Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tango on August 02, 2008, 08:36:51 AM
-
http://www.halfwaterhalfgas.com/letterpop.php
I wonder how many people are actually sending money in for this.
-
I wonder how many will have the guts to report that they were ripped off.
"Doh, I'm stoopid!"
-
Alot of people have paid for this garbage. This is the old waterforgas web site and they use masson jars, no bubblers or any other safety devices. Pretty much just building a fuel air bomb under the hood. Alot of people have seriously damaged their cars and gotten hurt with this set up, not to mention those book tell you to use baking soda as a catalyst, and regular tap water. NOT GOOD!!!! Tap water has too many impurities in it that will create a nasty brown sludge in the chamber, and baking soda will generate clorine gas and carbon dioxide which is really bad when you pump that into a running engine.
The hydroxy boosters do work for many people on many cars but they have to be built and maintained correctly. There are alot of things that have to be done to see results and most people don't know enough to read all the information out there and understand it all.
This is my first bench test booster made from cast acrylic tubing and 316 stainless steel electro plates in a double cell 8 plate per cell arrangment. This one make about 1.5 liters per minute of HHO gas and it burns just fine.
(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/671/pict0138bm7.jpg)
Booster chamber and bubblers
(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/3609/pict0099dy1.jpg)
Electro plate double cell
(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/7148/pict0100hl4.jpg)
Cell stack in the chamber
I'm building a larger chamber right now and have a new cell stack ready to install with a double stack 9 plate arrangment. Should get close to 2 LPM with the new one and that's what will go into my truck. I'll keep the smaller one as a bench test unti for further research.
-
See it's the oil companies keeping great ideas like this down.
-
I stand corrected, thanks for the info Hornet :salute
-
http://www.halfwaterhalfgas.com/letterpop.php
I wonder how many people are actually sending money in for this.
google search. you can find the plans free.
i did, and am building a small one right now
-
Alot of people have paid for this garbage. This is the old waterforgas web site and they use masson jars, no bubblers or any other safety devices. Pretty much just building a fuel air bomb under the hood. Alot of people have seriously damaged their cars and gotten hurt with this set up, not to mention those book tell you to use baking soda as a catalyst, and regular tap water. NOT GOOD!!!! Tap water has too many impurities in it that will create a nasty brown sludge in the chamber, and baking soda will generate clorine gas and carbon dioxide which is really bad when you pump that into a running engine.
The hydroxy boosters do work for many people on many cars but they have to be built and maintained correctly. There are alot of things that have to be done to see results and most people don't know enough to read all the information out there and understand it all.
This is my first bench test booster made from cast acrylic tubing and 316 stainless steel electro plates in a double cell 8 plate per cell arrangment. This one make about 1.5 liters per minute of HHO gas and it burns just fine.
(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/671/pict0138bm7.jpg)
Booster chamber and bubblers
(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/3609/pict0099dy1.jpg)
Electro plate double cell
(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/7148/pict0100hl4.jpg)
Cell stack in the chamber
I'm building a larger chamber right now and have a new cell stack ready to install with a double stack 9 plate arrangment. Should get close to 2 LPM with the new one and that's what will go into my truck. I'll keep the smaller one as a bench test unti for further research.
hornet....pm sent sir
-
this dude has some interesting theories
http://www.permaculture.com/
don't know how viable they are but it's worth a look
-
So, distilled water and some add-in "cocktail" would actually work there? I mean safely?
-
So, distilled water and some add-in "cocktail" would actually work there? I mean safely?
That's the sales pitch. So far no third party confirmation AFAIK.
-
So, distilled water and some add-in "cocktail" would actually work there? I mean safely?
Distilled water is 100% pure = no sludge. It is also 100% electricaly inert so an electrolite is needed to pass current through it. Potasium Hydroxide, KOH, or Sodium Hydroxide, NaOH are the preffered catalysts because neither give off any gasses when current is passed though them. Typically it takes roughly a tablespoon to 2 liters of distilled water to achive a good electrolite mixture. Fot the type of booster I'm building I'm looking for a 14 amp current draw on initial start up of a cold cell. I'll add or remove electrolite as needed be adding KOH or distilled water, until I have the current draw at 14 amps. Peak power draw should be around 20-22 amps when the cell is at max operating temp of around 120 degrees with an HHO output of between 1.5-2 liter per minute.
The output from the reaction chamber goes directly into a "bubbler" tube with the gas coming in through the bottom of the tube and bubbling up through distilled water before entering the air intake of the engine. The bubbler removes any traces of the KOH from the gas as well as cools the gas so steam is not injected into the engine. It also acts as a flame arrestor in the event of a back flash from the engine (not common in fuel injected engines, but possible in carborated engines) and prevents a flame front from going into the actual reaction chamber which is under pressure and filled with explosive HHO gas. There is also a one way check valve installed in the gas line between the booster and the bubbler to prevent the back pressure when the chamber cools from sucking water from the bubbler back into the lines and into the chamber.
Maverick is correct as far as I know about there being no published third party tests of one of these systems.....yet. I had my truck on the dyno at ATI Friday for the before install tests. Spent almost 2 hours having my truck run through it's paces in a controlled lab and they have all the data in their computer. When I finish my operational booster and have it installed, and the electronics package installed as well that adjusts the O2 sensor readings to compensate for the added O2 in the exahust, and I have some time to make any adjustments to the system, I'll be going back for a second round of tests for comparison to the baseline from Friday.
-
hornet....pm sent sir
Got your PM. I have all my parts lists, suppliers, and prices sitting on my desk at work. I'll shoot you a PM tomorrow sometime after lunch with all that info and the weblinks to the suppliers. 95% of the stuff I ordered online and had it shipped to my work address since I'm using the machine shop there to build the thing. Should also have some pics up this week, next week at the latest, of the booster in my truck.
-
How is salt for the job? Natrium chloride....it's used as a conductor for splitting water right?
Anyway, wasn't it supposed to be the heat who did the job there????
-
Salt is BAD!!!! Natrium Chloide gives off clorine gas when heated. No it isn't the heat that generates the HHO gas, it is the direct electrical current cracking the H2O into hydrogen and oxygen. The heat is generated from the electrical plates needed as conductors for the current. A properly built chamber with the correct amount of electrolite should never go above 130 degrees in normal operation. Any higher than that and your boiling the water and sending steam into the lines and engine.
Where people have problems is when they mount the things inside the engine compartment and over heat the booster just from the ambient air around the engine. Most people try and mount them in front of the radiator so they have fresh air flowing around the chamber but even then you have the engine heat in the radiator to deal with.
I'm mounting mine inside the tool box in the back of my truck. More or less using the tool box as a big aluminum heat sink. My test unit is still able to pump out 1.5 liters a minute through 2 bubblers and 25ft of 1/4" tubing so the distance from the engine isn't an issue. 1 bubbler will be co-located with the chamber in the tool box and the 2nd one will be mounted to the firewall right behind the intake manifold. Gives me 2 flash supressors/filters for the gas which is a good thing.
-
If this works, and is even workable under the hood of a car, how comes it isn't used as a powerplant?????????
I mean, land based, under completely controllable conditions (compared to tap water and sodium etc)...if it's so simple, why not used??
-
Hornet,
Since mileage increase is one of the main points to the gadget did the dyno folks get a run on fuel usage at power? Specifically using a measured amount of fuel at a given power setting to determine how long / far the vehicle would travel for that amount of gasoline? That way testing after modification could prove if there was a measurable change in fuel usage.
-
Yes they did. They hooked up a digital flow meter to the fuel input line at the intake manifold to messure true fuel flow into the engine. They had sensors hooked up all over the truck. They were also checking the emissions, manifold pressure, engine water and oil temp, as well as current draw on the battery and alternator. Test was run with lights on, radio turned on, and AC on normal at half fan speed to test everything at "normal" engine load conditions. They were pretty much looked at everything. Like I said I was there for around 2 hours with the truck on the rack.
-
If this works, and is even workable under the hood of a car, how comes it isn't used as a powerplant?????????
I mean, land based, under completely controllable conditions (compared to tap water and sodium etc)...if it's so simple, why not used??
Because to use the electrolisis system to creat hydrogen actually take more pure electrical power to creat than what you get out of it. So far no one has been able to use the hydrogen produced and turn that into enough electrical power to sustain the electrolisis hydrogen generation, let alone have power left over to put into the electrical grid.
What is being done with the vehicle boosters doesn't fall into that category though. We're using the excess available electrical power from the vehicles alternator to generate the hydrogen and that is being pumped into the engine as a supplemental fuel in addition to regular gasoline. This allows you to lean the fuel mix with the regular gas yet still retain the original engine power and performance, with the side benefit of less emissions, engine runs cooler saving the engine oil, and a increase in fuel mileage. Depending on how well the booster is built, the output achieved from the booster and how well the engines computer is able to be tuned and adjusted for the new fuel air mix, will detiremine how much of an increase you see. Some cars do better than others and there are a bunch of different systems out there. I honestly don't expect to get over 20mpg when mine is installed but seeing as I ONLY get 11mpg right now during my "normal" driving, any increase will help. If I can get 15-20mpg after the install, that is a big improvment that will save me money down the road.
Figure my commute is 10 miles one way, I'm using almost 2 gallons of gas a day just to get back and forth to work. Call it $6 a day just for work. Now if I can cut that almost in half, say $4 a day to get back and forth to work, well in one month that's around $50. Now these are all round figures right now, but who couldn't use an extra $50 a month, maybe more? Who wouldn't like getting an extra 50-60 miles out of a tank of gas? Might not seem like much but considering these things don't take allot of money to build and operate they can pay for themselves quickly and save you money down the road.......if you build it and maintain it right.
-
i think everyone that doesn't believe this can work, is either overlooking, or missing one thing.
although we're looking to inject a gas into the engine, we're not looking to replace air. with the injected gas, we can also adjust the computer to inject less gasoline. the hho gas will replace that, and still allow us to produce the same power from the engine.
although you;re going to bring up the amp draw now, that is fairly insignificant. the alternator on the average car only costs 3 to 5 horsepower when it is fully loaded. most vehicles are equipped with 100 to 120 amp alternators. in the case of hornet;s dodge, i think it's a 100 amp unit.
with his a/c on high, wipers, and hi beams on, he'll load the alt. enough to run at about 70 amps i think. now add in the 20 amp draw from the booster, and he's still below the max output of the alternator.
top that off with the fact that the alt. will run at that output till the battery is at full charge, and it will lower it's output.
so for the cost of less than 5 horspower, if one can gain even just 20% in mileage, i think that has to be a winning deal.
-
My truck has the towing package installed with the heavy duty 140 amp alternator. I very rarely tow anything so I'm not even coming close to pushing the alternator to it's limits. I've got more excess power at my fingertips than I know what to do with. 20 amps is nothing. The previous owner towed a travel trailer with electric brakes on it so he installed the heavy duty alternator and K&N cold air intake to boost performance. I'm just taking it a step further.
We'll see.
-
i think everyone that doesn't believe this can work, is either overlooking, or missing one thing.
although we're looking to inject a gas into the engine, we're not looking to replace air. with the injected gas, we can also adjust the computer to inject less gasoline. the hho gas will replace that, and still allow us to produce the same power from the engine.
although you;re going to bring up the amp draw now, that is fairly insignificant. the alternator on the average car only costs 3 to 5 horsepower when it is fully loaded. most vehicles are equipped with 100 to 120 amp alternators. in the case of hornet;s dodge, i think it's a 100 amp unit.
It takes more power to make the HHO fuel than you get when you burn the fuel.
So, with the injected gas, we can also adjust the computer to inject less gasoline.
No, you have to inject enough gasoline to make the power required to electrolyze the water to make your HHO. And we know that this is more than you retrieve when you burn the HHO.
The only way this system could possibly help is if it somehow makes the gasoline burn more efficient. This has yet to be seen.
-
I tried to run my car on water once.
Was running from the cops. The car sank straight to the bottom once I got on the water.
-
It takes more power to make the HHO fuel than you get when you burn the fuel.
that assumes everything else is running at a very high efficiency. The idea seems to be that engines run at low enough of an efficiency that the improvements caused by burning the HHO is greater than the decrease in efficiency caused by a minor load on the alternator and added weight of the water. While there is bound to be a net energy loss, it may manifest in a part of the picture they are not concerned with...as long as they get that few extra miles out of a gallon of gasoline.
-
that assumes everything else is running at a very high efficiency.
No, it assumes that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is valid.
-
The excess electricity, okay...
But if the alternator is being squeezed for every available amper, isn't it heavier anyway, hence more fuel consumption?
-
What makes the alternator spin? What gives it it's energy?
-
The connection with the engine swingwheel via the fan belt...typically...
Always thought the Alternator took less muscle when not or hardly charging at all (cutout), after all, just the ignition and even the front lights only take a part of the amps. You'd typically have like say 90 amps at 14v or so, giving you a close to 1KW which is only 1.36 hp.
So is it or is it not heavier when running idle?
-
What makes the alternator spin? What gives it it's energy?
Funding.
-
It takes more power to make the HHO fuel than you get when you burn the fuel.
So, No, you have to inject enough gasoline to make the power required to electrolyze the water to make your HHO. And we know that this is more than you retrieve when you burn the HHO.
The only way this system could possibly help is if it somehow makes the gasoline burn more efficient. This has yet to be seen.
there will still be enough gasoline injected. it wil be supplemented by the hho. so, with this supplement, less gasoline, still same power. as long as the engine is running, the alternator will keep the battery charged, and run the electrical system. the electricity is what creats the hho gas.
-
I tried to run my car on water once.
Was running from the cops. The car sank straight to the bottom once I got on the water.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
that assumes everything else is running at a very high efficiency. The idea seems to be that engines run at low enough of an efficiency that the improvements caused by burning the HHO is greater than the decrease in efficiency caused by a minor load on the alternator and added weight of the water. While there is bound to be a net energy loss, it may manifest in a part of the picture they are not concerned with...as long as they get that few extra miles out of a gallon of gasoline.
i think the average internal combustion engine only runs at 15-25% effeciency.
the alternator costs a MAX. of 5 horsepower to run. your a/c compressor costs almost 12 horsepower.
the weight of the water is a non issue since you're placing less than a gallon onboard. water only weighs about 8 pounds per gallon.
hey.....if i increase my dakota by only 20%, it'ss actually get 20mpg average., and 25mpg at 75mph. to me that would be worth it.
-
there will still be enough gasoline injected. it wil be supplemented by the hho. so, with this supplement, less gasoline, still same power. as long as the engine is running, the alternator will keep the battery charged, and run the electrical system. the electricity is what creats the hho gas.
