From some old lab notes...circe 1989


…..An atom is a very small electrical world, when it moves it is usually in response to either the mass presently carrying it moving, or in response to external stimuli such as an electrical current or a magnetic field. Both the changing value of the electric current or the variable magnetic field will provide both physical impulse and relative direction and velocity (vector) to the atom. Considering the case for the electrolysis of water into its fundamental parts there are a few currently recognised methodologies. Water naturally tends to be diamagnetic. The component parts however are actively both with hydrogen being strongly diamagnetic, repelled by a magnetic field, while oxygen is paramagnetic, attracted to a magnetic field. When the two atoms are free of each other they may be channelled with the use of magnetic fields to separate and effectively be pumped solely by the pulsing magnetic field around the exit tubing.

The oldest and most established is the application of a relatively high value direct current flow to sizeable electrodes immersed in the medium. The resultant decomposition of the water into its two component gasses, oxygen and hydrogen is the expected result. It is commonly used for generation of these gasses of sufficient purity for medical and industrial purposes. This version of the process is very inefficient and so is not used to any great extent. It relies upon a low voltage but high current flowing in the circuit. The electrical supply feeding the apparatus will consume large amounts of electrical energy from the source, most likely a public utility, making it expensive to operate. It may be augmented by the inclusion of a substance that will catalyse the reaction. It should be noted that water exposed to v-high current short duration bursts, as with the delivery of output from a large volume capacitor, will explode violently. This feature has been demonstrated many times with rail-gun enthusiasts and others who delight in exploding watermelons and high water content fruit.

The simple effect of superheating water, by itself, has been demonstrated in nuclear generators. If the process gets too hot the water, which is cooling the liquid metallic mixtures actually extracting the heat from the core, is broken down into oxygen and hydrogen. The simple application of heat being the only requirement. Hence the sun is a good example. If you have enough heat then atoms will attain energy levels sufficient to exist as plasmas.

The second methodology involves a similar physical application of voltage to electrolytic cells. However in this application the current is not the main factor. Recognising the atoms inherent structure as an electrical entity, we find that it can be manipulated by the application of electrical fields of sufficient intensity to energise and activate the atom. This second method utilises the application of kilo-voltage range short duration pulses, carrying a large EM-Field designed to influence the atoms internal structure, making it highly susceptible to the present voltage component. The delivery method contains rapid pulse delivery followed by a period of no electrical energy being present. This methodology in effect subjects the atoms to an electrical pumping effect, leaving them with a higher energy density quota. From this we see that there are two distinct actions both intertwined with each other. One is the EM-Field and its effective ability to enter an atoms atomic structure to deliver energy quota into the core structure. The other is the voltage that is generating the EM-Field and its final resultant physical effect observed on the medium. This method is many times more efficient than the first and has displaced it in specialist applications.

The third method involves the usage of high energy input super high frequency radio wave emissions. The water is superheated effectively breaking its internal bonds. This process also is not efficient and is little used.

The fourth method involves multiple Lasers arranged in tubular manner to act upon pressure injected micro-droplets of water. The resultant decomposition from subjection to multiple laser strikes induces a almost plasma like state which itself is subject to strong magnetic fields. As such it may be contained and guided within a suitably shaped v-high pressure container and so utilised for propulsion systems……

This is all a moot argument.

Sorry, guys, Laws of Physics and all: you always get less out than you put in!

And I, probably more than most wish it were not so, but to argue over engineering points is all:



It didn't work a year ago in my argument with MrGray, it didn't work a hundred years ago it still won't work a thousand years from now.

Sorry. Once upon a time I actually studied physics. It just won't work. Not ever. :)

Ok, so I ask again... What benefit would the vehicle get out of using Hydrogen or Hydrogen AND Oxygen, out of pressurized tanks, purchased at a local welding shop? Would this not, in the right proportions, enhance the burn of the normal fuel? If so, what would those proportions be? I did not study physics.

Mark

It is chemistry not physics

Ok, so I ask again...

What benefit would the vehicle get out of using Hydrogen or Hydrogen AND Oxygen, out of pressurized tanks, purchased at a local welding shop?

Would this not, in the right proportions, enhance the burn of the normal fuel? If so, what would those proportions be?

I did not study Physics. I have not studied Chemistry since High School.

Mark

Long term? No benefit whatsoever, since the energy (and thus money) required to make the hydrogen and oxygen would be greater that the net energy result in the car’s engine.

Our universe, no matter how we may wish otherwise, is a negative-sum game.

