burns? I know that powders I use in hand loading ammunition burn at different speeds in a cartridge than they do if I just lit a pile on the table.

If you were going to add a gas to a diesel, propane would be better. You can put more energy in the bottle and at a lower price than you can with Hydrogen. Also, propane DOES help with diesel combustion ensuring a more complete burn. You can buy propane systems for about the same price as the snake oil hydrogen junk.

If you wanted to rig up a system to inject a high pressure liquid (water) into the combustion chamber that would help too. The liquid expanding with the combustion heat would raise the chamber pressures and lower the exhaust temperatures. Too bad that isn't real easy to do with a turbo as you want the gas hot going to it.

Also, propane DOES help with diesel combustion ensuring a more complete burn.
Isn't that true only at or near maximum power?

In other words, is there any significant gain in lightly loaded cruise conditions?

(lower propane cost/gal. notwithstanding, of course)

Define "significant" !

I am not 100% sure, but I think the gain is there all the time (but could be wrong about that... like I said - not sure).

It's used mostly by the power junkies to get more fuel into the combustion chamber and to help burn what is injected - but reports are that it also improves overall mpg's. Not a lot, but in the 0.5-2 mpg range. That's significant for some, not so much for others. I have not spent much time on propane, so the validity of the reports is no confirmed in my mind. I may HAVE to spend some time on it if I want to be able to afford the truck!

I think that there will be more information percolating out about genuine methods of improving mpg's over the next 6-18 months. Especially as the hucksters will have been exposed as just that --> hucksters, frauds, phonies, fakes, swindlers, etc.

There will probably be "Aero kits" popping up to reduce drag for trucks. Especially for guys towing. Smoothing out the underbody, putting a front air dam, bed toppers, bed covers, wheel well covers and probably some transition pieces to smooth the air between the truck and towed load. I'd bet you can get 2-5 mpg highway improvement towing a 5-er with well designed aero. That would be significant (!) especially when your base is around 10 mpg.

From what I have read about the propane kits they do help with power but not enough of an improvement with mpg to offset the cost of the propane at current market prices.

As far as the aero stuff goes, from what I understand GM didn't put the front air dams on 2500 and bigger trucks because they somehow did not figure into the CAFE requirements. I believe those that dont have an intercooler hanging out there in front can bolt on one for a 1500 series and get an improvement. How much I don't know. I have also seen "vortex generators" being marketed for a while to the big truck guys. They are little plastic do-dads that you put on the top and sides of your cab and trailer near the back edge to generate little vorticies that are supposed to help decrease your drag. Suckers look kind of pricey to me, but they claim to improve mpg like .5 to 1 mpg on a big rig. As much as those guys drive I guess that would add up over a year.

You guys are so quick to pronounce judgement.

Clearly, if there is any MPG gain, the mechanism for this gain can not be explained by simple mathematical equivalence of energy or heat. There has got to be some other explanation, unless you are convinced the guy is a liar.

To give the guy the benefit of the doubt, I offer the following explanation for the increased MPG.

Maybe, the injection of Hydrogen causes a faster or 'crispier' combustion resulting in a preppier throttle response. This would instinctly cause the driver to 'ease' up on the throttle resulting in better MPG. The percieved increased in preppiness of the vehicle causes the driver to slow down.

When I first bought a Predator Programmer, I was convinced in my mind that running the +80 HP tune would surely increased my fuel consumption. My reasoning was straightforward - I theorized that increased HP means more fuel injected and used.

However, my actual results surprised me. I gained a little MPG. This was because the preppier response caused me to ease up on the throttle.

So, the system might indeed result better MPG, but not by the mechanism that you are using to explain it.

So, you think the improved throttle response and increased mpg may be due to the stylistic influence of northeastern private schools?

Oh, never mind.

Jojo -

I am not quick to pronounce judgment. It took 20 years of school'n and over 35 years of internally combusting to reach my "judgment". That's not very quick.... The technical explanation on the few hydrogen generation sites that are bold (or deluded) enough to post them go into the wonders of "Zero Point Energy", you know you're in for a wild ride into the outer limits of credulity when you see that! This is from wiki

[edit] "Free energy" devices
The Casimir effect has established zero point energy as an uncontroversial and scientifically accepted phenomenon. The concept of zero point energy has also become associated with pseudoscience, particularly the design and invention of "free energy" devices, which are essentially perpetual motion machines.

Just because people WANT a result, does not make it likely. It also does not make the nay-sayers bad people that should be shunned or denigrated when they expose a fraud. All good frauds play on peoples hopes and ignorances. If people were actually awake during 8th grade chemistry class they would be able to spot this whole deal as bogus in about 2 seconds. Alas, focused cogitation is sorely lacking in all but the few at the far reaches of the 5th sigma.

By the way, your programmer changes things like timing of the fuel pulse with respect to piston positions so there is more power produced, but at the cost of combustion byproducts that are (to some) socially irresponsible. It does more than just increase fuel across the board, much much more. That's why you will often read of people (like yourself) that add a programmer, box or custom ECM and gain both power and economy. The factory MUST tune vehicles for all types of drivers and all amounts of stacked tolerances and wear in the engine, fuel system and fuel while meeting mandated emissions levels over a 7 year/100,000 mile time span. (The euro's don't need to meet those standards and they get ~30% better fuel economy. They also use more nuke energy because it's cleaner (it is). I guess they have more enlightened knot hole bangers over there).

Jojo -

I am not quick to pronounce judgment. It took 20 years of school'n and over 35 years of internally combusting to reach my "judgment". That's not very quick.... The technical explanation on the few hydrogen generation sites that are bold (or deluded) enough to post them go into the wonders of "Zero Point Energy", you know you're in for a wild ride into the outer limits of credulity when you see that! This is from wiki

[edit] "Free energy" devices
The Casimir effect has established zero point energy as an uncontroversial and scientifically accepted phenomenon. The concept of zero point energy has also become associated with pseudoscience, particularly the design and invention of "free energy" devices, which are essentially perpetual motion machines.

Just because people WANT a result, does not make it likely. It also does not make the nay-sayers bad people that should be shunned or denigrated when they expose a fraud. All good frauds play on peoples hopes and ignorances. If people were actually awake during 8th grade chemistry class they would be able to spot this whole deal as bogus in about 2 seconds. Alas, focused cogitation is sorely lacking in all but the few at the far reaches of the 5th sigma.