SO you don't think calling for more juice from the alt will drop mpg? Nothing is free, will the HHO offset the increased hp demand the alt needs to produce hho?
-
The excess electricity, okay...
But if the alternator is being squeezed for every available amper, isn't it heavier anyway, hence more fuel consumption?
the alternator cycles. it only "turns on" when needed. when it is running fully loaded it only costs 5 horsepower. that is negligant. 5 horsepower won't have a serious impact on fuel mileage..at least not enough to offset the advantages
-
What makes the alternator spin? What gives it it's energy?
the engine spins it.
but......the battery gives it its energy. you can spin an alternator all day long as fast as you like, and without applying 12V to it, it will do absolutley nothing.
the gasoline being removed from the injection process is being replaced with another combustable substance. that's how this can work
-
The connection with the engine swingwheel via the fan belt...typically...
Always thought the Alternator took less muscle when not or hardly charging at all (cutout), after all, just the ignition and even the front lights only take a part of the amps. You'd typically have like say 90 amps at 14v or so, giving you a close to 1KW which is only 1.36 hp.
So is it or is it not heavier when running idle?
it takes 0 horsepower to run when it's not charging. it almost never runs at full capacity.
i think the average cars headlights use about 6 to 12 amps. the a/c compressor uses only about 6-10 i think, the heater blower maxes out at 20, wipers only about 5 or so. the ignition system, and control systems only about another 20.
that's about 67 amps with everything running max.
this isn't perfect.
this isn't intended to replace gasoline for a power source.
this is intended to supplement gasoline and help it.
-
Funding.
:aok :rofl
you're on a rolll today!!
-
The alternator is ALWAYS generating electricity. Depending on how much of a load is placed on it and the total output the alternator is capable of generating will cause a small load to be placed on the engine. For most vehicles an extra 20 amps of current draw is miniscule when taken in whole with all the other items in the vehicle. A booster will draw less current than an after market stereo and amplifier. How much of a mpg loss do you see when you install one of those? Not much, and that draws more current. So by adding a booster whose current draw is negligable to the overall efficiency of the engine and alternator, and adding the gas produced by the booster to the combustion process in the engine itself, there is a net gain in engine effiency.
The folks saying you can't get out more than you put in have blinders on and are ONLY looking at the electrical aspect of the ENTIRE system, and not the engine plant as a whole. Also the load on the alternator is NOT proportional to the amout of fuel burned due to the much higher efficiency of the alternator compared to the engine itself and the 2 different processes used by the two different motors to produce their respective outputs.
-
If the alternator is putting out 20 amps, that's 240 watts. The alternator is say 80% efficient, so it requires 300 watts from the engine to drive it.
If the engine is 40% efficient (and it's probably lower), then the engine will require 800 watt hours of gasoline to produce 20 amps for an hour.
That's the input. The output of hydrogen, assuming a 70% efficient electrolysis unit (again probably on the high side), will be about 168 watt/hours of hydrogen. So you are turning gasoline containing 800 watt/hours of energy in to hydrogen containing 168 watt/hours of energy.
You are taking one form of energy (gasoline), converting it in to another (electricity), then converting that to a third (hydrogen). At each stage of the process you suffer a net loss.
The only way this can possibly be beneficial is if the hydrogen somehow makes the engine more efficient. I very much doubt that is the case, although any tuning during the installation, especially if it makes the engine run leaner, may improve economy.
-
I installed 2 alternators last year, they were 90 amps and 70 amps. That's at and under 1 hp.
As for always generating, I was in the belief that one under full load would be heavier to spin. You see, this is a powerful charging, and hence the "cutout" element on the alternator, it cuts out the charge to the battery, otherwise you will boil it/blow it.
So something here is not right. And as for the alternator not generating anything without the battery, well, that is correct, it neds a current to get things going, but ....there are also dynamos that don't need a battery....the alternator is just another approach.
It needs the volts to work, but bear in mind that the battery itself doesn't generate anything....
In short, I am not seeing any special benefit that makes this better for a car than a powerplant.
-
Again your ONLY looking at the electrical side of the thing and your trying to use an electrical formula to calculate the engines output which is machnical force, not electrical. You also trying to use an electrical formula to calculate the combustion ratio of gasoline vs hydrogen which is an explosive reaction producing machnical force, not electrical.
So if my 20amp booster needs 240 watts of power from the alternator to run, the engine is going to burn gasoline to create a mechanical force to turn the stator in the alternator to generate that power. Less that 1 horsepower needed to turn the alternator at that load from an engine producing over 350 horse power in normal operation.
Now with the hydrogen gas which has a much higher explosive ratio than gasoline injected into the engine the same machnical force ie horsepower can be produced with less gasoline required due to supplementing the gasoline air mixture with hydrogen and oxygen which will burn faster.
If you don't get it by now you never will. The power required to generate the hydrogen IS NOT proportional to the amount of fuel needed to run the engine and turn the alternator.
-
I installed 2 alternators last year, they were 90 amps and 70 amps. That's at and under 1 hp.
As for always generating, I was in the belief that one under full load would be heavier to spin. You see, this is a powerful charging, and hence the "cutout" element on the alternator, it cuts out the charge to the battery, otherwise you will boil it/blow it.
So something here is not right. And as for the alternator not generating anything without the battery, well, that is correct, it neds a current to get things going, but ....there are also dynamos that don't need a battery....the alternator is just another approach.
It needs the volts to work, but bear in mind that the battery itself doesn't generate anything....
In short, I am not seeing any special benefit that makes this better for a car than a powerplant.
alternators generally shut down in "no load" conditions. honda has been doing this for years. chrysler started doing it in the late 80's early 90's.
you may be right about the hp draw. i thought i had checked it to 5 hp before, but i could be wrong.
back when cars had generators, they needed only to spin. they also don't generate amperage as effeciently as alternators do.
also, like hornet said, you really can't equate an engines horsepower directly to electrical terms.
what i was doing was talking about the amount of horsepower that it takes to turn the alternator, a/c compressor, etc.
-
Yes they did. They hooked up a digital flow meter to the fuel input line at the intake manifold to messure true fuel flow into the engine. They had sensors hooked up all over the truck. They were also checking the emissions, manifold pressure, engine water and oil temp, as well as current draw on the battery and alternator. Test was run with lights on, radio turned on, and AC on normal at half fan speed to test everything at "normal" engine load conditions. They were pretty much looked at everything. Like I said I was there for around 2 hours with the truck on the rack.
Good deal, thanks Hornet.
-
Again your ONLY looking at the electrical side of the thing and your trying to use an electrical formula to calculate the engines output which is machnical force, not electrical. You also trying to use an electrical formula to calculate the combustion ratio of gasoline vs hydrogen which is an explosive reaction producing machnical force, not electrical.
No, it's not an electrical equation. It's power.
Less that 1 horsepower needed to turn the alternator at that load from an engine producing over 350 horse power in normal operation.
Yes. 1 hp = 746 watts. That means you will need about 0.4 hp to generate 20 amps.
Now with the hydrogen gas which has a much higher explosive ratio than gasoline injected into the engine the same machnical force ie horsepower can be produced with less gasoline required due to supplementing the gasoline air mixture with hydrogen and oxygen which will burn faster.
How?
You are getting hydrogen containing about 170 watt/hours to replace the gasoline that contained about 800 watt/hours that you had to burn to produce the hydrogen.
Gasoline (800 watt/hours) - engine (300 watt.hours) - alternator (240 watt/hours) - hydrogen (170 watt hours)
You end up with hydrogen containing a little over 20% of the energy that was in the gasoline you started with.
Yes it only uses 0.4 hp. Yes that's a tiny amount of the power the engine is capable of producing. But it's an even tinier amount of hydrogen. It's enough hydrogen, fed back in to the engine, to produce about 0.09 hp.
-
You are getting hydrogen containing about 170 watt/hours to replace the gasoline that contained about 800 watt/hours that you had to burn to produce the hydrogen.
Ay what volume of each fuel are you basing your calculations on, and where did you come up with these figures?
-
Did you ever hear your car running while still at low rpm, and the fan motor kicks in?
That is when the alternator starts taking energy, it gets heavier, and it makes a measureable impact on the engine.
Power is...power. And it doesn't come from nowhere....
-
granted most of these are prototypes or first generation still, we will not see much coming from them.
As the systems are more defined and understood "and a few more brake thrus are found" this will become fairly standard for "getting all she's worth" in the long run, our kids will most likely grow up with systems such as this under they're hood.
-
"Runs on water."
(http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k106/kamarokyle/Exotic%20Cars/lambphibian01.jpg)
-
You are getting hydrogen containing about 170 watt/hours to replace the gasoline that contained about 800 watt/hours that you had to burn to produce the hydrogen.
Ay what volume of each fuel are you basing your calculations on, and where did you come up with these figures?
Simple maths.
I believe you mentioned the figure of 20 amps, but of course the proportions would be the same if it was 40 amps or 10.
Gasoline engines are 30 - 40% efficient. So 800 watt/hours gasoline produces around 300 watt/hours of mechanical force.
Alternators are about 80% efficient, so the 300 watt/hours of mechanical force produces about 240 watt/hours of electricity.
I'd be surprised if your electrolysis unit is 70% efficient, but assuming it is 240 watt/hours of electricity will produce 168 watt/hours of hydrogen.
Every time you convert energy you lose, because the process is never 100% efficient. Running through 3 consecutive conversion processes takes most of the energy you began with.
Incidentally, how much gas is your unit producing? It's easy to calculate the energy in the hydrogen/oxygen mix if we know how much there is.
-
I'll ask once again, your 800 watt hours for gas, what volume of gas is that? A gallon? A Liter? It makes a differance.
-
It's about 0.09 litres, 0.06 kg.
-
It's about 0.09 litres, 0.06 kg.
i believe this booster system produces 2 litres per minute of hho.
-
Oxygen is free in the air, so you don't gain anything by producing it.
As to hydrogen, by volume it sounds very attractive. But the energy content is determined by weight, not volume.
Hydrogen weighs 0.09 grammes per litre at standard pressure and temperature (iirc). Hydrogen contains about 3 times the energy of gasoline, by weight (again iirc). So a litre of hydrogen gas has as much energy as 0.27 grammes of gasoline.
Keep generating it at a rate of 1 litre a minute and in an hour you have about 16 grammes of gasoline equivalent. Keep it going all day and you have about 390 grammes, which is half a litre of gasoline equivalent. In other words, run it continuously for a week and you have a gallon of gasoline equivalent.
Of course, you'll have used more than 4 gallons of gasoline to do it. (in fact an EU report says 150 watts of power from the alternator takes 0.1 litres an hour of gasoline, which is a little over 4 gallons in a week).
-
Oxygen is free in the air, so you don't gain anything by producing it.
As to hydrogen, by volume it sounds very attractive. But the energy content is determined by weight, not volume.
Hydrogen weighs 0.09 grammes per litre at standard pressure and temperature (iirc). Hydrogen contains about 3 times the energy of gasoline, by weight (again iirc). So a litre of hydrogen gas has as much energy as 0.27 grammes of gasoline.
Keep generating it at a rate of 1 litre a minute and in an hour you have about 16 grammes of gasoline equivalent. Keep it going all day and you have about 390 grammes, which is half a litre of gasoline equivalent. In other words, run it continuously for a week and you have a gallon of gasoline equivalent.
Of course, you'll have used more than 4 gallons of gasoline to do it. (in fact an EU report says 150 watts of power from the alternator takes 0.1 litres an hour of gasoline, which is a little over 4 gallons in a week).
this suplements the gasoline. period. it lets us use another source to stretch the gasoline. nothing else.
if you guys wanted, i'd think you all can prove nitrous oxide doesn't work either. :D
-
Well we'll see once and for all when I get the second dyno run completed after I install my operational booster in my truck. No way to fake the results of those tests since the computer controls the entire thing. The only time someone is even in the truck during the test is to start the engine and put it in gear. After that the computer controls everything in a timed sequence of events. I'm going to laugh really hard if it comes back showing a 20% or better overall increase in performance.
Anyway we'll see. Too many times in history scientific therories and mathmatical forumlas have hit the proverbial brick wall when faced with real world practical applications and results. Hell scientificly and mathmaticly a bumble bee can't possibly fly either, but someone forgot to tell the bumble bee that. History also shows that most new ideas are contested the most by the people that stand to loose money if the new idea works. I wonder what the nay sayers here do for a living? Work for the oil companies or auto industry maybe?
I've personaly seen several of these things in operation, and the guys I've talked to that are running them have shown me their data that they have collected on their own in real world application of the things. They're not selling them and have no reason to fudge the data and it all shows that the things work, so that's why I'm building mine.
-
Well we'll see once and for all when I get the second dyno run completed after I install my operational booster in my truck. No way to fake the results of those tests since the computer controls the entire thing. The only time someone is even in the truck during the test is to start the engine and put it in gear. After that the computer controls everything in a timed sequence of events. I'm going to laugh really hard if it comes back showing a 20% or better overall increase in performance.
Anyway we'll see. Too many times in history scientific therories and mathmatical forumlas have hit the proverbial brick wall when faced with real world practical applications and results. Hell scientificly and mathmaticly a bumble bee can't possibly fly either, but someone forgot to tell the bumble bee that. History also shows that most new ideas are contested the most by the people that stand to loose money if the new idea works. I wonder what the nay sayers here do for a living? Work for the oil companies or auto industry maybe?
I've personaly seen several of these things in operation, and the guys I've talked to that are running them have shown me their data that they have collected on their own in real world application of the things. They're not selling them and have no reason to fudge the data and it all shows that the things work, so that's why I'm building mine.
well,
like i mentioned earlier, there was a time when it was considered impossible for man to fly. look at what we've accomplished to date.
there was a time when it was asumed man could never travel to space. we've been there a lot.
there was a time when it was assumed the sound barrier would never be broken. yet, we've had supersonic jets since the 50's.
this is much easier than all of those accomplishments.
BTW,,,,,,,where'd you get the things to make yours look so good? i bought the nylon rod and the nuts /& washers so far. was cutting a pvc pipe for my casing. i didn't get the smaller tubes for my bubblers yet. also, i used stainless switch plates. it looks like you made your own plates?
-
Well we'll see once and for all when I get the second dyno run completed after I install my operational booster in my truck. No way to fake the results of those tests since the computer controls the entire thing. The only time someone is even in the truck during the test is to start the engine and put it in gear. After that the computer controls everything in a timed sequence of events. I'm going to laugh really hard if it comes back showing a 20% or better overall increase in performance.
