PDA

View Full Version : HHO?


Pages : [1] 2

pipelineaudio
7th June 2008, 12:27 PM
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
7th June 2008, 12:33 PM
If real, the inventors will certainly be maligned and if that does not work, assassinated.

Gagglegnash
7th June 2008, 01:11 PM
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
7th June 2008, 01:26 PM
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
7th June 2008, 01:56 PM
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
7th June 2008, 03:14 PM
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
7th June 2008, 03:26 PM
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
7th June 2008, 05:43 PM
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
7th June 2008, 05:55 PM
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
7th June 2008, 06:47 PM
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
7th June 2008, 06:52 PM
Many people are stupid, many more are poorly educated, so woo sells. And sells big.

GreyICE
7th June 2008, 07:16 PM
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
7th June 2008, 07:32 PM
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
7th June 2008, 08:13 PM
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
8th June 2008, 02:43 PM
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
8th June 2008, 04:11 PM
What makes you think this has anything to do with overunity?
Did I use the word "overunity"?

Paul

:) :) :)

The skepTick
8th June 2008, 04:41 PM
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
8th June 2008, 07:56 PM
Well, surely they wouldn't use all caps and multiple exclamation points if it weren't true?

TheDaver
9th June 2008, 05:32 AM
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
9th June 2008, 09:50 AM
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
9th June 2008, 10:24 AM
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
9th June 2008, 10:36 AM
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
9th June 2008, 10:46 AM
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
9th June 2008, 12:17 PM
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
9th June 2008, 04:03 PM
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
10th June 2008, 09:20 AM
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
11th June 2008, 09:43 AM
Thanks!

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

:)

HN

GreyICE
11th June 2008, 10:57 AM
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
11th June 2008, 08:43 PM
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
11th June 2008, 09:22 PM
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
11th June 2008, 09:45 PM
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
12th June 2008, 05:49 AM
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
12th June 2008, 07:36 AM
Though you may find this unbelievable, I routinely measure my Toyota Sienna minivan's mileage at 99 mpg, going uphill at 60 mph.

Mashuna
12th June 2008, 07:53 AM
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
12th June 2008, 09:01 AM
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
12th June 2008, 09:55 AM
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
12th June 2008, 12:37 PM
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
13th June 2008, 06:21 AM
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
13th June 2008, 06:42 AM
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
13th June 2008, 08:32 AM
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
13th June 2008, 08:44 AM
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
13th June 2008, 09:25 AM
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
15th June 2008, 09:39 PM
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
16th June 2008, 04:18 AM
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
16th June 2008, 04:21 AM
Regarding the OP, I'd rank this one alongside detergent-free clothes washing discs.

MRC_Hans
16th June 2008, 04:51 AM
*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
16th June 2008, 06:36 AM
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
16th June 2008, 10:48 AM
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
16th June 2008, 01:05 PM
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
16th June 2008, 05:13 PM
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
17th June 2008, 05:34 AM
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 isnít 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. [Ö] All your terminology is just dancing around the point.
Agreed 100%.

mhaze
18th June 2008, 06:37 AM
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
18th June 2008, 07:26 AM
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
18th June 2008, 07:32 AM
The word is SCAM

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

Paul

:) :) :)

mhaze
18th June 2008, 08:35 AM
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
18th June 2008, 09:17 AM
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
18th June 2008, 05:37 PM
The OP is still woo...but there may be some answers here.

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

glenn

anor277
18th June 2008, 06:03 PM
................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
18th June 2008, 07:17 PM
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
18th June 2008, 07:28 PM
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
18th June 2008, 07:31 PM
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
18th June 2008, 08:27 PM
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 Brownís Gas:
http://www.alternative-energy-resources.net/browns-gas-the-reality.html

Let the woo-pushers use their own vocabulary and youíre giving up the fight before itís even begun.

Dilb
18th June 2008, 08:31 PM
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
18th June 2008, 08:58 PM
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
19th June 2008, 04:09 PM
But then, there's this:
http://puregreencars.com/Green-Cars-News/Technology/Chrysler-Invests-in-Hydrogen.html

TheDaver
19th June 2008, 05:20 PM
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
19th June 2008, 05:22 PM
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
19th June 2008, 05:44 PM
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
19th June 2008, 06:02 PM
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
19th June 2008, 10:01 PM
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 weíre 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
20th June 2008, 07:28 AM
TheDaver:

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

:D

robinson
20th June 2008, 07:48 AM
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
20th June 2008, 08:19 AM
True. But weíre 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
20th June 2008, 11:48 AM
The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely with the numbers cited below on the optimistic side. Some report 50Ė70%, while the theoretical maximum efficiency of the electrolysis of water is between 80Ė94%. 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 30Ė45%.


Paul

:) :) :)

TheDaver
22nd June 2008, 04:48 AM
.
"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
22nd June 2008, 05:01 AM
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
22nd June 2008, 09:31 AM
True. But weíre 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
22nd June 2008, 09:40 AM
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
22nd June 2008, 10:35 AM
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
22nd June 2008, 10:54 AM
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
22nd June 2008, 10:58 AM
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
22nd June 2008, 11:17 AM
I've just noticed another thread on the same topic:

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

Leon

GoodGuysEatPie
22nd June 2008, 11:22 AM
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
22nd June 2008, 12:47 PM
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
22nd June 2008, 01:36 PM
... 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
22nd June 2008, 03:31 PM
EDIT

Never mind, mods please delete this post.

robinson
22nd June 2008, 04:05 PM
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
22nd June 2008, 08:08 PM
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
22nd June 2008, 08:46 PM
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
23rd June 2008, 05:56 AM
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
23rd June 2008, 06:26 AM
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
23rd June 2008, 06:46 AM
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
23rd June 2008, 06:53 AM
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
23rd June 2008, 07:10 AM
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
23rd June 2008, 08:09 AM
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.
23rd June 2008, 09:11 AM
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
23rd June 2008, 09:12 AM
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
23rd June 2008, 10:05 AM
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
23rd June 2008, 10:25 AM
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
23rd June 2008, 10:42 AM
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
23rd June 2008, 01:10 PM
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
23rd June 2008, 01:25 PM
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
23rd June 2008, 02:47 PM
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.
23rd June 2008, 06:18 PM
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
23rd June 2008, 06:29 PM
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
23rd June 2008, 08:08 PM
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
23rd June 2008, 11:39 PM
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
24th June 2008, 06:03 AM
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
24th June 2008, 06:17 AM
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
24th June 2008, 06:29 AM
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
24th June 2008, 06:41 AM
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
24th June 2008, 06:42 AM
Run on a lean mixture, and when your engineís valves burn out and/or you piston burns thru, don't come running to me.

Paul

:) :) :)

Just thinking
24th June 2008, 06:57 AM
Run on a lean mixture, and when your engineís 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
24th June 2008, 06:59 AM
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
24th June 2008, 07:06 AM
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.
24th June 2008, 07:50 AM
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
24th June 2008, 08:07 AM
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
24th June 2008, 08:14 AM
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
24th June 2008, 08:19 AM
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
24th June 2008, 08:27 AM
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
24th June 2008, 09:18 AM
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
24th June 2008, 09:30 AM
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
24th June 2008, 09:32 AM
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.
24th June 2008, 09:44 AM
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/entry/build-a-10-hydrogen-fuel-cell-burn-water-for-fuel/9548550/

David Rodale
24th June 2008, 10:13 AM
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).

Detonation is not "burn/detonate early", i.e. before TDC".

GreyICE
24th June 2008, 10:46 AM
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/entry/build-a-10-hydrogen-fuel-cell-burn-water-for-fuel/9548550/

Yes, insults and internet videos. If this system was actually doing the 20% improvement it was supposed to, you'd think someone would put it in their cars (since it's such a simple redesign) and get the gas milage of a hybrid for like $200 more.

Oh no, must be the evil conspiracy out to supress inventions again! :eek:

The first time we had this water engine snake oil was in the 1800s, when it was supposed to run a railroad car on a cup of water. It's funny that it pops up again and again, but I guess old scams are the best.

Dan O.
24th June 2008, 04:38 PM
Yes, insults and internet videos.

If you believe that pointing out what you don't know is an insult, consider your self insulted. You started out on page 1 saying that this converter only consumed 1 watt and carried that error thru the entire thread. Since you were off by over 2 orders of magnitude in the beginning, everything you said in this thread that follows from that first error is wrong or at least can't be trusted.

The video was for your education. I though just maybe if you knew what it was that you were trying to debunk you wouldn't waste your time debunking strawmen.

jjgrands
27th June 2008, 12:00 PM
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.

since when do internal combustions generate power from heat? pretty sure its the expansion of the gas (in both diesel and gasoline) in the cylinder that drives the piston... no steam turbines here friend.....

jjgrands
27th June 2008, 12:08 PM
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.


this is victory in my book. If indeed the result would be a different engine system mimicking a SMALLEr engine... this is what I AM AFTER. Frankly the existence of such would not be necessary if the conspirations of the oil conglomerates hadnt succeded in necessitationg overpowered gas hogs. Are you aware the 2009 diesel rabbit gets 29 highway mpg as opposed to the 84 rabbits 48? I am poor and need to save up money for cigarettes. Im game to drive slow, piss you off, and bank while you slam the gas in your maserati v12 and laugh at us "idiots" who dare to imagine that the standard automobile engine can not be tweaked. Im, sorry sir but your attitude of totally disavowing while actually agreeing on the validity of the premise is at the very least disconcerting. One might expect open intellectual discourse without pettiness and bickerness. Have we to gain from creating impediments to others success, even if we deem their ventures unworthy? Do you tell bums who collect aluminum cans theyre wasting theyre time? Cus maybe to you they are, but us bums gots to eat!

TheDaver
27th June 2008, 12:45 PM
“I reject your reality, and substitute my own!” – Adam Savage

Seems some people have taken it as their motto.

robinson
27th June 2008, 01:21 PM
since when do internal combustions generate power from heat? pretty sure its the expansion of the gas (in both diesel and gasoline) in the cylinder that drives the piston... no steam turbines here friend.....

It is the expansion of the air that drives an ICE. The fuel is used to heat the air, which is already heated and compressed by the compression stroke. Even a really good engine has less than an efficiency of about 20%.

mhaze
27th June 2008, 03:09 PM
This is a complicated thread and subject of thread, because it concerns what appears to be a method of significantly improving ICE performance - at the theoretical level - which is being promoted in a number of scam products of dubious design.

GreyIce was correct a while back to note that the specifics of engine design would dictate the particular merits or lack of of hydrogen injection. I'm not sure he ever explicitly said that it wasn't possible at a theoretical level. (Which was my only argument, really).

However, I'd suggest to go further, it would be necessary to take a benchmark engine design with particulars and then calculate the changes in performance before and after H2 injection - there is of course no "general answer".

Someone mentioned something about energy in gas (and I mentioned EGT etc, "exhaust gas temperature"). What's implied is that better combustion would mean less heat in the exhaust stream, because more of it did thermodynamic work in the cylinder. Consider for example if some fraction of gas burned late in the cylinder, then escapes as waste heat without imparting its energy to moving the piston.

Also, it occurs to me that instead of H2 electrolysis being ran from the alternator, it could be ran from waste exhaust heat, using a turbocharger type of system to pull energy out of that exhaust stream. Not sure that this is relevant, just an idea.

Prometheus
27th June 2008, 04:41 PM
....Also, it occurs to me that instead of H2 electrolysis being ran from the alternator, it could be ran from waste exhaust heat, using a turbocharger type of system to pull energy out of that exhaust stream. Not sure that this is relevant, just an idea.

Is there some reason why the alternator isn't run off of the exhaust stream in the first place?

Dan O.
27th June 2008, 05:17 PM
Back pressure.

David Rodale
27th June 2008, 05:29 PM
Is there some reason why the alternator isn't run off of the exhaust stream in the first place?

$$$

It has already been done. Visteon (formally of Ford) sent us a prototype two years ago. A radical departure from a conventional unit and since it runs at such high rpm's must be water cooled and is quite large (space) comparatively. In time it just may become reality, but most likely for large diesel engines. At least that was my impression, and haven't heard anything about it since.

Thermoelectric is another in the works.

