Hydrogen generaters ?
Drifting
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,738
Likes: 2
From: San diego ca
You have to realize this is very crude and uses totally HHO gas in an engine designed to run on gasolene only. With redesigned chambers, compression, ignition, valve timing and jetting this could be refined to the point where it is viable. The only emmisions from this engine would be water vapor.
I'm open minded because of legitimate reseach that wasnt hard to find, I try to rarely be swayed by anecdotal and testimonial claims, lets face it, if testimonial claims were worth anything we would all be wearing Q-ray bracelets, x-ray glasses, running pure slick-50 in our engines and living to 200 years old. All of the sites that offer to sell you plans for these generators make lots of claims that to my mind are nothing more than testimonials so I take them with a grain of salt.
I'm still skeptical about massive gains in economy and power, but hey if it doesnt cost much to try it wheres the harm, Red73 has been kind enough to offer to have me come over and see for myself. So thats what I'm gonna do.
Race Director
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 121
From: Millington Illinois
St. Jude Donor '08-'09
Way ahead of you actually, we've already corresponded. I'm still skeptical but not against real life experience changing my outlook. worst case i get to visit with another forum member and talk vettes and thats A#1 fun in my book.
Electrolysis is very inefficient as far as extraction of hydrogen goes, however thats not to say that it wouldnt produce the needs to make a hydrogen/gas mix. it will never produce enough to run a car on its own.. and this will never reduce emissions from the gasoline portion of the fuel mixture to zero or just water vapor.. NASA proved that. Emissions actually rose under certain conditions with a hydrogen/gas mix. But they proved that if one could operate their engine in a far leaner regime than with gas alone there could be some benefit.
I'm open minded because of legitimate reseach that wasnt hard to find, I try to rarely be swayed by anecdotal and testimonial claims, lets face it, if testimonial claims were worth anything we would all be wearing Q-ray bracelets, x-ray glasses, running pure slick-50 in our engines and living to 200 years old. All of the sites that offer to sell you plans for these generators make lots of claims that to my mind are nothing more than testimonials so I take them with a grain of salt.
I'm still skeptical about massive gains in economy and power, but hey if it doesnt cost much to try it wheres the harm, Red73 has been kind enough to offer to have me come over and see for myself. So thats what I'm gonna do.
Electrolysis is very inefficient as far as extraction of hydrogen goes, however thats not to say that it wouldnt produce the needs to make a hydrogen/gas mix. it will never produce enough to run a car on its own.. and this will never reduce emissions from the gasoline portion of the fuel mixture to zero or just water vapor.. NASA proved that. Emissions actually rose under certain conditions with a hydrogen/gas mix. But they proved that if one could operate their engine in a far leaner regime than with gas alone there could be some benefit.
I'm open minded because of legitimate reseach that wasnt hard to find, I try to rarely be swayed by anecdotal and testimonial claims, lets face it, if testimonial claims were worth anything we would all be wearing Q-ray bracelets, x-ray glasses, running pure slick-50 in our engines and living to 200 years old. All of the sites that offer to sell you plans for these generators make lots of claims that to my mind are nothing more than testimonials so I take them with a grain of salt.
I'm still skeptical about massive gains in economy and power, but hey if it doesnt cost much to try it wheres the harm, Red73 has been kind enough to offer to have me come over and see for myself. So thats what I'm gonna do.
100% with what you posted here.Driving around with a pressurized tank of enough hydrogen to get you 300 or 400 miles is nuts. I am also skeptical about a 128% increase in fuel economy but a 25% increase sounds possible and worth investigating. Let us know what Red73 has up his sleeve. The legitimate reasearch you are talking about actually does confirm signifigant reductions in all emissions except NOX running a gas/hydrogen mix. This increases because of the higher cylinder temperatures from improved combustion efficency.
And to those that have asked the 63 will not be donated as a test vehicle.
Last edited by 63mako; Feb 19, 2009 at 04:47 PM.
Race Director
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,892
Likes: 42
Hydrogen has a density of 0.0899 kg/m3, so 1.9 L= 0.006025150355385456 ounce (that's 6/10th of one ounce) of fuel per minute.
