Run your car on water??????

[CAP1]

You still have to fire before TDC because your primary agent is still fossil fuel and it still requires a certain amount of compression to ignite. The HHO just allows it to ignite much faster.

wouldn't much more effeciently be a better way to phrase it?

[Nashwan]

Popular Mechanics have been testing a hydrogen injection system:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html

They don't think much of it. However, the last bit highlights why I think Hornet needs not just a before and after test, but a test with every modification he has made, just without the hydrogen and oxygen being fed in to the engine:

I had another long talk yesterday with Steve Rumore, my off-road buddy turned HHO donater. He's experimenting with several vehicles, and actually getting some consistent results—fuel-economy improvements to the tune of 10 to 12 percent on diesel trucks pulling trailers. He's tinkering with some of the same things Giroux is suggesting. We're looking into ways to refine both his and my experimental methods. But I'm convinced there's a lot of placebo effect. I also think that these mods may be increasing fuel economy independently of the HHO injection. So stay tuned, because we're still testing. Once we get some more data onboard, we'll be dyno testing.

[CAP1]

Your right our's isn't in the same ballpark. Our's is much easier to do and the priciple objective and results are still the same. To supplement the fuel burning in the engine with hydrogen

 BUT they did prove that adding hydrogen to the fuel mix DOES improve the thermal efficiency of an engine

hornet,

i think these two statements tell all much better than any numbers anyone could put out there.

it states that we're "supplementing" the engines fuel supply, and that we're increasing it's thermal effeciency.

cost(for instance)10%
result(low side)    20%
profit(mileage gained)10%


i think




5

[Holden McGroin]

Your right our's isn't in the same ballpark.

So you admit that wall of text based on the JPL test you submitted showing some foundation for your work is bogus.

OK

Our's is much easier to do and the priciple objective and results are still the same.

Only about four percent of hydrogen gas produced worldwide is created by electrolysis, and normally used onsite. Nuke plants make it for hydrogen cooled generators.

Sandia says that electrolysis can be about 65% energy efficient, (read 35% loss) and they hope to stretch it to 80% by 2010 for small scale (2 kg/day) production.

Steam methane reforming is way easier, hence the reason 19 of 20 lbs of commercially produced H is made that way.

[Nashwan]

Also if you look down into that document they were only producing around .8lpm of hydrogen gas along with some other gasses that are hydrocarbons. Our's produce 1.5-2lpm of pure hydrogen and pure oxygen with 0 hydrocarbons present.

Can you tell me where they say 0.8 litres a minute? Looking through the doc, all I can see is 0.5 - 1.5 lbs an hour, which is about 42 - 126 litres a minute.

[Hornet33]

So you admit that wall of text based on the JPL test you submitted showing some foundation for your work is bogus.

OK

NO   IF you actually read all of that wall of text you'll see the JPL study was only talked about in 4 lines of text. Several other universities and institutes ran independant tests as well and those results are also in that wall of text. Also the author of that entire report is an engineering proffesor who wrote that study in 1998. So based on your statement above you admit that you haven't read a damn thing anyone has posted because you obviously can't be wrong can you?

I didn't jump into this entire thing without doing my homework. Alot of scientists and engineers with respectable backgrounds have published plenty of studies on these things and I've yet to find one single study performed on a properly built booster that didn't show positive results.

[Holden McGroin]

I have not argued that adding hydrogen to the combustion will not help.  My argument is that the production of hydrogen through electrolysis is going to at least balance any fuel efficiency, and will quite probably overwhelm it.  The JPL report shows improvement if one strips hydrogen off a hydrocarbon, it does not apply to your system.  The G.A. Karim report has nothing to do with the production of hydrogen, only the burning of it. The only place the George Vosper report comes up in Google is when HHO Booster websites site it. I cannot find the original report.

"All of these device/schemes seem to promote adding hydrogen to improve the combustion process. There is no way it can improve fuel economy by 50%, or even 5%," "One would expect to see a small increase or decrease (a few percent) in fuel economy from all of these devices, purely the result of test variability. However, people will put a device on their car and automatically change the way they drive. This in itself will improve fuel economy simply because a person is driving slower, etc.,"  --Dr. Robert Sawyer, Professor of Energy Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley .

"The Web sites I saw used a little bit of truth mixed in with a lot of false statements," "People need to forget about all the 'testimonials' they see because the only way to know if a device helps at all is to use a dynamometer. You not only need to test the MPG, but also what is happening to the combustion process of the engine, and the test has to be done numerous times."--Dr. John Kramlich, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Washington

"This has been around for years, but it didn't work back then and it won't work now, it's such a very small amount of hydrogen-oxygen gas that it is impossible to have any real effect on combustion: it just shows the desperation that some people feel" ---Dr. Andrew A. Frank Professor of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering at the University of California, Davis

"the potential for efficiency improvement by more rapid combustion is nowhere near the kinds of claims these Web sites make."--David Greene, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

"These hydrogen-on-demand Web sites are picking and choosing which SAE factoids to use, but if you added it all up, you would have nothing." "This stuff has been around forever and it's been researched to death. It's a simple electrolyzer that could quite possibly cause more energy to be used than if you didn't use the device. It's as 'scammish' as anything I have ever seen," ---Dr. Thomas Asmus, Fuel Economy Panel for the National Academy of Science.