Anyway we'll see. Too many times in history scientific therories and mathmatical forumlas have hit the proverbial brick wall when faced with real world practical applications and results. Hell scientificly and mathmaticly a bumble bee can't possibly fly either, but someone forgot to tell the bumble bee that. History also shows that most new ideas are contested the most by the people that stand to loose money if the new idea works. I wonder what the nay sayers here do for a living? Work for the oil companies or auto industry maybe?
I've personaly seen several of these things in operation, and the guys I've talked to that are running them have shown me their data that they have collected on their own in real world application of the things. They're not selling them and have no reason to fudge the data and it all shows that the things work, so that's why I'm building mine.
i almost forgot....i have a customer tht bought one from a company in arkansaw. he's bringing it by the shop next week for an install on his buick lesabre 3800.
-
well,
like i mentioned earlier, there was a time when it was considered impossible for man to fly. look at what we've accomplished to date.
there was a time when it was asumed man could never travel to space. we've been there a lot.
there was a time when it was assumed the sound barrier would never be broken. yet, we've had supersonic jets since the 50's.
this is much easier than all of those accomplishments.
BTW,,,,,,,where'd you get the things to make yours look so good? i bought the nylon rod and the nuts /& washers so far. was cutting a pvc pipe for my casing. i didn't get the smaller tubes for my bubblers yet. also, i used stainless switch plates. it looks like you made your own plates?
I orderd the cast acrylic tube and most of the fittings and hardware from McMasterCarr.com. I had the plates and straps custom cut out of 22 gage 316 SS sheet and got them from OnlineMetals.com. My bubblers I made out of 1" clear schedual 40 pvc pipe and I got that from McMasterCarr as well.
I'm in the process of writing a detailed construction manual for my booster complete with parts list and source of supply. My operational booster looks nothing like the pics I posted though, but it's still looks pretty cool. I've also changed the plate arrangment a bit and went to a duel 9 plate cell vs the duel 8 plate cell in the pics. The extra plate is installed on the outside of each cell so it's like this.
+ being the postive strap
- being the negative strap
I being a plate
/ being a nylon 1.4mm washer
[] being a 316 SS 4mm jam nut
[]+I/I/I[]I/I[]I/I[]I/I[]-I/I[]I/I[]I/I[]I/I/I+[]
I was able to use thinner washers and jam nuts than what the Smacks Booster plans call for since my plates don't have curved edges like the wall plates. I used a small grinding wheel to prep the plates and rough them up creating more surface area. The outer plates are 2" X 6" then 2.5" x 6" then 3" x 6" then 3.5" X 6" and the straps I had cut at 1" X 12" The entire core is also shrink wrapped using 4" heat shrink tubing and the starps are also heat shrinked from the top of the cell up to the screw cap. That helps to force the gas bubbles up to the top instead of leaking out the sides of the stack. It also creates more of a convection current inside the cell to aid in gas production and circulation of the electrolite and works really well. The duel 9 plate cell produces more gas at less current draw. Ran it tonight on the bench for about an hour and started with a 9amp current draw on a cold cell and produced 1.5 LPM in the first 5 minutes of run time. At 1 hour I was getting almost 2 LPM at a 12 amp current draw and I could still pick the cell up with my bare hands. The cell was hot but not too bad. I'd compare it to holding a cup of coffee in a ceramic mug.
-
Nashwan
Stand alone I'm sure your figures would stand up to scrutiny...petrol/hydrogen/oxygen. However all these elements are added together and ignited simultaneously.
Petrol when ignited by the spark plug burns from the spark plug out to the cylinder walls. Because of the speed of the combustion process not all the petrol is ignited. This wast is responsible for the majority of pollutants by the way.
Add hydrogen to the petrol air fix changes the burn process dynamically. As your aware of the density, rapid escape and combustibility features of hydrogen you'll be intrigued as to it's effect on the burn process. Hydrogen allows the fuel air mix to explode instantly within the chamber. Very little wast with a hotter faster burn.
You end up burning more petrol. You end up making an inefficient process a little more efficient....thermodynamics! The bottom line of a long story = More fuel burnt = better MPG.
I tried explaining this to you before but we went off on some gawd forsaken tangent about alternators. You can either take these lads words for their results or you can go make one and find out 100% for real and not slide rule theory.
edit PS the opening threads booster cell is a load of bollocks.....where as the other featured by Hornet is spot on.
-
Petrol when ignited by the spark plug burns from the spark plug out to the cylinder walls. Because of the speed of the combustion process not all the petrol is ignited. This wast is responsible for the majority of pollutants by the way.
Even that doesn't account for the claimed fuel consumption improvements.
The MOT tests for unburnt fuel in a car's exhaust. Any more than about 2% and it fails. Most cars burn 99% or more of the fuel properly.
Add hydrogen to the petrol air fix changes the burn process dynamically.
Which is why I wouldn't categorically rule out the possibility of improvement. I just really, really doubt it.
-
Which is why I wouldn't categorically rule out the possibility of improvement. I just really, really doubt it.
So did I untill I met a couple of guys here local to me and they showed me what they had done, had detailed driving logs before and after they installed their boosters and took me out for a couple of drives to see first hand what was happening.
I was impressed enough to give it a go myself. Mark has a 1999 Pontiac Bonneville running on a booster. I used to own the exact same car, well it was my wifes car but I drove it often enough and worked on it so I know first hand what sort of mileage that cars gets. Mark is getting around 47mpg out of his. That's unheard of in a stock Bonneville. Best I EVER got out of ours was 29mpg
Seeing is believing. I've seen.
-
The MOT tests for unburnt fuel in a car's exhaust. Any more than about 2% and it fails. Most cars burn 99% or more of the fuel properly.
what is MOT?
if you really want to see just exactly how dirty hour car runs, remove the cats. then check the exhaus contents. you'll find hc, and co to be fairly high. that's what the cats are there for. they work differently, depending on design, but essentially, they burn off thewasted and unburnt fuel in the exhaust.
if you live in the us, look underneath a few cars. count how many cats they have. basicly, the more cats a car comes equipped with, the dirtier/less efficient the engine runs.
-
So did I untill I met a couple of guys here local to me and they showed me what they had done, had detailed driving logs before and after they installed their boosters and took me out for a couple of drives to see first hand what was happening.
I was impressed enough to give it a go myself. Mark has a 1999 Pontiac Bonneville running on a booster. I used to own the exact same car, well it was my wifes car but I drove it often enough and worked on it so I know first hand what sort of mileage that cars gets. Mark is getting around 47mpg out of his. That's unheard of in a stock Bonneville. Best I EVER got out of ours was 29mpg
Seeing is believing. I've seen.
and that's the 3800 series II v6? :aok
that's better than my geo stock. and a whole lot nicer of a car too.
-
Here in Oz our cars have one cat per header pipe.
I'm currently fitting my Fairmont with a High flow CAT and extractors, I just need to get a new slim LPG converter to clear them.
-
Here in Oz our cars have one cat per header pipe.
I'm currently fitting my Fairmont with a High flow CAT and extractors, I just need to get a new slim LPG converter to clear them.
some here only have one per pipe.
v8 fords though......4 sometimes 5. v8 chevys, usually 2 or 3
v6 fords 2 or 3.
most hondas toyotas, ets only 1 per pipe......
all average numbers though. there are some variations and differences
-
and that's the 3800 series II v6? :aok
that's better than my geo stock. and a whole lot nicer of a car too.
Yeah that's the Bonneville SE with the 3.8L V6 My eyes almost popped out of my head when Mark showed me his logbook. Every fill up he took down the odometer reading and stapled the receipt for his gas purchase to the page. He also noted the station he bought the gas from, time of day, tire pressure, oil level. He has all his calculations written down for each fill up. He has a seperate log for the booster to keep track of when he tops it off, changes electrolite, and once a week he checks output from the booster and logs that as well.
He's a retired Navy Chief MK so he's all about the logbook. I offered to set him up with a spreadsheet for his computer to do all that stuff but he said then he would have to do everything twice and since he's retired he didn't want to do that much work :rofl You just can't help but like those old crusty Chiefs like that.
Anway I'm keeping a log like that as well so I can see how my truck is doing in the real world as well as the dyno tests I'm having done. Lab tests are nice but the real world is the real world and that's where the thing is either going to save me some money or not, and in the end that's all I really care about.
-
if you live in the us, look underneath a few cars. count how many cats they have. basicly, the more cats a car comes equipped with, the dirtier/less efficient the engine runs.
Slight disagreement here. Take the size of say all 4 cats on an 85 stang. Then compare those to an 85 Z28 cat. That Z28 cat is huge.
-
Slight disagreement here. Take the size of say all 4 cats on an 85 stang. Then compare those to an 85 Z28 cat. That Z28 cat is huge.
this is true, but i think the Z still only has that single one. the 4 on an 85 mustang 5.0L would contain a lot more catalyst.
-
this is true, but i think the Z still only has that single one. the 4 on an 85 mustang 5.0L would contain a lot more catalyst.
I think you'll find if you were to weigh the the contents of the cats, it's be to close to call.
-
had detailed driving logs before and after they installed their boosters
The really important thing isn't before and after, it's a test with the device turned on, and another with it turned off. See http://fuelsaving.info/drive_cycle.htm for an explanation.
what is MOT?
It's an annual test for cars over 3 years old in the UK. It tests safety (brakes etc) and emissions. Catalytic converters weren't required on UK cars until 1992, so cars registered before that date are still running without them. They still have meet the emissions standard in force when they were registered.
if you really want to see just exactly how dirty hour car runs, remove the cats. then check the exhaus contents. you'll find hc, and co to be fairly high.
I'd be surprised if you find it higher than 2%, with or without catalyst.
-
The really important thing isn't before and after, it's a test with the device turned on, and another with it turned off. See http://fuelsaving.info/drive_cycle.htm for an explanation.
How would having before and after logs not be important? Mark started his log 6 months before he installed his booster and was averaging 27mpg over that 6 month period. After he installed the booster he has 18 months of log entries and over that 18 month period he averaged 39mpg with three different booster designs. The current booster he has installed he has 5 months of logs and that one is averaging 47mpg over the 5 month period.
How can data like that not be important considering what we're trying to accomplish?
-
How would having before and after logs not be important? Mark started his log 6 months before he installed his booster and was averaging 27mpg over that 6 month period. After he installed the booster he has 18 months of log entries and over that 18 month period he averaged 39mpg with three different booster designs. The current booster he has installed he has 5 months of logs and that one is averaging 47mpg over the 5 month period.
How can data like that not be important considering what we're trying to accomplish?
it doesn't matter, because only lab results matter. remember? most reading this think that what really happens on your car doesn't matter, and if it's not backed by lab tests, then it cannot possibly be true.
forget the extrs $$ in your pocket every week. that's not really there either :D
-
How would having before and after logs not be important?
I said it's not as important as having tests with the device on and off.
it doesn't matter, because only lab results matter. remember? most reading this think that what really happens on your car doesn't matter, and if it's not backed by lab tests, then it cannot possibly be true.
The reason why tests with the device on and off are important is that we want to know if hydrogen injection is important, or if the other work on the engine is what makes the difference.
Nobody would deny you can improve fuel consumption by working on your engine. If it was running too rich, for example, you can make a major improvement. The question is if taking some power to produce hydrogen, then injecting that hydrogen in to the engine, results in improvements in fuel consumption.
For that you need tests of your vehicle after it has been worked on, with and without the hydrogen device running.
-
you guys seem to be looking at it in far to simplistic terms. theres a lot of subsystems this can effect.
from what i remember...the hydroxy supposedly helps decrease engine temperatures...wouldnt this decrease the amount of work the cooling system has to do, and therefore the load that puts on the engine? and if it does, if the decrease in that system is greater than the increase running the minor load on the alternator...a mileage increase will be seen.
and thats just one part of the system.
-
So I need to do what? Have my truck run on the dyno three times now. I have the before install run done. Now I need one with the unit running and anouther one with it turned off after it's installed?
Because I did work to the engine? I'm NOT doing any work to the engine other than drilling one small hole into the air intake pipe to mount a tube fitting for the HHO gas to enter the air flow. The EFIE (Electronic Fuel Injection Enhancer) is wired directly to the booster circuit. It's only on when the booster is on. Same as Marks car is set up. If I'm not running the booster the truck is running in stock mode. When I flip the little switch and turn the booster on the EFIE will also turn on and send a corrected O2 sensor signal to the computer to adjust the fuel air mix to take into account the HHO input and the higher O2 level in the exhaust, thus leaning out the mix to be replaced with the HHO.
With this system there is ONLY before and after results, no middle ground.
Geez if your going to try and debunk something learn a little bit about how it's supposed to work and how a correct installation is accomplished.
-
you guys seem to be looking at it in far to simplistic terms. theres a lot of subsystems this can effect.
from what i remember...the hydroxy supposedly helps decrease engine temperatures...wouldnt this decrease the amount of work the cooling system has to do, and therefore the load that puts on the engine? and if it does, if the decrease in that system is greater than the increase running the minor load on the alternator...a mileage increase will be seen.
and thats just one part of the system.
So, you put full load on the alternator in order to decrease the load on the waterpump :uhoh
-
I said it's not as important as having tests with the device on and off.
The reason why tests with the device on and off are important is that we want to know if hydrogen injection is important, or if the other work on the engine is what makes the difference.
Nobody would deny you can improve fuel consumption by working on your engine. If it was running too rich, for example, you can make a major improvement. The question is if taking some power to produce hydrogen, then injecting that hydrogen in to the engine, results in improvements in fuel consumption.
For that you need tests of your vehicle after it has been worked on, with and without the hydrogen device running.
I get what your saying and it makes sense but it's been done many ways. These boosters actually work rather well on diesels also which don't have so many sensors.
From the intardnet
Recently I took part in the highway test of a vehicle driven twice over the same 200-kilometre course, on cruise control, at the same speed, once with the system off and once with it on. A temperature sensor from an accurate pyrometer kit had been inserted directly into the exhaust manifold, to eliminate thermal distortion from the catalytic converter. On average, the exhaust manifold temperature was 65°F lower during the second trip when the Hydrogen Generating System was switched on. The fuel consumption with the unit off was 5.13253 km/li. and 7.2481 km/li. with it on, giving a mileage increase of 41.2% and a fuel savings attributable to the unit of 29.18%
From the forgoing, the near absence of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons confirms a very complete and much faster burn. Cooler exhaust temperatures show that more work is taken out during the power stroke. More torque from less fuel at the same R.P.M. verifies that higher pressure from a faster burn, acting through a longer effective power stroke, produces more torque and thus more work from less fuel. The considerable reduction in nitrous oxides (NOx} was a surprise. I had assumed that the extreme temperatures from such a rapid intense burn would produce more NO.,. Time plus high temperature are both essential for nitrous oxides to form. As the extreme burn temperatures are of such short duration and temperature through the remainder of the power stroke and the entire exhaust stroke, will, on average, be much cooler. With this in mind, it is not so surprising that less NOx is produced when the HGS is operating.
