H2 Combustion-Booster Claimed

[[email protected]]

Here's one I just read:

http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=cfe...

Some fellow is claiming he has a small device that will boost
combustion efficiency and save drivers lots of money, while reducing
emissions.

Obviously, plenty of claims have been made before, so I'm asking --
does this sound on the level?

It sounds reasonable that injecting H2 into your fuel stream can
improve the combustion. I assume that combusting the H2 in your
cylinders along with the regular fuel will boost temperature to give a
cleaner burn. Would the higher temperature harm your engine life at
all?

Since this device supposedly only holds a limited supply of distilled
H2O, KOH, etc which get periodically replaced, can I assume that it's
catalytically cracking some hydrogen from the hydrocarbon fuel stream
itself, so that hydrogen can improve the combustion of the remaining
fuel at the cylinder?

Is this somehow akin to a sort of turbocharger, but which uses hydrogen
instead of pressurized oxygen? Can it work for other things like
aircraft engines, in order to boost their operating ceiling?

Hmm, I dunno, I feel a little puzzled or suspicious of how he's
achieving a net energy gain here. Can anyone debunk any obvious
fallacies here?

[Jeff]

> Some fellow is claiming he has a small device that will boost
> combustion efficiency and save drivers lots of money, while reducing
> emissions.
>
> Obviously, plenty of claims have been made before, so I'm asking --
> does this sound on the level?
>

Water injection has been around for a long time, both for internal
combustion and aircraft jet engines, it does improve efficiency, reduce
temperatures and reduce some emissions. It depends what is being claimed for
the actual device.

Regards
Jeff

[Morgans]

" > wrote

> It sounds reasonable that injecting H2 into your fuel stream can
> improve the combustion.

> Hmm, I dunno, I feel a little puzzled or suspicious of how he's
> achieving a net energy gain here. Can anyone debunk any obvious
> fallacies here?

I'm not up to trying to read all of the web site, but the answer is to save
your money.

Water injection has been around in high HP engines, running at high,
constant loads, for a long time. Will it become practical for your airplane
or car?

Car, no, because of the low HP, and non-constant loads.

For airplanes? Yes, if all you want is a boost of extra HP, for a short
amount of time. Some WWII fighter planes used them for an extra boost for
take-off and for other times, such as dog fighting, where the extra HP meant
life or death. Some air racers also use water injection.

Why not all of the time? LOTS of water is needed to make much of a
difference, and the weight for enough water to last for more than a few
short bursts would be impractical to carry around. It also needed a lot of
monitoring, which no doubt could be taken care of by modern micro chips.

Lastly, if it was a viable option, wouldn't all major manufacturers be using
it? You will have to ignore the oil company conspiracy theories, to answer
that one. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Vaughn]

" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Some fellow is claiming he has a small device that will boost
> combustion efficiency and save drivers...
>
Any special reason why you felt the need to x-post this OT stuff to three
different newsgroups?

Vaughn

[Mark Borgerson]

In article om>,
says...
> Here's one I just read:
>
> http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=cfe...
>
> Some fellow is claiming he has a small device that will boost
> combustion efficiency and save drivers lots of money, while reducing
> emissions.
>
> Obviously, plenty of claims have been made before, so I'm asking --
> does this sound on the level?
>
> It sounds reasonable that injecting H2 into your fuel stream can
> improve the combustion. I assume that combusting the H2 in your
> cylinders along with the regular fuel will boost temperature to give a
> cleaner burn. Would the higher temperature harm your engine life at
> all?
>
> Since this device supposedly only holds a limited supply of distilled
> H2O, KOH, etc which get periodically replaced, can I assume that it's
> catalytically cracking some hydrogen from the hydrocarbon fuel stream
> itself, so that hydrogen can improve the combustion of the remaining
> fuel at the cylinder?
Separating out the hydrogen would probably take more energy than
it would add during the combustion process.
>
> Is this somehow akin to a sort of turbocharger, but which uses hydrogen
> instead of pressurized oxygen? Can it work for other things like
> aircraft engines, in order to boost their operating ceiling?

If the invention is actually 'combusting' any hydrogen, the fuel/air
mixture in the engine computer would have to be altered to provide
enough extra oxygen. However, since the amount of air in each
cylinder is generally constant, it would actually require reducing
the fuel input. It doesn't sound too practical to me.
>
> Hmm, I dunno, I feel a little puzzled or suspicious of how he's
> achieving a net energy gain here. Can anyone debunk any obvious
> fallacies here?

soaking up excess heat by turning water into steam is one obvious
way of increasing efficiency----but that's been done for decades.

Mark Borgerson

[Jack G]

Only conversion going on here is converting your money into his money.

Jack G


" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Here's one I just read:
>
> http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=cfe...
>
> Some fellow is claiming he has a small device that will boost
> combustion efficiency and save drivers lots of money, while reducing
> emissions.
>
> Obviously, plenty of claims have been made before, so I'm asking --
> does this sound on the level?
>
> It sounds reasonable that injecting H2 into your fuel stream can
> improve the combustion. I assume that combusting the H2 in your
> cylinders along with the regular fuel will boost temperature to give a
> cleaner burn. Would the higher temperature harm your engine life at
> all?
>
> Since this device supposedly only holds a limited supply of distilled
> H2O, KOH, etc which get periodically replaced, can I assume that it's
> catalytically cracking some hydrogen from the hydrocarbon fuel stream
> itself, so that hydrogen can improve the combustion of the remaining
> fuel at the cylinder?
>
> Is this somehow akin to a sort of turbocharger, but which uses hydrogen
> instead of pressurized oxygen? Can it work for other things like
> aircraft engines, in order to boost their operating ceiling?
>
> Hmm, I dunno, I feel a little puzzled or suspicious of how he's
> achieving a net energy gain here. Can anyone debunk any obvious
> fallacies here?
>

[Harry Andreas]

In article om>,
" > wrote:

> Here's one I just read:
>
> http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=cfe...
>
> Some fellow is claiming he has a small device that will boost
> combustion efficiency and save drivers lots of money, while reducing
> emissions.
>
> Obviously, plenty of claims have been made before, so I'm asking --
> does this sound on the level?
>
> It sounds reasonable that injecting H2 into your fuel stream can
> improve the combustion. I assume that combusting the H2 in your
> cylinders along with the regular fuel will boost temperature to give a
> cleaner burn. Would the higher temperature harm your engine life at
> all?
>
> Since this device supposedly only holds a limited supply of distilled
> H2O, KOH, etc which get periodically replaced, can I assume that it's
> catalytically cracking some hydrogen from the hydrocarbon fuel stream
> itself, so that hydrogen can improve the combustion of the remaining
> fuel at the cylinder?
>
> Is this somehow akin to a sort of turbocharger, but which uses hydrogen
> instead of pressurized oxygen? Can it work for other things like
> aircraft engines, in order to boost their operating ceiling?
>
> Hmm, I dunno, I feel a little puzzled or suspicious of how he's
> achieving a net energy gain here. Can anyone debunk any obvious
> fallacies here?

I read the web page ad, and every single paragragh had at least one
outright falsehood. Some paragraphs had several. Most also had
classical marketing misdirection and dissimulation.

