Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: FIVS Gen 3 Question (meant for the group)

Expand Messages
  • Bob Lerwill
    ... not ... most ... in ... This is a bit of myth, and a myth that the fuel companies are happy to keep in circulation. Higher octane fuels do not generally
    Message 1 of 23 , Jan 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@y...> wrote:
      >
      > > That said though, there is no way a mere additive can boost your
      > > fuel mileage economically. There are some that can boost your
      > > mileage (usually by increasing the octane rating), but not
      > > sufficiently to warrant buying them. Even high octane fuel is
      not
      > > worth the added expense for the mileage increase (and yes, you do
      > > get better mileage from better fuel).
      > >
      >
      > You can, IF that better fuel has more heat energy per pound, and
      most
      > higher octane fuels do. But as you say, the minimal increase in
      > mileage will still cost more money, as it's less than the increase
      in
      > the fuel cost.

      This is a bit of myth, and a myth that the fuel companies are happy
      to keep in circulation.
      Higher octane fuels do not generally have more heat energy, some of
      them have less.
      Simply switching to higher octane fuels will not improve your mileage
      unless you were running your engine on the wrong octane fuel to start
      with.
    • Eric
      ... large ... few ... a ... emissions ... story, ... Right, but the peak performance curves (and therefore best burn) of these old engines was very narrow. In
      Message 2 of 23 , Jan 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@y...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Gary,
        > >
        > > Actually an ICE is not nearly so efficient as you paint. A
        large
        > > percentage of the exhaust is comprised of unburned fuel (HC),
        > > partially burned fuel (CO), and even oxygen (O2). It is the
        > > emissions system that cleans it up to where the tailpipe mostly
        > > exhausts CO2 and H2O.
        > >
        >
        > Not so, at least after the cold engine enrichment period is over.
        > During stoichiometric operation, with spark at MBT, there are very
        few
        > unburned or partly-burned materials feeding the catalyst. In fact,
        a
        > well-tuned mid 1960's car can emit close to zero HC and CO
        emissions
        > WHILE cruising. During idle and acceleration it's a different
        story,
        > which is why the catalyst system is so important.
        >
        > IC engines do a good job at BURNING fuel efficiently, they lose
        > efficiency in converting that heat into usable mechanical energy


        Right, but the peak performance curves (and therefore best burn) of
        these old engines was very narrow. In fact, they were "tuned" by
        the factories to run smooth at low rpms, so that on the highway they
        weren't all that efficient. This is why adding a hotrod camshaft
        could ostensibly add a lot of peak performance. You throw away idle
        quality for better peak performance (and therefore better burn under
        load and high rpms).


        > > That said though, there is no way a mere additive can boost your
        > > fuel mileage economically. There are some that can boost your
        > > mileage (usually by increasing the octane rating), but not
        > > sufficiently to warrant buying them. Even high octane fuel is
        not
        > > worth the added expense for the mileage increase (and yes, you
        do
        > > get better mileage from better fuel).
        > >
        >
        > You can, IF that better fuel has more heat energy per pound, and
        most
        > higher octane fuels do. But as you say, the minimal increase in
        > mileage will still cost more money, as it's less than the increase
        in
        > the fuel cost.
        >
        > > As far as your oxygen sensor comment is concerned, it doesn't
        really
        > > matter what you burn, so long as it burns sufficiently for the
        O2
        > > sensor to remain in range. A lot of cars are dual fuel capable
        and
        > > use only one sensor. All the O2 sensor needs to see is that the
        > > percentage of O2 to other exhaust gasses is sufficiently in
        range to
        > > tell the Power Control Module how efficient the burning process
        has
        > > been.
        > >
        >
        > Exactly what I meant with my question, "Is the inventor claiming
        that
        > half the fuel would provide the same oxygen-sensor output that a
        > stoichiometric mix of gasolone and air would?"


        You misunderstand. All the O2 sensor measures is the oxygen
        content. It doesn't matter what else is in there (so long as it
        doesn't clog or overly cool the O2 sensor).

        Too much oxygen and you are running too lean or misfiring. Too
        little and you are running too rich. If the oxygen content is
        correct, then no matter what you are burning you are burning it
        efficiently.


        > > There are also tricks you can perform to increase mileage (like
        > > water injection), but they aren't easily managed.
        >
        > It increases octane rating by slowing the flame front, preventing
        > preignition of the fuel not yet burned.


        And it adds pressure from expansion like in a steam engine. It's
        not a fuel, but it can increase the engine's utilization of the
        fuel's heat energy.


        > > They also tend to
        > > cause combustion quenching, so umless they are tightly monitored
        > > they can actually reduce power efficiency (not to mention cause
        > > potential harm to your engine and emissions systems).
        > >
        > > However, ICEs get more efficient every year. The technology is
        > > vastly improved over the days of carbureation and point
        distributors
        > > (anyone still know what those are?).
        > >
        > > There's even talk of eliminating cams and going to computer
        > > controlled, solenoid actuated valves! This could broaden the
        torque
        > > curve tremendoulsy, while saving fuel. Pretty cool stuff.
        > >
        > > Eric
        > >
        >
        > Yes, BMW and Valeo are looking into solenoid actuated valves, and
        > Lotus is expecting to bring a hydraulically actuated valvetrain to
        > market in 2008. The computer would provide the best valve timing
        for
        > every power requirement, minimizing fuel needs and emissions for
        each
        > operating condition.
        >
        > But all of this begs the question about the OP's query: Could this
        > snake oil really work? I think the answer is clearly "no," as even
        IF
        > it is more usable with older, carbureted engines, the fact that
        > today's engines aren't twice as efficient as the old ones, running
        at
        > their BSFC sweet spot, means that there really is only so much heat
        > energy available in the fuel. Fiddling with it, heating it and
        such,
        > won't give you double the economy, as there just isn't twice the
        > amount of energy available in a gallon of gas that can be
        exploited.

        Actually, some modern engines are nearly twice as efficient as the
        older engines. This seems to be especially true of larger engines.
        Many V8's today get around 20mpg (average) in the same weight
        vehicles that older models only got about 12mpg or so. Of course a
        lot of this is due to modern overdrive transmissions.

        I'm not really sure why this isn't the case with smaller engines so
        much though. Perhaps they are inherently more efficient due to the
        fact that there's less friction and compression competing with the
        power strokes? Perhaps it's that they were usually offered with
        overdrive transmissions from the time of their introduction?

        With smaller engines the available power has increased, but the
        mileage remains about the same. Weird.
      • Eric
        Bob, I have tested this myself in a number of vehicles. It isn t a myth. The gain is never worth the added cost though. The reason this works is because
        Message 3 of 23 , Jan 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Bob,

          I have tested this myself in a number of vehicles. It isn't a myth.
          The gain is never worth the added cost though.

          The reason this works is because higher octane fuels don't only prevent
          preignition, but they tend to burn slower and more completely. This
          slower, more complete burn keeps expanding the fuel for a longer period
          of time during the power stroke. In other words, it's more efficient.

