Here's a thought.......injecting straight Oxygen into Engine

[Blown330]

Just...no...don't even bother. Running oxygen like that is nothing but a sure was to crater your motor. Even cutting it with argon is pointless (remember nitrous oxide decomposes into nitrogen and oxygen...nitrogen is an inert gas too). Spraying pure oxygen in the amount you'd need would cause virtually uncontrollable combustion events within the motor. The nitrogen in N20 acts to soak up extra heat in the combustion chamber as it splits away from oxygen, that's very important for several reasons.

 

 

 

 

You aren't the first person to have thought about doing this, not even the hundredth. Simply put it isn't worth the hassle, expense, or risk. It's tricky enough dialing in a good N20 setup...don't add complications for no gain.

[James Matteu]

Just...no...don't even bother. Running oxygen like that is nothing but a sure was to crater your motor. Even cutting it with argon is pointless (remember nitrous oxide decomposes into nitrogen and oxygen...nitrogen is an inert gas too). Spraying pure oxygen in the amount you'd need would cause virtually uncontrollable combustion events within the motor. The nitrogen in N20 acts to soak up extra heat in the combustion chamber as it splits away from oxygen, that's very important for several reasons.

 

You aren't the first person to have thought about doing this, not even the hundredth. Simply put it isn't worth the hassle, expense, or risk. It's tricky enough dialing in a good N20 setup...don't add complications for no gain.

 

I agree with just about everything you said, almost.

 

Nitrogen is not inert. The gaseous state is chemically active, despite its inability to support combustion, which is what I think you were trying to say. But remember, car exhaust contains plenty of nitrogen oxides that are not in the air when the motor sucks it in. Nitrogen may not support combustion, but the combustion cycle is definately supporting reactions between nitrogen and oxygen.

 

I suggested argon since it is very difficult to get it to react chemically. For more info. on argon reactions, you should look into the radioactive bombardment of argon in the presence of fluorine to produce ArF8. We use argon in the lab since it is reliable and cheap. I have seen the gas brought to 10,000K (at its excited state) within an ICP-MassSpec and still remain unbonded with the analyte. I therefore suggested it as a safe, unreactive, cheap way of diluting the oxygen before it was introduced in to the combustion chamber.

 

I do agree with you on your larger point. As the lawn mower example showed, introducing oxygen into a motor at concentrations higher than 36% is a good way to destroy a motor.

 

Edit: Everyday, bacteria suck nitrogen right out of the air and use it the way you and I use oxygen, as a final electron receptor in the cellular respiratory cycle. They turn the nitrogen into ammonia. We turn oxygen into water.

[cranny]

i was gonna say , nitrogen s anything but inert dude. eve head of nitrogen power? lol. or even the hindenburg? ask the hindenburg how inert nitrogen is , haha.

[James Matteu]

i was gonna say , nitrogen s anything but inert dude. eve head of nitrogen power? lol. or even the hindenburg? ask the hindenburg how inert nitrogen is , haha.

 

The German LZ 129 Hindenburg zepplin was filled with hydrogen, not nitrogen.

[Blown330]

I agree with just about everything you said, almost.

 

Nitrogen is not inert. The gaseous state is chemically active, despite its inability to support combustion, which is what I think you were trying to say. But remember, car exhaust contains plenty of nitrogen oxides that are not in the air when the motor sucks it in. Nitrogen may not support combustion, but the combustion cycle is definately supporting reactions between nitrogen and oxygen.

 

 

Nitrogen is defined as an inert elemental gas. It can form chemical compounds but not readily (meaning spontaneously) in normal atmosphere and they are rather unstable. Argon is very similar as it will form chemical compounds given the right environment. Only true inert gases are Helium and Neon. None of them will support combustion but Nitrogen will absorb more heat per unit mass than Argon. So again, pointless to use argon in the manner intended here.

[James Matteu]

Only true inert gases are Helium and Neon.

 

What about the helium compouns: HeNe, HgHe₁₀, WHe₂, He₂⁺, He₂²⁺, and HeD⁺; and the neon compounds Ne⁺, (NeAr)⁺, (NeH)⁺, and (HeNe⁺)?

 

I am not going to argue the use of argon in an internal combustion engine as I have never used it there and have no first hand experience beyond its use in an ICP-MassSpec, GC-MassSpec, and FlameAA.

