These thoughts and discussions are my ideas, designs and or inventions. I offer them freely to all who are interested, and thus they are handed into the public domain free of charge. This means that any and all using these concepts can not patent or copyright this data. They can however, if they wish, use it for business purposes. Since it is public domain there are no royalty fees or IP issues that anyone, person or company can ask for or insist that they 'own'.
We are in a 'high tech' world. Electronics, airplanes, nuclear power plants, cars and trucks. None of these were in existence in 1800. Yet what is the fundamental link of just about everything that creates usable power regardless of which form it takes?
We generate electricity with various methods. Hydroelectric Plants are in essence water wheels. They use water to run turbines that uses the radial motion to power generators. Coal and nuclear plants use heat to convert water into steam, which drives turbines. Same modus operandi. We are exploring HHO to run Internal Combustion Engines, while our conventional cars, trucks, planes and ships use fossil fuels, be it diesel or petrol (gasoline).
If we look at all of these things, we find that there are only two primary routes that lead to power. This excludes solar power and chemical procedures (batteries). These two primary routes are hydraulics and pneumatics.
The very first electricity plant ran on steam. The Tesla Turbine (1903) was designed for steam. The Internal Combustion Engines are not powered by the fuel they consume, the pistons themselves are pushed by the resulting high pressure gas that the fuel air mixture forms after ignition. The primary source that drives all these things is fluid. Air, steam, water or gas, these are all fluids.
The Otto Engine and the Diesel engine both convert the fuel internally inside the cylinder. They use different methods to reach combustion. The Otto engine uses an electrically created spark, while the Diesel engine reaches combustion temperature by high compression of the gas. They were both designed in the last quarter of the 1800's, yet we still use them today.
There are several mechanical inefficiencies in the Internal Combustion Engine system. Of the 180 degree crank rotation, only about 60 degrees of this is actually using most of the pneumatic pressure efficiently. When the piston is at top dead centre, the force of the gas is causing the piston to push the conrod directly towards the fulcrum of the crankshaft. While to turn the crankshaft, the force needs to go laterally. The angle is too acute, and as it gets closer to a 90 degree angle, the ratio of piston force reaches closer to a 1:1 ratio. Only when the conrod is at exactly 90 degrees to the crankshaft, do we reach a 1:1 ratio. Once that point is passed, the angle again diminishes until at bottom dead centre, it is again 0 degrees or parallel to the conrod.
The fuel/air mixture has a finite burning time, while the stroke of the engine varies. As the revolutions per minute of the engine increase, so the time of each stroke gets shorter. This means that at top dead centre, the fuel/air mixture ignites and time has to pass before enough high pressure gas has developed to push the piston effectively. It reaches the prime point of 90 degrees, and one specific RPM and only one, is the fuel/air ratio best for most efficiency. As RPM increases, the amount of fuel needed to provide more power increases dramatically. While the burning sequence is still happening, most of it occurs in the exhaust system as the time where it is efficiently used is minimal. Only about 60 degrees out of 720 degrees of engine revolution is used efficiently.
Many attempts have been approached to increase this efficiency. From fuel injection to higher efficiency carburetors, to electronic variance of fuel to air ratio and timing to attempt to reach prime efficiency. All of these methods are totally missing the simple yet obvious truth. They are throwing the baby out with the water.
What is this simple truth? These motors (in all spheres - cars, power plants etc.) are PNEUMATIC!
It is like going to a doctor with a knife stuck in my leg and what does he do for the pain? He gives me pills. Take the knife out!
Some obvious deduction:-
The amount of pressure created in 180 degrees (1 stroke of four) of the full 720 degree cycle is sufficient to power the vehicle (or whatever it drives) even though much of that gas is wasted.
Using this, we can look at a different method of running the motor.
The four strokes are as follows:-
1. Intake - Inlet Valve open. Exhaust Valve closed. Piston goes from top to bottom and sucks air/fuel mixture into the cylinder.
2. Compression - Inlet Valve Closed, Exhaust Valve closed. Piston goes from bottom to top and compresses the contained air/fuel mixture. (Reason being that when the mixture is compressed, the burn cycle is more efficient.)
3. Firing Stroke - Inlet Valve Closed. Exhaust Valve Closed. Piston goes from top to bottom, pushed by the now forming gas from the burning fuel mixture.
4. Exhaust stroke - Inlet Valve closed, Exhaust Valve open. Piston goes from bottom to top, pushing the still burning fuel/air mixture into the exhaust cycle and thereafter our atmosphere.
With a minor modification (a custom made camshaft), we can do the following:-
1. Intake Stroke - Inlet Valve Open. Exhaust Valve closed. We push high pressure gas into the cylinder via the inlet valve, which pushes the piston from top to bottom.