          This is why nitromethane is used in drag racers. This fuel burns so
          slow that it's still burning as it is exhausted. It makes for quite a
          show at night as you see the flames shooting out of the header pipes!

          --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Lerwill" <bob.mo@v...> wrote:

          > This is a bit of myth, and a myth that the fuel companies are happy
          > to keep in circulation.
          > Higher octane fuels do not generally have more heat energy, some of
          > them have less.
          > Simply switching to higher octane fuels will not improve your mileage
          > unless you were running your engine on the wrong octane fuel to start
          > with.
          >
        • Bob Lerwill
          ... myth. ... Please give details of your tests. How did you check that the vehicle was properly set up for the low octane fuel? I said high octane fuels can
          Message 4 of 23 , Jan 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
            >
            > Bob,
            >
            > I have tested this myself in a number of vehicles. It isn't a
            myth.
            > The gain is never worth the added cost though.

            Please give details of your tests.
            How did you check that the vehicle was properly set up for the low
            octane fuel? I said high octane fuels can give greater mileage, but
            only on engines that are not suited to the lower octane fuels.
            How did you accurately measure the volume of fuel used and the
            mileage covered?
            How did you check that the load was the same for tests on both kinds
            of fuels? Note that even travelling the same route can give different
            loads under different weather conditions.
            Did you check that the only difference between the fuels was the
            octane rating?

            Here is one of many sites that discusses the myth of high octane fuel
            http://www.bajajusa.com/Who%20Needs%20High%20Octane%20Fuel.htm


            >
            > The reason this works is because higher octane fuels don't only
            prevent
            > preignition, but they tend to burn slower and more completely.
            This
            > slower, more complete burn keeps expanding the fuel for a longer
            period
            > of time during the power stroke. In other words, it's more
            efficient.
            >

            This goes against the theory of heat engines I was taught. Sure, it
            is better that the fuel is burnt completely, but it usually is anyway
            if the engine is set up properly. On the other hand, a slower burning
            fuel ought to be LESS efficient. Maximum efficiency is achieved when
            maximum ignition temperature is achieved, and this will be prevented
            by using a slow burning fuel. A slow burning fuel might save wear on
            your bearings, but it won't be good for efficiency.

            > This is why nitromethane is used in drag racers. This fuel burns
            so
            > slow that it's still burning as it is exhausted. It makes for
            quite a
            > show at night as you see the flames shooting out of the header
            pipes!
            >

            I would have thought one of the main reasons nitromethane was used
            was because it supplies some of its own oxygen. It's a bit like
            supercharging or feeding liquid oxgygen in with the fuel (something I
            don't recommend you do) Tri-nitro glycerine supplies so much oxygen
            that it doesn't need air at all. It actually gives off excess oxygen
            when it explodes!
          • Eric
            Bob, You are writing to a guy that has owned a LOT of vehicles. I ve also rented various cars at various times. I often track my mileage for various reasons.
            Message 5 of 23 , Jan 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Bob,

              You are writing to a guy that has owned a LOT of vehicles. I've
              also rented various cars at various times.

              I often track my mileage for various reasons. Sometimes I use
              higher grade fuels becuase that's all that is available, sometimes I
              do it for the better performance (some low-octane designated engines
              seem to run a bit smoother on it), sometimes because I forget that
              I'm not in one of my Corvettes or some such when filling.

              Anyway, it's pretty easy to track mileage per tankful. You can
              average that out over many tankfuls if you want too. You just note
              how many miles you have traveled versus fuel used (starting at 0
              miles with a full tank).

              The cars in question here were "mom & pop" daily drivers that were
              built to run on 87 octane fuel.

              Running a higher grade fuel, reliably gives a slightly better
              mileage result. Usually it's a very small advantage, but sometimes
              it can be significant. I've gotten as much as a 2mpg advantage.

              --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Lerwill" <bob.mo@v...>
              wrote:
              >
              > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
              > >
              > > Bob,
              > >
              > > I have tested this myself in a number of vehicles. It isn't a
              > myth.
              > > The gain is never worth the added cost though.
              >
              > Please give details of your tests.
              > How did you check that the vehicle was properly set up for the low
              > octane fuel? I said high octane fuels can give greater mileage,
              but
              > only on engines that are not suited to the lower octane fuels.
              > How did you accurately measure the volume of fuel used and the
              > mileage covered?
              > How did you check that the load was the same for tests on both
              kinds
              > of fuels? Note that even travelling the same route can give
              different
              > loads under different weather conditions.
              > Did you check that the only difference between the fuels was the
              > octane rating?
              >
              > Here is one of many sites that discusses the myth of high octane
              fuel
              > http://www.bajajusa.com/Who%20Needs%20High%20Octane%20Fuel.htm
              >
              >
              > >
              > > The reason this works is because higher octane fuels don't only
              > prevent
              > > preignition, but they tend to burn slower and more completely.
              > This
              > > slower, more complete burn keeps expanding the fuel for a longer
              > period
              > > of time during the power stroke. In other words, it's more
              > efficient.
              > >
              >
              > This goes against the theory of heat engines I was taught. Sure,
              it
              > is better that the fuel is burnt completely, but it usually is
              anyway
              > if the engine is set up properly. On the other hand, a slower
              burning
              > fuel ought to be LESS efficient. Maximum efficiency is achieved
              when
              > maximum ignition temperature is achieved, and this will be
              prevented
              > by using a slow burning fuel. A slow burning fuel might save wear
              on
              > your bearings, but it won't be good for efficiency.
              >
              > > This is why nitromethane is used in drag racers. This fuel
              burns
              > so
              > > slow that it's still burning as it is exhausted. It makes for
              > quite a
              > > show at night as you see the flames shooting out of the header
              > pipes!
              > >
              >
              > I would have thought one of the main reasons nitromethane was used
              > was because it supplies some of its own oxygen. It's a bit like
              > supercharging or feeding liquid oxgygen in with the fuel
              (something I
              > don't recommend you do) Tri-nitro glycerine supplies so much
              oxygen
              > that it doesn't need air at all. It actually gives off excess
              oxygen
              > when it explodes!
              >
            • Gary S.
              ... But too little can vary with fuel type, relative to what a stock-calibrated O2 sensor expects to see at stoichiometric. The cooked-down strawberry
              Message 6 of 23 , Jan 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@y...> wrote:
                > >
                > > Exactly what I meant with my question, "Is the inventor claiming
                > that
                > > half the fuel would provide the same oxygen-sensor output that a
                > > stoichiometric mix of gasolone and air would?"
                >
                >
                > You misunderstand. All the O2 sensor measures is the oxygen
                > content. It doesn't matter what else is in there (so long as it
                > doesn't clog or overly cool the O2 sensor).
                >
                > Too much oxygen and you are running too lean or misfiring. Too
                > little and you are running too rich. If the oxygen content is
                > correct, then no matter what you are burning you are burning it
                > efficiently.
                >
                >

                But "too little" can vary with fuel type, relative to what a
                stock-calibrated O2 sensor expects to see at stoichiometric. The
                cooked-down "strawberry" stuff the OP's question was about might work
                out the same, since it's bullsh*t it's academic anyway.

