Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

n0nsensical · 09-19-2005, 07:39 AM

This doesn't make any sense to me. First off I don't understand how this is going to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. It's a cleaner burn, so what, carbon dioxide and water are still the main results of combustion, and I figured catalytic converters were already taking care of most of the results of imperfect combustion. It seems to me that this is simply reducing fuel consumption and the workload on the catalytic converter a nominal amount. As usual this is a newspaper article that is completely worthless for real scientific information. I would deduce that the presence of hydrogen helps by regulating the amount of oxygen available for combustion with the fuel.

Secondly, I'm not sure what kind of efficiency they're talking about, but the overall efficiency of heat engines is restricted by the second law of thermodynamics and is not something that can be substantially improved under the current universe's laws of physics. If they're talking about the proportion of fuel that goes to do useful work, then it may help by ensuring complete combustion, but the numbers still don't make sense: as far as I know the 35 percent figure quoted for current engines is the "heat engine efficiency" and it's impossible to get a heat engine efficiency of 97 percent. 97 percent sounds reasonable for the proportion of fuel properly combusted, but then I don't think current engines are nearly as bad as 35 percent in that department. Does anyone out there know what's the story with this?

Not that reducing fuel consumption and smog gases and saving the lives of catalytic converters is not a noble goal, but in my understanding this is not much of a solution to the problem that they're making it out to be.

09-19-2005, 07:39 AM	#3 (permalink)
n0nsensical Junkie Location: San Francisco	This doesn't make any sense to me. First off I don't understand how this is going to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. It's a cleaner burn, so what, carbon dioxide and water are still the main results of combustion, and I figured catalytic converters were already taking care of most of the results of imperfect combustion. It seems to me that this is simply reducing fuel consumption and the workload on the catalytic converter a nominal amount. As usual this is a newspaper article that is completely worthless for real scientific information. I would deduce that the presence of hydrogen helps by regulating the amount of oxygen available for combustion with the fuel. Secondly, I'm not sure what kind of efficiency they're talking about, but the overall efficiency of heat engines is restricted by the second law of thermodynamics and is not something that can be substantially improved under the current universe's laws of physics. If they're talking about the proportion of fuel that goes to do useful work, then it may help by ensuring complete combustion, but the numbers still don't make sense: as far as I know the 35 percent figure quoted for current engines is the "heat engine efficiency" and it's impossible to get a heat engine efficiency of 97 percent. 97 percent sounds reasonable for the proportion of fuel properly combusted, but then I don't think current engines are nearly as bad as 35 percent in that department. Does anyone out there know what's the story with this? Not that reducing fuel consumption and smog gases and saving the lives of catalytic converters is not a noble goal, but in my understanding this is not much of a solution to the problem that they're making it out to be. __________________ "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln