pressurised battery (a mad mans idea)
- Thread starter jimmyhackers
- Start date
dmwahl
10 kW
NSS = No shit SherlockSyonyk said:
jimmyhackers
10 kW
- Joined
- May 11, 2015
- Messages
- 609
looks like im a magnet for contraversy. thanks for the involvement guys
thought experiment: how many chemicals and compounds and elements are in a stick? is that the same number as for a glass of water? (glass not included)
i get that some chemical processes are irriversible like burning a stick or frying an egg.... water doesnt fit into that catagory.
my hope is.....to better what current methods we are using for battery or fuel cell (electricity storage) technology.
cuz at the moment we essentially have 2 types
1. batteries/chemical. all batteries are chemical storage. (and chemical storage sucks)
2. hydrogen fuel cells. these are arguably HHO generators making gas (by putting energy in), this gas is then seperated, then a compressor squashes it into a container (further adding to the energy with compressive force).
arguably a lot of the stored energy in hydrogen is the compressive force its under in the tank.
imagine.....you had a substance that as you electrified it, all it did was absorb that energy and turn it into expansion/expansive force.
and somehow you were able to contain all this (no energy escapes)
then as it contracts all it does is give back out that electrical energy.
this is what we need, my pressurized water hho idea may not be a perfect example of that but its pretty close
if you are able to do the above you then have a fuel cell thats amalgamated the compressor side and cut out the need for seperation.
meaning most of the current hydrogen infrastructure was a waste of money.
second thought experiment, you have two pans of water. one at atmospheric pressure, one a ten times atmospheric pressure.
1.which one will absorb far more energy before it boils?
2.which one takes up more space?
3.which one weighs more?
answers (incase you wernt sure) 1.the pressurized one
2 and 3. (trick question) they both still weigh the same and occupy the same space.
and not to sound whiney or complasant......but im still waiting for the watts required to fully electrolize one gram of water.
if it turns out to be a watt per gram then by all means this thread was a waste of time. (easiest way to put this thread to bed if you want me to shut up)
but if it turns out to be closer to 100watts a gram... (im pretty sure im on to something)
thought experiment: how many chemicals and compounds and elements are in a stick? is that the same number as for a glass of water? (glass not included)
i get that some chemical processes are irriversible like burning a stick or frying an egg.... water doesnt fit into that catagory.
my hope is.....to better what current methods we are using for battery or fuel cell (electricity storage) technology.
cuz at the moment we essentially have 2 types
1. batteries/chemical. all batteries are chemical storage. (and chemical storage sucks)
2. hydrogen fuel cells. these are arguably HHO generators making gas (by putting energy in), this gas is then seperated, then a compressor squashes it into a container (further adding to the energy with compressive force).
arguably a lot of the stored energy in hydrogen is the compressive force its under in the tank.
imagine.....you had a substance that as you electrified it, all it did was absorb that energy and turn it into expansion/expansive force.
and somehow you were able to contain all this (no energy escapes)
then as it contracts all it does is give back out that electrical energy.
this is what we need, my pressurized water hho idea may not be a perfect example of that but its pretty close
if you are able to do the above you then have a fuel cell thats amalgamated the compressor side and cut out the need for seperation.
meaning most of the current hydrogen infrastructure was a waste of money.
second thought experiment, you have two pans of water. one at atmospheric pressure, one a ten times atmospheric pressure.
1.which one will absorb far more energy before it boils?
2.which one takes up more space?
3.which one weighs more?
answers (incase you wernt sure) 1.the pressurized one
2 and 3. (trick question) they both still weigh the same and occupy the same space.
and not to sound whiney or complasant......but im still waiting for the watts required to fully electrolize one gram of water.
if it turns out to be a watt per gram then by all means this thread was a waste of time. (easiest way to put this thread to bed if you want me to shut up)
but if it turns out to be closer to 100watts a gram... (im pretty sure im on to something)
jimmyhackers said:
As before with these kinds of threads I'd always recommend the OP to do some background reading and self-education in basic physics (and chemistry in this case). If you're really onto a good idea then it would help prove it and progress your project. Otherwise it will save you a lot of time chasing ideas based on false assumptions and unsound reasoning.
nutnspecial
10 MW
Thanks for the thread JimmyH, very interesting and thought provoking!