The bottom line? YOU CAN'T GET SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.
Everything this guys says violates conservation of energy and both the
First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

It's a simple bilko scheme.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[[email protected]]

Well, why do you equate H2 injection with water injection? From what I
see here, while water spray can act as an atomizer to increase surface
area, the H2 is itself combustible. Isn't there a difference?

[Morgans]

" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Well, why do you equate H2 injection with water injection? From what I
> see here, while water spray can act as an atomizer to increase surface
> area, the H2 is itself combustible. Isn't there a difference?

I'm sure it said H2O, when I read it. Yeah, that's my story, and I'm
sticking to it! <g>

I'll try to read better, next time. I've only been at it for about 43
years! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Charlie Springer]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:03:47 -0700, wrote
(in article om>):

> It sounds reasonable that injecting H2 into your fuel stream can
> improve the combustion. I assume that combusting the H2 in your
> cylinders along with the regular fuel will boost temperature to give a
> cleaner burn. Would the higher temperature harm your engine life at
> all?

Don't know about a cleaner burn. Higher temperatures mean mire nitrogen
compounds. In fact, a pure H2 and atmosphere engine will produce the nitrogen
compounds that make up smog. To be clean, you need a pure O2 for oxidizer,
not air.

The fuels we use are hydrocarbons and there is plenty of hydrogen there
already. In a perfect burn, as in stoichiometric combustion with O2, all you
get from gasoline is water and CO2. Octane is just 8 carbons surrounded by 18
hydrogens. Adding hydrogen and decreasing gas might get a hotter fire, but we
run about as hot as we need (or can stand) now for long engine life. Hotter
might help prevent oddball bits of hydrocarbon from being unburned (handled
by catalytic converter) but increase NO2, etc.

The link didn't lead to whatever you saw, so I can't comment on the thingy.
It probably works as well as putting magnets on your fuel lines.

-- Charlie Springer

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Bryan Martin
> wrote:

> Lets see. You take energy from the electrical system to crack water into H2
> and O2. Then you pipe the H2 into the engine with the gasoline where it will
> combine with oxygen to form water. The article I read doesn't say what you
> do with the O2, I guess you just vent that to the atmosphere. Seeing as how
> conversion of water into H2 and O2 is not 100% efficient due to losses in
> the wiring and such and seeing as how burning H2 with air is also not 100%
> efficient, there is no possible way to get a net energy gain out of this
> system. In fact this system will result in a net loss and lower fuel economy
> since the electrical energy to drive the electrolysis must come eventually
> from the alternator which is driven by the engine.

That's the Second Law of Thermodynamics: in ANY energy conversion scheme
there is inefficiency and therefore loss.


> The only way to get any kind of gain out of this is to inject the water
> itself into the engine. This might give some power gain in the short term
> but pumping salt water into your fuel system and engine will certainly do
> them no good in the long run. The article specifically mentioned putting
> water and an electrolyte (salt) into the booster tank.

Agree on the salt.
Water injection only works to increase power if you increase engine
compression. The higher compression ratio gets you more power, the
water injection cools the charge and acts like an octane booster.
Just don't run out of water...
If you run water without increasing compression ratio, you will get a little
due to the density increase of the air, but it's not major.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[[email protected]]

Harry Andreas wrote:
> In article >, Bryan Martin
> > wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
> > The only way to get any kind of gain out of this is to inject the water
> > itself into the engine. This might give some power gain in the short term
> > but pumping salt water into your fuel system and engine will certainly do
> > them no good in the long run. The article specifically mentioned putting
> > water and an electrolyte (salt) into the booster tank.
>
> Agree on the salt.

Someone else wrote that it was KOH that was added, not a salt.
Dunno why, if it was just a water injection system. Would the
KOH help to control NOx emmissions? Could the KOH be threre
for boiling point elevation?

> Water injection only works to increase power if you increase engine
> compression. The higher compression ratio gets you more power, the
> water injection cools the charge and acts like an octane booster.
> Just don't run out of water...

If you are injecting atomized (e.g. liquid) water into the
cylinders then during the power stroke the water will
evaporate. That evaporation converts heat to pressure at
constant temperature. You get a higher compression raio
without a higher temperature. Does THAT help to control NOx,
in addition to giving you more power?

> If you run water without increasing compression ratio, you will get a little
> due to the density increase of the air, but it's not major.
>

IIUC, adding the water will increase the compression ratio
due to the phase change of the water. Water injection increases
the compression ratio without changing the geometry of the cylinder
and piston, right?

--

FF

[Peter Skelton]

On 20 Sep 2005 10:25:08 -0700, wrote:

>
>Harry Andreas wrote:
>> In article >, Bryan Martin
>> > wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>> > The only way to get any kind of gain out of this is to inject the water
>> > itself into the engine. This might give some power gain in the short term
>> > but pumping salt water into your fuel system and engine will certainly do
>> > them no good in the long run. The article specifically mentioned putting
>> > water and an electrolyte (salt) into the booster tank.
>>
>> Agree on the salt.
>
>Someone else wrote that it was KOH that was added, not a salt.
>Dunno why, if it was just a water injection system. Would the
>KOH help to control NOx emmissions? Could the KOH be threre
>for boiling point elevation?
>
Freezing point depression.


Peter Skelton

[Capt. Geoffry Thorpe]

Water can reduce the charge termperature as it evaporates in the cylinder
which can increase the charge mass a little, but mostly it improves knock
resistance by cooling the charge and increasing the specific heat of the
charge mass. But to really take advantage you have to either increase the
compression ratio or boost.
NOx is recduced somewhat since the peak temperatures are reduced.

If you are trying to change the fuel chemestry to get more energy out - you
have to put energy in. Lose - lose.

If you are trying to make the fuel burn "better" to make it "all" burn -
gasoline burns just fine. Unburned fuel in the exhaust comes from three
primary sources - mixture that is pushed into the crevices around the piston
/ sparkplug / etc. where it can't burn (it comes out of the crevices during
the exhaust stroke), mixture that is quenched at the cylinder walls due to
heat loss. And excess fuel from running rich. The bulk of the charge mass
burns just fine. Cow magnets, magic additives, whatever aren't going to
change any of that.

If making the fuel burn "better" made it burn faster - Well, if it really
worked all you would do is destroy the engine because the faster combustion
would result in detonation.

--
Geoff
the sea hawk at wow way d0t com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
Spell checking is left as an excercise for the reader.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Capt. Geoffry
Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:

> Water can reduce the charge termperature as it evaporates in the cylinder
> which can increase the charge mass a little, but mostly it improves knock
> resistance by cooling the charge and increasing the specific heat of the
> charge mass. But to really take advantage you have to either increase the
> compression ratio or boost.
> NOx is recduced somewhat since the peak temperatures are reduced.
>
> If you are trying to change the fuel chemestry to get more energy out - you
> have to put energy in. Lose - lose.
>
> If you are trying to make the fuel burn "better" to make it "all" burn -
> gasoline burns just fine. Unburned fuel in the exhaust comes from three
> primary sources - mixture that is pushed into the crevices around the piston
> / sparkplug / etc. where it can't burn (it comes out of the crevices during
> the exhaust stroke), mixture that is quenched at the cylinder walls due to
> heat loss. And excess fuel from running rich. The bulk of the charge mass
> burns just fine. Cow magnets, magic additives, whatever aren't going to
> change any of that.