-
forget the extrs $$ in your pocket every week. that's not really there either Big Grin
:rofl
-
So, you put full load on the alternator in order to decrease the load on the waterpump uhoh
No, no, no.
1) From previous posts, the alternator is never actually at full load. In Hornets case, he has a very high output alternator and won't ever come close to full load.
2) The engine running cooler is a fringe benefit of this system. It's like knowing you will be having cake, then being surprised with ice cream too. :D
-
So, you put full load on the alternator in order to decrease the load on the waterpump :uhoh
Water pump going to still spin at the same speed.
However, heat robs power an efficiency. Most of the engines power is robbed by heat and friction. A reduction in heat should reduce power loss, thus raising efficiency.
-
So, you put full load on the alternator in order to decrease the load on the waterpump :uhoh
it will not put full load on the alternator.
-
It will increase the lode for sure, since it runs lighter when idle.
However the waterpump is also there, and it will rotate in water at exact relation to rpm, the only benefit of a colder engine run being running in smaller circles (due to the water-lock being closed)..
So, sorry, don't see the magic that applies to only a car engine.
-
I heard this guy on the radio the other day and he sounded pretty convincing. Unfortunately automechanics is not my area of specialty so you guys be the judge www.alcoholcanbeagas.com by David Blume. His basic premise is that with enough of the correct type of biomass you can distill it and run your car on alcohol. I'd like to hear the opinions of the learned gentlemen of AH on this idea.
-
It will increase the lode for sure, since it runs lighter when idle.
However the waterpump is also there, and it will rotate in water at exact relation to rpm, the only benefit of a colder engine run being running in smaller circles (due to the water-lock being closed)..
So, sorry, don't see the magic that applies to only a car engine.
it's not majic.
it's removing a portion of one fuel, and substituting it with another which is created "on demand" be an accessory running off of the engine. i does nothing more than supplement the vehicles fuel system. that's it.
i don't understand how so many people in here don't understand this.
i'm also thinking that once hornet posts his tests here, you're all going to find fault with that too.
like i said earlier....those that have them installed must be imagining that extra money in their pockets.
-
I can only surmise that the people that don't get it, well just don't get it. I'm getting the impression that they do not have the technical knowledge of how an internal combustion engine and all the associated equipment operates and interacts with each other. Kinda reminds me of some people I know around here that don't even know how to change the oil in their cars, or that they even need too.
O'well such is life I suppose.
-
vorticon, Angus
Temperature can be partly understud from this quote
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.
Does it work? Independent studies, at different universities, using various fuels, have shown that flame speeds increase when small amounts of hydrogen are added to air-fuel mixes. A study by the California Institute of Technology, at its Jet Propulsion Lab Pasadena, in 1974 concluded:
The J.P.L. concept has unquestionably demonstrated that the addition of small quantities of gaseous hydrogen to the primary gasoline significantly reduces CO and NOx exhaust emissions while improving engine thermal efficiency
Cooler exhaust temperatures show that more work is taken out during the power stroke. More torque from less fuel at the same R.P.M. verifies that higher pressure from a faster burn, acting through a longer effective power stroke, produces more torque and thus more work from less fuel.
More bang for the buck....gotta admit Farayday was a bit of a dude but he wasn't burning the watermelon in a combustion engine....which were in there infancy at the time.
-
The alternator is ALWAYS generating electricity.
The alternator only runs when the engine runs.
The engine runs on fuel.
Therefore the alternator's energy source is the fuel tank.
-
The alternator only runs when the engine runs.
The engine runs on fuel.
Therefore the alternator's energy source is the fuel tank.
Well duh captian obvious. I didn't realize I had to spell that out for you, but OK. To make my statement perfectly clear for everyone. As long as the engine is running the alternator is producing electrical power.
Better?
-
I heard this guy on the radio the other day and he sounded pretty convincing. Unfortunately automechanics is not my area of specialty so you guys be the judge www.alcoholcanbeagas.com by David Blume. His basic premise is that with enough of the correct type of biomass you can distill it and run your car on alcohol. I'd like to hear the opinions of the learned gentlemen of AH on this idea.
here's your man
http://www.hydrogenfuelcellenergysystem.com/gw3h2_landing_selector.htm?pmc=GAW-1&gclid=CI3Q3o-H6JMCFQunQwodSQmvzA
the following link is about hydrogen but he does a demo of all fuels in the test car + shows his biomass thingy.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hFifFR-4C28
-
vorticon, Angus
Temperature can be partly understud from this quote
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.
Does it work? Independent studies, at different universities, using various fuels, have shown that flame speeds increase when small amounts of hydrogen are added to air-fuel mixes. A study by the California Institute of Technology, at its Jet Propulsion Lab Pasadena, in 1974 concluded:
The J.P.L. concept has unquestionably demonstrated that the addition of small quantities of gaseous hydrogen to the primary gasoline significantly reduces CO and NOx exhaust emissions while improving engine thermal efficiency
Cooler exhaust temperatures show that more work is taken out during the power stroke. More torque from less fuel at the same R.P.M. verifies that higher pressure from a faster burn, acting through a longer effective power stroke, produces more torque and thus more work from less fuel.
More bang for the buck....gotta admit Farayday was a bit of a dude but he wasn't burning the watermelon in a combustion engine....which were in there infancy at the time.
EXACTLY.
where is that from?
the nox went down, due to the lower combustion temps.
nox forms most when the combustion temp goes above 2500F. that's why most cars have egr systems now. they cycle a small amount of exhaust gas back intro the intake, and this cools the process, thus lowering nox.
some cars do it through the three way cats.
just remember, each and every piece of technology we take for granted today, was at one time said to be impossible.
-
It's from a bastardisation of many independant pappers to support the cause :rock
http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/hydrogeninjection.html
useful links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_Fuel_Injection
http://gogreendev.com/docs/Investigation%20of%20the%20Effects%20of%20Hydrogen%20addition%20on%20performance%20and%20exhaust%20emissions%20of%20diesel%20engine.pdf
http://georgepehli.googlepages.com/HydrogenEnhancedCombustion_3_5_2006.pdf
but here's the real future
http://www.rexresearch.com/puharich/1puhar.htm
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bs-Uk511S_I
-
Cooler exhaust temperatures show that more work is taken out during the power stroke. More torque from less fuel at the same R.P.M. verifies that higher pressure from a faster burn, acting through a longer effective power stroke, produces more torque and thus more work from less fuel.
Thought I said that?
ohh yea I did . ;)
Water pump going to still spin at the same speed.
However, heat robs power an efficiency. Most of the engines power is robbed by heat and friction. A reduction in heat should reduce power loss, thus raising efficiency.
-
Thought I said that?
ohh yea I did . ;)
that wasn't you. it was your evil twin brother living in a parallel universe saying that as our two universes momentarily merged :noid :O :D
-
it's not majic.
it's removing a portion of one fuel, and substituting it with another which is created "on demand" be an accessory running off of the engine. i does nothing more than supplement the vehicles fuel system. that's it.
i don't understand how so many people in here don't understand this.
i'm also thinking that once hornet posts his tests here, you're all going to find fault with that too.
like i said earlier....those that have them installed must be imagining that extra money in their pockets.
Running off of the engine? You mean excess electricity?
-
I can only surmise that the people that don't get it, well just don't get it. I'm getting the impression that they do not have the technical knowledge of how an internal combustion engine and all the associated equipment operates and interacts with each other. Kinda reminds me of some people I know around here that don't even know how to change the oil in their cars, or that they even need too.
well the sceptics seem to have a pretty good understanding of the laws of thermodynamics (and i suspect some have degree-level maths too.)
doesn't it strike you as odd that after a promising research paper from JPL in 1975, not much else has happened for over 25 years in this field? can't remember seeing any major car/truck manufacturer selling hydroxy-enhanced engines or vehicles either.
fuel economy may not have been a big factor for purchases of eg. sports cars, but even a 2% reduction in fuel costs is very persuasive to a big fleet operator. recent legislation in Europe (and probably elsewhere) which taxes hydrocarbon emissions is a pretty good incentive for efficiency, upcoming legislation will set obligatory emmissions levels for manufacturers. there's plenty of cunning things going on in engine development at the moment, still no mention of hydroxy that ive heard of.
if its so simple that you can knock up a working example in a garden shed with some engineering expertise, why doesn't my car/bus/train/ship/etc already have them fitted?
<-- remains sceptical (but looking forward to dyno results) :)
-
Running off of the engine? You mean excess electricity?
well, yea........i misworded it..... :D
-
well the sceptics seem to have a pretty good understanding of the laws of thermodynamics (and i suspect some have degree-level maths too.)
doesn't it strike you as odd that after a promising research paper from JPL in 1975, not much else has happened for over 25 years in this field? can't remember seeing any major car/truck manufacturer selling hydroxy-enhanced engines or vehicles either.
fuel economy may not have been a big factor for purchases of eg. sports cars, but even a 2% reduction in fuel costs is very persuasive to a big fleet operator. recent legislation in Europe (and probably elsewhere) which taxes hydrocarbon emissions is a pretty good incentive for efficiency, upcoming legislation will set obligatory emmissions levels for manufacturers. there's plenty of cunning things going on in engine development at the moment, still no mention of hydroxy that ive heard of.
if its so simple that you can knock up a working example in a garden shed with some engineering expertise, why doesn't my car/bus/train/ship/etc already have them fitted?
<-- remains sceptical (but looking forward to dyno results) :)
no mention of hydroxy would probably be due to the fact that bmw, honda and saturn are looking at powering cars fully off of fuel cells and hydrogen.
no it's not strange that nothing has happened with this stuff since 75, because too many people aren't willing to experiment, and test things.
a lot of the sceptics in here do seem very smart.
isn't it funny though, that engineers, and ""smart"" people said man would never fly, and a pair of bicycle mechanics put an airplane in the air? :D
-
well I judge on results so those bike mechanics were outstandingly smart engineers imo. I enjoy their results for (too many) hours every week ;)
as a solution for increasing the efficiency of engines generally, we already have better solutions, and have for a while.
don't get me wrong, I'm 100% certain it will work for a small proportion of more inefficient engine designs, and pretty much the only way to find out is to build it and try it. given the parts and consumables are cheap and easily available the only hurdle is building it. if you can do it, as an engineer I'm happy as Larry that you give it a go and await the results with interest :aok
-
The only drawback to these things is that you HAVE to maintain them everyday. You HAVE to make sure the water level and electrolite levels are correct and you HAVE to do that ALL the time.
You and I both know that 99.9995% of the people on this planet do NOT want to drive a car that they have to maintain that much. Everyone wants to jump in and go and they only want to have to put gas in it once every couple of weeks. Most people don't even keep up with their oil changes on anything that resembles a schedual, so why would the auto makers install a system that requires that much maintenance? They wouldn't and they haven't.
The gear heads and back yard mechanics have been the ones working with these systems and showing results, but again these are people that don't mind the extra five minutes of checking the system out before hopping in their cars and driving.
My ex wife wants me to build one for her van. I told her no, because she can't even remember to check the oil (she blew the engine in my old Suburban, and the engine in her Bonneville by running them both out of oil), and I'm not building and installing something that if neglected, can blow up, cause a fire, or do other damage to her van, and unfortantly she is pretty normal in that regard as compared to most people that own cars.
That's why only the shade tree mechanics are playing with these things. The general public will never see them until they can be made idiot proof and we're still a long way from that goal. Plus no matter how full proof you make a system someone will find a better idiot to break the damn thing and then sue because you didn't take into account that "special" brand of idiot.
-
yeah no kidding on the oil checking. the only reason my current car doesnt have a set of cams, springs, chip, exhaust and ram intake is because I had to spend the only cash I had at the time getting the head sorted after the previous "careful owner" must have ran it dry. they threw in a port polish for free so it wasnt all bad :furious
-
Cap,
You do realize that a fuel cell is not used to provide browns gas for an internal combustion engine don't you??? :huh
The BMW hydrogen car is also not running from hydrogen from a bubbler producing 2 liters per minute of mixed gases. It's running off of LIQUID hydrogen that has to be kept in a liquid state in the car before being used as fuel. It will be interesting to see what they have to do to keep it liquid under normal conditions such as every day driving and sitting for days.
-
Cap,
You do realize that a fuel cell is not used to provide browns gas for an internal combustion engine don't you??? :huh
The BMW hydrogen car is also not running from hydrogen from a bubbler producing 2 liters per minute of mixed gases. It's running off of LIQUID hydrogen that has to be kept in a liquid state in the car before being used as fuel. It will be interesting to see what they have to do to keep it liquid under normal conditions such as every day driving and sitting for days.
yes, i do......they're miles beyond what we're doing.
-
Water pump going to still spin at the same speed.
However, heat robs power an efficiency. Most of the engines power is robbed by heat and friction. A reduction in heat should reduce power loss, thus raising efficiency.
right. knew about the second part, wasn't sure if the water pump was a static load on the engine...and you could still quite likely run a smaller pump and maintain a safe operating temperature.
-
right. knew about the second part, wasn't sure if the water pump was a static load on the engine...and you could still quite likely run a smaller pump and maintain a safe operating temperature.
While you could in theory run a smaller pump. Why would you? You'd be back to more heat and losing power and efficiency.
-
While you could in theory run a smaller pump. Why would you? You'd be back to more heat and losing power and efficiency.
depends.
in say, a 5 ton truck , will being able to run a coolant system thats (pretend number) 75% as heavy as the existing system have a greater effect than what running that much colder will on its own?
Would the HHO even have that great of an effect.
-
yes, i do......they're miles beyond what we're doing.
There not interested in this stuff because there's no taxation in it. Presently the UK government are developing the hydrogen infrastructure for the year 2050. Producing hydrogen from power plants :rolleyes: They already have the fuel pump for Joe Public to fill up from. Storage is just about sorted but transfer of hydrogen from the power plant to the pump is taking time.
Only interested in Tax.
As for free energy or over unity it's amazing how inventors are full of BS. They either go missing or die and no one can replicate the devise.
Amazing how Ford bought something like 4 or 5 high milage carburetor patents and just shelved them
-
And why would they do a thing like that ?
-
Bucks baby, bucks.
Big oil wants them, Congress trades in them, you pay them. If they can't get the bucks, you don't get the funds.
-
So, bucks. Well I know, just nice to have somebody else stating it ;)
-
So when were these wonder carb patents purchased? If they were in fact purchased there would still be info in the patent office about them.