[Blown330]

What about the helium compouns: HeNe, HgHe₁₀, WHe₂, He₂⁺, He₂²⁺, and HeD⁺; and the neon compounds Ne⁺, (NeAr)⁺, (NeH)⁺, and (HeNe⁺)?

 

 

 

What about them? Do any of those compounds form spontaneously in nature? No. In fact almost all of those require some energy source to even form the temporary compounds (e.g. HeNe lasers). Once the power is gone you are back to nothing more than a gas mixture. They put Mercury in Neon signs to make them brighter...but Neon and Mercury aren't reacting together. Nitrogen will occasionally form something given the right environment as will most of the other Noble gasses or inert elementals. Inert doesn't mean it impossible for something to react...just won't happen outside of a lab or very specific circumstances.

 

 

None of that changes the fact Nitrogen is considered inert besides and I hold to that correct statement.

[James Matteu]

None of that changes the fact Nitrogen is considered inert besides and I hold to that correct statement.

 

First I am going to show why you're right in one way, but still incorrect within the context of this discussion.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

"In chemistry, the term inert is used to describe something that is not chemically active…It is now understood that the reason that inert gases are completely inert to basic chemical reactions (such as combustion, for example), is because their outer valence shell is completely filled with electrons. With a filled outer valence shell, an inert atom is not easily able to acquire or lose an electron, and is therefore not able to participate in any chemical reactions. For inert atoms or molecules, a lot of energy is involved before it can combine with other elements to form compounds. A high temperature and pressure is necessary, and sometimes requires the presence of a catalyst.

 

For example, elemental nitrogen is inert under standard room conditions and exists as a diatomic molecule, N₂. The inertness of nitrogen is due to the presence of the very strong triple covalent bond in the N₂ molecule.

 

Inert atmospheres of gases such as dinitrogen and argon are routinely used in chemical reactions where air sensitive and water sensitive compounds are handled."

 

 

Now let me explain to you why you're wrong. See, as the piston moves up in the motor, pressure increases to a level above 1 atm. As the fuel is combusted, temperature increases far above ambient.

 

 

From Windows to the Universe:

 

Both NO and NO₂ are formed during high-temperature combustion in the atmosphere, when oxygen combines with nitrogen. The exhaust gases of cars and trucks are major sources of nitrogen oxides, as are the emissions from electrical power generation plants. Automobile exhaust has more NO than NO₂, but once the NO is released into the atmosphere it quickly combines with oxygen in the air to form NO₂.

 

From Northern Arizona University:

 

"This is the equilibrium between oxygen and nitrogen gases responsible for formation of nitrogen oxide in combustion:

 

N₂ + O₂ → 2NO"

 

 

So as you can see, yes atmospheric dinitrogen is inert at room temperature and 1 atm, BUT dinitrogen becomes chemically reactive inside the combustion chamber.

 

I suggested argon since I know that it does not become chemically reactive in high temp/pressure environments.

 

Sorry about the references, I am at work with only internet sources. If you would, like I can repost with more reputable sources.

[Blown330]

None of what you just posted changes what I've already said. I'm pretty sure the environment of the internal combustion engine already covers the "given the right environment" thing I stated already. I'm not saying that nitrogen doesn't react, I'm saying it's classified as an inert gas which, according to the source you posted, it is. Thank you for proving my point, again.

[James Matteu]

Even cutting it with argon is pointless (remember nitrous oxide decomposes into nitrogen and oxygen...nitrogen is an inert gas too).

 

My bad, I understood your statement as a comparison between argon and nitrogen in the combustion chamber. It looked as if you were saying argon is just as inert in the combustion chamber as nitrogen, which we seem to be in agreement that it is not.

 

For your edification, at room temperature, without any outside energy source, platinum hexafluoride and xenon from a stable compound:

 

Xe(g) + PtF₆(g) → Xe⁺PtF₆^-(s)

 

c.f. Neil Barlett, Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia

[Unpredictableacts]

Maybe I am a little late on the topic....and maybe it was mentioned.......But What about HYDROGEN........check hydrogen generators on youtube.

 

 

They take water H2O and seperates it into 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen.....burns 3-5 times hotter that gas.

 

I am actuallty building on as we speak.....still collecting parts. planning on it going on the civic....mainly for better gas milage and just for fun.

[James Matteu]

...But What about HYDROGEN...They take water H2O and seperates it into 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen.....burns 3-5 times hotter that gas.