I'm still wondering however how Fran Giroux managed to do so well with his "hydrogen" powered 1996 Saturn in the 2005 Tour de Sol (http://www.nesea.org/transportation/tour/FIN-Monte%20Carlo-style%20Rally-RESULTS5.xls), since it is impossible to gain fuel efficiency by electrolytically created "HHO". He obviously cheated.
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d54/corn_burner/fran.jpg

robinson
27th June 2008, 06:54 PM
HFI technology is installed as an add-on to diesel and gasoline engines where it significantly reduces a wide variety of emissions (CO, PM, HC, CO2 and NOx) while simultaneously reducing fuel consumption. HFI units are being used by over 150 fleets of long-haul transport trucks, ambulances, municipal buses and other heavy equipment, earning HFI the dominant position as the world's most widely-used on-board electrolysers. The technology is based on electrolysis and the units split water, on-board the vehicle, then vents the hydrogen and oxygen directly into the air intake of the engine. Adding hydrogen significantly improves the efficiency of combustion, in the engine, with significant financial and environmental benefits.

HFI is distributed through the world's largest retail distribution network for any hydrogen product, with over 140 Certified Installation Centres all across Canada, the United States and Mexico. Recently, geographical distribution has been expanded to include China, Korea and Europe. The product is the first emission control technology to receive "Environmental Technology Verification" (ETV) by the Canadian government and the first hydrogen technology to receive ETV recognition anywhere in the world.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200709/ai_n19524849


Hydrogen Hybrid Technologies, Inc.
(HYHY:OTC BB)

LAST $2.14 USD
CHANGE TODAY -0.06 -2.73%
VOLUME 602.1K

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?capId=33710698



Hydrogen Hybrid Technologies Inc. receives order for B.C. school buses

Sale to School District # 5 will be funded by B.C. Government as precursor
to sales on entire provincial fleet of buses
PICKERING, ON, May 28 /PRNewswire/ - Hydrogen Hybrid Technologies Inc.
President Ira Lyons is pleased to announce the sale of the first units of
the newest line of emissions control and fuel saving devices in North
America. The units will be installed on school buses operated by School
District # 5 in the Province of British Columbia, Canada. The sale marks
the first government sale in western Canada and the purchase of the units
will be funded by the provincial government.

"The use of the new model of Hydrogen Fuel Injection (HFI) products on
school busses marks a milestone and opens up a huge new market for HHT"
said Mr. Lyons. "All across North America, governments have recognized the
serious hazard posed by diesel fumes to school children riding buses for up
to four hours each day. In the California, alone, the state is spending $25
Million U.S., annually, to install exhaust abatement technologies on school
buses. The satisfactory results on the first two school buses in B.C. are
expected to lead to the adoption of HFI on every school bus in B.C. and
will, almost certainly, have equal success in other provinces and states",
added Lyons, "in part because HFI is the only emissions control technology
that also reduces fuel use, meaning it is the only product of its kind that
pays for itself".

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-28-2008/0004821933&EDATE=


Etc etc etc

http://www.chechfi.ca/gtdownload.htm

http://www.hypowerfuel.com/PDF/test3.PDF

http://www.etvcanada.com/data/PDF_CHEC.pdf

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-gas-savers/hydrogen-fuel-injection-helps-school-buses-increase-mileage/

robinson
27th June 2008, 06:56 PM
Either established websites that deal with money, real money and lots of it, have gone round the bend, or there is something to this Hydrogen injection thing.

It is starting to look like all those thousands of people adding hydrogen to their cars are right. The horror, the horror ...

I still don't buy it.

mhaze
27th June 2008, 07:23 PM
It should be repeated (endlessly) that this is an explosive mixture of gases, that it is very different from gasoline and extremely easy to get seriously hurt messing with them. If in doubt, ask any professional welder about H2 and O2. H2 leaks right through inch thick steel bottles, and all fittings are subject to "hydrogen embrittlement".

Which is why the prospect of yuppies driving around and "gassing up" 5000 psi H2 is a real fantasy trip for the totally clueless. Nonetheless, each realistic prospect for improved propulsion systems should be thoroughly evaluated, and this should mean the general HHO concept in this thread.

By all means, though, continue the grand tradition of mason jars!:clap:

robinson
28th June 2008, 04:25 AM
Since its launch in early 2004, Canadian Hydrogen Energy Company Ltd.’s (CHEC) latest Hydrogen Fuel Injection (HFI) system has been installed on what the company says are hundreds of vehicles: big 18-wheel semitrailer trucks, but also in smaller versions on school and transit buses, ambulances, boats, diesel gen-sets, motor homes and other vehicles typically in communities near here, east of Toronto.


CHEC’s Steve Gilchrist shows a heavy-duty HFI electrolyzer installed behind the rear wheel mudguard of a big-rig tractor.
The basic big-rig package consists of a 90 lb. metal box measuring 12x12x24 inches that houses the proprietary electrolyzer covered by U.S. and Canadian patents. It’s driven by the truck’s alternator, generating hydrogen and oxygen when the engine is running. Both gases are introduced into the intake manifold where they are mixed with the incoming air.

The basic unit is designed for heavy duty trucks with engines ranging from 7.3 liter to 16 liter displacement. Last month, the company introduced a smaller model for passenger vehicles and light trucks for up to 7.3 liters displacement at the annual Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) show for automotive specialty and performance equipment in Las Vegas.

“We’re now starting to move towards gasoline-powered SUVs,” Steve Gilchrist, CHEC’s vice president for government affairs since early 2004, told H&FCL. Before joining the 55-employee company, Gilchrist was Ontario’s first commissioner of alternative energy. In the late 1990s, Gilchrist was the province’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, according to the Wikipedia online encyclopedia.

http://www.chechfi.ca/

I'm having serious cognitive dissonance at this point.

Pipirr
28th June 2008, 06:10 AM
http://www.chechfi.ca/

I'm having serious cognitive dissonance at this point.

Here's some more for you: ;)

http://www.etvcanada.com/data/PDF_CHEC.pdf

It's validation data from the Canadian Government's Environmental Technology Verification Program. They checked CHECHFI's system.

It shows that yes, the CHECHFI does have something that works: their hydrogen injection system reduced diesel fuel consumption by 4.4 %. But that's all. Not 25%, as is sometimes claimed for the mason jars, and not by using Brown's gas. Just hydrogen.

If that's all the fuel savings that can be squeezed out of an engine even with some serious technology addons, I find I am even less inclined to believe the mason jars will work. Let alone work as well as is claimed for them.

And here's a Wired article on truckers using the CHECHFI system.
http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2005/11/69529

Paulhoff
28th June 2008, 06:20 AM
It shows that yes, the CHECHFI does have something that works: their hydrogen injection system reduced diesel fuel consumption by 4.4 %.
The problem is, what is the control, also have they changed their driving habits when accelerating. There are many things that can change the mileage.

Paul

:) :) :)

Pipirr
28th June 2008, 06:33 AM
The problem is, what is the control, also have they changed their driving habits when accelerating. There are many things that can change the mileage.

Sure, there are always differences between test conditions and actual. This is the description of the testing:

Performance Conditions

The kit was installed and tested in a 1992 Detroit diesel heavy-duty engine (60-series) using low sulphur (< 15 ppm) diesel fuel and tested on a “go-Power” (Model DT-2000) heavy-duty dynamometer rated at 800 HP. The test was based on the widely used “AVL 8-Mode Heavy – Duty Cycle” for engine performance and emissions testing.

The AVL 8-mode test cycle runs at selected constant engine speeds. Measured data is applicable for on-road engine applications. The data provided by the Canadian Hydrogen Energy Company Ltd. is comprised of two test sets: (i) baseline performance (without HFI) and (ii) HFI performance (with hydrogen injection). The claim by the Canadian Hydrogen Energy Company Ltd. is based on the comparison of the baseline and HFI test results.

The company claims 10% improvements in fuel efficiency. In this test, the Canadian Govt. found only 4.4%.

robinson
28th June 2008, 06:37 AM
These days, even 4.4% would matter. Does this mean there is something to hydrogen boost?

I am shocked.

Even if there was only 1% gain, that defies the laws of physics. Or something.

Paulhoff
28th June 2008, 06:39 AM
What is making the hydrogen?

Paul

:) :) :)

Pipirr
28th June 2008, 06:49 AM
Electrolysis from distilled water, I think. Probably running off an alternator ;)

Some more background here:

http://static.wikipedia.org/new/wikipedia/en/articles/h/y/d/Hydrogen_fuel_enhancement.html

It all appears to be quite different from the Brown's gas/mason jar kit. Also, unlike the makers of those kits, this company showed some moxy and submitted a system for validation.

Paulhoff
28th June 2008, 08:17 AM
Electrolysis from distilled water, I think. Probably running off an alternator ;)

Some more background here:

http://static.wikipedia.org/new/wikipedia/en/articles/h/y/d/Hydrogen_fuel_enhancement.html

It all appears to be quite different from the Brown's gas/mason jar kit. Also, unlike the makers of those kits, this company showed some moxy and submitted a system for validation.
I still don't see how one can get more energy out of a system then what one puts in. Current from the alternator will make the alternator harder to turn, and an alternator doesn't have 100% efficacy, the wire has resistance, the disstilled water has lots of resistance etc.

Paul

:) :) :)

Pipirr
28th June 2008, 08:39 AM
I still don't see how one can get more energy out of a system then what one puts in.

I'm not sure that is what is claimed. I've only been an expert on this for about three hours, since I looked up the wiki link, but this might be where the savings come from:

Under idle conditions power is only required for extraneous components other than the drive train, therefore fuel consumption can be minimized. A 50% reduction in gasoline consumption, at idle, was reported by numerically analyzing "the effect of hydrogen enriched gasoline on the performance, emissions and fuel consumption of a small spark-ignition engine".[4]

In the course of regular driving, that may be what adds up to the fuel savings of 4%.

But I don't know. I can't defend it beyond this effort; the only reason I'll give it the time of day at all is because there actually are some validation data available.

mhaze
28th June 2008, 09:23 AM
I'm not sure that is what is claimed. I've only been an expert on this for about three hours, since I looked up the wiki link, but this might be where the savings come from:

In the course of regular driving, that may be what adds up to the fuel savings of 4%.

But I don't know. I can't defend it beyond this effort; the only reason I'll give it the time of day at all is because there actually are some validation data available.

The AVL 8-mode test cycle runs at selected constant engine speeds. Measured data is applicable for on-road engine applications.

Benchbed test conditions would typically not be idle conditions but 2000 rpm up, eg, normal driving conditions.

Pipirr
28th June 2008, 10:01 AM
The AVL 8-mode test cycle runs at selected constant engine speeds. Measured data is applicable for on-road engine applications.

Benchbed test conditions would typically not be idle conditions but 2000 rpm up, eg, normal driving conditions.


Fair enough, the test probably didn't have any idling. Then I really don't know about the 4.4%.

Pixies?

GreyICE
28th June 2008, 10:32 AM
These days, even 4.4% would matter. Does this mean there is something to hydrogen boost?

I am shocked.

Even if there was only 1% gain, that defies the laws of physics. Or something.

Automobile engines are about 17-21% efficient. There is certainly no law against gunning for that missing 80%.

Now, and I wish I could put this in blinking text:

There is absolutely no evidence that it works with a standard engine, and quite a bit of evidence that it does not.

However, with a dramatically non-standard engine, slightly higher efficiencies may be obtained.

Prometheus
28th June 2008, 11:25 AM
Even if it does work with a standard engine and can be mounted in a passenger car, at current prices a 4.4% savings in gasoline would amount to $137 per year for me. The commercial set-ups I've seen would have to be run for almost 30 years just to pay for themselves.

Dan O.
28th June 2008, 11:28 AM
Here's some more for you: ;)

http://www.etvcanada.com/data/PDF_CHEC.pdf

It shows that yes, the CHECHFI does have something that works: their hydrogen injection system reduced diesel fuel consumption by 4.4 %. But that's all. Not 25%, as is sometimes claimed for the mason jars, and not by using Brown's gas. Just hydrogen.

from linked pdf:
Technology Description
Through electrolysis, the Hydrogen Fuel Injection (HFI) kit generates hydrogen and oxygen, which are injected directly into the intake manifold.

Pipirr
28th June 2008, 11:45 AM
from linked pdf:

But for example, from here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OXF/is_2005_Nov_21/ai_n15889392


"The operation of the product is quite simple," said CHEC. "We make no modifications to the existing engine. All we do is introduce an injection point for the hydrogen to go into the air stream before the intake manifold."

Which is what I was working from; they also call the system Hydrogen Fuel Injection.