                > > > There are also tricks you can perform to increase mileage (like
                > > > water injection), but they aren't easily managed.
                > >
                > > It increases octane rating by slowing the flame front, preventing
                > > preignition of the fuel not yet burned.
                >
                >
                > And it adds pressure from expansion like in a steam engine. It's
                > not a fuel, but it can increase the engine's utilization of the
                > fuel's heat energy.
                >

                Nah, the steam expansion is a zero sum game. It absorbs heat,
                preventing combustion gas expansion, but flashes to steam with the
                same energy it took out. Adding water will NOT improve combustion
                pressures unless you're taking preignition out of the picture.

                >
                > > > They also tend to
                > > > cause combustion quenching, so umless they are tightly monitored
                > > > they can actually reduce power efficiency (not to mention cause
                > > > potential harm to your engine and emissions systems).
                > > >
                > > > However, ICEs get more efficient every year. The technology is
                > > > vastly improved over the days of carbureation and point
                > distributors
                > > > (anyone still know what those are?).
                > > >
                > > > There's even talk of eliminating cams and going to computer
                > > > controlled, solenoid actuated valves! This could broaden the
                > torque
                > > > curve tremendoulsy, while saving fuel. Pretty cool stuff.
                > > >
                > > > Eric
                > > >
                > >
                > > Yes, BMW and Valeo are looking into solenoid actuated valves, and
                > > Lotus is expecting to bring a hydraulically actuated valvetrain to
                > > market in 2008. The computer would provide the best valve timing
                > for
                > > every power requirement, minimizing fuel needs and emissions for
                > each
                > > operating condition.
                > >
                > > But all of this begs the question about the OP's query: Could this
                > > snake oil really work? I think the answer is clearly "no," as even
                > IF
                > > it is more usable with older, carbureted engines, the fact that
                > > today's engines aren't twice as efficient as the old ones, running
                > at
                > > their BSFC sweet spot, means that there really is only so much heat
                > > energy available in the fuel. Fiddling with it, heating it and
                > such,
                > > won't give you double the economy, as there just isn't twice the
                > > amount of energy available in a gallon of gas that can be
                > exploited.
                >
                > Actually, some modern engines are nearly twice as efficient as the
                > older engines.

                No, they're somewhat better, but not twice as efficient. They can be
                more efficient over a wider power delivery area, but the BSFC sweet
                spot island in the map isn't all that much better.

                > This seems to be especially true of larger engines.
                > Many V8's today get around 20mpg (average) in the same weight
                > vehicles that older models only got about 12mpg or so. Of course a
                > lot of this is due to modern overdrive transmissions.
                >

                Variable valve timing and variable displacement, some have variable
                compression ratio, multiple intake runners with automatic controls.
                All these technologies have improved efficiency, but not twice as much
                as the old ones. You are right on with improved transmissions, too.
                More gears help (if calibrated to use them).

                > I'm not really sure why this isn't the case with smaller engines so
                > much though. Perhaps they are inherently more efficient due to the
                > fact that there's less friction and compression competing with the
                > power strokes? Perhaps it's that they were usually offered with
                > overdrive transmissions from the time of their introduction?
                >
                > With smaller engines the available power has increased, but the
                > mileage remains about the same. Weird.
                >

                They tend to be used in lower displacement-to-weight ratio
                applications to start with, so they're already going to be running
                more thermodynamically efficiently than a larger engine that spends
                much of its time loafing at nearly closed throttle (a very inefficient
                state).
              • Eric
                ... work ... I still don t think you are getting this. By definition a stoichiometric combustion ratio utilizes all of the available oxygen without wasting
                Message 7 of 23 , Jan 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@y...> wrote:

                  > > You misunderstand. All the O2 sensor measures is the oxygen
                  > > content. It doesn't matter what else is in there (so long as it
                  > > doesn't clog or overly cool the O2 sensor).
                  > >
                  > > Too much oxygen and you are running too lean or misfiring. Too
                  > > little and you are running too rich. If the oxygen content is
                  > > correct, then no matter what you are burning you are burning it
                  > > efficiently.
                  > >
                  >
                  > But "too little" can vary with fuel type, relative to what a
                  > stock-calibrated O2 sensor expects to see at stoichiometric. The
                  > cooked-down "strawberry" stuff the OP's question was about might
                  work
                  > out the same, since it's bullsh*t it's academic anyway.


                  I still don't think you are getting this. By definition a
                  stoichiometric combustion ratio utilizes all of the available oxygen
                  without wasting energy by filling the cylinder with unused oxygen or
                  unused fuel/partially used fuel. It doesn't matter what you are
                  burning. This is only a measure of combustion efficiency.

                  It's not academic because if an additive is flammable without being
                  more energetic than gasoline, it obviously can't work to increase
                  efficiency.


                  > > And it adds pressure from expansion like in a steam engine.
                  It's
                  > > not a fuel, but it can increase the engine's utilization of the
                  > > fuel's heat energy.
                  > >
                  >
                  > Nah, the steam expansion is a zero sum game. It absorbs heat,
                  > preventing combustion gas expansion, but flashes to steam with the
                  > same energy it took out. Adding water will NOT improve combustion
                  > pressures unless you're taking preignition out of the picture.


                  Right. It does decrease preignition allowing for greater
                  expansion. Also the expansion properties of water are different.
                  Again it expands slower but steadier than burning fuel, which gives
                  you a longer (more effective) power stroke.

                  It's not a huge difference, but it is a difference. Besides, it
                  also cuts down NOx.


                  > > Actually, some modern engines are nearly twice as efficient as
                  the
                  > > older engines.
                  >
                  > No, they're somewhat better, but not twice as efficient. They can
                  be
                  > more efficient over a wider power delivery area, but the BSFC sweet
                  > spot island in the map isn't all that much better.


