HHO?

[pipelineaudio]

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

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If real, the inventors will certainly be maligned and if that does not work, assassinated.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I'd think you'd get better mileage benefit from keeping your tires inflated properly and keeping your engine in good repair, but what so I know.

[GreyICE]

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?

[Hindmost]

Before this gets too far along the woo lines....

There is no such molecule as HHO. Chemistry just won't allow it. The site claims it is 3x more potent than gas...too funny.

Any time you split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then energy you get out of burning the hydrogen is less than the energy you put into water. So this thing will consume energy if it actually does electrolysis...

thermo doesn't lie--ever.

glenn

[GreyICE]

Before this gets too far along the woo lines.... Too late, this one is a rabbit hole.
There is no such molecule as HHO. Chemistry just won't allow it. The site claims it is 3x more potent than gas...too funny. I'm pretty sure it's an unconventional (i.e. wrong) way of writing H2O. H2O, HHO, see where I'm going?

Of course, given the general insanity of the site, maybe it's super-hydrogen or something.

[Hindmost]

Too late, this one is a rabbit hole.
I'm pretty sure it's an unconventional (i.e. wrong) way of writing H2O. H2O, HHO, see where I'm going?

Of course, given the general insanity of the site, maybe it's super-hydrogen or something.

I am relating it to the website. The site claims HHO is created from water and is 3x more potent than gas...therefore I believe the site isn't talking about water. And it the basis for my statement that there is no such molecule.

glenn

[geni]

Too late, this one is a rabbit hole.
I'm pretty sure it's an unconventional (i.e. wrong) way of writing H2O. H2O, HHO, see where I'm going?


Not really. HHO would normaly be rea as something like H-H-O which is somewhat unlikely (hydrogen generaly only bonds with one thing at a time and the charges in the system would be completely messed up). Water is H-O-H (only not linear)

Still supose we try and build H-H-O by messing with the charges:

H+-H-O-


Technicaly everything balances there but if you were somehow able to make the stuff say by fireing protons at OH- ions on the basis that a tiny number will hit the H part rather than the oxygen (btw for this to work it would probably need to be around 3K). Then it would revert instantly to ordinary water.

[Paulhoff]

A guy came into the ACE store where I work at, wanting to build this dumb thing, I didn't have the heart to tell him that "YOU DON'T GET MORE ENERGY OUT THEN YOU PUT IN".

Paul

:) :) :)

[tsig]

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

The tubes go in the tubes come out

They wander crazily all about.

[balrog666]

Many people are stupid, many more are poorly educated, so woo sells. And sells big.

[GreyICE]

Not really. HHO would normaly be rea as something like H-H-O which is somewhat unlikely (hydrogen generaly only bonds with one thing at a time and the charges in the system would be completely messed up). Water is H-O-H (only not linear)

Still supose we try and build H-H-O by messing with the charges:

H+-H-O-


Technicaly everything balances there but if you were somehow able to make the stuff say by fireing protons at OH- ions on the basis that a tiny number will hit the H part rather than the oxygen (btw for this to work it would probably need to be around 3K). Then it would revert instantly to ordinary water. Ahahaha. Wow, that one is better than my method of getting positively charged fluorine ions.

[geni]

Ahahaha. Wow, that one is better than my method of getting positively charged fluorine ions.

Fireing fluorine thorugh a mass spectrometer would probably be your best bet. Keeping them is more of a problem

[GreyICE]

Fireing fluorine thorugh a mass spectrometer would probably be your best bet. Keeping them is more of a problem
I actually worked out that bombarding fluorine with alpha particles works pretty much just as well (Alpha particles will strip fluorine quite nicely).

Indeed, keeping them charged is the trick. The only way I could figure out is a strong magnetic field, nothing else seems likely to do the trick.

I can't think of a point to this, but it would be fun.

[David Rodale]

A guy came into the ACE store where I work at, wanting to build this dumb thing, I didn't have the heart to tell him that "YOU DON'T GET MORE ENERGY OUT THEN YOU PUT IN".

Paul

:) :) :)

What makes you think this has anything to do with overunity?

[Paulhoff]

What makes you think this has anything to do with overunity?
Did I use the word "overunity"?

Paul

:) :) :)

[The skepTick]

A guy in Florida claims (http://wayofthewoo.blogspot.com/2008/06/amazing-water-powered-car-just-add-woo.html) he's almost solved the problem of using water for fuel. He claims he needs to quickly raise money for his ministry, so he hit on this idea.

All the sites I've seen always have a mason jar involved. I also see a lot of testimonials and CAPITAL letters and a lot of exclamation points (!!!!)...I just never find the real science. Hmmm. Wonder why that is.

[TjW]

Well, surely they wouldn't use all caps and multiple exclamation points if it weren't true?

[TheDaver]

P.S. H2 + O is a far more conventional way of writing the outputs of the system
Not quite right.

2H2O → 2H2 + O2

There are probably some other chemicals such as ozone produced in small amounts.

I'm pretty sure it's an unconventional (i.e. wrong) way of writing H2O. H2O, HHO, see where I'm going?

Of course, given the general insanity of the site, maybe it's super-hydrogen or something.HHO can’t be water in their fantasies, because as we all know, water can’t burn. The idea is that HHO is supposed to be a molecule that burns even more intensely that plain H2. The truth is that the gas produced by water electrolysis is a stoichiometric mixture of H2 and O2, which is commonly called “oxyhydrogen”. Confront a woo-pusher about their fantastic claims about HHO, and they’ll just switch names and repeat all the same claims.

What makes you think this has anything to do with overunity?Water is, for the purposes of this discussion, stable – bereft of any harnessable chemical energy. It takes more energy to break down water into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen than burning them will ever give you. So to claim that a “water4gas” kit improves your gas mileage is basically to claim overunity.

[HerNibs]

I need help with this...silliness. Hubby just sent me a link with all kinds of wonderful reviews...

Can someone point me at a link that explains (simply) why this WON'T or CAN'T work?

It will be very sad if he does this to my car...very, very sad...

HN

[GreyICE]

I need help with this...silliness. Hubby just sent me a link with all kinds of wonderful reviews...

Can someone point me at a link that explains (simply) why this WON'T or CAN'T work?

It will be very sad if he does this to my car...very, very sad...

HN
Can I link to why the sun won't turn purple tomorrow? And yet I am absolutely certain that that's far more likely than this nonsense actually working. After all, it would merely contradict everything we know about fusion and light emission, rather than everything we know about, well, energy.

[HerNibs]

I agree that it won't work. My reasoning was quite simple - if it seems to good to be true, it probably is.

The sun turning purple tomorrow? More likely.

I was just looking for a simple explanation as to why.

Thanks

HN

[FFed]

I just saw this on KTLA the other day. They tested this and other gas saving devices. The video is here

http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/video/?track=nav

you need to first click on the "Seen on Prime News" button at the top, then scroll down a bit to the story called
"Gas Saving Products Put To The Test. Chip Yost Reports"

[GreyICE]

I agree that it won't work. My reasoning was quite simple - if it seems to good to be true, it probably is.

The sun turning purple tomorrow? More likely.

I was just looking for a simple explanation as to why.

Thanks

HN The combustion in a modern engine is in the ballpark of 98% efficient (in that 98% of it ignites, and becomes heat). I've heard 99% batted around, whatever. The point is, very little of it doesn't become heat.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics prohibit a process from generating more output energy than there is input energy.

Therefore this system doesn't improve output energy, and it doesn't make the existing energy source (gasoline) any more efficient, so all you're doing is messing with the engine.

Or, to put it more simply: There's no way it can work. There's no possible mechanism without getting magic energy from fairies.

[Paulhoff]

It takes more energy to break down the water into oxygen and hydrogen when the energy you can back from making it water again when you burn it.

Bottom line, there is no free ride.

Paul

:) :) :)

[geni]

I actually worked out that bombarding fluorine with alpha particles works pretty much just as well (Alpha particles will strip fluorine quite nicely).

Indeed, keeping them charged is the trick. The only way I could figure out is a strong magnetic field, nothing else seems likely to do the trick.

I can't think of a point to this, but it would be fun.

Mostly filling data tables with ionisation energies.

[HerNibs]

Thanks!

He's given up on the idea. Not due to good reasoning. I threatened to kill his fish.

:)

HN

[GreyICE]

Thanks!

He's given up on the idea. Not due to good reasoning. I threatened to kill his fish.

:)

HN Well that fits with my life motto:

"When all else fails, kill everything in the room."

[David Rodale]

Not quite right.

2H2O → 2H2 + O2

There are probably some other chemicals such as ozone produced in small amounts.

HHO can’t be water in their fantasies, because as we all know, water can’t burn. The idea is that HHO is supposed to be a molecule that burns even more intensely that plain H2. The truth is that the gas produced by water electrolysis is a stoichiometric mixture of H2 and O2, which is commonly called “oxyhydrogen”. Confront a woo-pusher about their fantastic claims about HHO, and they’ll just switch names and repeat all the same claims.

Water is, for the purposes of this discussion, stable – bereft of any harnessable chemical energy. It takes more energy to break down water into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen than burning them will ever give you. So to claim that a “water4gas” kit improves your gas mileage is basically to claim overunity.

It is always interesting to me when self-proclaimed know-it-alls have all the book answers, yet have likely never turned a wrench, tuned or built an engine or much of anything else to do with automobiles. This includes colleagues in my industry.

With that rant, please take the time to view the following. If anyone understands the trucking industry, they know two things; truckers use a lot of fuel and they know exactly what their fuel usage is:
http://www.chechfi.ca/gtdownload.htm
http://www.hypowerfuel.com/PDF/test3.PDF
http://www.etvcanada.com/data/PDF_CHEC.pdf
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200709/ai_n19524849
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?capId=33710698
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-28-2008/0004821933&EDATE=
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-gas-savers/hydrogen-fuel-injection-helps-school-buses-increase-mileage/

I've had a bit of experience with fraudsters and kooks, one being Allen Caggiano amongst others, now all but lost in the internet archives. If nothing else, I learned how urban legends are born. Wow, how the truth gets twisted not to mention a whole new set of lies! I'm in those links somewhere. Oh, and the check from Big Oil never arrived as promised :)
http://www.renovationpress.com/AllenCaggiano.html
http://www.renovationpress.com/High%20Mileage%20Dreams.htm
http://merlib.org/node/4082
In the end after Allen Caggiano went more or less underground, he walked off with over $600,000 in late 2006/early 2007. No wonder he wanted my Yahoo Group get113to138mpgNOT to disappear.