Jay
Jay
nutnspecial
10 MW
I just gotta say thanks (nice paraphrase 
), and I suddenly feel like watching 'oblivion' (cruise) again. That 'fiction' movie was intelligently done, and whoever wrote it thought water was gravely important (among some deeper analogies/ideas) as I agree. Movie really made me think, as did 'frequencies'.
8)
), and I suddenly feel like watching 'oblivion' (cruise) again. That 'fiction' movie was intelligently done, and whoever wrote it thought water was gravely important (among some deeper analogies/ideas) as I agree. Movie really made me think, as did 'frequencies'.8)
jimmyhackers
10 kW
- Joined
- May 11, 2015
- Messages
- 609
my three favourite subjects at school were maths science and electronics. i got two A*s in maths, and As in science and electronics
i then did physics at A level. i got a B
then i went to university to study music, which is where it all went aloof
weird life choices but i can tell ive struck a nerve with you punxor and possibly some others. sorry if i come across as uneducated or far fetched.
i just like asking about things outside of the box. i ask about my ideas in a simple way, like louis theroux if i ask simply like a child i tend to get a lot more truth and a better response from people.
simple is always better than complicated. easy is always better than hard. watch "steamboy" theres a brilliant bit where a girl pokes fun at the boy saying "your so stupid, your always asking questions" and the boy retorts with "you not stupid if you ask questions, asking questions is the only way you get smarter"
sorry i wasnt clear ill try and go through and clarify each question/point you made about my ramblings.
1+2. yeah you could remake a stick if you burnt it, if you had the nanites from red dwarf, but we dont.
however i can freeze and melt and boil and freeze and melt and boil then electrolize then burn then freeze then boil....etc etc.. water all day long without the need for pie in the sky supertech that doesnt exsist. my potential method does store electricty. ive witnessed itself infront of me allbeit at mini amounts a tiny pressures.
3. i know, im trying to ask some of them :S
4. battery chemical energy density compared to fossil/petrol chemical energy denisty sucks. if we wanna replace fossil fuels we need to at least equal it
5.sorry i wasnt clear on this one. i was talking about the function of the infratructure needed for a hydrogen fuel cell as well as the fuel cells in the vehicle. you need large external mechanical compressors and sometimes large electrolizers for non fossil hydrogen. My potential fuel cell will make its own pressure. so all you need is a big external power source and they are everywhere. i think their called plugs :S.
6.im pretty sure they run the fuel cell at a higher pressure compared to atmoshpere. so in some ways the hydrogen under some pressure is required and not a waste. if they are wasting that 10.000psi pressure though, thats a hell of a lot of potential energy those super smart scientists are pooping away.
not sure about methanol, used to run it in my mini jet turbine i built/exploded, but thats as far as my expertise goes.
7.arent most the vehicles on here converting electrical energy into mechanical? we have 10,000psi air tanks currently. pretty sure the techs out there for safe super high pressures
8. when they electrolize water for hydrogen comercially, they seperate off the two gasses. maybe they do use both the oxygen and hydrogen from this. the gas still has to be compressed by compressors. either way its all very, big, expensive and power hungry.
if you could replace that with just one part inside the vehicle (my silly pressure fuel cell) and one part outside (charger) i think itd be simpler.
9. it prooves that aslong as the vessle could both contain and produce the pressure, just by adding a dc current. the limit to its power storage is its pressure retention ability. it has no moving parts. how simple and self contained is that compared to everything else so far.
10. im useless, hes useless
11. thanks for the help
anyways heres my welder
no PWM just a pc power supply on 2 seperate 12v rails. i control the current (generally under 20A)by electrolyte mix (pure sodium hxdroxide in pellet form)
its set up for the pure hho mini flame at the minute. but i have run the gas through a pair of modified small car tyre compressors. one for the hho gas and one for air. the gasses go to a small mixer torch from an oxyacet set to get a pretty decent flame. very noisey though.
either flame is as good as the same sized oxyacet torch flame.
water does seem abundant. water makes up 70% of the surface but more like 0.02% of the total mass of the earth. turns out waters not actually that abundant. maybe we do have to be carefull how we use it. hydrogens pretty light and floaty as i remeber. perhaps if we split water and some hydrogen escapes it'll float up and escape our atmosphere :O.
fullycharged just did a review of a hydrogen fuel cell car, it a good watch (coincidence or what??). 10,000psi!! im pretty sure the techs there for safe high pressure. saying that though we could just used compressed air engines and run on air in high pressure scooba tanks and get some good results.
