HHO?

[GreyICE]

I can't imagine the Canadian Company doesn't have independent testing. It is a publicly traded stock. I made some phone calls, waiting for some confirmation on several claims.

How many publicly traded homeopathic remedy manufacturers do you think there are? Do you want to answer zero?

[jimbob]

You ever try to take a bike on a subway during rush hour?
Piece of cake with this one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Brompton5.jpeg).

I don't have one, but if you're commuting and local transport is bad, me seems a folding bicycle is much more practical than a Segway, cheaper, and better for your condition :).

Why would you want to take a bike on the subway at rush hour? I was going to suggest that folding bikes would be more practical, but DDT beat me to it.

I am thinking that the subway is going to be similar to London Underground, and imagining getting anything up some of the escalators. (It was amusing comming back from university at the end of each term, with my rucsacs and suitcase)...

Anyway, how far would you need to travel?

My commute is 13-miles each way, with 500-ft of ascent on the way home, and that is perfectly do-able. I am aware that people commute further by public transport, but if so, I'd bet they wouldn't want to lug something the size of a Segway on and off the train, and over the many stairs that UK stations have...

[David Rodale]

I checked it all out. However, I did not find anything that was scientifically valid.

Fran Giroux's stuff claims that HHO exists...it doesn't. There is no such molecule as HHO and no such thing as Brown's gas. Try making a dot diagram and you will see.

The research of this type of system is not something new. Check out these links.

http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library1/catalog/reports/2000/05ja/05ja022/05ja022_full.pdf

http://avt.inl.gov/hydrogen.shtml

The main benefit from hydrogen injection is to reduce pollution and reduce gas consumption by a small amount.

Thermo just won't allow quantum leaps in efficiency.

glenn






I checked it all out. However, I did not find anything that was scientifically valid.What do people want, multi-million dollar government sponsored studies with stacks of PhD cube boy approved mileage tests? Did you download the article I posted?
Performance and Fuel Consumption Estimation of a Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline Engine At Part-Load Operation (http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2002-01-2196)

Abstract:


Hydrogen and gasoline can be burned together in internal combustion engines in a wide range of mixtures. In fact, the addition of small hydrogen quantities increases the flame speed at all gasoline equivalence ratios, so the engine operation at very lean air-gasoline mixtures is possible. In this paper, the performance of a spark-ignition engine, fuelled by hydrogen-enriched gasoline, has been evaluated by using a numerical model. A hybrid combustion model for a dual fuel, according to two one-step overall reactions, has been implemented in the KIVA-3V code. The indicated mean pressure and the fuel consumption have been evaluated at part-load operating points of a S.I. engine designed for gasoline fuelling. In particular, the possibility of operating at wide-open throttle, varying the equivalence ratio of air-gasoline mixture at fixed quantities of the supplemented hydrogen, has been studied. That is the theoretical basis for hydrogen supplementation. As for “scientifically valid”, how much more valid can real world tests be? Trucking firms do not piss away money and aren't out to "save the planet".


Fran Giroux's stuff claims that HHO exists...it doesn't. There is no such molecule as HHO and no such thing as Brown's gas. Try making a dot diagram and you will see.
“HHO” (notice I usually put in quotes) is a trademark name. Call it HHO, hydroxyl, hodroxy, oxyhydrogen, Brown’s gas….it is all the same. “HHO” has become the generic term for whatever reason. Fran does not attribute any magical properties to it. What is the purpose of bringing this up? You did nothing to refute one thing on his website.

The research of this type of system is not something new. Check out these links.
I've already noted that in previous posts, hence the statement:

Now, a compact fuel reformer is a different story.

Fuel reformer (http://www.arvinmeritor.com/media_room/render_news.asp?message_id=000000001A447390AA6611C D9BC800AA002FC45A0900CEE5ADC7AA9FD411A2F20008C791E 019000000011D510000CEE5ADC7AA9FD411A2F20008C791E01 9000000018A140000)

Initial development of a Plasma Fuel Reformer required as much as 2,000 watts of electrical energy to operate. A measure of the progress is that today’s unit uses an average of less than 100 watts. Full production systems are likely to be even lower. Early systems took many seconds to produce hydrogen from cold exhaust, an important disadvantage in real-world use, as emissions are highest at this time. The latest versions are running in less than a second. And the first prototypes only produced hydrogen at just one flow rate. Today’s prototypes manage transient or varying flow demands equally well.


The main benefit from hydrogen injection is to reduce pollution and reduce gas consumption by a small amount.
There appears to be cracks forming in the dike. Now it is a small amount of fuel efficiency increase? Before it was impossible. Shouldn’t there always be a decrease? Energy in, energy out right?

Thermo just won't allow quantum leaps in efficiency. Define quantum leap.
Please review the SmartPlug (CPT) literature. Increases of 51% in thermal efficiency are documented. If the SmartPlug can ignite 140 Proof alcohol or 50/50 diesel/water, what do you suppose it does at ultra-lean AF of gasoline? Try doing that with a standard spark plug. Also, if you’d thumb through the ArvinMeritor literature, initial fuel efficiency tests show ~50% increases, although that may be a bit generous in real world operation.

It should be noted not all engines respond equally to the addition of “HHO”.
After looking at the Hydro4000 closer, their claim of 2.3 LPM @ 7A is complete nonsense. I challenged them on this, but received a lame response. Yet, the Tahoe used as the re-test still gained 10%, which most on this forum say is impossible. I would have fully expected 5-15% from a reasonably efficient electrolyzer given there are no modifications done to the ECU, however some vehicles will in fact respond negatively and reduce fuel efficiency depending on the electronics.

Here is the bottom line:
1) Fuel economy has been sacrificed in favor of emissions reduction. stoichiometric14.7:1 AF is not a requirement for an ICE to operate at to achieve the highest fuel efficiency particularly at partial load. There is much ignorance and arm waiving on this. As noted earlier, the ignition sequence alone (namely the spark plug) is still a bottleneck in combustion efficiency improvement. Hopefully in the coming months that will change.
2) Small amounts of “HHO” extend the lean-knock limit. 3 LPM appears to be more than sufficient for a typical V8 engine for this purpose. In my current application, I chose to be conservative and limited the lean condition to gain a modest 20% fuel efficiency gain. With over 60,000 miles tallied and no adverse effects, why is that so incredible to believe? Why is it conceded this small amount of “HHO” reduces emissions but cannot in any way improve fuel efficiency?
3) In the next few years, possibly sooner, the benefits of hydrogen supplementation will become self-evident.



GreyIce, it may be efficacious to choose your thoughts more wisely before typing. You’ve already stuck both feet in your mouth on the issue of the efficiency of operating an engine using diluted ethanol/diesel.

GreyIce said:
“Approximitely zero. Why are you trying to stick water in your engine? You're just going to kill it.” ;)

[GreyICE]

What do people want, multi-million dollar government sponsored studies with stacks of PhD cube boy approved mileage tests? Did you download the article I posted?
Performance and Fuel Consumption Estimation of a Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline Engine At Part-Load Operation (http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2002-01-2196)

[SIZE=2] That is the theoretical basis for hydrogen supplementation. As for “scientifically valid”, how much more valid can real world tests be? Trucking firms do not piss away money and aren't out to "save the planet" Remember folks, when you have your woo, staple gun it to stuff that actually works.

It's not the kit you're promoting so strongly.



“HHO” (notice I usually put in quotes) is a trademark name. Call it HHO, hydroxyl, hodroxy, oxyhydrogen, Brown’s gas….it is all the same. “HHO” has become the generic term for whatever reason. Fran does not attribute any magical properties to it. What is the purpose of bringing this up? You did nothing to refute one thing on his website.


I've already noted that in previous posts, hence the statement:

Now, a compact fuel reformer is a different story.

Fuel reformer (http://www.arvinmeritor.com/media_room/render_news.asp?message_id=000000001A447390AA6611C D9BC800AA002FC45A0900CEE5ADC7AA9FD411A2F20008C791E 019000000011D510000CEE5ADC7AA9FD411A2F20008C791E01 9000000018A140000)





There appears to be cracks forming in the dike. Now it is a small amount of fuel efficiency increase? Before it was impossible. Shouldn’t there always be a decrease? Energy in, energy out right? The gas is mythical. It's not formed here. It's a magical gas.

By totally redesigning the engine, you can achieve a marginal increase in efficiency. This is not a crack. We've been saying this since, oh, PAGE 1. You're just slippery sloping "Oh, a small crack, then a large crack, then your car gets pulled around town by a team of unicorns."



Define quantum leap.
Please review the SmartPlug (CPT) literature. Increases of 51% in thermal efficiency are documented. If the SmartPlug can ignite 140 Proof alcohol or 50/50 diesel/water, what do you suppose it does at ultra-lean AF of gasoline? Try doing that with a standard spark plug. Also, if you’d thumb through the ArvinMeritor literature, initial fuel efficiency tests show ~50% increases, although that may be a bit generous in real world operation.
What the hell? 51 Increase in thermal efficiency? Are they running a carnot engine?

Actual increase might be a bit less. Ya think?!?


It should be noted not all engines respond equally to the addition of “HHO”.
After looking at the Hydro4000 closer, their claim of 2.3 LPM @ 7A is complete nonsense. I challenged them on this, but received a lame response. Yet, the Tahoe used as the re-test still gained 10%, which most on this forum say is impossible. I would have fully expected 5-15% from a reasonably efficient electrolyzer given there are no modifications done to the ECU, however some vehicles will in fact respond negatively and reduce fuel efficiency depending on the electronics. A retest by who? Popular mechanics kept finding a 0%, I have a strong suspicion they're a little righter than, say, the woo peddler.

Here is the bottom line:
1) Fuel economy has been sacrificed in favor of emissions reduction. stoichiometric14.7:1 AF is not a requirement for an ICE to operate at to achieve the highest fuel efficiency particularly at partial load. There is much ignorance and arm waiving on this. As noted earlier, the ignition sequence alone (namely the spark plug) is still a bottleneck in combustion efficiency improvement. Hopefully in the coming months that will change. Half true, half, well... as you said. Arm waving.
2) Small amounts of “HHO” extend the lean-knock limit. 3 LPM appears to be more than sufficient for a typical V8 engine for this purpose. In my current application, I chose to be conservative and limited the lean condition to gain a modest 20% fuel efficiency gain. With over 60,000 miles tallied and no adverse effects, why is that so incredible to believe? Why is it conceded this small amount of “HHO” reduces emissions but cannot in any way improve fuel efficiency? Because HHO has never been documented to exist?

We've found H2, sure. And oxygen. And water. But HHO? Brown's Gas?

Don't you think we could observe this mythical stuff if you could produce it with a bottle of water and a car alternator?

3) In the next few years, possibly sooner, the benefits of hydrogen supplementation will become self-evident. Right after the incredible effects of homeopathy are documented.



GreyIce, it may be efficacious to choose your thoughts more wisely before typing. You’ve already stuck both feet in your mouth on the issue of the efficiency of operating an engine using diluted ethanol/diesel. Yes, when in doubt, insult the opposition. Smart move. Too bad the opposition in this case is an engineer, and frankly, I doubt you could screw in a phillips head without help.

GreyIce said:
“Approximitely zero. Why are you trying to stick water in your engine? You're just going to kill it.” ;)
I repeat.

WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BURNING WATER?!?

You. Cannot. Burn. Water.

How efficient is an ICE running on say, 65% ethanol and 35% [B]water? How about 50% diesel and 50% water?


But prove me wrong. Take a bottle of tap water, a blowtorch, and get to work. See if you get a single ounce of combustion.

[Hindmost]

What do people want, multi-million dollar government sponsored studies with stacks of PhD cube boy approved mileage tests? Did you download the article I posted?
Performance and Fuel Consumption Estimation of a Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline Engine At Part-Load Operation (http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2002-01-2196)

[b][size=2] That is the theoretical basis for hydrogen supplementation. As for “scientifically valid”, how much more valid can real world tests be? Trucking firms do not piss away money and aren't out to "save the planet".



“HHO” (notice I usually put in quotes) is a trademark name. Call it HHO, hydroxyl, hodroxy, oxyhydrogen, Brown’s gas….it is all the same. “HHO” has become the generic term for whatever reason. Fran does not attribute any magical properties to it. What is the purpose of bringing this up? You did nothing to refute one thing on his website.


I've already noted that in previous posts, hence the statement:

Now, a compact fuel reformer is a different story.

Fuel reformer (http://www.arvinmeritor.com/media_room/render_news.asp?message_id=000000001A447390AA6611C D9BC800AA002FC45A0900CEE5ADC7AA9FD411A2F20008C791E 019000000011D510000CEE5ADC7AA9FD411A2F20008C791E01 9000000018A140000)





There appears to be cracks forming in the dike. Now it is a small amount of fuel efficiency increase? Before it was impossible. Shouldn’t there always be a decrease? Energy in, energy out right?

Define quantum leap.
Please review the SmartPlug (CPT) literature. Increases of 51% in thermal efficiency are documented. If the SmartPlug can ignite 140 Proof alcohol or 50/50 diesel/water, what do you suppose it does at ultra-lean AF of gasoline? Try doing that with a standard spark plug. Also, if you’d thumb through the ArvinMeritor literature, initial fuel efficiency tests show ~50% increases, although that may be a bit generous in real world operation.