 

Check the math, you loose a TON of energy in the process (check out enthalpy, entropy, and heats of formation). If you have a source of hydrogen readily available, you can just pump the stuff into a carbuerator without modification. They did that on Mythbusters, except they did not have a good setup. A hydrogen cloud collected over the throttle body and flashed back.

 

If you have hydrogen already, a fuel cell is most efficient use of it with current technology.

[Unpredictableacts]

Check the math, you loose a TON of energy in the process (check out enthalpy, entropy, and heats of formation). If you have a source of hydrogen readily available, you can just pump the stuff into a carbuerator without modification. They did that on Mythbusters, except they did not have a good setup. A hydrogen cloud collected over the throttle body and flashed back.

 

If you have hydrogen already, a fuel cell is most efficient use of it with current technology.

 

 

 

You can avoid flash back with the right set up......the set up I am looking at currently does 2.5 Liters per minute and would be paired with gasoline. right into the intake.

 

Alternaotr is upgraded to a 200Amp so no worry there.....the hydrogen cell will pull about 20 amps.....I do not believe anything on TV......to many people are making money off of fossil fuels to allow any "green" energy to destroy their latge record breaking earnings.

[James Matteu]

Post some pics.

[Unpredictableacts]

Post some pics.

I am still peicing it together , but how about a link to one similar to it that does around 2.5L

 

http://thermo1.com/hydrogen.htm

A little pricey....why I am going the DIY route.

[James Matteu]

I checked out your link. Thank you for posting it.

 

They claim to not violate any laws of physics, okay, but they do make claims that violate nearly every law of thermodynamics.

 

From Thermo1.com:

 

"Yes, the devices do use electrical power from the engine that is ultimately created by the fossil fuel, but the gain in efficiency of the engine exceeds the energy loss from generating the hydrogen-oxygen mix"

 

First Law of Thermodynamics:

 

"The change in the internal energy of a system depends only on the net heat transferred to the system and the net work done by the system, and is independent of the particular processes involved."

 

This means the energy in one mole of gasoline is equal to the amount of heat generated by combustion minus the mechanical energy produced. Thermo1.com is trying to say one mole of gasoline will make more energy than what is stored chemically.

 

Put simply, everywhere you create heat, you loose energy. We all know our ICMs do not convert 100% chemical energy into mechanical energy. Roughly 80-85% is lost to heat and 20-15% becomes mechanical energy. Of that 15%, you use a fraction of it to move your alternator. Since an alternator cannot violate the laws of physics, the alternator will never generate more energy than what is used to power it; again, some of that energy is lost to heat. The wires that you use to move that energy to the electrolytic apparatus will generate heat too, more energy lost. The apparatus will heat up (it gets VERY hot), more energy lost. I assume you are going to cool the apparatus, and that means less energy available to drive the hydrogen generator. The current being drawn from your alternator will put a strain on the engine which will draw more chemical energy, but the hit to your MPGs will be offset (not eliminated) by the introduction of hydrogen and oxygen to the intake.

 

From Thermo1.com:

 

"…the gain in efficiency of the engine exceeds the energy loss from generating the hydrogen-oxygen mix"

 

That's impossible for the reasons stated above and the fact that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted. If the system improves efficiency of the motor, ask yourself, "where is the energy (that is used to improve efficiency) coming from?"

 

From Thermo1.com:

 

"On demand hydrogen boost system DO WORK and they DO NOT violate any laws of physics."

 

Their system does not violate any laws of physics because their system is not able to. And since their system cannot violate the laws of physics, their system cannot acheive the end results they claim it does.

 

 

I like your enthusiasm, hold onto that. I hope you enjoy your future studies into the world of physics, engineering, mathematics, chemistry, etc.

[James Matteu]

The best way to conserve fossil fuels is to walk, run, or ride a bicycle.

[Unpredictableacts]

The best way to conserve fossil fuels is to walk, run, or ride a bicycle.

 

 

I have also seen alot of use with magnents as of late.......one magnent could spend up to 5k RPM.

 

There are videos that demonstrate Hydrogen only used on engines....the key is to produce enough to run the engine.

 

Very interesting set ups I say hit youtube...type in hydrogen.... cell/build/motor......sit back and enjoy at others expense.

[James Matteu]

There are videos that demonstrate Hydrogen only used on engines...