does sound like a bit of overunity there trike. i think theres something missing within that. possibly you could have within a hydrogen fuel cell car a machine with the function of you pour in water, it makes and stores hydrogen, but it would have to be powered by an external "plug in to electric" power source. so essentially if you cant find a hydrogen fuel station but you can find an "electric" fuel station (or even your plug at home) your ok. how feasable that is im unsure of.
all good stuff though. thanks for the interest and the links chaps, i have some reading materials
i then did physics at A level. i got a B
then i went to university to study music, which is where it all went aloof
weird life choices but i can tell ive struck a nerve with you punxor and possibly some others. sorry if i come across as uneducated or far fetched.
i just like asking about things outside of the box. i ask about my ideas in a simple way, like louis theroux if i ask simply like a child i tend to get a lot more truth and a better response from people.
simple is always better than complicated. easy is always better than hard. watch "steamboy" theres a brilliant bit where a girl pokes fun at the boy saying "your so stupid, your always asking questions" and the boy retorts with "you not stupid if you ask questions, asking questions is the only way you get smarter"
sorry i wasnt clear ill try and go through and clarify each question/point you made about my ramblings.
1+2. yeah you could remake a stick if you burnt it, if you had the nanites from red dwarf, but we dont.
however i can freeze and melt and boil and freeze and melt and boil then electrolize then burn then freeze then boil....etc etc.. water all day long without the need for pie in the sky supertech that doesnt exsist. my potential method does store electricty. ive witnessed itself infront of me allbeit at mini amounts a tiny pressures.
3. i know, im trying to ask some of them :S
4. battery chemical energy density compared to fossil/petrol chemical energy denisty sucks. if we wanna replace fossil fuels we need to at least equal it
5.sorry i wasnt clear on this one. i was talking about the function of the infratructure needed for a hydrogen fuel cell as well as the fuel cells in the vehicle. you need large external mechanical compressors and sometimes large electrolizers for non fossil hydrogen. My potential fuel cell will make its own pressure. so all you need is a big external power source and they are everywhere. i think their called plugs :S.
6.im pretty sure they run the fuel cell at a higher pressure compared to atmoshpere. so in some ways the hydrogen under some pressure is required and not a waste. if they are wasting that 10.000psi pressure though, thats a hell of a lot of potential energy those super smart scientists are pooping away.
not sure about methanol, used to run it in my mini jet turbine i built/exploded, but thats as far as my expertise goes.
7.arent most the vehicles on here converting electrical energy into mechanical? we have 10,000psi air tanks currently. pretty sure the techs out there for safe super high pressures
8. when they electrolize water for hydrogen comercially, they seperate off the two gasses. maybe they do use both the oxygen and hydrogen from this. the gas still has to be compressed by compressors. either way its all very, big, expensive and power hungry.
if you could replace that with just one part inside the vehicle (my silly pressure fuel cell) and one part outside (charger) i think itd be simpler.
9. it prooves that aslong as the vessle could both contain and produce the pressure, just by adding a dc current. the limit to its power storage is its pressure retention ability. it has no moving parts. how simple and self contained is that compared to everything else so far.
10. im useless, hes useless
11. thanks for the help
anyways heres my welder
no PWM just a pc power supply on 2 seperate 12v rails. i control the current (generally under 20A)by electrolyte mix (pure sodium hxdroxide in pellet form)
its set up for the pure hho mini flame at the minute. but i have run the gas through a pair of modified small car tyre compressors. one for the hho gas and one for air. the gasses go to a small mixer torch from an oxyacet set to get a pretty decent flame. very noisey though.
either flame is as good as the same sized oxyacet torch flame.
water does seem abundant. water makes up 70% of the surface but more like 0.02% of the total mass of the earth. turns out waters not actually that abundant. maybe we do have to be carefull how we use it. hydrogens pretty light and floaty as i remeber. perhaps if we split water and some hydrogen escapes it'll float up and escape our atmosphere :O.
fullycharged just did a review of a hydrogen fuel cell car, it a good watch (coincidence or what??). 10,000psi!! im pretty sure the techs there for safe high pressure. saying that though we could just used compressed air engines and run on air in high pressure scooba tanks and get some good results.
does sound like a bit of overunity there trike. i think theres something missing within that. possibly you could have within a hydrogen fuel cell car a machine with the function of you pour in water, it makes and stores hydrogen, but it would have to be powered by an external "plug in to electric" power source. so essentially if you cant find a hydrogen fuel station but you can find an "electric" fuel station (or even your plug at home) your ok. how feasable that is im unsure of.
all good stuff though. thanks for the interest and the links chaps, i have some reading materials
nutnspecial
10 MW
I am totally thinking it would be awesome to have a thread on just HHO welders, if not all things HHO. There is a wealth of info and example available, and it would be great to vett and combine the best info in our little community here.
