On Sunday 17 December 2006 19:39, Jones Beene wrote:
> "This ten-to-one ratio of comparative fuel usage is *actual and proven*
> beyond any doubt in this vehicle over 100,000 miles...." that part is true,
> but it refers to fuel usage by weight of hydrogen, which is stored in the
> form of a cryogenic liquid in that engine.
>
>
> OK -- nobody took the bait. I wasn't exactly trolling or anything like
> that, but apparently the average Vo doesn't realize that this is an even
> greater anomaly than the increased Carnot efficiency can accomodate.
>
> The heat content of hydrogen is:
> 61,000 Btu/lb (141.86 kJ/g) HHV or
> 51,500 Btu/lb (119.93 kJ/g) LLV
>
> Every fuel can liberate a fixed amount of heat energy when it reacts
> completely with oxygen. This energy content is measured experimentally and
> is quantified by a fuel’s higher heating value (HHV) and lower heating
> value (LHV).
>
> The difference between the HHV and the LHV includes the heat of
> vaporization (irrelevant for H2) and other details involved in combustion
> with an eye to trying to equalize cross-comparisons between various fuels.
>
> The heat content of Gasoline, in contrast is:
> 20,360 Btu/lb (47.5 kJ/g) HHV
> 19,000 Btu/lb (44.5 kJ/g) LLV
>
> Therefore, let me spell it out. Here is the anomaly - if it is not obvious
> yet (and if I have not misread the recent announcement from BMW and my
> notes from a previous visit to watch the Ford Testing at CalStart). In
> actual testing of these vehicles, using identical engines, automobiles and
> roads or testing tracks, etc at both BMW and Ford, the hydrogen powered
> vehicle will go about 10 time further per pound-equivalent of hydrogen
> fuel, compared to gasoline.
>
> Yet the heat content is only 2.5 times higher (up to triple, if you use
> HHV).
>
> The Carnot efficiency of the ICE has increased by over 40% ... from 35% to
> 50 % yet... there is still a bit of a mystery.
>
> ... only about half of the decreased fuel usage is accounted for thus far.
> The rest? I mentioned the increase in effective pressure due to the higher
> compressive strength of steam, but that "should" be already accounted for
> in the Carnot efficiency figure.
>
> I suspect at least one observer of this potential anomaly will want to
> mention the hydrino, but don't forget that gasoline is composed of almost
> half hydrogen atoms, therefore - although that does not eliminate the
> hydrino as an potential part of the anomaly, it makes it less likely.
>
> Jones
Jones,
Maybe a little of a 'Davis Mechanics" effect going on here. You mentioned
higher temperatures and pressures. Possibly higher accelerations of the
engine parts as well. Incumbant with higher accelerations would probably
also be higher rates of onset of accelerations. This leads to higher energy
transfers on impact....spark detonation....and greater output.
Physics has always been fuzzy about impact loads, and CE's are taught to use a
fudge factor of 3 when impact loading is a factor. Fudge factors have always
bothered me, and when I read an article in an old 'Science Digest' back in
the early seventies about a fellow that had an 'antigravity suitcase' that
made use of this principle, I got a glimpse possibly of the hint of an answer
to questions like: how do straws go through utility poles in windstorms of
great velocity, etc. A then professor Davis at a Florida university who died
....shortly....after publishing a theory on this brought out the idea that a
second derivative term added to the standard equation for force may be
showing itself. I have thought about this, and further postulate that not
only a second derivitave term, but a Taylor series of them may be really at
work:
F = m {a + a' +a'' +a'''.....[(d^n)a]/(dt^n)]
There is a solution to this Taylor in most elementary Calculus books. I just
did not memorize it thirty years ago when I took the course.
Reportedly the garage tinkerer's anti-grav suitcase was about two percent
efficient or so in reducing the grav force on it. He tested it on a bathroom
scale where ever he took the case. He would not relinquish the case or tell
how he built it, as he wanted a million dollars for this info.
Most thought him a quack and were dismissive of him except for that professor
in Florida. Like professor Davis, he too took his secret to the grave with
him under equally mysterious circumstances.
All known and unclassified attempts to duplicate this suitcase were failures;
at least that is what the magazine article reported. Then in the nineties
comes a Dr Bull and his super cannon, and this chap claims kinship with
this principle.
And if that were'nt enough, the US Army calls the main gun on the Abrams Tank
a 'Davis Gun'. I am certain that they have a cover story for this that will
sound perfectly 'logical'. And they said 'Scotland was English at the point
of a sword!'.
Standing Bear
