PICC and hydro assist fuel cell

[lou S.]

This company took a full page ad out in my local paper. Just curious as to what you folks think.

http://www.preignitioncc.com/go/index.htm

[curtis73]

absolute, 100%, complete and total BS. My favorite quote from that site is:

In other words, the vehicle traveling at 65 mph up a 30 degree incline for an hour would have obtained almost 200 mpg! When they shut off the engine, the researchers reported that it coasted on the plasma for another two minutes.

First of all... 200 mpg with some fuel catalyst??? Secondly.... what the f**k is "coasting on the plasma"

[lou S.]

Don't you just love their "play" on words/adjectives. There are also numerous grammar errors in their site also.

[J-Ri]

Originally Posted by curtis73

First of all... 200 mpg with some fuel catalyst??? Secondly.... what the f**k is "coasting on the plasma"

The 200mpg was completely ignoring wind resistance and parasitic losses from the trans, diff, etc (engine only). I think the actual MPG was closer to 100 on a full-size van. The way the PICC works is by breaking the fuel down into it's elements prior to ignition (rather than burning the left-over fuel in the catalytic converter). The PICC goes in the exhaust pipe and uses engine heat and magnetism to accomplish this. The reason it coasted on the "plasma" is that there is a considerable amount of it between the PICC and the engine, enough to keep running the engine even after production is stopped. I have not actually seen the PICC work. That said, I have seen the HAFC work IN PERSON. The modified vehicle was a '99(?) Camry with the 3L V6. It got 67 MPG on the highway. I witnessed the initial fill-up, followed that car, and witnessed the after fill-up. I'm VERY skeptical of everything, so until I see it work on my car and KNOW that there's not a hidden second gas tank somewhere (not that I think there was), I'm not going to guarantee that it works. I'm installing one on my Grand Am, so I'll post back when it works.

[lou S.]

Keep us posted. I drive 70 miles round trip every day for work in a 03 Tahoe. So if the thing really works, 25 mpg for my truck would be sweet.

[J-Ri]

I certainly will.

Originally Posted by lou S.

Don't you just love their "play" on words/adjectives. There are also numerous grammar errors in their site also.

I just re-read that, and noticed the double "also"s refering to gramatical errors, was that a joke?

[72chevelleOhio]

Originally Posted by curtis73

what the f**k is "coasting on the plasma"

Ghostbusters!?!?!? "slimer equipped"....
Or its a serial killers car that runs on blood and coasts on....

Anyway, whenever they have an independent company test it, then I might be interested. They could at least use a hot chick to push their product.
Bewbies can sell anything....well almost anything....

[GreyGoose006]

well try it someone.
id like a good laugh.

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by J-Ri

The way the PICC works is by breaking the fuel down into it's elements prior to ignition (rather than burning the left-over fuel in the catalytic converter).

You do realise whats involved in breaking down hydrocarbons into the separate elements?


I have feeling we might all be about to get a chemistry and physics lesson from Curtis

[curtis73]

I'll consider that an invitation

There is all kinds of talk about "hydrocarbon clusters" and how fuel catalysts break them up. Gasoline Hydrocarbons are huge, simple molecules. Even if catalysts COULD crack hydrocarbons, what's the point? Then you have a smaller hydrocarbon and hydrogen. The net amount of stored chemical energy isn't changed appreciably.

Trust me... if a snake-oil bolt on could crack hydrocarbons, ExxonMobil would be using the technology to refine crude. Since they're not, I call BS.

[KiwiBacon]

All I can say is:
"It's morally wrong to let a sucker keep their money".

[J-Ri]

Originally Posted by curtis73

I'll consider that an invitation

There is all kinds of talk about "hydrocarbon clusters" and how fuel catalysts break them up. Gasoline Hydrocarbons are huge, simple molecules. Even if catalysts COULD crack hydrocarbons, what's the point? Then you have a smaller hydrocarbon and hydrogen. The net amount of stored chemical energy isn't changed appreciably.

Trust me... if a snake-oil bolt on could crack hydrocarbons, ExxonMobil would be using the technology to refine crude. Since they're not, I call BS.

Assuming you split the hydrocarbon in half, you would be short two hydrogen atoms, not have extra ( H=(Cx2)+2 decane=C10H22 octane=C8H18 pentane=C5H12). Altough the chemical energy is the same, not all of the fuel is burned inside the engine. Longer HC chains take longer to burn than shorter ones do (so we burn them in the cat - efficient as a heater, not so efficient at turning chemical energy into mechanical energy), so lets say you change one decane molecule into two pentane molecules. The pentane has a higher percent of it's burn time while still on the power stroke.


Why doesn't ExxonMobil do that? Why would they? They have absolutely no reason whatsoever to be more efficient. If it costs more and we need more of it, they charge us more and they make more money.

Throughout history people have said "If they're not doing it, it can't be done". At one time it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound (infact, at one time if you went over 25 MPH you would die because all the air would get sucked out of your lungs). At one time it was impossible to get a package from NY to CA overnight. Facts change.

EDIT: apparently ExxonMobil may do that, as explained in my next post.