                  Note I said "almost." Anyway, I'm just going by mileage
                  statistics. Gas mileage has significantly improved for many same-
                  size/weight vehicles compared with their 1960s counterparts.
                • rlm555339
                  ... I don t really want to become a part of this discussion but the above statements by both have truth and fiction........ Since I have been heavily involved
                  Message 8 of 23 , Jan 3, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Eric wrote:

                    >
                    > > Nah, the steam expansion is a zero sum game. It absorbs heat,
                    > > preventing combustion gas expansion, but flashes to steam with the
                    > > same energy it took out. Adding water will NOT improve combustion
                    > > pressures unless you're taking preignition out of the picture.
                    >
                    >
                    > Right. It does decrease preignition allowing for greater
                    > expansion. Also the expansion properties of water are different.
                    > Again it expands slower but steadier than burning fuel, which gives
                    > you a longer (more effective) power stroke.
                    >
                    -----------------------------------------------------

                    I don't really want to become a part of this discussion but the above
                    statements by both have truth and fiction........
                    Since I have been heavily involved with experimentation with water as
                    the initial source of fuel for an ICE, allow me to interject this
                    observation:
                    Water (as water, mist, droplets, etc) quenches.
                    Water (as steam, vapor, humidity, etc) displaces fuel.
                    Water (as reduced to hydrogen & oxygen) adds to power.
                    The secret of the success of application of any "water" introduced into
                    a combustion system depends on what form that water takes at ignition.
                    Ideal would be to enter the cylinder as water, then ignite as hydroxy.
                    Accomplishing this is the relatively impossible part. The ignition
                    process would have to be of such a nature that would instantly separate
                    the molecules atomically. I have found no way to do this (yet). I
                    have, however, separated the water first, then allowed hydroxy with a
                    little vapor mixed in to fuel an ICE. (as addition to gasoline and by
                    itself). One can increase fuel efficiency using water if one does it
                    right without sacrificing efficiency. (you also need to make sure your
                    head is torqued down evenly as this is very hard on head gaskets)
                    Introduction of water changes combustion moment to more of a detonation
                    than a push.

                    Ronald
                  • Gary S.
                    ... Huh? Above you said that too little remaining oxygen would mean the mix is too rich, but here you seem to imply that ANY remaining oxygen is not right,
                    Message 9 of 23 , Jan 3, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
                      >
                      > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@y...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
                      > > > You misunderstand. All the O2 sensor measures is the oxygen
                      > > > content. It doesn't matter what else is in there (so long as it
                      > > > doesn't clog or overly cool the O2 sensor).
                      > > >
                      > > > Too much oxygen and you are running too lean or misfiring. Too
                      > > > little and you are running too rich. If the oxygen content is
                      > > > correct, then no matter what you are burning you are burning it
                      > > > efficiently.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > But "too little" can vary with fuel type, relative to what a
                      > > stock-calibrated O2 sensor expects to see at stoichiometric. The
                      > > cooked-down "strawberry" stuff the OP's question was about might
                      > work
                      > > out the same, since it's bullsh*t it's academic anyway.
                      >
                      >
                      > I still don't think you are getting this. By definition a
                      > stoichiometric combustion ratio utilizes all of the available oxygen
                      > without wasting energy by filling the cylinder with unused oxygen or
                      > unused fuel/partially used fuel. It doesn't matter what you are
                      > burning. This is only a measure of combustion efficiency.
                      >
                      > It's not academic because if an additive is flammable without being
                      > more energetic than gasoline, it obviously can't work to increase
                      > efficiency.
                      >

                      Huh? Above you said that "too little" remaining oxygen would mean the
                      mix is too rich, but here you seem to imply that ANY remaining oxygen
                      is not right, that a stoichiometric mixture will consume all of the
                      available oxygen. Which is it, and are you saying that the residual
                      amount (of oxygen, if any, for stoichiometric combustions) is
                      completely independent of the fuel's chemistry?

                      As for you second point, I think we agree there. I say that's
                      academic, you say it isn't, but the underlying nonsense about the
                      strawberry fuel not being more energetic/efficient is the same.

                      >
                      > > > And it adds pressure from expansion like in a steam engine.
                      > It's
                      > > > not a fuel, but it can increase the engine's utilization of the
                      > > > fuel's heat energy.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > Nah, the steam expansion is a zero sum game. It absorbs heat,
                      > > preventing combustion gas expansion, but flashes to steam with the
                      > > same energy it took out. Adding water will NOT improve combustion
                      > > pressures unless you're taking preignition out of the picture.
                      >
                      >
                      > Right. It does decrease preignition allowing for greater
                      > expansion. Also the expansion properties of water are different.
                      > Again it expands slower but steadier than burning fuel, which gives
                      > you a longer (more effective) power stroke.
                      >

                      But it takes heat out of the burning fuel, cutting pressure. Ricardo
                      found no improvement from water unless detonation was an issue, then
                      it can provide marked improvements.

                      > It's not a huge difference, but it is a difference. Besides, it
                      > also cuts down NOx.
                      >
                      >
                      > > > Actually, some modern engines are nearly twice as efficient as
                      > the
                      > > > older engines.
                      > >
                      > > No, they're somewhat better, but not twice as efficient. They can
                      > be
                      > > more efficient over a wider power delivery area, but the BSFC sweet
                      > > spot island in the map isn't all that much better.
                      >
                      >
                      > Note I said "almost." Anyway, I'm just going by mileage
                      > statistics. Gas mileage has significantly improved for many same-
                      > size/weight vehicles compared with their 1960s counterparts.
                      >

                      Yes, real world fuel economy depends on operating efficiently over a
                      wider range of output power (wider in both percent of output torque at
                      a given speed, and over a wider range of speeds at a given torque).
                      The technologies have widened that BSFC sweet spot in both directions
                      of the map, giving drivers better results.
                    • rlm555339
                      I need to realign my last statement.......... Introduction of HYDROXY and WATER VAPOR changes combustion moment to more of a detonation than a push. (not
                      Message 10 of 23 , Jan 3, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I need to "realign" my last statement..........

                        "Introduction of HYDROXY and WATER VAPOR changes combustion moment to
                        more of a detonation
                        than a push." (not water) Sorry for the mistype.

                        Ronald
                      • sorenlaf
                        Eric, In general, modern cars (say late 80s on) will get better mileage from higher octane fuel if (and only if) the lower octane fuel causes the engine to
                        Message 11 of 23 , Jan 3, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Eric,

                          In general, modern cars (say late 80s on) will get better mileage
                          from higher octane fuel if (and only if) the lower octane fuel
                          causes the engine to detonate (aka knock, ping, etc.).

                          In the late 80s (approximately), cars started using active knock
                          detection. A sensor detects the knock before you can hear it and
                          retards the timing until the knock stops. This occurs w/o the
                          driver realizing that anything has happened.

                          The retarded timing causes a reduction in both power and fuel
                          economy.

                          When you get a mileage increase from higher octane fuel, and you are
                          quite correct, many cars will get better mileage from higher octane
                          fuel, it usually results from the increased ignition advance that
                          the higher octane fuel permits; the engine is able to operate in a
                          more efficient regime.

                          There is little or no difference in energy content between different
                          grades of gasoline.


