For the "numbers-folks" amongst-us, here is some useful background
data for the WasserCar, and for hydrogen fuel in general, along
with ongoing commentary about the difference in using H2+O2 as
opposed to "common-manifold," or Brown's gas.
One mole of hydrogen is two grams; the gram molecule of water is
18 grams. Hydrogen relative mass in a water molecule is
2x100/18=11.1%; oxygen relative mass is 16x100/18=88.9%. This
means that 111.1 grams of hydrogen and 888.9 grams of oxygen are
in every 1000 grams, or every one liter of water. The
computational problems seem to arise in getting the volume of gas
quantified, as H2 is both volatile and easily compressible.
One liter of hydrogen gas at STP weighs 0.09 g; one liter of
oxygen weighs 1.47 g. It is possible to produce 111.11/0.09=1234
liters of hydrogen gas and 888.89/1.47=605 liters of oxygen gas
from one liter of water liquid - and the "expansion ratio" is thus
1839-to-1 when completely gasified as separate components. The
expansion ratio of water to steam is 1680-1, in contrast - so
there is a slight negative volumetric efficiency in burning a
stoichiometric mix.
Every gram of water contains 1.23 liters of hydrogen gas. Energy
consumption for production of 1000 liters of hydrogen gas, using
traditional methods is ~4 kWh and for one liter ~4 Wh. When looked
at from the perspective of the liquid, ~5Wh is applied to every
gram of water for complete hydrogen conversion using modern
traditional methods.
The stoichiometric air/fuel ratio for burning hydrogen is in air
in an ICE is 34:1, based on volume of all gases at STP. At this
maximum air/fuel ratio, hydrogen will displace 29% of the
combustion chamber leaving only 71% for the air. As a result, the
energy content of this mixture will be less than it would be if
the fuel were gasoline (since gasoline is a liquid, it only
occupies a smaller volume of the combustion chamber, and thus
allows more air to enter). Of the air, approximately 21% is
oxygen, and most of the rest nitrogen - approximately a 4-1 ratio.
This means that the volume of oxidizer is a limiting factor in a
traditional ICE burning H2, since only 14% of the volume can be
used of O2 in a stoichiometric situation. This situation results
in either the need for a larger engine, or supercharging to get a
similar output to the same engine fueled with gasoline. But there
are a number of possible alternative practical solutions, among
which the closed-cycle using a larger displacement, and
eliminating nitrogen, is perhaps the best - on paper- IF enough
fuel can be produced in an ongoing fashion by recycling a portion
of the engine output - converted to electricity. A very demanding
challenge, of course, and one which even the very suggestion -
inflames mainstream science - not to mention the 'Seven Sisters.'
To show how difficult this goal appears to be - paper, consider:
The most modern traditional Electrolyzers consume 4.0 kWh per
cubic meter of this gas. Electrolysis takes place at a voltage of
~2.0 V and current of hundreds of amperes for the gas necessary.
This much current produces much waste heat is in the electrolysis
cell, which is only about 85% efficient in the most modern
versions.
When one cubic meter of hydrogen is burnt efficiently only 3.55
kWh of energy is released - compared to the ~4 it took to make it,
and it gets worse from there. Hydrogen ICEs do have a
significantly higher Carnot efficiency, at least 40% which is
fully one third higher than their gasoline equivalent, but that
pales in comparison to the shortfall which is presented. BTW this
boost in efficiency goes back to the using the complex formula a
couple of paragraphs down.
Even with the higher efficiency, when this H2 combustion heat is
converted to electricity, it is easy to see that no more than
about 25% of the electricity needed to self-power an ICE can
possibly be available, using the best traditional methods - high
current, low voltage electrolysis. But yet there are at least 150
anecdotal, eye-witness claims for self-power using only water-fuel
on the internet. Is this all bunkum? What is going on?
And since the goal is not just self-power, but enough "overage" to
use the engine for transportation, it is clear that a minimum COP
of about 8-to-1 is necessary. More likely, the goal should be 10-1
improvement compared to normal electrolysis... which if true, begs
the question: what is the real power source. Short answer: if the
claims are true then it must involve either a nuclear reaction,
below ground state hydrogen (hydrino), or ZPE. But first realize
that nature does this on her own - and that is the importance of
"surface effects" and the Helmholtz layer - which arguably tap
into ZPE.
Bond breaking always requires energy input, of course. Otherwise
everything would fall apart all by itself, but not necessarily
energy input above ambient or net input. In the case of hydrogen
bonding, the thermodynamics are distinctly different from
covalent. The natural molecular movements in water involve the
constant breaking and reorganization of individual hydrogen bonds
on a picosecond timescale, and the process must necessarily be
nearly lossless, due to the enormous "transaction volume." One
report in a respected physic journal indicated that the formula
for water, on this picosecond time scale, is more like H1.5-O than
H2-O (however that finding is in dispute) But the bottom line is
that to utilize this intrinsic OU feature of water-reality, which
is certainly a Casimir effect, we do not have to break the
hydrogen bond of water - so much as to limit recombination
following natural breakage !!! AHA - now we are getting a picture
of why the Meyer electrostatic situation might work - it is not
break the bond, as does traditional electrolysis, but is *limiting
recombination.*
Let's backtrack first to the issue of theoretical thermodynamic
efficiency of an ICE which is based on the compression ratio of
the engine, and the specific-heat ratio of the fuel and the Carnot
"spread". The compression ratio limit of an engine is based on the
fuel's resistance to "knock." A lean hydrogen mixture is less
susceptible to knock than gasoline and therefore can tolerate
higher compression ratios. The specific-heat ratio is related to
the fuel's molecular structure. The less complex the molecular
structure, the higher the specific-heat ratio. Hydrogen = 1.4 has
a simpler molecular structure than gasoline and therefore its
specific-heat ratio is higher than that of conventional gasoline =
1.1. However, either of these, burned in a more efficient
oxidizer, like peroxides or super-oxidated mixed gases, can
increase the effective specific heat dramatically.
But the situation is not apples-to-apples, by any means, for two
reasons. In common manifold electrolysis (Brown's gas) there are
three gas streams - an anode gas (mostly O2), a cathode gas (most
H2) and a neutral-plate mixed gas (mixed peroxides ). In this
situation, the anode and cathode are conservative, like
traditional methods, but most of the energy derives from the
neutral-plate component - the mixed peroxides and superoxides,
which are subject to speedy recombination.
The next step in the evolution towards a reliable water-fuel
system might well involve using the best feature of all of the
prior art - the Meyer capacitance cell, the Brown's gas neutral
plate design AND the Joe-cell contribution - which is the water
pretreatment regime (he copied the neutral plate design from
Brown).
The next few months could be a promising time frame for this
grass-roots technology, and it is just too bad (for many of us)
that most of the action appears to be overseas nowadays .... and
even worse, that so much disinformation is mixed into the lore of
the WasserCar... to be expected perhaps for a subject first
explored by none other than Jules Verne - and the subject of a
David Mamet play.
This may sound a bit cynical and/or paranoid, but it would not
surprise me if some of the inordinate amount of disinformation out
there was being promoted by special interests. Look at Chevron's
books close enough, and you just might may see big payments to the
Reich institute, or cases of Foster's fine brew being sent over to
Joe and his pals, etc...<g> Sorry Patrick, one has to draw the
line somewhere, and for me it is above 'orgone' and about 2/3 of
Joe's B.S.... but then again, that appraisal may change tomorrow,
with even the tiniest bit of proof.
Jones
Progress is all a balancing act. Keeping an open-mind is
important, but remember that a sieve doesn't hold much water...
- Water-based fuel for the ICE Jones Beene
-