By the way, your programmer changes things like timing of the fuel pulse with respect to piston positions so there is more power produced, but at the cost of combustion byproducts that are (to some) socially irresponsible. It does more than just increase fuel across the board, much much more. That's why you will often read of people (like yourself) that add a programmer, box or custom ECM and gain both power and economy. The factory MUST tune vehicles for all types of drivers and all amounts of stacked tolerances and wear in the engine, fuel system and fuel while meeting mandated emissions levels over a 7 year/100,000 mile time span. (The euro's don't need to meet those standards and they get ~30% better fuel economy. They also use more nuke energy because it's cleaner (it is). I guess they have more enlightened knot hole bangers over there).

As an Engineer, I do not need an explanation of Zero Point Energy or Perpetual Motion Machines. That is why I said "this gain can not be explained by simple mathematical equivalence of energy or heat". I am cognizant of the fact that the numbers do not add up.

However, you failed to acknowledge that there is a possibility of a behavioural effect on the driver. The gain could simply be a result of different driving style.

yeah.....tune for all conditions...


most people cant change thier oil on time let alone put up with a pia water injection system...or that was the explanation for urea injection as a bandaid ect from the oem's.

the thing about big rigs is this type..(not that crap linked particular) is there are alot of systems on the road for older rigs. i think its the water vapor.




i have experimented with some setups on my gassers and got


















nothing.

what has worked was messing with the load inputs for map/maf and timing...at the cost pinging plus low or rather no passing power ect...so i would bet the nox must be going through the roof comparativly as it runs hotter and could crack the heads.

but my 70 mph mpg went up nearly 2 mpg on my gasser. went from 14.5 to nearly 17 in a 200 mile run i do daily to work(i usually drive my escort which i plan to do this same experimenting with now)but i feel it will damage my engine, been thinking of incorporating a knock sensor.


the truck sits real high so some sort of clip on air damn and the pending diesel swap will be what really works:D....

Actually, you pointed out a "crisper feel" and other potential actual benefits of hydrogen gas enrichment. You pointed out the "system" could have actual benefits.

I pointed out that none of those are outcomes are possible from hydrogen / oxygen gas added in that manor.

Sure, driver modification of technique can have a large impact on mpgs. Anywhere up to 80% (or more) change can be observed by changing drivers. Picture a 16 year old kid in a chipped out 2500 with an unlimited fuel card, then a 70 year old lady on the freeway driving 55 mph in the same truck. That would probably produce a change from 5 mpg for to kid to 22+ mpg for the old lady ! I've stated that and similar dozens of times.

Surely, as an "E"ngineer, you are skeptical enough to recognize that when the energy balance does not add up, it can be nothing other than total BS? Unless your version of "E"gineer deals with different methods of balancing energy or maybe you came to grips with different laws of thermodynamics? If it's just driver modification of technique, then a box on the dash with a red LED labeled "High MPG Mode" would have as much or more impact.

And no, I don't think anyone was lying with intent to deceive us. I know people that used cow magnets to align fuel molecules for a more controlled combustion back in the '70's when the first Arab oil embargo occurred and they swore they saw 5 mpg improvement. As that magnetic alignment does not occur, there was no improvement from it. A long term record of fuel use would show that. But they had a predisposition to see a gain, used sloppy measurement technique when filling up with no controls or checks and kept no long term records of consumption. Did they lie? Or were they willing dupes of a fraud?

So Cougar I have been thinking some more ( dangerous, I know) and wondering about a few things. I am just curious about the hydrogen combustion aspects. When compressed would hydrogens burn rate be faster? I would think that with the molecules closer together our combustion would be faster. Even if it weren't wouldn't the jet from the burning diesel ignite the hydrogen at the far side of the cylinder? If it didn't wouldn't these folks be blowing still burning hydrogen out their exhast ports?

Surely, as an "E"ngineer, you are skeptical enough to recognize that when the energy balance does not add up, it can be nothing other than total BS? Unless your version of "E"gineer deals with different methods of balancing energy or maybe you came to grips with different laws of thermodynamics? If it's just driver modification of technique, then a box on the dash with a red LED labeled "High MPG Mode" would have as much or more impact.


Sometimes, the energy equation does not add up at first glance, but the process gives a positive net increase of energy avialable. The energy equation balances only in pure Chemical Reactions. Some types of plasma reactions do yield chemicals that will further fuel a reaction.

Are you familiar with the multistage thermal decomposition process? In this process, high temperature (plasma arc) is used to ionize and decompose garbage. The process literally tears organic molecules apart due to high ionizing heat. The resulting molecules are composed of H2 gas plus some other gases. The mixture is called 'Synthesis' gas. This syn gas can be collected and burned to power other processes.

It is possible that the introduction of Hydrogen into the combustion process during a pilot injection could initiate this thermal decomposition process on Diesel molecules producing syngas that can yield more energy than what can be accounted for by straight mathematical BTU energy balance equations.

So, do not think that just because the energy balance doesn't seem to add up, that the reaction is impossible.

Its not hydrogenboost.com, I wrote down the name but its at work, forgot it. Here's a pic.

Familiar? Not really. I did some checking and it appears to be a process used to convert wastes or to generate high purity CO for various organic syntheses. When used to convert wastes, the combustible byproducts are formed from the carbon already in the system (the waste). There is no more energy in the system due to the process than at the start. In fact, there is less energy when the whole system is examined. Entropy gets larger, heat is generated and dissipated, bla bla bla. Again, the energy balance and the laws of thermodynamics that underscore them still hold firm. Garbage may be converted into a readily usable fuel source, but the total energy of the garbage was greater before the conversion than after, it's just more convenient to use - not greater. It also has the primary benefit of being cleaner when used as the syn gas than when burning garbage or coal directly.

The process was apparently popular in the 1800's to create the gas for early gas lights. It was quickly replaced by natural gas and then electricity as NG was quite a bit cheaper and electricity reduced the costs further (and the fire risks!). It was also used in WWII by the Germans when they had no source of petroleum, but had electricity.

Jojo, you really want to be correct on this. (At least that's my assumption). And that's OK, in fact, stubbornness is a trait successful engineers have. Why not gather some real data in a controlled fashion and prove it correct? Google up "Smack's Booster" as he has a free set of instructions on how to make your very own hydroxy gas generator. Or you can buy one from him or various other sources. Then install it and go to a dyno and measure the rear wheel horsepower and torque across all rpm ranges. Do three repeats for each gas off, gas on low and gas on high in a random fashion and be sure that the dyno operator can't see if the gas is running or not! Measure the exact temperatures of the liquid as the gas is generated, current flow, exhaust temperatures, fuel consumption, A/F ratios in the exhaust and tail pipe emissions. Maybe there is something there, if so that will show it. I will warn you that there are many published dyno runs showing no change with these systems. While the dyno's appear to confirm my judgment, they can be biased and I might be only reading reports that make me happy. But rather than pull up obscure processes that are NOT occuring in the combustion chamber, do some valid research & experiments and report on it.