                          --Soren


                          --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Bob,
                          >
                          > You are writing to a guy that has owned a LOT of vehicles. I've
                          > also rented various cars at various times.
                          >
                          > I often track my mileage for various reasons. Sometimes I use
                          > higher grade fuels becuase that's all that is available, sometimes
                          I
                          > do it for the better performance (some low-octane designated
                          engines
                          > seem to run a bit smoother on it), sometimes because I forget that
                          > I'm not in one of my Corvettes or some such when filling.
                          >
                          > Anyway, it's pretty easy to track mileage per tankful. You can
                          > average that out over many tankfuls if you want too. You just
                          note
                          > how many miles you have traveled versus fuel used (starting at 0
                          > miles with a full tank).
                          >
                          > The cars in question here were "mom & pop" daily drivers that were
                          > built to run on 87 octane fuel.
                          >
                          > Running a higher grade fuel, reliably gives a slightly better
                          > mileage result. Usually it's a very small advantage, but
                          sometimes
                          > it can be significant. I've gotten as much as a 2mpg advantage.
                          >
                          > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Lerwill" <bob.mo@v...>
                          > wrote:
                          > >
                          > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...>
                          wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > Bob,
                          > > >
                          > > > I have tested this myself in a number of vehicles. It isn't a
                          > > myth.
                          > > > The gain is never worth the added cost though.
                          > >
                          > > Please give details of your tests.
                          > > How did you check that the vehicle was properly set up for the
                          low
                          > > octane fuel? I said high octane fuels can give greater mileage,
                          > but
                          > > only on engines that are not suited to the lower octane fuels.
                          > > How did you accurately measure the volume of fuel used and the
                          > > mileage covered?
                          > > How did you check that the load was the same for tests on both
                          > kinds
                          > > of fuels? Note that even travelling the same route can give
                          > different
                          > > loads under different weather conditions.
                          > > Did you check that the only difference between the fuels was the
                          > > octane rating?
                          > >
                          > > Here is one of many sites that discusses the myth of high octane
                          > fuel
                          > > http://www.bajajusa.com/Who%20Needs%20High%20Octane%20Fuel.htm
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > >
                          > > > The reason this works is because higher octane fuels don't
                          only
                          > > prevent
                          > > > preignition, but they tend to burn slower and more
                          completely.
                          > > This
                          > > > slower, more complete burn keeps expanding the fuel for a
                          longer
                          > > period
                          > > > of time during the power stroke. In other words, it's more
                          > > efficient.
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > > This goes against the theory of heat engines I was taught. Sure,
                          > it
                          > > is better that the fuel is burnt completely, but it usually is
                          > anyway
                          > > if the engine is set up properly. On the other hand, a slower
                          > burning
                          > > fuel ought to be LESS efficient. Maximum efficiency is achieved
                          > when
                          > > maximum ignition temperature is achieved, and this will be
                          > prevented
                          > > by using a slow burning fuel. A slow burning fuel might save
                          wear
                          > on
                          > > your bearings, but it won't be good for efficiency.
                          > >
                          > > > This is why nitromethane is used in drag racers. This fuel
                          > burns
                          > > so
                          > > > slow that it's still burning as it is exhausted. It makes for
                          > > quite a
                          > > > show at night as you see the flames shooting out of the header
                          > > pipes!
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > > I would have thought one of the main reasons nitromethane was
                          used
                          > > was because it supplies some of its own oxygen. It's a bit like
                          > > supercharging or feeding liquid oxgygen in with the fuel
                          > (something I
                          > > don't recommend you do) Tri-nitro glycerine supplies so much
                          > oxygen
                          > > that it doesn't need air at all. It actually gives off excess
                          > oxygen
                          > > when it explodes!
                          > >
                          >
                        • Gary S.
                          ... Yes, and the EPA gets pretty testy when this happens, and it does. ... The data I ve seen shows little difference, but almost always the higher octane
                          Message 12 of 23 , Jan 3, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "sorenlaf" <sorenlaf@y...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Eric,
                            >
                            > In general, modern cars (say late 80s on) will get better mileage
                            > from higher octane fuel if (and only if) the lower octane fuel
                            > causes the engine to detonate (aka knock, ping, etc.).
                            >
                            > In the late 80s (approximately), cars started using active knock
                            > detection. A sensor detects the knock before you can hear it and
                            > retards the timing until the knock stops. This occurs w/o the
                            > driver realizing that anything has happened.
                            >
                            > The retarded timing causes a reduction in both power and fuel
                            > economy.
                            >
                            > When you get a mileage increase from higher octane fuel, and you are
                            > quite correct, many cars will get better mileage from higher octane
                            > fuel, it usually results from the increased ignition advance that
                            > the higher octane fuel permits; the engine is able to operate in a
                            > more efficient regime.
                            >

                            Yes, and the EPA gets pretty testy when this happens, and it does.

                            > There is little or no difference in energy content between different
                            > grades of gasoline.
                            >
                            >

                            The data I've seen shows little difference, but almost always the
                            higher octane fuels show a SLIGHTLY higher heating value, but not
                            nearly enough to make it worth buying.
                          • Eric
                            ... the ... oxygen ... Stoichiometric is a term used in chemistry in regards to the laws of definite proportions and the conservation of mass and energy to
                            Message 13 of 23 , Jan 4, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@y...> wrote:

                              > Huh? Above you said that "too little" remaining oxygen would mean
                              the
                              > mix is too rich, but here you seem to imply that ANY remaining
                              oxygen
                              > is not right, that a stoichiometric mixture will consume all of the
                              > available oxygen. Which is it, and are you saying that the residual
                              > amount (of oxygen, if any, for stoichiometric combustions) is
                              > completely independent of the fuel's chemistry?


                              "Stoichiometric" is a term used in chemistry in regards to the laws
                              of definite proportions and the conservation of mass and energy to
                              chemical activity.

                              In this context, stoichiometric refers to the absolute proportions
                              needed for complete combustion of the air/fuel mixture. If the
                              proportions are not correct, then the burn is less than optimally
                              efficient.

                              In a hypothetically perfect universe you'd have no remaining oxygen
                              and complete combustion of the fuel. In our universe this doesn't
                              happen. Chaos rules the combustion process, so your exhaust
                              constitutes portions of unutilzed oxygen and fuel.

                              We use this unused oxygen to monitor the combustion process.
                              Hypothetically you want the percentage to be as low as possible, but
                              in reality you want it to vary in a certain range for the purpose of
                              efficiently using the catalytic converter.


                              In regards to water injection:

                              > > Right. It does decrease preignition allowing for greater
                              > > expansion. Also the expansion properties of water are
                              different.
                              > > Again it expands slower but steadier than burning fuel, which
                              gives
                              > > you a longer (more effective) power stroke.
                              > >
                              >
                              > But it takes heat out of the burning fuel, cutting pressure.
                              Ricardo
                              > found no improvement from water unless detonation was an issue,
                              then
                              > it can provide marked improvements.


                              I don't know about Ricardo's experiments, but using water to
                              increase performance is an old trick. It was commonly used on WWII
                              fighter planes like the P-38. It slows down combustion, allowing
                              for more advanced timing and a longer burn time which continually
                              applies pressure to the expanding cylinder during the power stroke.

                              Normal combustion is a puff an then it's over. Timing has to be
                              retarded to contain the combustion properly during the power stroke,
                              so there is less time for the pressure to push against the cylinder.