There are others, so please, no lectures on scams.

Now, what makes you think this is about overunity? I ask because this was the first device I investigated over ten years ago. Since having tested it and using on three different vehicles the last nine years, I must be delusional obtaining ~20% increase in fuel mileage. Pipelineaudio hit on part of the problem why it can't just be bolted on and expected to increase fuel efficiency, but it flew over your heads like a lead balloon.

No doubt embellishment and overstated results are rampant, yet it does not change what many thousands know (or could be imagining); HHO/oxy-hydrogen/brown's gas or whatever you wish to tag it as, does increase fuel efficiency when used correctly.

[GreyICE]

It is always interesting to me when self-proclaimed know-it-alls have all the book answers, yet have likely never turned a wrench, tuned or built an engine or much of anything else to do with automobiles. This includes colleagues in my industry.

Yiyiyi. Obviously we are know-nothings, because we think this stuff is garbage.

Yes, Hydrogen can act as a catalyst to gasoline combustion at ultra-low fuel:air ratios. There's some VERY significant changes you have to make to your car for this to work.

First you have to have to tinker with your engine. Engine powers are based on conventional fuel ratios, not 30:1 air:fuel ratios. So you're going to need to bump the power up a lot to get anywhere near conventional performance.

Second, you have to adjust all your fuel injection systems to deliver the proper ratio. Otherwise you're doing nada.

Third, you need a better source of hydrogen than water. Car battery+Water produces negligible amounts of hydrogen, it's way too little to get the catalyst effect you want.

Fourth, we're talking percentage points here. Like, 5ish. Maybe. The major reason to do it would be cleaner emissions. The math says you get practically nothing. Major reasons, engines fail at being 100% efficient, alternators fail at being 100% efficient, electrolysis fails at being 100% efficient, what you're gaining in extra burn (minimal) you're losing in extra alternator juice. Or, energy is conserved, yadda yadda.

Basically, if you're noticing a 20% reduction, the only sane explanation is that the fuel-starved engine just can't accelerate very fast. Which basically means it's more efficient, because when you slam the gas pedal down, it doesn't react very quickly (not the safest situation, but it is more gas efficient). End result: You have a crappy engine. Also, you're a bad driver. Accelerate slowly, stop stomping the pedal.

So you're getting the fuel efficiency of a Yugo because you've heavily modified your engine, attached a superb alternator water hookup, reprogrammed your car - to turn it into a Yugo.

All failures should be this epic.

Good frikkin job.

[trvlr2]

Yiyiyi. Obviously we are know-nothings, because we think this stuff is garbage.

Yes, Hydrogen can act as a catalyst to gasoline combustion at ultra-low fuel:air ratios. There's some VERY significant changes you have to make to your car for this to work.

First you have to have to tinker with your engine. Engine powers are based on conventional fuel ratios, not 30:1 air:fuel ratios. So you're going to need to bump the power up a lot to get anywhere near conventional performance.

Second, you have to adjust all your fuel injection systems to deliver the proper ratio. Otherwise you're doing nada.

Third, you need a better source of hydrogen than water. Car battery+Water produces negligible amounts of hydrogen, it's way too little to get the catalyst effect you want.

Fourth, we're talking percentage points here. Like, 5ish. Maybe. The major reason to do it would be cleaner emissions. The math says you get practically nothing. Major reasons, engines fail at being 100% efficient, alternators fail at being 100% efficient, electrolysis fails at being 100% efficient, what you're gaining in extra burn (minimal) you're losing in extra alternator juice. Or, energy is conserved, yadda yadda.

Basically, if you're noticing a 20% reduction, the only sane explanation is that the fuel-starved engine just can't accelerate very fast. Which basically means it's more efficient, because when you slam the gas pedal down, it doesn't react very quickly (not the safest situation, but it is more gas efficient). End result: You have a crappy engine. Also, you're a bad driver. Accelerate slowly, stop stomping the pedal.

So you're getting the fuel efficiency of a Yugo because you've heavily modified your engine, attached a superb alternator water hookup, reprogrammed your car - to turn it into a Yugo.

All failures should be this epic.

Good frikkin job.

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.

[David Rodale]

Yiyiyi. Obviously we are know-nothings, because we think this stuff is garbage.

Yes, Hydrogen can act as a catalyst to gasoline combustion at ultra-low fuel:air ratios. There's some VERY significant changes you have to make to your car for this to work.

First you have to have to tinker with your engine. Engine powers are based on conventional fuel ratios, not 30:1 air:fuel ratios. So you're going to need to bump the power up a lot to get anywhere near conventional performance.

Second, you have to adjust all your fuel injection systems to deliver the proper ratio. Otherwise you're doing nada.

Third, you need a better source of hydrogen than water. Car battery+Water produces negligible amounts of hydrogen, it's way too little to get the catalyst effect you want.

Fourth, we're talking percentage points here. Like, 5ish. Maybe. The major reason to do it would be cleaner emissions. The math says you get practically nothing. Major reasons, engines fail at being 100% efficient, alternators fail at being 100% efficient, electrolysis fails at being 100% efficient, what you're gaining in extra burn (minimal) you're losing in extra alternator juice. Or, energy is conserved, yadda yadda.

Basically, if you're noticing a 20% reduction, the only sane explanation is that the fuel-starved engine just can't accelerate very fast. Which basically means it's more efficient, because when you slam the gas pedal down, it doesn't react very quickly (not the safest situation, but it is more gas efficient). End result: You have a crappy engine. Also, you're a bad driver. Accelerate slowly, stop stomping the pedal.

So you're getting the fuel efficiency of a Yugo because you've heavily modified your engine, attached a superb alternator water hookup, reprogrammed your car - to turn it into a Yugo.

All failures should be this epic.

Good frikkin job.

Before it was impossible, now you say it is not? If such minute amounts of hydrogen cannot contribute to the engine's efficiency, how can it positively affect the emissions?

Are all those trucking firms, bus companies etc. delusional?

The more integrated the "HHO" system is integrated into the engine's computer, the better the results. Let's recap what all you "experts" have been saying however, and that is it is impossible to achieve higher fuel mileage by introducing small amounts of hydrogen gas because it violates some law of thermodynamics. I beg to differ.

My 2003 Dodge Durango 4.7L now shows 87,000 miles on the odometer, but you say it is unsafe and is essentially a Yugo. That's odd as I would never assume a Yugo could pull a travel trailer. Your logic escapes me.

It is true simply bolting on a "HHO" generator by itself will not yield much in the way of fuel efficiency (sometimes negative depending on the vehicle) improvement, but that is not what your arguments are. It is not hard to locate the scam artists; they are everywhere. Separating the chaff from the wheat is the difficult part. The common mistake by hyper-skeptics is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

We could discuss the more salient details of how this seemingly mundane "HHO" does affect the combustion process in an ICE, but since it has officially been been given "woo" status on JREF, why waste time right? Backyard mechanics seem to have figured it out, but stupid people aren't capable of calculating MPG are they? Isn't it sad so many have been led to believe a lie?

Obviously we are know-nothings, because we think this stuff is garbage. No, it is because you know this stuff is garbage when in fact you do not.

Yes, Hydrogen can act as a catalyst to gasoline combustion at ultra-low fuel:air ratios. There's some VERY significant changes you have to make to your car for this to work. Do you know why 14.7:1 AF is used? Define "ultra-low" and "VERY significant changes".

First you have to have to tinker with your engine. Engine powers are based on conventional fuel ratios, not 30:1 air:fuel ratios. So you're going to need to bump the power up a lot to get anywhere near conventional performance. 30:1??? Holy smokes!! What does bumping up power have to do with fuel burn rates and incomplete combustion?

Second, you have to adjust all your fuel injection systems to deliver the proper ratio. Otherwise you're doing nada. Such as?

Third, you need a better source of hydrogen than water. Car battery+Water produces negligible amounts of hydrogen, it's way too little to get the catalyst effect you want. Maybe ammonia? Eeeh gads!! Exactly how much is more than negligible? Do negligible amounts improve emissions?


Fourth, we're talking percentage points here. Like, 5ish. Maybe. The major reason to do it would be cleaner emissions. The math says you get practically nothing. Major reasons, engines fail at being 100% efficient, alternators fail at being 100% efficient, electrolysis fails at being 100% efficient, what you're gaining in extra burn (minimal) you're losing in extra alternator juice. Or, energy is conserved, yadda yadda. You're slipping into that "it is impossible" mode again. Again, if cleaner emissions are possible with "negligible" amounts, why not fuel efficiency?

I provided links to a company in Canada producing a "HHO" system primarily (by their numbers) marketed to fleet service industries. No comments on that?

And now for something completely different. Is it possible to operate an ICE on a gasoline/water mix? What about 30:1 AF?
http://smartplugs.com/
Careful, don't get caught in the same net.

[TjW]

Though you may find this unbelievable, I routinely measure my Toyota Sienna minivan's mileage at 99 mpg, going uphill at 60 mph.

[Mashuna]

Thanks!

He's given up on the idea. Not due to good reasoning. I threatened to kill his fish.

:)

HN


Pithy goodness, so nominated.

[pchams]

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.

[GreyICE]

Before it was impossible, now you say it is not? If such minute amounts of hydrogen cannot contribute to the engine's efficiency, how can it positively affect the emissions? Quick answer: They can't.

Long answer: You need a heck of a lot more hydrogen than one of these things produces. Like, order of magnitude more.

Are all those trucking firms, bus companies etc. delusional? No, they're doing something completely different.

The more integrated the "HHO" system is integrated into the engine's computer, the better the results. Let's recap what all you "experts" have been saying however, and that is it is impossible to achieve higher fuel mileage by introducing small amounts of hydrogen gas because it violates some law of thermodynamics. I beg to differ.
I beg to differ, cue the unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence.
My 2003 Dodge Durango 4.7L now shows 87,000 miles on the odometer, but you say it is unsafe and is essentially a Yugo. That's odd as I would never assume a Yugo could pull a travel trailer. Your logic escapes me.

It is true simply bolting on a "HHO" generator by itself will not yield much in the way of fuel efficiency (sometimes negative depending on the vehicle) improvement, but that is not what your arguments are. It is not hard to locate the scam artists; they are everywhere. Separating the chaff from the wheat is the difficult part. The common mistake by hyper-skeptics is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I have yet to see a baby in this bathwater. It is mighty murky though.