Have you guys ever heard of Occam's Razor?

This whole discussion brings that to mind. If you have to go through all these permutations and make all these assumptions in order to try to make scientific sense of these fly-by-night sales pitches, then you have to start wondering about the veracity of the pitches.

Cougar has put it best, you can't get around the laws of thermodynamics (though I know engineers are famous for trying-then leaving it up to us scientists to try to explain to them why something didn't work). Even if you are creating reaction intermediates that are increasing the speed of the reaction, the net energy balance between reactants and products still governs the net energy of the reaction.

I agree!

It's a joke.....

Familiar? Not really. I did some checking and it appears to be a process used to convert wastes or to generate high purity CO for various organic syntheses. When used to convert wastes, the combustible byproducts are formed from the carbon already in the system (the waste). There is no more energy in the system due to the process than at the start. In fact, there is less energy when the whole system is examined. Entropy gets larger, heat is generated and dissipated, bla bla bla. Again, the energy balance and the laws of thermodynamics that underscore them still hold firm. Garbage may be converted into a readily usable fuel source, but the total energy of the garbage was greater before the conversion than after, it's just more convenient to use - not greater. It also has the primary benefit of being cleaner when used as the syn gas than when burning garbage or coal directly.

The process was apparently popular in the 1800's to create the gas for early gas lights. It was quickly replaced by natural gas and then electricity as NG was quite a bit cheaper and electricity reduced the costs further (and the fire risks!). It was also used in WWII by the Germans when they had no source of petroleum, but had electricity.

Jojo, you really want to be correct on this. (At least that's my assumption). And that's OK, in fact, stubbornness is a trait successful engineers have. Why not gather some real data in a controlled fashion and prove it correct? Google up "Smack's Booster" as he has a free set of instructions on how to make your very own hydroxy gas generator. Or you can buy one from him or various other sources. Then install it and go to a dyno and measure the rear wheel horsepower and torque across all rpm ranges. Do three repeats for each gas off, gas on low and gas on high in a random fashion and be sure that the dyno operator can't see if the gas is running or not! Measure the exact temperatures of the liquid as the gas is generated, current flow, exhaust temperatures, fuel consumption, A/F ratios in the exhaust and tail pipe emissions. Maybe there is something there, if so that will show it. I will warn you that there are many published dyno runs showing no change with these systems. While the dyno's appear to confirm my judgment, they can be biased and I might be only reading reports that make me happy. But rather than pull up obscure processes that are NOT occuring in the combustion chamber, do some valid research & experiments and report on it.

Actually, you are mistaken. In Thermal decomposition process, there is a net increase in available energy. That is because you are going beyond straight 'chemical' reactions to 'plasma-based ionic' reactions. The Hydrogen atoms get dissociated from organic molecules and form H2 molecules. This is what is gathered as 'synthesis' gas. If you are unfamiliar with it, just say so. Attempting to explain a process you do not understand simply makes you foolish; like how I appeared when I argued with my PHd (in Chemistry) girlfriend about this.

I do not have the time nor inclination to test on my own. Actually the burden of proof is now on your side and try to explain the 25% MPG increase the guy is seeing. Unless you are calling the guy a LIAR. Are you prepared to do that? If you are, then that is the end of this discussion. Otherwise, an explanation needs to be offered for what he is seeing. I have offered 2 possible explanations, you have not.

...Otherwise, an explanation needs to be offered for what he is seeing. I have offered 2 possible explanations, you have not.

I can offer an explanation. Light from Venus reflected off the moon then created magic atoms as it passed through the atmosphere. These magic atoms were combusted in the engine to give free energy which led to his increase in mileage.

My point is, anybody can come up with any off-the-wall explanation for a given experimental result. Scientific theory dictates, though, that you then have to repeat that experiment to be sure subsequent data fits with your theory. If the original result was an anomaly, which I believe to be the case in this instance, then subsequent experiments will show that. Only through repetitive results can a result be taken as valid.

My point is, anybody can come up with any off-the-wall explanation for a given experimental result. Scientific theory dictates, though, that you then have to repeat that experiment to be sure subsequent data fits with your theory. If the original result was an anomaly, which I believe to be the case in this instance, then subsequent experiments will show that. Only through repetitive results can a result be taken as valid.


Multistage Thermal Decomposition process is not an off-the-wall explanation or theory. The process works as demonstrated by dozens of converters already deployed. Check out

http://www.startech.net/

I am invested in a company that will become a competitor to startech above. I have seen the numbers and figures for this process.

Like I said, if you are not familiar with this new and innovative process, better to keep quite than to definitely appear foolish and uninformed.

Knowing that this process works, I am speculating that this process might be occuring within the combustion chamber, as a possible explanation for the increased energy. I am not saying that it is definitely occurring. I am saying that if there is indeed increased energy, this process can explain it.

I have seen various explanations of why it wont work but when I ask questions about them I am not getting them answered. That makes me why they are not being answered. I would think that if the person simply didn't know they would say so. Them being totally ignored makes me wonder if someone has an agenda here. I am not concerned with the generation of the gas at this time, strictly looking at combustion here.
So again I ask anyone who knows,
What is the effect of pressure on hydrogen combustion? Specifically how does flame propogation at fifteen or twenty atmospheres compare with the rate at one atmosphere?

Since I am obviously not burning 100% of the diesel being pumped into my engine, which component of Brown's Gas could account for the increased economy people are claiming? Is it the additional oxygen that is allowing the remaining diesel to be burned or is it the burning of the hydrogen or both? Or am I to understand that the addition of oxygen or hydrogen would not produce any measurable difference in combustion?

If I am now burning 100% of the diesel (thereby getting 2% more power/mpg) when I was only burning 98% ( whoo hoo!) why would I not also gain mileage from the additional energy of the hydrogen burn? Or is all of that energy being used to burn that last 2% of the diesel?

Again, please limit responses to the combustion process. I don't care about how much energy it is going to take to produce the gas. That is my problem. I will get Dr Brown and his flux capacitor to hook up with Scotty and a dilithium crystal to make it for me.

...I am invested in a company that will become a competitor to startech above. I have seen the numbers and figures for this process...

That explains a lot...