Actually, ( I was trying to make it simple ) either compression or boost can
be expressed as as BMEP, which takes both into account.
As BMEP rises you get better combustion of any unburned fuel from being
too rich (not a factor in today's autos) , but the higher pressure also
suppresses
the boundary layer at the cylinder wall, giving better combustion there also
and lower unburned hydrocarbons as a result.
Using water injection, as you say, allows you to increase BMEP without
risking knock because it cools the intake charge, acting (as I said) like
an octane improver.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Big John]

B-26K with R-2800 engines could pull 2500 HP with water injection.
I've got 150 hours in bird.

Think some if the 'Jugs' had water and could pull 90 inches with the
water getting 2800 HP in late models.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:14:20 -0700, Charlie Springer
> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:03:47 -0700, wrote
>(in article om>):
>
>> It sounds reasonable that injecting H2 into your fuel stream can
>> improve the combustion. I assume that combusting the H2 in your
>> cylinders along with the regular fuel will boost temperature to give a
>> cleaner burn. Would the higher temperature harm your engine life at
>> all?
>
>Don't know about a cleaner burn. Higher temperatures mean mire nitrogen
>compounds. In fact, a pure H2 and atmosphere engine will produce the nitrogen
>compounds that make up smog. To be clean, you need a pure O2 for oxidizer,
>not air.
>
>The fuels we use are hydrocarbons and there is plenty of hydrogen there
>already. In a perfect burn, as in stoichiometric combustion with O2, all you
>get from gasoline is water and CO2. Octane is just 8 carbons surrounded by 18
>hydrogens. Adding hydrogen and decreasing gas might get a hotter fire, but we
>run about as hot as we need (or can stand) now for long engine life. Hotter
>might help prevent oddball bits of hydrocarbon from being unburned (handled
>by catalytic converter) but increase NO2, etc.
>
>The link didn't lead to whatever you saw, so I can't comment on the thingy.
>It probably works as well as putting magnets on your fuel lines.
>
>-- Charlie Springer

[[email protected]]

Capt. Geoffry Thorpe wrote:
> Water can reduce the charge termperature as it evaporates in the cylinder
> which can increase the charge mass a little, but mostly it improves knock
> resistance by cooling the charge and increasing the specific heat of the
> charge mass. But to really take advantage you have to either increase the
> compression ratio or boost.
> NOx is recduced somewhat since the peak temperatures are reduced.
>
> If you are trying to change the fuel chemestry to get more energy out - you
> have to put energy in. Lose - lose.
>
> If you are trying to make the fuel burn "better" to make it "all" burn -
> gasoline burns just fine. Unburned fuel in the exhaust comes from three
> primary sources - mixture that is pushed into the crevices around the piston
> / sparkplug / etc. where it can't burn (it comes out of the crevices during
> the exhaust stroke), mixture that is quenched at the cylinder walls due to
> heat loss. And excess fuel from running rich. The bulk of the charge mass
> burns just fine. Cow magnets, magic additives, whatever aren't going to
> change any of that.

Ah but the thermodynamic efficiency of a heat engine increases as
the compression ratio or temperature ratio increases. The issue
is not how to get more heat out of the fuel, it is how to convert
more of the heat to mechanical energy.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Peter Skelton wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2005 10:25:08 -0700, wrote:
>
> >
> >> ...
> >>
> >
> >Someone else wrote that it was KOH that was added, not a salt.
> >Dunno why, if it was just a water injection system. Would the
> >KOH help to control NOx emmissions? Could the KOH be threre
> >for boiling point elevation?
> >
> Freezing point depression.
>

Like to prevent carburator icing, or just so the water tank
doesn't freeze in the winter time? The refernced article seems
to have expired, is the engine in question fuel injected?

--

FF

[Mike Rapoport]

Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The water goes
in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes from
burning fuel. It will always take more fuel to produce a given amount of
power with water injection than without. Water injection does allow higher
MP or higher compression so the engine can produce more power. Piston
engine fighters used it for more peak horsepower and some turbines use it
for the same purpose but it definately come at the price of higher fuel burn
per horsepower.

Mike


"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
>> Some fellow is claiming he has a small device that will boost
>> combustion efficiency and save drivers lots of money, while reducing
>> emissions.
>>
>> Obviously, plenty of claims have been made before, so I'm asking --
>> does this sound on the level?
>>
>
> Water injection has been around for a long time, both for internal
> combustion and aircraft jet engines, it does improve efficiency, reduce
> temperatures and reduce some emissions. It depends what is being claimed
> for the actual device.
>
> Regards
> Jeff
>

[Bill Daniels]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The water
goes
> in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes from
> burning fuel. It will always take more fuel to produce a given amount of
> power with water injection than without. Water injection does allow
higher
> MP or higher compression so the engine can produce more power. Piston
> engine fighters used it for more peak horsepower and some turbines use it
> for the same purpose but it definately come at the price of higher fuel
burn
> per horsepower.
>
> Mike

Hmm, consulting my ancient copy of Ricardo's "High Speed Internal Combustion
Engines", Sir Harry said that water injection can be substituted for any
excess fuel consumed for the purpose of reducing cylinder temperature and/or
increasing detonation margin. Further, evaporation of the water reduces the
intake charge temperature so as to reduce pumping losses. He goes on to say
that, while there is energy lost to evaporating the water droplets, the
overall fuel economy of an aircraft engine at max power setting will be
improved by use of water injection particularly if the compression ratio has
been increased to take advantage of the increased detonation margin.

Bill Daniels

[[email protected]]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The water goes
> in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes from
> burning fuel.

Same thing is true of a steam engine. In a steam engine it is
the phase-change of the water that makes it possible to convert
the heat from burning fuel into mechanical energy.

> It will always take more fuel to produce a given amount of
> power with water injection than without. Water injection
> does allow higher
> MP or higher compression so the engine can produce more power.

The thermodynamic efficiency of a heat engine is a function of the
compression ratio. Increasing the compression ratio increases
the efficiency. That is not to say that with water injection
there are not also increased losses that negate that advantage,
but the fact remains that increased compression ratio, absent
other factors, increases efficiency.

> Piston
> engine fighters used it for more peak horsepower and some turbines use it
> for the same purpose but it definately come at the price of higher fuel burn
> per horsepower.
>

Ok, I believe you.

--

FF

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The water
>> goes
>> in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes from
>> burning fuel.
>
> Same thing is true of a steam engine. In a steam engine it is
> the phase-change of the water that makes it possible to convert
> the heat from burning fuel into mechanical energy.
>

Yes but the steam engine takes the high-energy water vapor and produces
mechanical energy while returning the water as a low energy liquid.

