Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 68 users online :: 5 registered, 0 hidden and 63 guests


Most users ever online was 155 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:40 am

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

HHO Gun possibility?

Post questions and info about combustion (flammable vapor) powered cannons here. This includes discussion about fuels, ratios, ignition systems, safety, and anything else relevant.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: SpudBlaster15 » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:00 pm

THUNDERLORD wrote:
Technician1002 wrote:...You can safely assume a car idling at 3600 rpm will draw much less gas than plowing air at 60 MPH with an engine speed of 3600 rpm.


You are WRONG!!!
Not to be rude, but yes, that is completely incorrect and I am sure...Good thing is, it gives you a chance to re-evauluate your opinion (which is wrong in this case)... :wink:


Not very wise to act like an ass towards someone when you are the one who is completely wrong.

To maintain a constant crankshaft velocity, the force acting on the surface of the pistons must balance the frictional forces acting against it.

When the car is idling at a constant speed, the only forces acting against the motion of the pistons are internal engine friction, and a minor component of drivetrain friction.

However, when you are driving down the road while maintaining the same engine RPM, you also have additional dirvetrain friction, as well as significant drag force acting upon the vehicle. Your engine needs to burn more fuel to increase the cylinder pressure and thus the force on the pistons in order to balance the opposing forces and maintain the same RPM.
  • 0

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
User avatar
SpudBlaster15
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 2385
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:12 pm
Location: Canada
Country: Poland (pl)
Reputation: 3

Unread postAuthor: Technician1002 » Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:16 pm

Thanks for taking up the response Spudbalster. However I learned long ago to never argue with fools. You can't win an arguement with one.

I posted my response and linked to a constant RPM fuel consumption site for stationary generators. He is entitled to his opinion. Unless he posts data to support his claim, it's just an opinion which we both disagree with. Flow meters are incorporated in many fuel consumption meters.

This claim is very easy to prove either way by someone with a fuel consumption computer.

In the end the truth will stand on it's own merits. :D
  • 0

User avatar
Technician1002
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5190
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:10 am
Reputation: 14

Unread postAuthor: THUNDERLORD » Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:19 pm

Technician1002 wrote:Thanks for taking up the response Spudbalster. However I learned long ago to never argue with fools. You can't win an arguement with one....

So that's the reason you haven't corrected yourself then?
Or you can't even win an arguement with a "fool" because you're less than one???
BTW,"Spudbalster" :lol:

...He is entitled to his opinion. Unless he posts data to support his claim, it's just an opinion which we both disagree with...

Yeah, and unless YOU provide data, it's just an opinion as well.

...This claim is very easy to prove either way by someone with a fuel consumption computer.

So prove it then,
and not by increasing the load on a generator thus starting up and stopping/accelerating the engine more often.

Maybe I was wrong (honestly I am not 100% sure), but as you mentioned, it's a waste of time argueing with "fools"... :P 8)
  • 0

-----SPEED,STRENGTH, AND ACCURACY.-----
"Procrastination" is five syllables for "Sloth".
Theopia 8)
Born To Be Alive!

THUNDERLORD
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:42 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Technician1002 » Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:46 pm

So prove it then,
and not by increasing the load on a generator thus starting up and stopping/accelerating the engine more often.


Huh??

A generator runs at a constant RPM. Output frequency is directly related to RPM. Small portable generators with a 2 pole alternator run at 3600 RPM from no load to full load to generate 60HZ. Larger 4 pole units run at 1800 RPM, and some very large units with 6 poles run at 1200 RPM.

Other than DC plant and inverter generators like some of the Honda line, RPM is constant from no load to full load.

Where did you get start stop & accelerating from? A full tank of gas and a fixed load such as a couple lights, computer, or electric water pump would qualify for a reasonable steady load for the testing.

Did I miss something??.. I mentioned nothing about frequent starts or engine speed changes.
AC Generators run with a constant RPM except the high effeciency inverter models that can drop RPM on a light load and still output 60 HZ.


It is true a fast idle consumes much more fuel than a slow idle.
  • 0

User avatar
Technician1002
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5190
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:10 am
Reputation: 14

Unread postAuthor: THUNDERLORD » Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:49 pm

Technician1002 wrote:...Huh??...

Huh??Huh??

