USe This downloadable-storable Otto and Diesel Calculator and plug in Argon (gamma 1.67) Jones. Just by changing gamma from 1.4 for air on a 7:1 compression ratio closed Ottto cycle engine the efficiecy jumps from 54.08% to 72.85%
http://members.aol.com/engware/calc3.htm Our 12 "wall-plate" electrolysis cell is generating lots of "Brown's Gas" or H + OH at 0.8 amperes 12 volts (9.6 watts) on the 11 series cells (~1.1 volts/cell) (10 floating plates) with the NaHCO3-Borax mix. pH ~ 10.5. Jones Beene wrote. > > 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...