2. Exhaust Stroke - Inlet Valve closed. Exhaust valve open. The piston goes from bottom to top, pushing the used gas into the exhaust system.
3. Repeat Stroke 1.
4. Repeat Stroke 2.
Where do we now get the high pressure gas from? You recall that 180/720 degrees of the unmodified motor converts fuel/air into enough high pressure gas to drive the motor. That is four a 4 stroke motor. yet with this modification, we have a 2 stroke system. Do we need to double the volume of gas? No, if we do so, we overreach the specs the per-modified motor was built for. If we use the same pressure twice - 360/720 degrees of engine revolution, we have doubled the power. Thus we use half of the pressure.
There are many ways of doing this. The Separate Fuel to Gas System will be driven by the Pneumatic Modified Motor, (connected via gears). If it is a duplicate or mirror of the initial motor, (let us use a 4 cylinder motor), the only difference being that instead of the exhaust gas going out to the atmosphere, it goes into a tank. (Ignore for now the added friction of a second motor). This system will stall, as the pressure in the tank equals the pressure created by the fuel burning. However, since we now capture all of the high pressure gas, we have more pressure than we had in an internal combustion engine. Thus, we can use that gas to drive the modified pneumatic motor. Half the pressure twice per cycle = same volume of gas.
We can operate a more efficient cam driven fuel burner that uses one piston that equals in volume the volume of the initial motors firing stroke x 4 (number of pistons) that runs 1 revolution per 2 revolutions of the modified motor, where intake is 90 degrees, compression is 90 degrees and firing is 180 degrees. This piston remains in top dead centre for the duration of the burning process while the created gases go into the tank via the open exhaust valve. Alternatively, we can leave 2 of the pistons unmodified and their exhaust goes to a capturing pressure tank, wile the other two modified to operate as pneumatic pistons from the supplied gas.
The Battleships of 1900-1940 (give or take a few years) ran on external fuel burning systems, but instead of using the gas created directly from the burning of fuel, they converted heat to steam (as do the power plants, fossil and nuclear). Why convert a high pressure fluid - gas from burned fuel, into another high pressure fluid - steam, when we already have what we need to drive a pneumatic system? With electronics and a simple input/output platform like Arduino http://arduino.cc/
we can use sensors to measure exhaust fumes and alter fuel/air mixtures, we can starve fuel when gas pressure is higher than needed or increase it if it is too low.
This modified motor has another resource saving aspect that might not be initially apparent. The motor only turns when it is needed. It has a zero RPM idle. In other words, instead of a fuel supplied accelerator, we now use a gas flow valve instead. When we are at a standstill, the motor does not turn.
Now we can move on to the next level.... HHO
It is far easier to build an HHO external burner to gas system than it is to try and assist a conventional internal combustion engine. The modified motor described above, if modified on all of its pistons, does not care what form the propulsion takes. Steam, High pressure gas from HHO, high pressure gas from Diesel or Petrol, or even hydraulic fluid (if the valves open sufficiently for quick expulsion and intake).
By using undiluted HHO, (not an edition to the premixed fuel/air mixture,) we bypass the entire range of problems that occur in the internal system, from piston knockin to timing issues, you name it. The HHO simply converts to high pressure gas and is stored in a tank as a safe unburnable gas.
An Arduino circuit that measures RPM in a gearbox can change gears without any need for a clutch. The new trucks have these systems already. Basically while a clutch system already exists in a conventional car, with this modified engine, the clutch will not be used at all. The brake system is the same. To slow down you simply take your foot off the accelerator. Less pressure supplied means the motor has become your brakes. The brake pedal can be attuned electronically to pushing the flow valve towards closed. This electronics is needed, else you might fly through your windscreen if you press your brakes too hard.
The other thing about HHO, is that the current mass production of Hydrogen, uses more power (electricity to create high heat in the steam reforming process) than what we save if we can 'fill her up' with hydrogen at a gas station, as is what is proposed by Hyundai's first mass production hydrogen car. See http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/26/4031050/hyundai-begins-production-of-hydrogen-fuel-suv-tucson
Yet another pill for the symptoms instead of removing the knife.
Edward Mitchell has been working on a different method that does not use electrolysis to get hydrogen on demand. This is based on the same principles as the Stanley Meyer Water Car. You can see more here:- http://www.truegreensolutions.net/
Turbines are another way of converting fluid to motion, but there are all sorts of weaknesses involved. The Tesla Turbine looks good, but when it is under heavy load, the fluid takes a shorter route to the centre (the exhaust port) and thus loses power exponentially. I have designed (but not made and tested) a turbine that combines the best of 3 worlds, the adhesion and viscosity of the Tesla Turbine, The kinetic impact against blades of the Francis Turbine and the Pressure in pneumatic piston of conventional pneumatics. I will post it if anyone is interested.