[NewCandle] BG and electrolysis

[Jones Beene]

Just to clear up an important point IF the claims for 
hydroboosting do pan out,
in previous post (looking for an 'arguable' explanation) instead 
of this:

> I don't think that BG is all that special in itself - except 
> than in an ICE the added mobility of H2, and the order of 
> magnitude faster burn rate (flame speed) assures that the 6-10% 
> of unburned fuel in any auto engine - plus the monoxide (CO) 
> gets completely burned.

> That is more significant when you do the final ratio and final 
> accounting in terms of the burned fuel not carrying any 
> additional losses (compressive and volumetric efficiency) - 
> which have already been figured into the original Carnot 
> efficiency ! - IOW it is all gravy, so that even a minimum 6% 
> extra fuel available to be burned can look more like an 18% 
> increase in Carnot.

What I meant to say was this:

You have an ICE with a Carnot efficiency of 25%
You have 6% hydrocarbons in the exhaust, before reaching the 
catalytic converter - which is unburned or incomplete combustion. 
The converter reduces these to ppm.

This is about the average for all new cars in the USA. Diesels 
have both higher Carnot and higher % unburned fuel.

In the case of gasoline the underlying reason for the incomplete 
combustion is fuel "wetting" against the relatively cool metal of 
the piston and cylinder head, which quenches combustion within 
that interface. In the case of diesels, the underlying reason for 
incomplete combustion is carbon particulates in the fuel. These 
clog up catalytic converters and are the main reason that diesels 
cannot pass the EPA tests and be used here. Biodiesel has none of 
the particulates, by the way.

In case you are wondering, I used to hang out at the CalStart 
facility in Alameda (near where I was living) and got first hand 
info, mainly from a visiting Ford engineer who was demo-ing their 
H-powered ICE engine. This was before the current infatuation with 
hydroboosting - and Ford was using pressurized H2. Alameda had the 
only hydrogen filing-station in California at the time.

OK. Back to the correction. The reason that onboard hydrogen 
should be able to be made with onboard electrolysis, and the 
associated drain to the alternator -which is itself only 75% 
efficient, and still benefit the net mileage attainable is that 
the 6% unburned fuel - already has the associated 75% Carnot 
losses figured in - so that most of the newfound energy goes to 
raise the Carnot from 25% to 30% (you do not get the full 
pass-through). AND you can eliminate the catalytic converter ! So 
what was looking like only a 6% gain, now looks closer to 20% more 
power per unit of consumption (mileage). I think I got that right 
this time. And that is if nothing else (oxidizers) figures into 
the equation.

This is why I am at total loss as to why Nick's outfit only got 
marginal gains - *especially when using H2 supplemented from a 
tank* - that makes no sense !unless the original engine was 
extremely efficient, and had much less than normal HCs in the 
exhaust. You can accomplish the lower HC levels by using a 
hot -engine - i.e. ceramic pistons and heads, but not in a normal 
aluminum engine.

Jones