It should be noted not all engines respond equally to the addition of “HHO”.
After looking at the Hydro4000 closer, their claim of 2.3 LPM @ 7A is complete nonsense. I challenged them on this, but received a lame response. Yet, the Tahoe used as the re-test still gained 10%, which most on this forum say is impossible. I would have fully expected 5-15% from a reasonably efficient electrolyzer given there are no modifications done to the ECU, however some vehicles will in fact respond negatively and reduce fuel efficiency depending on the electronics.

Here is the bottom line:
1)Fuel economy has been sacrificed in favor of emissions reduction. stoichiometric14.7:1 AF is not a requirement for an ICE to operate at to achieve the highest fuel efficiency particularly at partial load. There is much ignorance and arm waiving on this. As noted earlier, the ignition sequence alone (namely the spark plug) is still a bottleneck in combustion efficiency improvement. Hopefully in the coming months that will change.
2)Small amounts of “HHO” extend the lean-knock limit. 3 LPM appears to be more than sufficient for a typical V8 engine for this purpose. In my current application, I chose to be conservative and limited the lean condition to gain a modest 20% fuel efficiency gain. With over 60,000 miles tallied and no adverse effects, why is that so incredible to believe? Why is it conceded this small amount of “HHO” reduces emissions but cannot in any way improve fuel efficiency?
3)In the next few years, possibly sooner, the benefits of hydrogen supplementation will become self-evident.



GreyIce, it may be efficacious to choose your thoughts more wisely before typing. You’ve already stuck both feet in your mouth on the issue of the efficiency of operating an engine using diluted ethanol/diesel.

GreyIce said:
“Approximitely zero. Why are you trying to stick water in your engine? You're just going to kill it.” ;)


You obviously didn't read the links I provided. That's the real science. The links indicate that NOx and soot emmissions are reduced and a possible efficiency gain of less than 5% when H2 is added to gasoline--however, that may not include the electrolysis energy which is very inefficient and the main reason it is not being considered for Hydrogen production in the next generation nuclear reactors. I posted that a long time ago...so nothing new. A quantum leap would be the 25%-50% claimed in the some sites posted here...with zero data...I posted sites with data and reports to back up the claims.

In case you didn't know, the US govt passed new laws restricting emissons from diesels...that's what this is about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Low_Sulfur_Diesel

Now, injecting water into cylinders has been around since WWII. The reason was to stop knocking as the gas used in fighters etc was too low in octane. That was before better cracking.

http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/WaterInjection.html

HHO...still no such thing..when you split water you get diatomic hydrogen and diatomic oxygen...nothing else.

I think I will stick with MIT and INL...and not the water4 gas stuff.

glenn

[David Rodale]

You obviously didn't read the links I provided. That's the real science. The links indicate that NOx and soot emmissions are reduced and a possible efficiency gain of less than 5% when H2 is added to gasoline--however, that may not include the electrolysis energy which is very inefficient and the main reason it is not being considered for Hydrogen production in the next generation nuclear reactors. I posted that a long time ago...so nothing new. A quantum leap would be the 25%-50% claimed in the sites you posted...with zero data...I posted sites with data and reports to back up the claims.

In case you didn't know, the US govt passed new laws restricting emissons from diesels...that's what this is about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Low_Sulfur_Diesel

Now, injecting water into cylinders has been around since WWII. The reason was to stop knocking as the gas used in fighters etc was too low in octane. That was before better cracking.

http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/WaterInjection.html

HHO...still no such thing..when you split water you get diatomic hydrogen and diatomic oxygen...nothing else.

I think I will stick with MIT and INL...and not the water4 gas stuff.

glenn

I don't recall linking but to Fran Giroux, and posted his Tour de Sol mileage contest results. Remember? Did he cheat? Fran is one of the few honest ones out there.

If you had read the article you linked to, you would know who ArvinMeritor is.

DOE targets of 75% efficiency for hydrogen via electrolysis have now been reached and exceeded. Look it up.

I am very familiar with water vapor injection and its effect on combustion, thank you, and upcoming emissions requirements for diesels. It's my business.

No comment on the SAE paper? Spend a few dollars and learn something.

Hello? HHO is a registered trademark name. Got it? There is no special meaning to "HHO". I never once mentioned water4gas. You keep bringing up these strawmen as baseless arguments.

[Hindmost]

How efficient is an ICE running on say, 65% ethanol and 35% water? How about 50% diesel and 50% water?

BTW, you may wish to purchase the following:
Performance and Fuel Consumption Estimation of a Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline Engine At Part-Load Operation (http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2002-01-2196)

Keep particular focus on "Part-Load Operation". You folks still don't get it.

I have no idea what the Hydro4000 test results will be and don't much care, but what will you say should they verify the maker's claim? His quoted output 2.3 LPM @ 7A is extremely efficient and is questionable. I've yet to figure out how he's attaining that.

Why not dissect Fran Giroux's website (http://hydrogen-boost.com/)? How does he survive after these many years promoting "woo"? There's a video at the bottom. Is he a scammer too? Do trucking firms make it habit of flushing money down the toilet? Ha! I posted the 2005 Tour De Sol mileage contest a while back. Did Fran cheat?

Early on I claimed 20% increase in MPG from my 7 cell plate type electrolyzer; have been using the same unit for many years. Am I delusional or a liar? My next unit will be a 6 cell with greatly improved efficiency (50-75% energy efficiency increase) with less total surface area. Not as claimed by Hydro4000, but much higher than the honest claimants on the web. How? I'll let you think about it for a while.

Tjw, you tried with the last sentence in your post, but no cigar.





You cited Fran Giroux's website in this post....above

Approximately zero? I've been lurking for the last several weeks watching you and a few others demonstrate much ignorance and lack of real world experience with ICE's. Thanks for proving the point on this one as I had first hand knowledge of the Smart Plug beginning in 1995, then the prototype builds and subsequent road tests. At the beginning of this or another thread you were given the opportunity to check it out, but chose to blow it off.

Ultra-lean burn is limited by the ignition and post-ignition sequence in the combustion cycle. OEM spark plug technology hasn't changed a whole lot the last 30 years despite advancements in the electronics. For you to claim current combustion technology is at 99% efficiency is laughable. Read and learn.

http://www.smartplugs.com/leanburn/index.html

http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/921556

http://www.webs1.uidaho.edu/niatt/research/Final_Reports/KLK316_N01-09.pdf

http://www.webs1.uidaho.edu/niatt/database/Database_Search2.asp#top

Type "ignition" into the search window.

http://www.webs1.uidaho.edu/niatt/database/Database_Search2.asp

Listen to the audio at the bottom. The van discussed is not the first vehicle to have been tested using the Smart Plug.

http://domesticfuel.com/index.php?s=smart+plug

My last contact with Mark Cherry was 2005. At that time he was contracted with the military to convert generators.



Plan to? As I said, it is nothing new to me. You still have not responded to my request to address Fran Giroux. If he weren't a straight shooter, I'd have branded him as such. Allen Caggiano found that out.

One of my favorite quotes by skeptics is (paraphrased) "if it worked it would be on every car sold". Not so. If you'd think logically for a few seconds, this type of hydrogen generation is not for everyone.
1) Electrolytes required are hazardous chemicals if not handled properly.
2) Use of the wrong fluid would ruin the unit or create a dangerous situation.
3) The units must be cleaned and maintained frequently.
4) Are only safe as the user. In the hands of Joe Public?

Now, a compact fuel reformer is a different story.

Ever wonder why the EV1 didn't make it to market?

Of course in your finite world, that "challenge" must be a legitimate enterprise. Nobody would renege on $1 million right? What makes you think that guy is not a scammer? The lawyers would have fun with that. I notice the "challenge" apparently concedes below 25% is a given as 20% or even 10% is measurable. A 5% increase for truckers translates into huge savings. Nonetheless, wasn't the idea that introducing hydrogen to improve fuel efficiency impossible to begin with? Now there are strings attached? Whether the engine runs for 100,000 or 10 miles before failing is irrelevant. I have no interest in sending $5,000 to that clown, but would gladly take $5000 from you, however JREF explicitly prohibits this sort of exchange correct?

See, the problem is there are many thousands using this mundane technology to improve fuel efficiency. At some point it will become self-evident in spite of the nutbags and embellishments.

My suggestion would be to build a hydrogen electrolyzer yourself. It's really quite simple. Are you afraid to find out? A sealed 6-7 plate type cell is the most efficient I'm aware of. 1.48V minimum per cell is required.

And asked for a response in this post above.


I don't recall linking but to Fran Giroux, and posted his Tour de Sol mileage contest results. Remember? Did he cheat? Fran is one of the few honest ones out there.

If you had read the article you linked to, you would know who ArvinMeritor is.

DOE targets of 75% efficiency for hydrogen via electrolysis have now been reached and exceeded. Look it up.

I am very familiar with water vapor injection and its effect on combustion, thank you, and upcoming emissions requirements for diesels. It's my business.

No comment on the SAE paper? Spend a few dollars and learn something.

Hello? HHO is a registered trademark name. Got it? There is no special meaning to "HHO". I never once mentioned water4gas. You keep bringing up these strawmen as baseless arguments.

Fran Giroux's cite claims huge efficiency gains and huge 50-100% mileage gains--this would kick the carnot cycle's butt. It also claims brown's gas is injected which is identified on many water for gas sites--which are scams. I have never seen it claimed as a trademark on any website. So, it wasn't a strawman...just trying to ensure the woo of brown's gas is separated from the reality of hydrogen injection.

And I don't believe the results as they are annedotes. I also believe, if the results were true, GM, Ford and everyone car company on the planet would be installing these things--as I would too.

The SAE paper is from 1992 and the abstract didn't seem directly related to this.

As far as what the DOE is targeting for hydrogen generation efficiency, I was making no claims. however, I am claiming the next generation nuclear reactors do not plan on using electrolysis for hydrogen production due to efficiency concerns. (that may change in the future, but it is not planned right now)

I don't think we are going to agree on anything, so I am giving up here.

glenn

[XYNG]

http://www.water4gasreview.com/


OK I have seen some crazy pics of this like this one, claiming 40% more gas mileage...seems to me, the o2 sensor would say "hey, theres not enough gas in here, lets richen it up!" and make you eat MORE gas

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y5/map40/DSCN0094.jpg
OK If this Hydrogen Generator will NEVER!! Take the place of Oil & Gas to run your car with, how about using plain AIR.!! YES I said only AIR PRESSURE to run ones car With.

Now you all can again call me Insane or Crazy, but guess what people , this AIR Car is already been Perfected and is already Running, and Reday to be Massed Produced.

So IMO Look for this Air car to take the Place of GM & Ford Gas eaters, sooner then you Experts think. IMO now View with me the Future of Auto's going forward in 2009. YES the AIR CAR is already here, your question should be who will BUY all United States Rights to it. GE ?? Ford. GM or a all New Car Company soon to be Formed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztFDqcu8oJ4;)

[KingMerv00]

OK If this Hydrogen Generator will NEVER!! Take the place of Oil & Gas to run your car with, how about using plain AIR.!! YES I said only AIR PRESSURE to run ones car With.

Now you all can again call me Insane or Crazy, but guess what people , this AIR Car is already been Perfected and is already Running, and Reday to be Massed Produced.

So IMO Look for this Air car to take the Place of GM & Ford Gas eaters, sooner then you Experts think. IMO now View with me the Future of Auto's going forward in 2009. YES the AIR CAR is already here, your question should be who will BUY all United States Rights to it. GE ?? Ford. GM or a all New Car Company soon to be Formed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztFDqcu8oJ4;)

Sure you can run a car on compressed air. The car would be emission free but some issues come to mind.

Compressing air takes energy and making energy makes pollution. How efficient and dirty would the process be?

How far can you go on a tank of air?

How long would a refill take?

What kind explosion hazard are we looking at?

Decompressing air is cold. How cold will it get and how do we warm the engine? How much energy would it take? (Granted this is not a particularly difficult engineering problem but the question is worth asking.)

[Paulhoff]

Does anyone wonder why Bush got in for a second term, I don't.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Soapy Sam]

First water, then air...anyone planning to run a car on vacuum energy yet?

Dare I suggest that rather than squeezing an extra few percent efficiency from cars, we might be better to rethink our attitudes to transport?

Know how many miles a human can walk on a glass of water and a ham sandwich?

[CORed]

These things are a scam, pure and simple.

You are using energy from the engine, to drive the alternator, to electrolyze water, to make hydrogen and oxygen, to burn in your engine. If everything ran at 100% efficiency (which it can't), the net energy produced by one of these devices is exactly zero. In the real world, where the second law of thermodynamics operates it will waste energy.

Regarding your actual question, it is producing hydrogen and oxygen in a stoichiometric mixture (exact mixture needed to recombine into water), so there is neither extra oxygen nor extra fuel.

The other problem (or maybe it's actually a good thing, given that they are actually energy wasters) is that the amount of hydrogen and oxygent (this is what is really being produced: HHO and "Brown's gas" are obfuscations) that you can produce from your car's electrical system, while still leaving enough power to run your ignition, headlights, ventilation fan, wipers, radio, etc. is not enough to even run a lawnmower, let alone account for 40% of the power output of a car engine.

Now, a lot of the scammers/delusional people (take your pick) pushing these worthless devices will tell people who install these things and see no fuel savings, that they need to fiddle with their engine management systems to lean out the mixture, in order to make up for the alledged "extra oxygen" produced by the systems. Doing so may well result in improved gas mileage. However, it will also screw up your emission controls and likely cause engine damage or excessive wear, and would actually save more fuel without the worthless electrolytic cell.