I have no idea about all the engineering details. Why should I care about that? I don't spend much time trying to square the circle either.



[edit] ironically enough, I do seem to spend a good deal of energy trying to explain why it won’t work <snicker> [end edit]

If you have a vehicle, that uses Hydrocarbon fuel (Gasoline or Diesel), then you should care. Every Dollar spent on fuel, is a Dollar out of you pocket.

When Gasoline in the U.S.A. is costing $7.00 per gallon or more, a year from now, will you care then? At what point will you start to care?

Do you really know that some certain combination of gases in a combustion chamber of a modern internal combustion engine, is not going to be much more efficient than the current air/fuel mixtures?

You SEEM to WANT to be negative about it. Of course, I could be wrong about that too. Going around saying the world is flat, does not make it so, even though that is the current popular belief. People believed it was flat for a long time. Someone had to prove the them wrong. There has to be a way to make our current engines much more efficient.

I TOTALLY understand that what goes in, is going to be less than what comes out, due to inefficiency all along the way. That is just natural, normal, the way the universe works.

I sincerely believe that there has to be a better way, or more efficient way to make our vehicles move from point A to point B.

Lets for the sake of argument, leave out arguments on the ill effects on the motor. When someone comes up with the fuel mixtures, someone else can come up with a way to make the engines that can handle them.

If I have say, 5 or 10 or even more, extra 12 volt batteries in the bed of my pickup, hooked up in series, to provide the normal 13.8 volts for the electrolysis process. Lets see, 10 batteries, with 900 CCA each, gives somewhere in the neighborhood of 9000 CCA... Which can power quite a large amount of electrolysis.

I can keep them fully charged each night, and the extra 300 to 500 extra lbs or more of weight is pretty much nothing for my pickup to haul around, especially if I can get rid of the extra 50 gallon fuel tank. The drain on the alternator/electrical system would be ZERO, if it were hooked up to use the extra battery power only. No power from the vehicle would be required to operate the electrolysers that way. All I would have to do is remember to hook up the charger at night, at minimal cost.

Doesn't that change the equation? Does the Universe start to turn in reverse?

The real question is at that point, (setting the power consumption laws of physics aside,) what quantity of Hydrogen/Oxygen mixture would need to be added to the current combustible mixture of Diesel/Air, or Gasoline/Air, to make the vehicle actually use less fuel? I have seen the chemical equations (which I cannot read and truthfully make much sense out of), for the combination chemical reaction in a combustion chamber of a perfect hydrocarbon/air/hydrogen/oxygen mixture, where it is supposedly shown to have no effect on the actual combustion.

I know from personal experience that the Hydrogen/Oxygen mixture that comes out of the water electrolysis process is HIGHLY combustible/explosive. (I have the scars to prove it)... Much more powerful than in a comparable sized gasoline/air combustion/explosion, in my experience.

By adding enough of the Hydrogen/Oxygen product to the current air/fuel mixtures, which will apparently have to be more than enough to saturate the fuel/air mixture to have a positive effect, will, or should, add more fuel to the fire, causing better combustion, and in effect, better fuel efficiency.

Am I wrong in this assumption too?

Internal combustion engines CAN run on Hydrogen/Oxygen mixtures ALONE. Why cant they run on a mixture of Hydrogen/Oxygen along with the current fuels available, to make them more "current fuel efficient", (leaving out the energy required to produce the Hydrogen)?

Is anyone else making any sense out of this but me?

Mark

---

From some old lab notes...circe 1989


…..An atom is a very small electrical world, when it moves it is usually in response to either the mass presently carrying it moving, or in response to external stimuli such as an electrical current or a magnetic field. Both the changing value of the electric current or the variable magnetic field will provide both physical impulse and relative direction and velocity (vector) to the atom. Considering the case for the electrolysis of water into its fundamental parts there are a few currently recognised methodologies. Water naturally tends to be diamagnetic. The component parts however are actively both with hydrogen being strongly diamagnetic, repelled by a magnetic field, while oxygen is paramagnetic, attracted to a magnetic field. When the two atoms are free of each other they may be channelled with the use of magnetic fields to separate and effectively be pumped solely by the pulsing magnetic field around the exit tubing.