[KiwiBacon]

Originally Posted by J-Ri

Assuming you split the hydrocarbon in half, you would be short two hydrogen atoms, not have extra ( H=(Cx2)+2 decane=C10H22 octane=C8H18 pentane=C5H12). Altough the chemical energy is the same, not all of the fuel is burned inside the engine. Longer HC chains take longer to burn than shorter ones do (so we burn them in the cat - efficient as a heater, not so efficient at turning chemical energy into mechanical energy), so lets say you change one decane molecule into two pentane molecules. The pentane has a higher percent of it's burn time while still on the power stroke.


Why doesn't ExxonMobil do that? Why would they? They have absolutely no reason whatsoever to be more efficient. If it costs more and we need more of it, they charge us more and they make more money.

Throughout history people have said "If they're not doing it, it can't be done". At one time it was impossible to travel faster than the speed of sound (infact, at one time if you went over 25 MPH you would die because all the air would get sucked out of your lungs). At one time it was impossible to get a package from NY to CA overnight. Facts change.

The laws of thermodynamics have not yet been broken. Despite people claiming to have done so for hundreds of years.
Each person who claimed to have done so was either mistaken or fraudulent.
This IMO is the latter.

A modern EFI engine runs at stoich or lean at cruise, there is no significant amount of fuel being burn in the cat converter and no noticable gains to be made there.

Cracking fuel into smaller molecules makes for a less dense product, go too far and you've turned your liquid fuel into gas. Do vehicles running on propane have better efficiency than vehicles running on petrol?
No they dont, which exposes the whole "cracking" theory as "crackpot".

It's all BS, just like the HHO muppets all over youtube.

[J-Ri]

Originally Posted by KiwiBacon

The laws of thermodynamics have not yet been broken. Despite people claiming to have done so for hundreds of years.
Each person who claimed to have done so was either mistaken or fraudulent.
This IMO is the latter.

A modern EFI engine runs at stoich or lean at cruise, there is no significant amount of fuel being burn in the cat converter and no noticable gains to be made there.

Cracking fuel into smaller molecules makes for a less dense product, go too far and you've turned your liquid fuel into gas. Do vehicles running on propane have better efficiency than vehicles running on petrol?
No they dont, which exposes the whole "cracking" theory as "crackpot".

It's all BS, just like the HHO muppets all over youtube.

Mistaken, fraudulent, or mysteriously dead... but lets not turn this into a discussion of conspiracy theroies.

No significant amount of fuel is burnt in the cat? Why is the outlet hundreds of degrees hotter than the inlet?

Internal combustion engines WILL NOT RUN ON LIQUID FUEL, it MUST be vaporized (turned into a gas) for the engine to run. Vehicles running on propane do have better efficiency if you look at the size of the hydrocarbon molecules going in. Nearly all of it is burnt inside the engine, and it's so clean burning that forklifts that run on it can be run all day inside a building without people dying. Split one molecule of nonane into 3 molecules of propane, and that's 47.6% more fuel economy right there doing nothing else (propane's stoichiometric ratio is 7:1). Of course, in reality you're not going to get perfect thirds. You might make some ethane and some butane, and maybe not affect some molecules at all.

Cracking theory? Check out this link. Not only can it be done, but we've been doing it for well over 50 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crackin...lytic_cracking. If only there were some place on a car that was very hot with very high pressures... something like the inside of a cylinder... oh, wait, we do have that.

I have seen the HAFC work. I'm not saying it's impossible that I was fooled, but I think it's very unlikely in this case.

[KiwiBacon]

Originally Posted by J-Ri

No significant amount of fuel is burnt in the cat? Why is the outlet hundreds of degrees hotter than the inlet?

Do you have any data to back this up? When the engine is at WOT it runs rich and yes the cat cleans up unburnt fuel. But not at stoich where the vast majority of operation occurs.

Basically the huge amounts of unburnt fuel required to make such claims valid is not present in a modern car. If you're talking about an old worn out carburettor running stupidly rich then sure it's valid. But that's a pointless comparison.

Originally Posted by J-Ri

Internal combustion engines WILL NOT RUN ON LIQUID FUEL, it MUST be vaporized (turned into a gas) for the engine to run.

This isn't true. Gasoline and diesel droplet vapour is not gas.

Originally Posted by J-Ri

Vehicles running on propane do have better efficiency if you look at the size of the hydrocarbon molecules going in. Nearly all of it is burnt inside the engine, and it's so clean burning that forklifts that run on it can be run all day inside a building without people dying.

Sorry but that's not true either.
LPG forklifts need as much ventilation as petrol forklifts do otherwise people start to die. But the exhaust is cleaner.
A petrol engine is not more efficient running on LPG, but a dedicated LPG engine can be built with higher compression to give better efficiency than a petrol engine.

Cracking is well understood, but you can't get something for nothing.
Burning any hydrocarbon chain to produce water and CO2 (perfect combustion) releases a certain amount of heat energy.
Cracking that original hydrocarbon chain into smaller ones does not change the amount of energy present.

Regardless, the limitation on efficiency of an internal combustion engine is not the fuel creating heat, it's how it converts that heat to motion. This BS system does not address that.

I'm afraid you have been fooled, conservation of energy is a law that has not been broken.
Quite simply, if it were possible to gain such a dramatic increase so simply, it would be everywhere already.