In short "HHO", "Brown's gas" or "run your car on water" are perpetual motion scams, intended to separate the scientifically ignorant from their money.

[CORed]

It really doesn't matter what the scammers claim. When you elctrolyze water, you get a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, which will produce less energy when burned than it took to make it.

HHO, Brown's gas, or whatever silly names they are using today are just obfuscations, intended to convince ignorant people that their worthless devices will work.

[XYNG]

If only they knew that Hydrogen has 1/3rd the energy density of gasoline, by volume.

No, no there's no explanation for this. Please don't damage your car with this stupid device.

It's not really going to effect the sensors much either way, but I really don't know what it will do to the car.

P.S. H2 + O is a far more conventional way of writing the outputs of the system, but we can't be conventional when we have the insane water to gas system, neh?
Instead of using Hydrogen aTo Fuel a car with, how about building a Car that can RUN on AIR PRESSURE, It might seem impossible, but after you view this Video toy will say, this invention, could be worth $100 Million dollars, just for starters, IMO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztFDqcu8oJ4:);):rolleyes:

[KingMerv00]

Instead of using Hydrogen aTo Fuel a car with, how about building a Car that can RUN on AIR PRESSURE, It might seem impossible, but after you view this Video toy will say, this invention, could be worth $100 Million dollars, just for starters, IMO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztFDqcu8oJ4:);):rolleyes:

Did you not see my post above?

[fishbob]

Know how many miles a human can walk on a glass of water and a ham sandwich?

About 0.038%.
The glass breaks and the sandwich gets pretty mushy after that.

[CORed]

Yeh. What he said. And, BTW , those "tinkerings" will have to do with compression ratios, and timing advances. Not for the dilettante enthusiast.
What we need is a steam car.

Advancing the ignition timing was really easy on old cars with distributors. Not so easy on modern computer-managed engines.Changing valve timing requires a new camshsft. Changing the compression ratio requires major surgery on eny engine: Changing pistons or cylinder head, mainly. I think the results that some of these folks are citing as evidence that these things work were from diesel engines, anyway, not gasoline. In any case I find 40% very hard to believe. Until some independent peer reviewed test show significant increases in mileage (probably never), I'm going to assume they are scams.

[CORed]

It also should be pointed out that the fact that somebody has built electrolytic cells with 75% or better efficiency (if they actually have) doesn't mean that some piece of crap you put together out of wires, window screen and a mason jar is going to get anywhere close to that efficiency.

I'm guessing that we're talking about electrodes made of exotic metals, close tolerances, and carefully controlled voltage, among other things.

[bruto]

OK If this Hydrogen Generator will NEVER!! Take the place of Oil & Gas to run your car with, how about using plain AIR.!! YES I said only AIR PRESSURE to run ones car With.

Now you all can again call me Insane or Crazy, but guess what people , this AIR Car is already been Perfected and is already Running, and Reday to be Massed Produced.

So IMO Look for this Air car to take the Place of GM & Ford Gas eaters, sooner then you Experts think. IMO now View with me the Future of Auto's going forward in 2009. YES the AIR CAR is already here, your question should be who will BUY all United States Rights to it. GE ?? Ford. GM or a all New Car Company soon to be Formed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztFDqcu8oJ4;)Not insane or crazy, but not, I suspect, very thoughtful about the realities of the design. I suggest you do some more research on this. The subject has been beaten about considerably here and elsewhere. Don't hold your breath waiting for air cars. The energy conversion penalty is huge, and any practicable air car strategy will require an abundance of very cheap electricity in an environment where it is not needed for anything else.

[Uncle Vanya]

OK If this Hydrogen Generator will NEVER!! Take the place of Oil & Gas to run your car with, how about using plain AIR.!! YES I said only AIR PRESSURE to run ones car With.

Now you all can again call me Insane or Crazy, but guess what people , this AIR Car is already been Perfected and is already Running, and Reday to be Massed Produced.

So IMO Look for this Air car to take the Place of GM & Ford Gas eaters, sooner then you Experts think. IMO now View with me the Future of Auto's going forward in 2009. YES the AIR CAR is already here, your question should be who will BUY all United States Rights to it. GE ?? Ford. GM or a all New Car Company soon to be Formed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztFDqcu8oJ4;)

So... I watched that video... they didn't actually say anything about how it all worked, just vague overviews of an engine that runs on compressed air.

First off, they claim they have an air compressor that runs off of compressed air? Really? That doesn't make a lick of sense, I wish I could debunk that, but I can't... it sort of debunks itself. I'm thinking these folks have never heard of thermodynamics.

Second, every second this car is running, the engine is getting weaker and weaker, when air pressure is released to push a piston, the mass of air in the tanks gets lower and the air pressure in the tanks decreases. I'm thinking even if they got 200 miles from a tank, by the time they'd hit 200 miles their car would be topping out at a whopping speed of 1 mph.

Third, brakes and accessories? Where are they? Power steering/brakes? HVAC? Without things like that you don't really have a car so much as you have a glorified go-kart.

Lastly, and here's the killer, they're using compressed air. I used to work as a diesel mechanic for a bus fleet, the whole fleet used pneumatic brakes, here's what I can tell you will be the problems they will run into with using compressed air: condensation in air tanks and hoses (it can freeze and even if it doesn't freeze, it can throw a monkey wrench in the engine's operation) and leaking (their system will leak, I've yet to see a pneumatic system that doesn't leak). Those two problems will make the car unreliable at best, and impossible to drive at worst.

[Prometheus]

So... I watched that video... they didn't actually say anything about how it all worked, just vague overviews of an engine that runs on compressed air.

First off, they claim they have an air compressor that runs off of compressed air? Really? That doesn't make a lick of sense, I wish I could debunk that, but I can't... it sort of debunks itself. I'm thinking these folks have never heard of thermodynamics.

Second, every second this car is running, the engine is getting weaker and weaker, when air pressure is released to push a piston, the mass of air in the tanks gets lower and the air pressure in the tanks decreases. I'm thinking even if they got 200 miles from a tank, by the time they'd hit 200 miles their car would be topping out at a whopping speed of 1 mph.

Third, brakes and accessories? Where are they? Power steering/brakes? HVAC? Without things like that you don't really have a car so much as you have a glorified go-kart.

Lastly, and here's the killer, they're using compressed air. I used to work as a diesel mechanic for a bus fleet, the whole fleet used pneumatic brakes, here's what I can tell you will be the problems they will run into with using compressed air: condensation in air tanks and hoses (it can freeze and even if it doesn't freeze, it can throw a monkey wrench in the engine's operation) and leaking (their system will leak, I've yet to see a pneumatic system that doesn't leak). Those two problems will make the car unreliable at best, and impossible to drive at worst.

Not to mention power loss in cold temperatures, and the possibility of catastrophic failure of the air tanks. There's a whole thread around somewhere about why this thing can't work. XYNG won't be replying (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=131290) anytime soon, though.

[CORed]

Not that I am in any way supporting these devices without more information, but I don't believe it is about overunity.
Some sites i read talked about taking wasted energy out of the system (eg. the alternator, when not charging the battery).
If this is indeed wasted energy, and it is used to produce a fuel which can be burnt, it possibly could add to the increase in mileage in the vehicle.

Unfortunately, there isn't extra electricity floating around, free for the taking, when your alternator isn't drawing much current. When there is low demand on the alternator, it draws very little engine power (of course there is some loss from friction). The more current you draw, the more torque (and therefor more power) is required to turn the alternator.

[Skeptic Guy]

Guys, I know this is an old thread, but I really didn't want to start a brand new thread about a subject so extensively dicussed.

I have to confess that I have read a few of the threads on HHO and it seems that it really doesn't work, maybe a very minimal benefit, but it goes back and forth so often that I'm not sure how much benefit it provides.

A friend of mine, who I have tried to disuade from doing this, has recently installed an hydrogen generator in his car and now claims to have received a great benefit. Can this be remotely correct? Or is he just experiencing confirmation bias?

The more recent discussion began by me emailing him a story from a local newspaper that described a con man that was being prosecuted for fraud by trying to sell these kits. (http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1235885233134710.xml&coll=1)

What's a good resource with real science behind it to help in my discussion?

[Paulhoff]

Guys, I know this is an old thread, but I really didn't want to start a brand new thread about a subject so extensively dicussed.

I have to confess that I have read a few of the threads on HHO and it seems that it really doesn't work, maybe a very minimal benefit, but it goes back and forth so often that I'm not sure how much benefit it provides.

A friend of mine, who I have tried to disuade from doing this, has recently installed an hydrogen generator in his car and now claims to have received a great benefit. Can this be remotely correct? Or is he just experiencing confirmation bias?

The more recent discussion began by me emailing him a story from a local newspaper that described a con man that was being prosecuted for fraud by trying to sell these kits. (http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1235885233134710.xml&coll=1)

What's a good resource with real science behind it to help in my discussion?
Simple, if this works so well, why isn't on cars already, like aren't the car companies going under and could use everything to make their cars sell better.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Skeptic Guy]

I used that argument, then he pointed out that there is a conspiracy with the auto makers....

:rolleyes:

[Paulhoff]

I used that argument, then he pointed out that there is a conspiracy with the auto makers....

:rolleyes:
Tell him he is dumb, nothing else to say.

Yes, losing money, that is what business is about, daaaaaaaa.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Hindmost]

I used that argument, then he pointed out that there is a conspiracy with the auto makers....

:rolleyes:

A conspiracy that would give the automakers an advantage over every other company on the planet and they are suppressing it---considering their particular state right now, I would think they would pull that rabit out of the hat--ask if that really makes sense.

Somewhere, early in this thread, I posted stuff from MIT...I am too lazy to look, but MIT did some real research...so, it should be believable, but they could be part of the conspiracy I suppose.

glenn

[Horatius]

A friend of mine, who I have tried to disuade from doing this, has recently installed an hydrogen generator in his car and now claims to have received a great benefit. Can this be remotely correct? Or is he just experiencing confirmation bias?




When he installed this, ask him if he replaced any spark plugs, or oil, or did any tuning up. If he did, ask him what effect those changes might have had on his mileage.

[bruto]

I'm reminded of the spate of spams I was getting a few years ago, from literally hundreds of hopeful spammers advertising the "banned CD" which contains all the secrets "they" don't want you to know about. Some secret.

The Detroit conspiracy theory doesn't hold up very well when there are dozens of web sites selling HHO kits and plans, and any joker with a case of mason jars and a couple of rolls of wire can set up in the business.

I realize that there is some evidence that the folks in the car business are pretty clueless about a few things, but that cat is so far out of the bag that even GM would have noticed.

[KingMerv00]

A friend of mine, who I have tried to disuade from doing this, has recently installed an hydrogen generator in his car and now claims to have received a great benefit. Can

You can run a car by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen but it is a waste of energy:

Electrolysis

2H2O ----> 2H2 + O2

We use a power source (a battery) to split the water molecule.

Combustion

O2 + 2H2 ----> 2H2O

We burn the hydrogen.



The combustion step is the exact reverse of the electrolysis step so the energy used to split a water molecule is identical to the energy released from the combustion of hydrogen. Even if the process were 100% efficient (har har), it would just make more sense to hook up the battery directly to the engine and turn the wheels that way.

In the real world, energy will be lost in the form of heat, friction, and sound so the whole idea is doubly wasteful.

[Dan O.]

You can run a car by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen but it is a waste of energy:

Electrolysis

2H2O ----> 2H2 + O2

We use a power source (a battery) to split the water molecule.

Combustion

O2 + 2H2 ----> 2H2O

We burn the hydrogen.



The combustion step is the exact reverse of the electrolysis step so the energy used to split a water molecule is identical to the energy released from the combustion of hydrogen. Even if the process were 100% efficient (har har), it would just make more sense to hook up the battery directly to the engine and turn the wheels that way.

In the real world, energy will be lost in the form of heat, friction, and sound so the whole idea is doubly wasteful.


Compare that to the process of making oil, refining the oil into fuel and then burning the fuel in an internal combustion engine.

[temporalillusion]

Compare that to the process of making oil, refining the oil into fuel and then burning the fuel in an internal combustion engine.

You don't make oil, you dig it out of the ground. It takes less energy to dig it has, so the excess we can use to power our cars and stuff.

Hydrogen isn't an energy source, it takes energy to create it. Think of it as a battery.

[Dan O.]

There are schemes that use hydrogen for energy storage to power vehicles with either fuel cells or ICEs. However, that is not how the HHO is used in the OP of this thread.

Here, a small quantity of 2H2 + O2 is added to the fuel mixture to allow a more efficient operation of the engine when not operating at high power output. The overall gain has been properly measured in the range of 2%-4%.

The extraordinary claims of 30%+ gains are of course bogus. These cases typically involve really old vehicles that don't pass emissions tests and therefore are not burning the existing fuel efficiently. Maybe the hydrogen generator allows the old clunkers to burn the oil that is leaking into the cylinders.

[bruto]

There are schemes that use hydrogen for energy storage to power vehicles with either fuel cells or ICEs. However, that is not how the HHO is used in the OP of this thread.

Here, a small quantity of 2H2 + O2 is added to the fuel mixture to allow a more efficient operation of the engine when not operating at high power output. The overall gain has been properly measured in the range of 2%-4%.