The oldest and most established is the application of a relatively high value direct current flow to sizeable electrodes immersed in the medium. The resultant decomposition of the water into its two component gasses, oxygen and hydrogen is the expected result. It is commonly used for generation of these gasses of sufficient purity for medical and industrial purposes. This version of the process is very inefficient and so is not used to any great extent. It relies upon a low voltage but high current flowing in the circuit. The electrical supply feeding the apparatus will consume large amounts of electrical energy from the source, most likely a public utility, making it expensive to operate. It may be augmented by the inclusion of a substance that will catalyse the reaction. It should be noted that water exposed to v-high current short duration bursts, as with the delivery of output from a large volume capacitor, will explode violently. This feature has been demonstrated many times with rail-gun enthusiasts and others who delight in exploding watermelons and high water content fruit.

The simple effect of superheating water, by itself, has been demonstrated in nuclear generators. If the process gets too hot the water, which is cooling the liquid metallic mixtures actually extracting the heat from the core, is broken down into oxygen and hydrogen. The simple application of heat being the only requirement. Hence the sun is a good example. If you have enough heat then atoms will attain energy levels sufficient to exist as plasmas.

The second methodology involves a similar physical application of voltage to electrolytic cells. However in this application the current is not the main factor. Recognising the atoms inherent structure as an electrical entity, we find that it can be manipulated by the application of electrical fields of sufficient intensity to energise and activate the atom. This second method utilises the application of kilo-voltage range short duration pulses, carrying a large EM-Field designed to influence the atoms internal structure, making it highly susceptible to the present voltage component. The delivery method contains rapid pulse delivery followed by a period of no electrical energy being present. This methodology in effect subjects the atoms to an electrical pumping effect, leaving them with a higher energy density quota. From this we see that there are two distinct actions both intertwined with each other. One is the EM-Field and its effective ability to enter an atoms atomic structure to deliver energy quota into the core structure. The other is the voltage that is generating the EM-Field and its final resultant physical effect observed on the medium. This method is many times more efficient than the first and has displaced it in specialist applications.

The third method involves the usage of high energy input super high frequency radio wave emissions. The water is superheated effectively breaking its internal bonds. This process also is not efficient and is little used.

The fourth method involves multiple Lasers arranged in tubular manner to act upon pressure injected micro-droplets of water. The resultant decomposition from subjection to multiple laser strikes induces a almost plasma like state which itself is subject to strong magnetic fields. As such it may be contained and guided within a suitably shaped v-high pressure container and so utilised for propulsion systems……

Interesting reading.

I plan on using pulsed electromagnets, along with pulsed current to the cells. It will take some experimentation to find out what combination of pulses to each gives a more efficient outcome, as there is no definitive source to go to for this information. One source says that 143,720KHz is one of the resonance frequencies that is the most efficent, along with its harmonic frequencies.

Mark

---

Mark

You have a PM.

John

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

This is all a moot argument.

Sorry, guys, Laws of Physics and all: you always get less out than you put in!

And I, probably more than most wish it were not so, but to argue over engineering points is all:



It didn't work a year ago in my argument with MrGray, it didn't work a hundred years ago it still won't work a thousand years from now.

Sorry. Once upon a time I actually studied physics. It just won't work. Not ever. :)

Ok, so I ask again... What benefit would the vehicle get out of using Hydrogen or Hydrogen AND Oxygen, out of pressurized tanks, purchased at a local welding shop? Would this not, in the right proportions, enhance the burn of the normal fuel? If so, what would those proportions be? I did not study physics.

Mark

It is chemistry not physics

Ok, so I ask again...

What benefit would the vehicle get out of using Hydrogen or Hydrogen AND Oxygen, out of pressurized tanks, purchased at a local welding shop?

Would this not, in the right proportions, enhance the burn of the normal fuel? If so, what would those proportions be?

I did not study Physics. I have not studied Chemistry since High School.

Mark

There are vast corporations and universities and labs working on hydrogen fuel and nobody knows. Diesel fuel is C12H23 plus all the fuel additives plus all the impurities in the fuel and compounds and the air with all the compounds in it = combustion with pollution and then you add extra H2 and O2 plus other gasses plus the 1000's of reactions and you have a big mess with all kinds of pollution it is best to leave it to the big guys at the chemical companies and universities and the big labs they are working on it and they all say fuel from water is a scam. You can get Hydrogen from Aluminum and water and it is as cost effective as gasoline the real solution is a hydrogen fuel cell and all the big guys are working on fuel cell cars.