How one separates the two gases after electrolysis I don't know.

jjgrands
28th June 2008, 01:13 PM
i think its pretty obvious to realize what going on here. At lower engine speeds, idle or very high gear the addition of hydrogen is in the range necessary to catalyze the reaction allowing less a lower fuel air ratio and higher compression. Since the input of hydrogen is not varied along with the timing of the engine to allow for the additional quantity necessary to be injected, the engine speed curve only shows fuel savings within the scope of the effecting gas's relevant proportion. Thus meaning a stop and go city drive or a long long diesel truck route, could conceivably result in gains specifically relevant to THOSE driving styles. Thus marketability for long haul trucking and inner city/ urban residents. Someone did post a link to the fact that MIT is studying this concept of HFI. Clearly the concept of HFI is plausible as a supplemental burn-reducing gas stabilizing additive that enhances favorable gaseous properties for subsequent reaction. The logic has nothing at all to do with overunity or conservation of energy. It is all about altering the reaction to extract more energy in a favorable form. Again I propose the conceptual analogy of boiling water to cook food. If the boiling of the water is the reaction that transfers energy to food, the addition of salt can be thought of as a reaction aiding additive. The result of using salt to raise the boiling point of water is that a higher tem[perature water can be sustained before evaporation. Thus increasing the amount of heat per time unit transfered to the noodles. This in essence reduces the amount of energy required to be fed into the pot from the heating element. Less energy for the same cooked meal. Here let us assume the favorable properties resulting from addition of hydrogen allow for a more efficient transferrance of power in proper form. Thus we can add a thermodynamically valueless salt to a system and result in energy gains over time (fuel efficiency). The same as we add a chemically less energy dense gas into the combustion chambers for purposes other than combustion. The salt in the boiling water does little to transfer the heat to the noodles nor does it evaporate. The hydrogen is not added to be burned nor does it magically enhance the energy gained from the combustion of gasoline. What it does (or could) do however, is alter the properties of the gaseous solution to result in a more efficient system being possible. Higher compression ratios and leaner fuel mixtures, even only during SOME driving conditions, have been demonstrated theoretically and practically. So I guess the question of binary absolutes in HHO? can be answered yes. Still I have seen claims of 300% gains, just as I have heard of losing 20 lbs in 3 days and an excessive plethera of false advertising as far as the eye can see.

mhaze
28th June 2008, 01:54 PM
That's reasonably accurate as to the gas/air mixture in the cylinder, but it is how that affects the ignition cycle that matters. Also, obviously, to save a fair amount of gas, you need to improve efficiency during the 2000-3500 rpm runs.

Off the wall comment:

Possible sources of energy for the electrolysis of water to create hydrogen for this combustion enhancement (not over unity ) process:

1. Alternator/battery
2. Exhaust gas pressure
3. Deacceration, lost energies in braking.

Several combustion mixing potentials:

1. Constant low level flow of H2
2. Metered flow of H2
3. H2 gas head over gasoline, H2 diffuses into liquid and thus is distributed in ratio with gasoline or diesel (although diesel I'm not sure about the rate of diffusion)

Stuck like fly to wall comment:

It's pretty unlikely that any fair precentage of the cars that have the "scam H2 kits" installed have instrumentation that would allow them to accurately report on any combustion enhancement. Therefore, they cannot accurately make any claims on mileage. Obviously, the fleet operators can and are making accurate claims.

TheDaver
28th June 2008, 06:48 PM
The battery isn’t a good source of energy since car batteries aren’t deep-cycle batteries. Neither is the alternator, since it’s just a sort of generator which is powered by the engine. Exhaust gas pressure is a possibility, I suppose. Regenerative braking is a possibility too; this is one of the ways the Prius gets the energy for its electric motor.

Ace
10th July 2008, 03:52 PM
Ok. Hi. New poster here...
Since there is so much going on here I thought i'd add just a few thoughts instead of starting a new thread...

1) On the topic of fuel efficency someone mentioned something a while back that adds an instant 50% power to a car, increasing gas milage and making the car work less hard...from "free" "waste" "energy"...and the device actually exists, works very well and is in mass use...its called...a Turbo.
If anyone wants to know about them, ask.

2) On the topic of Hydrogen as a automotive fuel...
a. Given that Hydrogen gas takes more energy to produce than you get from burning it, we all know it's not very efficent as a replacement of Oil as a source to power a 5.7L V8 engine (at this moment in time).
b. Given that a deep cycle marine battery can power a Hydrogen generator by electrolysis of water...and the generator can keep the Hydrogen and Oxygen seperate...
c. Given that a small (less area than a hood/roof of a car) photovoltaic cell provides 24 Volt DC–34.6 volts peak power, .29 Amps output, 1.25 to 2.0 amps a day output...
ETA: A slightly more expencive panel has numbers of: 12 Volt DC–18.8 volts peak power, 1.66 Amps output, 7 to 9 amps a day output...

If you are following me, you can guess that what I want to know is...
)Can a seperate source (deep cycle marine battery, charged by solar), power a Hydrogen generator, and use on-board electrolysis of water to generate enough Hydrogen to make a -positive difference- in a v8 engine?
)Could the generator make enough Hydrogen to make a -positive difference- in a 1.0 to 1.6L engine?
)Could the generator alone make enough hydrogen to power a 50cc to 200cc engine?

Look forward to more awesome discussion.
Ace

Dan O.
10th July 2008, 06:06 PM
If you already have stored electric power, don't go through all the inefficiencies of conversion to hydrogen to burn in an inefficient engine. Just run an electric motor to the wheels.


The hydrogen when combined with regular fuels has been shown to improve the engine efficiency in some conditions, most notably when running at low power (though nobody has produced a graph showing the efficiency vs power output).

At the current prices we've seen, the hydrogen generator device is still too expensive to be cost effective in most cases (and the home brew version is still too dangerous). I expect the price will drop significantly if it makes it into mass production.

Ace
10th July 2008, 06:22 PM
If you already have stored electric power, don't go through all the inefficiencies of conversion to hydrogen to burn in an inefficient engine. Just run an electric motor to the wheels.


What's the carbon footprint of researching, developing and mass producing electric engines?

I'm trying to think of something to do with existing machines to help, not to create an entire new powerplant for an entirely new car...
Ace

Dan O.
10th July 2008, 09:10 PM
What's the carbon footprint of researching, developing and mass producing electric engines?

Gee, when I posted I didn't realize that electric engines don't exist yet. I had read so many Si-Fi stories the had electric trains, electric cars and all manor of electric appliances that I just assumed that the electric motor had already been invented. :boggled:

TheDaver
10th July 2008, 10:04 PM
Ok. Hi. New poster here...
Since there is so much going on here I thought i'd add just a few thoughts instead of starting a new thread...

1) On the topic of fuel efficency someone mentioned something a while back that adds an instant 50% power to a car, increasing gas milage and making the car work less hard...from "free" "waste" "energy"...and the device actually exists, works very well and is in mass use...its called...a Turbo.
If anyone wants to know about them, ask.
Turbos increase gas mileage? I was under the impression that they only increased power.

2) On the topic of Hydrogen as a automotive fuel...
a. Given that Hydrogen gas takes more energy to produce than you get from burning it, we all know it's not very efficent as a replacement of Oil as a source to power a 5.7L V8 engine (at this moment in time).
b. Given that a deep cycle marine battery can power a Hydrogen generator by electrolysis of water...and the generator can keep the Hydrogen and Oxygen seperate...
c. Given that a small (less area than a hood/roof of a car) photovoltaic cell provides 24 Volt DC–34.6 volts peak power, .29 Amps output, 1.25 to 2.0 amps a day output...
ETA: A slightly more expencive panel has numbers of: 12 Volt DC–18.8 volts peak power, 1.66 Amps output, 7 to 9 amps a day output...

If you are following me, you can guess that what I want to know is...
)Can a seperate source (deep cycle marine battery, charged by solar), power a Hydrogen generator, and use on-board electrolysis of water to generate enough Hydrogen to make a -positive difference- in a v8 engine?
Possibly – since you’re now using a very inefficient method of storing solar energy. Doesn’t strike me as really practical.

And I think you didn’t copy your numbers right. Shouldn’t that read “7 to 9 amp-hours a day”? Voltage is not power. And if these are DC voltage devices, then why the talk of peak voltage output?

)Could the generator alone make enough hydrogen to power a 50cc to 200cc engine?
No.

Such a system will only make a liter or two of hydrogen per minute at STP. An engine requires hundreds of liters per minute.

Ace
10th July 2008, 10:09 PM
Gee, when I posted I didn't realize that electric engines don't exist yet. I had read so many Si-Fi stories the had electric trains, electric cars and all manor of electric appliances that I just assumed that the electric motor had already been invented. :boggled:

Technically, an electric engine doesn't exist. An electric -motor- does.
An engine uses an internal power source to acheive work. ICE/gas/diesel...A motor uses an external power source to acheive work. Electricity/Battery

Didn't you assume that "back pressure" is why exhaust gas isn't used to drive an alternator...

There are electric motors, Duh...I actually saw a fully electric street licenced car the other day here in California. At wal-mart :eye-poppi
But they are slow no power and short range and NEW TECHNOLOGY...not to mention..UGLY...expencive...and doesn't really do anything for the normal consumer. besides, they are made from plastic which is made from...oil.
And, what are we going to do with all the existing engines...land fill them somewhere? how many years away is that? Whats wrong with trying to find a way to utilize current existing things instead of making new crap?

I'll say it a different way...
I'm looking(just like millions of people) for a different way, or an additive, to power existing small (2.5L or less) gasoline/diesel engines that will be cheaper to make than gas...Solar powered seawater hydrogen generation sounds pretty cheap...other than the initial investment, its basically free.

GreyICE
10th July 2008, 10:25 PM
There are electric motors, Duh...I actually saw a fully electric street licenced car the other day here in California. At wal-mart :eye-poppi
But they are slow no power and short range and NEW TECHNOLOGY...not to mention..UGLY...expencive...and doesn't really do anything for the normal consumer. besides, they are made from plastic which is made from...oil.
And, what are we going to do with all the existing engines...land fill them somewhere? how many years away is that? Whats wrong with trying to find a way to utilize current existing things instead of making new crap?

Electric motors provide higher torques and better acceleration than gas moters.

Don't see the 'no power'

Ace
10th July 2008, 10:29 PM
Turbos increase gas mileage? I was under the impression that they only increased power.

Ya, they allow the engine work much less hard to achieve the same amount of HP therefore reducing the use of fuel...look at it this way, normally you have 100HP and to push the pedal X far to get exceleration Y. You then install a turbo, now you have 150hp and only have to use a fraction as much X to achieve the same exceleration rate. SAAB is a company that is notorious for using small displacement engines and adding a small turbo to raise hp and keep great gas milage.


And I think you didnít copy your numbers right. Shouldnít that read ď7 to 9 amp-hours a dayĒ? Voltage is not power. And if these are DC voltage devices, then why the talk of peak voltage output?


Not sure. I was trying to figure out how fast a solar panel would charge a large battery...I'm not trying to use bogus numbers, only copied what was written on a solar panel sales website.


No.

Such a system will only make a liter or two of hydrogen per minute at STP. An engine requires hundreds of liters per minute.

Hundreds of liters per min? So the hydrogen cars must have to use liquid hydrogen then inorder to get that kind of flow?


Possibly Ė since youíre now using a very inefficient method of storing solar energy. Doesnít strike me as really practical.


OK, so the limiting factors are: Batteries are not efficent enough, and a small hydrogen generator produces 1/100th too little volume output of Hydrogen?

Ace
10th July 2008, 10:48 PM
Electric motors provide higher torques and better acceleration than gas moters.

Don't see the 'no power'

I was hoping you would reply, you seem to know alot about ICE's.

Not being facetious here, but, If electric motors do a better job of making HP and Torque, why don't people drag race electric camaros/chevelles/mustangs/ect? Also, why did the electric car that I saw have no doors, a box instead of a trunk, and aparantly designed to be as light as possible?
If the answer is that an electric motors output is dependant upon the Wattage/Voltage/Amps??? of the powering system, is there a diminishing return effect between power produced and weight of the power source?

I've been out of the solar powered car loop, but they looked like half an egg that could blow over in a strong wind. The battery powered car thing is still dependant on fossil fuels to make electricity to charge the batteries. Thats why they are trying to make better (Lithium and such) batteries as well as fuel cells not to mention more efficent solar generators.
Ace.

trvlr2
10th July 2008, 11:01 PM
Ya, they allow the engine work much less hard to achieve the same amount of HP therefore reducing the use of fuel...look at it this way, normally you have 100HP and to push the pedal X far to get exceleration Y. You then install a turbo, now you have 150hp and only have to use a fraction as much X to achieve the same exceleration rate. SAAB is a company that is notorious for using small displacement engines and adding a small turbo to raise hp and keep great gas milage.