We could discuss the more salient details of how this seemingly mundane "HHO" does affect the combustion process in an ICE, but since it has officially been been given "woo" status on JREF, why waste time right? Backyard mechanics seem to have figured it out, but stupid people aren't capable of calculating MPG are they? Isn't it sad so many have been led to believe a lie?
Yes, but not unusual. (http://www.gems4friends.com/therapy.html)
No, it is because you know this stuff is garbage when in fact you do not.

Do you know why 14.7:1 AF is used? Define "ultra-low" and "VERY significant changes". In a conventional engine? The air fuel ratio in a conventional engine is a product of the mass of gasoline, the mass of oxygen, and the proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere. It is actually referred to by a specific variable (lambda, which I'm not sure how to make on this forum).

This is because gasoline will not spontaneously combust in air saturated environments if you get a lousy ratio. Oh and by the way, you looked up the lambda for pure octane in your google search. Try 12-13ish for actual fuels.

30:1??? Holy smokes!! What does bumping up power have to do with fuel burn rates and incomplete combustion?
How does a conventional engine with 1/3rd the fuel it used to have get the same power? Oh wait, it doesn't. Moreover, to get actual gains, you're going to want to go with higher compression ratios. You could do that quite safely, since the gas won't ignite, then at TDC inject hydrogen. It would actually solve the diesel mixing problem.

Of course good luck doing this with a 2007 dodge or something.
Such as? Such as what? A conventional engine on conventional ratios gets no benefit from hydrogen.

Maybe ammonia? Eeeh gads!! Exactly how much is more than negligible? Do negligible amounts improve emissions? Hydrogen is frequently produced from steam methane reforming.

Negligable is how much you get if you stick a typical alternator (12V DC output), you can work out quite quickly how much hydrogen you're getting. The resistance of water could be as low as 200 ohms, especially if you've added salts. At least this is how I measured it at one point, so lets stick to that.

That's a wattage dissipation of maybe 0.8 watts. Lets say 1 w for rounding purposes.

Now, moving on, a mol of hydrogen is 25 L, more or less, at room temperature. It takes 237 kJ of energy to produce 1 mol of hydrogen, simple energy balances. That is a rate of 0.1 ml/second of hydrogen produced.

How much gets into the engine? At 2,500 RPM, the shaft undergoes 41 rotations per second. Each cylinder takes two rotations to complete a combustion cycle. Thus, in a 4 cylinder engine, there are 82 combustion events per second. Each combustion event will receive 0.0012 mL of hydrogen.

This a firm definition of negligible for you?


You're slipping into that "it is impossible" mode again. Again, if cleaner emissions are possible with "negligible" amounts, why not fuel efficiency? Given that I just defined 'negligible' for you: hahahahaha.

I provided links to a company in Canada producing a "HHO" system primarily (by their numbers) marketed to fleet service industries. No comments on that? Doesn't work off car alternator, doesn't work like conventional engine, can't reform a conventional engine to work like that.

And now for something completely different. Is it possible to operate an ICE on a gasoline/water mix? What about 30:1 AF? No, because water has no combustion products with oxygen. If your 'air' is fluorine, give it a shot.
http://smartplugs.com/
Careful, don't get caught in the same net.

[/QUOTE]Hah.

[Paulhoff]

Though you may find this unbelievable, I routinely measure my Toyota Sienna minivan's mileage at 99 mpg, going uphill at 60 mph.
Not much more unbelievable then a so-called god.

Paul

:) :) :)

[mhaze]

Quick answer: They can't.

Long answer: You need a heck of a lot more hydrogen than one of these things produces. Like, order of magnitude more. No, they're doing something completely different.
I beg to differ, cue the unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence.
I have yet to see a baby in this bathwater. It is mighty murky though.
Yes, but not unusual. (http://www.gems4friends.com/therapy.html) In a conventional engine? The air fuel ratio in a conventional engine is a product of the mass of gasoline, the mass of oxygen, and the proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere. It is actually referred to by a specific variable (lambda, which I'm not sure how to make on this forum).

This is because gasoline will not spontaneously combust in air saturated environments if you get a lousy ratio. Oh and by the way, you looked up the lambda for pure octane in your google search. Try 12-13ish for actual fuels.
How does a conventional engine with 1/3rd the fuel it used to have get the same power? Oh wait, it doesn't. Moreover, to get actual gains, you're going to want to go with higher compression ratios. You could do that quite safely, since the gas won't ignite, then at TDC inject hydrogen. It would actually solve the diesel mixing problem.

Of course good luck doing this with a 2007 dodge or something. Such as what? A conventional engine on conventional ratios gets no benefit from hydrogen.
Hydrogen is frequently produced from steam methane reforming.

Negligable is how much you get if you stick a typical alternator (12V DC output), you can work out quite quickly how much hydrogen you're getting. The resistance of water could be as low as 200 ohms, especially if you've added salts. At least this is how I measured it at one point, so lets stick to that.

That's a wattage dissipation of maybe 0.8 watts. Lets say 1 w for rounding purposes.

Now, moving on, a mol of hydrogen is 25 L, more or less, at room temperature. It takes 237 kJ of energy to produce 1 mol of hydrogen, simple energy balances. That is a rate of 0.1 ml/second of hydrogen produced.

How much gets into the engine? At 2,500 RPM, the shaft undergoes 41 rotations per second. Each cylinder takes two rotations to complete a combustion cycle. Thus, in a 4 cylinder engine, there are 82 combustion events per second. Each combustion event will receive 0.0012 mL of hydrogen.

This a firm definition of negligible for you?

Given that I just defined 'negligible' for you: hahahahaha.
Doesn't work off car alternator, doesn't work like conventional engine, can't reform a conventional engine to work like that.
No, because water has no combustion products with oxygen. If your 'air' is fluorine, give it a shot.
Hah.

In my view, changing the combustion chamber atmosphere from one in which droplet vaporization results in a propagating wave front, to one with say 1% hydrogen gas plus said droplets, is very, very different.

All of the parameters relative to combustion will change - the pressure and temperature of combustion being the most obvious, the effect on the traveling wave front much less so.

The effect of such additives on averaged engine performance, running lean vs rich, is certainly open to question.

[GreyICE]

In my view, changing the combustion chamber atmosphere from one in which droplet vaporization results in a propagating wave front, to one with say 1% hydrogen gas plus said droplets, is very, very different.

All of the parameters relative to combustion will change - the pressure and temperature of combustion being the most obvious, the effect on the traveling wave front much less so.

The effect of such additives on averaged engine performance, running lean vs rich, is certainly open to question.

Excuse me, 0.0012 mL.

Hold your fingers 1 millimeter apart. Not a centimeter, a tenth of that.

0.0012 mL fits into a cube the size of that gap inbetween your fingers that you can barely see. It's a cube about a thirtieth of an inch, if you're wedded to the English system (that's 1/30 inches).

And before you think there's somehow some effect, remember two GRAMS of Hydrogen fit in a 25 L volume. That's liters, not milliliters.

I'd suggest you call your proposed effect the "Hydrogen Homeopathy effect." You're insane if you think it works.

[mhaze]

Excuse me, 0.0012 mL.

Hold your fingers 1 millimeter apart. Not a centimeter, a tenth of that.

0.0012 mL fits into a cube the size of that gap inbetween your fingers that you can barely see. It's a cube about a thirtieth of an inch, if you're wedded to the English system (that's 1/30 inches).

And before you think there's somehow some effect, remember two GRAMS of Hydrogen fit in a 25 L volume. That's liters, not milliliters.

I'd suggest you call your proposed effect the "Hydrogen Homeopathy effect." You're insane if you think it works.

Nope, I'm not sure that's adequate by reasonable standards of non explanatory discourse, so let's try again.

6.16 moles/liter gasoline 0.04 mole H2/liter gaseous H2
295,000 combustion events per hour

Say our trusty 4 cylinder gets 22 mpg and is going 60, 2.7 gph=2.7/0.27 l/g= 10 L gas/hr= 61.6 moles

3.6 L h2 is 0.144 mole

0.144 mole/61.6 moles = 0.2% molar increase or 0.4% if H is ionic.

This is using your 1w power input, remember.

That is without consideration of the instantaneous fraction of fuel droplets existing in gas form in the vicinity of the combustion wave front. The correct ratio of fuels is H2(or H)/(gaeous gasoline) computed for the local area where combustion propagates, corrected by H2 ionic fraction but also the mix of gasoline chain breakdown products.

Care to guess at that? Remember, only gas combusts.

[GreyICE]

Nope, I'm not sure that's adequate by reasonable standards of non explanatory discourse, so let's try again.I'm sorry, what? A cube 1/30th of an inch on each side going into each combustion event? Wow. Still, lets see what math you've used to obscure basic math.

6.16 moles/liter gasoline 0.04 mole H2/liter gaseous H2Actually I'm pretty sure gasoline is 0.04 mol/liter in gaseous form too. But sure, lets use liquid numbers.

295,000 combustion events per hourSeems a little high. I doubt an average of 4,900 RPM seems like a conventional car. Still, it seems alright.

Say our trusty 4 cylinder gets 22 mpg and is going 60, 2.7 gph=2.7/0.27 l/g= 10 L gas/hr= 61.6 molesSure.

3.6 L h2 is 0.144 mole

0.2% molar increase or 0.4% if H is ionic. This is using your 1w power input, remember. Now this is where I have a problem. H2 is two molecules of hydrogen. Gasoline is a mix of complicated hydrocarbons, but a good average is C8H18. So saying 1 mol of H2 and 1 mol of C8H18 are equivalent is a bit of a stretch. Even just considering hydrogen, those 61 mols of gasoline have 549 mols of H2. And that's before we consider the carbon.

Also, if you have a problem with my 1 watt, just state it. It's a very, very, very simple equation. P=V^2/R. V^2 is undeniable (I actually assumed it high, but alternators are voltage regulated. I took the high side of the allowable voltage from the regulator). R is a measured quality, but if you have a better measurement for water, tell me. Remember, for reasonably pure water, it is measured in kOhms, so I assumed a nice helping of salts along. If you have the problem with the energy needed to create H2... no really, there's just no way around that one. You get energy from hydrogen combustion, you need to give that energy back to undo the combustion. You can't find a problem with this, so you make vague insinuations. Right.