 

Don't get wrong, those hydrogen setups look mechanically sound. I just understand that it will not lower the overall impact of fossil fuels on greenhouse gase pollution.

 

Remember, the reason we all drive around mixtures of hydrocarbons that essentially mimic the burn profile of varying concentrations of octane is that gasoline has one of the highest joule per liter output. Hydrogen has the highest joule per kilogram output, which is why it is the fuel of choice for NASA. Joule per kilogram is a good measure of a fuel's performance when you need to leave orbit, joule per liter is best when you plan on driving around with the fuel.

 

I like hydrogen fuel cell since it will ultimately serve as an intermediate step to going full electric. I like full electric since new technology that can lower greenhouse emissions can be applied to one source (the power plant) more easily; instead of applying the same technology, repeated millions of times, to each automobile.

 

I am still curious about your setup since you never actually stated it was for fuel efficiency, I thought you might be trying for some kind of boost in horsepower.

 

From my Physics book:

 

Coal = 29,000,000 joules per kilogram

Oil = 43,000,000 joules per kilogram

Gasoline = 44,000,000 joules per kilogram

or 130,000,000 joules per gallon

Natural Gas = 55,000,000 joules per kilogram

 

Uranium Fission (norm. abundance) = 580,000,000,000 joules per kilogram

Uranium Fission (pure U-235) = 820,000,000,000,000 joules per kilogram

 

Hydrogen Fusion (norm. abundance) = 700,000,000,000 joules per kilogram

Hydrogen Fusion (pure deuterium) = 3,300,000,000,000,000 joules per kilogram

Hydrogen Fusion (water) = 120,000,000,000 joules per kilogram

 

Water, 100% conversion matter to energy = 90,000,000,000,000,000 joules per kilogram

 

Solar energy incident on Earth, per second = 200,000,000,000,000,000 joules

 

Human body's energy use (from food) per second = 100 joules

 

I included that info as a what-if scenario. Fission (current nuclear technology) is good, but fusion is better. Fusion is better than fission, but anti-matter collisions are best (the water, 100% to energy thing). Solar is clean and free, but all this is an effort to make the most energy, and ignores the fact that our bodies do not use very much energy and can get the job done (walking, cycling, etc.).

[lceah]

I missed all this, but:

 

1) Nitrogen under that much pressure in the chamber...yes!

 

2) I am seriously questioning how "efficient" you can make it to still not loose power due to splitting of water into H and O...

 

companies have looked into this and they have not found a way around the end result: -energy

[Blown330]

You can avoid flash back with the right set up......the set up I am looking at currently does 2.5 Liters per minute and would be paired with gasoline. right into the intake.

 

 

2.5L per minute is NOTHING. It only produces gaseous Hydrogen, for an engine that consumes 1.8L (or whatever engine you use) of fuel vapor/air per 2 revolutions that would barely even make a measurable difference. All of these "free energy" gimmicks violate either the 1st Law or 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. In fact they are labeled PMM1 or PMM2 and rejected by the Patent office as they are discovered. People have been running these scams since the dawn of the steam engine...you'll never get as much or more usable energy out of a device than what you put into it. In fact, for any heat engine there are certain losses that cannot be recovered even if variables like friction and mass are neglected...simply isn't possible.

[Unpredictableacts]

Don't get wrong, those hydrogen setups look mechanically sound. I just understand that it will not lower the overall impact of fossil fuels on greenhouse gase pollution.

 

Remember, the reason we all drive around mixtures of hydrocarbons that essentially mimic the burn profile of varying concentrations of octane is that gasoline has one of the highest joule per liter output. Hydrogen has the highest joule per kilogram output, which is why it is the fuel of choice for NASA. Joule per kilogram is a good measure of a fuel's performance when you need to leave orbit, joule per liter is best when you plan on driving around with the fuel.

 

I like hydrogen fuel cell since it will ultimately serve as an intermediate step to going full electric. I like full electric since new technology that can lower greenhouse emissions can be applied to one source (the power plant) more easily; instead of applying the same technology, repeated millions of times, to each automobile.

 

I am still curious about your setup since you never actually stated it was for fuel efficiency, I thought you might be trying for some kind of boost in horsepower.

