Run your car on water??????

[Elfie]

The alternator is not making excess energy.

That is correct. The alternator never makes excess electricity. (not unless the alternator is faulty of course.) Yet there is always the capacity for the alternator to make more electricity no matter how many of the cars accessories are turned on.

For example.....while driving it becomes dark enough that it is prudent to turn on the vehicles lights. When you do so, the alternator puts out enough electricity to power the lights so that you aren't running the battery dead. The vehicle doesn't become less efficient simply because you turned on the lights. (This in it's most simplest terms)

It is the excess capacity that Hornet will be using to produce hydrogen

[Hornet33]

maybe try it this way?


we all know it's going to cost us more to make the hho than the btu's we getout of it.

we're combining the hho with the gasoline. so since the range is said to be 20% to 50% increase in mileage.

we'll go on th low side.

say it costs us about 5% loss of effeciency in the engine to do this. but we gain 20% by the result.(with all the cars systems working together)

 hornet,
when they ran the tests on the dyno, did they have a way to determine just how much load extra this will put on your trucks systems?

No they didn't and the ASE Certified Instructor told me with the alternator I have installed right now they wouldn't even be able to detect an extra 20amp load when comparing that to engine loading.

If I recall correctly without having the printout right here in front of me, I believe my truck with lights on, radio on, AC on normal at half fan was pulling around 35-40 amps of power from the alternator to run all those systems and recharge the battery. We did messure that through out the tests and it never went above 42 amps draw right after startup. I have a 140 amp alternator in the truck. The instructor told me until I'm pulling around 100 amps of power the engine will never notice the current load.

Also my booster is designed to run at less than 20 amps, around 12-15 amps in normal conditions, about what a "tuned" CB radio or 2 meter HAM radio would draw while transmitting.

I guess if Holden is right though I better remove my CB from my truck or I'm going to lose a bunch of gas mileage because I'm loading down my alternator too much. Better get rid of the extra fog lamps too because they pull at least 10 amps when they're on.

But this all goes back to the whole point. The booster does NOT put any real additional load on the engine when operating because the alternators are designed to handle much higher loads than what they do in normal operation.

Gear heads understand this.

[Elfie]

Gear heads understand this.

 


Even if I don't know exactly how to explain it, I understand it perfectly. 

[Holden McGroin]

and this makes no sense to you ?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a likely source of those doubts. Meaning ...the law -would lead you to believe that it will certainly take more power to produce this hydrogen than can be regained by burning it in the engine. i.e. the resulting energy balance should be negative. If the aim is to create hydrogen by electrolysis to be burned as a fuel, the concept is ridiculous. On the other hand, if hydrogen, shortens the burn time of the main fuel-air mix, putting more pressure on the piston through a longer effective power stroke, and in doing so takes more work out, then this system does make sense.

1. I have no doubts because of the the second law.

2. When I have to burn 4 or 5 btus to make hydrogen to make gasoline burn better, it must make the burn incredible efficient just to make up for the inefficiency of the production of hydrogen.

3. longer effective power stroke,--- the length of the power stroke is is defined by the geometry of the engine, not it's fuel.

4.  It seems like it would be an automatic engineering PHD at MIT if somebody achieved 50 mpg in an f150 PU.

5. When you Google '"brown's gas" MIT thesis' you get 68 hits, and most of them that actually deal with BG are debunking it.  If anybody can find a doctoral thesis showing somebody got his PHD by converting his F150 with a system like this and got better milage than he started out with this, I would love to see it.

[Holden McGroin]

I honestly believe Holden MUST be a corporate CEO of an oil company or auto company and he's reading these threads in absolute terror that his income is going to dry up if the word gets out that we can run our cars with less gas (in the case of Oil CEO) and do it cheaper than the auto companies could do it (in the case of auto CEO) because it's all open source information and they can't patent the device.

I am a mechanical engineer and understand basic thermodynamics.

>edit

I am not reading in absolute terror, I am reading in disbelief that there is so much work going on on something that can have such minimal potential. 

You could save more energy by following Obamas advice for much less money. 

Take your foot off the accelerator. 

Ride a bicycle to work (as I do)

[Nashwan]

That is correct. The alternator never makes excess electricity. (not unless the alternator is faulty of course.) Yet there is always the capacity for the alternator to make more electricity no matter how many of the cars accessories are turned on.

That depends what you have fitted to your car and how well the alternator is performing. It's true for a large majority of cars, though.

For example.....while driving it becomes dark enough that it is prudent to turn on the vehicles lights. When you do so, the alternator puts out enough electricity to power the lights so that you aren't running the battery dead. The vehicle doesn't become less efficient simply because you turned on the lights.

Yes, it does. If you turn on the lights the alternator needs more power from the engine, which means you burn more fuel.

I linked some time ago to an EU report on the effects of having headlights on in daylight. From memory it would average out to about 0.1 litres of fuel an hour.

[Hornet33]

So how is it that you don't understand what is happening?

The booster is NO DIFFERENT than hooking up a radio amplifier, CB, fog lamps, or any other after market high power electrical device in your car, and all those draw anywhere from 10-40 amps depending on what it is. Do those items create a huge loss in gas mileage?

NO because the alternator is designed to handle those current loads without affecting the load on the engine itself.

So with no real engine load to worry about I can hook my booster up, draw 20 amps of available power and create HHO gas with it. That gets dumped into the air intake of the engine and binds with the fuel/air mixture and makes the fuel burn at a higher temp and with a faster flame front which gives a more complete burn of the fuel resulting in a harder power stroke ie increased horsepower, less heat transfer to the engine block due to the faster burn rate, thus increasing overall engine efficiency and using less fuel to maintain the same power and RPM's of the engine.