Btw, best use of a pc case 8)
Btw, best use of a pc case 8)
Jimmy, you haven't touched a nerve. Many of my comments in this thread were directed towards.
You're young, you're eager, you've got practical skills and I guess you learn by doing. Nothing wrong with that, I was the same (I bet that's true of a lot of people on this forum). I also went of half-cocked with wild theories because of my (greater) lack of practical experience and knowledge of scientific theory.
By all means, work out the efficiency of electrolysing water into HHO, then the efficiency of converting it back to electricity. Work out how much HHO you get from 1kg of water, then what pressure that will be under when confined to the same 1 litre of space the water occupied. Then you can look at the weight of gas cylinders that can contain that pressure - see how big/heavy they are. You see if the cylinder is practical and the amount of useable electrical energy that can be extracted. How much heat would be produced? Is it manageable in a cylinder of that size?
Lastly, you have to assess the safety aspect. Is there any way you can keep the gaseous hydrogen and oxygen separated? Can those gases even be held under compression together?
You're young, you're eager, you've got practical skills and I guess you learn by doing. Nothing wrong with that, I was the same (I bet that's true of a lot of people on this forum). I also went of half-cocked with wild theories because of my (greater) lack of practical experience and knowledge of scientific theory.
By all means, work out the efficiency of electrolysing water into HHO, then the efficiency of converting it back to electricity. Work out how much HHO you get from 1kg of water, then what pressure that will be under when confined to the same 1 litre of space the water occupied. Then you can look at the weight of gas cylinders that can contain that pressure - see how big/heavy they are. You see if the cylinder is practical and the amount of useable electrical energy that can be extracted. How much heat would be produced? Is it manageable in a cylinder of that size?
Lastly, you have to assess the safety aspect. Is there any way you can keep the gaseous hydrogen and oxygen separated? Can those gases even be held under compression together?
dnmun
1 PW
why can't they teach kids science in high school anymore? it is really sad how far behind our country has sagged. the only reason they have any interest in learning this stuff is so they can have an ebike that goes faster than anyone else because of the need to beat the other guy to satisfy their inadequate egos. no interest in science as a subject at all. or art or literature either. just pumping the male ego to the max at as early an age as the beer companies can sell them beer or carbonated caffeine.
nutnspecial
10 MW
Don't feel bad, I forgive all three of you for your negative and OT remarks. I hope all the positive and constructive contributors agree too. 8)
nutnspecial
10 MW
Unbelievable.
I'm not gonna repeat part of my first comment here, (that was flagged), but I owe you a big thankyou, cuz I feel I don't even need to.
10-4 good buddy, over and OUT
I'm not gonna repeat part of my first comment here, (that was flagged), but I owe you a big thankyou, cuz I feel I don't even need to.
10-4 good buddy, over and OUT
r3volved
100 kW
Too many teachers and not enough educators.
Instructors make all the difference... I was pretty spoiled having actual science grads for science teachers throughout my high school years. In fact my grade 7 science teacher was one of the first people to open my head up to skepticism.
Unfortunately I cannot say the same about math...I was always real good at math and very engaged up until grade 11 when my 'math teacher' was a reassigned gym teacher. I learned next to nothing that year and it completely stunted my math skills and my interest up until I was in post secondary and too late. Now I'm engaged again, but constantly struggling to discover the fundamentals that I missed and need to understand my interests.
Instructors make all the difference... I was pretty spoiled having actual science grads for science teachers throughout my high school years. In fact my grade 7 science teacher was one of the first people to open my head up to skepticism.