Not sure. I was trying to figure out how fast a solar panel would charge a large battery...I'm not trying to use bogus numbers, only copied what was written on a solar panel sales website.



Hundreds of liters per min? So the hydrogen cars must have to use liquid hydrogen then inorder to get that kind of flow?



OK, so the limiting factors are: Batteries are not efficent enough, and a small hydrogen generator produces 1/100th too little volume output of Hydrogen?

Ace, welcome aboard.
Your summation is correct.
Batteries are currently way heavy, costs a lot of energy to haul them around.
Your 4 stroke, 2,5L car engine uses 1.25 L per revolution, I think, as only half the cylinders are combusting & air exchanging at any time. So, you will need a lot of H2 and O2 to burn ! You can't get there from here, with an on-board generator.
The hydrogen cars I am familiar with, use the hydrogen in a fuel cell to generate electricity to drive the electric motors. This is rife with problems, too.
This subject has been kicked around for a couple years, here. You can learn a lot by looking in the archives, and back threads.

GreyICE
10th July 2008, 11:13 PM
I was hoping you would reply, you seem to know alot about ICE's.

Not being facetious here, but, If electric motors do a better job of making HP and Torque, why don't people drag race electric camaros/chevelles/mustangs/ect? Also, why did the electric car that I saw have no doors, a box instead of a trunk, and aparantly designed to be as light as possible?
If the answer is that an electric motors output is dependant upon the Wattage/Voltage/Amps??? of the powering system, is there a diminishing return effect between power produced and weight of the power source?The box was the battery. That's the major problem. The battery weighs a lot. That's also why it's so light - it's not to improve motor power, it's to reduce 'fuel' usage.

The Tesla Roadster can do 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, demonstrating electric's 'power' in the area of torque and acceleration. It is a 248 hp/201 ft-lb engine and weighs 2700 lbs.

To see the difference, the Porsche Cayman is a 251 hp/201 ft-lb that weighs 2950 lbs. Its 0-60 is 5.8 seconds.

Honestly, if there was an electric model that used the HP/Torque of a conventional ICE it would spank it in drag races. The problem is that Porche can do the 997, which has 530 hp (more than twice the roadster's) and thus gets a 0-60 of 3.6 seconds (0.3 seconds faster).

Yeah, don't screw with electric. There's no gears, no weird change in torque outputs, just constant, powerful drive.

I've been out of the solar powered car loop, but they looked like half an egg that could blow over in a strong wind. The battery powered car thing is still dependant on fossil fuels to make electricity to charge the batteries. Thats why they are trying to make better (Lithium and such) batteries as well as fuel cells not to mention more efficent solar generators.
Ace. Upper limit on sun generation is around 4 kwH/m^2/day in the north, and 5 in the south.

Obviously solar-powered cars are insane. The roadster is sporting 53 kWh in its battery with a 220 mile range implying a more-or-less 4 hour duration. Assuming 25% efficiency on the solar panels (we're creeping towards that number) we'd need a top area of about 13 square meters/hour of driving/day. That's obviously a little too large..

Dan O.
10th July 2008, 11:31 PM
You want to see what a wimp electric motors are? Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel-electric) is a starting point.

With the solar power density of 1.4 kW/m2 and todays commercial solar cells being about 12% efficient and assuming a car surface that is 2x4 meters, you will have about 1300 watts (1.8 horsepower) to move the car. The limitation is not the electric motors.

Ace
10th July 2008, 11:56 PM
The box was the battery. That's the major problem. The battery weighs a lot. The Tesla roadster is sporting 53 kWh in its battery.

Thats like 60 marine batteries at 80Amps a pop :shocked: :jaw-dropp
Lithium-Ion is :cool:

Ace
11th July 2008, 12:07 AM
You want to see what a wimp electric motors are?

Don't get me wrong here...I never ment that electric motors are "wimp"s, I was refering to the wimpy car that I saw...and wondering why it was so. I asked a well formed series of questions, recieved satisfactory answers, now I know the information that I was missing. Thanks for the info.
Ace

Ace
11th July 2008, 12:11 AM
Right now on the radio the DJ is talking about a "Junker" that he saw at the most recent Rainbow Gathering. According to the owner of the car it used to get 16mpg, now that he had a water + baking soda hydrogen gas generator hooked up (Home made, like in the website scam) it gets 26mpg....
That was 5 min ago. No lie. Funny how the world works and everything is connected.

Dan O.
11th July 2008, 06:34 AM
We already know the theoretical limits of ICEs. If you start with an engine that is well below the efficiency limit you can get a significant improvement. The question is, could you have gotten a similar improvement by properly tuning the engine instead of adding a bomb under the hood?

robinson
11th July 2008, 06:54 AM
But, a bomb under the hood is so cool!

GreyICE
11th July 2008, 07:31 AM
Hydrogen is approximately the worst explosive EVER.

Y'see, to get an explosion, it's nice if the explosives increase in volume when it ignites.

Two mols of hydrogen and 1 mol of oxygen gives 1 mol of water which, when combined with the heat generated, gives it an odd tendency to remain more or less constant volume during the process. ;)

robinson
11th July 2008, 07:39 AM
It actually can create a powerful vacuum.

TjW
11th July 2008, 07:59 AM
No. It's sort-of true for the test tube sized experiments you'll see in a high school chem lab, because the mass and heat capacity of the test tube is so much larger than the reactants it holds that it quickly cools the water vapor resulting from the reaction.
In larger quantities, it's dangerous stuff.

robinson
11th July 2008, 09:02 AM
And yet, makes excellent rocket fuel.

GreyICE
11th July 2008, 09:53 AM
No. It's sort-of true for the test tube sized experiments you'll see in a high school chem lab, because the mass and heat capacity of the test tube is so much larger than the reactants it holds that it quickly cools the water vapor resulting from the reaction.
In larger quantities, it's dangerous stuff.
It is mildly dangerous.

Gasoline vapor is far more dangerous, and an actual explosive like Dynamite or Nitrate is just so far beyond either of them that calling it a "bomb" is ridiculous.

Hellbound
11th July 2008, 10:21 AM
And yet, makes excellent rocket fuel.

Well, a lot of that is because for rocket fuel, it's stored as a liquid. That leads to a heck-of-a-lot* of expansion when it's ignited.



*--I believe the exact amount is somewhere between "ginormous" and "a buttload" :D

robinson
11th July 2008, 01:49 PM
Hydrogen mixed with oxygen is far more powerful than an equal mass of anything else. But it is so light, it seems much less powerful.

GreyICE
11th July 2008, 03:47 PM
Hydrogen mixed with oxygen is far more powerful than an equal mass of anything else. But it is so light, it seems much less powerful.

No, it's not. It produces the most energy for its mass. That is all. You are assuming that your chemistry textbook is telling you something more than a set of numbers.

If you define power as energy per unit mass, yes, it's more powerful. If you define power as "ability to make **** explode" there's a lot better ways to do it. Dynamite's chemical formula packs more energy per unit volume than hydrogen quite easily. That's why TNT and Nitrate are used where volume is critical (pretty much any explosive application) and hydrogen is used where energy is critical (throwing stuff into space).

Hydrogen's lousy volume and the lousy volume of gasses it produces make it a very poor way to generate shockwaves. Since that's the definition of 'power' for explosives, it's not very powerful.

robinson
12th July 2008, 03:57 AM
No, it's not. It produces the most energy for its mass.

That is what I said. If you use equal mass to compare power, hydrogen and oxygen produce the most energy. The most power.

Prometheus
12th July 2008, 05:07 AM
That is what I said. If you use equal mass to compare power, hydrogen and oxygen produce the most energy. The most power.

Energy and power are not the same.

robinson
12th July 2008, 07:45 AM
In physics, power (symbol: P) is the rate at which work is performed or energy is transmitted, or the amount of energy required or expended for a given unit of time.

In physics energy is a scalar physical quantity that is a property of objects and systems which is conserved by nature. Energy is often defined as the ability to do work.

Hydrogen + Oxygen has more energy, and can transmit it faster, than any other fuel, excluding nuclear of course.

hydrogen- 140.4 MJ/kg
next runner up, Autogas ~51 or Diesel ~48 MJ/kg

Because gas or diesel require oxygen from the atmosphere, it is a fair comparison.

It would be interesting to see if an equal weight of dynamite or other explosive can do more damage than hydrogen+oxygen mix.

TheDaver
12th July 2008, 08:24 AM
And, getting back to the reality!…

Do you have any idea of the volume of 1kg of gaseous hydrogen (its state at STP)?

Okay. So you want to talk about hydrogen in less ludicrous volumes?

Look up the volumes and energy contents of 1kg of liquid hydrogen and of 1kg of liquid gasoline and compare.
Now consider how you’re going to get the hydrogen into, and keep it in that liquid state.

Now you ought to have an idea why it isn’t used much in everyday business as a fuel, much less as an explosive.

No Mild offense intended… Robinson, I’m guessing you’re a scientist, not an engineer. ;)


[Electric cars] are slow no power and short range
What? (http://www.teslamotors.com/)

besides, they are made from plastic which is made from...oil.
You’ve never heard of fiberglass or carbon fiber?

And, what are we going to do with all the existing engines
Phase them out when the time comes.

...land fill them somewhere? how many years away is that?
:rolleyes:

Whats wrong with trying to find a way to utilize current existing things instead of making new crap?

Whats wrong with making a hackjob cluster@#$% instead of working with a more adaptable technology?
Fixed.

I'll say it a different way...
I'm looking(just like millions of people) for a different way, or an additive, to power existing small (2.5L or less) gasoline/diesel engines that will be cheaper to make than gas...Solar powered seawater hydrogen generation sounds pretty cheap...other than the initial investment, its basically free.
That way sounds even more silly – like you think it’s more practical to supplant the entire infrastructure that current automobiles rely on than to just replace the automobiles themselves.

robinson
12th July 2008, 08:48 AM
Do you have any idea of the volume of 1kg of gaseous hydrogen (its state at STP)?

Mass of 1 mole hydrogen gas (H2) = 2 grams.
So the mass of 22.4 liters (stp) H2 is 2 g.
1 kilogram = 1kg = 1000 grams.
1 cubic foot = 28.25 liters
1000 grams of H2 = 500 X 28.35 liters = 11,200 liters
11,200 liters = 396.460177 cubic feet
Answer = ~396.5 cubic feet =
Bonus answer - 14.68 cubic yards

GreyICE
12th July 2008, 12:43 PM
It would be interesting to see if an equal weight of dynamite or other explosive can do more damage than hydrogen+oxygen mix.

Of course it can. Good explosives are oxygen neutral. That means that they have an equal amount of oxygen as explosive material contained within the bomb. When the reaction starts, the entire body of the explosive is near-instantaneously consumed, creating a massive shockwave. For this reason a mixture of Dynamite (oxygen deficit) and Nitrate (oxygen rich) produces more force than either explosive used separately. Similarly, the aluminum oxide in the MOAB composes a mere 20% of its mass, but contributes a 40% over an equal mass of pure dynamite.

Imagine 9 tons of dynamite and aluminum oxide - hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen, in perfect mixture, with aluminum floating there as well (aluminum rocks for explosives). The bomb, a volume of maybe 20-30 cubic meters, detonates. Remember, 18 grams of water per mol, 44 grams for CO2. Extrapolate that over 9000 kg. Throw in the heat, and each mol could occupy more than 100 cubic litres.

That instantaneous body of air is what creates an explosion. The shockwave propagates at the speed of sound, and can flip tanks like kids toys (A nuclear detonation, in contrast is extremely different, in that it creates so much raw energy that it can slag concrete with its radiant energy, and superheats the air so powerfully it creates an blast wind.

Any conventional military explosive made for raw explosive power can obtain 100% detonation efficiency underwater, for that reason.

Imagine a bomb filled with hydrogen for a second. Upon ignition, the hydrogen would explode, and the outer layer would react with oxygen, creating water. The heat would force expansion faster than the speed of sound - shockwave. The outer layers of the shockwave would consist of water vapor, the inner layers hydrogen. The hydrogen could not react with the air, because the expansion shockwave would consume all oxygen in the vicinity. As it began to dissipate, oxygen could penetrate, and react with hydrogen.

The result would not be a detonation. It would be remarkably fast combustion, and lack any sort of power.