Mike

[Big John]

Mike

Yep

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:19:07 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The water goes
>in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes from
>burning fuel. It will always take more fuel to produce a given amount of
>power with water injection than without. Water injection does allow higher
>MP or higher compression so the engine can produce more power. Piston
>engine fighters used it for more peak horsepower and some turbines use it
>for the same purpose but it definately come at the price of higher fuel burn
>per horsepower.
>
>Mike
>
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
...
>>> Some fellow is claiming he has a small device that will boost
>>> combustion efficiency and save drivers lots of money, while reducing
>>> emissions.
>>>
>>> Obviously, plenty of claims have been made before, so I'm asking --
>>> does this sound on the level?
>>>
>>
>> Water injection has been around for a long time, both for internal
>> combustion and aircraft jet engines, it does improve efficiency, reduce
>> temperatures and reduce some emissions. It depends what is being claimed
>> for the actual device.
>>
>> Regards
>> Jeff
>>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The water
> goes
>> in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes from
>> burning fuel. It will always take more fuel to produce a given amount of
>> power with water injection than without. Water injection does allow
> higher
>> MP or higher compression so the engine can produce more power. Piston
>> engine fighters used it for more peak horsepower and some turbines use it
>> for the same purpose but it definately come at the price of higher fuel
> burn
>> per horsepower.
>>
>> Mike
>
> Hmm, consulting my ancient copy of Ricardo's "High Speed Internal
> Combustion
> Engines", Sir Harry said that water injection can be substituted for any
> excess fuel consumed for the purpose of reducing cylinder temperature
> and/or
> increasing detonation margin. Further, evaporation of the water reduces
> the
> intake charge temperature so as to reduce pumping losses. He goes on to
> say
> that, while there is energy lost to evaporating the water droplets, the
> overall fuel economy of an aircraft engine at max power setting will be
> improved by use of water injection particularly if the compression ratio
> has
> been increased to take advantage of the increased detonation margin.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

Yes, water injection can replace fuel used for cooling. I was not precise
enough in my wording. In the case of using water injection at lower power
settings (where excess fuel for cooling is not used) efficiency will be
reduced. I used water injection in a Corvette that had 11:1 compression to
stop detonation. It worked but power was definately less than with high
octane gasoline and without water injection.

Mike

[Peter Stickney]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

>
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The
>>> water
>> goes
>>> in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes
>>> from
>>> burning fuel. It will always take more fuel to produce a given
>>> amount of
>>> power with water injection than without. Water injection does
>>> allow
>> higher
>>> MP or higher compression so the engine can produce more power.
>>> Piston engine fighters used it for more peak horsepower and some
>>> turbines use it for the same purpose but it definately come at the
>>> price of higher fuel
>> burn
>>> per horsepower.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> Hmm, consulting my ancient copy of Ricardo's "High Speed Internal
>> Combustion
>> Engines", Sir Harry said that water injection can be substituted
>> for any excess fuel consumed for the purpose of reducing cylinder
>> temperature and/or
>> increasing detonation margin. Further, evaporation of the water
>> reduces the
>> intake charge temperature so as to reduce pumping losses. He goes
>> on to say
>> that, while there is energy lost to evaporating the water droplets,
>> the overall fuel economy of an aircraft engine at max power setting
>> will be improved by use of water injection particularly if the
>> compression ratio has
>> been increased to take advantage of the increased detonation
>> margin.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>>
>
> Yes, water injection can replace fuel used for cooling. I was not
> precise
> enough in my wording. In the case of using water injection at lower
> power settings (where excess fuel for cooling is not used)
> efficiency will be
> reduced. I used water injection in a Corvette that had 11:1
> compression to
> stop detonation. It worked but power was definately less than with
> high octane gasoline and without water injection.

That's because you weren't running a lean mixture at high manifold
pressures while the water was going in. An integral part of ADI
(Anti Detonant Injection) systems on the big reciprocating airplane
engines was that the mixture would be leaned much closer to
stochiometric, and specific power and fuel burn would increase.
For example, the Wright R3350-32WA used on the P2V Neptune patrol
airplane, and on most Constellations and DC-7s, burned 45 lbs/minute
at max Dry Power (277 BMEP/2900 RPM), 'bout 3400 HP. The equivalent
info with ADI operating was 34 lbs/min at 301 BMEP/2900 RPM, giving
3700 HP. These engines generally ran on 115/145 Octane fuel.

While you can make water injection work by just dumping water in,
you don't get the full benefit unless you can adjust the fuel flow
properly.

--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

[[email protected]]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >> Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The water
> >> goes
> >> in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes from
> >> burning fuel.
> >
> > Same thing is true of a steam engine. In a steam engine it is
> > the phase-change of the water that makes it possible to convert
> > the heat from burning fuel into mechanical energy.
> >
>
> Yes but the steam engine takes the high-energy water vapor and produces
> mechanical energy while returning the water as a low energy liquid.
>

Actually the conversion to mechanical energy ceases before the vapor
condenses. Condensate in a turbine or even a steam piston is
undesireable.

Regarding water-injection of an internal combustion engine
I would assume the water is injected during the intake stroke,
evaporates completely or almost so near TDC and then mechanical
energy is extracted from the water vapor, along with the combustion
products, during the power stroke. One of those combustion
products was already water, so it's not like such an engine
doesn't already extract energy from expanding water vapor.

There is an increase in entropy associated with the phase change.
That energy is irretreiveably lost and probably accounts for
why the water-injected engine is less efficient than a 'dry'
engine despite the improved thermodynamic efficiency resulting
from the higher compression ratio.

But I'm not about to attempt the math. Entropy always make my
brain hurt.

--

FF

[Keith W]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Mike Rapoport wrote:
>> >> Water injection does not increase efficiency, it lowers it. The water
>> >> goes
>> >> in as a liquid and goes out as a gas. The energy to do that comes
>> >> from
>> >> burning fuel.
>> >
>> > Same thing is true of a steam engine. In a steam engine it is
>> > the phase-change of the water that makes it possible to convert
>> > the heat from burning fuel into mechanical energy.
>> >
>>
>> Yes but the steam engine takes the high-energy water vapor and produces
>> mechanical energy while returning the water as a low energy liquid.
>>
>
> Actually the conversion to mechanical energy ceases before the vapor
> condenses. Condensate in a turbine or even a steam piston is
> undesireable.
>

Yes and No.

A properly designed condenser produces a partial vacuum which
greatly increases both the power and efficiency of the engine by
allowing the steam to expand much more in the engine

Keith

[Roger]

On 24 Sep 2005 08:10:59 -0700, wrote:

If this thread is true to the subject of H2 boosting, not H2O Or using
some method of cracking water to get Hydrogen it's unlikely it can do
any thing near what is claimed. To get H2 from water takes a lot of
energy. OTOH adding water to hot charcoal will produce a burnable gas
and is a regularly used process.

Surprisingly H2 does not have the flame temperature for which it is
often given credit. Nor does it have a high BTU content per unit
volume. What it does have is a small molecular structure which lets
you put a lot of it through a small tip on a torch providing a clean,
hot, flame with enough BTUs for melting glass and even quartz.

Water vapor in the fuel stream serves two purposes. It lowers the
combustion chamber temperature and it effectively increases the octane
rating of the gas under high compression. Introduced into the inlet
stream it can lower the temperature of the incoming fuel/air mixture
which will allow more mixture into the chamber for a given pressure.

Alcohol which has a low octane rating although it keeps getting credit
for a high one, when added to gas up to 10% by volume will increase
the octane rating of the fuel. 10% seems to be the maximum amount for
increasing the octane rating.

One side effect of water injection is nice clean cylinders and
cylinder heads. Water also adds a lot of weight, without adding much
else.