I have seen various explanations of why it wont work but when I ask questions about them I am not getting them answered. That makes me why they are not being answered. I would think that if the person simply didn't know they would say so. Them being totally ignored makes me wonder if someone has an agenda here. I am not concerned with the generation of the gas at this time, strictly looking at combustion here.
So again I ask anyone who knows,
What is the effect of pressure on hydrogen combustion? Specifically how does flame propogation at fifteen or twenty atmospheres compare with the rate at one atmosphere?

Since I am obviously not burning 100% of the diesel being pumped into my engine, which component of Brown's Gas could account for the increased economy people are claiming? Is it the additional oxygen that is allowing the remaining diesel to be burned or is it the burning of the hydrogen or both? Or am I to understand that the addition of oxygen or hydrogen would not produce any measurable difference in combustion?

If I am now burning 100% of the diesel (thereby getting 2% more power/mpg) when I was only burning 98% ( whoo hoo!) why would I not also gain mileage from the additional energy of the hydrogen burn? Or is all of that energy being used to burn that last 2% of the diesel?

Again, please limit responses to the combustion process. I don't care about how much energy it is going to take to produce the gas. That is my problem. I will get Dr Brown and his flux capacitor to hook up with Scotty and a dilithium crystal to make it for me.

What you are asking for in beyond the knowledge of many and is still the subject of intense research and development. There is a lot of unknowns inside the combustion chamber.

That explains a lot...

Are you implying some ulterior motive on my part? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not consider this an insult for now.

For the record, I am not invested in any company selling hydrogen injection equipment for vehicles. I am invested in a company converting garbage to synthesis gas. It has nothing to do with the hydrogen injection equipment we are discussing.

I...What is the effect of pressure on hydrogen combustion? Specifically how does flame propogation at fifteen or twenty atmospheres compare with the rate at one atmosphere?

Since I am obviously not burning 100% of the diesel being pumped into my engine, which component of Brown's Gas could account for the increased economy people are claiming? Is it the additional oxygen that is allowing the remaining diesel to be burned or is it the burning of the hydrogen or both? Or am I to understand that the addition of oxygen or hydrogen would not produce any measurable difference in combustion?

If I am now burning 100% of the diesel (thereby getting 2% more power/mpg) when I was only burning 98% ( whoo hoo!) why would I not also gain mileage from the additional energy of the hydrogen burn? Or is all of that energy being used to burn that last 2% of the diesel?...

I don't understand your question about pressure. The pressure inside the combustion chamber is much higher than 15 to 20 atmospheres at the time of combustion.

As to your second question, since water is already a stoichiometric combination of hydrogen (fuel) and oxygen (oxidizer), adding the products of splitting water is going to do nothing to change the amount of oxygen available for diesel fuel combustion. The addition of hydrogen combustion could play around with the rate of combustion or how the flame front propogates, but all other things being equal I don't see that changing the efficiency of combustion much. What that could do, though, is if you had a programmer it might allow you to change injection parameters to take advantage of the different combustion characteristics. I doubt it, but I wouldn't flat out say it's impossible.

As to your third question, that can't be addressed without discussing the net energy of the system. Say for instance you are getting 2% more energy out of the fuel you're consuming. If it takes 3% of the energy your consuming to produce the gas, then you're taking a net 1% loss. The efficiencies (or lack there of) of the process have been well laid out by others, but in the end it boils down to the fact you're working in a circle. Splitting the water and putting it back together again only serves to get you back to 0, except you have inefficiencies all along the line. So that 2% more efficient burn, even if it is truly achievable, only goes to partially make up for those inefficiencies of the process.

Are you implying some ulterior motive on my part? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not consider this an insult for now.

For the record, I am not invested in any company selling hydrogen injection equipment for vehicles. I am invested in a company converting garbage to synthesis gas. It has nothing to do with the hydrogen injection equipment we are discussing.

It wasn't meant as an insult, so relax. I was making a rash, off-the-cuff comment and I apologize.

I'm still not sold on all your "ionic plasma" mumbo-jumbo as that sounds suspiciously like snake-oil to me. Ionic reactions are chemical reactions, unless you're creating electrons from elementary particles, so when you start talking about them not being chemical reactions I get a little skeptical.

I guess from this point forward, I'll remain "quite" on the subject (I think you meant quiet, so I'll remain that too...).

Multistage Thermal Decomposition process is not an off-the-wall explanation or theory. The process works as demonstrated by dozens of converters already deployed. Check out

http://www.startech.net/

I am invested in a company that will become a competitor to startech above. I have seen the numbers and figures for this process.

Like I said, if you are not familiar with this new and innovative process, better to keep quite than to definitely appear foolish and uninformed.

Knowing that this process works, I am speculating that this process might be occuring within the combustion chamber, as a possible explanation for the increased energy. I am not saying that it is definitely occurring. I am saying that if there is indeed increased energy, this process can explain it.


jojo,

(Sigh) I don't know what to make of you. Can you point out the generator of the 30,000F plasma arc in the diesel combustion chamber? I've looked and mine seems to be missing. Maybe you can explain how the addition of moisture contaminated hydrogen and oxygen is able to magically make one appear? Or are you saying that every time hydrogen is burned that it creates a plasma? Odd, that so few other people have noticed that phenomenon.

You really do need to go back to class if you truly think that there is a net increase in energy when this plasma system is used. Did your thermo prof teach, " Energy is neither created nor destroyed (unless you're jojo) ". Seriously, your statement is ludicrous and flies in the face the laws of thermodynamics. Either you are just stirring the pot and being a wise guy or you are seriously undereducated. When I went to school, we would draw a box around the process and do an energy balance. Try it, if it is greater than 100%, indicating you increased the energy there are two (2) and only two explainations.

1) You're wrong. Go back and do it over.
2) You've just broken the laws of thermodynamics, will be getting a Nobel prize and will be worth Trillions of dollars within the next 2 years.

My money is on #1.



JeffMD,

If the initial pressure p0 varies from 1 to 10 bar, Tb and s remain practically unchanged. This is due to the insignificant dissociation of combustion products at given temperatures of lean hydrogen-air-steam mixtures.