Please read the following:
"Hydrogen has more energy per unit mass than other fuels (61,100 BTUs per pound versus 20,900 BTUs per pound of gasoline). The problem with hydrogen is that it is much less dense (pounds per gallon) than other fuels. A gallon of gasoline has a mass of 6.0 pounds, the same gallon of liquid hydrogen only has a mass of 0.567 pounds or only 9.45% of the mass of gasoline. Therefore one gallon of gasoline yields 125,400 BTUs of energy while a gallon of liquid hydrogen yields only 34,643 BTUs or 27.6% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline. The Space Shuttle uses hydrogen as a fuel, because its mass is low, and the fuel is carried in an external fuel tank that is jettisoned during lift off. Automobiles can not have external fuel tanks that are discarded, and the energy per unit volume is used to determine a fuel’s energy density in automobiles. Compressed gaseous hydrogen is even less dense than liquid hydrogen. At 5,000 psi of pressure gaseous hydrogen only has a density of 0.25 pounds per gallon or one twenty fourth the density of gasoline. Gasoline and diesel are far superior fuels to hydrogen in this regard."
So I'm afraid that your 6/10th of one ounce per minute of low BTU fuel, (representing only .0003% of mass flow) amounts to the equivalent (as my grandfather would put it) a f*rt in hurricane
Le Mans Master
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,897
Likes: 1,352
From: Santa Ana CA
My point exactly. The only way these technological advances are made is through thought provoking discussion, trial and error research and even debate like we have here. Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen. There is 100% efficient fuel there the byproduct of it's combustion is water.
It is naive to believe that water vapor is the only emissions from the combustion of hydrogen with air. There will also be NOx and some CO and CO2.
NOx is generated during the combustion process due to high heat and pressure. The nitrogen is not from the gasoline, but is already in the air and will be in the air if hydrogen is burned. Carbon is also contained in various gases in the air and it too will form some by-products.
So unless both oxygen and hydrogen are introduced into the engine at the proper stoiciometry, there will be other by-products.
Race Director
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,112
Likes: 28
From: Florida
A quote from Jay Leno
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/dri...cle3250623.ece
The gasoline engine is cleaner than ever, but nothing compared with hydrogen power. I helped BMW to introduce the hydrogen car seven or eight years ago. We did a rather dramatic demonstration where I drove the car up onto a platform. I let it run and put an empty glass under the exhaust pipe. I spoke for about half an hour and when I finished I shut off the car and drank the water that was in the glass. It wasn’t the best-tasting water I’d ever had but it certainly wasn’t bad for me. You can tell people about parts per billion and that kind of stuff, but when they see water come out of a tailpipe and someone drinks it, then it’s a case of, “Okay, thank you, I get it now.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/dri...cle3250623.ece
Race Director
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 121
From: Millington Illinois
St. Jude Donor '08-'09
Finally, some hard numbers. An SBC flows approx 14,250 L per minute at 5K rpm, so the contribution of the hydrogen generator represents .0003% of that.
Hydrogen has a density of 0.0899 kg/m3, so 1.9 L= 0.006025150355385456 ounce (that's 6/10th of one ounce) of fuel per minute.
Please read the following:
"Hydrogen has more energy per unit mass than other fuels (61,100 BTUs per pound versus 20,900 BTUs per pound of gasoline). The problem with hydrogen is that it is much less dense (pounds per gallon) than other fuels. A gallon of gasoline has a mass of 6.0 pounds, the same gallon of liquid hydrogen only has a mass of 0.567 pounds or only 9.45% of the mass of gasoline. Therefore one gallon of gasoline yields 125,400 BTUs of energy while a gallon of liquid hydrogen yields only 34,643 BTUs or 27.6% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline. The Space Shuttle uses hydrogen as a fuel, because its mass is low, and the fuel is carried in an external fuel tank that is jettisoned during lift off. Automobiles can not have external fuel tanks that are discarded, and the energy per unit volume is used to determine a fuel’s energy density in automobiles. Compressed gaseous hydrogen is even less dense than liquid hydrogen. At 5,000 psi of pressure gaseous hydrogen only has a density of 0.25 pounds per gallon or one twenty fourth the density of gasoline. Gasoline and diesel are far superior fuels to hydrogen in this regard."
So I'm afraid that your 6/10th of one ounce per minute of low BTU fuel, (representing only .0003% of mass flow) amounts to the equivalent (as my grandfather would put it) a f*rt in hurricane
Hydrogen has a density of 0.0899 kg/m3, so 1.9 L= 0.006025150355385456 ounce (that's 6/10th of one ounce) of fuel per minute.