-
isn't it funny though, that engineers, and ""smart"" people said man would never fly, and a pair of bicycle mechanics put an airplane in the air? :D
Most people, regardless of education, do not have the attitude or ability, whatever you want to call it, to look at something with the perspecitve needed to be able to invent things.
First, you have to have a native creative streak a mile wide. Next, you have to be able to look at something and instead of finding ways to say, "It cannot be done", you look for answers to the question "Why?". That question will compel the inventor to study and read about the topic and exhaust all available research data before beginning to postulate "How?".
There are many intelligent people on this board, but it appears most lack the proper attitude to be an inventor. Some do seem to have it in spades and that is a good thing.
You have to have a lot of drive and determination to be an inventor. Being an engineer is much easier.
So when were these wonder carb patents purchased? If they were in fact purchased there would still be info in the patent office about them.
The supposed "wonder carb" is available today. Anyone can purchase it online. It does improve gas mileage and is a much simpler design from what I have read about it. I cannot find the link at the moment. It was something I stumbled on quite by accident looking for something else one day.
-
Well duh captain obvious. I didn't realize I had to spell that out for you, but OK. To make my statement perfectly clear for everyone. As long as the engine is running the alternator is producing electrical power.
Better?
Yes it's better.
The point is that there are a lot of people here talking about excess electricity produced by the alternator...
This is BS.
The alternator just is the last step to converting gasoline to electrical power.
The gasoline is changed into kinetic energy at maybe 35% efficiency. Then it puts that energy to the alternator drive belt at (lets be generous) and say 90%. Then the alternator converts its spinning with another (being generous again) at 90%.
All this B S extra energyfrom the alternator is just an energy conversion from gasoline to electricity at .35 x .9 x .9 ... 28.5 % efficiency.
So you waste 70% of the heat energy in the fuel to make the electricity to go thru another 90% (another generous conversion efficiency) conversion to make hydrogen. So now we see that it takes 4 btus of gasoline to make 1 btu of hydrogen.
Brown's gas is BS
-
So when were these wonder carb patents purchased? If they were in fact purchased there would still be info in the patent office about them.
Sorry....couldn't find the exact link that highlighted Fords purchases from the 1970 and back but have a chew on this 2 page link.
http://befreetech.com/suppressed_inventions.htm
-
Most people, regardless of education, do not have the attitude or ability, whatever you want to call it, to look at something with the perspecitve needed to be able to invent things.
First, you have to have a native creative streak a mile wide. Next, you have to be able to look at something and instead of finding ways to say, "It cannot be done", you look for answers to the question "Why?". That question will compel the inventor to study and read about the topic and exhaust all available research data before beginning to postulate "How?".
actually, this statement in my opinion is only partly correct.
most that say "it can't be done" have done exactly that. they've read all they can find on the subject. this in many cases "creates" the "it can't be done" attitude.
it's best when you have an idea, that hasn't been tried a thousand times before, to just go inn and figure out how to do it.
i never say it can't be done. i always go at things trying to figure out how i can do it. sometimes i do, sometimes i don't . i'm never so proud that i turn a deaf ear on anyone on the subject that i'm working on. i'll also be tie first to ask for help with something when i need it......two minds are much much smarter than one......
There are many intelligent people on this board, but it appears most lack the proper attitude to be an inventor. Some do seem to have it in spades and that is a good thing.
i agree here. i think i could pick out at least a half dozen on this thread alone that are most likeley much more intelligent than i am.
i don't believe they lack the proper attitude though. they simply let their own intelligence work against them. they also have read and allowed their minds to become contaminated with the "it can't be done" mindset.
You have to have a lot of drive and determination to be an inventor. Being an engineer is much easier.
The supposed "wonder carb" is available today. Anyone can purchase it online. It does improve gas mileage and is a much simpler design from what I have read about it. I cannot find the link at the moment. It was something I stumbled on quite by accident looking for something else one day.
<<S>>
-
Brown's gas is BS
aaaaaand in this case that BS is green with pictures of presidents on it :D
-
Yes it's better.
The point is that there are a lot of people here talking about excess electricity produced by the alternator...
This is BS.
The alternator just is the last step to converting gasoline to electrical power.
The gasoline is changed into kinetic energy at maybe 35% efficiency. Then it puts that energy to the alternator drive belt at (lets be generous) and say 90%. Then the alternator converts its spinning with another (being generous again) at 90%.
All this B S extra energyfrom the alternator is just an energy conversion from gasoline to electricity at .35 x .9 x .9 ... 28.5 % efficiency.
So you waste 70% of the heat energy in the fuel to make the electricity to go thru another 90% (another generous conversion efficiency) conversion to make hydrogen. So now we see that it takes 4 btus of gasoline to make 1 btu of hydrogen.
Brown's gas is BS
Sorry to say it but your math and undestanding of what is happening is wrong. We've tried to explain what is happening 20 different ways from Sunday yet you still persist that is can't be done. OK I'm fine with that. No one is asking you to build one. No one is asking you to believe or not.
I've seen what these things CAN do. I've seen the proof of what they do. I understand what is happening, so I'm building one.
-
Yes it's better.
The point is that there are a lot of people here talking about excess electricity produced by the alternator...
This is BS.
The alternator just is the last step to converting gasoline to electrical power.
The gasoline is changed into kinetic energy at maybe 35% efficiency. Then it puts that energy to the alternator drive belt at (lets be generous) and say 90%. Then the alternator converts its spinning with another (being generous again) at 90%.
All this B S extra energyfrom the alternator is just an energy conversion from gasoline to electricity at .35 x .9 x .9 ... 28.5 % efficiency.
So you waste 70% of the heat energy in the fuel to make the electricity to go thru another 90% (another generous conversion efficiency) conversion to make hydrogen. So now we see that it takes 4 btus of gasoline to make 1 btu of hydrogen.
Brown's gas is BS
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.
-
The alternator is not making excess energy. Only the "fixed costs" of the belt (law of friction) would count.
So, I still have to see the logic of where exactly the car engine makes this feasible. IMHO a powerplant would be better of, with vastly better control, and lots of excess energy at times due to grid fluctuations....
More or less, I go with what Holden just said.
-
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.
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?
-
Yes it's better.
The point is that there are a lot of people here talking about excess electricity produced by the alternator...
This is BS.
The alternator just is the last step to converting gasoline to electrical power.
The gasoline is changed into kinetic energy at maybe 35% efficiency. Then it puts that energy to the alternator drive belt at (lets be generous) and say 90%. Then the alternator converts its spinning with another (being generous again) at 90%.
All this B S extra energyfrom the alternator is just an energy conversion from gasoline to electricity at .35 x .9 x .9 ... 28.5 % efficiency.
So you waste 70% of the heat energy in the fuel to make the electricity to go thru another 90% (another generous conversion efficiency) conversion to make hydrogen. So now we see that it takes 4 btus of gasoline to make 1 btu of hydrogen.
Brown's gas is BS
This is all fine and dandy.....except.....the engine is already running the alternator regardless of whether or not a hydrogen conversion system is in place. There is extra capacity within that alternator that is not being used. Some of that extra capacity still won't be used even with the addition of a hydrogen system.
-
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. :rofl
-
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
-
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. :O
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.
-
Gear heads understand this.
:rock
Even if I don't know exactly how to explain it, I understand it perfectly. :D
-
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.
-
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. :rofl
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:rolleyes:
I don't put much stock in government reports, simply because they are government reports.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Detonation is VERY bad for an internal combustion engine....
As far as when you initiate the fuel burn, I'll defer to Hornet, but I think it will have to remain at the same timing, just after TDC to force the piston down for the power stroke.
-
Detonation is VERY bad for an internal combustion engine....
As far as when you initiate the fuel burn, I'll defer to Hornet, but I think it will have to remain at the same timing, just after TDC to force the piston down for the power stroke.
most engines fire of the initial spark at anywhere from 0 BTDC to 30 BTDC, depending on conditions.
5.0L fords idle at a mechanical 10 degrees BTDC, and with the computer controlling it, it's 20 BTDC.
i set my older cars by total timing as opposed to idle. i run the engine to 2500 rpm. full advance should be in by then. i set my fords to 30 to 35 BTDC.
the shop race car was kept back at 30 degrees total. she ran 10.3's all night like that. we set her to 35 one weekend......dropped into the 9.9's.
very few cars fire atc anymore.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again Holden, your math doesn't add up in the real world.
You make claims of revolutionary innovations, and then say, "You just have to put the math down and look at it from the practical aspect to understand it."
You want me to take it on faith, and cannot back it up with sound physics. If you cannot explain it mathematically your chance at the Nobel is poor.
-
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.
I agree.
Do those items create a huge loss in gas mileage?
No. They do use more fuel, though.
I'm not arguing it's a huge difference. In fact, convert the amps in to power and it becomes clear. 15 amps at 12 volts is 180 watts. 180 watts is 0.24 horsepower.
Of course you need a bit more than that because the alternator is not 100% efficient, but 15 amps works out to about 0.3 horsepower.
Obviously 0.3 horsepower isn't going to make a "huge" difference to your fuel consumption. It will make a difference, though. TANSTAAFL
NO because the alternator is designed to handle those current loads without affecting the load on the engine itself.
No, the alternator is designed to take power from the engine to produce electricity. The more electricity you produce, the more power it takes from the engine, and the more fuel you burn. That's why BMW have introduced their regenerative breaking for cars, and why some manufacturers are looking at using heat from the exhaust to provide electric power.
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.
Certainly. Almost all cars will have enough spare alternator capacity to add another 20 amp load.
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.
I'd rate that as possible but unlikely. The reason is the same reason it won't make a huge difference to fuel consumption to generate the electricity in the first place.
If you get 20 mpg at 60 mph, a vehicle is using about 12 litres an hour. That's about 8.8 kg of gasoline.
If you are generating 1 litre of hydrogen (forget about the oxygen, that's free in the air anyway) a minute, that's 0.09 grammes of hydrogen a minute, or about 5.5 g an hour. For every gramme of hydrogen you put in your engine, you are putting in about 1,600 grammes of gasoline.
I just can't see such a tiny amount of hydrogen having any effect, even if hydrogen in quantity could do what is claimed for it.
-
I am a mechanical engineer and understand basic thermodynamics.
.
THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM!!!!!!!! :O :O
unlearnsome of what you learned, and you'll understand it better. your mind's been contaminated through your learning.
-
most engines fire of the initial spark at anywhere from 0 BTDC to 30 BTDC, depending on conditions.
5.0L fords idle at a mechanical 10 degrees BTDC, and with the computer controlling it, it's 20 BTDC.
i set my older cars by total timing as opposed to idle. i run the engine to 2500 rpm. full advance should be in by then. i set my fords to 30 to 35 BTDC.
the shop race car was kept back at 30 degrees total. she ran 10.3's all night like that. we set her to 35 one weekend......dropped into the 9.9's.
very few cars fire atc anymore.
It's been a long time since I worked on an engine and used a timing light. This jogged my memory, you are correct, it is BTDC, not just after. :D
-
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.
Yeah and a 350 HP ICE isn't always putting out 350 HP. What is your point?
200W = 200W
Hows that for math?
a 15 W draw will require a 15 W draw from the engine.
How's that foir math?
You need to come up with a reason for the HHO working that is better than the reality I have shown you.
-
THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM!!!!!!!! :O :O
unlearnsome of what you learned, and you'll understand it better. your mind's been contaminated through your learning.
Another way of saying ignorance is bliss, eh?
-
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.
actually the reason that the ignition system fires the plugs BTDC is due to the pisotns speed. when you're winding the engine up, and the plugs are firing off at 30 BTDC, by the tijme the flame front has started, the piston is at TDC. as it gets there, the flame front is expanding, and forcing the piston back down. it never puts any downward force on the piston before TDC. if it did, the engine wouldn;t run.
-
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.
i'll tell ya what.
you come to my shop. you go out in the bays and fix some of these "excellently" engineered vehicles. use your pure logic to figure out what's wrong. use your pure logic to figure out how to get at things that engineers believe will never ever break.
then go and un-learn some of what you;ve learned. you'll be much better off. :D
-
actually the reason that the ignition system fires the plugs BTDC is due to the pisotns speed. when you're winding the engine up, and the plugs are firing off at 30 BTDC, by the tijme the flame front has started, the piston is at TDC. as it gets there, the flame front is expanding, and forcing the piston back down. it never puts any downward force on the piston before TDC. if it did, the engine wouldn;t run.
Right. That does bring up a thought.
When you introduce hydrogen into the equation, the timing will have to change. The flame propagation with hydrogen introduced into the mix is significantly faster than with pure gasoline. With stock timing, I could see some serious pre-ignition problems.
-
You make claims of revolutionary innovations, and then say, "You just have to put the math down and look at it from the practical aspect to assume it can never work."
You want me to take it on faith, and cannot back it up with sound physics. If you cannot explain it mathematically your chance at the Nobel is poor.
i corrected your first statement for ya.
got a question for ya?
can you please use your mathmatics and explain how a bumblebee can fly? :D
-
Another way of saying ignorance is bliss, eh?
nope,
rather another way of reminding you of all of the "impossible" things that are possible today :D
-
i'll tell ya what.
you come to my shop. you go out in the bays and fix some of these "excellently" engineered vehicles. use your pure logic to figure out what's wrong. use your pure logic to figure out how to get at things that engineers believe will never ever break.
then go and un-learn some of what you;ve learned. you'll be much better off. :D
I'll use logic and you don't use logic and we will see who fixes things first.
There are people who do things excellently and there are those who do things haphazardly: engineers, doctors, poets, starbuck baristas.
The quality of anything is based on the quality of the individual who does it, not the science or art behind it.
-
i corrected your first statement for ya.
got a question for ya?
can you please use your mathmatics and explain how a bumblebee can fly? :D
yes. Power + lift > weight + drag. Quite simple really. There are some constants left out for simplicity.
-
Right. That does bring up a thought.
When you introduce hydrogen into the equation, the timing will have to change. The flame propagation with hydrogen introduced into the mix is significantly faster than with pure gasoline. With stock timing, I could see some serious pre-ignition problems.
nope. that's the beauty of modern computer controlled engines. if any detonation should occur, the ECU will immediatly adjust the ignition timeing to optimal :D
-
yes. Power + lift > weight + drag. Quite simple really. There are some constants left out for simplicity.
then how is it that engineers say it's aerodynimcally impossible for a bee to fly? :D
-
nope. that's the beauty of modern computer controlled engines. if any detonation should occur, the ECU will immediatly adjust the ignition timeing to optimal :D
CAP1, I know the ECU can adjust the timing parameters to adjust for pre-ignition, but I think you are assuming it can actually adjust to TDC, rather than some limit at BTDC. I should think a software engineer would cap the limit of the adjustment to prevent a possbile run away scenario. It is that cap that I would be concerned with.