Tb is the burn temperature an sigma is a conversion factor used to calculate flame propagation using the formulas

The burning velocity, Su , can be calculated from the measured flame speed Sb = drf /dt by employing the following equation:
Su = Sb / s , (A.1)
where s is the expansion ratio for constant pressure burning. This value may be determined by thermodynamic computations of the adiabatic burning temperature Tb with regard to a change of the gas density in combustion:
s = r0 /rb = (nb Tb) / (n0 T0) . (A.2)
Here, r0 and rb are the density of unburned and burned gas, T0 is the initial temperature of the gaseous mixture, and n0 and nb are the moles of unburned and burned gases respectively.
The values of adiabatic flame temperatures and moles of burned gases can be calculated by using available thermodynamic data JANAF. Adiabatic flame temperature Tb and expansion ratio s for hydrogen-air-steam mixture (f = 0.39) are shown in Table A.1.1-3.

This information (above and below) is from http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~jeshep/SOAR/AppA.PDF

You should go to the link and inspect page 9 of 18 where the graph of flame prop rates at various %H2 and pressures up to 10 bar. (about 10 atmosphere pressure)

The addition of water slows the propagation rate as is seen on page 10.


Back to the original gas generator and the magic 25% decrease in fuel consumption....

For the automotive applications, the generators of this magic gas use a process that also heats the water that is electrolyzed. In fact, some get the water up to 90C or nearly boiling. There is significant entrainment of water in the effluent gas, it is in fact nearly a saturated solution with 100% RH. The systems generate about 1 to 1.5 liter per minute of the gas, which is a mixture of O2, H2 and water vapor (and some caustic too!) . A diesel truck engine like the duramax is 6.6l. On the freeway at 2000 rpm it will be making between 0 and 10 psi of boost when empty to lightly loaded and will be flowing between 6600 to 11,500 liters of air volume per minute. The addition of 1.5 liter/minute of H2/O2/H2O gas is 130 to 227 ppm (part per million) by volume. Assuming best case of ZERO moisture it would be 2/3 H2 and 1/3 O2. So BEST CASE there is an addition of 87 to 151 ppm of hydrogen. I've disregarded the extra oxygen. The air already has 20% oxygen. Adding a bit more would raise it to 20.0001% from 20.00000%. Exactly what is that trace amount of hydrogen supposed to be doing that increases the power generated by 25%? To put it in perspective, it takes about 40 hp to move a 7000#, 7' tall, 8' wide truck down the freeway at 70 mph. Increasing the power in each combustion stroke by 25% means that 1/4 of that 40 hp or 10 hp (7.5kw) is being generated thru the addition of 87 to 151ppm of hydrogen gas.

If that still seems reasonable, then I give up. Sell your house, all your possesions, take out loans to the max and "invest" all of it in the technology. You'll be rich.

jb

You really do need to go back to class if you truly think that there is a net increase in energy when this plasma system is used. Did your thermo prof teach, " Energy is neither created nor destroyed (unless you're jojo) ". Seriously, your statement is ludicrous and flies in the face the laws of thermodynamics. Either you are just stirring the pot and being a wise guy or you are seriously undereducated. When I went to school, we would draw a box around the process and do an energy balance. Try it, if it is greater than 100%, indicating you increased the energy there are two (2) and only two explainations.

1) You're wrong. Go back and do it over.
2) You've just broken the laws of thermodynamics, will be getting a Nobel prize and will be worth Trillions of dollars within the next 2 years.

My money is on #1.



This is funny, cause you sounded just like me when I was discussing this with my girlfriend and 2 of her colleagues. I made the same arguments that the law of thermodynamics does not allow for the creation of energy. But what you are forgetting is that it only applies to straight chemical reactions. Some reactions do create net positive energy. Think of a nuclear reactor.

Anyways, I am tried of arguing with someone who pretends to know and yet unwilling to learn.

Good Luck in your endeavours.

Well thanks.

First it's a theory of accelerated combustion, then a plasma discharge, now nuclear reactors. By the way, even nuclear reactors follow the laws of thermodynamics. Also very easy to verify if any fission or fusion is occuring.

I've posted detailed chemical analysis, shown research on flame propagation speeds, calculated concentration of reactants ---> yet I'm the one unwilling to learn????

Fine --> Teach. Put forth actual factual independantly verifiable data. No more smoke and mirrors and clutched straws.

I do appreciate the input from you all. I find this discussion fascinating.
Cougar, In your opinion how much Browns Gas per liter of engine displacement do you think would have to be added to the airflow to make a measurable difference? Say we are looking at 4 pounds of boost. Lets say I was doing this on a test stand and had the gas cleaned, dried and bottled so there would be no load on the engine to produce it.

Oh yeah, thanks for that link. Much better than any that I found.
I don't believe I completely understand everything they are saying, but do I understand correctly that they found significant deviation from their models at concentrations lower than 10% at atmospheric pressure? And that the laminar burn rate actually decreases as pressure increases? That is exactly opposite what I expected!

...By the way, even nuclear reactors follow the laws of thermodynamics. Also very easy to verify if any fission or fusion is occuring...

Finally, an engineer who gets it! I knew there was one or two of you out there...

Just kidding. I started out as a chem E (after 2 weeks of my first engineering class I knew I was destined to be a scientist, not an engineer) and ended up living with many engineers in college. So, I like to give you guys as much grief as I possibly can.

My take on all this is Jojo is confusing usable energy with total energy, so we're all arguing from different sides of the fence. You and I are looking at it from a "system" standpoint of you have to have a net energy gain/loss of zero to satisfy the laws of thermodynamics, while Jojo is arguing his process has a net gain of usable energy. Thermal decomposition amounts to nothing more than taking "potential" energy (I put that in quotes because it's not really potential energy in the classical sense of the word, but you know what I mean, I think) locked up in an unusable form and efficiently-they hope-converting that into a usable energy form. Even if some as yet unknown nuclear reaction is going on, at the end of the day the energy is all the same.

Finally, an engineer who gets it! I knew there was one or two of you out there...

Just kidding. I started out as a chem E (after 2 weeks of my first engineering class I knew I was destined to be a scientist, not an engineer) and ended up living with many engineers in college. So, I like to give you guys as much grief as I possibly can.

My take on all this is Jojo is confusing usable energy with total energy, so we're all arguing from different sides of the fence. You and I are looking at it from a "system" standpoint of you have to have a net energy gain/loss of zero to satisfy the laws of thermodynamics, while Jojo is arguing his process has a net gain of usable energy. Thermal decomposition amounts to nothing more than taking "potential" energy (I put that in quotes because it's not really potential energy in the classical sense of the word, but you know what I mean, I think) locked up in an unusable form and efficiently-they hope-converting that into a usable energy form. Even if some as yet unknown nuclear reaction is going on, at the end of the day the energy is all the same.