Unfortunately I cannot say the same about math...I was always real good at math and very engaged up until grade 11 when my 'math teacher' was a reassigned gym teacher. I learned next to nothing that year and it completely stunted my math skills and my interest up until I was in post secondary and too late. Now I'm engaged again, but constantly struggling to discover the fundamentals that I missed and need to understand my interests.
dnmun said:
jimmyhackers
10 kW
- Joined
- May 11, 2015
- Messages
- 609
sorry to inform you all but i am one of them tin hat nutters.
tech in the wrong hands or used incorrectly can be very dangerous. most idiots cant be bothered to check their tyre pressure every other day on their 120mph+ 1.5tonnes of possible chaos/death.
so i dont find it suprising there are loads of cool things were not aloud to have or not told about becuase of how reccless some can be.
its like fat people ruining mcdonalds supersize for people like me who arnt lazy and have self controll.
i really like that telsa quote. energy frequency and vibration. music maths electronics all rolled into one.
dont know if i mentioned but other than a guitarist ive been an air con/fridge engineer. big scale supermarkets to small corner shops. designing, installs and mantenance. so thermodynamics also is in my head (with the rest of the rubbish).
with all my experimentation ive realised every thing is linked. you cant have one without the other. and that nothing can be created or destroyed.
wierd things like cold doesnt exsist. its just "less hot". that there is a limit to "how little" energy there can be (0 kelvin) but there isnt a max kelvin limit.
then i figure from that most stuff in life is on a scale that has a start (its version of 0 kelvin) but more than likely doesnt have an end.
we need may poppins to make a battery like one of her bags. tha we cna keep stuffing stuff into it.
i thought id found it...probably havent
on the hho front (with combustion engines) ive had limited results a long while ago on my old 1.4 306. it only seems to work on long motorway drives at around a 80-90% increase in mpg, like my ecu took a while to adjust. my conclusion was hho "detonates" rather than combusts (even at a 1-2% concentration). meaning the main thing it will do is speed up flame travel from the spark making for a more uniform combustion.
how much flame travel speed and uniform combustion effects performance im unsure of.
but ive always likened it to a diesel which "detonates" rather than "combusts"
basically i know the hho isnt adding energy "overunity style" so it must be unlocking some extra potential power in the fuel.
that theory may of possibly been half confirmed by the mot gas check. emissions were more than halfed with the gas turned on.
i guess if i had metered the flow of gas to increase with engine rpm my ecu might of settled into its high mpg "groove" all the time. sadly i got a gti6 "with no engine bay room" instead and the hho stuff became the welder.
tech in the wrong hands or used incorrectly can be very dangerous. most idiots cant be bothered to check their tyre pressure every other day on their 120mph+ 1.5tonnes of possible chaos/death.
so i dont find it suprising there are loads of cool things were not aloud to have or not told about becuase of how reccless some can be.
its like fat people ruining mcdonalds supersize for people like me who arnt lazy and have self controll.
i really like that telsa quote. energy frequency and vibration. music maths electronics all rolled into one.
dont know if i mentioned but other than a guitarist ive been an air con/fridge engineer. big scale supermarkets to small corner shops. designing, installs and mantenance. so thermodynamics also is in my head (with the rest of the rubbish).
with all my experimentation ive realised every thing is linked. you cant have one without the other. and that nothing can be created or destroyed.
wierd things like cold doesnt exsist. its just "less hot". that there is a limit to "how little" energy there can be (0 kelvin) but there isnt a max kelvin limit.
then i figure from that most stuff in life is on a scale that has a start (its version of 0 kelvin) but more than likely doesnt have an end.
we need may poppins to make a battery like one of her bags. tha we cna keep stuffing stuff into it.
i thought id found it...probably havent
on the hho front (with combustion engines) ive had limited results a long while ago on my old 1.4 306. it only seems to work on long motorway drives at around a 80-90% increase in mpg, like my ecu took a while to adjust. my conclusion was hho "detonates" rather than combusts (even at a 1-2% concentration). meaning the main thing it will do is speed up flame travel from the spark making for a more uniform combustion.
how much flame travel speed and uniform combustion effects performance im unsure of.
but ive always likened it to a diesel which "detonates" rather than "combusts"
basically i know the hho isnt adding energy "overunity style" so it must be unlocking some extra potential power in the fuel.
that theory may of possibly been half confirmed by the mot gas check. emissions were more than halfed with the gas turned on.
i guess if i had metered the flow of gas to increase with engine rpm my ecu might of settled into its high mpg "groove" all the time. sadly i got a gti6 "with no engine bay room" instead and the hho stuff became the welder.
Hydrogen augmentation of fuel is certainly a thing and there's a good paper talking about it's effects in enhancing lean burn of natural gas motors - though the flow rates were significantly higher than what is commonly used for street vehicles, and it was testing pure hydrogen injection, not HHO injection. I think it's something around 8% by volume, if I'm not mistaken.