...Did I miss something??.. I mentioned nothing about frequent starts or engine speed changes.
AC Generators run with a constant RPM except the high effeciency inverter models that can drop RPM on a light load and still output 60 HZ....

Seems we're both missing some info.(?)
If it's running at constant RPM's, the generator assembly (which has little frictional variation) would be spinning constant RPM's as well, Unless it has an automatic transmission of it's own (gears???)
I doubt that.
Hence it's probably varying RPM , start /stop time, or something to be consuming more fuel.

...It is true a fast idle consumes much more fuel than a slow idle.

Obviously, faster idle= higher RPM's
Slower idle =lower RPM's (ENGINE SPEED...FIRING RATE...FUEL CONSUMPTION...Directly related)...What I stated in the first place.

BTW, I was hoping this particular debate would fade away.
Not because I'm not interested in getting some concrete theory to this, but because my approach was embarassingly "Jack@ssish" [new word]...
I've Been having a bunch of issues/stress lately (probably obvious). :(

As far as "regenerative energy" seems like heat transferred to the H2O simply converting it to steam would add more energy to an internal combustion engine more efficiently than extracting the h2o2 or whatever "HHO"?
( ...I like the term "regenerative" braking for example , it effectively uses gearing rather than wasted brake pad heat to give some back to the source). ...Dang, More automotive discussion...
Also as Jimmy101 pointed out, I saw somewhere that a modern chevy pickup uses only IIRC 12HP to maintain 55mph cruise speed. :shock:
  • 0

-----SPEED,STRENGTH, AND ACCURACY.-----
"Procrastination" is five syllables for "Sloth".
Theopia 8)
Born To Be Alive!

THUNDERLORD
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:42 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Technician1002 » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:15 pm

BTW, I was hoping this particular debate would fade away.

OK Done. :) Friends?
  • 0

User avatar
Technician1002
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5190
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:10 am
Reputation: 14

Unread postAuthor: THUNDERLORD » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:39 pm

BTW, I was hoping this particular debate would fade away.

OK Done. :) Friends?


Of course.
It was never anything personal.
Glad you weren't very offended.
I know excuses are like... but i tried to explain.
It's cool you understand Tech.
Thanks my spuddy buddy!
BTW, How are your spudling crops doing??? :D
Just wondered. 8)
  • 0

-----SPEED,STRENGTH, AND ACCURACY.-----
"Procrastination" is five syllables for "Sloth".
Theopia 8)
Born To Be Alive!

THUNDERLORD
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:42 pm
Reputation: 0

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: Technician1002 » Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:13 am

I know it wasn't personal. I'm just sometimes relentless in the pursuit of truth. Not offended.

My spud crop is doing well. It's after dark so no photo updates today. I think the blooms are all done.
  • 0

User avatar
Technician1002
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5190
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:10 am
Reputation: 14

Unread postAuthor: john bunsenburner » Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:06 am

Wow, this got way of topic.
I remember readyig somewhere that there is an alternative way to split the H<sub>2</sub>O molecule into H<sub>2</sub> and O<sub>2</sub>. This is simply done by heating it to about 2000°C, this is also the reason why thermite can't be extinguished(sp?) with water, as this causes a huge burst of flames, or even an explosion.
Would this meathod, or heating H<sub>2</sub>O work better than electrolosis, is it more efficient, ect.ect.

Just throwing ideas out.
  • 0

"Did you ever stop to think that out of the seven deadly sins envy is the only one which doesn't give the sinner even momentary pleasure"-George Will
User avatar
john bunsenburner
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:13 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: CpTn_lAw » Thu Jul 09, 2009 4:34 am

there also is another solution...