That is without consideration of the instantaneous fraction of fuel droplets existing in gas form in the vicinity of the combustion wave front. This is a nonsense statement. The instantaneous fraction of fuel droplets in the vicinity of a wave front is proportional to the fraction in the overall mixture, in a well-mixed gas. Since we are positing a normal car engine, instead of a diesel engine, that seems like the default assumption. The correct ratio of fuels is H2(or H)/(gaeous gasoline) computed for the local area where combustion propagates. Which is equivalent, as stated.

Care to guess at that? Remember, only gas combusts.
I don't need to guess. I just need to understand cars.

[mhaze]

I'm sorry, what? A cube 1/30th of an inch on each side going into each combustion event? Wow. Still, lets see what math you've used to obscure basic math.
Actually I'm pretty sure gasoline is 0.04 mol/liter in gaseous form too. But sure, lets use liquid numbers.
Seems a little high. I doubt an average of 4,900 RPM seems like a conventional car. Still, it seems alright.

Oops, that was for 8 cylinder. Thanks, aggregate chamber molar fractions corrected to-

H2=0.4%
H+=0.8%

Should have stuck with my first guess-

In my view, changing the combustion chamber atmosphere from one in which droplet vaporization results in a propagating wave front, to one with say 1% hydrogen gas plus said droplets, is very, very different.


Sure.
Now this is where I have a problem. H2 is two molecules of hydrogen. Gasoline is a mix of complicated hydrocarbons, but a good average is C8H18. So saying 1 mol of H2 and 1 mol of C8H18 are equivalent is a bit of a stretch. Even just considering hydrogen, those 61 mols of gasoline have 549 mols of H2. And that's before we consider the carbon. You have nothing until you have somewhere, a bit of gas from that. Succeeding that, then results from decomposition prouducts.

Also, if you have a problem with my 1 watt, just state it. It's a very, very, very simple equation. P=V^2/R. V^2 is undeniable (I actually assumed it high, but alternators are voltage regulated. I took the high side of the allowable voltage from the regulator). R is a measured quality, but if you have a better measurement for water, tell me. Remember, for reasonably pure water, it is measured in kOhms, so I assumed a nice helping of salts along. If you have the problem with the energy needed to create H2... no really, there's just no way around that one. You get energy from hydrogen combustion, you need to give that energy back to undo the combustion. You can't find a problem with this, so you make vague insinuations. Right.Didn't say problem with 1w, noted it only as a presumption.


This is a nonsense statement. The instantaneous fraction of fuel droplets in the vicinity of a wave front is proportional to the fraction in the overall mixture, in a well-mixed gas. Since we are positing a normal car engine, instead of a diesel engine, that seems like the default assumption. Which is equivalent, as stated. Wrongness bolded.

Speed of sound in the medium times a constant is the rate of gas mixing. Droplet vaporization and subsequent localized combustion must always exceed that rate, hence "propagation".

[GreyICE]

Oops, that was for 8 cylinder. Thanks, aggregate chamber molar fractions corrected to-

H2=0.4%
H+=0.8%

Should have stuck with my first guess-

In my view, changing the combustion chamber atmosphere from one in which droplet vaporization results in a propagating wave front, to one with say 1% hydrogen gas plus said droplets, is very, very different. This is because you invented a new gas (positively ionized hydrogen, which rarely occurs in any case) and are now spewing nonsense. I assure you, 0.4% hydrogen (best case scenario, given that I rounded upwards absolutely everywhere) does pretty much nothing. All experimental evidence shows that you need several percent before it works.



You have nothing until you have somewhere, a bit of gas from that. Succeeding that, then results from decomposition prouducts. Huh? This doesn't scan.

Didn't say problem with 1w, noted it only as a presumption.
It is not a 'presumption.' It's an estimate based on data. I have sourced all my data, and it is actually rounded up (my math said it was around 0.7 W, and that was with 100% efficiency no less - real world efficiency is around 70-80% on electrolysis of water).
Wrongness bolded.

Speed of sound in the medium times a constant is the rate of gas mixing. Droplet vaporization and subsequent localized combustion must always exceed that rate, hence "propagation".
Ignorance... uh, if I bolded it, it would be this entire section.

You have no idea how an internal combustion engine works. The gas is well mixed, I assure you. That is because it is not injected when it is ignited. It is pulled in during the downwards motion of the first stroke, and ignited a few degrees past TDC into the second stroke. The action of the pulling in and subsequent compression is more than sufficient to make it utterly uniform. As you noted (about the only thing you're correct on) the shockwave propagates well past the mixing speed, creating no mechanism to change its well-mixed state. This is just simple 4-stroke engine facts.

[Spud1k]

In my view, changing the combustion chamber atmosphere from one in which droplet vaporization results in a propagating wave front, to one with say 1% hydrogen gas plus said droplets, is very, very different.

All of the parameters relative to combustion will change - the pressure and temperature of combustion being the most obvious, the effect on the traveling wave front much less so.

The effect of such additives on averaged engine performance, running lean vs rich, is certainly open to question.

What you're basically talking about is adding a higher volatility fuel to the mix to see if it changes combustion. Research-wise, I think this has been done to death already and isn't much of an open question.

[Spud1k]

Regarding the OP, I'd rank this one alongside detergent-free clothes washing discs.

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
Now, what makes you think this is about over unity?

The fact that it implies over unity.


I ask because this was the first device I investigated over ten years ago. Since having tested it and using on three different vehicles the last nine years, I must be delusional obtaining ~20% increase in fuel mileage.


Delusional or fraudulent. Make your pick.

No doubt embellishment and overstated results are rampant, yet it does not change what many thousands know (or could be imagining); HHO/oxy-hydrogen/brown's gas or whatever you wish to tag it as, does increase fuel efficiency when used correctly.

It probably does, since it is is explosive. The catch is how you obtain it. In the proposed device, it is obtained by electrolyzing water, using electricity from the car's battery, which is charged by the car's generator, which is driven by the car's engine, which is ... you guessed it ... driven by the fuel you are trying to save. Now, since we have a closed loop here, to get any gains requires over unity.

It is even a very lossy loop. Water electrolysis has an efficiency of about 50%. A lead-acid battery has a charge/discharge efficiency of about 50%. a car generator has an efficiency of about 75%. So, the combined efficiency is less than 20%.

Now, if you were getting your oxy-hydrogen from somewhere else, like from a renewable energy plant splitting seawater, then yes, you would have something useful. Unfortunately, you would be back at the rather tricky problem of storing hydrogen (or the explosive oxy-hydrogen :eye-poppi ).

Hans

[mhaze]

What you're basically talking about is adding a higher volatility fuel to the mix to see if it changes combustion. Research-wise, I think this has been done to death already and isn't much of an open question.

I wondered about the level of research also, being familiar with it in an area that's somewhat similar. But that's the correct approach, to actually look at the chemical dynamics (1) the research (2) the simplified combustion modeling programs, available on the internet, which will handle a mix of fuels input (3) full 3D combustion modeling, which does handle turbulent flow in the chamber at the current state of the art.

Being familiar with the characteristics of hydrogen implies a significant contribution both in the dynamics of the pre wave front "ignitability" and secondly, in the rate of gas expansion post combustion. Both of these phenomena to be understood have to be studied in a microcosm of the chamber. You are correct in the aggregate to note "volatility" as a fundamental concept. Gasoline has a certain volatility which results in gaseous gasoline as a function of surface area (in this case we are dealing with microscopic droplets which nonetheless evaporate at certain known rates).

A given volatility results in a certain concentration of gas above the liquid, whether the liquid is in a can of gasoline or whether it is airborne droplets. However, hydrogen is already a gas. That's way, way different. The wrong approach is to simply dismiss small amounts of hydrogen out of hand as woo. Which is what was seeming to be done in this thread, and why I thought to comment.

As to the effect small amounts might have, or what amount would have a significant effect, that's of course open to question. My gut feeling is that 1% is not at all insignificant, since it is 1% molar and it is gas, whereas the gasoline is 100% liquid droplets, moving at some rate into the gaseous phase. These phenomena occur in the fractional millisecond range if I recall correctly. We might guess that 1% hydrogen was 5-10% of the total instantaneous gaseous concentration, (just as an example), and secondly note that oxygen has also been provided in stochiometric ratio.

Yes, these are guesses, but as you have noted, research articles should be available that describe this precisely. There are similarities to N2O injection, which is also a gas at the pressures involved.

I think the issue with "over unity" was the presumption that the vehicle alternator ran continuously, thus after charging the battery "free energy" was available from it. Hence no "over unity" is involved.

[GreyICE]

mhaze - you are seriously wandering into technobabble territory. There's no mechanism for it improving efficiency with normal fuel:air ratios, since combustion consumes virtually all of the gasoline at those ratios.

All your terminology is just dancing around the point.

Frankly, I can't believe that you disbelieve global warming, a well-proven theory, and accept this nonsense, which has neither a theory nor a mechanism, just woo.

[mhaze]

Ha. It's not my terminology, but standard industry stuff. You are missing some fundamental issues, but I have explained them I think, somewhat adequately. By all means go check technical references, dig into the technobabble a bit. I encourage you.

I'm not defending the product described in the OP, incidentally, and have no experience with such products. Just indicating that the dynamics does not preclude positive effects from the described mechanisms, and therefore you cannot call "woo" in such a case as this. Moreover, since hydrogen burns at 4% in STP air, the amounts that we have been discussing, 0.4 - 1.0%, may well be in the correct range for an additive component.

3D combustion dynamics (including droplet evaporation, heat and pressure) are fully modeled on our computers today, very robustly. Let me know when your laughable inadequate climate models reach this stage - oh, wait, they cannot, the number of data points required exceeds the computational operations of tommorow's supercomputers ran for the age of the universe.

[GreyICE]

Ha. It's not my terminology, but standard industry stuff. You are missing some fundamental issues, but I have explained them I think, somewhat adequately. By all means go check technical references, dig into the technobabble a bit. I encourage you. The fundamental issue is that you can't improve on a system that is damn near perfect to begin with. We already burn so close to all of the gasoline in an engine that trying to burn the last little bit is pointless and doesn't get you anything. You are discussing industry-standard stuff, but you haven't done the basic analysis to determine that the system won't work, period, because what it's supposed to do is already being done.

Seriously, this reads like a physics major hitting up an engineering issue with the help of google. You fly straight to the complicated stuff, and ignore the fact that it can't possibly work in the first place.