 

From my Physics book:

 

Coal = 29,000,000 joules per kilogram

Oil = 43,000,000 joules per kilogram

Gasoline = 44,000,000 joules per kilogram

or 130,000,000 joules per gallon

Natural Gas = 55,000,000 joules per kilogram

 

Uranium Fission (norm. abundance) = 580,000,000,000 joules per kilogram

Uranium Fission (pure U-235) = 820,000,000,000,000 joules per kilogram

 

Hydrogen Fusion (norm. abundance) = 700,000,000,000 joules per kilogram

Hydrogen Fusion (pure deuterium) = 3,300,000,000,000,000 joules per kilogram

Hydrogen Fusion (water) = 120,000,000,000 joules per kilogram

 

Water, 100% conversion matter to energy = 90,000,000,000,000,000 joules per kilogram

 

Solar energy incident on Earth, per second = 200,000,000,000,000,000 joules

 

Human body's energy use (from food) per second = 100 joules

 

I included that info as a what-if scenario. Fission (current nuclear technology) is good, but fusion is better. Fusion is better than fission, but anti-matter collisions are best (the water, 100% to energy thing). Solar is clean and free, but all this is an effort to make the most energy, and ignores the fact that our bodies do not use very much energy and can get the job done (walking, cycling, etc.).

 

 

 

I am actually looking for more power/less gasoline...inpart because I was wanting to run a Hydro/gas set up with a supercharged B20 set up. I have upgraded my alternator to take on the job of hydrogen production. I have seen a 5L system run a small 2 cy engine. I realize that 2.5L is not a ton but increasing over all gas milige is on my agenda....but not soley. I have a huge problem with these companies making a ton of money when simple technology is availible........even if I where not going to use the hydrogen system in my car I am sure there is some use for it even if it where to heat a house. To say that hydrogen powered is impossible is or efficient is somewhat crazy.....but understandable. There is a gentleman name Roy McCalister out in AZ that is doing some impressive things with alternative fuels including Hydrogen......the fact that the Hydrogen burns hotter than gasoline and has a cleaner waste peaks my interest. How funy would it be to get whooped by a hydrogen power civic hatch?

 

One thing you fall into is tricking the compouter on the car......dumping more of what the engine sees as air( the hydrogen gas) into the car makes the car want to use more fuel.....which defeats the whole purpose. You have to trick the O2 sensor with a device called a EFIE(electronic Fuel injection Enhancers) I see using the Hydrogen gas a a substitute for the gasoline even if I cut of %20 of the gas used that is %20 saved.

[Unpredictableacts]

2.5L per minute is NOTHING. It only produces gaseous Hydrogen, for an engine that consumes 1.8L (or whatever engine you use) of fuel vapor/air per 2 revolutions that would barely even make a measurable difference. All of these "free energy" gimmicks violate either the 1st Law or 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. In fact they are labeled PMM1 or PMM2 and rejected by the Patent office as they are discovered. People have been running these scams since the dawn of the steam engine...you'll never get as much or more usable energy out of a device than what you put into it. In fact, for any heat engine there are certain losses that cannot be recovered even if variables like friction and mass are neglected...simply isn't possible.

 

 

 

And not sure I follow? Set up a venture design into the air intake.....would be kind of hard to do if it were liquid.

[Kegger]

Dude I'll give it to you in layman's terms...

 

You cannot use your motor to split hydrogen and oygen, then use the hydrogen and see a reduction in gas usage. It's impossible, to split it you would actually decrease your milage. And 2.5 liters of gaseous hydrogen is a fart in the wind to your motor. The amount of hydrogen you are producing and able to flow are inconsequential to the amount of air your motor takes in during one revolution.

 

Take idle for instance, 700 rpms give or take. 2.5 lpm production of hydrogen. That means you are getting 0.0035714 liters of hydrogen with every revolution. And the more revs the less hydrogen. Not anywhere near enough to do a damn thing for you.

 

It's a gimmick, and a bad one at that.

[James Matteu]

...even if I where not going to use the hydrogen system in my car I am sure there is some use for it even if it where to heat a house.

 

There are cheaper ways to make hydrogen. Electrolysis of water is one of the more expensive ones.

 

Think of it as coming up with a way to make a $5 donut.

 

Remember, electrolysis of water is only able to accomplish two things:

 

1. On demand hydrogen/oxygen production: when a company would rather not have to order a shipment and wait for it to arrive.

 

2. Deuterium production: there's about 20 fluid ounces of heavy water for every 781 gallons of fresh water.

 

The latter example is only used when there is a large power source available (an example is the Norway Heavy Water Works Facility).