                              Even without changing the timing you get an advantage (I've tried it
                              myself). Anything that slows down the combustion process helps
                              maximize combustion (prevents cold spots) and increases volumetric
                              efficieny. However it has to be done properly to get the advantage.

                              Obviously it'll help more in cases of detonation. But the problems
                              detonation causes in regards to power loss and inefficieny are still
                              applicable to a quick and inefficient burn, only less so.

                              And as I said before:

                              It's not a huge difference, but it is a difference. Besides, it
                              also cuts down NOx.

                              This is the principle behind A-1 diesel fuel (emuslified water in
                              diesel fuel). No power loss, with less polution.


                              > Yes, real world fuel economy depends on operating efficiently over
                              a
                              > wider range of output power (wider in both percent of output
                              torque at
                              > a given speed, and over a wider range of speeds at a given torque).
                              > The technologies have widened that BSFC sweet spot in both
                              directions
                              > of the map, giving drivers better results.


                              That's what I've been saying.
                            • Eric
                              Soren, ... Not true. Try it. Try it with a variety of cars. I have. Even in low performing, boring cars, you get better mileage from premium fuels
                              Message 14 of 23 , Jan 4, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Soren,

                                --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "sorenlaf" <sorenlaf@y...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Eric,
                                >
                                > In general, modern cars (say late 80s on) will get better mileage
                                > from higher octane fuel if (and only if) the lower octane fuel
                                > causes the engine to detonate (aka knock, ping, etc.).


                                Not true. Try it. Try it with a variety of cars. I have. Even in
                                low performing, boring cars, you get better mileage from premium
                                fuels (although not enough to cover the cost).


                                > In the late 80s (approximately), cars started using active knock
                                > detection. A sensor detects the knock before you can hear it and
                                > retards the timing until the knock stops. This occurs w/o the
                                > driver realizing that anything has happened.


                                This is true in only some cars. They don't all have knock sensors.
                                Also knock sensors aren't very reliable.


                                > The retarded timing causes a reduction in both power and fuel
                                > economy.
                                >
                                > When you get a mileage increase from higher octane fuel, and you
                                are
                                > quite correct, many cars will get better mileage from higher
                                octane
                                > fuel, it usually results from the increased ignition advance that
                                > the higher octane fuel permits; the engine is able to operate in a
                                > more efficient regime.


                                This is true, but even without advancing the timing there is a
                                modest advantage.


                                > There is little or no difference in energy content between
                                different
                                > grades of gasoline.


                                Perhaps technically this is true, but in the real world this is not
                                true. Higher octane fuels burn more completely, thus better
                                utilizing the available energy.

                                Here's a true story:

                                My lawnmower (an old beat up piece of ....) will barely run on 87
                                octane fuel. It runs so badly in fact that it's almost impossible
                                to start and keep it running. Using premium 91 octane fuel solves
                                all of these problems. It runs like a champ.

                                I would be willing to demonstrate this experiment to anyone willing
                                to mow my lawns upon verification.
                              • Gary S.
                                ... I d have to say it depends re. using water to improve power when no detonation was taking place. Those WWII fighters were turbocharged and the increased
                                Message 15 of 23 , Jan 4, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:

                                  > In regards to water injection:
                                  >
                                  > > > Right. It does decrease preignition allowing for greater
                                  > > > expansion. Also the expansion properties of water are
                                  > different.
                                  > > > Again it expands slower but steadier than burning fuel, which
                                  > gives
                                  > > > you a longer (more effective) power stroke.
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  > > But it takes heat out of the burning fuel, cutting pressure.
                                  > Ricardo
                                  > > found no improvement from water unless detonation was an issue,
                                  > then
                                  > > it can provide marked improvements.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > I don't know about Ricardo's experiments, but using water to
                                  > increase performance is an old trick. It was commonly used on WWII
                                  > fighter planes like the P-38. It slows down combustion, allowing
                                  > for more advanced timing and a longer burn time which continually
                                  > applies pressure to the expanding cylinder during the power stroke.
                                  >
                                  > Normal combustion is a puff an then it's over. Timing has to be
                                  > retarded to contain the combustion properly during the power stroke,
                                  > so there is less time for the pressure to push against the cylinder.
                                  >
                                  > Even without changing the timing you get an advantage (I've tried it
                                  > myself). Anything that slows down the combustion process helps
                                  > maximize combustion (prevents cold spots) and increases volumetric
                                  > efficieny. However it has to be done properly to get the advantage.
                                  >
                                  > Obviously it'll help more in cases of detonation. But the problems
                                  > detonation causes in regards to power loss and inefficieny are still
                                  > applicable to a quick and inefficient burn, only less so.
                                  >
                                  > And as I said before:
                                  >
                                  > It's not a huge difference, but it is a difference. Besides, it
                                  > also cuts down NOx.
                                  >
                                  > This is the principle behind A-1 diesel fuel (emuslified water in
                                  > diesel fuel). No power loss, with less polution.
                                  >
                                  >

                                  I'd have to say "it depends" re. using water to improve power when no
                                  detonation was taking place. Those WWII fighters were turbocharged and
                                  the increased combustion pressures on full power takeoff did cause
                                  preignition -- water injection was the low cost "high octane" additive
                                  that kept them flying. But when the engine was throttled back they cut
                                  off the water.

                                  I wouldn't generalize too much, either, about slowing combustion
                                  always improving MEP. Most engines are designed to use the combustion
                                  characteristics of plain gasoline very well without it, but I suppose
                                  there could be some exceptions. I'd like to see your data if you do
                                  think there is a general gain to be made, as it does run counter to
                                  current modern design theory.

                                  As for diesels, that's a different ball game than what I've been
                                  talking about. Here you WANT "detonation" and cetane rating is what
                                  it's all about. Adding water may cut some emissions, maybe even
                                  particulates. I'd hazard that adding more than a very small amount of
                                  water would reduce the cetane rating too far, causing hit and miss
                                  combustion.
                                • Eric
                                  ... no ... and ... additive ... cut ... Actually, I think the P-38 was supercharged. Most fighters were normally aspirated and fuel injected. A few were even
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Jan 5, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@y...> wrote:

                                    > I'd have to say "it depends" re. using water to improve power when
                                    no
                                    > detonation was taking place. Those WWII fighters were turbocharged
                                    and
                                    > the increased combustion pressures on full power takeoff did cause
                                    > preignition -- water injection was the low cost "high octane"
                                    additive
                                    > that kept them flying. But when the engine was throttled back they
                                    cut
                                    > off the water.


                                    Actually, I think the P-38 was supercharged. Most fighters were
                                    normally aspirated and fuel injected. A few were even carbureted
                                    (lots of problems when rolling and such).