Please read the following:
"Hydrogen has more energy per unit mass than other fuels (61,100 BTUs per pound versus 20,900 BTUs per pound of gasoline). The problem with hydrogen is that it is much less dense (pounds per gallon) than other fuels. A gallon of gasoline has a mass of 6.0 pounds, the same gallon of liquid hydrogen only has a mass of 0.567 pounds or only 9.45% of the mass of gasoline. Therefore one gallon of gasoline yields 125,400 BTUs of energy while a gallon of liquid hydrogen yields only 34,643 BTUs or 27.6% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline. The Space Shuttle uses hydrogen as a fuel, because its mass is low, and the fuel is carried in an external fuel tank that is jettisoned during lift off. Automobiles can not have external fuel tanks that are discarded, and the energy per unit volume is used to determine a fuel’s energy density in automobiles. Compressed gaseous hydrogen is even less dense than liquid hydrogen. At 5,000 psi of pressure gaseous hydrogen only has a density of 0.25 pounds per gallon or one twenty fourth the density of gasoline. Gasoline and diesel are far superior fuels to hydrogen in this regard."
So I'm afraid that your 6/10th of one ounce per minute of low BTU fuel, (representing only .0003% of mass flow) amounts to the equivalent (as my grandfather would put it) a f*rt in hurricane
How much fuel does that small block chevy use in a minute?
Let's do some quick math. @ 60 MPH a car getting 15 MPG uses 4 gallons of fuel in an hour. That is one gallon in 15 minutes or 3.78 liters. That almost exactly 1/4 liter of fuel per minute.
At 5000 RPM you could probably double your fuel use over cruising speed 2500 RPM. So your math is telling me your small block @ 5000 RPM uses 1 part fuel to 28,498 parts air. Using your numbers here! It runs pretty lean don't it! Sounds like your math might be off.
With the hydrogen generator at cruising speed you supply 1/4 liter of fuel and 1.25 liters of hydrogen gas plus additional pure oxygen per minute.
The HHO is a supplement not a primary fuel source. It allows you to run leaner mixtures while also adding additional virtually free fuel. The oxygen is pure not 20% like in air. Finally, some hard numbers!
Last edited by 63mako; Feb 19, 2009 at 05:58 PM.
Drifting
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,738
Likes: 2
From: San diego ca
when hydrogen alone is burned yes water vapor is the result for the most part. there is a massive difference between what is being discussed here compared to a car carrying a tank of hydrogen to operate on.
Race Director
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,892
Likes: 42
Last and final attempt:
The hydrogen/oxygen is produced as a gas (vapour).
Gasoline is a liquid.
Apples and oranges.
I converted the 1.9 L per minute vapour into an equivalent liquid value to make them comparable.
1.9L of vapour is equivalent to .6 ounces of liquid. To use your numbers, 1/3 is hydrogen, so we have .4 ounces of hydrogen to burn.
Hydrogen has only 27% of the BTU content of gasoline so we have the equivalent of about .1 ounce per mile of gasoline to burn.
That's 1/10th of an ounce. For those trying to visualise, 1/10th ounce is about a half teaspoon. How far will 1/10th of an ounce of gasoline per minute take you?
Answer? Nowhere. Zero. Stuck in the driveway
Why?
You need to supply 8 amps of electricity to run the generator. That electricity comes from the alternator which is powered by the engine. Which burns the fuel you haven't even made yet.
BTW- the oxygen content is irrelevant. it does not add BTU content , it just makes a given fuel burn faster.
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
10 Revolutionary 'Corvette Firsts' Most People Don't Know
Joe Kucinski
5 Reasons to Upgrade to an LS6-Powered Corvette; 5 Reasons to Stay LT2
Michael S. Palmer
2027 Corvette vs The World: Every C8 vs Its Closest Competitor
Joe Kucinski
10 Most Common Corvette Problems of the Last 20 Years!
Joe Kucinski
5 MOST and 5 LEAST Popular Corvette Model Years in History!
Joe Kucinski
2027 Corvette Buyer's Guide: Everything You Need to Know!
Joe Kucinski
10 Things C8 Corvette Owners Hate (But Won't Tell You)
Joe Kucinski
10 Best Corvettes Coming to Barrett-Jackson Palm Beach 2026!
Brett Foote
Every Corvette Grand Sport Explained! (C2, C4, C6, C7, & C8)
Joe Kucinski
Race Director
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 121
From: Millington Illinois
St. Jude Donor '08-'09
Dude this is getting ridiculous. I now understand why you've got a such a hard-on in supporting these thing. Basic maths skills and understanding of physics are required. Reading skills are also essential.