---

There are vast corporations and universities and labs working on hydrogen fuel and nobody knows. Diesel fuel is C12H23 plus all the fuel additives plus all the impurities in the fuel and compounds and the air with all the compounds in it = combustion with pollution and then you add extra H2 and O2 plus other gasses plus the 1000's of reactions and you have a big mess with all kinds of pollution it is best to leave it to the big guys at the chemical companies and universities and the big labs they are working on it and they all say fuel from water is a scam. You can get Hydrogen from Aluminum and water and it is as cost effective as gasoline the real solution is a hydrogen fuel cell and all the big guys are working on fuel cell cars.

When they get it all figured out, I will stop. When they figure out how to do it at relatively NO COST to me (other than the few hundred dollars to set it up and possibly nightly charging of additional batteries).

Until then,

Until they figure out how to get 10 mpg or more from a Semi, instead of 4 to 6 mpg,
Until they figure out how to get 30 mpg from a work pickup instead of 15 to 18,
Until they figure out how to make a big farm tractor use 1 gallon of Diesel per hour, instead of 5 or more,

I am going to continue my crusade.

When you burn Hydrogen and Oxygen, as they come from the process of water electrolysis, the result is water. No pollution. What is wrong with that?

Mark

---

There are vast corporations and universities and labs working on hydrogen fuel and nobody knows. Diesel fuel is C12H23 plus all the fuel additives plus all the impurities in the fuel and compounds and the air with all the compounds in it = combustion with pollution and then you add extra H2 and O2 plus other gasses plus the 1000's of reactions and you have a big mess with all kinds of pollution it is best to leave it to the big guys at the chemical companies and universities and the big labs they are working on it and they all say fuel from water is a scam. You can get Hydrogen from Aluminum and water and it is as cost effective as gasoline the real solution is a hydrogen fuel cell and all the big guys are working on fuel cell cars.

When they get it all figured out, I will stop. When they figure out how to do it at relatively NO COST to me (other than the few hundred dollars to set it up and possibly nightly charging of additional batteries).

Until then,

Until they figure out how to get 10 mpg or more from a Semi, instead of 4 to 6 mpg,
Until they figure out how to get 30 mpg from a work pickup instead of 15 to 18,
Until they figure out how to make a big farm tractor use 1 gallon of Diesel per hour, instead of 5 or more,

I am going to continue my crusade.

When you burn Hydrogen and Oxygen, as they come from the process of water electrolysis, the result is water. No pollution. What is wrong with that?

Mark

It's not just the H2 and O2 it is the compounds in the fuel and the compounds in the air that will be formed when diesel fuel plus its additives plus the compounds in the air and the reactions that happen when they burn under compression and then adding more oxygen and hydrogen to the mix making more complex compounds such as nitrogen oxides and sulphur compounds and then adding more oxygen and hydrogen to the mix will produce gums and sludge and other pollutions because of the compounds in diesel fuel. Now just a pure hydrogen fuel car would produce water and that is a hydrogen fuel cell or switch to propane and it can be used indoors and in sensitive areas like the everglades but to add diesel to the mix and all kinds of compounds will be produced leading to pollution and gum and sludge.

---

It's not just the H2 and O2 it is the compounds in the fuel and the compounds in the air that will be formed when diesel fuel plus its additives plus the compounds in the air and the reactions that happen when they burn under compression and then adding more oxygen and hydrogen to the mix making more complex compounds such as nitrogen oxides and sulphur compounds and then adding more oxygen and hydrogen to the mix will produce gums and sludge and other pollutions because of the compounds in diesel fuel. Now just a pure hydrogen fuel car would produce water and that is a hydrogen fuel cell or switch to propane and it can be used indoors and in sensitive areas like the everglades but to add diesel to the mix and all kinds of compounds will be produced leading to pollution and gum and sludge.

Not quite true Paul

The only source of sulphur compounds in the exhaust is from poor quality diesel fuel, which, until recently, was the norm in the US.

New clean diesel, with less sulphur in the fuel than petrol, is coming, which is why the modern high tech European common rail diesels could not work properly in the US. The poor quality of the fuel killed them by means of all the gums and sludges you mentioned (above).

The use of the new clean very very low sulphur diesel, now spreading across the US, even when mixed with the 2xH2 and 1xO2 from water electrolysis, or pure hydrogen gas injection (to the air intake), will give a similar exhaust emission as required by the European Euro 4 or Euro 5 emission regulations.

Some background to the Euro 4 debate in 2006 can be found here. This should lead to the actual Euro 4 and 5 regulation exhaust emission standards that vehicles sold from 1st Jan 2007 are required to meet (both private and commercial).