Actually, there does seem to be fewer and fewer people that "get it". Sadly they often are engineers that can manipulate the equations, but don't understand what the equations mean at a gut level. It's an extension of the replacement of sliderules with calculators. The slipstick boys were required to keep track of the order of magnitude and they instantly knew when a number was out of whack. Today, it's very common for an answer to be given up that is out by 2-5 orders of magnitude. The old GIGO at work....

You may be correct about the viewpoints expressed, but my take now is that jojo simply is not capable of understanding of basic thermodynamics needed to comprehend the simpleness of the situation and / or is willing to accept a false premise because he emotionally likes the outcome it provides. He is now arguing from a base that assumes the original poster (who was posting 2nd hand information without any supporting data) was correct and that an independantly veriafiable 25% gain in power and economy occured. Maybe my background as a Missourian is showing, but any engineer worth 2 shakes at the urninal would at least want to see the data that supports a claim that would invalidate a physical law of nature or be proof of a chemical reaction initiating a nuclear energy release.



JeffMD,

I have no idea, but I would imagine it would have to be 3-5x the volume that a propane system adds, given the differences in flame propagation rates and energy densities. For about $500 you can get a cylinder of H2 and an hour of dyno time. Let us know.

Ok, I did some quick math. 306 cu-ft of hydrogen gas would need to be 100% combusted with the normal conversion efficiency from energy to propulsion that an ICE exhibits. That's 8,664.955 liters of hydrogen to gain the 25% increase in milage. Just rough, but probably fairly close...


On the flame rate vs pressure -> yeah, that's why we run experiments and post the results for all to see. Sometimes the answers are unexpected. After all, if the anwers were always as expected, why run the experiment?

My take on all this is Jojo is confusing usable energy with total energy, so we're all arguing from different sides of the fence. You and I are looking at it from a "system" standpoint of you have to have a net energy gain/loss of zero to satisfy the laws of thermodynamics, while Jojo is arguing his process has a net gain of usable energy. Thermal decomposition amounts to nothing more than taking "potential" energy (I put that in quotes because it's not really potential energy in the classical sense of the word, but you know what I mean, I think) locked up in an unusable form and efficiently-they hope-converting that into a usable energy form. Even if some as yet unknown nuclear reaction is going on, at the end of the day the energy is all the same.


I am ready to acknowledge that this may be the root of the confusion in this discussion.

However, I have put forth a possible explanation for the increased MPG based on a process that has been proven to work and produce more 'usable' energy. While Cougar is arguing from a 'holistic' energy-balance point of view, he is forgetting that while energy is balanced in a reaction, there is no law preventing such energy from being converted from being unusable to being usable, like in the Thermal Decomposition Plasma process. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics does not apply in plasma-based convertion of unusable energy to usable form like Syngas.

This is the root of Cougar's delimma why he can't understand why this could possibly work. Like I said, I sounded just like Cougar when I was discussing this with my PHd girlfriend who straigtened me on this. (Maybe the problem is that I am not as smart as she and I am not doing as good a job of explaining this like she did for me.)

...The 2nd law of Thermodynamics does not apply in plasma-based convertion of unusable energy to usable form like Syngas...

I think of all the laws of thermodynamics, the 2nd has been easily the most challenged throughout history. Mostly this is because it is somewhat ambiguous and more than a little dependent on the frame of reference of the system. But, in all the challenges I've ever read about, it has yet to be proven wrong. Do a search on perpetual motion machines for some good reading on how they can supposedly work in spite of the 2nd law. The moral of the story is until you post data to prove to me otherwise, I'm going to say the 2nd law applies to everything, even your plasma systems (which are nothing more than super electron-rich environments).

And just a comment, but you keep throwing around the degree level of your girlfriend like it makes her special or something. I mean absolutely no disrespect to her, but I work with PhD's every day and if I've learned nothing else in my career, I've at least learned PhD's are just as full of sh!t as everybody else (and often fuller). I work with some that are brilliant, but I work with some that obviously wasted 5+ years of their life because judging from their knowledge level, their degree isn't worth the paper it was written on. I'm sure your girlfriend is one of the former rather than the latter, but we get it, she's a PhD, so you don't have to continue to put that in every one of your posts.

Gee guys it sounds like all a guy would need is trailer the size of my suburban (that would have to weigh nothing and produce no drag) to produce the gas and a small nuclear reactor to power it!

So where is the problem?

I think of all the laws of thermodynamics, the 2nd has been easily the most challenged throughout history. Mostly this is because it is somewhat ambiguous and more than a little dependent on the frame of reference of the system. But, in all the challenges I've ever read about, it has yet to be proven wrong. Do a search on perpetual motion machines for some good reading on how they can supposedly work in spite of the 2nd law. The moral of the story is until you post data to prove to me otherwise, I'm going to say the 2nd law applies to everything, even your plasma systems (which are nothing more than super electron-rich environments).

OK. Looks like I may have to explain this process in the most simplistic terms because you guys refuse to read up on it.

In Thermal Decomposition process

Garbage + Plasma Heat = Synthesis Gas + molten metals

Let A be the amount of Energy recoverable from burning Garbage
Let B be the amount of Energy inputted as Plasma Heat
Let C be the amount of Energy recoverable by burning Synthesis Gas

This equation is true: (It has been proven to be true)

A+B < C

Now replace Garbage with Diesel molecules inside the Combustion Chamber. If this process is occuring within the combustion chamber, the equation still holds.

AA is the amount of energy you recover from burning Diesel
BB is the amount of energy provided by the Hydrogen injection to initiate plasma dissociation of Diesel molecules.
CC is the energy recovered as the synthesis gas in the Combustion Chamber eventually burns also.

AA+BB < CC


This is how you gain energy which appears to violate your laws of thermodynamics but if you really look at the equations, it does not. It simply converts a less volatile substance like Diesel molecules to a more volatile substance like synthesis gas to result in better combustion efficiency. Burning Diesel results in a lot of PM (soot) which burning of Synthesis gas does not. This means that some energy is lost in forming soot that syngas does not. This is where your extra energy is coming from.

Your simplistic understanding of chemical reactions and thermal processes is the root cause of your inability to understand the process.

That is why I bring up my PHd girlfriend, to hammer the point that our initial understanding is faulty, and once she explained it to me, the numbers do add up. It is clear is that she is way smarter than any of us here and can explain this process way better than I can.

OK. Looks like I may have to explain this process in the most simplistic terms because you guys refuse to read up on it.