The extraordinary claims of 30%+ gains are of course bogus. These cases typically involve really old vehicles that don't pass emissions tests and therefore are not burning the existing fuel efficiently. Maybe the hydrogen generator allows the old clunkers to burn the oil that is leaking into the cylinders.Do you have a non-biased source for the properly measured gain from an add-on device such as those sold?

[Paulhoff]

The load of the alternator on the gas engine will be much greater then any so-called gain when making H2. Where do they think the energy is coming from to make H2, it is the gas engine.

Paul

:) :) :)

[temporalillusion]

Here, a small quantity of 2H2 + O2 is added to the fuel mixture to allow a more efficient operation of the engine when not operating at high power output. The overall gain has been properly measured in the range of 2%-4%.


So modern engines are leaving more than 5% of the fuel put into them uncombusted? Unlikely, engines already burn their fuel almost completely.

Adding that into the fuel-air mixture could have an effect if the engine was designed and programmed to use it. Adding that into the fuel-air mixture I think has been shown to reduce knock so you can get higher compression ratios and can run leaner mixtures, but how much an engine can take advantage of that without any modifications (different program, different cylinder heads or pistons) is questionable.

ETA:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/07/water4gas.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html?series=19

[Skeptic Guy]

A conspiracy that would give the automakers an advantage over every other company on the planet and they are suppressing it---considering their particular state right now, I would think they would pull that rabit out of the hat--ask if that really makes sense.

Somewhere, early in this thread, I posted stuff from MIT...I am too lazy to look, but MIT did some real research...so, it should be believable, but they could be part of the conspiracy I suppose.

glenn

I pointed out that the Prius is one of the most popular cars out there and if all it took was to add one of these kits onto an existing car, automobile manufaturers would be all over it.

Thanks for the MIT info. I'll look for it and send it to him.

When he installed this, ask him if he replaced any spark plugs, or oil, or did any tuning up. If he did, ask him what effect those changes might have had on his mileage.

I will.

You can run a car by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen but it is a waste of energy:

Electrolysis

2H2O ----> 2H2 + O2

We use a power source (a battery) to split the water molecule.

Combustion

O2 + 2H2 ----> 2H2O

We burn the hydrogen.



The combustion step is the exact reverse of the electrolysis step so the energy used to split a water molecule is identical to the energy released from the combustion of hydrogen. Even if the process were 100% efficient (har har), it would just make more sense to hook up the battery directly to the engine and turn the wheels that way.

In the real world, energy will be lost in the form of heat, friction, and sound so the whole idea is doubly wasteful.

Would the energy required to split the water molecule result in increased fuel consumption to generate the electricity or is there enough spare electricity capacity in the battery?

Ok, it's been a while since physics, so I know I have this all wrong. But I do appreciate it.

[temporalillusion]

Would the energy required to split the water molecule result in increased fuel consumption to generate the electricity or is there enough spare electricity capacity in the battery?

Ok, it's been a while since physics, so I know I have this all wrong. But I do appreciate it.

If you drew on the battery to do the splitting, it would discharge the battery, and then you'd have to charge it somehow, so you'd be adding energy from elsewhere.

If you drew one unit of energy from the engine, and used that entire one unit of energy to split water into its gasses, and then burned those gasses in the engine, the energy from burning those gasses is less than one unit of energy. So from a strict burning the hydrogen and oxygen point of view, it's a net loss always.

And in reality using the methods they use, using one unit of energy from the engine will split only maybe .2 or .3 units of energy worth of gasses, so you have to overcome the inefficiency of the generation of hydrogen and oxygen as well.

[jimbob]

Would the energy required to split the water molecule result in increased fuel consumption to generate the electricity or is there enough spare electricity capacity in the battery?

Yes it would.

Not all the electricity from the battery will go into splitting the water, some will heat the battery and wires etc. so that is some energy lost.

You now have some hydrogen and oxygen that cost more energy (due to the wastage) to split than you would get when you recombine them. When you recombine them you get a certain amount of energy, which woud be what you would have need to split the water if there were no losses. Unfortunately there are also losses in using this released energy. You ultimately want it to drive the car forward. There are losses in every conversion of energy.

On top of this, you have added wieght to the car.

Of course the same argument applies for a hydroge-powered car, the difference being that you are then buying electricity (hopefully renewable) storing it as hydrogen and then using that. If the electricity is cheap enough then this is worthwhile.

If you are using hydrogen that is obtained from methane cracking, then this is not worthwhile.

[Pantaz]

Reported (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/106/story/396906.html) just a few weeks ago...
The FTC took legal action this week against the makers of the HAFC, and a federal court temporarily halted the product's advertising campaign and froze the assets of its makers, Dutchman Enterprises LLC and United Community Services of America Inc.
(more... (http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/106/story/396906.html))

I found the article via autobloggreen.com (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/02/09/ftc-cracks-down-on-hydro-assist-fuel-cell-scam/)

[Paulhoff]

I work at ACE Hardware, and we had a lot of guys coming in to get the parts for this junk. Stainless Steel bolts and nuts of all things, stainless is a very poor conductor, so there is power lost right there from the start.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Skeptic Guy]

Ah, I think I finally get it. Ok, this is very good and will help tremendously.

This is why I love this forum.

ETA: And I can't imagine what he's doing to his car. It's out of warranty so that's not going to be an issue.

[KingMerv00]

Compare that to the process of making oil, refining the oil into fuel and then burning the fuel in an internal combustion engine.

You are missing the point. A water engine is simply a worthless step that is only good for consuming money and energy.

To split water, you have to put energy in. That means you must have an electrical power source. The energy from burning hydrogen is less than the energy provided by the original power source. Ergo it would make more sense to bypass the electrolysis step completely and just hook up the original power source to the wheels.

[KingMerv00]

Hydrogen isn't an energy source, it takes energy to create it. Think of it as a battery.

Maybe someday far into the future we could collect a little from the sun or a nebula or something.

[temporalillusion]

Maybe someday far into the future we could collect a little from the sun or a nebula or something.

Or harvest it from the solar wind. At earth's orbit I know the solar wind is really not dense, but if we could gather it with a big enough area... and it's already charged so that might make it easier to gather.

We could put something out at one of the Lagrangian points to gather it and compress it and shoot it into earth orbit. The only problem is getting it down to earth somehow.

I wonder if that would/could be better than solar satellites beaming power down.

[Dan O.]

You are missing the point. A water engine is simply a worthless step that is only good for consuming money and energy.

To split water, you have to put energy in. That means you must have an electrical power source. The energy from burning hydrogen is less than the energy provided by the original power source. Ergo it would make more sense to bypass the electrolysis step completely and just hook up the original power source to the wheels.

Your argument is a straw man. You are presenting a simplified case and ignoring the fact that the generated gas is combined with gasoline to increases the efficiency of the ICE over some portion of its power curve.

[Paulhoff]

Your argument is a straw man. You are presenting a simplified case and ignoring the fact that the generated gas is combined with gasoline to increases the efficiency of the ICE over some portion of its power curve.
This would still not offset the power loss of making gas to begin with.

Paul

:) :) :)

[bruto]

Your argument is a straw man. You are presenting a simplified case and ignoring the fact that the generated gas is combined with gasoline to increases the efficiency of the ICE over some portion of its power curve.So it's said, but so far, I have seen no disinterested evidence that this is more than a speculative theory, specifically with regard to:

1. an existing engine that has not been designed to burn that specific mixture

2: the devices actually being produced and affixed to existing engines

3: real world conditions of use.

[Hindmost]

Skeptic Guy,

One thing to always remember with this stuff first...there is no such molecule as HHO or brown's gas or whatever they want to call it. When you split water, you get diatomic hydrogen and diatomic oxygen...

O2 and H2

There is no intermediate HHO molecule that contains extra energy or anything--chemistry won't allow anything else.

As has been stated, the energy put into splitting the water will never be returned burning the hydrogen and oxygen...can't escape the laws of thermo.

glenn

[Dan O.]

This would still not offset the power loss of making gas to begin with.

Your statement is not supported.

[bruto]

Your statement is not supported.Neither, it seems, is yours.

[Dan O.]

Neither, it seems, is yours.

My claim that Paulhoff's claim is unsupported is supported by the direct observation in this thread that Paulhoff's claim has no supporting argument.

[bruto]

My claim that Paulhoff's claim is unsupported is supported by the direct observation in this thread that Paulhoff's claim has no supporting argument.I refer not to your rejection of Paulhoff's claim but to yours of "the fact that the generated gas is combined with gasoline to increases the efficiency of the ICE over some portion of its power curve."

[Dan O.]

I refer not to your rejection of Paulhoff's claim but to yours of "the fact that the generated gas is combined with gasoline to increases the efficiency of the ICE over some portion of its power curve."

That is the claim of the OP.

[Paulhoff]

That is the claim of the OP.
There is no perpetual machine, it will take more energy to make the gas then whatever so-called extra power the gasoline engine will ever from burning said gas and so-called power curve. I want to see a peer-reviewed science paper.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Dan O.]

There is no perpetual machine, it will take more energy to make the gas then whatever so-called extra power the gasoline engine will ever from burning said gas and so-called power curve.

If you set an open can of gas behind your car and light it you can get 100% combustion but your car won't move very far. An internal combustion engine is good at converting the energy in gasoline into useful mechanical work but it is still only about 50% efficient. Part of that efficiency loss is the result of energy being transfered to vibrational modes of the fuel molecules which reduces the pressure available to move the piston. A leaner fuel mixture reduces this loss so more of the energy goes into pushing the piston instead of heating the exhaust.


I want to see a peer-reviewed science paper.

Your call for evidence shall go unheeded since you have yet to provide evidence supporting your own claim.

[bruto]

That is the claim of the OP.No, that is not the claim of the OP. That is a quotation from your own post # 296.

[Dan O.]

No, that is not the claim of the OP. That is a quotation from your own post # 296.

Have you read this thread or did you just jump in at the end and start demanding evidence?

[Holler Hoojer]

If you set an open can of gas behind your car and light it you can get 100% combustion but your car won't move very far. An internal combustion engine is good at converting the energy in gasoline into useful mechanical work but it is still only about 50% efficient. Part of that efficiency loss is the result of energy being transfered to vibrational modes of the fuel molecules which reduces the pressure available to move the piston. A leaner fuel mixture reduces this loss so more of the energy goes into pushing the piston instead of heating the exhaust.




Your call for evidence shall go unheeded since you have yet to provide evidence supporting your own claim.

The seminal paper on this topic was written by H. R. Ricardo in the Proceedings of the Royal Aeronautical Society in 1920. However, Sir Harry also wrote an entire book a few years later,

Ricardo, Sir Harry Ralph. Engines of high output; thermodynamic considerations. London: Macdonald and Evans, 1926.

Note this was nine decades ago. Every legitimate paper on the subject since that time has been in agreement with Ricardo. That's every as in all, without exception - literally thousands or hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions. If you require modern day confirmation, Penn State University has recently run a series of tests on hydrogen-gasoline mixtures. They found, yes, Ricardo is still correct.

Now, of course, you really can improve the mileage of almost any internal combustion auto by a variety of schemes, provided that they reduce the horsepower. The Hispano-Suiza J12 did this, I believe Lincoln did it for a while, and the old hit-and-miss farm engines did this.

And, yes, I have built and tested burners for many kinds of gas, including hydrogen, and I have used lambda sensors for controlling them. The science is very well known; there are no mysteries.

[Paulhoff]

An internal combustion engine is good at converting the energy in gasoline into useful mechanical work but it is still only about 50% efficient. Part of that efficiency loss is the result of energy being transfered to vibrational modes of the fuel molecules which reduces the pressure available to move the piston.
Sounds good, but is silly BS. I'm still waiting for a real paper on this.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Skeptic Guy]

Skeptic Guy,

One thing to always remember with this stuff first...there is no such molecule as HHO or brown's gas or whatever they want to call it. When you split water, you get diatomic hydrogen and diatomic oxygen...

O2 and H2

There is no intermediate HHO molecule that contains extra energy or anything--chemistry won't allow anything else.

As has been stated, the energy put into splitting the water will never be returned burning the hydrogen and oxygen...can't escape the laws of thermo.

glenn

I understand. I never gave credence to the Brown's Gas or whatever. I just wanted to be sure that my initial take that you couldn't get more energy out of burning Hydrogen than you could creating it.

I'm condensing all this great information in a single document for my friend.

One of the problems with the forum is that you get all this information spread out over tens of threads containing hundreds of post and it's hard to weed through it. It would be great to have a single site that aggregates the best scientific evidence regarding issues like this and acts like a resource for critical thinkers. Or is there already such a place?

[temporalillusion]

If you set an open can of gas behind your car and light it you can get 100% combustion but your car won't move very far. An internal combustion engine is good at converting the energy in gasoline into useful mechanical work but it is still only about 50% efficient. Part of that efficiency loss is the result of energy being transfered to vibrational modes of the fuel molecules which reduces the pressure available to move the piston. A leaner fuel mixture reduces this loss so more of the energy goes into pushing the piston instead of heating the exhaust.


As I've pointed out and the links I provided pointed out, yes if you add hydrogen you can run the engine leaner, but if the engine isn't programmed or designed to do this there'll be no benefit. Plus if you run leaner your emissions go out the window. Plus you'd have to show that the increase will offset the cost of generating the hydrogen, which is very inefficient.

You can't just tack one on an engine and expect an increase.