                                    As per catboat, the water injection was usually used in emergency
                                    situations as a quick but potentially hazardous power boost. For
                                    short boosts it works particularly well because it recovers energy
                                    from the hot cylinder walls, piston, and head, leftover from prior
                                    combustion cycles. This is also why it was hazardous. The quick
                                    cooling of these surfaces can cause cracks and sudden parts failures.


                                    > I wouldn't generalize too much, either, about slowing combustion
                                    > always improving MEP. Most engines are designed to use the
                                    combustion
                                    > characteristics of plain gasoline very well without it, but I
                                    suppose
                                    > there could be some exceptions. I'd like to see your data if you do
                                    > think there is a general gain to be made, as it does run counter to
                                    > current modern design theory.


                                    Sorry, I haven't saved any of the data. I haven't even done it in
                                    years. I recommend that you verify it yourself. I believe you can
                                    still get cheap water injection systems from various auto parts
                                    suppliers.

                                    They're basically a tank, a hose and an adjustable valve. Try
                                    setting one up with an adjustable valve linked to the throttle
                                    position (you'll have to customize it yourself). Getting the
                                    valving just right is tricky though. Too much and you risk engine
                                    damage. You want to make sure you attach it high enough in the
                                    induction system to get even dispersal to all cylinders.

                                    WARNING: I wouldn't recommend using it on late model vehicles.
                                    There's too much potential to cause damage to the emissions systems
                                    (like the catalytic converter). Also, be careful! Too much water
                                    can severely damage your engine.

                                    Additionally, EGR valves tend to dampen the effectiveness as they
                                    dilute and cool the combustion process too. With EGR and water
                                    injection together, you're likely to cause misfire before you note
                                    any benefit. It's best to try it on pre-emissions controlled
                                    vehicles.


                                    > As for diesels, that's a different ball game than what I've been
                                    > talking about. Here you WANT "detonation" and cetane rating is what
                                    > it's all about. Adding water may cut some emissions, maybe even
                                    > particulates. I'd hazard that adding more than a very small amount
                                    of
                                    > water would reduce the cetane rating too far, causing hit and miss
                                    > combustion.


                                    Right. I was just emphasizing the NOx reduction benefit.
                                  • Gary S.
                                    Actually, I did play with water injection back in the 80 s when I was trying to reduce some part throttle detonation on my car ( 78 Trans Am, 400 CID). The way
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Jan 5, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Actually, I did play with water injection back in the 80's when I was
                                      trying to reduce some part throttle detonation on my car ('78 Trans
                                      Am, 400 CID). The way the distributor was setup, with its vacuum and
                                      centrifugal advances, I would get incipient ping at about 1/2 - 2/3 of
                                      WOT. Below that range there wasn't enough pressure to detonate, past
                                      that I lost the vacuum advance and it stopped.

                                      Anyway, with a gallon jug, windshield washer pump and various jets and
                                      nozzles pointed into the primary carb. venturis, I did manage to put
                                      water into the engine. I used vacuum switches, manual switches and
                                      even a rig on the gas pedal to try to control it. I WAS able to put in
                                      just about any amount of water I wanted, at any time, but it never
                                      really stopped the ping.

                                      No idea why, but no matter how much water I dumped in there it would
                                      still rattle at that throttle range. I wound up fiddling with the
                                      static timing to quiet it all down, but wasn't satisfied with the
                                      result. Recurving the distributor with new weights and a new vacuum
                                      advance unit finally solved the problem.

                                      Running premium fuel also could fix it, but I wasn't happy with that
                                      as a long term solution. The recurve did fix it, but I never knew why
                                      the water didn't help. I mean, I put in a LOT of water on some of the
                                      tests - basically all the pump could deliver, about half a gallon per
                                      minute.

                                      Oh well, it's been a good discussion. Thanks.

                                      --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@y...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > I'd have to say "it depends" re. using water to improve power when
                                      > no
                                      > > detonation was taking place. Those WWII fighters were turbocharged
                                      > and
                                      > > the increased combustion pressures on full power takeoff did cause
                                      > > preignition -- water injection was the low cost "high octane"
                                      > additive
                                      > > that kept them flying. But when the engine was throttled back they
                                      > cut
                                      > > off the water.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Actually, I think the P-38 was supercharged. Most fighters were
                                      > normally aspirated and fuel injected. A few were even carbureted
                                      > (lots of problems when rolling and such).
                                      >
                                      > As per catboat, the water injection was usually used in emergency
                                      > situations as a quick but potentially hazardous power boost. For
                                      > short boosts it works particularly well because it recovers energy
                                      > from the hot cylinder walls, piston, and head, leftover from prior
                                      > combustion cycles. This is also why it was hazardous. The quick
                                      > cooling of these surfaces can cause cracks and sudden parts failures.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > > I wouldn't generalize too much, either, about slowing combustion
                                      > > always improving MEP. Most engines are designed to use the
                                      > combustion
                                      > > characteristics of plain gasoline very well without it, but I
                                      > suppose
                                      > > there could be some exceptions. I'd like to see your data if you do
                                      > > think there is a general gain to be made, as it does run counter to
                                      > > current modern design theory.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Sorry, I haven't saved any of the data. I haven't even done it in
                                      > years. I recommend that you verify it yourself. I believe you can
                                      > still get cheap water injection systems from various auto parts
                                      > suppliers.
                                      >
                                      > They're basically a tank, a hose and an adjustable valve. Try
                                      > setting one up with an adjustable valve linked to the throttle
                                      > position (you'll have to customize it yourself). Getting the
                                      > valving just right is tricky though. Too much and you risk engine
                                      > damage. You want to make sure you attach it high enough in the
                                      > induction system to get even dispersal to all cylinders.
                                      >
                                      > WARNING: I wouldn't recommend using it on late model vehicles.
                                      > There's too much potential to cause damage to the emissions systems
                                      > (like the catalytic converter). Also, be careful! Too much water
                                      > can severely damage your engine.
                                      >
                                      > Additionally, EGR valves tend to dampen the effectiveness as they
                                      > dilute and cool the combustion process too. With EGR and water
                                      > injection together, you're likely to cause misfire before you note
                                      > any benefit. It's best to try it on pre-emissions controlled
                                      > vehicles.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > > As for diesels, that's a different ball game than what I've been
                                      > > talking about. Here you WANT "detonation" and cetane rating is what
                                      > > it's all about. Adding water may cut some emissions, maybe even
                                      > > particulates. I'd hazard that adding more than a very small amount
                                      > of
                                      > > water would reduce the cetane rating too far, causing hit and miss
                                      > > combustion.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Right. I was just emphasizing the NOx reduction benefit.
                                      >
                                    • Preston Petty
                                      As I understand it, water really just packs more fuel and air into the cylinder due to its very high Latent Heat Of Vaporization. Water has a much higher LHOV
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Jan 5, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        As I understand it, water really just packs more fuel and air into the
                                        cylinder due to its very high Latent Heat Of Vaporization.
                                        Water has a much higher LHOV than gasoline.
                                        That means is cools down the inlet mixture, when properly atomized.
                                        (i.e. make it a fine, even spray into the inlet manifold to minimize
                                        the time it takes to vaporize)
                                        Since the inlet mixture is cooler it contracts and that permits more
                                        air (and fuel).
                                        The BMEP (Brake Mean Effective Pressure) in the combustion chamber
                                        increases and that provides more power.
                                        Certainly the cumbustion mixture is cooler, burns slower, but has more
                                        gas and air in it.