There have been some double blind studies of automotive HHO systems that showed a 15% difference in fuel consumption... correlated with the driver's belief about the system operation, not the actual state of the system operation. So "driver results" are, as usual, quite untrustworthy when it comes to measuring the impact of any gizmo installed on a car, HHO included.
I'm not aware of any dyno tests on a standard car setup (with what people usually install, with such absurdly low flow rates) that are conclusive, and in general, leaning out the mixture (which is required for an effect) has a negative impact on catalyst health (also, a lot of ECU fiddling - you can't just add hydrogen and have a modern ECU lean things out). In general, leaning out the mixture will help fuel economy, but often leads to an increase in NOx emissions (it depends somewhat on the engine and where it's operating). If the systems installed in cars actually work, this should be trivial to show in a test cell, but if the gains are achieved by leaning the mixture, it may push the emissions out of EPA compliance, even if it's more efficient. Running engines lean is a well established way to improve fuel consumption, as long as you don't care about emissions - the aircraft guys will often spend a good chunk of money on balanced fuel metering orifices ("fuel injectors") to run substantially lean of peak, but nobody regulates emissions from aircraft piston engines.
In any case, pressurized gasses are not the way of the future for battery storage technology. There exist cells that use it (the Nickel Hydrogen battery being one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93hydrogen_battery ), but the future will be going to denser and denser batteries, which looks a lot like solid state, not gasses.
There have been some double blind studies of automotive HHO systems that showed a 15% difference in fuel consumption... correlated with the driver's belief about the system operation, not the actual state of the system operation. So "driver results" are, as usual, quite untrustworthy when it comes to measuring the impact of any gizmo installed on a car, HHO included.
I'm not aware of any dyno tests on a standard car setup (with what people usually install, with such absurdly low flow rates) that are conclusive, and in general, leaning out the mixture (which is required for an effect) has a negative impact on catalyst health (also, a lot of ECU fiddling - you can't just add hydrogen and have a modern ECU lean things out). In general, leaning out the mixture will help fuel economy, but often leads to an increase in NOx emissions (it depends somewhat on the engine and where it's operating). If the systems installed in cars actually work, this should be trivial to show in a test cell, but if the gains are achieved by leaning the mixture, it may push the emissions out of EPA compliance, even if it's more efficient. Running engines lean is a well established way to improve fuel consumption, as long as you don't care about emissions - the aircraft guys will often spend a good chunk of money on balanced fuel metering orifices ("fuel injectors") to run substantially lean of peak, but nobody regulates emissions from aircraft piston engines.
In any case, pressurized gasses are not the way of the future for battery storage technology. There exist cells that use it (the Nickel Hydrogen battery being one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93hydrogen_battery ), but the future will be going to denser and denser batteries, which looks a lot like solid state, not gasses.
eTrike said:
Engine dyno tests don't support the "considerable increase in MPG" results - the changes from hydrogen injection are minor, if the engine is retuned for it, and the flow is substantial. Standard DIY HHO generator flow rates don't do anything measurable. On the other hand, believing you have a magic gizmo in your car affects fuel economy by a whole lot.
Sorry, this is not my own research, and I don't have my own engine test chamber with a fully instrumented engine yet. That's going to be a long while down the road, if ever.
The main issue is that the flow rate of DIY HHO generators is absolutely miniscule compared to the engine airflow requirements - the commercial hydrogen enhancement is flowing 5-10% of the airflow in hydrogen, and the HHO generators are well, well sub-1%. Do the math based on your engine and see what you come up with - my truck, cruising on the highway, is sucking down about 135,000 liters per minute of airflow, and the generators available seem to produce 1-3 l/m - so 0.0014% of the airflow or so - and peak airflow is a whole lot higher if I'm pulling hard.
Then why don't they ever seem to show up on the dyno?
A correctly tuned engine already has all the oxygen it needs from atmospheric air (stoichiometric fuel-air mixture).
Use crankshaft power to turn the alternator, to generate electricity, to run an electrolysis cell, to generate hydrogen, to combust in the engine to create crankshaft power...