Engines are 50% efficient, but that's due to heat and friction losses, not because the combustion itself is inefficient (otherwise 50% of the fuel put in would be coming back out).

[bruto]

Have you read this thread or did you just jump in at the end and start demanding evidence?Yes, I have read the thread, and since the original post suggests that the invention is a dubious one because its benefits would be erased by the engine management system, I find it quite strange that you seem to believe that the original post matches the quotation that is quite clearly yours, considering that the entire thread is still available for rereading.

I am simply responding to a statement you made asserting a fact. I ask if you know of any corroboration of that fact which can be trusted as to impartiality.

[KingMerv00]

Your argument is a straw man. You are presenting a simplified case and ignoring the fact that the generated gas is combined with gasoline to increases the efficiency of the ICE over some portion of its power curve.

This thread has wandered all over the place since it was created. We even discussed an air-pressure engine. Maybe my electrolysis/combustion post was off topic. Whoops.

That being said, you first replied to my post by saying:

Compare that to the process of making oil, refining the oil into fuel and then burning the fuel in an internal combustion engine.

Do you believe water engines work?

[Dan O.]

This thread has wandered all over the place since it was created. We even discussed an air-pressure engine. Maybe my electrolysis/combustion post was off topic. Whoops.

Your argument that generating hydrogen uses more energy than it returns in the engine makes as much sense as saying that it takes more energy to generate the electricity to create the sparks than the spark contributes to the output of the engine. Are spark plugs some kind of over-unity woo? Try taking them out of your engine and see how far you get.


Do you believe water engines work?
Some guy at Penn State is working on an engine that burns salt water so I'll have to see how that goes before answering.

[Paulhoff]

Some guy at Penn State is working on an engine that burns salt water so I'll have to see how that goes before answering.
That is an old one, doesn't work, again.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Dan O.]

Yes, I have read the thread, and since the original post suggests that the invention is a dubious one because its benefits would be erased by the engine management system, I find it quite strange that you seem to believe that the original post matches the quotation that is quite clearly yours, considering that the entire thread is still available for rereading.

I am simply responding to a statement you made asserting a fact. I ask if you know of any corroboration of that fact which can be trusted as to impartiality.

The fact that I referred to was presented earlier in this thread and as far as I know was not disputed. However, I have since discovered that though the numbers were presented on several government sites, the testing was all performed by the groups pushing the technology and was not independently confirmed.

[KingMerv00]

Your argument that generating hydrogen uses more energy than it returns in the engine makes as much sense as saying that it takes more energy to generate the electricity to create the sparks than the spark contributes to the output of the engine. Are spark plugs some kind of over-unity woo? Try taking them out of your engine and see how far you get.

Oil is created by natural geologic processes over millions of years. The energy used to create it was spent long ago. The energy was in the form of radioactive decay, tidal forces and others. Spark plugs release the stored chemical energy.

By contrast, a water engine turns substance A into substance B and then back into substance A again. According to the laws of thermodynamics, that is always a losing game.


Some guy at Penn State is working on an engine that burns salt water so I'll have to see how that goes before answering.

"Some guy" has been working on the water engine for a long time. If he does get it to work, it would overturn everything we know about physics and chemistry.

[Dan O.]

As I've pointed out and the links I provided pointed out, yes if you add hydrogen you can run the engine leaner, but if the engine isn't programmed or designed to do this there'll be no benefit.

Funny thing about that link you provided. In the article I found this quote: "In addition, the Canadian government performed scientific testing on the device and found that it reduced fuel consumption by only 4%."

Now just how much credibility can I give that article?

[Hindmost]

I understand. I never gave credence to the Brown's Gas or whatever. I just wanted to be sure that my initial take that you couldn't get more energy out of burning Hydrogen than you could creating it.

I'm condensing all this great information in a single document for my friend.

One of the problems with the forum is that you get all this information spread out over tens of threads containing hundreds of post and it's hard to weed through it. It would be great to have a single site that aggregates the best scientific evidence regarding issues like this and acts like a resource for critical thinkers. Or is there already such a place?

I never meant to imply that you gave creedence to HHO...sorry. Just wanted to give you an arguement to use.

I went back and found the links--these might help, but as with true research, there is a bunch to sift through.

http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library1/catalog/reports/2000/05ja/05ja022/05ja022_full.pdf

http://avt.inl.gov/hydrogen.shtml

MIT and Idaho national lab...

glenn

[Dan O.]

That is an old one, doesn't work, again.

Yep, about 18 month ago. Give it another 20 years for the patents to expire before it becomes practical. :)

[KingMerv00]

Yep, about 18 month ago. Give it another 20 years for the patents to expire before it becomes practical. :)

I'm not sure I get your point.

[Paulhoff]

Yep, about 18 month ago. Give it another 20 years for the patents to expire before it becomes practical. :)
Patent does not mean it works.

Paul

:) :) :)

[KingMerv00]

Patent does not mean it works.

Paul

:) :) :)

Oh, is that his point? If so, he doesn't understand patents.

[bruto]

The fact that I referred to was presented earlier in this thread and as far as I know was not disputed. However, I have since discovered that though the numbers were presented on several government sites, the testing was all performed by the groups pushing the technology and was not independently confirmed.


Thank you. That was a direct answer to my question. I remain open to the possibility that some additive could theoretically improve combustion in a way that exceeds the simple BTU exchange of energy input for fuel out, even for on-board exchange, but suspect that this one is not it.

It's the on-board nature of this exchange that makes it so problematic. If you need energy to propel your car to where you want to go, there is no technical reason why you cannot consume far more energy to get the gas into the tank than the gas delivers. All you have to do is be willing to pay for it. But that is a different matter from trying to get that energy from the tank itself.

[Paulhoff]

Oh, is that his point? If so, he doesn't understand patents.
Yes, patents today are much too easy to get, you don't have to show that it works, Randi has said this often.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Dan O.]

Patent does not mean it works.

It appears that the idea has already been buried along with the inventor. :(



Without going into the "over-unity" arguments, could this lead to a more efficient and compact "HHO" generator than direct electrolysis?

[KingMerv00]

It appears that the idea has already been buried along with the inventor. :(

How? Patents are public information even before they expire.


Without going into the "over-unity" arguments, could this lead to a more efficient and compact "HHO" generator than direct electrolysis?

Have I satisfied your concerns about the water engine?

[temporalillusion]

Funny thing about that link you provided. In the article I found this quote: "In addition, the Canadian government performed scientific testing on the device and found that it reduced fuel consumption by only 4%."

Now just how much credibility can I give that article?

Depends, do you think the article lied about what the Canadian government found? Reporting something is not the same as supporting it.

And I've never said that an increase in efficiency is impossible. But with a normal gas car engine the benefits are going to be very small even if the engine is tuned to take advantage of it, and it will probably be at the expense of something else (emissions for example). Just bolting it on is going to have random results depending on the engine.

Unless the engine is hooked up to test equipment in a lab in a controlled environment, any result is going to be questionable.

Put it on the engine and a person drives more conscious of the mileage because they're watching it, instant 4% gain. Was the ambient temperature accounted for? Tire pressure? Tire wear? Change in oil level? Dirty air made the oil dirty? Just far too many variables to hook it up and expect a 4% change to be a reliable result.

I have read cases where hydrogen injection has decreased the fuel used significantly (30% I seem to recall), but those are cases where a bunch of fuel is left unburned on purpose because of the design of the engine (cooling or something, I can't remember), the hydrogen took over that role and allowed much more fuel to be burned.

Testing this stuff to see if it really works isn't difficult, the guys who sell it don't do it for a reason.

You're not serious about the burning salt water are you? Really?

[Dan O.]

How? Patents are public information even before they expire.

But not before they are issued.


Have I satisfied your concerns about the water engine?

Your water engine is a non-sequitur. There is no claim in this thread that the engine is run entirely on the energy from the hydrogen produced by the output of the engine. That would be perpetual motion.

[KingMerv00]

But not before they are issued.

Ah. I thought you said he had a patent.

Your water engine is a non-sequitur. There is no claim in this thread that the engine is run entirely on the energy from the hydrogen produced by the output of the engine.

It WAS a non-sequitur until you defended it.

That would be perpetual motion.

Weren't you defending the water engine a minute ago?

[Dan O.]

Depends, do you think the article lied about what the Canadian government found? Reporting something is not the same as supporting it.

The quote was very specific, who tested what and the results, but is probably in error because the journalist didn't follow up on the sources.


And I've never said that an increase in efficiency is impossible. But with a normal gas car engine the benefits are going to be very small even if the engine is tuned to take advantage of it, and it will probably be at the expense of something else (emissions for example). Just bolting it on is going to have random results depending on the engine.

The effects aren't random but simply a function of the engine parameters and controls. You could study this stuff and actually figure out what effects would be expected. In fact, there appears to be an open course at MIT that covers the topic; here is a sample problem set (http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Mechanical-Engineering/2-61Spring2004/87BA968A-06CD-4FC2-86B7-D88382F51EC6/0/ps1.pdf) from that course.


Unless the engine is hooked up to test equipment in a lab in a controlled environment, any result is going to be questionable.

That would be my position too.


Testing this stuff to see if it really works isn't difficult, the guys who sell it don't do it for a reason.

They do plenty of tests. Where do you think they get those numbers of up to 150% improvement in fuel efficiency. :D




You're not serious about the burning salt water are you? Really?

It's quite well known. There's even a wikipedia page. I'd post the link but the junior skepticstm need the training.

[Dan O.]

Weren't you defending the water engine a minute ago?

You'll notice now that all of my posts that you previously thought were defending over-unity water engine woo have mysteriously transmuted. :boggled:

[KingMerv00]

You'll notice now that all of my posts that you previously thought were defending over-unity water engine woo have mysteriously transmuted. :boggled:

Say again?

Your argument that generating hydrogen uses more energy than it returns in the engine makes as much sense as saying that it takes more energy to generate the electricity to create the sparks than the spark contributes to the output of the engine. Are spark plugs some kind of over-unity woo? Try taking them out of your engine and see how far you get.

We don't really have to discuss this the water engine if you don't want to but if I am confused, I think my confusion is understandable.

[Paulhoff]

It is fun to listen to people who don’t have the first idea of how the physical world works, go on and on defending things that have been shown time and time again not to work.

Water is a very stable molecule, one good reason to use it to put out fires. Also no system, none, gets out more energy then is put in, which they also do seem to get, there is always a loss of power. There is a loss of power generating the electricity to split the water molecule, there is energy lost is the lines to the said device they use to split water and they use stainless steel which is a very poor conductor, there is more power lost on the splitting water. Loss, loss, loss and more loss, nothing gained.

The studies, which there are none, don’t go thru many tanks of gas to show how many miles to the gallon the car gets, the driving habits of the driver etc. All the things need to set a true base line.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Horatius]

How? Patents are public information even before they expire.




Not only that, these days, in most countries, they're public information even before they are patents!

[Horatius]

But not before they are issued.



As above, not true. Even the US is publishing a lot of applications now before they are granted as patents. In Canada and Europe, this is standard practise for all applications except those that have been declared secret by the government.

[KingMerv00]

As above, not true. Even the US is publishing a lot of applications now before they are granted as patents. In Canada and Europe, this is standard practise for all applications except those that have been declared secret by the government.

To be fair, he never said the guy had applied.

[Horatius]

To be fair, he never said the guy had applied.



True, but in the general case, he's still wrong about them not being published until they issue.

[Dan O.]

As above, not true. Even the US is publishing a lot of applications now before they are granted as patents. In Canada and Europe, this is standard practise for all applications except those that have been declared secret by the government.

All I can find is that the patent was applied for. Maybe he was just in the process of applying for a patent and more work was needed to distinguish this from the patented plasma hydrogen generator.

[temporalillusion]

The quote was very specific, who tested what and the results, but is probably in error because the journalist didn't follow up on the sources.

I meant that the journalist isn't in a position to evaluate the results of the test, just to report the results of the test.

The effects aren't random but simply a function of the engine parameters and controls. You could study this stuff and actually figure out what effects would be expected.

That's why I said depending on the model, I meant random as in a Chevy Whatever with engine X is going to get x% and a Honda Whateverelse with engine Y is going to get a different result. Of course it's going to depend on the different engine parameters, I thought that was obvious.

They do plenty of tests. Where do you think they get those numbers of up to 150% improvement in fuel efficiency. :D

If by test you mean pull it out of various bodily orifices then I agree.

It's quite well known. There's even a wikipedia page. I'd post the link but the junior skepticstm need the training.

I know it's quite well known, I didn't ask how well it's know, I asked if you were serious. As in serious that it's even a possibility of being a source of energy.

[Dan O.]

I know it's quite well known, I didn't ask how well it's know, I asked if you were serious. As in serious that it's even a possibility of being a source of energy.

I never claimed that it was a "source" of energy. However, I am serious that it may be a more efficient source for HHO gas which in turn may improve the efficiency of internal combustion gasoline or diesel engines.

[Skeptic Guy]

To go back to what someone said earlier in this thread, if you truly could get 150% improvement in fuel efficiency, why isn't every car manufacturer installing these things into their product?

[temporalillusion]

I never claimed that it was a "source" of energy. However, I am serious that it may be a more efficient source for HHO gas which in turn may improve the efficiency of internal combustion gasoline or diesel engines.

Ah ok, I wasn't clear on that. Seems pretty unlikely to me but again should be something that is testable.

Every car with a big microwave generator under the hood! :D

You'd be better off putting the hydrogen in a small tank.