Of course you could go with a stoichiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen. Of course since you're talking 25 litres of oxygen and 50 litres of hydrogen for 2 mols of product, you're going to get lousy expansion, and thus a very very weak explosion.

Of course you could then compress a stoichiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen to 100 atmospheres. THAT would make a good explosive. Warn me when you try that one, I want to be in a different county. Or possibly country...

Ace
12th July 2008, 10:31 PM
What? (http://www.teslamotors.com/)


I reference a current production, semi affordable, car that I saw with my own eyes, and you reference a limited production, not even available in the U.S.A., extremely expencive, and, IMHO, waste of research and development that could have been used on making something that will actually make a difference in the world. :rolleyes:
That being said however, its well known that improvements in the car/motorcycle racing field (where they race 5cyl motorcycles and cars producing over 1000hp on a 3.0L engine) trickle down to mass production. EG: the vented and slotted rotor. Once only used on race cars, now everyone has them...So maybe, but doubtfull, tesla will use thier battery array and engine designs for something...useful.


You’ve never heard of fiberglass or carbon fiber?


I worked for a boat builder who used both, so...yeah...Do you know they are basically the same thing? Instead of fiberglass sheets, it's carbon fiber sheets.

Do you want to be driving in a carbon fiber car when its hit by a semi? Not even a semi, a truck...not even a truck, a regular car? That stuff has uses, is great and light, but even carbon fiber has limitations...unless they started making something (like a frame) I don't know about yet. As of 1 year ago, the Mitsubishi i-MiEV electric (concept, 2011 maybe in England) vehicle uses an aluminum suspension and frame. Toyota has a concept car with carbon fiber pieces, while its still just shell piece and hood type reduction, it still resulted in over 65% weight reduction...pretty cool...

But still, new tech requires machines to produce, machines take electricity, which requires burning of fossil fuels...and they are still a ways away from being affordable enough that people can replace thier existing cars with one.


Phase them out when the time comes.

:rolleyes:
By that time comes i'll be dead...and if i'm not, then hooray for modern medicine...What do we do about all the pollution spewing cars until then?


That way sounds even more silly – like you think it’s more practical to supplant the entire infrastructure that current automobiles rely on than to just replace the automobiles themselves.

That sounds silly? It seems like you think it's more enviromentally sound/energy efficent practical to throw away stuff than recycle it...In fact, i'm trying to do doing (Just paid for the engine) that exact thing to a 1973 El camino. I'm supplanting the gas engine infrastructure that it currently relys upon with a Bio-diesel powered GM diesel engine. As well as researching creating a waste fryer oil reclamation plant on my property.
Ace

Dan O.
13th July 2008, 09:20 AM
But still, new tech requires machines to produce, machines take electricity, which requires burning of fossil fuels...and they are still a ways away from being affordable enough that people can replace thier existing cars with one.

Bah! Until you put in the numbers, saying something takes electricity is not an argument. And electricity can be produced without burning fossil fuels as in hydro, solar, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, wind, etc. and then there are fossil fuels that can produce electricity but are not suitable for running cars like coal. Electricity generation from liquid petrolium fuel accounts for only around 1% of the total in the US (source (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html))

I'm supplanting the gas engine infrastructure that it currently relys upon with a Bio-diesel powered GM diesel engine. As well as researching creating a waste fryer oil reclamation plant on my property.
Ace

There is nothing wrong with reclaiming the waist oil but I would want to estimate the future availability and price before making a hugh investment since the supply is fixed and demand can be expected to increase as commercial fuel prices rise. An alternative is to actually produce your own oil <link (http://www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html)>.

Mongrel
13th July 2008, 03:46 PM
I worked for a boat builder who used both, so...yeah...Do you know they are basically the same thing? Instead of fiberglass sheets, it's carbon fiber sheets.

I thought carbon fibre needed high pressure and temperature to set, a lot different from fibreglass, but you got a lot stronger, lighter, product (witness F1 nosecones) which in the long run would make the vehicle more efficient

Ace
13th July 2008, 09:59 PM
I thought carbon fibre needed high pressure and temperature to set, a lot different from fibreglass, but you got a lot stronger, lighter, product (witness F1 nosecones) which in the long run would make the vehicle more efficient

I don't build f1's so I don't know. I built a folding hull catamaran that was reinforced with, and in some places completely made from, carbon fiber. I can't speak as to the construction of the complete pieces, but I did have hands on experience with the reinforced areas. The carbon fiber we used is basically a clothlike sheet, almost exactally like a fiberglass sheet. We also used the same glue that we use when we patched holes in fiberglass boats with fiberglass cloth patches.
Ace

TjW
14th July 2008, 08:02 AM
I thought carbon fibre needed high pressure and temperature to set, a lot different from fibreglass, but you got a lot stronger, lighter, product (witness F1 nosecones) which in the long run would make the vehicle more efficient

No, carbon fiber itself is just carbon, and doesn't "set".
It shouldn't require high pressures, though there might be something about a particular part that requires high pressure to mold it. Usually vacuum bagging is enough, and that would be less than 15 psi.
The matrix that you embed it in can have different properties, depending on what you use.
Some carbon fiber is manufactured as "prepreg", which already has a high-temperature curing matrix applied by machine. The advantage over wet layup is that you can use much less matrix, and that increases the strength to weight of the part. A high temperature curing epoxy can be used at higher temperatures than room-temperature curing epoxies.
The high temp prepregs are cured at high temperatures, but this would be true of those particular matrices even if the part had been wet out by hand.
Glass is also available as prepreg.

mydurangoiskillingme
23rd July 2008, 08:02 PM
Hi everyone. New poster here. I found this site when researching HHO generators as a way to improve the lousy MPG on my 2001 Durango. I know what youíre thinking. But I live 3.5 miles from work and drive it very little beyond that. Maybe an average of 60 miles per week. But the recent gas prices got to me, even at my low usage.

First, a little about me to put my comments in context. Iím a 50 yr old engineering manager. BSEE, and Iíve always been in test. But Iíve spent most of my career at the intersection of all disciplines that result in high field reliability and quality in electro mechanical devices. Iíve worked in medical, aerospace, and commercial industries. Iíve done deep research into, and have much experience with, all physics and material sciences that affect complex devices. To say that Iím a skeptic would be understating it a bit.

Yet I pride myself on having an open and interrogating mind. Make a claim? Fine. Show me with data. Prove the science. Thatís how I approached this investigation. I find the discussions here to be stimulating, yet also lacking. Everyone wants to show this is a scam, yet I see no one who is taking a deeper look to see if itís true. Imagine the impact if it is. And no, I donít have any other motive than to get better mileage on my own crappy decision of a vehicle.

As Iíve researched this potential phenom, I found some interesting stuff. First, I bought the most recommended how-to manual that explains how this works. See below for that excerpt. Chemistry was my weakest subject in college, so I canít verify the theory behind this. Maybe someone here can comment. Next, I found a web site of one eBay seller that seems to demonstrate the production of combustible gas from one of these devices. All of the parameters that are important to this application are not documented, but the idea appears to be demonstrated.

Last I found am investigative news site that tested a device on one of their vehicles on a dynamometer. It just happened to be the same vehicle I own, a 2001 Durango. It went from 9.4 to 23 MPG. Those folks then contacted an ME prof at a local college to supervise a new round of tests under better controls. Those result are due to be posted 7/29. All references and links are below.

I canít say if this is real or not. But I find it hard to believe that so many people would be spending so much time making these devices, and so many others would be buying them and using them, if something wasnít happening. That doesnít mean it is. It doesnít mean anything. But when making a first order guess, macro data like this can be useful in guiding your thinking. The positive and the negative. Until solid quantitative data is available, that people can use to make decisions.

One device maybe producing flammable gas
youtube.com/user/acman2002

News crew investigation of a very expensive 1200 dollar device

wptv.com/content/specialreports/story.aspx?content_id=74b15465-2ebb-49e0-acb1-939c4bb13a28

Excerpt from a manual describing how this is supposed to work
Hydrogen/Oxygen Generator
Referring to Figure 1 on the following page, the Hydrogen/Oxygen generator housing is a round cylinder constructed with high temperature CPVC pipe, a material widely used by the building industry in plumbing systems. CPVC pipe is extremely durable and temperature tolerant. Itís also a very ďfriendlyĒ material in that itís easy to work with and can be used to fabricate other things such as furniture, planters, and housings for just about anything. The Generator housing contains a basic coil and two cylindrical electrodes; used to generate both hydrogen and oxygen. Each can be made from a variety of materials such as stainless steel and/or ceramic, also very durable materials. However, two atomically different forms of hydrogen are produced within the Generator. Most of the generated hydrogen is orthohydrogen, a very powerful and fast burning gas created by the two electrodes. A precisely controlled, high frequency electronic signal from the HyTronics Module activates and controls the electrodes.
The other form of hydrogen, parahydrogen, is created by the coil, but in much less quantity than orthohydrogen. A precisely controlled, very low frequency electronic signal from a separate circuit within the HyTronics Module activates and controls the coil. Parahydrogen is a less powerful and slower burning gas, but is necessary to prevent pre‐combustion (commonly called ďknockingĒ) within your engine. Parahydrogen slows the burning rate of the hydrogen mix, thus boosting its octane level. Such precise control allows you to exactly match your engineís octane requirements. To raise octane levels in gasoline, specific additives must be used to slow its burning rate. At best this is an inexact science since it depends upon trying to average the octane requirements for millions of engines. Technically speaking, the Hydrogen/Oxygen Generator itself is an electronic‐based unit. The two electrodes form a basic capacitor, thousands of times larger than capacitors used in typical circuits, with water acting as its dielectric. The inner electrode is negatively charged, and the outer electrode is positively charged, by the high frequency HyTronics signal. Chemically, each water molecule (H20) is composed of two positively charged atoms of hydrogen and one negatively charged atom of oxygen. Since opposite charges attract, the positively charged hydrogen atoms are pulled toward the inner electrode. But, at the same instant, the negatively charged oxygen atoms are pulled toward the outer electrode. This action aligns every water
molecule between the electrodes, with the ends of each molecule being pulled in opposite directions. In a nutshell, this is the hydrolysis process central to hydrogen extraction.
Figure 1: Hydrogen/Oxygen Generator
Figure 1 didn't copy - sorry

For a few brief moments, only more accurate alignment and increased pulling action upon the water molecules occurs. But, the HyTronics signal pulses keep charging the water capacitor to higher and higher voltage levels; actually several thousand volts. Suddenly the electrical forces become so great that the water molecules burst apart (scientists call this action disassociation) into their gaseous forms of hydrogen and oxygen. If you were able to look into the Generator, this action would be obvious because of the formation of millions of tiny hydrogen and oxygen gas bubbles. As long as the HyTronics signal is applied, the water capacitor remains fully charged; continuously creating orthohydrogen and oxygen. Another electronic circuit is formed by the generator coil. This is an inductive circuit, meaning it creates a magnetic field as opposed to the charged field created by the water capacitor. The very low frequency HyTronics signal (actually a short pulse) activates the magnetic field of the coil. As soon as the pulse stops, the magnetic field collapses. This creates an even stronger magnetic field, but a field of opposite polarity. That is how an inductive circuit works, an action
commonly called ďinductive kick.Ē Each pulse is precisely timed so that almost immediately after the magnetic field reverses, another short pulse arrives. Once again the coil is charged and its magnetic field collapses. But now the continually reversing magnetic field becomes even stronger due to added energy of each new pulse. Eventually (actually within just a few seconds) the coil reaches its maximum magnetic strength, called its saturation point. Most molecules are effected by magnetic fields. The coilís reversing magnetic fields vibrate the water molecules so vigorously that they disassociate into gaseous forms of parahydrogen and oxygen. Disassociation observably occurs, as seen by the creation of millions of tiny hydrogen and oxygen gas bubbles around the coil.

GreyICE
23rd July 2008, 08:14 PM
Parahydrogen? Orthohydrogen?

Perhaps the percentage of PMPs determines which is which?

(Perfectly Magical Particles)

Paulhoff
23rd July 2008, 08:56 PM
I can’t say if this is real or not. But I find it hard to believe that so many people would be spending so much time making these devices, and so many others would be buying them and using them, if something wasn’t happening.
"There's a sucker born every minute." and "There are five born to take advantage of them."