Use crankshaft power to turn the alternator, to generate electricity, to run an electrolysis cell, to generate hydrogen, to combust in the engine to create crankshaft power...
jimmyhackers
10 kW
- Joined
- May 11, 2015
- Messages
- 609
there are are some pretty vague figures out there about the effieciency of combustion engines.
as all engines are differnt sized designs etc
but the main vague figure that seem to apply to all of them is that of all the potential energy in petrol etc. only half become kinetic and the other half heat.
so thats %50 of the possible energy in fuel that every car/truck lorry todate vents to atmosphere wastefully.
there is a lot of room for improvement within IC engines.
so even if you can turn/recycle 5% of that waste heat energy back into kintetic youve made a pretty substatial improvement in efficiency.
i dont think ive mentioned but my engine ran a few degrees cooler than normal on hho.
but back to my top of a magical pressurized water battery.
was in a lightening storm the other day.....and a strike hit about 20feet from the car i was in....and got me thinking....about lightening.
and conventional current vs electron flow....
and basically.....as far as my school education serves me...lightening is caused by friction in the clouds causing static charges.
and some pretty big ones to boot. and seeing as clouds are water vapour.....
im wondering wether this is recreatable on a smaller scale or has applications/cross over points with my idea.
would be interesting to know "size of cloud vs possible size of lightening strike"
i wonder if wether were taught conventional current (circuit board style) first, so when we try to understand (electron flow) were all backwards with our preconcieved ideas before we begin.
this is the whole "lightening actually travels from the ground not from the sky" story
and my "tin hat conspiracy" take on things
as all engines are differnt sized designs etc
but the main vague figure that seem to apply to all of them is that of all the potential energy in petrol etc. only half become kinetic and the other half heat.
so thats %50 of the possible energy in fuel that every car/truck lorry todate vents to atmosphere wastefully.
there is a lot of room for improvement within IC engines.
so even if you can turn/recycle 5% of that waste heat energy back into kintetic youve made a pretty substatial improvement in efficiency.
i dont think ive mentioned but my engine ran a few degrees cooler than normal on hho.
but back to my top of a magical pressurized water battery.
was in a lightening storm the other day.....and a strike hit about 20feet from the car i was in....and got me thinking....about lightening.
and conventional current vs electron flow....
and basically.....as far as my school education serves me...lightening is caused by friction in the clouds causing static charges.
and some pretty big ones to boot. and seeing as clouds are water vapour.....
im wondering wether this is recreatable on a smaller scale or has applications/cross over points with my idea.
would be interesting to know "size of cloud vs possible size of lightening strike"
i wonder if wether were taught conventional current (circuit board style) first, so when we try to understand (electron flow) were all backwards with our preconcieved ideas before we begin.
this is the whole "lightening actually travels from the ground not from the sky" story
and my "tin hat conspiracy" take on things
jimmyhackers said:
Well, what figures would you like? The efficiency between different designs of engines running the same cycle type (Otto cycle, Diesel cycle, Atkinson cycle, etc) is quite close for similar engine construction technologies and materials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_cycle is a good place to start your research, but for given engine technologies, the numbers tend to be reasonably similar. In general, larger engines can be somewhat more efficient, but also have more frictional losses, so... it depends on what you're doing.
Well, if you play with reasonable temperature values for hot side and cold side of the most efficient cycle for turning heat into power (the Carnot cycle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle ), you do end up with a peak of around 50% thermal to power efficiency for sane values of temperatures. So no heat engine is going to exceed that, and it'll be hard to come close.
And steady progress is being made by the auto makers as they get ever fancier to meet emissions targets. Though, they then take up most of the efficiency gains by adding weight to vehicles. The Honda CRX HF, in 1992, pulled 42/51mpg (using the modern EPA tests, not the ones at the time) - it's up there with hybrids, with nothing but a light, fuel efficient car. And nobody would buy it today, because it doesn't have a 47 speaker surround system, 36 airbags, AM/FM/CD/iPod/XM, adaptive cruise control, or really any other "features" beyond wheels & a motor. That new cars, with much greater weight, can come close to those numbers is pretty impressive, and shows the improvement of engine technology.
There's just not that much energy in the exhaust gasses left - I'm not up to date on my gasser numbers, but pre-turbo, my diesel truck cruses around 700F, which means post-turbo temperatures are down below 500F. It's a lot of work to recover not much energy at that point, and whatever you do shouldn't reduce the efficiency of the main motor (by increasing back pressure or such). In late piston era aircraft, there were power recovery turbines post-turbo to convert remaining energy into horsepower, but they didn't recover that much, and were generally regarded as utter maintenance and reliability nightmares.