There really are no magic additives, or fuels that will give
tremendous savings on their own. Most cost far more than normal gas.
Even those who make the claims of tremendous added mileage by adding
battery capacity to a hybrid car are not taking into account all the
added costs including the cost of the electricity.

Some where in the $3.00 to $3.50 range per gallon of gas is the point
where alternative fuels begin to become economically viable
alternatives to non renewable hydrocarbons.

We see all kinds of claims using byproducts from one place or another,
but as soon as enough people use those products they no longer are
thrown away they will be right up there with the other alternative
fuels.

We are most likely going to soon see $3.50 per gallon for a short time
here in the states. That will affect world wide prices which should
only be for a few months depending on how fast refining capacity can
be put back on line.

The scary part is the news tonight was reporting a gas leak out in the
gulf where the lines come together before the gas is brought to shore.
Wait till you see your LP and natural gas bills this winter. Most
commercial electricity is produced by burning natural gas.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Morgans]

"Roger" > wrote

> The scary part is the news tonight was reporting a gas leak out in the
> gulf where the lines come together before the gas is brought to shore.
> Wait till you see your LP and natural gas bills this winter. Most
> commercial electricity is produced by burning natural gas.

I heard this, but only as a quick blurb.

What is said to have caused this leak? My guess (if someone had a gun to my
head forcing me to speculate) would be a dragging "super anchor" from a
floating oil platform.
--
Jim in NC

[Keith W]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On 24 Sep 2005 08:10:59 -0700, wrote:
>
> If this thread is true to the subject of H2 boosting, not H2O

The subject has drifted, it happens.

> Or using
> some method of cracking water to get Hydrogen it's unlikely it can do
> any thing near what is claimed. To get H2 from water takes a lot of
> energy. OTOH adding water to hot charcoal will produce a burnable gas
> and is a regularly used process.
>

Well it was back in the days when we made town gas from coke.
The gas produced was of course mainly carbon monoxide
which would modern safety officials a fit.

> Surprisingly H2 does not have the flame temperature for which it is
> often given credit. Nor does it have a high BTU content per unit
> volume. What it does have is a small molecular structure which lets
> you put a lot of it through a small tip on a torch providing a clean,
> hot, flame with enough BTUs for melting glass and even quartz.
>
> Water vapor in the fuel stream serves two purposes. It lowers the
> combustion chamber temperature and it effectively increases the octane
> rating of the gas under high compression. Introduced into the inlet
> stream it can lower the temperature of the incoming fuel/air mixture
> which will allow more mixture into the chamber for a given pressure.
>

Indeed

> Alcohol which has a low octane rating although it keeps getting credit
> for a high one, when added to gas up to 10% by volume will increase
> the octane rating of the fuel. 10% seems to be the maximum amount for
> increasing the octane rating.
>
> One side effect of water injection is nice clean cylinders and
> cylinder heads. Water also adds a lot of weight, without adding much
> else.
>
> There really are no magic additives, or fuels that will give
> tremendous savings on their own.

Well there is one, tetraethyl lead boosts the octane rating
allowing you to use much higher compression ratios.
Of course there certain drawbacks which caused it to
be banned.

> Most cost far more than normal gas.
> Even those who make the claims of tremendous added mileage by adding
> battery capacity to a hybrid car are not taking into account all the
> added costs including the cost of the electricity.
>

Not exactly. Using battery technology allows the IC engine to run only
at its max efficiency setting and allows the use of regenerative braking

Its easily shown that hybrid cars do give better gas mileage

> Some where in the $3.00 to $3.50 range per gallon of gas is the point
> where alternative fuels begin to become economically viable
> alternatives to non renewable hydrocarbons.
>

They have been well above that level in Europe for at least a decade. The
result has been a large scale switch to more efficient diesel
engines and the proeuction of relatively small amounts of bio-diesel.
Beyond that there have been relatively few such advances.

Current gas prices here in the UK are around $6.8 per gallon

> We see all kinds of claims using byproducts from one place or another,
> but as soon as enough people use those products they no longer are
> thrown away they will be right up there with the other alternative
> fuels.
>
> We are most likely going to soon see $3.50 per gallon for a short time
> here in the states. That will affect world wide prices which should
> only be for a few months depending on how fast refining capacity can
> be put back on line.
>

Dont bet on it. World demand is rising faster than supply, specifically
the Chinese are rapidly building a massive automotive industry
and Chinese demand for oil is rising at around 1 bbpd / year

In 2004 China became the worlds second largest importer of petroleum
products surpassing Japan. That demand is now at approx 40% that of
the USA having risen by 300% since 1990

> The scary part is the news tonight was reporting a gas leak out in the
> gulf where the lines come together before the gas is brought to shore.
> Wait till you see your LP and natural gas bills this winter. Most
> commercial electricity is produced by burning natural gas.
>


Only if you include dual fired units, the stats in 2004 were
(million kilowatts)


Coal 313.3
Oil 36.9
Gas 222.9
Dual Fuel 175.4
Hydro 79
Nuclear 99.6

Electricity production is of course much easier to switch
to non fossil fuels than automotive fuel use but the USA
hasnt built any commercial nuclear plants since the
1980's unlike France which now generates almost 90%
of its electricity from nuclear sources.

Keith

[Roger]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:39:49 +0100, "Keith W"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On 24 Sep 2005 08:10:59 -0700, wrote:
>>
>> If this thread is true to the subject of H2 boosting, not H2O
>
>The subject has drifted, it happens.
It does? <:-))
>
<snip>
>
>Well it was back in the days when we made town gas from coke.
>The gas produced was of course mainly carbon monoxide
>which would modern safety officials a fit.

They also made something similar to natural gas
>
<snip>
>> There really are no magic additives, or fuels that will give
>> tremendous savings on their own.
>
>Well there is one, tetraethyl lead boosts the octane rating
>allowing you to use much higher compression ratios.

True it indirectly contributes by raising the octane rating which
allows for much higher combustion ratios. Gone are the days of gas
engines with 11:1 compression ratios.

>Of course there certain drawbacks which caused it to
>be banned.

Not just the lead. The higher compression had a tendency to create a
lot of nitrides.

>
>> Most cost far more than normal gas.
>> Even those who make the claims of tremendous added mileage by adding
>> battery capacity to a hybrid car are not taking into account all the
>> added costs including the cost of the electricity.
>>
>
>Not exactly. Using battery technology allows the IC engine to run only
>at its max efficiency setting and allows the use of regenerative braking
>Its easily shown that hybrid cars do give better gas mileage

That wasn't quite where I was headed. I agree the hybrid can get much
better mileage than a conventional car although it's at its best in
city driving.

Where I was headed was those adding more batteries to the hybrid and
then charging them from the electrical mains. Although at first it
looks like they are creating tremendous savings, it really a very
expensive proposition and we haven't reached the point where disposing
or remanufacturing the NiMH batteries has become a problem.

Although the technology could allow the gas engine to run at max
efficiency that isn't necessarily the case so there is still room for
improvement. Yes, the motor/generator (wheel motor) is where the car
gets most of its efficiency and also why it does its best in city
driving.

I'm wondering if may have noticed the similarity between the auto
industry now and the auto industry back in the 70s after the gas
shortage. The US auto industry was hurting as they were still geared
up to produce cars that were part of the horse power race and consumer
purchasing habits had shifted to imported economy cars. It appears, at
least to me, to be much the same at present.