Last and final attempt:
The hydrogen/oxygen is produced as a gas (vapour).
Gasoline is a liquid.
Apples and oranges.
I converted the 1.9 L per minute vapour into an equivalent liquid value to make them comparable.
1.9L of vapour is equivalent to .6 ounces of liquid. To use your numbers, 1/3 is hydrogen, so we have .4 ounces of hydrogen to burn.
Hydrogen has only 27% of the BTU content of gasoline so we have the equivalent of about .1 ounce per mile of gasoline to burn.
That's 1/10th of an ounce. For those trying to visualise, 1/10th ounce is about a half teaspoon. How far will 1/10th of an ounce of gasoline per minute take you?
Answer? Nowhere. Zero. Stuck in the driveway
Why?
You need to supply 8 amps of electricity to run the generator. That electricity comes from the alternator which is powered by the engine. Which burns the fuel you haven't even made yet.
BTW- the oxygen content is irrelevant. it does not add BTU content , it just makes a given fuel burn faster.
Last and final attempt:
The hydrogen/oxygen is produced as a gas (vapour).
Gasoline is a liquid.
Apples and oranges.
I converted the 1.9 L per minute vapour into an equivalent liquid value to make them comparable.
1.9L of vapour is equivalent to .6 ounces of liquid. To use your numbers, 1/3 is hydrogen, so we have .4 ounces of hydrogen to burn.
Hydrogen has only 27% of the BTU content of gasoline so we have the equivalent of about .1 ounce per mile of gasoline to burn.
That's 1/10th of an ounce. For those trying to visualise, 1/10th ounce is about a half teaspoon. How far will 1/10th of an ounce of gasoline per minute take you?
Answer? Nowhere. Zero. Stuck in the driveway
Why?
You need to supply 8 amps of electricity to run the generator. That electricity comes from the alternator which is powered by the engine. Which burns the fuel you haven't even made yet.
BTW- the oxygen content is irrelevant. it does not add BTU content , it just makes a given fuel burn faster.
You don't need this anyway, your small block runs on 1 part fuel and 28,498 parts of air so you are already running really lean and more than likely getting phenominal mileage. Most of us are running around a 13 or 14 to 1 ratio so being able to lean this out to 15 or 16 to 1 and get the same power would help us out and improve our mileage.
Tell the guys running nitrous the percent oxygen content in the cylinder doesn't matter. With nitrous you get way more power than the extra gasoline you are injecting will give you. Ever run an oxyacetalene torch? Ever notice how much more energy it creates when you hit the oxygen lever. You haven't added any more BTU's of fuel but the energy you are creating is substatially increased.
I know for a fact I will not convince you of anything. your mind is made up and was before your first post.
Last edited by 63mako; Feb 19, 2009 at 09:27 PM.
Burning Brakes
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 3
From: belle plaine ks
Race Director
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 121
From: Millington Illinois
St. Jude Donor '08-'09
. 73 Red vette has made 10 of these over the last 2 years. He says he has one that works well now. We will see. I think I have vented enough and realize I or others that have decided there might be something to this probably won't change any minds of those that think the whole theory is crap.
Last edited by 63mako; Feb 19, 2009 at 09:33 PM.
Race Director
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,892
Likes: 42
Another example-. I deliberately fudged the numbers in my post above where I said 1.9L of hydrogen gas equals 6/10 of one ounce. It doesn't.
I lied.Hydrogen has a density of 0.0899 kg/m3, so 1.9 L= 0.006025150355385456 ounce of fuel per minute.
So it's 6/1000th of an ounce, not 6/10th. This makes the net equivalent in gasoline as 1/1000th of an ounce. I don't know of a scale sensitive enough to weigh that so cannot visualize how small a quantity that represents.
Racer
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
From: SAN DIEGO(SANTEE) CA.
My sincere apology
I don't buy a 128% increase in fuel Mileage either.