I could be wrong here as well. I have not seen any source code to an ECU.
-
then how is it that engineers say it's aerodynimcally impossible for a bee to fly? :D
That is actually not true. Even wiki has the story on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee
"Flight
According to 20th century folklore, the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight, as it does not have the capacity (in terms of wing size or beat per second) to achieve flight with the degree of wing loading necessary. Not being aware of scientists 'proving' it cannot fly, the bumblebee succeeds under "the power of its own arrogance".[23] The origin of this myth has been difficult to pin down with any certainty. John McMasters recounted an anecdote about an unnamed Swiss aerodynamicist at a dinner party who performed some rough calculations and concluded, presumably in jest, that according to the equations, bumblebees cannot fly.[24] In later years McMasters has backed away from this origin, suggesting that there could be multiple sources, and that the earliest he has found was a reference in the 1934 French book Le vol des insectes by M. Magnan. Magnan is reported to have written that he and a M. Saint-Lague had applied the equations of air resistance to insects and found that their flight was impossible, but that "One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality".[25]
It is believed that the calculations which purported to show that bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall, an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing, which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle. [26]"
-
CAP1, I know the ECU can adjust the timing parameters to adjust for pre-ignition, but I think you are assuming it can actually adjust to TDC, rather than some limit at BTDC. I should think a software engineer would cap the limit of the adjustment to prevent a possbile run away scenario. It is that cap that I would be concerned with.
I could be wrong here as well. I have not seen any source code to an ECU.
well, i don't know how to program ecu's. i do know that so far the only limit's i've really seen on them have been on fords, limiting some cars to 120mph.
on some mustangs, 5 speed equipped, there was a rev limiter built in too. it was set to 6250rpm. we used to take lincoln mk7 ecu's and put em in mustangs. they had a faster fuel and faster timing curve, plus they had no rev limiter.
to the best of my knowledge, there isn't much of a limit on the adjustment range for ignition timing. it wouldn't really need to be moved as much as you would think. maybe 10 degrees i'd think. very small timing changes make very big changes.
-
That is actually not true. Even wiki has the story on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee
"Flight
According to 20th century folklore, the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight, as it does not have the capacity (in terms of wing size or beat per second) to achieve flight with the degree of wing loading necessary. Not being aware of scientists 'proving' it cannot fly, the bumblebee succeeds under "the power of its own arrogance".[23] The origin of this myth has been difficult to pin down with any certainty. John McMasters recounted an anecdote about an unnamed Swiss aerodynamicist at a dinner party who performed some rough calculations and concluded, presumably in jest, that according to the equations, bumblebees cannot fly.[24] In later years McMasters has backed away from this origin, suggesting that there could be multiple sources, and that the earliest he has found was a reference in the 1934 French book Le vol des insectes by M. Magnan. Magnan is reported to have written that he and a M. Saint-Lague had applied the equations of air resistance to insects and found that their flight was impossible, but that "One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality".[25]
It is believed that the calculations which purported to show that bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall, an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing, which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle. [26]"
thank ya sir.......while i remove my foot from my mouth(so to speak), i will point out this statement in there:but that "One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality".[
i think this may be the case here.
-
If you miscalculate is that the fault of the mathematics or the mathematician? In the case of the myth about the bumble bee aerodynamics there is no proof that the calculations were even made to begin with. Just a "rumor" about it.
I agree with Holden that the math has to add up. Even though I lack the skills to show a mathematical proof (math disfunctional here) my intuitive grasp of the system and processes is inclined to seriously doubt that a minimal amount of hydrogen can produce more than a minimal amount of actual effect. The minimal amount being 2 liters per minute at normal atmospheric pressure (and that is the total gas emitted, the chemical break down would be 2 parts hydrogen for only 1 part oxygen so 1.4 liters hydrogen and .6 liters oxygen per minute) to be diluted in the multiple hundred cubic feet per minute of air going into the engine. That's why I am adamant about dyno lab testing. Eliminating the variables to include driver change in driving habits in the expectation of an increase in mileage not to mention all of the other environmental factors.
If it can be empirically demonstrated to work and the results are reproducible then the science is solid and the calculations may be deficient (as in the bumble bee situation). On the other hand if the calculations don't add up and the testing supports the calculations then again empirically it's been proven that the gadget was not the source of the change.
If the testing works out positive then I'm happy to be wrong but until you can show me that the change was demonstratably proven to be the result of the gadget and only the gadget I am skeptical. Just like I have yet to see anyone come forward with proof of a hundred MPG carburetor for an older car. That one has been around since I was a kid and gas was only 18 cents per gallon. Yes I recall those days and I bought gas for that price for my first car.
-
If the testing works out positive then I'm happy to be wrong but until you can show me that the change was demonstratably proven to be the result of the gadget and only the gadget I am skeptical. Just like I have yet to see anyone come forward with proof of a hundred MPG carburetor for an older car. That one has been around since I was a kid and gas was only 18 cents per gallon. Yes I recall those days and I bought gas for that price for my first car.
Absolutely agree, 100%.
I just have a tremendous skepticism, and those trying to sell this idea seem so utterly convinced, I have skepticism about their scientific objectivity as well.
Mav, if you remember 18 cents a gallon, you may remember the cow magnet phenomenon of I think it was about 1983 or so...
Tape these magnets to the fuel line and polarize your fuel and it will add 5 mpg.
There were those who swore up and down they had carefully measured and it did work: It did squat for car milage, but it caused problems in the beef and dairy industry. They feed their cows magnets so nails and barb bire fragments stayed in their 1st stomach. No magnets, problems with the guts of their cows.
Outstanding results need outstanding proof.
-
Yeah and a 350 HP ICE isn't always putting out 350 HP. What is your point?
200W = 200W
Hows that for math?
a 15 W draw will require a 15 W draw from the engine.
How's that foir math?
You need to come up with a reason for the HHO working that is better than the reality I have shown you.
So explain this Mr Wizzard. How does a Radar system (Raytheon RL-70) for excample, it's a system I've worked on many times, take a 12vdc 25 amp input and put out 4 kilowatts of RF power out the front end? This little radar can detect and track targets at well over 40 miles if the antenna is high enough to see over the curvature of the earth. As one of the math gurus stated earlier 12 vdc at 15 amps is only 180 watts so at 25amps we're looking at what 250-300 watts of power coming in and 4 kilowatts going out?
Power is power right? 200 watts = 200 watts? Can't get out more than you put in right? RL-70 sure as hell does it. It doesn't need 4 kilowatts of power coming in to send 4 kilowatts of power downrange. It's called step up transformers and power amplifiers and depending on what frequency you send an electrical signal into a transformer and the windings insdie the transformer you get a significant increase out the other side. Same goes for power amplifiers. Guess what's on your alternator? You guessed it, a transformer.
The 3A2 power supply for the AN/SPS-64 radar takes in 110vac and typicaly sits on a 40 amp breaker, yet this thing in standby is generating 465vdc to the mod tube and 600vdc in transmit. The mod tube and high voltage board which also gets it's power from the power supply kicks that up to 20killowatts out the array. Q4 and Q5 power amplifiers on the chassis in a push pull configuration receive a 12 vdc input at the collector of Q4 forward biased at the base by .6 vdc at Q4 and Q5 supplied from the control board circuit and push out 150vdc at the emmitter of Q5. That voltage is combined with a pulsed signal from the pulse modulator circuit to produce a modulated 600volt peak to peak modulted wave at Q6, which is a P2240 power amp about the diameter of a quarter and maybe 1 cm tall, that is supplied to the mod tube to transmit a 20 kilowatt pulsed rf signal at 120 milliseconds in long range (that's x band transmission). All that from 110vac at less than 40 amps or else the breaker would trip.
I know the power this thing puts out and how it works because I spent 4 years trouble shooting and rebuilding the damn things. It is very easy to get out more than you put in, you just need the right components in the proper configuration. Don't tell me it's impossible, tell the folks at Raytheon, JRC, Foruno, and all the other companies that build high energy devices that what they are doing is against the law of thermo dynamics and it can't be done. Is there loss? Sure those components get hot as hell and that shows there is loss, but the end result is more power out than was put into the system. The loss is compensated for. Kinda the same thing with the boosters. The loss is compensated for. In your simplistic view of the math involved and your logic an AEGIS cruiser would have to have a nuclear reactor the size of three mile island to generate the 100,000 watts of power the SPY-1 radar is capable of generating, yet that system is operated off of a gas turbine ships generator and takes 110, 220, and 440vac inputs to the various sub systems for the radar, not to mention that same generator is producing power for the rest of the ship.
Your math and logic might actually be accurate for the very simplistic electrical system on say a Model A ford, but todays cars have a very sophisticated electrical power system and my adding a 15-20 amp load to that system will in no way effect the performance of the engine by itself. The reality is that for vitualy 0 net loss in engine power I can generate 1.5 to 2 liters per minute of HHO gas that can be returned to the engine to boost the fuel burn and allow me to tune the fuel intake to lean it out, saving fuel, with no net loss of power.
The idea is so simple that Joe Blow Six Pack can understand it, yet here you are an engineer over thinking the entire thing trying to blast a hole into something that JPL has said actually works and that was in 1975. Those are rocket scientists that agreed that this works in the application we are applying it to. The testing HAS been done if you care to do a little research and find it, and many have posted those links in this thread for your reading pleasure, but you go ahead and keep riding your bicycle and stick to your math and logic. I'm going to apply a proven technology and drive my truck.
-
Yep I remember the magnet thing, even mythbusters tried it and found no indication it did anything but take money from your pocket for magnets. No indication as to why reorienting the direction of the molecule would have a thing to do with mileage. Secondarily once the fuel is past the magnet what would keep it in line as well? It seems it would kinda tumble a bit once it was either in the carb or cylinder. No explanation for the effect claimed and no proof it worked.
One of the questions I asked my chemistry prof was about the polarity of the water molecule. If it has a north and south pole why can't it be effected by magnetism. It turned out the molecular adhesion of the molecules had far more affinity than the magnetic effect. That means you can't line up water molecules with magnets. I imagine it's the same with gasoline.
-
Yep I remember the magnet thing, even mythbusters tried it and found no indication it did anything but take money from your pocket for magnets. No indication as to why reorienting the direction of the molecule would have a thing to do with mileage. Secondarily once the fuel is past the magnet what would keep it in line as well? It seems it would kinda tumble a bit once it was either in the carb or cylinder. No explanation for the effect claimed and no proof it worked.
One of the questions I asked my chemistry prof was about the polarity of the water molecule. If it has a north and south pole why can't it be effected by magnetism. It turned out the molecular adhesion of the molecules had far more affinity than the magnetic effect. That means you can't line up water molecules with magnets. I imagine it's the same with gasoline.
You sir are correct. The magnet thing was and is a gimmick. Same thing with the "tornado" device that you instal in the air intake pipe that's supposed to make the air more turbulant and mix better with the fuel. Total waste of money.
-
The idea is so simple that Joe Blow Six Pack can understand it
That would be me~ :rock
-
Power is power right? 200 watts = 200 watts? Can't get out more than you put in right? RL-70 sure as hell does it. It doesn't need 4 kilowatts of power coming in to send 4 kilowatts of power downrange.
It's pulsed. For example, if you have 100 watt consumption, and pulse for a tenth of a second every second, you can have a kilowatt output (in reality you need power to run the electronics as well, of course).
It's called step up transformers and power amplifiers and depending on what frequency you send an electrical signal into a transformer and the windings insdie the transformer you get a significant increase out the other side.
You can increase (or decrease) the voltage, or amperage, you cannot increase power without feeding more power in.
If you could, there wouldn't be an energy crisis as you could simply boost the power of one power station enough times to supply the world.
The reality is that for vitualy 0 net loss in engine power I can generate 1.5 to 2 liters per minute of HHO gas that can be returned to the engine to boost the fuel burn and allow me to tune the fuel intake to lean it out, saving fuel, with no net loss of power.
The reality is for very little lost power from the engine you can get back even less power stored in the hydrogen you have produced.
Whether that tiny amount of hydrogen will have any effect on the engine remains to be seen.
In your simplistic view of the math involved and your logic an AEGIS cruiser would have to have a nuclear reactor the size of three mile island to generate the 100,000 watts of power the SPY-1 radar is capable of generating, yet that system is operated off of a gas turbine ships generator
100,000 watts is 134 horsepower. It doesn't take much of a generator at all. A large nuclear power station puts out in excess of 1 gw, which is 1,000,000,000 watts.
-
Muhahah,
I am going to run my truck on water, (Dodge 1980 D-50) but the first thing I am going to do is pull and scrap the engine and transmission. I may also scrap the differential, or I may just build a converter to male the shaft in put 1 to 1 with the wheel rotation. then I am installing a 2 cyl compound engine (running at 1000 to 1500 psi) where the transmission was and hook it directly to the drive shaft. Under the hood will go a Lamont Generator, and a condenser, switching and fuel control will be electric and require an alternator batteries setup. total HP will be in the neighborhood of 35 to 45 but they will be real HP not the ICE pretend HP the auto industry uses. (Grin) Doble had a car that weighed in at around 5000 lb and used a 20 Hp engine, 0 to 75 mph in 10 seconds.... Of a certainty they are "Steam Hp"
I can punch up links ifluffluff'n Ya'll want 'em.
Regards,
Kevin
ps the Comet is allmost ready for constaint use (I found out far more than I wanted to about alternators last week end....) and the construction of the Lamont is about to begin (I just finshed the logic and control systems for it)
Kevin
-
Muhahah,
I am going to run my truck on water, (Dodge 1980 D-50) but the first thing I am going to do is pull and scrap the engine and transmission. I may also scrap the differential, or I may just build a converter to male the shaft in put 1 to 1 with the wheel rotation. then I am installing a 2 cyl compound engine (running at 1000 to 1500 psi) where the transmission was and hook it directly to the drive shaft. Under the hood will go a Lamont Generator, and a condenser, switching and fuel control will be electric and require an alternator batteries setup. total HP will be in the neighborhood of 35 to 45 but they will be real HP not the ICE pretend HP the auto industry uses. (Grin) Doble had a car that weighed in at around 5000 lb and used a 20 Hp engine, 0 to 75 mph in 10 seconds.... Of a certainty they are "Steam Hp"
I can punch up links ifluffluffluffluff'n Ya'll want 'em.
Regards,
Kevin
out of curiosity, i'd like to see those links.
-
Absolutely agree, 100%.
I just have a tremendous skepticism, and those trying to sell this idea seem so utterly convinced, I have skepticism about their scientific objectivity as well.
Mav, if you remember 18 cents a gallon, you may remember the cow magnet phenomenon of I think it was about 1983 or so...