All of which is meaningless until it's been shown that the efficiency can be improved at all, or that the improvement would offset the cost of generating the hydrogen.

[KingMerv00]

Nevermind.

[balrog666]

Could somebody just lock this thread and store it away in an attic archive somewhere?

[Prometheus]

Say again?



We don't really have to discuss this the water engine if you don't want to but if I am confused, I think my confusion is understandable.

The most recent claim I've heard from HHO enthusiasts--which I think is what Dan O. is getting at--is not that you get any additional energy from the hydrogen per se, but rather that adding a small amount of hydrogen to the fuel/air mix somehow allows the engine to make more efficient use of the heat generated by combusting gasoline, and that this added efficiency more than makes up for the energy lost in producing the small amount of hydrogen required.

[KingMerv00]

The most recent claim I've heard from HHO enthusiasts--which I think is what Dan O. is getting at--is not that you get any additional energy from the hydrogen per se, but rather that adding a small amount of hydrogen to the fuel/air mix somehow allows the engine to make more efficient use of the heat generated by combusting gasoline, and that this added efficiency more than makes up for the energy lost in producing the small amount of hydrogen required.

Oh I understand that but Dan O. and I were discussing the water engine and he still defended it.

[Subduction Zone]

The most recent claim I've heard from HHO enthusiasts--which I think is what Dan O. is getting at--is not that you get any additional energy from the hydrogen per se, but rather that adding a small amount of hydrogen to the fuel/air mix somehow allows the engine to make more efficient use of the heat generated by combusting gasoline, and that this added efficiency more than makes up for the energy lost in producing the small amount of hydrogen required.

Well then the question is how? What is so magic about a mixture of O2, which is already present in the air, and H2? The amount of hydrogen that those generators can make is pathetic at best. If your hydrolysis is perfect you can make about .007 liters of hydrogen per minute per ampere of current, or about .01 liters per minute per ampere of current for the dreaded HHO (a non existent compound). There is hydrogen already as part of your gasoline so production of additional water vapor is going to be negligible. I see no mechanism for making the engine more efficient.

[temporalillusion]

The most recent claim I've heard from HHO enthusiasts--which I think is what Dan O. is getting at--is not that you get any additional energy from the hydrogen per se, but rather that adding a small amount of hydrogen to the fuel/air mix somehow allows the engine to make more efficient use of the heat generated by combusting gasoline, and that this added efficiency more than makes up for the energy lost in producing the small amount of hydrogen required.

Or that adding some hydrogen allows you to run a bit leaner or up the compression without knocking. So if you knew up front you could make the piston arms longer for more compression or reprogram the injectors to run leaner and that would increase power (or decrease the amount of fuel to get the previous amount of power). But the stuff I read also said this came at the expense of emissions. And I'd be very skeptical that even if you did do that that you'd get enough to compensate for the energy lost generating the hydrogen.

[temporalillusion]

Oh I understand that but Dan O. and I were discussing the water engine and he still defended it.

He seems to have backed off of that now? Or just doesn't want to defend it :)

[pgwenthold]

Water is a very stable molecule, one good reason to use it to put out fires. Also no system, none, gets out more energy then is put in, which they also do seem to get, there is always a loss of power. There is a loss of power generating the electricity to split the water molecule, there is energy lost is the lines to the said device they use to split water and they use stainless steel which is a very poor conductor, there is more power lost on the splitting water. Loss, loss, loss and more loss, nothing gained.


Not necessarily. For example, as new cars show, there is a lot of power being wasted. For example, energy is spent heating the break pads that could be recycled. Moreover, how much of the energy used by the alternator to charge the battery is wasted because it is more than needed to charge the battery (at various times - of course, sometimes that charge is needed to keep the battery to the right level). Also there is great, exothermic chemistry going on in the catalytic converter that blows out the exhaust. It is possible, in principle, to harness some of these energy losses, energy that you are spending anyway, to perform other work, such as carrying out electrolysis of H2O. However, it would take a heck of a lot more than a couple of clamps from Ace Hardware to pull that off. It would take a massive reconfiguration of the car design, basically in line with what is done in modern hybrids, with the added H2 generator.

[Subduction Zone]

pgwenthold, it is obvious that you do not know how an alternator works. Its power output (and therefore the load it puts on the engine) is variable. The load on an alternator is directly proportional to its the current it puts out. It varies its current output by the use of a voltage regulator. So, yes an alternator can make far more current than is necessary to keep the battery charged, but most of the time it won't be making that. The more hydrogen that you make the higher your current has to be which puts a higher load on the alternator and therefore a higher load on the engine.

[pgwenthold]

pgwenthold, it is obvious that you do not know how an alternator works. Its power output (and therefore the load it puts on the engine) is variable. The load on an alternator is directly proportional to its the current it puts out. It varies its current output by the use of a voltage regulator. So, yes an alternator can make far more current than is necessary to keep the battery charged, but most of the time it won't be making that.

But what is happening to that power that isn't being used to charge the battery? It is being lost.

So the alternator doesn't try to charge the battery that is fully charged. But the power that the alternator is not using at that point is not being used for anything else, either.

[Subduction Zone]

But what is happening to that power that isn't being used to charge the battery? It is being lost.

So the alternator doesn't try to charge the battery that is fully charged. But the power that the alternator is not using at that point is not being used for anything else, either.

There is no extra power. The amount of power that the alternator takes from the engine is dependent on the current that it produces. The current is dependent on what devices you are using, for example if you turn on your radio that will put a small load on your engine. If you turn on your lights it will put a heavier load on your engine, all of this is indirectly through the alternator. If there is no current being used (there is always a little in a car) the alternator will spin very freely. If you get a toy generator you can see this for your self. If the circuit is open, ie no current is flowing, the hand turned crank on a toy alternator turns very freely. If you connect the circuit through a light etc. it will be much harder to crank. Your car feels the same thing, no load, then no resistance, big load big resistance.

[bruto]

But what is happening to that power that isn't being used to charge the battery? It is being lost.

So the alternator doesn't try to charge the battery that is fully charged. But the power that the alternator is not using at that point is not being used for anything else, either.The above post tells only half the story, though the result is essentially the same. In addition to its inherent current regulation, an automotive alternator is voltage regulated. The car's electrical system works off the battery, and when there is a load, the battery voltage decreases. When voltage in the battery rises to a given level, the voltage regulator de-energizes the alternator's field, and the alternator stops putting out current altogether. In practice, this regulating activity is constant, and cycles the field on and off quite quickly, but the result is that the alternator's output is always matched to the load with respect to both voltage and current, and there is no excess power generated when the system does not call for it.

[Paulhoff]

pgwenthold

bruto and Subduction Zone have said it all and I agree with them.

What, there is wasted power at your wall sockets when not used?

No! If there are no electrons moving, there is no power used or lost.

Paul

:) :) :)

By the way, I work part-time at ACE, I'm a retired mainframe computer programmer, self-taught.

[Dan O.]

He seems to have backed off of that now? Or just doesn't want to defend it :)

I don't have to back off of anything because I never took that position.

I have challenged some pseudo skeptics here that used the straw man argument about it requiring more energy to produce HHO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen) than returned when the HHO is burned. I even posted the wikipedia link so they could read what a straw man was but it apparently didn't help. Can they not debunk the claims that are actually being made?

[KingMerv00]

I don't have to back off of anything because I never took that position.

I have challenged some pseudo skeptics here that used the straw man argument about it requiring more energy to produce HHO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen) than returned when the HHO is burned. I even posted the wikipedia link so they could read what a straw man was but it apparently didn't help. Can they not debunk the claims that are actually being made?

Oh nevermind. Either you defending the water engine or you weren't. If you were, you retracted. If you weren't, there was confusion.

It isn't worth fighting over.

[Paulhoff]

I have challenged some pseudo skeptics here that used the straw man argument about it requiring more energy to produce HHO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen) than returned when the HHO is burned.
Facts are not a straw man. Once again if this worked it would be on cars already, saying it would not be HOLDS NO WATER.

When changing any form of energy from one type to another, there is always a loss.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Dan O.]

Facts are not a straw man.

Are you clear on what a straw man is? The fallacy is not about the facts used to tear down the straw man but in constructing the straw man in the first place.


Once again if this worked it would be on cars already, saying it would not be HOLDS NO WATER.

That's like saying: "Everything that can be invented has been invented so they should close the patent office (http://www.myoutbox.net/posass.htm)."


When changing any form of energy from one type to another, there is always a loss.

Not necessarily a large loss. I can see the pendulum swinging back and forth on this one. :)

[Paulhoff]

Are you clear on what a straw man is?
I am, are you.

So you post a straw man about the patent office.

A loss is a loss is a ....................

Paul

:) :) :)

[Horatius]

All I can find is that the patent was applied for. Maybe he was just in the process of applying for a patent and more work was needed to distinguish this from the patented plasma hydrogen generator.



Do you have the guy's name? It might be possible to find the application.

[bruto]

That's like saying: "Everything that can be invented has been invented so they should close the patent office (http://www.myoutbox.net/posass.htm)."

No, it is not. Talk about a straw man! Nobody anywhere is saying that new things cannot or should not be invented. This thing has been invented. The question before us now is whether or not it works. Since claims that it does work appear to run counter to established theories and expectations with regard to energy exchange, skepticism is naturally called for, and the burden is on those who make those claims to prove them. If the device works as it is supposed to, this should be ridiculously easy to do, and one would expect that even if major car manufacturers were reluctant, owing to theoretical stodginess, to undertake tests themselves, the truth would quickly become sufficiently obvious to overcome that.

[Holler Hoojer]

Well then the question is how? What is so magic about a mixture of O2, which is already present in the air, and H2? The amount of hydrogen that those generators can make is pathetic at best. If your hydrolysis is perfect you can make about .007 liters of hydrogen per minute per ampere of current, or about .01 liters per minute per ampere of current for the dreaded HHO (a non existent compound). There is hydrogen already as part of your gasoline so production of additional water vapor is going to be negligible. I see no mechanism for making the engine more efficient.

Aha! You've stumbled onto homeopathic fuel efficiency, you clever dog.:)

[Holler Hoojer]

Actually, I have a standard, simple offer that I make to all proponents of hydrogen-enhanced fuel systems. Tack weld a thermocouple on the exhaust pipe. Run the car for 15 minutes on a standard dynamometer test stand and record the temperature. Now, add the hydrogen dohickey and run it again. Record the temperature. Compare the temperature change as a percent of the average temperature in K. If the difference is greater than -15 K, report back and we'll talk seriously.

[Dan O.]

Do you have the guy's name? It might be possible to find the application.

I have his name, address, call, phone number (all expired now of course). He wasn't just some anonymous internet poster. Others have looked for the patent application under his and his associates names and have only come up with the earlier patents related to cancer treatments. A call to one of the associates might reveal what happened to it but they have more important issues to deal with.

[Dan O.]

I am, are you.

So you post a straw man about the patent office.


I posted a reference of a straw man about the patent office to point out the similarity to your argument. How is it that you can recognize that straw man and not your own?


A loss is a loss is a ....................

You just need to get into the swing of it.

[Subduction Zone]

Dan O. I am late to this thread but I will try to illustrate some of the energy losses in the loop that the "HHO" would be part of. Lets say you have 100 units of energy allotted to make this mystery product. Right away at the electrolysis cell we are going to lose a chunk of that, I will be generous and say that you convert 80% of that into HHO 20% lost to heat, making a little bit of the wrong chemicals etc.. Now we go to the engine cylinder where supposedly some magic occurs and it makes the gas "burn better"" whatever that means, traditional chemistry, and the second law of thermodynamics says no more energy out than in, in other words it really does not matter if we burn the HHO with the gas or burn the gas and the HHO separately, the energy output will be the same. So I am going to ignore the supposed extra power and just measure the power of the HHO gas alone. The maximum efficiency that you can get out of an engine on a carnot cycle at normal temperatures is about 40% so now our original 100 units of energy is 32. Now we need to put an extra load on the engine to make the HHO gas again. Unfortunately alternators are not 100% efficient and it will take more than 100 units of energy to make our original amount coming off of the alternator. I am going to be extremely generous and say the alternator is 90% efficient (50% is probably closer to the truth). So it takes 111 units of energy to make our original 100. So now that the cycle has occurred lets add it up and we can see there is a net loss of 79 units in one cycle.

It is a bit simplistic, and I am sure that you could put more accurate numbers in that cycle if you wanted to work on it, but the main point is that at every point in the cycle there are huge losses. Advocates of this have started to lay off the claim of more fuel burnt since it has been pointed out too many times that current combustion is 98 to 99% complete. If it wasn't your catalytic converter would run extremely hot or you would fail your smog test. So what is the "magic" this does to make your car run better?

[Subduction Zone]

One more point. Those on board bubblers are a joke at best. One HHO nut actually had a link of some use. It showed how to calculate how much hydrogen or HHO either one, would be produced by a known current. One ampere will make about .007 liter of hydrogen a minute or .01 liter of HHO. So to produce 1 liter of HHO per minute you would need 100 amps:eek: Considering that the average car has a two to three liter engine (or more) and runs at several hundred rpm, even at that fantastic rate it would still be an insignificant amount for your engine.

[Dan O.]

It is a bit simplistic

It's way too simplistic to use as a proof that the concept can't work. You need to show that with actual numbers using current state of the art or the theoretical limits that there cannot be a net energy gain. I believe this was done to show that 40% gains were not possible (at least with current technology) but the possibility of 4% gain was not answered.