Just so people realize, your not just putting hydrogen into the intake. When the water breaks down it releases 2 atoms of pure hydrogen (fuel) and 1 atom of pure oxygen. Hydrogen is the fuel source of the sun and the atmosphere is only 21% oxygen, so you can see this is a pretty powerful addition even in small quantities. Both are introduced though the intake. I would think a modern car would benefit the easiest. The oxygen sensor detects levels in the exhaust and adjusts fuel mix to compensate for extra oxygen (lean) or lack of oxygen (rich) at the exhaust after combustion. I am sure timing, fuel ratio and probably even valve timing adjustments would be required to really make the most of one of these systems, but a small ratio would probably work fine.
This technology will be figured out and, if ever mass produced, will get to the point where it is cost effective for everybody.
Timing has to be adjusted to get the most out of nitrous oxide which is a similar principle (extra fuel and pure oxygen with a nitrogen buffer). You can use a small dry nitrous system on a modern FI car without touching anything. The knock sensor retards timing as needed and the oxygen sensor detects the extra oxygen and increases the fuel. On a carb car wet systems are best, where you introduce extra fuel along with the nitrous through properly sized jets and timing is dialed back accoring to the size of the shot. Big nitrous shots even need different cam profiles to make the most of it.
Nitrous Oxide was used in World War 2 fighters. Then the technology sat dormant for 30 years until some open minded, creative hot rodders got ahold of it and tried to figure out how to make it work. Now after 30 years of trial and error, discussion and arguing the systems are economical, mass produced and can double your power output with the flip of a switch.
Just so people realize, your not just putting hydrogen into the intake. When the water breaks down it releases 2 atoms of pure hydrogen (fuel) and 1 atom of pure oxygen. Hydrogen is the fuel source of the sun and the atmosphere is only 21% oxygen, so you can see this is a pretty powerful addition even in small quantities. Both are introduced though the intake. I would think a modern car would benefit the easiest. The oxygen sensor detects levels in the exhaust and adjusts fuel mix to compensate for extra oxygen (lean) or lack of oxygen (rich) at the exhaust after combustion. I am sure timing, fuel ratio and probably even valve timing adjustments would be required to really make the most of one of these systems, but a small ratio would probably work fine.
This technology will be figured out and, if ever mass produced, will get to the point where it is cost effective for everybody.
Timing has to be adjusted to get the most out of nitrous oxide which is a similar principle (extra fuel and pure oxygen with a nitrogen buffer). You can use a small dry nitrous system on a modern FI car without touching anything. The knock sensor retards timing as needed and the oxygen sensor detects the extra oxygen and increases the fuel. On a carb car wet systems are best, where you introduce extra fuel along with the nitrous through properly sized jets and timing is dialed back accoring to the size of the shot. Big nitrous shots even need different cam profiles to make the most of it.
Nitrous Oxide was used in World War 2 fighters. Then the technology sat dormant for 30 years until some open minded, creative hot rodders got ahold of it and tried to figure out how to make it work. Now after 30 years of trial and error, discussion and arguing the systems are economical, mass produced and can double your power output with the flip of a switch.
To all on this thread, I owe you an apology. I was rereading some of the posts last nite, actually early this morning and I came across this post by 63mako where it said at the top (I don't buy a 128% increase in fuel Mileage either.) and I thought to myself where the h-ll is he getting this 128% increase figure from. So I went back and searched all my posts and when I found it, It was my original post and in rereading it I saw I had made a BIG screw up, I said that my MPG went from 12 to 28, well that was really wrong, it really was 12 to 18. All I can think of that happened was that I hit the 2 instead of the 1 when I was typing. I am a one finger typist and get going to fast at times and that may have been how it happened,
that's all I can figure. So I hope you will accept my apology for being such a smuck 
.I guarantee you I will proof read all my posts from now on.
Rich
It's still not a bad increase in MPG though. I wish I could build one that would give me a 128% gain, I'd really be a happy camper then.
Race Director
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 121
From: Millington Illinois
St. Jude Donor '08-'09
Last edited by 63mako; Feb 20, 2009 at 01:18 PM.
Drifting
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,629
Likes: 4
From: Somers CT
I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO THIS BOARD.