I'm not defending the product described in the OP, incidentally, and have no experience with such products. Just indicating that the dynamics does not preclude positive effects from the described mechanisms, and therefore you cannot call "woo" in such a case as this. Moreover, since hydrogen burns at 4% in STP air, the amounts that we have been discussing, 0.4 - 1.0%, may well be in the correct range for an additive component.
From the referenced papers, if you check it out, the 3-4% range is where you have to be. The 0.4% range is rather... low. As in worthlessly low.

3D combustion dynamics (including droplet evaporation, heat and pressure) are fully modeled on our computers today, very robustly. Let me know when your laughable inadequate climate models reach this stage - oh, wait, they cannot, the number of data points required exceeds the computational operations of tommorow's supercomputers ran for the age of the universe. You can model whatever you want. The system in the OP does jack ****. The climate models are working reasonably well, btw, as is the basic science. Basic science also says overunity is impossible, which is what the OP's system is, since it claims to be getting energy that just isn't there (extra combustion of gasoline, all of which has combusted).

[TheDaver]

I think the issue with "over unity" was the presumption that the vehicle alternator ran continuously, thus after charging the battery "free energy" was available from it. Hence no "over unity" is involved.
Even so, an alternator isn’t an on-off device. The mechanical load the alternator puts on the engine varies with the electrical load the electrical system places on the alternator.

mhaze - you are seriously wandering into technobabble territory. […] All your terminology is just dancing around the point.
Agreed 100%.

[mhaze]

The fundamental issue is that you can't improve on a system that is damn near perfect to begin with. We already burn so close to all of the gasoline in an engine that trying to burn the last little bit is pointless and doesn't get you anything. You are discussing industry-standard stuff, but you haven't done the basic analysis to determine that the system won't work, period, because what it's supposed to do is already being done.

Seriously, this reads like a physics major hitting up an engineering issue with the help of google. You fly straight to the complicated stuff, and ignore the fact that it can't possibly work in the first place.
From the referenced papers, if you check it out, the 3-4% range is where you have to be. The 0.4% range is rather... low. As in worthlessly low. You can model whatever you want. The system in the OP does jack ****. The climate models are working reasonably well, btw, as is the basic science. Basic science also says overunity is impossible, which is what the OP's system is, since it claims to be getting energy that just isn't there (extra combustion of gasoline, all of which has combusted).

All I've done is to show how the combustion works at the level where it matters, in the chamber. Further, why the concentration MUST be lower than your 3-4%. If you don't understand that, then we might want to loiter on that subject a bit further. Your concepts of "a near perfect process" regarding ICE are, well, to each his own...

There is no overunity in the described hypothetical mechansisms that I've seen, because the hydrogen is said to act as a combustion enhancer. There is a reasonable basis for believing it can do so, if you think otherwise, please provide some technical references that prove that up. I've made note of N2O as a crudely similar issue.

Any actual result of using hydrogen would show up in readings from EGT and CHT quite readily. There would be differences between various types of internal combustion engines.

There would also be a predictable max mileage improvement that could be calculated based on the supposed more efficient burn from adding hydrogen. What would that mileage improvement be? It ain't going to be 40-70%, of course, but neither would it be near zero.

It might be considered than any claimed mileage improvement over this calculated max would be a claim of overunity - I've got no problem with that. We agree there are a lot of marketing scams and hype around these matters. But it's in my opinion important to separate out the scams and hype, from the real possibilities.

[GreyICE]

All I've done is to show how the combustion works at the level where it matters, in the chamber. Further, why the concentration MUST be lower than your 3-4%. If you don't understand that, then we might want to loiter on that subject a bit further. Your concepts of "a near perfect process" regarding ICE are, well, to each his own...Not really. Virtually 100% of the gasoline in a modern engine with a well-calibrated fuel injector combusts. So, to each his own, but your own is apparently the good ol' carburetor. We've changed a little since then.

There is no overunity in the described hypothetical mechansisms that I've seen, because the hydrogen is said to act as a combustion enhancer. There is a reasonable basis for believing it can do so, if you think otherwise, please provide some technical references that prove that up. I've made note of N2O as a crudely similar issue. No, there really isn't. Note that NOS does NOT act as a combustion enhancer. It in no way, shape, or form enhances the existing combustion reaction. It simply allows MORE fuel to be added. It reduces efficiency quite noticeably, in point of fact.

You seem to be claiming to understand the complicated mechanics, yet you keep tripping on the simple stuff. NOS doesn't enhance combustion.

Any actual result of using hydrogen would show up in readings from EGT and CHT quite readily. There would be differences between various types of internal combustion engines. Technobabble. Hydrogen combustion is hydrogen combustion. 0.4% isn't going to change the temperatures much.

There would also be a predictable max mileage improvement that could be calculated based on the supposed more efficient burn from adding hydrogen. What would that mileage improvement be? It ain't going to be 40-70%, of course, but neither would it be near zero. Ah. Yeah. It would.

It might be considered than any claimed mileage improvement over this calculated max would be a claim of overunity - I've got no problem with that. We agree there are a lot of marketing scams and hype around these matters. But it's in my opinion important to separate out the scams and hype, from the real possibilities.You've demonstrated nothing that shows this system does anything. As I said before, modern fuel injected engines are so close to perfect in terms of fuel combustion that any theoretical improvement is going to be on the order of 1% or less. Probably a lot less.

[Paulhoff]

The word is SCAM

http://reviews.ebay.com/Hydrogen-Generator-Economy-Device-SCAMS_W0QQugidZ10000000005261775

Paul

:) :) :)

[mhaze]

Not really. Virtually 100% of the gasoline in a modern engine with a well-calibrated fuel injector combusts. So, to each his own, but your own is apparently the good ol' carburetor. We've changed a little since then.
No, there really isn't. Note that NOS does NOT act as a combustion enhancer. It in no way, shape, or form enhances the existing combustion reaction. It simply allows MORE fuel to be added. It reduces efficiency quite noticeably, in point of fact.

Note phrase used "crudely similar".

You seem to be claiming to understand the complicated mechanics, yet you keep tripping on the simple stuff. NOS doesn't enhance combustion.
Technobabble. Hydrogen combustion is hydrogen combustion. 0.4% isn't going to change the temperatures much.

Ah. Yeah. It would. You've demonstrated nothing that shows this system does anything. As I said before, modern fuel injected engines are so close to perfect in terms of fuel combustion that any theoretical improvement is going to be on the order of 1% or less. Probably a lot less.Evidence? References? I'm particularly interested in the assertion that "any theoretical improvement is likely to be 1% or less".

[GreyICE]

Note phrase used "crudely similar". Apparently it means "Not related in any way, shape, or form" since NOS is in no way similar to an efficiency improvement (it actually decreases efficiency, hilariously).


Evidence? References? I'm particularly interested in the assertion that "any theoretical improvement is likely to be 1% or less".
*sigh* What do you suppose the percentage of UHCs are in the exhaust of a modern engine?

http://www.snecma.com/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=155&lang=en

Hmm, 0.5 percent of the engine's emmissions are pollutants, including NOx, Soot, and UHCs. So even if it reduced that to zero, that's an 0.5% combustion efficiency gain.

[Hindmost]

The OP is still woo...but there may be some answers here.

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

glenn

[anor277]

................You are correct in the aggregate to note "volatility" as a fundamental concept. Gasoline has a certain volatility which results in gaseous gasoline as a function of surface area (in this case we are dealing with microscopic droplets which nonetheless evaporate at certain known rates).

A given volatility results in a certain concentration of gas above the liquid, whether the liquid is in a can of gasoline or whether it is airborne droplets. However, hydrogen is already a gas. ..............


Just to add that I think that you are mistaken on the italicized point. Volatility, or more correctly vapour pressure, is solely a function of temperature (the higher the temperature the higher the vapour pressure). A given temperature gives rise to a given vapour pressure whatever the the surface area or shape of the liquid. For the hydrocarbons that are the components of gasoline, the vapour pressures at various temperatures are well known and extensively tabulated.

[Just thinking]

Yes it's a scam ... but I think the chemists here are failing to see the forest by letting the trees get in the way.

HHO is not a molecule --- yes, many here have already said that. But it is not being touted as a molecule, it's just written that way because whoever wrote it didn't realize that that's not how to represent their gas ... Brown's gas. It's 2 parts Hydrogen gas to one part Oxygen gas. We know better to write it as 2H2 + O2. See it now? Brown's gas is not a gas of molecule HHO, it's a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases in a 2:1 ratio. (By now you see just how ignorant and careless the author was in his description of 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen.)

Now, of course, you can burn that and it will release energy --- but it will take at least that much energy (actually more) to process those gases from water, which is how this scam is set up.

(Yes folks ... it was that simple, and that silly.)

[Dilb]

HHO is not a molecule --- yes, many here have already said that. But it is not being touted as a molecule

Some people (Denny Klein, there's a thread about it here) are claiming that HHO is a molecule, literally a hydrogen bonded to a hydrogen. Even better, it's a magnetic bond. I think he called it a 'magnecule' or something like that.
And yes, he claimed to get more energy out of it than he put in. I personally went through the math to show that he was simply wrong, about the amount of heat you'd expect from burning a hydrogen/oxygen mixture.
Really, it's in his patent. (http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220060075683%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20060075683&RS=DN/20060075683)

[Just thinking]

Look up Brown's gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO_Gas), it's the same as HHO (http://www.brownsgas.com/brownsgashome.html).

Oxyhydrogen is a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gases, typically in a 2:1 atomic ratio, the same proportion as water.

Oxyhydrogen gas produced in a common-ducted electrolyzer has been referred to as "Brown's gas" ...

Brown's Gas / HHO Gas - Water as Fuel

[TheDaver]

Look up Brown's gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO_Gas), it's the same as HHO (http://www.brownsgas.com/brownsgashome.html).
Hydroxy and oxyhydrogen are the terms commonly used in (honest) industry.

HHO is of course a scam term, and so is Brown’s Gas:
http://www.alternative-energy-resources.net/browns-gas-the-reality.html

Let the woo-pushers use their own vocabulary and you’re giving up the fight before it’s even begun.

[Dilb]

I'm well aware that what actually happens is you get 2H2 + O2 from electrolysis. The people trying to sell it might not have the same understanding.

[Just thinking]

Hydroxy and oxyhydrogen are the terms commonly used in (honest) industry.

HHO is of course a scam term, and so is Brown’s Gas:
http://www.alternative-energy-resources.net/browns-gas-the-reality.html

Let the woo-pushers use their own vocabulary and you’re giving up the fight before it’s even begun.