[Subduction Zone]

It's way too simplistic to use as a proof that the concept can't work. You need to show that with actual numbers using current state of the art or the theoretical limits that there cannot be a net energy gain. I believe this was done to show that 40% gains were not possible (at least with current technology) but the possibility of 4% gain was not answered.

Dan O. what does it matter how accurate my estimates are? If anything I have tilted the stats in your favor. There is a loss in every step of the system. Even when you actually burn the HHO the best you can hope for is to break even. Where would you possibly get the additional 4%?

[Subduction Zone]

Here is my first link for you, it is an ad for a "super efficient" alternator that delivers an amazing 80% and that most alternators are in the 55% range. Remember I was over generous and used a figure of 90%. So in my next time around I will use the %%5 figure. http://driversmag.com/ar/fleet_bosch_unveils_highefficiency/

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, second link. The typical ICE is 30% efficient. So again I tilted the stats in your favor. So when we figure this out again we will use the 30% figure.http://staff.science.nus.edu.sg/~parwani/htw/c2/node44.html

[Subduction Zone]

Last link and even though it is Wiki it'll do. They claim 50 to 80% efficiency at the most for electrolysis. Since I used the 80% figure on my own I will leave it at that but 50% is probably close to the truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

Do you want me to do it again with the new figures which are worse? Once again what validates your claim of plus 4%?

[temporalillusion]

Where would you possibly get the additional 4%?

In theory anyway, if you add hydrogen you can burn leaner and compress more without knocking.

As you've pointed out though, to get that 4% gain you'd actually need more than that out of the engine to offset the very inefficient hydrogen generation.

Plus in a normal car 4% is going to be hard to detect with all the variables of air temperature/wind/driving pattern/size of shoes/whatever else.

The article from Popular Mechanics I posted had the guy actually monitoring the fuel injector pulse widths and turning the HHO on and off, with no changes at all. (Not to mention that the guy HE talked to had a whole bunch of modifications necessary to make it work, which made the vehicle impossible to pass an inspection).

Until they put it on a dyno and measure it properly, it's all mush.

[Dan O.]

One more point. Those on board bubblers are a joke at best. One HHO nut actually had a link of some use. It showed how to calculate how much hydrogen or HHO either one, would be produced by a known current. One ampere will make about .007 liter of hydrogen a minute or .01 liter of HHO. So to produce 1 liter of HHO per minute you would need 100 amps:eek: Considering that the average car has a two to three liter engine (or more) and runs at several hundred rpm, even at that fantastic rate it would still be an insignificant amount for your engine.

If you are going to debunk this stuff you need to keep track of your units.

ETA: The DoE has set a goal of reaching a conversion efficiency of 75% by 2010 and one company appears to be well on the way of passing that goal.

[tsig]

Are you clear on what a straw man is? The fallacy is not about the facts used to tear down the straw man but in constructing the straw man in the first place.




That's like saying: "Everything that can be invented has been invented so they should close the patent office (http://www.myoutbox.net/posass.htm)."




Not necessarily a large loss. I can see the pendulum swinging back and forth on this one. :)

I see so we're going to have a little loss on each conversion but make it up on volume?

These things have been around since the forties.http://books.google.com/books?id=iigDAAAAMBAJ&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0_0#all_issues_anchor

Some thing really are impossible in the world as we know it.

[Subduction Zone]

Dan O. I did keep track of my units. And until the protagonists of these bubblers offer some strong evidence that they work they are debunked. Just as water dowsers and other dabblers in woo are.

[temporalillusion]

And until the protagonists of these bubblers offer some strong evidence that they work they are debunked.

Exactly, conversion could be 99% and it wouldn't matter.

Buy an engine. Book a dynometer (or whatever they're called). It can't be that difficult.

[Dan O.]

Okay, second link. The typical ICE is 30% efficient. So again I tilted the stats in your favor. So when we figure this out again we will use the 30%

If the typical ICE is 30% efficient and the theoretical limit is 40%, there is a potential for 10% improvement in engine efficiency which would translate to a 30% improvement in gas milage. This is why claims of over 30% gains are bunk.

Now, if we used 10% of the total engine output (how many kilowatts is that) to generate a magic gas that improved the engine efficiency by only 5%, the engine output would be increased by 15% for the same fuel input so we would see a net improvement in gas milage of 5% and that's not even counting the contribution of the magic gas in the engine output. No over-unity or voilation of known physics are necessary. This is why the losses are not a critical flaw.

[trvlr2]

If the typical ICE is 30% efficient and the theoretical limit is 40%, there is a potential for 10% improvement in engine efficiency which would translate to a 30% improvement in gas milage. This is why claims of over 30% gains are bunk.

Now, if we used 10% of the total engine output (how many kilowatts is that) to generate a magic gas that improved the engine efficiency by only 5%, the engine output would be increased by 15% for the same fuel input so we would see a net improvement in gas milage of 5% and that's not even counting the contribution of the magic gas in the engine output. No over-unity or voilation of known physics are necessary. This is why the losses are not a critical flaw.

Not even wrong.:eye-poppi

[temporalillusion]

If the typical ICE is 30% efficient and the theoretical limit is 40%

Where's that other 70% to 60% go?

[jimbob]

Where's that other 70% to 60% go?

Real engines have theoretical maximum efficiencies:

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_heat_engine#Efficiency_of_real_heat_engines )

[pgwenthold]

pgwenthold

bruto and Subduction Zone have said it all and I agree with them.

What, there is wasted power at your wall sockets when not used?



So if I start up my gas-powered generator, and don't plug anything into it, it will run forever?

Of course not. That power that could be running a TV is wasted.

[Subduction Zone]

So if I start up my gas-powered generator, and don't plug anything into it, it will run forever?

Of course not. That power that could be running a TV is wasted.

Will an idling car run forever? There is such a thing as a stupid question.

[tsig]

If the typical ICE is 30% efficient and the theoretical limit is 40%, there is a potential for 10% improvement in engine efficiency which would translate to a 30% improvement in gas milage. This is why claims of over 30% gains are bunk.

Now, if we used 10% of the total engine output (how many kilowatts is that) to generate a magic gas that improved the engine efficiency by only 5%, the engine output would be increased by 15% for the same fuel input so we would see a net improvement in gas milage of 5% and that's not even counting the contribution of the magic gas in the engine output. No over-unity or voilation of known physics are necessary. This is why the losses are not a critical flaw.

You are invoking a magic gas and claiming no physical laws are violated?

[tsig]

So if I start up my gas-powered generator, and don't plug anything into it, it will run forever?

Of course not. That power that could be running a TV is wasted.

Your generator is using power just to rotate, if you plug in a TV you will take more energy and use gas faster.

[TjW]

So if I start up my gas-powered generator, and don't plug anything into it, it will run forever?

Of course not. That power that could be running a TV is wasted.

No. You aren't generating any power to run a TV. You're just generating enough energy to overcome the internal friction of the engine.

If what you thought was true, then the regenerative braking used by hybrid and electric cars wouldn't work. The brakes would be on all the time the wheels were turning.

[temporalillusion]

Real engines have theoretical maximum efficiencies:

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_heat_engine#Efficiency_of_real_heat_engines )

I know, I'm just trying to figure out where he thinks the extra energy is coming from given that 98+% of the fuel is burned so it can't come from the fuel.

So it has to come from somewhere else, I'm trying to figure out where he thinks.

[bruto]

So if I start up my gas-powered generator, and don't plug anything into it, it will run forever? That power that could be running a TV is wasted.No, of course not. What a foolish thing to suggest, since the engine is running at its usual speed no matter what load is put on it. If the engine speed were entirely dependent on load, the engine would shut off when there is no load, but the resulting generator would be impractical, since the tiime it takes for it to restart and spin back up would cause wild fluctuations of voltage. Instead, that generator is governed. If you were to look at the governor and throttle of that engine, you would see that when there is no load on the generator, the engine is running at whatever is the minimum throttle position to keep itself and the idle generator rotor turning at the governed speed. When you put a load on the generator, the governor will open the throttle to feed in more gas to keep that speed constant, and fuel consumption will increase. When there is no load on the generator, if it is properly tuned, there will be no energy wasted that is not needed to keep it idly spinning. In the case of an automobile alternator, the engine is already spinning to do other work, so when there is no load on the alternator, all the energy goes to that other work. This seems a pretty simple concept to grasp. Are you actually having difficulty with it?

[Paulhoff]

So if I start up my gas-powered generator, and don't plug anything into it, it will run forever?

Of course not. That power that could be running a TV is wasted.
First, did I say generator. The motor in the generator uses gas just to run, so what does that have to do with the generator itself inside the unit. Turn on the TV and the gas will be used faster by the gas motor.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Dan O.]

One of the problems with the forum is that you get all this information spread out over tens of threads containing hundreds of post and it's hard to weed through it. It would be great to have a single site that aggregates the best scientific evidence regarding issues like this and acts like a resource for critical thinkers. Or is there already such a place?

If there is such a place I haven't found it. I have mentioned on a couple of occasions that a wiki would be well suited for consolidating the information and arguments of the hot topics. The SkepticWiki (http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page) would be a suitable place for such consolidation but they have never heard of HHO or Brown's gas. If you are going to be putting this data together anyway, perhaps you could start the article over there.

[balrog666]

This goes in the WooWiki.

[Holler Hoojer]

Of course there's no giant central clearing-house for information about why HHO is a scam. There's also no clearing-house for why snake-oil doesn't cure hangnails. There's no clearing-house for information showing the moon is not green cheese. And, so on. The basic science that shows gasoline enhancement alone doesn't work is almost 100 years old. It's been done. Everybody in the technical and scientific world accepted it. Many validated it. It's over. Done. There are no mysteries about burning gases. There are technical improvements, i.e., engineering tradeoffs, yet possible, but it will not be from HHO. There are untold thousands of us who know how to burn gases. We know how to perform calorimeter studies. We understand flame propagation. We know about Nernst cells. We are able to use exhaust gas analyzers. We have spectrometers. There is no magic available. There's nothing there. Nada.

Much of the confusion, perhaps deliberate, comes from the very widely known fact that vehicles fueled by natural gas can have performance improved by the addition of hydrogen. Scam proponents drop the "natural" from natural gas when they report these findings. But, even then, it's a matter of economics. Hydrogen is expensive. It's not magic.

[Subduction Zone]

The limited success that "hydrogen boost" systems can have is due to over leaning the engine. You have to mess with you oxygen sensor to do this. This results in two negative side effects. First off if you live in an area where they do smog tests you will fail your exam. That is why this sort of modification to a car is actually illegal. The second result is that over leaning the engine is very bad for long term engine life. So you save a little money on gas and more than make up for it in potential fines and engine repair costs. The very limited hydrogen production does nothing for your mileage.

[Dan O.]

That the modifications could be illegal is not evidence that it does not work. That it will destroy the engine is also not evidence that it doesn't work but is a good reason not to do it.

[Subduction Zone]

That the modifications could be illegal is not evidence that it does not work. That it will destroy the engine is also not evidence that it doesn't work but is a good reason not to do it.

You do not go about proving a negative. It is up to the believers in this woo to prove that it works and how it works. The known laws of chemistry and thermodynamics say that is won't work.

[Dan O.]

The known laws of chemistry and thermodynamics say that is won't work.

You made a claim right there. It's not up to me to prove your claim is false (ie: prove the negative). It is your burden to prove your claim.

Are you capable of showing the math that shows why it won't work or can you point to a source that does the analysis? If you are just passing on what you heard then you are not a skeptic but a believer. How do you know on which side lies the woo?

[Holler Hoojer]

You made a claim right there. It's not up to me to prove your claim is false (ie: prove the negative). It is your burden to prove your claim.

Are you capable of showing the math that shows why it won't work or can you point to a source that does the analysis? If you are just passing on what you heard then you are not a skeptic but a believer. How do you know on which side lies the woo?

Here's the source you ask for.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3F-4TRHC22-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cb7d64e1f44bed0557157f64ecac1a59

[Subduction Zone]

We already went around and showed how there are losses in every step of production of HHO. You did not like my steps because I did not give references . I supplied references that showed I was overly generous by underestimating losses. So I proved that there are losses in the production of the gases in each cycle unless some magic happens in the cylinder where much more energy is produced by the introduction of hydrogen. Now I will look up the chemistry law that says that if you have reaction A to B and reaction C to D then if you mix the chemicals and the same reaction occurs then the energy produced is that of A to B plus that of C to D. If I find this law, which I know exists but it has been so long since chemistry that I forgot the name of it, then your last leg is taken out from under you.

[Subduction Zone]

Here's the source you ask for.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3F-4TRHC22-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cb7d64e1f44bed0557157f64ecac1a59

I wish I could read that article. Even their 5% level of added hydrogen, and note this is added hydrogen, not on board generated hydrogen, is far beyond what you could produce in an on board bubbler.

[Subduction Zone]

Found it Hess's law says that if it is one or several steps the heat from a reaction is the same.http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c120/hess.html

Now what evidence of magic occurring in the cylinder to make this process so much more efficient?

[temporalillusion]

Here's the source you ask for.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3F-4TRHC22-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cb7d64e1f44bed0557157f64ecac1a59

Thanks!

[Dan O.]