Tape these magnets to the fuel line and polarize your fuel and it will add 5 mpg.
There were those who swore up and down they had carefully measured and it did work: It did squat for car milage, but it caused problems in the beef and dairy industry. They feed their cows magnets so nails and barb bire fragments stayed in their 1st stomach. No magnets, problems with the guts of their cows.
Outstanding results need outstanding proof.
well, the magnet thing...i think i remember hearing about that around 79 or 80 too. that's when i started driving, reg. leaded was 89 cents. but to magnetize the gas.......nah.........
holden.....not that you care........but i wanted to mention that my comments earlier were not intended insultingly. i was kind of having sarcastic fun.
i realize you guys know a bunch more than i do.......basic simple math is my limit. i know that. i try to take in and understand what you guys are putting up here.
i still think it will work, and looking at the combined systems working together it makes sense. if i look at only one system then it doesn't.
i will also gladly admit to being wrong...if i am.
friggin makes me feel old. there was a day when i was too stubborn to do that. :rofl
-
You can increase (or decrease) the voltage, or amperage, you cannot increase power without feeding more power in.
your statement makes no sense to me.
You can increase power by increasing either voltage or current.....
P = I x E
Any increase in voltage applied to the same amount of current would show an increase in power. The increase in voltage can be acheived through a step up transformer quite easily.
-
Lamont Generator
http://www.stanleysteamers.com/lamont-1.htm
Doble steam car
http://ghlin2.greenhills.net/~apatter/doble.html
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/video_player.shtml?vid=213453
more steam,
http://www.stanleysteamers.com/
Doble Bessler steam plane,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8
Lots more but this is a start.
Regards,
Kevin
out of curiosity, i'd like to see those links.
-
your statement makes no sense to me.
You can increase power by increasing either voltage or current.....
P = I x E
Any increase in voltage applied to the same amount of current would show an increase in power. The increase in voltage can be achieved through a step up transformer quite easily.
Power= Volts x Amps.
An increase in Volts will mean a decrease in Amps if the same amount of power is to be retained.
2KW = 240Vx8.333rA
2KW = 100Vx20A
2KW = 2KVx1A
2KW = 10Vx200A
However, if the output is pulsed then it is entirely possible using a capacitance discharge system for a system working off a 12V 25A (300W) power supply to put out short bursts of 4KW.
-
EDITED...
-
got to say that Holden's posts have been absolutely spot on, theres 100s of years of experimentation and proof to back up what he's saying. might be a good time to summarise:
the booster will draw current, which increases load on the engine.
the hydrogen burnt in the engine provides less energy than the fuel used to produce it.
if the burning fuel is converted into kinetic energy at the same efficiency as pre-hydroxy, the engine will be less efficient than before and mpg will decrease.
so for this to work (ie increase the engines efficiency,) the fuel -> kinetic energy stage must be more efficient to overcome the losses from hydroxy production, and then some to provide a net increase in efficiency (more mpg)
so what we're looking for is the hydroxy improving the efficiency of the combustion stage, by quite a margin
modern engine designs use a range of techniques to achieve better efficiency in the combustion stage (direct injection, combustion chamber/port/manifold design, ECUs to control fuel/air mix, timing etc under specific loads)
older engines by comparison can be very inefficient, so there may be room for improvement. If by chance the engine would benefit from a faster burn, you'll see an improvement.
btw I've reduced my fuel costs by switching from 95RON standard to 97/98RON super unleaded, costs 5% more and mpg improves by 15-20% :aok ymmv
-
I've used premium for many years now. Since I run LPG for 3 out of 4 weeks (I always run for about a week on ULP) the actual overall savings are negligible but the engine likes it much better.
-
yeah improvements all round with 98RON - mpg, power, response and a bit more fizz at the top end. I ran a 1.4l civic for a while (great car :)) and the effect was really noticable, especially the improved torque low down.
-
got to say that Holden's posts have been absolutely spot on, theres 100s of years of experimentation and proof to back up what he's saying. might be a good time to summarise:
the booster will draw current, which increases load on the engine.
correct
the hydrogen burnt in the engine provides less energy than the fuel used to produce it.
correct if in comparison with like for like
if the burning fuel is converted into kinetic energy at the same efficiency as pre-hydroxy, the engine will be less efficient than before and mpg will decrease.
you do realise your adding hydrogen / oxygen to a leaner fuel air mix and not replacing petrol?
so for this to work (ie increase the engines efficiency,) the fuel -> kinetic energy stage must be more efficient to overcome the losses from hydroxy production, and then some to provide a net increase in efficiency (more mpg)
getting there
so what we're looking for is the hydroxy improving the efficiency of the combustion stage, by quite a margin
and there we have it
modern engine designs use a range of techniques to achieve better efficiency in the combustion stage (direct injection, combustion chamber/port/manifold design, ECUs to control fuel/air mix, timing etc under specific loads)
efficiency err well perhaps as for economy don't you kid yourself
older engines by comparison can be very inefficient, so there may be room for improvement. If by chance the engine would benefit from a faster burn, you'll see an improvement.
older engines and diesels are easier to work with for sure
btw I've reduced my fuel costs by switching from 95RON standard to 97/98RON super unleaded, costs 5% more and mpg improves by 15-20% :aok ymmv
Now bolt the booster on for even more economy
:D
-
Power is power right? 200 watts = 200 watts? Can't get out more than you put in right? RL-70 sure as hell does it.
And that is where your understanding lacks.
The 2nd law is baically, -- The best you can do is break even, and you cannot even do that. You will always lose.
If the RL 70 puts out more power than it consumes then it violates the law. A law that cannot be violated.
Any conversion of energy includes a loss . There can be no energy conversion with 100% efficiency and by your statement that this radar puts out more than it consumes shows a lack of understanding.
-
Copied right out of the manual. I used these on 12 and 24vdc vessels with the exact same results on both.
4D 24" Radome Scanner Unit
General
Approvals
CE - conforms to 1995/5/EC, EN60945
FCC - conforms to Part 80 (47CFR) and Part 2 (47CFR)
Dimensions Φ599 x 227 mm (23.6 x 8.9 in)
Weight 7.5 kg (16.5 lbs)
Input Voltage 8.7 - 32 V DC (from display unit)
Power Consumption 34 W (10 W Standby)
Environmental Waterproof to CFR46
Temperature range: -10° to +55°C
Humidity limit: up to 95% at 35°C
Maximum wind speed for satisfactory operation: 100 Kts
Maximum Range Scale 48 nm
Transmitter
Transmitter Frequency 9410 +/– 30 MHz
Peak Power Output 4.0 kW (nominal)
Transmitter Solid-state modulator driving Magnetron
Pulse Length/PRF
Range (nm) Pulse Length (μS) PRF (Hz)
0.25 or less 0.065 3000
0.50 0.090 3000
0.75 0.150 3000
0.75 expanded 0.250 3000
1.50 0.350 2000
3.00 0.450 1500
3.00 expanded 0.600 1300
6.00 or greater 1.000 740
Standby Mode Magnetron heater and control left on, all other services off
Duplexer Circulator
So if this things consumes 34 watts of power at the input and produces 4 kilowatts of power out the array how does it do that?
-
you do realise your adding hydrogen / oxygen to a leaner fuel air mix and not replacing petrol?
well leaner-mix/same-power and same-mix/more-power are both indicators of increased efficiency, I find it easier to visualise the 2nd. assuming no physical changes to induction or exhaust you should have roughly the same volume charge of fuel/air mix for either combustion cycle. assuming you want a stoichiometric mix in either case, you will be replacing some of the petrol with hydrogen.
Now bolt the booster on for even more economy
almost 100% sure that wouldn't work for my engine as it has well designed heads, fuel injection and ignition controlled by a pretty sophisticated ECU with feedback from MAF, lambda etc sensors. the burn cycle is already well optimised. I'm sure I could improve it by having a rolling road custom remap for the fuel I use, as the default map is a compromise for vehicles to be sold worldwide and used in temps from Arctic to Saharan, alts from Dead Sea to Tibet and fuel between 90-100RON.
hint for Hornet: "Peak Power Output"
-
That's right Peak Power Output. Every pulse is peaked at 4kw for a 34 watt power consumption and this things peaks for .065 microseconds at 3000hz in short range.
-
Hornet, a capacitor can output more power as a pulse, but it cannot sustain that power output. Between pulses, the capacitor charges up.
If you average the power output, then you will find it is slightly less than the input. It is always less then the input. Most of the loss is in the form of thermal energy.
It always has to go some place, but you cannot get more out than you put in. Energy is funny that way.
-
well leaner-mix/same-power and same-mix/more-power are both indicators of increased efficiency, I find it easier to visualise the 2nd. assuming no physical changes to induction or exhaust you should have roughly the same volume charge of fuel/air mix for either combustion cycle. assuming you want a stoichiometric mix in either case, you will be replacing some of the petrol with hydrogen.
And there you have it. With the EFIE installed along with the booster we are leaning out the fuel mix and replacing what is leaned out with the HHO. Leaner mix=less fuel used for the same power output from the engine=mileage gain for fuel used. This is possible because we are tuning the engine to use that HHO gas.
These are NOT a bolt on and forget about it item. They mst be tuned for the vehicle to achieve optimum effect.
-
Hornet, a capacitor can output more power as a pulse, but it cannot sustain that power output. Between pulses, the capacitor charges up.
If you average the power output, then you will find it is slightly less than the input. It is always less then the input. Most of the loss is in the form of thermal energy.
It always has to go some place, but you cannot get more out than you put in. Energy is funny that way.
Although I agree with you on this I have to add "for now". The fat lady ain't singing on all the laws of physics. We still have a long way to go and there's plenty of stuff we don't understand yet. Example is dark matter much in the public domain. We know it's there but can't find it let alone explain it. Cold electricity is another possibility....yet to be determined.
-
Leaner mix+more efficient combustion cycle=less fuel used for the same power output from the engine=mileage gain for fuel used.
I highlight the addition because this is crucial. The only mechanism that the booster could improve the efficiency of the engine is that somehow the introduction of the hydrogen enables more of the energy in the petrol to be converted into kinetic energy to turn the crank.
ps. explanation of pulsed power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_power)
-
The fat lady ain't singing on all the laws of physics.
She sang long ago on the 2nd law. It's been the certified truth since 1824.
The second law quantifies entropy which is a basis for the understanding of flow of time... It's a fundamental building block for the understanding of the world.
-
Holden these are your people writting this stuff. Scientists and engineers from major universities and labratories. You going to listen to them?
To best describe how Hydrogen Enhanced Combustion works, we are providing this excerpt from a University Technical Report, written by Mr. George Vosper, P.Eng.;
...a Hydrogen Generating System (HGS) for trucks or cars has been on the market for some time. Mounted on a vehicle, it feeds small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen into the engine’s air intake. Its makers claim savings in fuel, reduced noxious and greenhouse gases and increased power. The auto industry is not devoid of hoaxes and as engineers are sceptics by training, it is no surprise that a few of them say the idea won’t work. Such opinions, from engineers can’t be dismissed without explaining why I think these Hydrogen Generating Systems do work and are not just another hoax. 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.
Does it work? Independent studies, at different universities, using various fuels, have shown that flame speeds increase when small amounts of hydrogen are added to air-fuel mixes. A study by the California Institute of Technology, at its Jet Propulsion Lab Pasadena, in 1974 concluded:
The J.P.L. concept has unquestionably demonstrated that the addition of small quantities of gaseous hydrogen to the primary gasoline significantly reduces CO and NOx exhaust emissions while improving engine thermal efficiency
A recent study at the University of Calgary by G.A. Karim on the effect of adding hydrogen to a methane-fuelled engine says
... The addition of some hydrogen to the methane, speeds up the rates of initiation and subsequent propagation of flames over the whole combustible mixture range, including for very fast flowing mixtures. This enhancement of flame initiation and subsequent flame propagation, reduces the Ignition delay and combustion period in both spark ignition and compression ignition engines which should lead to noticeable improvements in the combustion process and performance
What happens inside the combustion chamber is still only a guess. In an earlier explanation I suggested that the extremely rapid flame speed of the added hydrogen oxygen interspersed through the main fuel air mix, gives the whole mix a much faster flame rate. Dr. Brant Peppley, Hydrogen Systems Group, Royal Military College, Kingston, has convinced me that insufficient hydrogen is produced to have much effect by just burning it. He feel’s that the faster burn is most likely due to the presence of nascent (atomic) hydrogen and nascent oxygen, which initiate a chain reaction. I now completely agree. Electrolysis produces “nascent” hydrogen, and oxygen, which may or may not reach the engine as nascent. It is more probable that high temperature in the combustion chamber breaks down the oxygen and hydrogen molecules into free radicals (i.e. nascent). The chain reaction initiated by those free radicals will cause a simultaneous ignition of all the primary fuel. As it all ignites at once, no flame front can exist and without it there is no pressure wave to create knock.
The results of tests at Corrections Canada’s, Bowden Alberta Institution and other independent tests reinforce the belief that combustion is significantly accelerated. They found with the HGS on, unburned hydrocarbons, CO and NO, in the exhaust were either eliminated or drastically reduced and at the same R.P.M. the engine produced more torque from less fuel.
Recently I took part in the highway test of a vehicle driven twice over the same 200-kilometre course, on cruise control, at the same speed, once with the system off and once with it on. A temperature sensor from an accurate pyrometer kit had been inserted directly into the exhaust manifold, to eliminate thermal distortion from the catalytic converter. On average, the exhaust manifold temperature was 65°F lower during the second trip when the Hydrogen Generating System was switched on. The fuel consumption with the unit off was 5.13253 km/li. and 7.2481 km/li. with it on, giving a mileage increase of 41.2% and a fuel savings attributable to the unit of 29.18%
-
From the forgoing, the near absence of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons confirms a very complete and much faster burn. Cooler exhaust temperatures show that more work is taken out during the power stroke. More torque from less fuel at the same R.P.M. verifies that higher pressure from a faster burn, acting through a longer effective power stroke, produces more torque and thus more work from less fuel. The considerable reduction in nitrous oxides (NOx} was a surprise. I had assumed that the extreme temperatures from such a rapid intense burn would produce more NO.,. Time plus high temperature are both essential for nitrous oxides to form. As the extreme burn temperatures are of such short duration and temperature through the remainder of the power stroke and the entire exhaust stroke, will, on average, be much cooler. With this in mind, it is not so surprising that less NOx is produced when the HGS is operating.