You do, of course, realize that I was merely clarifying my point from post #59, in that HHO (as 2H2 + O2, not an HHO molecule) and Brown's Gas are one in the same. Dilb was making the case that a patent application claims otherwise --- for the record, I agree with him in that the author is full of it. And I am in full agreement with claims of HHO as an efficient fuel from water is pure woo.

[I Ratant]

But then, there's this:
http://puregreencars.com/Green-Cars-News/Technology/Chrysler-Invests-in-Hydrogen.html

[TheDaver]

But then, there's this:
http://puregreencars.com/Green-Cars-News/Technology/Chrysler-Invests-in-Hydrogen.html
Running a car on hydrogen, sure. Producing the hydrogen on board, no way.

[Just thinking]

Yes, but understand that running on hydrogen is not the same as running on gasoline, in the sense that hydrogen is not a source of energy like oil is. It has to be made or liberated, and the processes used in generating it (especially from water) consume more energy than the combustion process of it going back to H2O.

[David Wong]

Does anybody else think it's strange the global warming deniers jumped on board with this? What's the common worldview there that would make them embrace both kinds of woo? Just a general distrust of what mainstream scientsits believe?

[GreyICE]

Does anybody else think it's strange the global warming deniers jumped on board with this? What's the common worldview there that would make them embrace both kinds of woo? Just a general distrust of what mainstream scientsits believe? Inability to think critically. It's the same reason you see the big believers in homeopathy practice 'Reiki' or crystal therapy, and look at chakras and practice other fun forms of woo. Inability to think critically leads to silly conclusions.

Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[TheDaver]

Yes, but understand that running on hydrogen is not the same as running on gasoline, in the sense that hydrogen is not a source of energy like oil is. It has to be made or liberated, and the processes used in generating it (especially from water) consume more energy than the combustion process of it going back to H2O.
True. But we’re on our way to finally having a safe, practical, high-density storage system. It would be nice if we had a cheap, plentiful (preferably renewable, obviously) source of power to create the hydrogen.

[Hellbound]

TheDaver:

We just need to build a vacuum with a hose long enough to reach the intersteller medium.

:D

[robinson]

Yes, but understand that running on hydrogen is not the same as running on gasoline, in the sense that hydrogen is not a source of energy like oil is. It has to be made or liberated, and the processes used in generating it (especially from water) consume more energy than the combustion process of it going back to H2O.

To be exact, oil had to made, and was in the past, from solar energy. It isn't "free" energy, it is just abundant because so much as created in the past, by plants, using solar energy.

As to the equation, the same amount of energy is released as was required to split the water. It can't be any other way.

There is one interesting fact about electrolysis of water, that I don't think has come up, in all the various discussions here and there, about electrolysis of water. That would be the Gibbs Free Energy involved in the process.

Splitting water actually involves a state change, and when water is split at low temperatures, heat is "taken" from the environment, which is "given" back when the Hydrogen and Oxygen change back to water. Meaning, and this is difficult to state correctly, that more heat is created during combustion, than was required to split the water.

This is only true at low temperatures, because otherwise the heat is taken from the electrolysis unit, which came from the electricity, which means while it is still Gibbs Free Energy, it is taken from the process, and not the surrounding air.

True. But we’re on our way to finally having a safe, practical, high-density storage system. It would be nice if we had a cheap, plentiful (preferably renewable, obviously) source of power to create the hydrogen.

Solar energy is a plentiful, renewable source of power, which can be used to split water in a multitude of ways. The stumbling point is how you define "cheap". Obviously, it is the best way gather and store energy, in situations where you can't use oil or other fuels.

It is also the source of the stored energy in oil, because plants used solar energy, to create the oil in the first place.

[I Ratant]

True. But we’re on our way to finally having a safe, practical, high-density storage system. It would be nice if we had a cheap, plentiful (preferably renewable, obviously) source of power to create the hydrogen.
.
"creating" hydrogen might require a power beyond that of humanity.
I've heard the last creator is on vacation after putting in a tough six days.

[Paulhoff]

The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely with the numbers cited below on the optimistic side. Some report 50–70%, while the theoretical maximum efficiency of the electrolysis of water is between 80–94%. These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency may be closer to 30–45%.


Paul

:) :) :)

[TheDaver]

.
"creating" hydrogen might require a power beyond that of humanity.
I've heard the last creator is on vacation after putting in a tough six days.
I of course meant "extract it from water", but it gets tiring using so many words.

[GreyICE]

I of course meant "extract it from water", but it gets tiring using so many words.
Don't worry, for 99.9% of humanity that was an easily comprehended statement.

[Just thinking]

True. But we’re on our way to finally having a safe, practical, high-density storage system. It would be nice if we had a cheap, plentiful (preferably renewable, obviously) source of power to create the hydrogen.

That's basically saying that renewable sources can supply our present (and future) energy needs. Personally I seriously doubt that (without going nuclear) anytime soon, if ever.

[Just thinking]

To be exact, oil had to made, and was in the past, from solar energy. It isn't "free" energy, it is just abundant because so much as created in the past, by plants, using solar energy.

Presently we can extract oil (and other fossil fuels) from the Earth at energy costs far less than the output derived from those products --- not so with hydrogen. We can also obtain it in great abundance to meet out demands.

As to the equation, the same amount of energy is released as was required to split the water. It can't be any other way.

I mentioned processes ... there are always losses.

There is one interesting fact about electrolysis of water, that I don't think has come up, in all the various discussions here and there, about electrolysis of water. That would be the Gibbs Free Energy involved in the process.

Without going into too much detail, I believe the extra energy you are referring to is that which cannot be made to do useful work --- in other words, waste energy.

Solar energy is a plentiful, renewable source of power, which can be used to split water in a multitude of ways. The stumbling point is how you define "cheap". Obviously, it is the best way gather and store energy, in situations where you can't use oil or other fuels.

It is also the source of the stored energy in oil, because plants used solar energy, to create the oil in the first place.

Again, it is the demand that outweighs everything. Can we make enough of it to meet our needs, and is it reliable? It certainly can't work everywhere, unlike fossil fuels which can (once transported) --- transporting hydrogen (or any other "solar" product) pushes up the cost and down the effectiveness.

[leon_heller]

Link removed - Please do not post referrer links

It converts water into a gas called HHO, doubling fuel mileage!

There used to be an old joke about fuel economy gadgets - if they were all fitted to a car the fuel tank would keep filling itself up.

Leon

[Cainkane1]

Theres an old saying that if something seems too good to be true then its most likely untrue. If this was possible all cars would be running on hydrogen extracted from water especially during this gas crunch we're having. In fact it would have happened during the first gas crunch back in the 70's if not sooner. There is in afct a small car that can run on water but I doubt seriously if the principal could be applied to full sized vehicles because if it were possible it would have happened way before now.

[I Ratant]

The cost of seperating the hydrogen from water, when added to the total cost of the system makes it a money loser relative to gasoline for energy.
The scammers that sell these toys don't mention that.

[leon_heller]

I've just noticed another thread on the same topic:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115301

Leon

[GoodGuysEatPie]

Even a cursory google search for information about these water-for-gas claims will find you plenty of debunking. For example, on this forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113500).

~ggep~

[TheDaver]

Do NOT click that link!

Notice the ?hop=edaozer at the end? It's a referrer. Leon is a pawn trying to make a few bucks by spamming scam links.

Reported.

[Just thinking]

... Meaning, and this is difficult to state correctly, that more heat is created during combustion, than was required to split the water.

Perhaps so, because you are in effect creating energy from nothing with this statement.

[TheDaver]

EDIT

Never mind, mods please delete this post.

[robinson]

Perhaps so, because you are in effect creating energy from nothing with this statement.

Nonsense. Gibbs free energy (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/helmholtz.html#c2) is a very important factor in energy equations.

In electrolysis of water (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html#c1), is a well known factor. Well, it is to people who study physics and all that.

[President Bush]

Reminds me of the story I've been following the past few days in the Jakarta Post...


The university took up the project when Joko and his team presented the "blue energy concept" before the university senate at the end of 2007, and agreed to develop a power plant as an alternative energy source to address soaring world fuel prices.

Joko's team claimed "blue energy" could be obtained by separating carbon (CO) from water or hydrogen (H2O) -- turning water into fuel.

The university's scientific team decided to develop the invention and appointed Joko and Purwanto as expert staff.

Joko and his team presented the blue energy project to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono at the State Palace on Nov. 25, 2007.

After the presentation, the President set up a special team to pursue the project, pouring billions of rupiah into the project.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/06/14/university-stops-hoax-blue-energy-project.html


Then...

Before starting his demonstration, Djoko clarified reports saying his "invention" could turn water into fuel. In fact, he said, it wasn't blue energy but rather "an alternative energy" 70 percent water and 30 percent diesel.

"I have been trying to increase the water portion to as high as 90 percent," said the host, who looked tired, possibly from staying up for a shadow puppet show overnight at his residence.

Djoko, who has rarely appeared in public after he failed to honor his promise to demonstrate his creations to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono last month, somehow managed to impress his guests, who were mostly journalists and laymen.

He managed to show that the fuel he created was able to power a generator. Earlier on Wednesday, he had also demonstrated the wonder of his invention to his guests that included local military chief Lt. Col. Crysetyono.

Before he started Thursday's demonstration, he excused himself, went into the house to change and reappeared in black attire.

As Djoko started the long-awaited demo, all eyes were set on a red rectangular box -- the infamous "Jodhipati" -- which Joko said could power an electric drill and light up bulbs using his fuel. With six 1.5 volt batteries attached, the drill and lights did indeed start up and then remained working after the batteries were removed a few minutes later. The generator is able to produce 10,000 watts of electricity, according to Djoko.

"After the generator starts, it doesn't need an external source of energy. It will work independently," he told his audience.

Knowing his public expose was a "success" he became agitated. He turned to M. Toriq, an academic representing Yogyakarta's Muhammadiyah University, which used to finance his research, and shouted at him, "Toriq, please explain all this to the audience and don't dare to intimidate me and never call me a liar again."

"Touch the inside of this box and see if you can get electrocuted."

Visibly tired, Djoko briskly left the audience and went back to his house, complaining he felt ill.

