Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Livefire
There are 2 disadvantages to using HCL vs NaHCO3. Obviously, handling HCL poses safety issues when preparing your aqueous solution. This is something to consider when offering this as a solution to Joe Six Pack (trooper is definately better than the average bear!) Secondly, you will have a redox reaction occuring in your cells which will result in eventual contamination of the cathode and will require replacement far sooner. (electroplating in common terms)
I might suggest magnetizing the fuel line to increase the vaporization of the fuel as well. If that adds another 10-15% improvement, you will be very close to your goal of 35mpg. Great work that you are doing, I salute you!
|
There are numerous issues to consider when choosing an electro-catalyst. Chemically speaking you can use just about any acid to alter the pH. pH is the real key to conductivity of the water and there is a "sweet spot" in the conductivity right at 6.6... which is just a tad off from pure neutral 7.0. It only takes 1/2 tsp of common Muratic acid used for cleaning and pool chemistry (about a 40% concentrate) to alter 1 quart of water from 7 to 6.6. I suppose while I'm experimenting I'll run a batch alterered with good old tetraboric acid (20 mule team borax sold at any grocery store) and see if there is any significant + or - in using that vs. Muratic (hydrochloric).
As far as contamination of the electrodes is concerned.. only time will tell. The initial prototype is made with braided stainless steel wire. As my home depot stop for this only yielded low grade stainless I can already see a difference in the oxygen vs. hydrogen component.. but it was cheap and available. I will be looking out for some high spec stainless for future prototypes. Platnium would be an ideal choice.. but considering the price it makes better economic sense to stick with stainless.
As a dyed in the wood science guy I have always been somewhat skeptical of the whole magnet thing as far as vaporization is concerned. I have not seen any solid scientific evidence on how a magnetic field would cause better vaporization of a hydrocarbon fuel. If anyone has any links to reasearch studies on this that would be helpful to change my opinion. Where vaporization is concerned heating the fuel to around 140F would increase the vaporization factor.
I believe the main barrier to extreme efficiency really lies in the programming of the fuel and ignition mapping. I owned a 1981 Mazda GLC from 1985 to 2000 that got over 45 mpg with a weber carb, headers, high energy ignition and bosch platnium +4 plugs. The car rusted away after 400K+ miles.. I sold the engine to a guy in Pennsylvania a few years ago.. where it still lives today.
With the increased accuracy that can be obtained with multi-coil ignition and direct injection there is no reason why this couldn't be improved upon. The main problem is that manufacturers allow a considerable range in the sensors they use (up to 30% +/- for a MAP sensor) with no provision in the programming to allow for the variance so the ignition is never ideal. I have 2, 1988 Jaguars that weigh over 5,000 lbs with a more powerful engine than the Tacoma (3,500 lbs) and they have always gotten better milage than the truck (~24 mpg). It has always seemed suspicious that a 20 year old Jag with a larger engine and 274K miles on it can outperform a 2003 Model Toyota with 45K miles that weighs 1500lbs less. After all the '88 Jag was the first auto to offer a digital map fuel injection system.
I'm planning on building a megasquirt system that replaces the stock computer and allows full software control of the fuel and ignition mapping in a closed loop fashion using upgraded higher spec sensors than the OEM.... but that is "phase 3".
http://www.megasquirt.info/
My main goal is to provide an easy to reproduce result with limited budget and knowledge that anyone with half a brain can accomplish.
I will be experimenting with both Jags, the Tacoma and my Volvo XC70 Turbo on this electrolyzer thing. I will start a thread and report my finding here... no glory, just facts. I'm not in it to make money.. but to save money and fuel. I want to share the knowlege freely because if the masses have access to simple low cost technology to cut their fuel usage in half.. it will pack more of a punch in the wallet of the fuel barons.
$8.00 / gallon ... don't laugh.. It is already that high in parts of europe. If you calculate the real cost of hydrocarbon fuel without all the subsidies (and yes there are a bunch of them) it is really about $13.50 / gallon ... so even $4/gal seems cheap when you know all the facts.
It is the price we pay to live like gods with unlimited energy and convience at our beckoned call. After all it's May and I live in New York.. I think I have a fresh orange before turning in tonight.
..J