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

The Prius gives slightly better mileage than the the equivalent petrol engined car, but still loses out relative to diesel. Which begs the question, why don't they make a diesel powered Prius?

The best change i made to my car (Ford Escort, 1.6 Zetec, LPG powered) was fitting an induction kit and remapping the ECU, power went up from 90 bhp to around 140 bhp, and fuel economy went from 30 mpg to 40 mpg.

... because in many parts of the world, a diesel will not pass current emission rules.

The Prius actually does more than slightly better. The typical car in the same class gets around 33 miles/gallon, while the Prius gets about 50.

The big secret: it isn't the electric part that makes the big gains.

Most car engines are "Otto" engines. The compression stroke and the expansion stroke are the same length. The Prius (and several others) are "Atkinson" engines, where the expansion stroke is longer. (it's the valve timing, on an Atkinson engine, the intake valve closes "late")

Atkinson engines extract more power from the combustion, but they don't accelerate well at all -- but if you have a little bit of electric "boost" you can put back the "drivability" you lose by switching from Otto to Atkinson, and by reducing the engine displacement (quite a bit).

-- Ned

Actually, Ned, the UK experience of the Prius is different.

The vehicle gives better than a standard, non-hybrid, petrol but poorer fuel consumption than a diesel. Here, the diesels available can average real world fuel consumptions of 70+mpg.

Toyota should have given us this Prius, which, for a price, is currently available in the UK.

The UK has an advantage in that diesels are available. In the U.S., it is certainly possible to build very high mileage diesel engines, but it is impossible to get them certified so they may be sold.

I have no doubt that there are higher mileage diesels.

Just not here.

---

Ok, so I ask again...

What benefit would the vehicle get out of using Hydrogen or Hydrogen AND Oxygen, out of pressurized tanks, purchased at a local welding shop?

Would this not, in the right proportions, enhance the burn of the normal fuel? If so, what would those proportions be?

I did not study Physics. I have not studied Chemistry since High School.

Mark

Using "factory" gasses from the local welding shop would let you measure the benefits. You could figure out where preignition starts, and you could figure out if adding a little hydrogen actually affects engine efficiency.

If you know how much hydrogen you need, you'd be able to "size" the hydrogen generator.

Right now, you're working from a general idea: mixing in a little gaseous hydrogen could help.

It seems to me that changing that statement to "100ml/hour of H2 increases efficiency by 10%" would be useful.

Experimenting with a practically unlimited hydrogen source and measuring the results could do that.

---

Internal combustion engines CAN run on Hydrogen/Oxygen mixtures ALONE. Why cant they run on a mixture of Hydrogen/Oxygen along with the current fuels available, to make them more "current fuel efficient", (leaving out the energy required to produce the Hydrogen)?

Is anyone else making any sense out of this but me?

Mark

Internal combustion engines can run on most anything that'll burn.

The trick is introducing the proper mix into the cylinder, and lighting it at the proper time.

For this to work and produce a gain you must:

• introduce enough hydrogen into the intake to alter the combustion process
  
• not introduce enough to cause preignition (and possibly damage the engine)
  
• gain more power through improved combustion than it takes to make the H2
  

---

Ok, so I ask again...

What benefit would the vehicle get out of using Hydrogen or Hydrogen AND Oxygen, out of pressurized tanks, purchased at a local welding shop?

Would this not, in the right proportions, enhance the burn of the normal fuel? If so, what would those proportions be?

I did not study Physics. I have not studied Chemistry since High School.

Mark

Using "factory" gasses from the local welding shop would let you measure the benefits. You could figure out where preignition starts, and you could figure out if adding a little hydrogen actually affects engine efficiency.

If you know how much hydrogen you need, you'd be able to "size" the hydrogen generator.

Right now, you're working from a general idea: mixing in a little gaseous hydrogen could help.

It seems to me that changing that statement to "100ml/hour of H2 increases efficiency by 10%" would be useful.

Experimenting with a practically unlimited hydrogen source and measuring the results could do that.

Ned,

Good points all!

Mark

---

[...]
For this to work and produce a gain you must:

[...]

• gain more power through improved combustion than it takes to make the H2
  

And that is where the skepticism is focused.

Some real measurements to prove/disprove the ideas would be good.

Meanwhile, I still think that there are better gains to be made by brewing your own biofuel and/or biogas.

A good low tech example for biogas is:

Gober Gas


Good luck,
Martin

ps: Sounds like you've got something more like a tractor than a truck!

ps2: Go shopping by motorbike?!