"He wants to be left alone," an assistant said.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/06/20/djoko-shows-039blue-energy039-invention-then-falls-ill.html

[I Ratant]

Dubya, where at's the CO (carbon monoxide) in the H20 (water)?
How does one extracticate the nonexistent CO?
It is bad for you, too.
And if one looks -inside- that "jodhipati" box, I kinda bet there's some electrificator thingy-doo that really pumps out the energy.

[Just thinking]

Nonsense. Gibbs free energy (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/helmholtz.html#c2) is a very important factor in energy equations.

In electrolysis of water (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html#c1), is a well known factor. Well, it is to people who study physics and all that.


I never disagreed with those equations ... I was commenting from the onset of useful work (energy) that can be extracted as compared to energy (work) required. Why then are we not able to continually dissociate H2 and O2 from water (and recombine it) over and over with the result of producing copious amounts of energy?

[robinson]

If you read those links, you can see where they describe Gibbs as the useful amount of work that can be extracted from a system. Fuel cells are the best way to use hydrogen, because of this. (in theory, 83%).
This is far greater than the ideal efficiency of a generating facility which burned the hydrogen and used the heat to power a generator! Although real fuel cells do not approach that ideal efficiency, they are still much more efficient than any electric power plant which burns a fuel.source (//http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heatrf.html#c1)

Nobody is saying energy comes from nowhere, the energy comes from the environment, heat is taken from the air and transferred to the hydrogen and oxygen gas.

As is stated clearly, there is no free lunch. But the Gibbs energy is an important factor in these discussions. Well, not really, because I have never read any of the woos claiming these systems work using it as a factor.

And unless somebody discovered some new physics, it isn't possible to extract the heat energy in an ICE, due to The Thermal Bottleneck (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw2.html#c1).

[Mojo]

There is no such molecule as HHO. Chemistry just won't allow it.

I'm pretty sure it's an unconventional (i.e. wrong) way of writing H2O. H2O, HHO, see where I'm going?

Of course, given the general insanity of the site, maybe it's super-hydrogen or something.

Not really. HHO would normaly be rea as something like H-H-O which is somewhat unlikely (hydrogen generaly only bonds with one thing at a time and the charges in the system would be completely messed up). Water is H-O-H (only not linear)

Still supose we try and build H-H-O by messing with the charges:

H+-H-O-


Technicaly everything balances there but if you were somehow able to make the stuff say by fireing protons at OH- ions on the basis that a tiny number will hit the H part rather than the oxygen (btw for this to work it would probably need to be around 3K). Then it would revert instantly to ordinary water.


Maybe Kumar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1037007#post1037007) has finally given up on homoeopathy and tissue salt remedies and tried a new woo. That is your field to tell me. But we may have to see some/many combinations in a solution/potency of isomers in few groups. There can be say 1M H2O, 1M HOH, IM OHH or .1M H2O, 1.9M HOH, 1MOHH.....like this there can be many combinations, if isomerism is possible.

[Just thinking]

And unless somebody discovered some new physics, it isn't possible to extract the heat energy in an ICE, due to The Thermal Bottleneck (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw2.html#c1).

Bingo ... you need Maxwell's Demon to get all the Gibbs Free Energy. Yes, 83% is an excellent accomplishment, but that's all folks. ;)

[TjW]

Bingo ... you need Maxwell's Demon to get all the Gibbs Free Energy. Yes, 83% is an excellent accomplishment, but that's all folks. ;)

Yep. And it should be noted that this is the upper limit to a fuel cell's efficiency.
It doesn't mean that all fuel cells reach this efficiency.

[robinson]

OK all that being said, if adding a tiny little bit of hydrogen to the gas in an ICE increased combustion, or something, anything, to improve the fuels power, that would make hydrogen a fuel additive.

So a bottle of hydrogen in the trunk feeding the air mix would increase mileage. It is quickly obvious that the cost of such a system would exceed the savings from better mileage.

But the biggest problem, which seems obvious to me, is that as you push down on the gas pedal, the amount of hydrogen would have to increase, immediatly. While a complicated system with a booster tank could be designed, a little electrolysis unit is not going to be able to increase the output as would be needed.

If this unlikely event did occur, and an increase in engine speed caused an increase in hydrogen, which caused the engine to increase power, downshifting would be a problem.

[Dan O.]

What seems to be missing is any hard data on the performance figures. Why hasn't anyone setup an engine on a test stand and shown the performance curves under load with and without the hydrogen generator attached? It's like the promoters of these things know they are bunk and deliberately avoid doing any sort of science that would show the truth.

[Just thinking]

OK all that being said, if adding a tiny little bit of hydrogen to the gas in an ICE increased combustion, or something, anything, to improve the fuels power, that would make hydrogen a fuel additive.

The problem being, at least as I read it on the site and on some of their links, the hydrogen causes the fuel mixture to explode rather than burn. True, this will increase the energy output of the fuel, but it can cause sever engine damage over time.

[robinson]

The problem being, at least as I read it on the site and on some of their links, the hydrogen causes the fuel mixture to explode rather than burn. True, this will increase the energy output of the fuel, but it can cause sever engine damage over time.

According to the brilliant minds engineering these modern marvels, the hydrogen burns cooler, allowing one to lean out an engine without destroying it. It would be nice to see a simple lawn mower engine on a stand with some test equipment.

So far, the only such test I have seen online showed it doesn't work.

[GreyICE]

The problem being, at least as I read it on the site and on some of their links, the hydrogen causes the fuel mixture to explode rather than burn. True, this will increase the energy output of the fuel, but it can cause sever engine damage over time.
Fuel always explodes, at least in the conventional meaning of the word, in the engine. Consider that at 3000 RPM a full cycle is completed in 1/25th of a second. The combustion phase of that cycle is 1/4 of the time, or 1/100th of a second.

Complete combustion in 1/100th of a second is pretty much an explosion. The engine won't take much more damage then it already does. It will need to be made of sturdier stuff to survive higher compression ratios though.

[Just thinking]

Fuel always explodes, at least in the conventional meaning of the word, in the engine. Consider that at 3000 RPM a full cycle is completed in 1/25th of a second. The combustion phase of that cycle is 1/4 of the time, or 1/100th of a second.

Complete combustion in 1/100th of a second is pretty much an explosion. The engine won't take much more damage then it already does. It will need to be made of sturdier stuff to survive higher compression ratios though.

In an engine one must be very careful to differentiate between burning and exploding. The former produces a high pressure wave driving down the piston in a continuous manner throughout the burn. The latter produces a shock wave at or greater than the speed of sound --- faster than the piston can handle with its motion, thus causing damage. True, at high RPM's the fuel is burning quite rapidly --- but it is not exploding, if it were to do so, you would hear the shock waves hitting the piston (detonation -- a pinging sound). Very bad.

[GreyICE]

In an engine one must be very careful to differentiate between burning and exploding. The former produces a high pressure wave driving down the piston in a continuous manner throughout the burn. The latter produces a shock wave at or greater than the speed of sound --- faster than the piston can handle with its motion, thus causing damage. True, at high RPM's the fuel is burning quite rapidly --- but it is not exploding, if it were to do so, you would hear the shock waves hitting the piston (detonation -- a pinging sound). Very bad.
True, but I feel that tinkering with the hydrogen number can avoid the shockwave problem. I mean it's simply a matter of getting it so that the flame propegates at or near the speed of sound, instead of above it. Playing with the percents should solve the issue eventually.

Obviously this can't be done with a can of water and an alternator hookup, but that's no reason there can't be a non-woo version that works.

[mhaze]

True, but I feel that tinkering with the hydrogen number can avoid the shockwave problem. I mean it's simply a matter of getting it so that the flame propegates at or near the speed of sound, instead of above it. Playing with the percents should solve the issue eventually.

Obviously this can't be done with a can of water and an alternator hookup, but that's no reason there can't be a non-woo version that works.

What, are you agreeing with me now?

BTW, explosions from 5000-50k fps and higher. H2 must always be lower than 4% for this reason, but this is very imprecise. And so, yes, if the correct numbers were known, it could be done with a mason jar.

http://www.all4engineers.com/index.php;do=show/alloc=3/lng=en/id=2866/sid=1243025776486006a3de2eb740868407

[GreyICE]

What, are you agreeing with me now? With your level of reading comprehension?

Go away.

BTW, explosions from 5000-50k fps and higher. H2 must always be lower than 4% for this reason, but this is very imprecise. And so, yes, if the correct numbers were known, it could be done with a mason jar.

http://www.all4engineers.com/index.php;do=show/alloc=3/lng=en/id=2866/sid=1243025776486006a3de2eb740868407

No it couldn't. Mason jar output is constant, engine speed is variable, percentage will vary based on RPM, the end. I mean minus EVERY OTHER DAMN PROBLEM YOU NEVER ANSWERED ON THIS THREAD this issue ALONE would still kill it.

[Dan O.]

No it couldn't. Mason jar output is constant, engine speed is variable, percentage will vary based on RPM, the end. I mean minus EVERY OTHER DAMN PROBLEM YOU NEVER ANSWERED ON THIS THREAD this issue ALONE would still kill it.

You only showed that it won't be optimum at all RPM and throttle positions without some form of control. Without knowing what the optimum mix is in varying conditions it's difficult to say what kind of controls would be needed. The hydrogen output can be regulated if necessary by pulse modulating the current through the generator. The maximum output of the generator can be increased by increasing the surface area of the conductors.

[Just thinking]

Obviously this can't be done with a can of water and an alternator hookup, but that's no reason there can't be a non-woo version that works.

Well let's see. High pressure direct injection (into the cylinder) for the fuel with individual port injection for the hydrogen, just prior to the intake valve(s). Metering the H2 would be similar to how fuel is metered now for many cars, by means of a MAF device. The H2 could actually be liberated at a steady rate that is at least sufficient to meet the greatest flowrate requirement, and would shut down once a given pressure was achieved in a holding tank of some sort. A pressure regulator would work for the H2 as one works for the fuel. Hmmmm ... maybe. You certainly wouldn't want one of those H2 injectors getting stuck in the open position, but how likely is that?

[trvlr2]

Now we have separated the H2 and O2 into different areas for injection?
Not Brown's gas, then.
If directly injected, under pressure, bad things can happen to Brown's gas.

[mhaze]

Just use a fuel can enroute to the injectors or carb with a vapor head pressure of the H2 and O2 in the correct percentage. Fuel then carries H2 to cylinders. As fuel is metered, so is H2.

Again, H2 and O2 percentage must be quite low.