Here's the source you ask for.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3F-4TRHC22-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cb7d64e1f44bed0557157f64ecac1a59

Thanks. This is a good datapoint towards debunking HHO. But I noticed a few items in the abstract that contradict statements made earlier in this thread. They note there was no "discernable differences in engine efficiency" yet there were "increases in exhaust temperature with hydrogen addition". This sounds like it contradicts your earlier post about there being a -15K change in exhaust temperature if there were a significant improvement in engine efficiency.

It also said: "There were modest reductions in NOx emissions with hydrogen addition." which seems to counter temporalillusion's claim that emissions would "go out the window".

Now, why would they bother going through all of this testing and selling the resulting paper if this is all settled science from 100 years ago?

[Holler Hoojer]

Thanks. This is a good datapoint towards debunking HHO. But I noticed a few items in the abstract that contradict statements made earlier in this thread. They note there was no "discernable differences in engine efficiency" yet there were "increases in exhaust temperature with hydrogen addition". This sounds like it contradicts your earlier post about there being a -15K change in exhaust temperature if there were a significant improvement in engine efficiency.

It also said: "There were modest reductions in NOx emissions with hydrogen addition." which seems to counter temporalillusion's claim that emissions would "go out the window".

Now, why would they bother going through all of this testing and selling the resulting paper if this is all settled science from 100 years ago?

An increase in exhaust temperature normally implies lower efficiency. I would have to see all the data to judge what their measurement means. It's not clear what accounts for NOX reductions in this case and you cannot make seat-of-the-pants judgements in any event; emissions are a complex problem. As to why they did the study, there are thousands of similar studies (tire pressure, tire treads, fairings, etc) going on wherever you have a university professor who needs grants to live on and a government which needs funded research to appear to be addressing the energy problem. But, more to the point, this research dealt specifically with diesel fuel; the original research dealt with gasoline; there have been arguments raised about diesel ignition requiring different propagation than traditional gasoline ignition.

As to the reason(s) why this doesn't stay settled, you have only to watch the news for anything about energy to see the greatest load of BS since the mushroom mines opened. Watch anyone, Democrat, Republican, oil company, GreenPeace, T Boone, whoever, talk about oil reserves and you will never, ever hear them use the qualifiers like P10 or P95 (Without those, it's called "take your wildest guess and then I'll take mine.") We are rushing headlong toward a "nuclear future" independent of foreign oil without mentioning that we would then be dependent on foreign uranium. Spokesmen tout "green" solar power without ever mentioning the godawful toxic waste from manufacturing those things. So, people tout HHO and other people debunk it. In the meanwhile the world goes to Hades in a handbasket.

[Dan O.]

Found it Hess's law says that if it is one or several steps the heat from a reaction is the same.http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c120/hess.html

Now what evidence of magic occurring in the cylinder to make this process so much more efficient?

Yes, it's a good thing to have conservation of energy.

To find where it can and cannot be made more efficient, it would help to first know where the efficiencies are being lost in the unmodified engine.

One of the biggest openings still appears to be Running Lean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_burn). One of the other drawbacks to lean running is incomplete combustion (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a755260388~db=all). Since hydrogen burns faster, it could help insure complete combustion without boosting compression (and helps reduce NOx emissions too).

[Subduction Zone]

Dan O. you can improve the mileage of current day cars by making them run lean. But it makes them fail the smog tests and is bad for the engine, at least that is what I hear from gear heads. The tests where hydrogen enables the car to run lean is at over 10% of the total fuel from an outside source. The bubblers used in on board systems will not even provide 1% of the fuel burnt. All you will do is lean out your engine making it die early.

[balrog666]

Yes, it's a good thing to have conservation of energy.

To find where it can and cannot be made more efficient, it would help to first know where the efficiencies are being lost in the unmodified engine.

One of the biggest openings still appears to be Running Lean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_burn). One of the other drawbacks to lean running is incomplete combustion (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a755260388~db=all). Since hydrogen burns faster, it could help insure complete combustion without boosting compression (and helps reduce NOx emissions too).


A more complete combustion does not insure improved efficiency, so don't conflate the terms. Efficiency is measured with respect to turning the potential energy into work and the theoretical limits have (for all practical purposes) severe physical limits based on the laws of physics. A hundred and twenty years of research and practical experience has only achieved the current 30% level of the theoretical maximum. And current generation improvements are little more than incremental for all of the extra control from controlled fuel injection, computer controlled ignition, flame dynamic control and combustion chamber shape and materials research.

The idea that researchers and experimentalists have ignored the possibilities of adding various gases and inhibitors for improved efficiency is simply ludicrous.

.

[temporalillusion]

It also said: "There were modest reductions in NOx emissions with hydrogen addition." which seems to counter temporalillusion's claim that emissions would "go out the window".

First, this is a diesel engine, which operates a bit differently than gas engined cars.

Second, the abstract doesn't indicate that the engines were running lean.

So no the study doesn't counter anything I said about emissions (which aren't my claim to begin with, I didn't claim to have tested anything).

[Prometheus]

I think even if there is anything to this stuff, it's still kind of a waste of time. Gasoline fuel cells that convert fuel into electricity without combustion at all can extract 3 times as much work out of a gallon of gas as even the best IC engines. I think the reason the big manufacturers aren't at all interested in hydrogen injection is because the've got something a lot better not too far away.

[Dan O.]

Dan O. you can improve the mileage of current day cars by making them run lean. But it makes them fail the smog tests and is bad for the engine, at least that is what I hear from gear heads.

The tests where hydrogen enables the car to run lean is at over 10% of the total fuel from an outside source. The bubblers used in on board systems will not even provide 1% of the fuel burnt. All you will do is lean out your engine making it die early.

ICEs are a balancing act. You get anything out of balance and bad things happen. Lean the fuel/air mixture, adjust the timing, add a super charger, recirculate exhaust gasses, inject some hydrogen all can cause problems but if you do it right you get a significant increase in efficiency. Here is one of the papers I was just reading: Predicting the Behavior of a Lean-Burn, Hydrogen-Enhanced Engine (http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/17932/56814709.pdf?sequence=1)

Because one test showed a effect using 10% hydrogen doesn't mean that 1% has no effect. It could probably be argued that 1% hydrogen has 1/10th the effect of 10% but you would need to show that there is a linear relationship to make that argument. At least it would be useful to have more than 1 data point.

[Holler Hoojer]

I think even if there is anything to this stuff, it's still kind of a waste of time. Gasoline fuel cells that convert fuel into electricity without combustion at all can extract 3 times as much work out of a gallon of gas as even the best IC engines. I think the reason the big manufacturers aren't at all interested in hydrogen injection is because the've got something a lot better not too far away.

I don't know about gasoline fuel cells. Can you give me a good link? Thanks.

[Holler Hoojer]

ICEs are a balancing act. You get anything out of balance and bad things happen. Lean the fuel/air mixture, adjust the timing, add a super charger, recirculate exhaust gasses, inject some hydrogen all can cause problems but if you do it right you get a significant increase in efficiency. Here is one of the papers I was just reading: Predicting the Behavior of a Lean-Burn, Hydrogen-Enhanced Engine (http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/17932/56814709.pdf?sequence=1)

Because one test showed a effect using 10% hydrogen doesn't mean that 1% has no effect. It could probably be argued that 1% hydrogen has 1/10th the effect of 10% but you would need to show that there is a linear relationship to make that argument. At least it would be useful to have more than 1 data point.

You are correct in thinking that ICEs are a balancing act and that, in fact, we might be able to improve efficiencies by diddling with compression ratios, excess (or deficit) O2, combustion temperature, fuel mixtures, and so on. But, that is quite different from merely adding hydrogen to an existing ICE.

The paper you cited is similar to many we see in this argument. Frankly, I would have been bodily thrown out of my thesis defense had I proffered that paper. It has three major flaws: It makes several critical allusions to facts not supported by data or citation; and, the citations it uses are not from peer-reviewed journals (Granted, any discussion on this subject will, of necessity, include a lot of SAE data, but there are also good journal articles which can back that up or refute it); and one cannot use MatLab data in place of real data.

It is readily demonstrated that there is not a lot of unburned fuel in a well-maintained ICE. It may also be stipulated that running an engine lean does decrease it's fuel consumption (see Homer, "Duh"); however, to make a rather dramatic point, I can (and have) run an ICE so lean that its efficiency approaches zero.

I find your posts well-reasoned and thoughtful. Yet, you seem enamored of this technology and I'm puzzled. Why?

[Dan O.]

I find your posts well-reasoned and thoughtful. Yet, you seem enamored of this technology and I'm puzzled. Why?

You've probably misinterpreted my position. I'm not pushing this technology, I am just pushing back against the unsupported and poorly formed arguments. Partly, it gives me a reason to research the subject and it also makes better skeptics of those that do their own research to argue against me. The result is that we all get a much better understanding of what works and what is woo.

[Prometheus]

I don't know about gasoline fuel cells. Can you give me a good link? Thanks.

Here's one (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TH1-4HNSJK0-5&_user=5804940&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000068428&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5804940&md5=0b719dde39acfb42ce56798fe39a2559), but it's subscription only. It's hard to find anything really informative on the subject that's free. Basically, a gasoline fuel cell is just a hydrogen fuel cell with a separate reformer that chemically extracts hydrogen from the gasoline. I've seen a few announcements from working groups that claim to have ways to do this within the fuel cell itself and avoid the extra step. The main problem seems to be with the cost of catalysts needed, such as platinum.

[Holler Hoojer]

You've probably misinterpreted my position. I'm not pushing this technology, I am just pushing back against the unsupported and poorly formed arguments. Partly, it gives me a reason to research the subject and it also makes better skeptics of those that do their own research to argue against me. The result is that we all get a much better understanding of what works and what is woo.

You're right. I did misunderstand your position, and I apologize. And, you make a good point about poor arguments. Often, I do see posts claiming that any sort of over-unity machine violates conservation of energy and I want to scream, "Quit quoting scripture and think for yourself!" So, in that vein, we need "devil's advocates" such as you.

[Holler Hoojer]

Here's one (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TH1-4HNSJK0-5&_user=5804940&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000068428&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=5804940&md5=0b719dde39acfb42ce56798fe39a2559), but it's subscription only. It's hard to find anything really informative on the subject that's free. Basically, a gasoline fuel cell is just a hydrogen fuel cell with a separate reformer that chemically extracts hydrogen from the gasoline. I've seen a few announcements from working groups that claim to have ways to do this within the fuel cell itself and avoid the extra step. The main problem seems to be with the cost of catalysts needed, such as platinum.

Yes, I ran into a claim from a grad student at Minnesota who talked about doing this at an equivalence of perhaps $0.25 per gallon of gasoline. But, I couldn't find enough details to ever figure out how the heck it worked. Yes, platinum cost could be a barrier. Thank you.

[Dan O.]

Apparently, the platinum catalyst is used to lower the operating temperature so the resulting hydrogen gas is cool enough to use directly in the fuel cell. Here is a site that might have a good collection of information though they are a little short on details where I looked so far: Roads2Hy.com (http://www.ika.rwth-aachen.de/r2h/index.php/Reformer_Technology)

ETA: Here is a better review of the reformer technology as of 2001: http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/research/Capture/Papers/review.pdf

[balrog666]

The idea that we need to post the entire history of science to someone who doesn't understand that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not just a good idea, but the Law, is rather silly in and of itself.

Besides would they even read it when they have ignored it their entire lives? :rolleyes:

[CORed]

If you drew on the battery to do the splitting, it would discharge the battery, and then you'd have to charge it somehow, so you'd be adding energy from elsewhere.

If you drew one unit of energy from the engine, and used that entire one unit of energy to split water into its gasses, and then burned those gasses in the engine, the energy from burning those gasses is less than one unit of energy. So from a strict burning the hydrogen and oxygen point of view, it's a net loss always.

And in reality using the methods they use, using one unit of energy from the engine will split only maybe .2 or .3 units of energy worth of gasses, so you have to overcome the inefficiency of the generation of hydrogen and oxygen as well.

Well, the real source of electrical energy in a car is the alternator. The primary purpose of the battery is to start the car. It also keeps you clock running when the engine isn't running, and works the power locks, etc. If your alternator goes out, it usually doesn't take long for the battery to discharge. Gasoline engines need electricity for the ignition, and modern cars mostly have electric fuel pumps. Of course, if you need headlights, wipers fan, etc., you are going to run it down even faster. At most, you battery will keep things running for a few hours. The more electrical power you draw from your alternator, the more load it puts on the engine. So there is no "spare electricity" to make hydrogen.

[temporalillusion]

Well, the real source of electrical energy in a car is the alternator. The primary purpose of the battery is to start the car. It also keeps you clock running when the engine isn't running, and works the power locks, etc. If your alternator goes out, it usually doesn't take long for the battery to discharge. Gasoline engines need electricity for the ignition, and modern cars mostly have electric fuel pumps. Of course, if you need headlights, wipers fan, etc., you are going to run it down even faster. At most, you battery will keep things running for a few hours. The more electrical power you draw from your alternator, the more load it puts on the engine. So there is no "spare electricity" to make hydrogen.

I agree, my post was in response to someone asking where the energy could come from and if it could come from the battery. Nothing you posted disagrees with what I said, so I'm a bit confused.

[CORed]

I agree, my post was in response to someone asking where the energy could come from and if it could come from the battery. Nothing you posted disagrees with what I said, so I'm a bit confused.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just trying to add to what you said and (I hope) clarify it a little for people who don't understand how automotive elecrical systems work.