Cylinder head temperatures, coolant temperatures, EGTs, ???
One is a convenient abstraction, one describes the physical behavior, and the reason they differ is because someone guessed wrong and it stuck. Your point?
Do you actually do any research, or do you just toss out ideas into the void? Learn to run some numbers for stuff, ballpark the figures, and you can get a good first order idea of how feasible something is.
... what difference does it make? I'm serious - what difference, in any meaningful sense of the word, does it make what direction we arbitrarily consider to be "current flow" vs what direction the electrons flow? One is just a useful abstraction we use to make things easier, and I assure you, if you were to do any sort of circuit analysis with the current matching the electron direction, you'd get the exact same answers.
jimmyhackers
10 kW
- Joined
- May 11, 2015
- Messages
- 609
"graphene" was descovered by some bored scientist in the lab who had some carbon and some celotape and decided to "play".
throwing vague ideas around/ just trying different things. comes up with some spectacular results.
if we all went to the same school and learnt from the same text book (which we basically do)
were all steered to look in the same direction. nothing wrong with this if the direction is right, and most the time it is.
but when you put on a path/rails theres more than likely a chance youll miss many things all together.
to the point where you will take another persons "failings" as a reason or barrier "in your head" to not even try yourself.
forgive me about the whole not knowing eaxctly what ligntening is. i do know its about 100,000 volts per centimeter in air. so a real lightening strike is......."let me just get out my tape measure......" oh wait......i cant. either way its mega mega power
and we can only speculate on the volumes of air/cloud etc needed to make even a small strike happen.
i was merely using lightening as a way of pointing out water can potentialy make a lot of electrical energy.
i wasnt saying tie a key to a kite and power your vehicle on storms.
and what difference does electron flows vs conventional current make...... imagine the world/time is really running backwards.then that all humans perception of time is also "backwards". so the whole world is percived to be running "forwards" when it isnt. this could be happening right now but we will never know.
as electricity as we know is is the flow of electrons. and every electrically minded person started out thinking backwards. its harder for them to percieve what is actually going on. and make more....."educated" guesses to the function of electrical components interations with electrons.
i.e. the "collector" plate in any transistor isnt really "collecting" hence any conventional current "conventional current" theory about electrical components is actually a "made up/half true" story of what is actually happening.
kinda like only ever playing the game "operation" with only a mirrored view.
then when your proficient at "mirror operation" you have the mirror taken away and youd find it hard to adjust.
temps were from the engine coolant which was about 10 - 5 degress C lower and the exhaisut manifold got tested a few time with my IR meter and that dropped about 100 degrees C withthe hho running.
throwing vague ideas around/ just trying different things. comes up with some spectacular results.
if we all went to the same school and learnt from the same text book (which we basically do)
were all steered to look in the same direction. nothing wrong with this if the direction is right, and most the time it is.
but when you put on a path/rails theres more than likely a chance youll miss many things all together.
to the point where you will take another persons "failings" as a reason or barrier "in your head" to not even try yourself.
forgive me about the whole not knowing eaxctly what ligntening is. i do know its about 100,000 volts per centimeter in air. so a real lightening strike is......."let me just get out my tape measure......" oh wait......i cant. either way its mega mega power
and we can only speculate on the volumes of air/cloud etc needed to make even a small strike happen.
i was merely using lightening as a way of pointing out water can potentialy make a lot of electrical energy.
i wasnt saying tie a key to a kite and power your vehicle on storms.
and what difference does electron flows vs conventional current make...... imagine the world/time is really running backwards.then that all humans perception of time is also "backwards". so the whole world is percived to be running "forwards" when it isnt. this could be happening right now but we will never know.
as electricity as we know is is the flow of electrons. and every electrically minded person started out thinking backwards. its harder for them to percieve what is actually going on. and make more....."educated" guesses to the function of electrical components interations with electrons.
i.e. the "collector" plate in any transistor isnt really "collecting" hence any conventional current "conventional current" theory about electrical components is actually a "made up/half true" story of what is actually happening.
kinda like only ever playing the game "operation" with only a mirrored view.
then when your proficient at "mirror operation" you have the mirror taken away and youd find it hard to adjust.
temps were from the engine coolant which was about 10 - 5 degress C lower and the exhaisut manifold got tested a few time with my IR meter and that dropped about 100 degrees C withthe hho running.