Paul

:) :) :)

mydurangoiskillingme
23rd July 2008, 09:26 PM
Maybe you can show this can't work. I don't know, even with my deep knowledge. I might try this. If I did, would you accept my results as proof? If not, what would you accept as proof?

mydurangoiskillingme
23rd July 2008, 09:36 PM
Hi Paul. What do you know that you are holding back? How much research have you done? Perhaps you work for big oil, and don't want others to know about this. Show something either way

David Wong
23rd July 2008, 09:40 PM
Hi Paul. What do you know that you are holding back? How much research have you done? Perhaps you work for big oil, and don't want others to know about this. Show something either way

Sigh.

David Wong
23rd July 2008, 09:41 PM
It doesn't seem possible that someone with the qualifications and education durango is claiming to have could still fall for something like this.

steve s
23rd July 2008, 10:31 PM
The other night I was flipping through the channels and came across the show Alter Eco on the Green Channel. They were promoting this nonsense by installing it into someones Winnebago. They all got giddy when it started producing clean, beautiful bubbles of non-polluting hydrogen, but it didn't seem to occur to them that they were having to burn gasoline to do that.

Also, they completely failed to mention whether this guy really did improve his gas mileage at all. If it had made an improvement, you can be sure they would have trumpeted it from the highest mountain.

Steve S

Pantaz
23rd July 2008, 10:33 PM
Well, it's time to put up, or shut up :
The One Million Dollar HHO Challenge (http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_challenge.shtml)
Demonstrate a fuel-savings of more than 25% with your HHO system and win a million dollars!

"To win the money, all you have to do is fit an HHO system to a late model car (already in good condition and tune) so that a consistent 25% or greater improvement in fuel economy is obtained and maintained for six months, without causing any damage to the engine."

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_challenge.shtml

The website also has considerable information on HHO and other "fuel savers".

TheDaver
24th July 2008, 03:02 AM
Maybe you can show this can't work. I don't know, even with my deep knowledge. I might try this. If I did, would you accept my results as proof? If not, what would you accept as proof?
What deep knowledge? So far, you’ve only claimed to work in certain fields. You haven’t mentioned your education and you haven’t mentioned in what capacity you worked in these fields.

Hi Paul. What do you know that you are holding back? How much research have you done? Perhaps you work for big oil, and don't want others to know about this. Show something either wayGet the :rule10 out of here. That’s so weak and overused it deserves its own Godwin’s Law.

It doesn't seem possible that someone with the qualifications and education durango is claiming to have could still fall for something like this.
I’ll say it again: What qualifications and education?

Paulhoff
24th July 2008, 05:09 AM
Maybe you can show this can't work. I don't know, even with my deep knowledge. I might try this. If I did, would you accept my results as proof? If not, what would you accept as proof?
Deep knowledge, please give me a break, you will never get more energy out of a system then there is in that system. Breaking down water takes more energy then you will ever get back when burning it again. I it that simple.

There is money in it for people making this BS, I work at ACE Hardware (part-time, I have a thing called a pension) and have seen people buying stainless steel nuts and bolts, mason jars, PVC and wire in quanities telling me that they are making a real killing on the ignorant. This BS happens every time gas prices go up a big percentage, and contrary to popular believe if there was something to this the car manufactures would be using it and not losing profits.

Paul

:) :) :)

But with all that DEEP knowledge you should already know that.

Horatius
24th July 2008, 05:20 AM
This BS happens every time gas prices go up a big percentage, and contrary to popular believe if there was something to this the car manufactures would be using it and not losing profits.




This point needs repeating. SUV sales were one of the biggest sectors of the auto industry in the last decade or so, and now they're starting to lose sales because of the gas prices. If there was a simple modification that could double the mileage of your typical SUV as mydurangoiskillingme mentioned earlier, they could maintain those sales for another decade....Why wouldn't they do this?

casebro
24th July 2008, 06:48 AM
My assumption that Durango is a spammer seems to be holding up.

I don't see enough innate skepticism to bring him here in the first place. But once this thread showed up on google....

Mashuna
24th July 2008, 08:43 AM
If you work 3.5 miles from home but you're suffering from high gas prices, may I suggest cycling?

David Wong
24th July 2008, 09:11 AM
My assumption that Durango is a spammer seems to be holding up.

I don't see enough innate skepticism to bring him here in the first place. But once this thread showed up on google....


My site did an article about gas saving scams (http://www.cracked.com/article_16484_6-retarded-gas-saving-schemes-people-are-actually-trying.html) a while back and one thing I found while looking up info on this is that on EVERY site that touches on the topic, there is ALWAYS a standard reply in the comment section, from some person sharing an anecdote about how they have tried the device and it worked beautifully. Often with the identical wording, and careful to include the same key search terms every time.

I got curious, and went and googled "water4gas debunked" and found that the top results were bombarded with fake pro-water4gas links.

Try it yourself (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=water4gas+debunked&btnG=Search).

They did it by setting up domains and URL's that sound like skeptical reviews (water4gas-hoax) and then pasting in the exact same "I looked into this and it really works!" article, word for word, over and over.

It's just an SEO trick, so that when you try to google for real information on the subject, you'll get redirected back to the scam again and again.

I'm not making an accusation against durango here, I'm just saying that this specific method of advertising (with fake testimonial spam) is what has made these HHO scams all of their money. It's tremendously effective, especially when it plays off of the oil company conspiracy paranoia (as it so often does).

robinson
27th July 2008, 09:17 AM
Deep knowledge, please give me a break, you will never get more energy out of a system then there is in that system.

That is only true if you are talking about a closed system. It is possible, and quite easy, to get more energy out than you put in, by using energy from the environment.

The hard rule about not getting more than you put in is for a "closed" system, which is quite true. But all ICEs use energy from the environment to run.

robinson
27th July 2008, 09:21 AM
This BS happens every time gas prices go up a big percentage, and contrary to popular believe if there was something to this the car manufactures would be using it and not losing profits.


*ahem*

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200709/ai_n19524849


Hydrogen Hybrid Technologies, Inc.
(HYHY:OTC BB)

LAST $2.14 USD
CHANGE TODAY -0.06 -2.73%
VOLUME 602.1K


Hydrogen Hybrid Technologies Inc. receives order for B.C. school buses

Sale to School District # 5 will be funded by B.C. Government as precursor
to sales on entire provincial fleet of buses
PICKERING, ON, May 28 /PRNewswire/ - Hydrogen Hybrid Technologies Inc.
President Ira Lyons is pleased to announce the sale of the first units of
the newest line of emissions control and fuel saving devices in North
America. The units will be installed on school buses operated by School
District # 5 in the Province of British Columbia, Canada. The sale marks
the first government sale in western Canada and the purchase of the units
will be funded by the provincial government.

"The use of the new model of Hydrogen Fuel Injection (HFI) products on
school busses marks a milestone and opens up a huge new market for HHT"
said Mr. Lyons. "All across North America, governments have recognized the
serious hazard posed by diesel fumes to school children riding buses for up
to four hours each day. In the California, alone, the state is spending $25
Million U.S., annually, to install exhaust abatement technologies on school
buses. The satisfactory results on the first two school buses in B.C. are
expected to lead to the adoption of HFI on every school bus in B.C. and
will, almost certainly, have equal success in other provinces and states",
added Lyons, "in part because HFI is the only emissions control technology that also reduces fuel use, meaning it is the only product of its kind that
pays for itself".

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=


Etc etc etc

http://www.chechfi.ca/gtdownload.htm

http://www.hypowerfuel.com/PDF/test3.PDF

http://www.etvcanada.com/data/PDF_CHEC.pdf

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-gas-savers/hydrogen-fuel-injection-helps-school-buses-increase-mileage/

Paulhoff
27th July 2008, 09:55 AM
*ahem*
Ahem, we are talking about add-ons to existing cars that are not set up for using hydrogen. Do you care to check the news to see how SUVs sales are doing now because of their gas mileage, people are having a hard time trying to sell them off?

Once again, if there was any truth behind that BS, SUVs would have had it years ago.

Because some company rips off people doesn't make it work.

Paul

:) :) :)

technoextreme
27th July 2008, 11:55 AM
Ahem, we are talking about add-ons to existing cars that are not set up for using hydrogen. Do you care to check the news to see how SUVs sales are doing now because of their gas mileage, people are having a hard time trying to sell them off?

Once again, if there was any truth behind that BS, SUVs would have had it years ago.

Because some company rips off people doesn't make it work.

Paul

:) :) :)
This is Robinson we are talking about. PT Barnum probably would have made become a millionaire if he met him.

Prometheus
27th July 2008, 12:24 PM
*ahem*

The smallest unit these guys make costs $4000, and the company claims it will improve fuel efficiency by 4.4%. The way I use my jeep on average and at current prices, that translates to a savings of $312 per year--so this thing would pay for itself in 12.8 years (if it works as advertised), and while there's a reasonable possibility that I might keep the jeep that long, the manufacturer's website says this unit is "engineered to last at least 10 years" but it's actually warranted for only 3 years.

ETA: Put another way, in order for this thing to pay for itself in 3 years, I'd have to drive 1000 miles per day, 365 days per year.

:rolleyes:

TiaH
27th July 2008, 02:00 PM
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

I'm sorry, but I've seen one of those devices in the back of a magazine under "Male Enhancement". It comes shipped in a plain brown wrapper.

Hindmost
27th July 2008, 02:03 PM
That is only true if you are talking about a closed system. It is possible, and quite easy, to get more energy out than you put in, by using energy from the environment.

The hard rule about not getting more than you put in is for a "closed" system, which is quite true. But all ICEs use energy from the environment to run.

there is no way this thing is getting past law one and law two of thermo..

An engine is still a cyclical process and no way you are getting more energy out of this than is put in--it is not using energy from the environment as there is no energy there to use outside of the engine system. Just need to draw the system line a bit bigger to provide an isolated system.

the main focus of this hydrogen injection system is to reduce pollution.

glenn

mydurangoiskillingme
27th July 2008, 09:17 PM
Where do I start. I tried to just get you guys to think about this. I didn't know that much about it because I had just started looking into it. And I didn't want anything like this: just a bunch of denial with no proof one way or the other. Like I said before, I don't believe anything w/o proof.

You’ve questioned my experience. First, I have a BSEE. Second, I have worked 25 years in test engineering. All of that time in electronics. I've split that time between aerospace, commercial, and medical industries. I’ve done design qual, reliability test, and manufacturing test. Everything from individual contributor to director.

I do know how to prove and dis-prove just about anything in that space. This phenomenon is unfamiliar to me, that’s why I came here and asked for help. Like I said before, I'm a natural skeptic. I just wanted more info. Not just the standard "I'm calling bs on this".

You’re going to have to tell me why or why not. I'm considering trying this, and don't want to screw up something on my ride. My MO is to research the science and then start to form an opinion. To be honest, with a 10 MPG SUV, I really want this to be true. But that wish does not flavor my thinking. I’m not going to spend time and money to do something I don’t believe will work.

So I hope we can get past my qualifications and motives. I’m not some mole, or idiot.

Ok then, here’s what I’ve learned since I last posted. I’ve been talking to the other engineers where I work to see if they knew anything or had any experience with it. One person immediately recognized what I described and said that was how they made oxygen on his sub in the navy. They used this same electrolysis setup and dumped the hydrogen overboard, and kept the oxygen. Well, that helps me to accept the possibility that these things do what they say – produce hydrogen and oxygen gas from water. Maybe someone here can contact WA DC and let them know this doesn’t work.

The next thing I found is how these things are supposed to work. They don’t produce enough fuel in the form of H to replace gas. They provide a more explosive mix that makes the gas used more efficiently. Gas is burned pretty inefficiently in most vehicles. This thing just improves that. It’s a lot like a nitrous injector. Think about this: instead of gas and ambient air with 20% O2, it provides that same with H+ nd H- and O2. A far more explosive mixture that requires less gas for the same compressive reaction in the cylinder.

That leads to the last thing, as noted here by others several times. You have to change the settings for the O2 and MAP sensors on the vehicle so that it will lean out the mixture. If the fuel burns more efficiently, you need less of it. W/o something like this, the system will simply dump more gas in the system. I can understand this. It makes sense.

Also, did you know that these HHO generators are really just very large capacitors, with water as the electrolyte? So even though it’s supplied by 12 volts, thousands of volts are built up on the plates. That’s what causes the water to break down (dis-associate) into gas.

You guys should really do your research before you cry foul. I’m not done with my research. But I won’t be back here to talk about it. I think most of the posters here are too irrational, immature, and frankly, too inexperienced to have a decent conversation with.

robinson
27th July 2008, 09:23 PM
Once again, if there was any truth behind that BS, SUVs would have had it years ago.