[GreyICE]

You only showed that it won't be optimum at all RPM and throttle positions without some form of control. Without knowing what the optimum mix is in varying conditions it's difficult to say what kind of controls would be needed. The hydrogen output can be regulated if necessary by pulse modulating the current through the generator. The maximum output of the generator can be increased by increasing the surface area of the conductors. Gah! Look, there's a host of other issues listed in this thread. You have to be running at an absurdly lean mix, you'll have a severely underpowered car unless it's designed to be run at that mix, etc.

Why is it that people always try to prove that every stupid idea must have a way to work? You just can't do it with a standard engine. See below for a system that might work.

Well let's see. High pressure direct injection (into the cylinder) for the fuel with individual port injection for the hydrogen, just prior to the intake valve(s). Metering the H2 would be similar to how fuel is metered now for many cars, by means of a MAF device. The H2 could actually be liberated at a steady rate that is at least sufficient to meet the greatest flowrate requirement, and would shut down once a given pressure was achieved in a holding tank of some sort. A pressure regulator would work for the H2 as one works for the fuel. Hmmmm ... maybe. You certainly wouldn't want one of those H2 injectors getting stuck in the open position, but how likely is that? You wouldn't want them stuck closed either, or the gas wouldn't ignite. So they'd have to be high reliability, but that in and of itself isn't a big issue, a lot of things have to be fail-proof (take brakes, for instance).

Just use a fuel can enroute to the injectors or carb with a vapor head pressure of the H2 and O2 in the correct percentage. Fuel then carries H2 to cylinders. As fuel is metered, so is H2.

Again, H2 and O2 percentage must be quite low. No, no, O2 percentage must be quite high, compared to typical fuel-air ratios for this to work. You don't even understand the system .

As for your so-called metering, constant production kills your percentage based system. Without an infinite reservoir, like there is for gas and air, taking a percentage of a finite amount by using pressure to regulate creates an unregulated percentage. Since the usage is non-constant, but the output is constant, a pressure that gets a percentage of the reservoir available will end up with multiple different amounts of hydrogen, depending on the starting state.

It only works with O2 and gas because the reservoirs are essentially infinite.

[Just thinking]

You wouldn't want them stuck closed either, or the gas wouldn't ignite. So they'd have to be high reliability, but that in and of itself isn't a big issue, a lot of things have to be fail-proof (take brakes, for instance).

I'm not sure if you understand my arrangement. If the H2 port injectors don't open, then it's just like a car equipped with direct injection --- the air goes through the filter, past the MAF where it gets metered, through the throttle body, past the intake valves and then into the cylinders where it meets the injected fuel. Granted it may run slightly rich as no additional H2 with some O2 was added by means of the port injectors, but it's no catastrophe. It will most likely ignite; and the O2 sensor in the exhaust can meter that and adjust the gasoline mixture somewhat by leaning it out. I guess you might also want to shut down the H2 system altogether at this point as you wouldn't want some cylinders getting the H2 and some not.

[GreyICE]

I'm not sure if you understand my arrangement. If the H2 port injectors don't open, then it's just like a car equipped with direct injection --- the air goes through the filter, past the MAF where it gets metered, through the throttle body, past the intake valves and then into the cylinders where it meets the injected fuel. Granted it may run slightly rich as no additional H2 with some O2 was added by means of the port injectors, but it's no catastrophe. It will most likely ignite; and the O2 sensor in the exhaust can meter that and adjust the mixture somewhat by leaning it out.
For the efficiency and savings from Hydrogen to occur, you have to run on a lean mixture. That is where the savings come from - you don't have to run in a fuel-rich environment, because you don't have to worry about the fact that gasoline likes specific ratios to combust well.

Running at those ratios with no hydrogen means no combustion, simple as that.

[Just thinking]

For the efficiency and savings from Hydrogen to occur, you have to run on a lean mixture. That is where the savings come from - you don't have to run in a fuel-rich environment, because you don't have to worry about the fact that gasoline likes specific ratios to combust well.

Then you might be back to one of my original concerns, and that is having too lean a mixture (even with the H2 in there) that will tend more to explode rather than burn. Has it been shown that this required mixture will not explode/detonate?

Running at those ratios with no hydrogen means no combustion, simple as that.

OK, then whatever has to be done to keep the engine running as an ordinary combustion engine can be done --- either increase or decrease the mixture while shutting down the H2 system.

[Paulhoff]

Run on a lean mixture, and when your engine’s valves burn out and/or you piston burns thru, don't come running to me.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Just thinking]

Run on a lean mixture, and when your engine’s valves burn out and/or you piston burns thru, don't come running to me.

I don't think it's so much the mixture being lean as it is how the mixture combusts --- and in an atmosphere of air and gasoline a lean mixture does not combust in a manner that a normal car engine can sustain, as you point out. But how about in an H2 and air mixture? If the burn resembles that of ordinary combustion in a properly ratioed engine, then these concerns might not be so critical. I am, however still wearing my skeptic's hat on this one.

[GreyICE]

Then you might be back to one of my original concerns, and that is having too lean a mixture (even with the H2 in there) that will tend more to explode rather than burn. Has it been shown that this required mixture will not explode/detonate? I'd assume so, if people are working on it commercially. I don't necessarily associate less fuel with explosions in any case.


OK, then whatever has to be done to keep the engine running as an ordinary combustion engine can be done --- either increase or decrease the mixture while shutting down the H2 system. Which isn't going to work because another benefit is higher compression ratios. I don't have to explain what higher compression ratios does to a saturated fuel-air mixture, right?

[Just thinking]

I'd assume so, if people are working on it commercially. I don't necessarily associate less fuel with explosions in any case.
Which isn't going to work because another benefit is higher compression ratios. I don't have to explain what higher compression ratios does to a saturated fuel-air mixture, right?

It self-ignites. ;)

But would the increase in fuel be enough to to that? ... I mean, is the compression that high in an H2 supplemented design?

[Dan O.]

Gah! Look, there's a host of other issues listed in this thread.

I've been pretty much discounting what you have been saying in this thread since that comment that you measured water to be 200 ohms. You never specified the configuration that you measured and then used this number directly for the Mason jar as if all configurations are the same.


Why is it that people always try to prove that every stupid idea must have a way to work?

If you don't investigate what it takes to make the idea work, you only have your own strawman to attack.

[Stitch]

I'd assume so, if people are working on it commercially. I don't necessarily associate less fuel with explosions in any case.


A lean mix will burn / detonate early, i.e. before TDC resutling in the force of the explosion hitting the cyclinder head while it's still in the compression phase. It's often referred to as "det" or "pinking" (due to the noise).

[mhaze]

A lean mix will burn / detonate early, i.e. before TDC resutling in the force of the explosion hitting the cyclinder head while it's still in the compression phase. It's often referred to as "det" or "pinking" (due to the noise).

No, this is a function of how lean , etc. For example, you can run 25F lean of peak EGT, or 75F lean of peak. Big difference, right?

[GreyICE]

It self-ignites. ;)

But would the increase in fuel be enough to to that? ... I mean, is the compression that high in an H2 supplemented design?

We're running close to the self-ignition point already. It improves efficiency. All the efficiency we'd gain from this is supposedly coming from the increased compression ratio, so if there are any gains to be had, we have to increase it.

I've been pretty much discounting what you have been saying in this thread since that comment that you measured water to be 200 ohms. You never specified the configuration that you measured and then used this number directly for the Mason jar as if all configurations are the same. You have a better number? Use it! I was measuring salt-saturated water (and no I don't remember what salt, I do remember it was at room temperature, or more or less 70 degrees Fahrenheit) with very low resistance. This would be a very, very positive scenario. It was more or less designed to lower the resistance of the water to a very low point.

We can use the standard resistance of tap water (1-3 MOhms) if you wish. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2141060

Enjoy using that one :rolleyes: Then your Hydrogen production dwindles to far, far lower than the 0.4% that I was using. Oh, and that's the metric M, so it means exactly what you think it does.

Don't believe me? Run your tap, take a known voltage, and a current meter, measure the current. It'll be too low, so try again with a really, really sensitive one. You'll eventually find one sensitive enough to measure resistances in the millions of ohms, or you'll give up. :p Me? I bet you're giving up before you measure a number that large.



If you don't investigate what it takes to make the idea work, you only have your own strawman to attack.
I did. It doesn't work with a standard engine. You're just wooing at me.

[Prometheus]

One of the commercial set-ups linked to near the top of the thread said that the savings from H2 injection occurred only at idle/low engine speeds, when you can burn an ultra-lean fuel/air mix without starving the engine and thus robbing power. Under load at higher engine speeds the system switches off the H2 and returns to a normal fuel/air mix. This all seems like a lot of hoops to jump through to try and solve a problem (ineffeciency of ICE at low engine speeds) that has already been solved by gas/electric hybrid cars.

[GreyICE]

One of the commercial set-ups linked to near the top of the thread said that the savings from H2 injection occurred only at idle/low engine speeds, when you can burn an ultra-lean fuel/air mix without starving the engine and thus robbing power. Under load at higher engine speeds the system switches off the H2 and returns to a normal fuel/air mix. This all seems like a lot of hoops to jump through to try and solve a problem (ineffeciency of ICE at low engine speeds) that has already been solved by gas/electric hybrid cars.
Huge problems with that solution. The weight and cost of the large electric motor is a big issue. A smaller hydrogen tank+injection system would significantly reduce cost, weight, and increase efficiency over the gas/electric hybrid.

It would lose the dynamic braking and idle gains though.

So honestly, don't have the time/interest to do a full analysis of that.

[mhaze]

At the theoretical level (but remember, reality always trumps) a dual fuel system should always beat a dual propulsion system. Weight, cost, etc. Although the engine in the hybrid can be designed for efficient operation at a single speed.

[robinson]

Uh, BMW (http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Uniquely/FutureTechnologies/Hydrogen.aspx?enc=t0eBkkksaeOlO9zOt8gzADZCvgwlYpsT NlAXDAkk1+s=) already has a dual fuel system. Hydrogen or gasoline.

[Dan O.]

You have a better number? Use it!

I'll use 25 amps at 12 volts (about 1/2 Ohm or 300 watts). Your numbers are just created by your ignorance. What is the surface area in the generator, what is the separation between the conductors, what electrolyte do they use, what pressure does the cell operate at?. You are postulating numbers to prove that the system doesn't work and haven't even done the rudimentary research.

Here is a video where the presenter talks very slow: http://www.mefeedia.com