HCS as applied by most people does not work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
whear
Hello guys,
I just found out yesterday of this technology developed by someone in Indonesia called Hydrocarbon Cracking System.
I noticed that at least 2 people from this forum have used it. hhofox and Roland Jacques.
I was wondering if there's other people who've tried it or heard of it. I'm curious about your thoughts on it.
Also, for hhofox and Roland Jacques: are you still using the technology ?
Any advice for a beginner ?
Best regards.
At least in producing large amounts of smaller hydrocarbons - unless you are using ethanol laden gasoline. The ethanol breaks down more readily and you can get larger amounts of CO and H2. Otherwise the conditions found in a tube wrapped around an exhaust pipe are inadequate to produce nothing more than evaporated gasoline - which has benefits in and of itself creating the sense of improved performance.
Proper HCS execution is far more complex than simple HHO production via electrolysis. However, there is the potential to produce far more H2.
The proof is in the mass spectrometer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hhofox
The proof is in the pudding. Rusty seems to have been through a whole lot of myth busting and has come out jaded -in a very realist kind of way.
Hell yes, I still use HCS! I plan to run the damned car on vapour alone one day!
TO show that there is some sense to it. I can make my car idle on HCS gas alone! THink of it, Idle on HCS, drive on HCS plus regular gas = savings. Anyhow, HCS takes care of the cooling effect gas undergoes when vapour is applied, so the sky is the limit. Just have two bottles; 1 with gas, and the other with water. Bbubble them both with hot air, and let the engine breathe it in.
Let us know what kind of car you have, as well as the results, okay?
I am as hopeful and forward looking as anyone on this forum. I am also much more experienced and capable than most on this forum and thus I temper my enthusiasm but back up all my claims with good science and proven knowledge.
I have built and run the so called GEET systems put out by Paul Pantone. They are just an extension of what you are doing with the bubblers and copper exhaust wrap. They work but have their limitations. I have discussed this in previous posts. At one point, I took output samples and had them tested at a local university chemistry lab. The amount of H2/CO production depended on the heat, pressure, residence time as well as the catalyst used and the hydrocarbon fuel used as the input.
I have not built a unit exactly as you described but in 1980 I did help with the construction and testing of an auxiliary vapor carb system. It was installed on a 1978 Dodge 360 V8 gasoline engine powering a 15 seater passenger van. A small carburetor off of a single cylinder garden engine fed a 3/4" copper tube wrapped and braze-welded 6 times around the driver's side exhaust pipe. It's output was fed into the phenolic spacer that resided under the Carter ThermoQuad 4 barrel carb. The placement of the feed port by-passed the larger carburetor and it would adjust accordingly. The auxiliary carburetor was controlled via a cable push pull knob on the dashboard.
Once warmed up, the big engine could idle smoothly and would propel the large van at speeds up to 45 mph on level ground.
A larger auxiliary carburetor from a single cylinder motorcycle provided enough flow to power the van at 55 mph on the level.
This was with the vapor from the auxiliary carb and the idle mix from the main carb. A solenoid fuel valve from an old NOS injector allowed us to shut off fuel to the main carb, though it would take several seconds to fill the bowl when more power was needed. But, it did show us that we could run the engine on nothing but vapor. In the end, we simply leaned out the primary circuit in the main carb since the auxiliary carb handled the idle and part throttle regimes quite well. We enriched the secondary to give us more power when needed.
The performance improved measurably with the addition of metered water (suction tube and jet in the auxiliary carb throat). An early Edelbrock electronic water injection system was added for full throttle cooling, spraying through a split viper jet into the secondaries.
However, a gas sample was taken from the intake during operation and was tested by a student at the local university using their lab mass spectrometer.
It was largely gasoline and water ( condensed at the bottom of the capture flask) and a few percent of lighter aromatics in gas form ( including H2 and CO). Hydrocarbon cracking was only occurring to a small degree with our system.
An accidental discovery prompted us to look into the addition of H2 gas. Testing the exhaust with an old Hawk gas analyzer showed us we had gone leaner than the 18:1 fuel/air ratio the original learn burn system was designed to run at. We found ratio's as lean as 22:1. However, when the bolts holding the plenum box cover ( right before the phenolic spacer port) were replaced, the engine ran much better and could run as lean as 27:1. At least for a while. Then it would run rough at those lean settings. It turned out the 4 bolts of the plenum cover protruded into the box and the hot steam/gasoline vapor mix. They had been replaced with bolts that had a heavy zinc coating and this coating had bloomed into a fluffy zinc oxide which also meant that the water had reacted releasing hydrogen gas. Once the coatings were consumed, the hydrogen production stopped and the engine ran poorly. Measuring the mass of leftover zinc oxide and the time it took to consume it showed we only needed 300 cc of H2 gas per minute. A large mason jar ( yes, they existed before smack invented them) with 1/8 th inch 308 SS welding rod as electrodes produced enough HHO at a few amps to provide the needed hydrogen gas to run the engine at the very lean settings. Remember, the richer secondaries in the main carb meant the higher power settings were running around 13:1 so the engine ran very much like any other engine of it's class.
Stock, the big Dodge van achieved 9-10 mpg with a full payload of people and luggage. After the addition of the vapor auxiliary carb, water injection and Hydrogen gas, the van would prove to get 21 mpg on the highway ( the national speed limit was 55 mph at this time) with similar payloads.
The van would pass the tailpipe emissions test enacted by California at the time. But, once a visual became part of the test, the van was failed. HC and CO were almost non existent but there were elevated levels of NOx which could be lowered by the addition of more water. As such, we were using 7 gallons of water for every 40 gallons of gasoline.
I still have the van. And no, you can't have it.
I may be jaded, but I have reason to be . . . I've been there and done that.
You are correct about the lighter the fuel . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Madsceintist
The simple speed and motion of the vapor will keep it much cooler then the actual temperature of the exhaust. It would be a much different story if the vapors were not moving and building heat in a stationary state. I don't believe we really have a way to measure the actual temperature of the individual molecules of the vapor, but it would probably not be half that of the exhaust. I would only have a slight concern over this as with the engine running you have a constant vacuum which keeps the temperature of the vapors down.
Now I no professional, but I do know that the lighter the fuel the easier it is to "crack". But don't take my word on it.
. . .The easier it is to crack.
Also, the temperature transfer is not just dependent on the temperature differential, but on the residence time. Again, one of the reasons GEET systems are un-driveable is the inability to produce high horsepower when the reactants do not have time to pick up heat and dissociate.