Dodge Cummins Diesel Forum banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

242 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
As to H injection and "secret ingredients"...

Sometimes BELIEF is a major factor in dealing with the world around us. I have no problem with this. I believe in a Supreme Being. While my belief may be questioned by many, it remains impossible to prove or disprove. Not so with chemistry. The proof is there and it's rather easy to discover... And it won't change because we wish it so.

Thus, I have a problem when "belief" flies in the face of verifiable fact. One can drink salt water and call it fresh. Calling salt water fresh doesn't change the fact that when boiled or evaporated a measure of salt will remain.

The same being the case for WVO. WVO is a mixture of various components that can be easily separated. Glycerin, salts, and other contaminates are a part of the mix and a "secret ingredient" does not exist to convert these substances into fuel oil. WVO is washed with water to remove soluble components. Lye is used to essentially make soap and leave a quality fuel oil. Believe what you will, but this is a fact.

Hydrogen... We argue this subject all the time. Whether we choose to believe or not, the addition of gaseous H to induction air will result in a net loss of ambient atmosphere equal to the mass of H being induced. This leads to two important facts if nothing else is considered.

1. Remove a mass of ambient atmosphere and replace it with an equal mass of a lighter substance and we remove ambient O.

2. H takes up the most mass per volume of any chemical substance. H weighs 1/8 of O by volume if I remember the Periodic Chart properly.

Consider only these two facts and remember that we're not dealing with the unknown nor unproved...

Remove O from the combustion process. Add a light gas that has very little potential energy by volume. What do we get?

First, by adding H we reduce the available O in an already somewhat oxygen starved environment and mix it with a charge of fuel oil. This makes for an even more incomplete fuel burn than before we induced H into the system. Look at it this way...

Have we not added a super light gas containing little energy by volume and needing O to burn while reducing total available O?. Pray tell where the extra O will come from that is needed for complete combustion? Are we not making an already inefficient process even worse?

Any reasonable onlooker might conclude that a common jackass could see what we "believers" don't seem to see. We somehow look at H and conclude that it's the holy grail of better economy while totally forgetting that any little bit of increased O is really the key to a better fuel burn.

Do we not agree that the reason for turbos is to stuff more air into our cylinders? And more air equals more O, doesn't it? Isn't it true that the amount of fuel has never been an issue? Getting a complete burn of fuel has always been the issue, hasn't it?

We're so engrossed in our H beliefs that we either forget or overlook proven facts. Facts being that only liquid H contains enough energy by volume to compete with fuel oil and that the last thing we want or need is to reduce the amount of O being induced into the combustion chamber.

I've attempted to speak as plainly as possible. I don't discount H as a potential fuel, nor do I claim that WVO can't be used in its raw state. I've merely laid out why the addition of gaseous H to the induction system of an internal combustion engine won't work very well and pointed out that improperly prepared WVO is contaminated oil, not fuel grade oil. I suspect that some systems will deal with contaminated oil better than others.

I don't mean to be argumentative. I have no wish to discourage those who think "out of the box", and I certainly entertain new ideas. I merely require that claims be backed by verifiable facts and that we not attempt to tweak natural laws beyond reason.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for those of us who dream to invent a more efficient engine than attempting to make an inefficient engine more efficient? Remember... It's all about the transfer of energy. If we could somehow remove the parasitic components of converting a measure of fuel into useful work, then all of our previous discussions would be moot.

I can't take credit for this posting, but I think it brings up a lot of valid points.
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.