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

[...]
For this to work and produce a gain you must:

[...]

• gain more power through improved combustion than it takes to make the H2
  

And that is where the skepticism is focused.

Some real measurements to prove/disprove the ideas would be good.

Meanwhile, I still think that there are better gains to be made by brewing your own biofuel and/or biogas.

A good low tech example for biogas is:

Gober Gas


Good luck,
Martin

ps: Sounds like you've got something more like a tractor than a truck!

ps2: Go shopping by motorbike?!

Methane gas produced the "Gober" way, wouldn't work very well for a vehicle. Even though I have an unlimited supply of manure.

The Chevy Duramax motor/transmission setup is more like a Semi setup than previous Diesels. It is pretty heavy duty. We have various farm tractors at home, all over 100 Diesel HP.

As far as going shopping via motorbike, I often have to pick up fairly heavy parts and pieces for the job when I make my weekly trips to town. That along with $300 to $500 in groceries, would make it very difficult to carry the load on a motorcycle.

To get around the input/output dilemma, I think that, like the electric cars/hybrids, having a large battery system that can be recharged overnight, would supply sufficient power, at low enough cost, to make the offset in power consumption vs power output viable.

Time will tell.

Mark

---

To get around the input/output dilemma, I think that, like the electric cars/hybrids, having a large battery system that can be recharged overnight, would supply sufficient power, at low enough cost, to make the offset in power consumption vs power output viable.

Time will tell.

Mark

You are quite right, Mark, in your overnight recharging assertion.

That is the basis of the "Amberjac Products Limited" (name of a legally limited company in the UK) conversion of the Toyota Prius.

The changes come in 2 parts - First, better more power dense batteries to give 35+miles as an Electric Vehicle (EV), rather than the 2 miles before recharge (petrol engine) that Toyota gives; Second, an external plug in point so the house mains electricity can be plugged in overnight. If the journey is short (>15 miles each way) then the car need never use the petrol engine.

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Methane gas produced the "Gober" way, wouldn't work very well for a vehicle. Even though I have an unlimited supply of manure.

Pipe it into an electrical generator, to power...

[...]
To get around the input/output dilemma, I think that, like the electric cars/hybrids, having a large battery system that can be recharged overnight, would supply sufficient power, at low enough cost, to make the offset in power consumption vs power output viable.

The only issue there is that lead-acid batteries are notoriously inefficent. You typically only get about 60% back out compared to the energy you put in. They also disintegrate very quickly if you deep discharge them, or recharge too rapidly.


Your manure -> electricity sounds like a good bet.

Good cooking! (into a generator that is)

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

If the overall goal is to reduce the cost of driving a good sized diesel truck, I'd consider Biodiesel.

---

Methane gas produced the "Gober" way, wouldn't work very well for a vehicle. Even though I have an unlimited supply of manure.

Pipe it into an electrical generator, to power...

[...]
To get around the input/output dilemma, I think that, like the electric cars/hybrids, having a large battery system that can be recharged overnight, would supply sufficient power, at low enough cost, to make the offset in power consumption vs power output viable.

The only issue there is that lead-acid batteries are notoriously inefficent. You typically only get about 60% back out compared to the energy you put in. They also disintegrate very quickly if you deep discharge them, or recharge too rapidly.


Your manure -> electricity sounds like a good bet.

Good cooking! (into a generator that is)

Cheers,
Martin

The Methane gas powered generator is a good idea, and simple enough to do, for electricity at home.

As for the batteries, I was thinking along the lines of Marine batteries, deep cycle type, gel filled. They last longer and I am not sure, but think they are more efficient. :)

Mark

---

If the overall goal is to reduce the cost of driving a good sized diesel truck, I'd consider Biodiesel.

This is the process you are referring to

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

If the overall goal is to reduce the cost of driving a good sized diesel truck, I'd consider Biodiesel.

I have looked into Biodiesel some. Generally it requires a main ingredient, some type of vegetable oil, generally Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO). There is not a good supply of it locally, and to have it hauled in on a bulk truck, requires a large, up-front investment for the large shipment, as well as large storage tanks. Economically unfeasible for me to do it that way, at this time. When my ship comes in... I priced new vegetable oil at the local stores.... and just about had a heart attack. Something like $16 per gallon. Also, suppliers of bulk WVO, are few and far between. Nothing locally. The local restaurants are all contracting their waste out to someone else already.

I do intend on going that route at some point.

Mark

---