We conserved, gas became cheap, and within a few years we were back to
larger cars. However some pretty big strides were made in gas mileage.
I drive an SUV that gets better mileage than the 4 cylinder cars I
drove back in the late 80s and early 90s. but gas mileage has actually
dropped slightly on average over the last 5 years or so.



>
>> Some where in the $3.00 to $3.50 range per gallon of gas is the point
>> where alternative fuels begin to become economically viable
>> alternatives to non renewable hydrocarbons.
>>
>
>They have been well above that level in Europe for at least a decade. The
>result has been a large scale switch to more efficient diesel
>engines and the proeuction of relatively small amounts of bio-diesel.
>Beyond that there have been relatively few such advances.

And you have much quieter, smoother running, and cleaner diesel
engines than we do here. Most of ours sound like a bad case of spark
knock or a loose rod. <:-))

>
>Current gas prices here in the UK are around $6.8 per gallon
>
>> We see all kinds of claims using byproducts from one place or another,
>> but as soon as enough people use those products they no longer are
>> thrown away they will be right up there with the other alternative
>> fuels.
>>
>> We are most likely going to soon see $3.50 per gallon for a short time
>> here in the states. That will affect world wide prices which should
>> only be for a few months depending on how fast refining capacity can
>> be put back on line.
>>
>
>Dont bet on it. World demand is rising faster than supply, specifically
>the Chinese are rapidly building a massive automotive industry
>and Chinese demand for oil is rising at around 1 bbpd / year
>
>In 2004 China became the worlds second largest importer of petroleum
>products surpassing Japan. That demand is now at approx 40% that of
>the USA having risen by 300% since 1990

True, but due to price controls they are exporting refined gas as they
can sell it for more than they can at home.

I'd answer more but there's a thunderstorm right outside ... <:-))
Later.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>> The scary part is the news tonight was reporting a gas leak out in the
>> gulf where the lines come together before the gas is brought to shore.
>> Wait till you see your LP and natural gas bills this winter. Most
>> commercial electricity is produced by burning natural gas.
>>
>
>
>Only if you include dual fired units, the stats in 2004 were
>(million kilowatts)
>
>
>Coal 313.3
>Oil 36.9
>Gas 222.9
>Dual Fuel 175.4
>Hydro 79
>Nuclear 99.6
>
>Electricity production is of course much easier to switch
>to non fossil fuels than automotive fuel use but the USA
>hasnt built any commercial nuclear plants since the
>1980's unlike France which now generates almost 90%
>of its electricity from nuclear sources.
>
>Keith
>

[Roger]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 05:27:54 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote
>
>> The scary part is the news tonight was reporting a gas leak out in the
>> gulf where the lines come together before the gas is brought to shore.
>> Wait till you see your LP and natural gas bills this winter. Most
>> commercial electricity is produced by burning natural gas.
>
>I heard this, but only as a quick blurb.
>
>What is said to have caused this leak? My guess (if someone had a gun to my
>head forcing me to speculate) would be a dragging "super anchor" from a
>floating oil platform.

Sorry for the interruption/incomplete answer earlier. The
thunderstorm is long past. Actually a whole bunch have passed with a
whole bunch more coming through. I lost power 3 or 4 times
momentarily, but the computers kept right on chugging along complete
with UPS alarms sounding.

Last I heard they didn't say any thing about the cause, or even any
speculation. News was they were going to go out today and have a
look. I don't know just how deep the gulf is at the Henry Hub
location. I'd not expect the hurricane to disturbe the waters that
deep, but then again there may be surface structures in the vicinity
or something may have dragged across, or one of the pipes may have
been "pulled". A lot of stuff seems to have done a bit of moving
around out there.

I stand corrected on the % of coal Vs Gas generated electricity.
That's what I get for using the news<:-))

I saw another blurb that listed projected increases as 12% for
electricity, I think it was in the 30% range for fuel oil, and in the
high 70% range for natural gas. The analysts seemed to be breathing a
sigh of relief even with those figures.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[TOliver]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 05:27:54 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Roger" > wrote
>>
>>> The scary part is the news tonight was reporting a gas leak out in the
>>> gulf where the lines come together before the gas is brought to shore.
>>> Wait till you see your LP and natural gas bills this winter. Most
>>> commercial electricity is produced by burning natural gas.
>>
>>I heard this, but only as a quick blurb.
>>
>>What is said to have caused this leak? My guess (if someone had a gun to
>>my
>>head forcing me to speculate) would be a dragging "super anchor" from a
>>floating oil platform.
>
> Sorry for the interruption/incomplete answer earlier. The
> thunderstorm is long past. Actually a whole bunch have passed with a
> whole bunch more coming through. I lost power 3 or 4 times
> momentarily, but the computers kept right on chugging along complete
> with UPS alarms sounding.
>
> Last I heard they didn't say any thing about the cause, or even any
> speculation. News was they were going to go out today and have a
> look. I don't know just how deep the gulf is at the Henry Hub
> location. I'd not expect the hurricane to disturbe the waters that
> deep, but then again there may be surface structures in the vicinity
> or something may have dragged across, or one of the pipes may have
> been "pulled". A lot of stuff seems to have done a bit of moving
> around out there.

Given the two opposing movements produced by a hurricane and the shallow
water in which the "Henry Hub" is likely to be located, far less than 100
fathoms, I'd guess early on that the amount of movement caused by the
initial outflow of water toward the storm, followed by the surge, are likely
to have exceeded the limits of one of more of the flexible couplings
attaching the collectors (or the shore line) to the hub. One problem is
that the waters are filled with stirred up sediment and sand and will take a
while to clear for suitable diving conditions - They are never very clear. -
and the second, pre-dive if possible, isolating the line(s) the coupling(s)
of which is/are leaking and shutting off the flow of gas. I'm sure the
structure has a valving system installed which prevents cross and back
flows.

The natural gas price issue is less clear than the superficial reaction
makes it out to be....

I own a small interest in a gas producing property, itself a few wells which
share production from a single underground "pool" of natural gas under
pressure. This production is generally sold under contract, in our case to
Phillips which owns the nearby pipeline which collects the gas. When the
price jumps as it has and will this winter, our earnings will be dependent
on the terms (and the time) that have been negotiated for the gas. Would
that there were no contract, today, for I'd get fat and happy quicker. The
result, gas burned to make electricity or piped to home or industry, which
has been purchased at several different prices. Overall, I expect natural
gas's "overall" price increase to be in the 30-35% range this Winter.

......But have I got a deal for you (or for me, really). Over on the edge of
East Texas, I own what is now a 1/25 interest in the "Mineral Rights" to 532
acres+/- in the 1911 survey (actually now 540 acress by the survey when the
"land" - surface rights - was recently sold). 15,000 feet (and $3-5,000,000
worth of drilling) beneath the surface is natural gas, by all evidence and
indication in production quantities (which means that a dry hole is
possible, but that the risk is acceptable). If a production company knocks
on the door ready to drill (and willing to pay an acceptable percentage),
the potential value of the gas, all "new" and ready to be sold at today's
spot market prices, 2 or 3 times that of old gas, is substantial. The poor
*******s buying "country places" and "ranchettes" up top have no say in the
matter and would only receive token payments and compensation for a drilling
rig in their backyards or a "Christmas Tree" next to the car port. As for
me, I'sd be planning vacations, long vacations, permanent unemployment and
relaxed retirement.