You can prove me wrong when you publish your results in the SAE journal and submit them for peer review.  I will then admit defeat and call you a genius. 

Until then you are chasing rainbows.

[CAP1]

I have not argued that adding hydrogen to the combustion will not help.  My argument is that the production of hydrogen through electrolysis is going to at least balance any fuel efficiency, and will quite probably overwhelm it.   

i may be mis-reading, or mis-interpreting, but the above seems to me to be a contradictory statement.

if adding hydrogen helps, it helps.

if the process to make the hydrogen for the engine overwhelms the rest of the systems, and there is no improvement, then it was no help. you say it will balance out, thus it(as you state) will not help, thus it will be no improvement.

 so..what i read from that, is that you are actually arguing that it will not help.

i could be wrong though........

[Holden McGroin]

i may be mis-reading, or mis-interpreting, but the above seems to me to be a contradictory statement.

if adding hydrogen helps, it helps.

if the process to make the hydrogen for the engine overwhelms the rest of the systems, and there is no improvement, then it was no help. you say it will balance out, thus it(as you state) will not help, thus it will be no improvement.

 so..what i read from that, is that you are actually arguing that it will not help.

i could be wrong though........

I am argueing that the supposed increase in efficiency by adding hydrogen to the combustion will be more than counterbalanced by the cost of making the hydrogen.

Even if it were a net balance, ie. for every horsepower it took to make the hydrogen, you balanced by increased efficiency of your engine, then all you do is waste the time effort and money it takes to install a system that does nothing.

I would think that if Ford could outefficiency a Prius with a F-150 + a few hundred dollars of bolt on equipment, they would do so and save the company and the billions/quarter they are losing.

But I am willing to admit I am wrong when Hornet publishes his paper with SAE or Ford installs one on a production automobile.

[CAP1]

I am argueing that the supposed increase in efficiency by adding hydrogen to the combustion will be more than counterbalanced by the cost of making the hydrogen.

so you are than saying it won't work.

Even if it were a net balance, ie. for every horsepower it took to make the hydrogen, you balanced by increased efficiency of your engine, then all you do is waste the time effort and money it takes to install a system that does nothing.

basically another way of saying what you said in the first paragraph.

I would think that if Ford could outefficiency a Prius with a F-150 + a few hundred dollars of bolt on equipment, they would do so and save the company and the billions/quarter they are losing.


repeating yourself a third time.

But I am willing to admit I am wrong when Hornet publishes his paper with SAE or Ford installs one on a production automobile.

i think this is the second time you've changed your requirements to admitting you might be wrong when hornet posts his findings.

<<S>>

[Holden McGroin]

i think this is the second time you've changed your requirements to admitting you might be wrong when hornet posts his findings.

You think wrong.

First time establishes 

You can prove me wrong when you publish your results in the SAE journal and submit them for peer review.  I will then admit defeat and call you a genius.

Second time adds another possiblility, but does not change the first.

But I am willing to admit I am wrong when Hornet publishes his paper with SAE or Ford installs one on a production automobile.

I am always able to admit I am wrong.  When sombody repeals Einstein's relativity, then I will admit I was wrong for believing it.  I have scientific foundation for my opinions, can use an important tool of science (mathematics) to quantify my opinions and I do not rely on just gut feeling.

repeating yourself a third time.

No if I were repeating myself in that post you quote, it would have been the second time repeated.

Statement, first repeat, second repeat.

A third repeat would be a fourth statement.

However, what I said was not two repetitions, it was 'you may break even, you will probably lose, and at the end you will have less time and money to do something useful.'

[Elfie]

Ford installs one on a production automobile.

No auto maker is going to install one on a production vehicle until the daily maintenance (other than filling the water tank) is removed. The thing will have to be idiot proof as well. Doesn't sound like that is the case just yet.

[vorticon]

Lots more but this is a start.

Regards,
Kevin

fascinating stuff... still not sure what you meant when you said

"they will be real HP not the ICE pretend HP the auto industry uses."

is that referring to boiler HP?  and what i got from those links is, its the torque thats most important.

[DieAz]

fascinating stuff... still not sure what you meant when you said

"they will be real HP not the ICE pretend HP the auto industry uses."

is that referring to boiler HP?  and what i got from those links is, its the torque thats most important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doble_steam_car

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/1302916.html

[gunnss]

(Grin),
It was Kinda "tongue in cheek",  the remark is mostly due to the losses a conventional ICE suffers in converting the engine output to actual movement.  As a comparison, my Mercury comethas a 100 hp engine and weighs in at around 1800-2200 lb does 0 to 75 mph in around 25 seconds a Doble steam car with a 35 hp engine and weighing in at about 5200 lb accelerated 0-75 mph in 14 seconds. ICEs produce their best Hp at a very limited range of rpms, where a steam (or electric) power plant produce 100% torque at 0 rpms and maintain the Hp all the way up to the top end of the rpms of the power plant.

(Grin) Of course my other ride, is a two cylinder model and produces 5,485 Hp (it can pull a trailer weighing in at 15,900,000 lbs)

Regards,
Kevin

fascinating stuff... still not sure what you meant when you said

"they will be real HP not the ICE pretend HP the auto industry uses."

is that referring to boiler HP?  and what i got from those links is, its the torque thats most important.