That is not a good argument. I'm not saying an add on hydrogen boost works, because I have never tried one, but saying there is no truth behind something because nobody is using it is a terrible argument.

It isn't even an argument, it is a fallacy.

mydurangoiskillingme
27th July 2008, 09:55 PM
I live on top of a 1000 foot high hill. And I'm 50, over weight, etc.

GreyICE
27th July 2008, 10:19 PM
Where do I start. I tried to just get you guys to think about this. I didn't know that much about it because I had just started looking into it. And I didn't want anything like this: just a bunch of denial with no proof one way or the other. Like I said before, I don't believe anything w/o proof.

Youíve questioned my experience. First, I have a BSEE. Second, I have worked 25 years in test engineering. All of that time in electronics. I've split that time between aerospace, commercial, and medical industries. Iíve done design qual, reliability test, and manufacturing test. Everything from individual contributor to director.

I do know how to prove and dis-prove just about anything in that space. This phenomenon is unfamiliar to me, thatís why I came here and asked for help. Like I said before, I'm a natural skeptic. I just wanted more info. Not just the standard "I'm calling bs on this".

Youíre going to have to tell me why or why not. I'm considering trying this, and don't want to screw up something on my ride. My MO is to research the science and then start to form an opinion. To be honest, with a 10 MPG SUV, I really want this to be true. But that wish does not flavor my thinking. Iím not going to spend time and money to do something I donít believe will work.

So I hope we can get past my qualifications and motives. Iím not some mole, or idiot.

Ok then, hereís what Iíve learned since I last posted. Iíve been talking to the other engineers where I work to see if they knew anything or had any experience with it. One person immediately recognized what I described and said that was how they made oxygen on his sub in the navy. They used this same electrolysis setup and dumped the hydrogen overboard, and kept the oxygen. Well, that helps me to accept the possibility that these things do what they say Ė produce hydrogen and oxygen gas from water. Maybe someone here can contact WA DC and let them know this doesnít work.

The next thing I found is how these things are supposed to work. They donít produce enough fuel in the form of H to replace gas. They provide a more explosive mix that makes the gas used more efficiently. Gas is burned pretty inefficiently in most vehicles. This thing just improves that. Itís a lot like a nitrous injector. Think about this: instead of gas and ambient air with 20% O2, it provides that same with H+ nd H- and O2. A far more explosive mixture that requires less gas for the same compressive reaction in the cylinder.

That leads to the last thing, as noted here by others several times. You have to change the settings for the O2 and MAP sensors on the vehicle so that it will lean out the mixture. If the fuel burns more efficiently, you need less of it. W/o something like this, the system will simply dump more gas in the system. I can understand this. It makes sense.

Also, did you know that these HHO generators are really just very large capacitors, with water as the electrolyte? So even though itís supplied by 12 volts, thousands of volts are built up on the plates. Thatís what causes the water to break down (dis-associate) into gas.

You guys should really do your research before you cry foul. Iím not done with my research. But I wonít be back here to talk about it. I think most of the posters here are too irrational, immature, and frankly, too inexperienced to have a decent conversation with.


Soooo many problems with this. First, I showed the combustion efficiency of gasoline was ~99% in a general engine. There's none of the 'inefficiency' you're chatting about.

You discuss none of the problems with a lean burn.

Your capacitors fail at increasing the number of WATTS which is the necessary unit for determining how much energy is being used to separate the hydrogen from oxygen. VOLTS measures potential, NOT energy.

This is basic stuff, and I'm embarressed that there's someone claiming to be an electrical engineer who doesn't understand that the watts aren't going to suddenly go up for an extended period of time thanks to capacitors attached to a constant input wattage (A DC input no less. Quick quiz, what do we call a DC Capacitor?)

mydurangoiskillingme
27th July 2008, 11:19 PM
OMG. You're posting as an expert? Come on. Where do you think emissions come from? Unburned fuel. The best engines are 60% efficient. At best.

Lean burn problems? I don’t know. I’ve said many times I’m not an expert with engines, just looking for answers.

As for the rest of your dithering, it makes no sense. The voltage that builds across the cap is a function of time. Caps charge over time, you know. Tell your proff you just learned something. Stop questioning what you don't understand. Go experiment with it yourself. I never claimed to have all of the answers. But you claim to have none of the answers. Stop annoying me just to impress your friends. I’m not a salesman.

BTW, a DC capacitor is called a battery. Edited to remove ad hominem.

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

Davo
27th July 2008, 11:33 PM
Ok then, hereís what Iíve learned since I last posted. Iíve been talking to the other engineers where I work to see if they knew anything or had any experience with it. One person immediately recognized what I described and said that was how they made oxygen on his sub in the navy. They used this same electrolysis setup and dumped the hydrogen overboard, and kept the oxygen. Well, that helps me to accept the possibility that these things do what they say Ė produce hydrogen and oxygen gas from water. Maybe someone here can contact WA DC and let them know this doesnít work.

Nobody is questioning about whether you can produce hydrogen and oxygen from water, its easy we did that at secondary school..

It may well be the case that subs can produce hydrogen and oxygen. I suspect that would be easy, especially given all the surplus power in a nuclear sub, it does`t matter if the system is not efficient.

The case is there is always an energy loss in producing hydrogen so it would not be applicable for use in a motor vehicle.

Note all of these hydrogen products on the market show no test data, it is all anecdotal.

Mashuna
28th July 2008, 03:32 AM
OMG. You're posting as an expert? Come on. Where do you think emissions come from? Unburned fuel. The best engines are 60% efficient. At best.


Just a quick question - are you saying that 60% engine efficiency is in contrast to the 99% combustion efficiency GreyICE was talking about? Because I don't see the two figures as necessarily contradictory. How much unburned fuel do you say there is?

ddt
28th July 2008, 03:50 AM
I live on top of a 1000 foot high hill. And I'm 50, over weight, etc.

A couple of weeks of cycling will help you with the overweight problem, won't they? Being 50 is a lame excuse. Even if your work is 1000 foot down the hill, it's only a climb of 5%.

GreyICE
28th July 2008, 06:25 AM
OMG. You're posting as an expert? Come on. Where do you think emissions come from? Unburned fuel. The best engines are 60% efficient. At best. Captain brain damage to the rescue!

No, ninny. The NOx emmissions comes from the fact that the inside of the cylinder frequently gets hot enough to enable combustion of the nitrogen in the atmosphere.

Post what you understand.

Lean burn problems? I don’t know. I’ve said many times I’m not an expert with engines, just looking for answers. Knock Knock. Whose there? The end of your engine...

As for the rest of your dithering, it makes no sense. The voltage that builds across the cap is a function of time. Caps charge over time, you know. Tell your proff you just learned something. Stop questioning what you don't understand. Go experiment with it yourself. I never claimed to have all of the answers. But you claim to have none of the answers. Stop annoying me just to impress your friends. I’m not a salesman. Yes you are. You just proved it below.

BTW, a DC capacitor is called a battery. But you will probably claim that they can’t exist either. Dumbass. Go tell your proff that you should fail out and never ever be allowed to work in the real world. Don’t ever come my way. You’re a NO HIRE!

And, folks, we have a winner. Trust me, he's not an electrical engineer. The day an electrical engineer can't tell you whether you can charge a capacitor off DC alternator current is the day that engineer is dead. This is a shill.

robinson
28th July 2008, 08:21 AM
Where do you think emissions come from? Unburned fuel. The best engines are 60% efficient.

Most engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. A well tuned average engines has an average efficiency of about 20%.

http://mb-soft.com/public2/engine.html
http://courses.washington.edu/me341/oct22v2.htm

If anything is added to the fuel/air mix to decrease the temperature, prevent precombustion (knocking), while allowing leaning of the fuel mix, you get better mileage. You can lean out any engine and get way better gas mileage, right now. Until the engine burns up.

Current engines also run a fuel/air mix designed to decrease pollution.

Unburnt fuel is burned in the catalytic converter, to decrease pollution.

No engine is anywhere close to 60%, much less 99% efficient. If you can get a gasoline engine to use 50% of the fuel, right now, you would really have something.

Considering the matter, and drifting off topic, uses gasoline to heat water and run a steam turbine would be far more efficient than an ICE. You could get up to 90% efficiency doing that.

Oh wait, that is exactly what we do already, to generate power. Just not in cars and trucks.

GreyICE
28th July 2008, 09:07 AM
No engine is anywhere close to 60%, much less 99% efficient. If you can get a gasoline engine to use 50% of the fuel, right now, you would really have something.

Combustion efficiency Robinson. Combustion efficiency. I've said it like umpteen zillion times.

Horatius
28th July 2008, 10:03 AM
Combustion efficiency Robinson. Combustion efficiency. I've said it like umpteen zillion times.



The problem may be they don't understand the distinction.


Efficiency of fuel use does not equal efficiency of energy use.

Even if you burned 100% of the fuel available, an ICE would still waste a lot of the energy, as heat, friction and all that.

Modern engines apparently burn close to 99% of the fuel available, but they still lose a lot of energy in converting the energy from the heat of burning to the forward motion of the car. How can adding a bit of hydrogen to the fuel affect the conversion efficiencies of the engine? Heat energy from burning hydrogen would be wasted by the engine at the same rate that heat energy from gasoline is wasted. Unless the hydrogen is putting in a lot more energy than the gasoline, you're no better off than you were before.

jimbob
28th July 2008, 11:12 AM
Hydrogen mixed with oxygen is far more powerful than an equal mass of anything else. But it is so light, it seems much less powerful.

What about Hydrogen and Fluorine? Not terribly practical, but hey that seems to cover gaseous hydrogen and oxygen too.

jimbob
28th July 2008, 11:35 AM
A couple of weeks of cycling will help you with the overweight problem, won't they? Being 50 is a lame excuse. Even if your work is 1000 foot down the hill, it's only a climb of 5%.

DDT: You haven't mentioned how many obese people you see in the Netherlands. Last time I looked it was precious few.

Anyway 1000ft downhill is fun...

GreyICE
28th July 2008, 11:35 AM
What about Hydrogen and Fluorine? Not terribly practical, but hey that seems to cover gaseous hydrogen and oxygen too.
No, that actually has a lower efficiency per unit mass. Because you need one atom of F2 for every one atom of H2, the amount of energy extracted is actually lower, per unit mass (obviously Oxygen and Fluorine are the majority of the mass in either case, so doubling the largest mass is obviously a bit of a problem).

There are many reactions more energetic than Hydrogen and Oxygen, but in terms of energy/mass, it's really hard to beat.

ddt
28th July 2008, 01:02 PM
DDT: You haven't mentioned how many obese people you see in the Netherlands. Last time I looked it was precious few.
That's because of the biking! :D


Anyway 1000ft downhill is fun...

Absolutely. Do take care you have a quality bike, though. I thought I had one, until I tried to go 70 km/h downhill :(

jimbob
28th July 2008, 02:40 PM
ddt, that was what I was implying...

Seriously though, even 20mph downhill would give a reasonable commute...

With maybe an electric assist? I have no idea how good they are, but if I was in such a situation and worried about both gas and my ability to cycle up hills, I'd consider it...

Now bears, or icestorms, would convince me that cycling was a bad idea.

Thanks GreyIce.

This is the other factor that I haven't seen mentioned on:

"200-miles between charges" not to dissimilar to "200-miles on a tank". Except it takes only a few minutes to fill a tank of petrol up.

Off topic, but the IET (used to be the UK's IEE) magazine has an amusing eco-supercar...

Here... (http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/0812/rocket-on-wheels-0812.cfm)

1.3 litre Suzuki Hyabusa 4-cylinder, 16 valve, aluminium, turbo-charged engine.
750hp.
100mph in the first gear.
260mph with two gears and 615hp on standby.
Price: €1.83m.
Fuel consumption: 85mpg.
Top speed: 650km/h, limited to 550km/h.

He also is developing an electric version, mentioned in the article.

ddt
28th July 2008, 03:48 PM
Seriously though, even 20mph downhill would give a reasonable commute...
At a commute of 3.5 miles, that would be 10 minutes, wouldn't it? Of course, going 40 mph downhill is more fun: overtaking cars yourself and not having to worry about the cars wanting to overtake you. :)


With maybe an electric assist? I have no idea how good they are, but if I was in such a situation and worried about both gas and my ability to cycle up hills, I'd consider it...
E.g., the Sparta Ion (http://sparta.nl/uk/sparta-ION-page.asp?id=20001&menu=1). That (Dutch) bike company was known in the 1990s for having a bike "Spartamet" with a combustion engine as assist, which you could simply start while riding. I have no idea how well they do with this electrical assist. I do note that, with 28 kg, the bike weighs the double of mine and the triple of a true racing bike.