>
> I stand corrected on the % of coal Vs Gas generated electricity.
> That's what I get for using the news<:-))
>
> I saw another blurb that listed projected increases as 12% for
> electricity, I think it was in the 30% range for fuel oil, and in the
> high 70% range for natural gas. The analysts seemed to be breathing a
> sigh of relief even with those figures.
>
>


TMO

[Roger]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:52:08 GMT, "TOliver" >
wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 05:27:54 -0400, "Morgans"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Roger" > wrote
>>>
I am one of the very few, to the consternation of the drilling company
doing the leasing, who refused to lease the mineral rights on our
farm. It is one of very few parcels of land in central Michigan not
under contract.

Not far from here are some of the highest head pressures you can find.
Unfortunately the gas is very deep and although there are a *few* new
wells, most have been capped. They are not dry holes.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[JJS]

"TOliver" > wrote in message ...
>
snip

> .....But have I got a deal for you (or for me, really). Over on the edge of East Texas, I own what is now a 1/25
> interest in the "Mineral Rights" to 532 acres+/- in the 1911 survey (actually now 540 acress by the survey when the
> "land" - surface rights - was recently sold). 15,000 feet (and $3-5,000,000 worth of drilling) beneath the surface
> is natural gas, by all evidence and indication in production quantities (which means that a dry hole is possible,
> but that the risk is acceptable). If a production company knocks on the door ready to drill (and willing to pay an
> acceptable percentage), the potential value of the gas, all "new" and ready to be sold at today's spot market
> prices, 2 or 3 times that of old gas, is substantial. The poor *******s buying "country places" and "ranchettes"
> up top have no say in the matter and would only receive token payments and compensation for a drilling rig in their
> backyards or a "Christmas Tree" next to the car port. As for me, I'sd be planning vacations, long vacations,
> permanent unemployment and relaxed retirement.

What is the going rate for surface damages per acre in your neck of the woods? Damages aren't "chicken feed" where
I'm from. I know some people who have completely paid for their land from damages alone. Also, the surface owners
do have a say, at least around here. They can negotiate water wells, fencing, brush clearing, location placement,
road building, cattle guards, etc. That's not to say they always get what they ask for... but if other oil companies
are competing for the same parcel then often they do.

Do you mean you own one twenty-fifth share of the production or are you saying you own one twenty-fifth of 740 acres
of the minerals. If it's the former is that all they will allow you as a sole mineral owner. We are getting 1/4 to
3/8ths of the wells production. What is the going lease rate per acre? I suspect yours is much higher than ours.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[JJS]

>>>>"Roger" > wrote
>>>>
> I am one of the very few, to the consternation of the drilling company
> doing the leasing, who refused to lease the mineral rights on our
> farm. It is one of very few parcels of land in central Michigan not
> under contract.
>
> Not far from here are some of the highest head pressures you can find.
> Unfortunately the gas is very deep and although there are a *few* new
> wells, most have been capped. They are not dry holes.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger,
How much pressure does the average well have on it in your local area? How deep do they drill up there? Most leases
around here are for 3 years and are 7500 to 9500 feet deep. Some go to 11000 feet though. A few wells have up to
10000 psi of pressure on the casing but most local wells are a few thousand. We are currently undergoing the biggest
drilling boom since the early 1980's. South of here 60 or 70 miles are some wells that are over 20,000 feet deep.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[David E. Powell]

Morgans wrote:
> " > wrote
>
> > It sounds reasonable that injecting H2 into your fuel stream can
> > improve the combustion.
>
> > Hmm, I dunno, I feel a little puzzled or suspicious of how he's
> > achieving a net energy gain here. Can anyone debunk any obvious
> > fallacies here?
>
> I'm not up to trying to read all of the web site, but the answer is to save
> your money.
>
> Water injection has been around in high HP engines, running at high,
> constant loads, for a long time. Will it become practical for your airplane
> or car?
>
> Car, no, because of the low HP, and non-constant loads.
>
> For airplanes? Yes, if all you want is a boost of extra HP, for a short
> amount of time. Some WWII fighter planes used them for an extra boost for
> take-off and for other times, such as dog fighting, where the extra HP meant
> life or death. Some air racers also use water injection.
>
> Why not all of the time? LOTS of water is needed to make much of a
> difference, and the weight for enough water to last for more than a few
> short bursts would be impractical to carry around. It also needed a lot of
> monitoring, which no doubt could be taken care of by modern micro chips.
>
> Lastly, if it was a viable option, wouldn't all major manufacturers be using
> it? You will have to ignore the oil company conspiracy theories, to answer
> that one. <g>

Well, water flashed to steam expands a lot. I knew a guy when I was in
High School, good fellow, into his moped, car, etc.

He rigged up a water injector on his moped to supercharge it, and got
some serious power, until he blew out his engine. Got a heck of a
battle scar on his leg, too.... but it was cool while it was going.
Glad he wasn't hurt worse, he was a great guy.

The huge increase in pressure is probably the reason. Building the
engine to take that for longer periods would probably mean so much
weight that it took the advantage of the extra power away.

DEP

(Any chance we can get a Stanley Steamer car going these days?)

> --
> Jim in NC

[Charlie Springer]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:45:43 -0700, Roger wrote
(in article >):

> Alcohol which has a low octane rating although it keeps getting credit
> for a high one, when added to gas up to 10% by volume will increase
> the octane rating of the fuel. 10% seems to be the maximum amount for
> increasing the octane rating.

Can you explain the octane rating? In my little world octane is a chain of 8
carbons with 18 hydrogens hooked on.

-- Charlie Springer

[Peter Stickney]

Charlie Springer wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:45:43 -0700, Roger wrote
> (in article >):
>
>> Alcohol which has a low octane rating although it keeps getting
>> credit for a high one, when added to gas up to 10% by volume will
>> increase
>> the octane rating of the fuel. 10% seems to be the maximum amount
>> for increasing the octane rating.
>
> Can you explain the octane rating? In my little world octane is a
> chain of 8 carbons with 18 hydrogens hooked on.

It's how resistant the fuel is to spontaneous ignition. (Detonation)
Octane Rating really only applies to numbers below 100.
The detonation resistance of a fuel blend is compared to that of a
blend of iso-octane. An octane number of 100 is equivalent to the
knock resistance of 100% octane.
Strictly speaking, numbers above 100 aren't Octane Numbers, but
Performance Numbers.
It has nothing to do with energy content. The energy content of
petroleum based hydrocarbon fuels is actually fairly constant, at
somewhere around 18,000-19,000 BTU/lb. (Density, of course, varies.
Gasolines are consedered to weigh in at about 6.0 lbs/U.S. gallon,
while Kerosines like Jet-A weigh in at around 6.7 lbs/U.S. gallon.)
In fact, most high octane gasolines have a lower energy content than
low octane fuels. The increased knock resistance allows the engine
to use that energy more efficiently.
Methanols are considered to be around 150 Octane (Well. Performance
Number) - but the energy content is low, so you've got to burn a lot
of it, and it doesn't atomize well, so carburetor jets and injectors
need to be redesigned.