In Thermal Decomposition process

Garbage + Plasma Heat = Synthesis Gas + molten metals

Let A be the amount of Energy recoverable from burning Garbage
Let B be the amount of Energy inputted as Plasma Heat
Let C be the amount of Energy recoverable by burning Synthesis Gas

This equation is true: (It has been proven to be true)

A+B < C



Give me some references and I'd be glad to read up on it. I want to see the published results (I mean journals-not websites with bright colors and weird fonts) where energy is being created. Whoever published it should be a household name because our energy concerns are obviously a thing of the past.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to need a little more than your word that energy out is greater than energy in. Give us data. I doubt more than Cougar, JeffMD, myself, and you are following this thread at this point, so you won't be boring anybody. Post some numbers, experimental conditions, something. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again like we're supposed to take your word for it. Cougar has asked to see data, now I'm asking to see data. Show us some numbers (along with at least rudimentary experimental conditions) and we'll go from there.

Give me some references and I'd be glad to read up on it. I want to see the published results (I mean journals-not websites with bright colors and weird fonts) where energy is being created. Whoever published it should be a household name because our energy concerns are obviously a thing of the past.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to need a little more than your word that energy out is greater than energy in. Give us data. I doubt more than Cougar, JeffMD, myself, and you are following this thread at this point, so you won't be boring anybody. Post some numbers, experimental conditions, something. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again like we're supposed to take your word for it. Cougar has asked to see data, now I'm asking to see data. Show us some numbers (along with at least rudimentary experimental conditions) and we'll go from there.

Do your own research. Your not a baby where I need to spoonfeed you. The process is in commercial status now. Startech has working convertion units deployed. Like I said, I am invested in a company that does the same thing as Startech. All the data is part of PHd thesis in Universities. I neither have the right nor authorization to release it.

Besides, I have no vested interest in educating you.

All I can find is Startech's information. All it amounts to is a giant gasifier. The only thing the plasma is good for is achieving a high enough temperature to get efficient gasification. You aren't getting more energy out than you put in-no matter how stubbornly you refuse to see that. Where do you think the input (garbage) comes from? Do you think that just magically appeared? No, it had to be made from something at some point and that process took energy. You can't say you're creating energy. You can say, though, you're extracting energy from what otherwise would have been a waste product. But, you're not creating energy. At the end of the day it is equivalent to saying you're creating energy when you burn WVO in a truck or convert it to biodiesel to burn. That isn't the case, energy had to be expended to create the oil or biodiesel.

There's no PhD (the P and the D are capitalized, by the way you idiot-your habit of capitalizing the P and H is really annoying me) thesis in the country that isn't based on published literature. You can't get the lowest-value PhD without publishing at least one paper. Even if all the data is in theses-which it shouldn't be-but let's say it is, those are part of the public record and are available in any university library. At least tell us the university where this research was done and we can figure out who did it from there. But even that's trivial, because we all know what the research is going to say-and it's not that energy is being created.

It's obvious this is going nowhere as you're either trying to act stupid to annoy me/us or are really just too stupid to figure out your argument is fatally flawed. Maybe you've just drunk your girlfriend's kool-aid and really do believe energy is being created-I don't know. Either way, I'm done wasting time on you.

All I can find is Startech's information. All it amounts to is a giant gasifier. The only thing the plasma is good for is achieving a high enough temperature to get efficient gasification. You aren't getting more energy out than you put in-no matter how stubbornly you refuse to see that. Where do you think the input (garbage) comes from? Do you think that just magically appeared? No, it had to be made from something at some point and that process took energy. You can't say you're creating energy. You can say, though, you're extracting energy from what otherwise would have been a waste product. But, you're not creating energy. At the end of the day it is equivalent to saying you're creating energy when you burn WVO in a truck or convert it to biodiesel to burn. That isn't the case, energy had to be expended to create the oil or biodiesel.

There's no PhD (the P and the D are capitalized, by the way you idiot-your habit of capitalizing the P and H is really annoying me) thesis in the country that isn't based on published literature. You can't get the lowest-value PhD without publishing at least one paper. Even if all the data is in theses-which it shouldn't be-but let's say it is, those are part of the public record and are available in any university library. At least tell us the university where this research was done and we can figure out who did it from there. But even that's trivial, because we all know what the research is going to say-and it's not that energy is being created.

It's obvious this is going nowhere as you're either trying to act stupid to annoy me/us or are really just too stupid to figure out your argument is fatally flawed. Maybe you've just drunk your girlfriend's kool-aid and really do believe energy is being created-I don't know. Either way, I'm done wasting time on you.

It is clear that your understanding of this process is hopelessly inadequate. Your characterization of this process as a giant gasifier only serves to betray your lack of understanding.

Your insistence on looking at this from an 'energy balance', 'conservation of energy' point of view reveals your lack of understanding of chemical processes or thermodynamic reactions. Clearly, you fail to realize that conservation of energy only holds true for a close system. This process is not a close system. That is how net energy is achieved. After trying to explain this to you, you are still holding on to your mediocre understanding of conservation of energy.

But anyways, I will not argue with you anymore. Its like arguing calculus with a 5th grader. He willl never understand the nuances of 'infinity' or 'zero' if all he understands is basic math operations of + - * and /.

Have fun with your life.

And if we could convert all the heat going back and forth in this thread to kinnetic energy in my truck I could go how far?

Hey guys, I just had another thought.
Hypothetically speaking, We add hydrogen, which burns slower than our diesel fuel/air mixture to our combustion process. We know hydrogen burns slower than diesel. We also (now;) ) know that as pressure increases the speed of the hydrogen burn actually decreases. Instead of "creating energy" (or for the moment discounting the possibility of syn gas) could we be seeing results just from modifying the release of our given energy? If we were to flatten and lengthen the pressure curve in the cylinder what would the net effect be?

It is clear that your understanding of this process is hopelessly inadequate. Your characterization of this process as a giant gasifier only serves to betray your lack of understanding.

Your insistence on looking at this from an 'energy balance', 'conservation of energy' point of view reveals your lack of understanding of chemical processes or thermodynamic reactions. Clearly, you fail to realize that conservation of energy only holds true for a close system. This process is not a close system. That is how net energy is achieved. After trying to explain this to you, you are still holding on to your mediocre understanding of conservation of energy.

But anyways, I will not argue with you anymore. Its like arguing calculus with a 5th grader. He willl never understand the nuances of 'infinity' or 'zero' if all he understands is basic math operations of + - * and /.

Have fun with your life.


Actually, when I was in 5th grade I was proficient with calculus. Non Euclidean geometry and partial differential equations were still providing a challenge at that point.