                                        Pres
                                        --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@y...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Actually, I did play with water injection back in the 80's when I
                                        was
                                        > trying to reduce some part throttle detonation on my car ('78 Trans
                                        > Am, 400 CID). The way the distributor was setup, with its vacuum and
                                        > centrifugal advances, I would get incipient ping at about 1/2 - 2/3
                                        of
                                        > WOT. Below that range there wasn't enough pressure to detonate, past
                                        > that I lost the vacuum advance and it stopped.
                                        >
                                        > Anyway, with a gallon jug, windshield washer pump and various jets
                                        and
                                        > nozzles pointed into the primary carb. venturis, I did manage to put
                                        > water into the engine. I used vacuum switches, manual switches and
                                        > even a rig on the gas pedal to try to control it. I WAS able to put
                                        in
                                        > just about any amount of water I wanted, at any time, but it never
                                        > really stopped the ping.
                                        >
                                        > No idea why, but no matter how much water I dumped in there it would
                                        > still rattle at that throttle range. I wound up fiddling with the
                                        > static timing to quiet it all down, but wasn't satisfied with the
                                        > result. Recurving the distributor with new weights and a new vacuum
                                        > advance unit finally solved the problem.
                                        >
                                        > Running premium fuel also could fix it, but I wasn't happy with that
                                        > as a long term solution. The recurve did fix it, but I never knew
                                        why
                                        > the water didn't help. I mean, I put in a LOT of water on some of
                                        the
                                        > tests - basically all the pump could deliver, about half a gallon
                                        per
                                        > minute.
                                        >
                                        > Oh well, it's been a good discussion. Thanks.
                                        >
                                        > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Gary S." <garys_2k@y...>
                                        wrote:
                                        > >
                                        > > > I'd have to say "it depends" re. using water to improve power
                                        when
                                        > > no
                                        > > > detonation was taking place. Those WWII fighters were
                                        turbocharged
                                        > > and
                                        > > > the increased combustion pressures on full power takeoff did
                                        cause
                                        > > > preignition -- water injection was the low cost "high octane"
                                        > > additive
                                        > > > that kept them flying. But when the engine was throttled back
                                        they
                                        > > cut
                                        > > > off the water.
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Actually, I think the P-38 was supercharged. Most fighters were
                                        > > normally aspirated and fuel injected. A few were even carbureted
                                        > > (lots of problems when rolling and such).
                                        > >
                                        > > As per catboat, the water injection was usually used in emergency
                                        > > situations as a quick but potentially hazardous power boost. For
                                        > > short boosts it works particularly well because it recovers energy
                                        > > from the hot cylinder walls, piston, and head, leftover from prior
                                        > > combustion cycles. This is also why it was hazardous. The quick
                                        > > cooling of these surfaces can cause cracks and sudden parts
                                        failures.
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > I wouldn't generalize too much, either, about slowing combustion
                                        > > > always improving MEP. Most engines are designed to use the
                                        > > combustion
                                        > > > characteristics of plain gasoline very well without it, but I
                                        > > suppose
                                        > > > there could be some exceptions. I'd like to see your data if you
                                        do
                                        > > > think there is a general gain to be made, as it does run counter
                                        to
                                        > > > current modern design theory.
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Sorry, I haven't saved any of the data. I haven't even done it in
                                        > > years. I recommend that you verify it yourself. I believe you
                                        can
                                        > > still get cheap water injection systems from various auto parts
                                        > > suppliers.
                                        > >
                                        > > They're basically a tank, a hose and an adjustable valve. Try
                                        > > setting one up with an adjustable valve linked to the throttle
                                        > > position (you'll have to customize it yourself). Getting the
                                        > > valving just right is tricky though. Too much and you risk engine
                                        > > damage. You want to make sure you attach it high enough in the
                                        > > induction system to get even dispersal to all cylinders.
                                        > >
                                        > > WARNING: I wouldn't recommend using it on late model vehicles.
                                        > > There's too much potential to cause damage to the emissions
                                        systems
                                        > > (like the catalytic converter). Also, be careful! Too much water
                                        > > can severely damage your engine.
                                        > >
                                        > > Additionally, EGR valves tend to dampen the effectiveness as they
                                        > > dilute and cool the combustion process too. With EGR and water
                                        > > injection together, you're likely to cause misfire before you note
                                        > > any benefit. It's best to try it on pre-emissions controlled
                                        > > vehicles.
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > > As for diesels, that's a different ball game than what I've been
                                        > > > talking about. Here you WANT "detonation" and cetane rating is
                                        what
                                        > > > it's all about. Adding water may cut some emissions, maybe even
                                        > > > particulates. I'd hazard that adding more than a very small
                                        amount
                                        > > of
                                        > > > water would reduce the cetane rating too far, causing hit and
                                        miss
                                        > > > combustion.
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > > Right. I was just emphasizing the NOx reduction benefit.
                                        > >
                                        >
                                      • waynegage2000
                                        ... all ... better ... called ... inventor) ... big ... was ... know ... I think your healthy skepticism will save you money. This group has already done a
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Jan 12, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <ubavontuba@y...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:21:29 -0800 (PST)
                                          > From: "Bruce Wayne" <vernon_knows@y...>
                                          >
                                          > Hi. I'm new to the group, and haven't even come close to reading
                                          all
                                          > the archives yet, so please forgive me if this has been brought up
                                          > before without me seeing the answer.
                                          >
                                          > Has anyone here looked into a fuel conservation (for a lack of a
                                          better
                                          > term - I'm dealing with a migraine right now) product that is
                                          called
                                          > the FIVS Gen 3? The reports that I read (all written by the
                                          inventor)
                                          > claim that it can at least double the fuel econemy of a car, even a
                                          big
                                          > luxury model. I downloaded the plans and schematics (he's put the
                                          > whole thing into the public domain to keep the govt. off his back -
                                          > they supposedly nearly killed him over his Gen 2 product, which he
                                          was
                                          > selling) - but I still retain a healthy skepticism. I'd like to
                                          know
                                          > anyone else's experiences with it. Thanks.
                                          >
                                          > Bruce
                                          >
                                          I think your healthy skepticism will save you money.
                                          This group has already done a treatment of this person and his claim.
                                          http://www.get113to138mpg.com/

                                          His story of events of the last few years is totally hoaky.
                                          http://www.get113to138mpg.com/AcSideOftheStory.htm
                                          When performance claims fail, the blame falls to suppression by the
                                          government, a common diversion tactic.
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.