--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.

[Roger]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:02:49 -0700, Charlie Springer
> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:45:43 -0700, Roger wrote
>(in article >):
>
>> Alcohol which has a low octane rating although it keeps getting credit
>> for a high one, when added to gas up to 10% by volume will increase
>> the octane rating of the fuel. 10% seems to be the maximum amount for
>> increasing the octane rating.
>
>Can you explain the octane rating? In my little world octane is a chain of 8
>carbons with 18 hydrogens hooked on.
>
Hexane, Heptane, Octane, ...actually it doesn't have anything to do
with the number of nanes...<:-))

It's an anti-knock rating. The lower the number the more prone to
spark knock (detonation) the fuel would be under compression.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>-- Charlie Springer

[[email protected]]

Charlie Springer wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:45:43 -0700, Roger wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > Alcohol which has a low octane rating although it keeps getting credit
> > for a high one, when added to gas up to 10% by volume will increase
> > the octane rating of the fuel. 10% seems to be the maximum amount for
> > increasing the octane rating.
>
> Can you explain the octane rating? In my little world octane is a chain of 8
> carbons with 18 hydrogens hooked on.
>

Memory fades but the standard test for octane rating goes something
like this:

A standard engine is set up and run on the fuel to be tested. Than
a standard additive (hmm, pure octane perhaps?) is added to the fuel
until the engine begins to kock. The more of that additive it takes
to make the engine knock, the higher the octane rating.

The rating posted on gas pumpps in the US is the average of a
bench test and a test on an engine installed in a vehicle.

Or something like that.

Octane rating is an indicator of the fuel's resistance to
predetonation (knocking). It is not an indicator of how good
the fuel is in other repsects.

--

FF

[Harry Andreas]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Charlie Springer wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:45:43 -0700, Roger wrote
> > (in article >):
> >
> > > Alcohol which has a low octane rating although it keeps getting credit
> > > for a high one, when added to gas up to 10% by volume will increase
> > > the octane rating of the fuel. 10% seems to be the maximum amount for
> > > increasing the octane rating.
> >
> > Can you explain the octane rating? In my little world octane is a chain of 8
> > carbons with 18 hydrogens hooked on.
> >
>
> Memory fades but the standard test for octane rating goes something
> like this:
>
> A standard engine is set up and run on the fuel to be tested. Than
> a standard additive (hmm, pure octane perhaps?) is added to the fuel
> until the engine begins to kock. The more of that additive it takes
> to make the engine knock, the higher the octane rating.
>
> The rating posted on gas pumpps in the US is the average of a
> bench test and a test on an engine installed in a vehicle.
>
> Or something like that.

Something like that...

There are two "Octane" ratings systems, Research amd Motor.
Research octane rating compares the evaporation rate of the test fuel to
iso-octane's by dumping a measured amount from a tower and seeing how
much hits the ground.
In Motor Octane rating, a single cylinder engine with adjustable compression
ratio is run at progressively higher compressions until it knocks.
The result is compared to iso-octane.

The number on the pump in the USA is the average of Research and Motor
octane numbers.


> Octane rating is an indicator of the fuel's resistance to
> predetonation (knocking). It is not an indicator of how good
> the fuel is in other repsects.

Very true. The gas companies used to advertise that their high octane
fuels had more power than their competitor's, or low octane fuels.
Both are untrue, and they were taken to task by the FTC in the 60's for
false advertising.
High octane fuels actually have slightly lower energy content than low
octane fuels, it's just that since they resist knock better than low octane
fuels, you can run a higher BMEP* and get higher power from the engine.
(*BMEP Brake Mean Effective Pressure - the combination of compression
ratio and boost pressure via turbocharging or straight supercharging.)
The lower energy content results from the extra additives used to increase
the octane. The additives have lower energy content than gasoline.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[[email protected]]

Harry Andreas wrote:
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
> > Charlie Springer wrote: ...
> > >
> > > Can you explain the octane rating? In my little world octane is a chain of 8
> > > carbons with 18 hydrogens hooked on.
> > >
> >
> > Memory fades but the standard test for octane rating goes something
> > like this:
> >
> > (Actually, memory was crap)
> > Or something like that.
>
> Something like that...

Or something rather different, thanks.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

>> Octane rating is an indicator of the fuel's resistance to
>> predetonation (knocking). It is not an indicator of how good
>> the fuel is in other repsects.

Minor nit: My understanding is that you can have either "detonation"
or "pre-ignition" but I've never heard of predetonation.

Detonation is not the same thing as pre-ignition. Detonation is the
sudden combustion of the fuel air mixture, or rather the more quickly
burning of the mixture, after it has been ignited by the spark plug.
Some people call it an explosion but it really is not, it's just that
the mixture burns up so much more quickly that the piston is still
close to the TDC position, so the combustion occurs in a very tightly
squeezed area and the ringing sound you hear is the shock waves of the
very quick burning of the mixture.

Engines can stand a small measure of detonation for a very long time
before anything bad happens to them. In fact for a while, engines
were tuned such that some detonation during high pressure, low rpm was
normal and expected.

Pre-ignition, on the other hand, is always bad and VERY destructive.
Pre-ignition is when the mixture gets ignited from some heat source
(like a glowing piece of carbon or a too hot spark plug tip) prior to
the spark plug sparking. If this happens too soon, the peak pressure
point can occur while the piston is still rising in the cylinder. This
is disasterous in terms of loss of power and results in the production
of intense heat which can and has caused the very quick total
disintegration of the piston, or worse.

Corky Scott

[Peter A. Stoll]

(Harry Andreas) wrote in
:

>
> Something like that...
>
> There are two "Octane" ratings systems, Research amd Motor.
> Research octane rating compares the evaporation rate of the test fuel
> to iso-octane's by dumping a measured amount from a tower and seeing
> how much hits the ground.
> In Motor Octane rating, a single cylinder engine with adjustable
> compression ratio is run at progressively higher compressions until it
> knocks. The result is compared to iso-octane.


Um, no. My memory from college days is that the two methods were both
classically run on the same variable compression engine, just differing
in test conditions (I though it was just the input temperature, but see
below).

So I looked around, and found this, which sounds somewhat authoritative,
and close enough to my vague memory that I think it is about right
(certainly compared to seeing how much hits the ground in a tower drop--
you were joking...right?).

The whole thing is at:
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/GArticles/octane.html

The key paragraph reads:

"How do the motor and research protocol differ? Mostly in input
parameters. In the motor protocol (ASTM D2700-92), the input air temp is
maintained at 38C, the ignition timing varies with compression ratio
between 14 and 26 degrees BTDC, and the motor is run at 900 RPM. In the
research protocol (ASTM D2699-92) the input air temperature varies
between 20C and 52C (depending on barometric pressure), timing is fixed
at 13 degrees BTDC, and the motor is run at 600RPM."

Peter A. Stoll
retired Electrical Engineer
only qualification to comment on the above is that I took a course in
History of the Automobile as a humanities elective in college (well, it
was MIT...), and wrote a paper on lead additives and the knock problem.
Also my father was a Sohio lifer (Standard Oil of Ohio), and had some of
the Broadway Lab working for him at one time.