Vapor electrolysis. You heat your water to a certain temperature (i don't know what it is) then run the vapor between two stainless steel plates and send massive current through the plates. when vapor is dense enough, current will flow, resulting in a molecular separation.
Think i saw it somewhere on the web... perhaps here

Oh yeah, and here (careful, pdf)
  • 0

"J'mets mes pieds où j'veux, et c'est souvent dans la gueule."
User avatar
CpTn_lAw
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 9:10 am
Location: France
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: inonickname » Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:36 am

John, thermite isn't really put out by much at all. It doesn't care if you throw liquid nitrogen on it while it's going..but yet it's a pain to start..
  • 0

PimpAssasinG wrote:no im strong but you are a fat gay mother sucker that gets raped by black man for fun
User avatar
inonickname
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2606
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:27 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jimmy101 » Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:44 pm

john bunsenburner wrote:Wow, this got way of topic.
I remember readyig somewhere that there is an alternative way to split the H<sub>2</sub>O molecule into H<sub>2</sub> and O<sub>2</sub>. This is simply done by heating it to about 2000°C, this is also the reason why thermite can't be extinguished(sp?) with water, as this causes a huge burst of flames, or even an explosion.
Would this meathod, or heating H<sub>2</sub>O work better than electrolosis, is it more efficient, ect.ect.

Just throwing ideas out.

Almost any polyatomic molecule can be split into it's component parts by high temperatures. It's a result of the equilibrium between the more complex molecule and the simpler component parts. Higher temperatures shift the equilibrium (that's called Le Chatelier's Principle );
2H<sub>2</sub>O = 2H<sub>2</sub> + O2
Higher temperatures force the equilibrium to the right, the side with the larger number of molecules, and higher entropy (disorder). Get it hot enough and you get 2H<sub>2</sub> + O2. Even at room temperature a sample of water is in equilibrium with very small amounts of 2H<sub>2</sub> + O2.

There are a couple practical problems with using high temperature to create 2H<sub>2</sub> + O2 from water. 1) Heat loss; anytime your are trying to heat something that hot there is going to be pretty massive losses of heat to the container. 2) When you cool the 2H<sub>2</sub> + O2 down it'll tend to spontaneously convert back to water as the temperature falls. 3) Most of the heat used to heat the water up is lost, in addition, you probably need to actively cool the 2H<sub>2</sub> + O2 back down to ambient temperatures to avoid recombination. That active cooling takes even more energy.

The general strategy of using high temperatures to convert large molecules into smaller ones is used industrially in a number of ways. In "hydrocarbon cracking" large organic molecules (often the leftovers from oil refining) are "cracked" to smaller, higher value hydrocarbons like ethylene. "Fuel reforming" is another application where high temperatures are used to accomplish otherwise difficult conversions. For example, in methane reforming methane is converted to hydrogen. In practice, most of these high temperature processes also use a catalyst to reduce the required temperature. And, most of thse processes require large amounts of energy.
  • 0

Image

jimmy101
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: john bunsenburner » Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:14 pm

Do the amounts of energy used corespond to the amount of energy recieved by recomination, when a catalasis is used, as 100% efficient systems don't exist of coarse?

I just threw it out there, though i would like to have an attempt at steam reforming CH<sub>4</sub>
  • 0

"Did you ever stop to think that out of the seven deadly sins envy is the only one which doesn't give the sinner even momentary pleasure"-George Will
User avatar
john bunsenburner
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:13 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jimmy101 » Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:55 pm

john bunsenburner wrote:Do the amounts of energy used corespond to the amount of energy recieved by recomination, when a catalasis is used, as 100% efficient systems don't exist of coarse?

A catalyst doesn't change the overall thermodynamics of a process. A catalyst just makes the reaction happen faster. That can indirectly result in less energy being used since much energy is lost in any process that requires high temperatures. If you make the reactino faster then there is less time to loose energy. The amount of energy added to, or subtracted from, the reactants themselves is unchanged by the presence of a catalyst.

For reforming and cracking type processes the energy used is generally much more than the energy you'll get back when you burn the product. Much energy is lost in any process that requires high temperatures.
  • 0

Image

jimmy101
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: boyntonstu » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 pm

Technician1002 wrote:Thanks for taking up the response Spudbalster. However I learned long ago to never argue with fools. You can't win an arguement with one.

I posted my response and linked to a constant RPM fuel consumption site for stationary generators. He is entitled to his opinion. Unless he posts data to support his claim, it's just an opinion which we both disagree with. Flow meters are incorporated in many fuel consumption meters.

This claim is very easy to prove either way by someone with a fuel consumption computer.

In the end the truth will stand on it's own merits. :D


Truth here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avt4pTvnt-E

BoyntonStu
  • 0

User avatar
boyntonstu
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:59 am
Reputation: 0

PreviousNext

Return to Combustion Cannon Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'