It is interesting that your fall back position in this friendly discussion is to restate your original premise then when we fail to agree and again ask for DATA, your response is to insult our intelligence and claim that we are too feeble minded to grasp the greater glory of your process. While that may or may not be true, I for one have posted facts and figures that can be independently verified and not simply shown a "greater than sign" or a "less than sign" and pronounced it as proven.

I know I am fairly proficient at web searching, relatively bright, have 12 patents issued in a rather technical area, yet I have found no credible evidence that your position is tenable. You have stated that I (and others) have a "hopelessly inadequate understanding" and that you don't need to spoon feed us. (You may well note the internal contradiction in those statements. If we are in fact hopelessly inadequate, then you would obviously need to spoon feed us. If you don't need to spoon feed us, then we can't be hopelessly inadequate.) Well, If you have the information, I am not too proud to ask for you to spoon feed it to me.



In your post you wrote:

In Thermal Decomposition process

Garbage + Plasma Heat = Synthesis Gas + molten metals

Let A be the amount of Energy recoverable from burning Garbage
Let B be the amount of Energy inputted as Plasma Heat
Let C be the amount of Energy recoverable by burning Synthesis Gas

This equation is true: (It has been proven to be true)

A+B < C


Obviously there are glaring failures in the above statements. Energy balances don't deal with "recoverable energy". They deal with total energy. List the total BTU's contained in a garbage stream. If you don't know it, assume it to be all newspaper or plastic. B should be the total power to run the plasma. Not just the amount of energy that was converted to heat. (obviously, the ionized states produced in a plasma are unstable and reactive - thus are in a higher energy state due to the plasma. That higher energy state needs to be accounted for in the equation. The energy content of the syn gas should be well known and listed.

Your equation is listed as being true. I dis-agree (strongly). Please post where the proof is located. You have been asked for this several times and have not provided it. I won't be asking again as I will take your failure to provide it as final proof of it's non-existance and further proof of your position being delusive.

jb

Actually, when I was in 5th grade I was proficient with calculus. Non Euclidean geometry and partial differential equations were still providing a challenge at that point.

It is interesting that your fall back position in this friendly discussion is to restate your original premise then when we fail to agree and again ask for DATA, your response is to insult our intelligence and claim that we are too feeble minded to grasp the greater glory of your process. While that may or may not be true, I for one have posted facts and figures that can be independently verified and not simply shown a "greater than sign" or a "less than sign" and pronounced it as proven.

I know I am fairly proficient at web searching, relatively bright, have 12 patents issued in a rather technical area, yet I have found no credible evidence that your position is tenable. You have stated that I (and others) have a "hopelessly inadequate understanding" and that you don't need to spoon feed us. (You may well note the internal contradiction in those statements. If we are in fact hopelessly inadequate, then you would obviously need to spoon feed us. If you don't need to spoon feed us, then we can't be hopelessly inadequate.) Well, If you have the information, I am not too proud to ask for you to spoon feed it to me.



In your post you wrote:

In Thermal Decomposition process

Garbage + Plasma Heat = Synthesis Gas + molten metals

Let A be the amount of Energy recoverable from burning Garbage
Let B be the amount of Energy inputted as Plasma Heat
Let C be the amount of Energy recoverable by burning Synthesis Gas

This equation is true: (It has been proven to be true)

A+B < C


Obviously there are glaring failures in the above statements. Energy balances don't deal with "recoverable energy". They deal with total energy. List the total BTU's contained in a garbage stream. If you don't know it, assume it to be all newspaper or plastic. B should be the total power to run the plasma. Not just the amount of energy that was converted to heat. (obviously, the ionized states produced in a plasma are unstable and reactive - thus are in a higher energy state due to the plasma. That higher energy state needs to be accounted for in the equation. The energy content of the syn gas should be well known and listed.

Your equation is listed as being true. I dis-agree (strongly). Please post where the proof is located. You have been asked for this several times and have not provided it. I won't be asking again as I will take your failure to provide it as final proof of it's non-existance and further proof of your position being delusive.

jb


Quite honestly, I do not have all this Data you are asking for. Neither do I have all the details to explain it in such detail as you seem to demand. I am not smart enough for that. This process is a culmination of years of research and development by some of the brightest and smartest scientists we have. And the R&D is continuing. Nobody has really perfected it. Do you realistically expect me to explain this to you and provide you with all the minute data you require in this forum. The mathematical equations alone is over 60 pages long.

Suffice it to say, I have seen this converter at work, and I have seen it running in a 'self-sustaining' fashion after an initial jolt of energy to start it up. The converter itself is producing enough heat from burning syngas that there is enough excess syngas to be converted to Ethanol (a variant of Ethanol) and enough excess electricity that is being sold back to the grid. The converter will consume all the garbage from a landfill for a medium size city like Knoxville within a few years.

BTW, it seems to have gotten lost in the discussion, but I am not saying this process is definitely occuring in the combustion chamber. I am saying that if there is added MPG, then this process would possibly explain it, which would seem to violate the principle of 'conservation of energy' at first glance. As technical people, we should realize that a lot of our understanding can sometimes be faulty, like my understanding until it was explained to me. Come down to Knoxville sometime and maybe my girlfriend can explain this to you in the detail you require.

After this note, I am going to leave this thread to die.

Picture this in your mind. Instead of garbage in the process, picture it is gasoline. Instead of the plasma torch, picture a spark plug. If you measure the temperature of the gasoline going in and the electricity of the plasma and compare it to the exiting exhaust temperature you can quickly see there is "more energy leaving than entering". But you have to ignore the energy of combustion of the gasoline.

Now, picture the gasoline converted to road tar. Thick sticky and hard to light. Improve the plasma chamber so it heats, thins and sprays the tar in the air and it too has "more energy leaving than entering". It would never happen if you just tossed a match on top of road tar, so obviously the process is creating more energy. right? Wrong.

You seem to not understand the process's energy balance because you don't understand that the garbage is taking the place of gasoline or tar from my example. The components of the garbage are flammable, but difficult to light and burn completely. The process you are invested in and you fail to comprehend, is engineered (ever notice they don't use the term, "scientisted"? Just a Jab at Habanero...) to convert the hard to burn garbage into easy to burn organic sub-components. In fact, it converts some of them into sub-components that are both easy to transport and easy to burn. Those fractions can then be transported to a location where the heat of combustion is used to generate electricity. But, it does not make more energy appear in the output than was present in the input. In fact, it is always less as heat happens, entropy increases.

jb