To all on this thread, I owe you an apology. I was rereading some of the posts last nite, actually early this morning and I came across this post by 63mako where it said at the top (I don't buy a 128% increase in fuel Mileage either.) and I thought to myself where the h-ll is he getting this 128% increase figure from. So I went back and searched all my posts and when I found it, It was my original post and in rereading it I saw I had made a BIG screw up, I said that my MPG went from 12 to 28, well that was really wrong, it really was 12 to 18. All I can think of that happened was that I hit the 2 instead of the 1 when I was typing. I am a one finger typist and get going to fast at times and that may have been how it happened, that's all I can figure. So I hope you will accept my apology for being such a smuck .
I guarantee you I will proof read all my posts from now on.
Rich
It's still not a bad increase in MPG though. I wish I could build one that would give me a 128% gain, I'd really be a happy camper then.
To all on this thread, I owe you an apology. I was rereading some of the posts last nite, actually early this morning and I came across this post by 63mako where it said at the top (I don't buy a 128% increase in fuel Mileage either.) and I thought to myself where the h-ll is he getting this 128% increase figure from. So I went back and searched all my posts and when I found it, It was my original post and in rereading it I saw I had made a BIG screw up, I said that my MPG went from 12 to 28, well that was really wrong, it really was 12 to 18. All I can think of that happened was that I hit the 2 instead of the 1 when I was typing. I am a one finger typist and get going to fast at times and that may have been how it happened,
that's all I can figure. So I hope you will accept my apology for being such a smuck .I guarantee you I will proof read all my posts from now on.
Rich
It's still not a bad increase in MPG though. I wish I could build one that would give me a 128% gain, I'd really be a happy camper then.
Racer
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
From: SAN DIEGO(SANTEE) CA.
Race Director
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 10,674
Likes: 121
From: Millington Illinois
St. Jude Donor '08-'09
You didn't say it I did. I used your posted information and basic math skills.
At 13 to 1 ratio. (typical performance small block A/F ratio) That would be 1,096 liters of fuel used per minute or 290 gallons of gasoline a minute. This is using your posted information and using basic math skills.
And you got the nerve to question my math and physics comprehension?
And As I posted earlier:
Figuring roughly that 2500 RPM is cruising RPM, double that, 5000 RPM doubles use. So fuel use @ 5000 RPM is right at 1/2 liter per minute. 14,250 liters per minute total flow (your number) minus the 1/2 liter of fuel used equals 14,249.5 liters of air. so 1 liter of fuel used equals 28,499 liters of air used which is a 28,499 to 1 A/F ratio. Sorry, I was off by 1 when I said 28,498 to 1. typo I apoligize and will edit my post.
Using your physics reasoning a 500 HP L88 will get the same fuel mileage as a 500 HP C5 ZR1. There are only so many BTU's available in a gallon of fuel, right, so if you make 500 HP it takes x amount of fuel to make that power. Wrong! Efficency has increased the MPG on that same 500 HP about triple. Hydrogen added to gasoline has been scientifically proven to increase the efficency of the engine resulting in better MPG and/ or increased power.
Ok, now we have established not only are your physics and math skills questionable, but you also admit to fudging your numbers and deliberatly lying to meet your needs and therefore we can't believe anything you have posted here. When called on it your response is personal insults which I feel obligated to defend myself against.
At 13 to 1 ratio. (typical performance small block A/F ratio) That would be 1,096 liters of fuel used per minute or 290 gallons of gasoline a minute. This is using your posted information and using basic math skills.
And you got the nerve to question my math and physics comprehension?
And As I posted earlier:
Using your physics reasoning a 500 HP L88 will get the same fuel mileage as a 500 HP C5 ZR1. There are only so many BTU's available in a gallon of fuel, right, so if you make 500 HP it takes x amount of fuel to make that power. Wrong! Efficency has increased the MPG on that same 500 HP about triple. Hydrogen added to gasoline has been scientifically proven to increase the efficency of the engine resulting in better MPG and/ or increased power.
Ok, now we have established not only are your physics and math skills questionable, but you also admit to fudging your numbers and deliberatly lying to meet your needs and therefore we can't believe anything you have posted here. When called on it your response is personal insults which I feel obligated to defend myself against.
Last edited by 63mako; Feb 20, 2009 at 01:45 PM.
Race Director
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,892
Likes: 42
An A/F ratio is always calculated by weight (mass), not volume.
Please go figure out how much 14,250 L of air weighs.
If you're interested where I got the above mass flow number, very simple. Displacement x rpm.