Alternate Fuel for Diesel and Gasoline Engines - 100% off the Bowser

[ramset]

RM
As you know ........I love your ideas!! And knowing that Real science backs up most of them,thats even greater!

I want to explore the Fuelcycle end of this "plastic to fuel",as I posted in the link. Jetjis at Energetic is all over this in Latvia.

I have approached A few Chums and we will be building a unit completely open Source!

And once we have fuel to play with I plan on puttin a few Screws to the Goose for this
EGoose Quote:

" I know running ICE on near 100% water catalyst is possible and what you wish to accomplish is grand also."

I Have a dream.....................

If we build it they will come!!
Chet

[evolvingape]

Hi Chet,

Ok. You have always been nice to me and your desire to learn and help is demonstrably genuine so I have decided I am going to help you, free of charge. Hopefully this information will save you time and energy and allow you to focus your intention.

EGoose Quote:

" I know running ICE on near 100% water catalyst is possible and what you wish to accomplish is grand also."

I will deal with the second part of this quote first. I interpret this as Mr Goose understanding that I have tried to develop a HHO powered turbine. He knows how hard this is to do and that only NASA  and maybe a few of the big aerospace corporations have attempted to do this. This was his way of saying “good effort RM” in my opinion.

The first of the quote is a little more complicated...

There seems to be a conditioned mindset rampant that thinks liquid fuel is best. Best for storage, best for burning. This is flawed on quite a few levels.

What we are interested in is the energetic state of the material. When we think of water as a liquid it is inert right ? When we split it into it's base components of 2H and 1O it becomes a primary explosive.

Now lets think about petrol, in its liquid state it burns, if you have a barrel of it sitting around covered and then you take the cover off and carelessly flick your cigarette butt into it then it explodes and you shit yourself, if you live...

This is the difference in energy states... you guys all really need to understand this and quick or your going to waste your resources and time very efficiently!

When we are talking about converting plastic into fuel liquid is a transitional stage, it is not a desirable end product to then use. What does this mean ?

It means that in order to convert plastic to fuel we must heat it so it melts, this then turns to liquid. You CANNOT store this liquid unless you continually add energy to keep it in the temperature range that it exists as liquid. As soon as you remove the heat source by taking it off the burner and placing it into your garage it begins to cool and turns SOLID.

This works to our advantage because in order to utilise it as fuel we only need to add heat and it emits GAS... which is the most ENERGETIC STATE of this material, and the most useful to us. Anyone planning to use liquid plastic (OIL) as fuel is wasting energy.

Now I want you to read this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28physics%29

You thought you had a pretty good grasp on what Power was right ? Still think that after reading that link ??

Here is a key excerpt from that incredibly important page...


"Differentiating by time gives that the instantaneous power is equal to the force times the object's velocity v(t):

This formula is important in characterizing enginesâ€"the power output of an engine is equal to the force it exerts multiplied by its velocity." (Look for the formula on the page it will not let me copy it)

I will simplify that page for you:

Power = Force X Time

Therefore:

Power = Force X Velocity

Because Power is the rate at which work is done...

Liquid is oh so slow... Gas is oh so fast...

Forget liquid, embrace gas for detonation, and solids for storage... the liquid stage can be almost completely removed if you get the temperature of your “reactor” right!

Hope that helps, any questions let me know and I will help you if I can

RM

[ElectricGoose]

RM

MY POINTS EXACTLY AND BEAUTIFULLY STATED!!

Liquid  = slow burning, wasteful, polluting.
Gas = Fast, clean, efficient.

LIQUIDS for STORING (view it as condensed fuel), GAS for 'burning'.

This has been what I have been trying to get across to you fellas no matter which route you take.  Even a rudimentary water/gasoline bubbler (the simplest fuel saver of them all) which you can test on a lawn mower or small gen, 'fumes' (essentially gasifying) the fuel.  There is no real catalytic process happening without adding a converter but its a START in your massive stakes to save energy.

This is the beauty of water.  You have one litre of 'condensed' benign liquid unable to burn or cause harm in its storage state in which the gasses alone can be expanded out many fold.  CATALYTIC cracking is the key to smashing water without vast sums of electrical energy.

@ The One - Sounds like you should start with a simple fuel saver device rather than go to the trouble of RM's plastic gasifier for now.  If you have an old carburretor engine, I suggest the gasoline/water bubbler which would IMMEDIATELY save you 30 - 40% without any heartache or a lot of mucking around in the garage.

[ramset]

Fellows,
I'm going to go back over this thread and study a bit! Just for clarity ,I never intended to use the "product {liquid] In a standard fashion,Just as a baseline .............

One other thing ,I do intend to use it to heat homes ,obviously if the "Gas" is more efficient at doing this {by a significant margin] Than Gas it will be,and likewise for the ICE.

Steering me in the right direction from the get go is very important,Determining the power needs of the ICE or the BTU requirements of the Heater would help to establish if on demand is feasible?[can the gas be generated fast enough,or can it be modified to be more efficient [Ala Goose?]]

Storage has its benefits and if the raw fuel can be "enhanced"??
Also fitting into an existing liquid fuel infrastructure with a fairly docile fuel does have its advantages,but I must concede, not at the expense of efficiency!

Gotta Study here
Thanks fellahs
Chet

[evolvingape]

Hi Everyone,

I think I need to apologise to Mr Goose, I have opened a big can of worms here and this is just what you did not want in this thread...

Here are 3 links that pretty well sum up what I was trying to tell you before:

http://juliediamond.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/force-x-distancetime-power/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080713070258AAUNzl8

http://www.physics.ucla.edu/k-6connection/forwpsa.htm

The last link is an educational resource that asks questions and gets you thinking about the concepts, the first two are more a discussion between people about power and so I have reproduced the comments below:

You got me thinking about pwer equations.

Power is the rate at which work is done, or the rate at which energy is used transferred.

work done = force x distance

power = work done / time taken

If work is being done by a machine moving at speed v against a constant force, or resistance, F, then since work done is force times distance, work done per second is Fv, which is the same as power. P = Fv

speed = distance / time
Power = force x speed

Power = Voltage x Current

Then of course you can add in resistance … !

Outside of physics, all of these formulas seem applicable to psychological processes.

Interesting stuff !
- Jude

=====

Power = Force times Velocity? Really?
Ok, "we can also express the rate at which a force does work on a particle in terms of that force and the particle's velocity".

I'm trying to "see it" conceptually. My primary visualization is that I imagine an x-y coordinate system, x axis is displacement, y is force.

Now I "turn on" the x-axis like a treadmill, and set the treadmill to "5 meters per second" and the x-axis starts going left (i.e. 5 becomes 4, 4 becomes 3, etc...)

Now I "look" at the x-y coordinate system, and draw the Force function onto the graph as if the treadmill were switched off, between the limits of integration.

Now I sorta "visualize" what the result would be if I drew the graph while the X-axis was sliding (treadmill on) but I thought it was off (no sliding).

As a matter of fact, it would be a perfect "stretching" and the effect of the treadmill on the force*distance, is the effect of replacing displacement with velocity in the P=F*V equation! I think I got it!

Additional Details
yeah, all I did was change the reference frame. Instead of the particle having velocity, I decided to give my coordinate system some velocity, and define the particle to be motionless.

=====

That visualization seems way too complicated...(but OK if it works for you).

The way I visualize it is to imagine a force acting on a particle for a particular amount of time--say 1 second.

The work done on the particle is Force × the distance it moved.

Power is work/time, so that is:
P = (force × distance) / time

But that's the same as:
P = force × (distance / time)

And since (distance / time) = speed,
P = force × speed

=====

You are overcomplicating it.

Remember that power is a rate of flow, like gallons per minute.
Power is the rate that energy flows, or is used or is generated.

Energy or work is force x distance.

The rate energy is used (power) is energy/time, or force x distance/time.

distance/time is velocity, which leaves Power = F x V

=====

I know that the formulas as they stand contradict my statement that Force = Power X Time, however speed, distance and time are intimately related and from this arises velocity which is a rate of change same as time is.

What I was trying to say is that a gas allows for a much higher release of energy than liquid over the same time. I tend to think of Velocity and Time as the same thing which is a rate of change over a distance, but it depends on your reference point.

Ok, no more of this, I will stick to the hardware from now on. It was an error to bring this up here. I am now reminded of my favourite quote by Tesla:

"The mind seeks to complicate, so simplify"

RM