This entire process takes into account the 2nd law of thermodynamics you love to preach about and it does not violate that law. You just have to put the math down and look at it from the practical aspect to understand it.

[Elfie]

I linked some time ago to an EU report on the effects of having headlights on in daylight. From memory it would average out to about 0.1 litres of fuel an hour.

   

I don't put much stock in government reports, simply because they are government reports.

[Holden McGroin]

The booster is NO DIFFERENT than hooking up a radio amplifier, CB, fog lamps, or any other after market high power electrical device in your car, and all those draw anywhere from 10-40 amps depending on what it is. Do those items create a huge loss in gas mileage?

A 200 W stereo system will require 200 W be produced bt the engine above that which is being used to move the automobile.  At typical efficiencies, this mean about a 1 hp equivalent increase in fuel burn. (Measured at the gas tank.)

This entire process takes into account the 2nd law of thermodynamics you love to preach about and it does not violate that law. You just have to put the math down and look at it from the practical aspect to understand it.

Math is pure logic.  You ask me to abandon logic to understand.  I cannot do that.  All of my understanding of the way things work comes from logic.

[Elfie]

That depends what you have fitted to your car and how well the alternator is performing. It's true for a large majority of cars, though.

For those vehicles it is not true for, then they need a new alternator. One that does have that extra capacity. You need at least some extra capacity so you can replace the battery power used when starting the vehicle. If that extra capacity is not present, the battery will eventually go dead and you won't be able to start the vehicle.

[LYNX]

3. longer effective power stroke,--- the length of the power stroke is is defined by the geometry of the engine, not it's fuel.

Assuming you understand how a 4 stroke combustion engine works does it not make sense that a longer power stroke is derived from a quicker burn of the fuel.  I'll try that another way.  Petrol goes phuuuut but hydrogen + petrol goes bang.  Or another way.  Normal fuels go into ignition a good bit before TDC.  A backwards force is exerted against the piston crown creating friction and heat until it goes past TDC.  Then the "Continuing" explotion turns into work a good bit past TDC when the explosion has finished.   Now shorten the explotion cycle and you have less backward force less friction and a longer power stroke because the fuel has been converted to WORK QUICKER.

[Hornet33]

Awww I quit with Holden, he's an engineer. Never met one who would listen to anything or anyone other than their slide ruler. Of course as a technician working in the real world with real products I have to constantly tell the engineers that what they designed doesn't work and give them a practical solution to their theroretical problem, and 9 times out of 10 they tell me what I propose wont work. That is until I modify their design myself and make it work, then they scratch their heads trying to figure out how I did it because the math doesn't add up.

Been there, done it, have the t-shirt, along with 3 Coast Guard Achievment Medals detailing my practical solutions to engineering nightmares that I've had handed to me over the years, and those were Electronic and Electrical Engineers. Lord help machanical engineers. I've seen machanical shipboard engineers screw up a wet dream too many times.

Perfect excample of those guys. They took 8 110" cutters and figured out with their fancy math and slide rulers that they could stretch the hulls an extra 23 feet, put in a stern launched small boat ramp, and get higher speed out of the ship due to a longer hull length. Looked real good on paper, but they didn't listen to the technicians that work on those boats or the Bosn' Mates who drive them when we all told them it was a bad idea and wouldn't work. 6 months after the first one was completed they cracked the hull. Out came the engineers saying that's impossible, untill they saw the cracks. The engineers decided to brace the entire structure to "fix" the problem. Technicians and drivers told them it wouldn't work. 6 months later the braces failed and more cracks happened. All in all 15 million dollars were spent on a bunch of engineers pipe dreams and all 8 ships were decommisioned in place because they were no longer safe to operate.

I've said it before and I'll say it again Holden, your math doesn't add up in the real world.

[Maverick]

Shortening the explosion (really improper term it's burning not detonating in a normally operating engine) in an engine has deleterious effects on the engine. That's why when you have detonation going on you are destroying the engine not making it run better. Detonation ruins the piston and valve assembly making "bad things" happen inside the block. If you are going to change the burn rate of the fuel you'll also have to change the point of time in the cycle when the ignition takes place. Having it detonate (not burn but actually detonate) BTDC would cause a lot of strain on the engine's components and or make the engine run backwards.

[Hornet33]

A 200 W stereo system will require 200 W be produced bt the engine above that which is being used to move the automobile.  At typical efficiencies, this mean about a 1 hp equivalent increase in fuel burn. (Measured at the gas tank.)

Math is pure logic.  You ask me to abandon logic to understand.  I cannot do that.  All of my understanding of the way things work comes from logic.

No a 200 watt amplifier typicaly requires about 15-20 amps at 12 volts DC of power from the elctrical system to operate. That power draw doesn't come close to the maximum available power the alternator is capable of generating when the engine is running either at idle or 5000 RPM (doesn't matter). The power requirments for those systems and the outputs of those systems, while tied together are NOT directly proportional. That's were your math is completly hosed up.

[Hornet33]

Shortening the explosion (really improper term it's burning not detonating in a normally operating engine) in an engine has deleterious effects on the engine. That's why when you have detonation going on you are destroying the engine not making it run better. Detonation ruins the piston and valve assembly making "bad things" happen inside the block. If you are going to change the burn rate of the fuel you'll also have to change the point of time in the cycle when the ignition takes place. Having it detonate (not burn but actually detonate) BTDC would cause a lot of strain on the engine's components and or make the engine run backwards.

That's true if your trying to run an ICE on hydrogen ONLY. That's not what we are doing here. We're adding just enough to get the fuel to burn more completely. Big differance.