With the bridges over rivers as major "climbs", I personally wouldn't consider it in a long time. (the 40 mph downhill was on biking holiday in the Ardennes).


"200-miles between charges" not to dissimilar to "200-miles on a tank". Except it takes only a few minutes to fill a tank of petrol up.
But when you apply that to a bike with assist: you come home from work and plug it in in a wall socket and you don't care about how many hours it costs (as long as it's loaded the next morning).


Off topic, but the IET (used to be the UK's IEE) magazine has an amusing eco-supercar...

Here... (http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/0812/rocket-on-wheels-0812.cfm)

1.3 litre Suzuki Hyabusa 4-cylinder, 16 valve, aluminium, turbo-charged engine.
750hp.
100mph in the first gear.
260mph with two gears and 615hp on standby.
Price: Ä1.83m.
Fuel consumption: 85mpg.
Top speed: 650km/h, limited to 550km/h.

He also is developing an electric version, mentioned in the article.
Cool specs. Note the similarity in shape with the drop-shaped bikes that are said to get to 40mph on a flat road. I wonder how he got that engine to operate in such wide ranges. And who delivers the brakes. AFAIK, BMW limits its top models to 325km/h because the brake manufacturer doesn't guarantee the brakes at higher speeds.

TjW
28th July 2008, 08:03 PM
Also, did you know that these HHO generators are really just very large capacitors, with water as the electrolyte? So even though itís supplied by 12 volts, thousands of volts are built up on the plates. Thatís what causes the water to break down (dis-associate) into gas.

You guys should really do your research before you cry foul. Iím not done with my research. But I wonít be back here to talk about it. I think most of the posters here are too irrational, immature, and frankly, too inexperienced to have a decent conversation with.

This is wrong. A capacitor with a voltage across it will charge to the level of the voltage across it.

A resonant circuit can generate an A.C. voltage that's higher than the excitation voltage, but that's not just a capacitor.

Driving electrolysis with a high voltage is inherently inefficient. Electrolysis is a current driven process. There are a certain number of electrons in a mole of water. There is a certain number in the combined moles of oxygen and hydrogen generated from them. The second number is larger than the first. To split the water, those electrons need to be supplied. To do that, you have to move them into the area. Moving electrons are current.

The best efficency comes when supplying sufficient current at relatively low voltage. This has been known for 150 years.

GreyICE
28th July 2008, 08:39 PM
This is wrong. A capacitor with a voltage across it will charge to the level of the voltage across it.


Why is everyone talking about charging capacitors with an alternator? Why? Why discuss various methods of producing enough current?

CAR ALTERNATORS HAVE DC RECTIFIERS

It's like asking what sort of gas mileage your car gets underwater. It's like being lost in the woods and asking people how to ensure an even heating of your microwave dinner.

David Rodale
28th July 2008, 09:03 PM
Combustion efficiency Robinson. Combustion efficiency. I've said it like umpteen zillion times.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GreyICE
28th July 2008, 09:14 PM
How efficient is an ICE running on say, 65% ethanol and 35% water? How about 50% diesel and 50% water? Approximitely zero. Why are you trying to stick water in your engine? You're just going to kill it.

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

Keep particular focus on "Part-Load Operation". You folks still don't get it. Yes, we don't get it. We don't get how people plan to install it on existing engines.

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

Why not dissect Fran Giroux's website (http://hydrogen-boost.com/)? How does he survive after these many years promoting "woo"? There's a video at the bottom. Is he a scammer too? Do trucking firms make it habit of flushing money down the toilet? Ha! I posted the 2005 Tour De Sol mileage contest a while back. Did Fran cheat? I don't know. Some homeopaths have been in business for 20 years.

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

soylent
28th July 2008, 09:26 PM
It may well be the case that subs can produce hydrogen and oxygen. I suspect that would be easy, especially given all the surplus power in a nuclear sub, it does`t matter if the system is not efficient.

Nuclear subs generate oxygen from water and throw away the hydrogen. :)

TheDaver
29th July 2008, 05:04 AM
Well, I have to admit that durango and his goons are openminded. That tends to happen when your brain has long ago vacated the space.

David Rodale
29th July 2008, 06:31 AM
Approximitely zero. Why are you trying to stick water in your engine? You're just going to kill it.
Yes, we don't get it. We don't get how people plan to install it on existing engines. Pixies. Obv. I don't know. Some homeopaths have been in business for 20 years.
Psychic powers. That was easy. Go win the million dollar challenge on this page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Type "ignition" into the search window.

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

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

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

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



Yes, we don't get it. We don't get how people plan to install it on existing engines. Pixies. Obv. I don't know. Some homeopaths have been in business for 20 years. Plan to? As I said, it is nothing new to me. You still have not responded to my request to address Fran Giroux. If he weren't a straight shooter, I'd have branded him as such. Allen Caggiano found that out.

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

Now, a compact fuel reformer is a different story.

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

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

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

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

robinson
29th July 2008, 06:52 AM
YouTube is replete with home built Hydrogen boost units, including complete construction, testing, mileage figures, problems, how to compensate for O2 sensors, pollution reduction figures, and advanced circuitry to maximize electrolysis, as well as what not to do, and all sorts of stuff.

Including a few skeptics who built units and tested them.

Fascinating subject. I have been following it for years, since the Joe Cell crap hit the Network. The Canadian Company I linked to twice now, looks like a reputable company doing what everybody (who didn't try it of course) said is impossible.

Adding hydrogen/oxygen from an electrolysis unit to the fuel stream, reducing pollutiom, increasing mileage, and doing it without breaking the bank.

Too bad this wasn't on the table as paranormal. They could have won the challenge.

Hindmost
29th July 2008, 09:34 AM
Approximately zero? I've been lurking for the last several weeks watching you and a few others demonstrate much ignorance and lack of real world experience with ICE's. Thanks for proving the point on this one as I had first hand knowledge of the Smart Plug beginning in 1995, then the prototype builds and subsequent road tests. At the beginning of this or another thread you were given the opportunity to check it out, but chose to blow it off.

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

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

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

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

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

Type "ignition" into the search window.

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

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

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

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



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

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

Now, a compact fuel reformer is a different story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thermo just won't allow quantum leaps in efficiency.

glenn

GreyICE
29th July 2008, 10:30 AM
Approximately zero? I've been lurking for the last several weeks watching you and a few others demonstrate much ignorance and lack of real world experience with ICE's. Thanks for proving the point on this one as I had first hand knowledge of the Smart Plug beginning in 1995, then the prototype builds and subsequent road tests. At the beginning of this or another thread you were given the opportunity to check it out, but chose to blow it off.
*Yawn*

You're trying to burn water according to you. Good luck with that one.

My suggestion would be to build a hydrogen electrolyzer yourself. It's really quite simple. Are you afraid to find out? A sealed 6-7 plate type cell is the most efficient I'm aware of. 1.48V minimum per cell is required.Yes, obviously it's up the person who thinks insane claims are insane to prove they're insane.

Glenn posted a nice summary of the advantages (using an engine DESIGNED for it) - cleaner burning. A noble goal, but hardly these quantum leaps in efficiency we're talking about

pgwenthold
29th July 2008, 01:14 PM
Fran Giroux's stuff claims that HHO exists...it doesn't.


Depends on what you mean by "exist."


There is no such molecule as HHO and no such thing as Brown's gas. Try making a dot diagram and you will see.


Lewis theory is pretty good when it comes to predicting stability, but stability is a relative term. I can easily draw a Lewis structure for HHO. It isn't pretty in a Lewis sense, but it is certainly possible. It won't have typical bonding characteristics that we would expect (the HO "bond length" is going to be long - in fact, it will need to be triplet state (two parallel spin electrons) in order to be linear; basically, it is H2 complexed to triplet O) but it would exist as a stable system if you could generate it near 0K in intergalactic space (I don't think anyone has made it in the lab, though, last time I looked) It won't be strongly held together, that's certainly true

So from a technical sense, the HHO molecule does exist. Of course, there's no way it's being formed in any sense at room temp in any of this crap, but it's possible.


PS it looks like the linear quintet is also weakly bound (but very weakly), at least by perturbation theory

jimbob
29th July 2008, 02:11 PM
Cool specs. Note the similarity in shape with the drop-shaped bikes that are said to get to 40mph on a flat road. I wonder how he got that engine to operate in such wide ranges. And who delivers the brakes. AFAIK, BMW limits its top models to 325km/h because the brake manufacturer doesn't guarantee the brakes at higher speeds.

Although to be fair it seems to be more like a recumbent motorbike in an aerodynamic body and with stabilisers than a car. Given its height off the ground I imagine 65kph feels pretty fast let alone 650kph...


But when you apply that to a bike with assist: you come home from work and plug it in in a wall socket and you don't care about how many hours it costs (as long as it's loaded the next morning).

I was thinking about electric cars. (I noticed some more about Vanadium chemistry today, after a long hiatus, which might answer that).

Another digression: If you are able-bodied, what would be the point of a Seagway? Slower than a bike, more expensive than most, limited range, and no excercise. (mods: should this be in a different thread?)

Hindmost
29th July 2008, 03:42 PM
Depends on what you mean by "exist."



Lewis theory is pretty good when it comes to predicting stability, but stability is a relative term. I can easily draw a Lewis structure for HHO. It isn't pretty in a Lewis sense, but it is certainly possible. It won't have typical bonding characteristics that we would expect (the HO "bond length" is going to be long - in fact, it will need to be triplet state (two parallel spin electrons) in order to be linear; basically, it is H2 complexed to triplet O) but it would exist as a stable system if you could generate it near 0K in intergalactic space (I don't think anyone has made it in the lab, though, last time I looked) It won't be strongly held together, that's certainly true

So from a technical sense, the HHO molecule does exist. Of course, there's no way it's being formed in any sense at room temp in any of this crap, but it's possible.


PS it looks like the linear quintet is also weakly bound (but very weakly), at least by perturbation theory

OK, you've exceeded my knowledge of chemistry at quantum levels and cryogenic temperatures. (I'm an engineer). I was only considering standard Lewis bonding stuff. However, as you state, there is no way HHO forms any type of molecule under normal electrolysis and combustion conditions.

I don't think anyone is claiming to get close 0 k in an engine, but this could be fun:)

glenn

Dan O.
29th July 2008, 06:51 PM
Another digression: If you are able-bodied, what would be the point of a Seagway? Slower than a bike, more expensive than most, limited range, and no excercise. (mods: should this be in a different thread?)

You ever try to take a bike on a subway during rush hour?

Horatius
29th July 2008, 07:23 PM
Another digression: If you are able-bodied, what would be the point of a Seagway? Slower than a bike, more expensive than most, limited range, and no excercise. (mods: should this be in a different thread?)



Well, I wouldn't say "no exercise". You are standing up the whole time.


Not that that's a great selling point, either, mind you....

ddt
30th July 2008, 02:45 AM
Another digression: If you are able-bodied, what would be the point of a Seagway? Slower than a bike, more expensive than most, limited range, and no excercise. (mods: should this be in a different thread?)
You're absolutely right. I've never seen the Segway as more than a gadget. But then: what's the point of a moped if you're not allowed to go faster than 30kph in town anyway? Or in Holland, there's a special category of light mopeds which aren't allowed to go faster than 25kph (and you don't get to wear a helmet).


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

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

TheDaver
30th July 2008, 02:58 AM
YouTube is replete with home built Hydrogen boost units, including complete construction, testing, mileage figures, problems, how to compensate for O2 sensors, pollution reduction figures, and advanced circuitry to maximize electrolysis, as well as what not to do, and all sorts of stuff.

Including a few skeptics who built units and tested them.

Fascinating subject. I have been following it for years, since the Joe Cell crap hit the Network. The Canadian Company I linked to twice now, looks like a reputable company doing what everybody (who didn't try it of course) said is impossible.

Adding hydrogen/oxygen from an electrolysis unit to the fuel stream, reducing pollutiom, increasing mileage, and doing it without breaking the bank.

Too bad this wasn't on the table as paranormal. They could have won the challenge.
Too bad nobody’s had their mileage claims verified through independent testing.

robinson
30th July 2008, 08:34 AM
I can't imagine the Canadian Company doesn't have independent testing. It is a publicly traded stock. I made some phone calls, waiting for some confirmation on several claims.