Assume a fuel-air mix is so lean as to normally take the entire power stroke (180°) to complete combustion. Educated estimates suggest the presence of nascent hydrogen and oxygen decreases the burn time of the entire mix by a factor of ten (10). If a spark advance of 4° is assumed, the burn would be complete at about 14° past top dead centre. Such a burn will be both rapid and intense. The piston would have moved less than 2% of its stroke by the end of the burn, allowing over 98% of its travel to extract work. The lower exhaust manifold temperatures observed when the Hydrogen Generating System was in use can be viewed as evidence for this occurrence.
Power consumed by this model of the electrolysis cell is about 100 watts. If an alternator efficiency of 60% is assumed, then 0.2233 horsepower will produce enough wattage. Even on a compact car, a unit would use less than ¼ % of its engine’s output, or about what is used by the headlights. The energy regained from burning the hydrogen in the engine is so small that virtually all of the power to the electrolyser must be considered lost. That loss should not, however, exceed V4%, so that any increase in the engine’s thermal efficiency more than ¼ %, is a real gain.
An engineering classmate suggested a grass fire as a useful analogy to understand combustion within an engine. The flame front of a grass fire is distinct and its speed depends in part on the closeness of the individual blades. If grass is first sprayed with a small amount of gasoline to initiate combustion, then all blades will ignite almost in unison. In much the same way, small amounts of nascent oxygen and hydrogen present in the fuel-air mix will cause a chain reaction that ignites all the primary fuel molecules simultaneously. Faster more complete burns are the keys to improving efficiency in internal combustion engines. Power gained from increased thermal efficiency, less the power to the electrolysis unit, is the measure of real gain or loss. It follows from the foregoing paragraph that even a modest gain in thermal efficiency will be greater than the power used by an electrolysis unit. The net result should therefore be positive. Thus onboard electrolysis systems supplying hydrogen and oxygen to internal combustion engines, fuelled by diesel, gasoline or propane, should substantially increase efficiencies.
While the auto industry searches for the perfect means of eliminating harmful emissions, consideration should be given to what these systems can do now, since the HGS considers reduction of harmful emissions even as the engine ages. Almost all unburned hydrocarbons, CO and NO,, are eliminated. Reducing hydrocarbons and CO causes a slight rise in the percentage of CO2 in the exhaust, but as less fuel is used, the actual quantity of CO2 produced is reduced by roughly the same ratio as the savings in fuel. In brief, noxious gas is almost eliminated and greenhouse gas is decreased in proportion to the reduction in fuel consumption. Nothing I have learned so far has lessened my belief that the benefits of using electrolysis units to supply hydrogen to most types of internal combustion engines are both real and considerable.
Reprinted with the permission of George Vosper, P. Eng. June 1998
-
Well all of this info has been up for well over 2 hours and nothing but crickets from the nay sayers, and I've been watching to see who has come to read it. Even saw that Holden was posting a response but then he just disapeared.
Everyone can even go back to the first 3 pages of this thread and see that EVERYTHING I said back there tracks right along with what ALL these engineers, professors, and scientist have been saying for well over 30 years.
1974 JPL says it works, these are the guys that engineered and developed the fuel cells for the Apollo spacecraft. I think they know what they are talking about.
-
Well all of this info has been up for well over 2 hours and nothing but crickets from the nay sayers, and I've been watching to see who has come to read it. Even saw that Holden was posting a response but then he just disapeared.
Everyone can even go back to the first 3 pages of this thread and see that EVERYTHING I said back there tracks right along with what ALL these engineers, professors, and scientist have been saying for well over 30 years.
1974 JPL says it works, these are the guys that engineered and developed the fuel cells for the Apollo spacecraft. I think they know what they are talking about.
you can check to see who's reading these?
-
Oh yeah. Go down to the bottom of the page in the main forum menu and you'll see all the names of everyone on the boards. Where it says users online right below that it will have guests with a number, users with a number and the hidden with a number and it's underlined. Clck on that and it shows you what everyone is reading, if they're posting. Pretty cool to see what people do in here all the time.
-
finally an explanation of the mechanism :aok
i'm confused by one thing though. it seems that the intended effect is to reduce the 180deg slow burn to an impulse of ~16deg. if you can do that, why have the impulse peak at ~5deg PTDC, when the most efficient place to have the impulse peak is at ~90deg PTDC? The best solution is surely to start the burn at TDC and ramp it up to peak at 90deg PTDC?
in case you're wondering wth i'm on about consider a bicycle crank - where do you get the most torque, standing on the pedal at the top of its circle, or when its 90deg past the top?
-
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.
-
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.
Question Are you going to have this thing dyno tuned. What I'm getting at is you'll probably need the ECU flashed to get the most out of this.
-
Awww I quit with Holden, he's an engineer.
Apparently you haven't.
In 2003 Tsolakis et al. of the University of Birmingham showed that "partial replacement of the hydrocarbon fuel by hydrogen combined with EGR resulted in simultaneous reductions of smoke and nitrogen oxides emissions (NOx) without significant changes to engine efficiency".
-
Question Are you going to have this thing dyno tuned. What I'm getting at is you'll probably need the ECU flashed to get the most out of this.
If I was just running the booster than yes that might be needed, but with an EFIE installed that allows me some degree of tuning for the fuel/air mix. The amount of HHO going in is small enough that the ignition timing really doesn't need to be messed with. Being able to compensate for the higher O2 readings from the O2 sensors to the ECU is what screws people up.
If the ECU is receiving a higher than normal O2 reading from the sensor it will think the engine is running lean and add more fuel to the mix. Problem is we WANT the engine running lean, so we have the EFIE to adjust that signal from the O2 sensor to the ECU to compensate. An EFIE is $60-70 on average. Getting the ECU reprogramed will cost alot more. The other advantage of the EFIE is if you take the booster out for maintance, you turn the EFIE off and the engine is running on it's original programing, and nothing more needs to be done.
The boosters we're building and the EFIE's we're using are not the most effective way of doing this, but it is the cheapest, and easiest way of doing it.
-
here you go Hornet here is a quote from the executive summary of your JPL document:
The implementation of the hydrogen-enriched fuels concept consists of the addition of a hydrogen generator to an internal combustion engine system I see Figure I ;.
Some of the fuel normally provided to the engine is diverted to the hydrogen generator. In the hydrogen generator the fuel is vaporized and mixed with pre-heated air after which it is partially oxidized - i. e.. reacted in overich condition the surface of a low cost nickel catalyst.
The products of this reaction are predominantly hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Diluent nitrogen from the atmosphere also comprises a significant fraction of the product gas. Other products are H2O, C02, and unreacted hydrocarbons.
The JPL experiment cut up fuel, not water. Getting Hydrogen from a hydrocarbon fuel is significantly less expensive than hydrolyzing water.
As water is not hydrocarbon, your experiment is not in the same ballpark as the JPL 1970's experiment.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770015346_1977015346.pdf (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770015346_1977015346.pdf)
-
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 and oxygen gas for a faster burn in a lean condition in the engine.
That is an impressive set up they designed though. Just way to expensive and over engineered for what is needed, BUT they did prove that adding hydrogen to the fuel mix DOES improve the thermal efficiency of an engine, they just used a different process to achieve the same results. 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. No soot, no waste products.
Thanks for the link to that document though. Should make some interesting reading. Might even give me some ideas for my gen III booster someday :aok
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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........
-
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.
-
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>>
-
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.'
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
(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.
-
(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
:D
looking forward to seeing how your truck works out.
-
Thanks
It will be a slow progress, the funding comes from what I can snatch out of the pot before we pay for college for the two youngest kids. I was going to do a cabin motorcycle as the prototype, but the trucks just sitting there with a blown engine, and it has all the other subsystems already in place (brakes, lights, steering system, etc.)
The timeline looks something like this,
Complete Lamont generator
Buy or build steam engine
Begin installation.
At the amount of money I can afford to put in, it looks like a year or so. However I will post pictures as I go along.
And remember, it runs on water ( :D)
Regards,
Kevin
:D
looking forward to seeing how your truck works out.
-
What will you be using to heat the water?
-
Any thing that burns,
I have a burner plan that has an adjustable orifice that allows me to burn anything liquid that will maintain fire. That means anything from french fry oil to 250 octane gasoline. Also I have plans for a screw feed with a basket that will allow me to burn wood pellets, or even coal dust or coal chunks. You might be able to say that I'll have a real multi-fueling engine. With external combustion all I really need is heat, I suppose that if I could figure out how to point the mirrors into the combustion chamber I could even use solar power.
Jay Leno says that his Doble E gets about 45 miles to the gallon burning gasoline.
But really my real motivation is the five giant steam whistle on any use to scare somebody out of their wits. :devil
Regards,
Kevin
What will you be using to heat the water?
-
steam power rules.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02OIN1_Dgow
had me rolling and kicking laughing. :rofl
-
this link has a period view of the Doble system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPEv_M7p4fA&feature=related
Regards,
Kevin
-
OK here is an update. I got my booster installed early last week finally. EFIE is hooked up, calibrated and set, and I've been running the system every time I drive my truck. I filled it up today while at lunch and the results were pretty good. I can probably tweak it a little better but here is the data I've gotten.
Prior to install my six month MPG average for routine driving was 11.6 MPG I would get roughly 250 miles from a tank of gas and the average gas purchase over the six month period was 21 gallons to fill the tank. I would wait until the "your almost out of gas dummy" light would come on before filling up. I topped off the tank and reset my trip meter right after I installed the booster.
When I filled it up today it took 20.8 gallons of gas and the trip meter was showing 349. That's 16.7 MPG!!!!! A 5 MPG increase on my first tank of gas using the booster is pretty good.
I'm currently drawing 11amps cold and it hasn't gone over 14amps yet since my longest drive has only been about 30 minutes and the electrolite solution isn't as strong as it could be. I'm not going to mess with anything untill after I fill up again and see if it stays were it's at right now, but so far so good. I think with a stronger electrolite solution and a little more tweaking on the EFIE I should be able to get it over 20 mpg soon. I haven't changed my driving habits and I haven't noticed anything out of the ordinary as far as how the truck runs other than the sound coming from the pipes seems a bit louder. The power seems to be the same.
Anyway I'm going to run it for anouther month or so then take it back over to the dyno and see what that tells me compared to the run I had done last month.
-
I changed my driving habits and have achieved a 38% increase in efficiency.
The only way to test without driving habits or environmental factors weighing in is to run it on a dyno.
Run a scientific test and then get back to us.
-
I have more faith in the Air-Engine.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztFDqcu8oJ4&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztFDqcu8oJ4&feature=related)
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:l3JG97bCd30ROM:http://energybloggers.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/theaircar.jpg)
-
I changed my driving habits and have achieved a 38% increase in efficiency.
The only way to test without driving habits or environmental factors weighing in is to run it on a dyno.
Run a scientific test and then get back to us.
Did you even read the last sentance in my post?
-
did you happen to check your compression before? and after. check sparksplugs after awhile and see if plugs are getting fouled
-
They checked all that when I had the before install dyno test.
-
Did you even read the last sentance in my post?
aawww nowwww, c'mon hornet,
we already established that the extra money in your wallet does not count as proof that this works :D
-
did you happen to check your compression before? and after. check sparksplugs after awhile and see if plugs are getting fouled
if he does a normal compression test, nothing will change. maybe he will see a change in a running compression test.
most v8's average around 50-75psi running, and 125 to 150psi cranking.
-
well I havent read the entire thread, yet, but I'm just curious about how this modification affects the other engine components. I would think that adding something to the combustion chamber would increase pressure to some degree. How does this mod affect pistons, rings, cylinders, valve guides and seals, gaskets, sparkplugs, EGR valves, etc. Damage would not necessarily show right away either but may take months to show up.
I'm interest and will read up more but I would like to see long term results too
-
well I havent read the entire thread, yet, but I'm just curious about how this modification affects the other engine components. I would think that adding something to the combustion chamber would increase pressure to some degree. How does this mod affect pistons, rings, cylinders, valve guides and seals, gaskets, sparkplugs, EGR valves, etc. Damage would necessarily show right away either but may take months to show up.
I'm interest and will read up more but I would like to see long term results too
ok...i understand what you're getting at now..........
i THINK it will raise combustion pressure a small amount. it would stand to reason, just from more effecient combustion.
also keep in mind though, most engines can take some extra pressures. most v8's from ford, chevy, and chrysler, can have a 150hp shot of nitrous added on stock engnes without any detrimental effects. they can take 8 to 10 lbs of boost from either a turbo or a supercharger the same. this shouldn;t be putting anywhere near as much extra load on the engine as those systems do.
hell, the ford and chevy v8's are nearly indestructable. the chrysler ones.....put a few miles on em, and then convert em to boat anchors. :noid :noid :rofl
-
Did you even read the last sentance in my post?
Yes I did.
I was commenting on this,
Prior to install my six month MPG average for routine driving was 11.6 MPG I would get roughly 250 miles from a tank of gas and the average gas purchase over the six month period was 21 gallons to fill the tank. I would wait until the "your almost out of gas dummy" light would come on before filling up. I topped off the tank and reset my trip meter right after I installed the booster.
When I filled it up today it took 20.8 gallons of gas and the trip meter was showing 349. That's 16.7 MPG!!!!! A 5 MPG increase on my first tank of gas using the booster is pretty good.
Which means nothing as it was not a scientific test.
and this,
I haven't changed my driving habits
Which is undoubtedly false, as you are paying attention to your efficiency and you want it to work. Nothing personal on that, but the reason that road driving is not a good measure of engine efficiency is because we are so much a piece of the efficiency pie and we are not the best measure of our own habits. Our behavior must be taken completely out of the test.
posted by CAP1
aawww nowwww, c'mon hornet,
we already established that the extra money in your wallet does not count as proof that this works
You are correct. Driving behavior could account for extra money in your pocket.
In the 1980's, people were taping cow magnets to their gaslines and swearing they were getting a 5 mpg increase. The magnets did nothing, driving behavior was the only difference... even though ppl swore they did not change their driving habits.
-
You are correct. Driving behavior could account for extra money in your pocket.
In the 1980's, people were taping cow magnets to their gaslines and swearing they were getting a 5 mpg increase. The magnets did nothing, driving behavior was the only difference... even though ppl swore they did not change their driving habits.
well, i can tell ya.....when i finally get the time to finish mine, and install it, it will be an honest judgement. i'm an impatient love muffin when i'm driving. i'm the guy that wants all you slow drivers off the road so i can get where i'm going and get there now........with my geo, if i'm accelerating, my foot's in the floor. throttle's either open all the way or cruising. no inbetween.
-
So what are the results?
-
So what are the results?
He said he got over 16 mpg......but he hasn't done another dyno test yet, he's waiting a month to do that.
-
He said he got over 16 mpg......but he hasn't done another dyno test yet, he's waiting a month to do that.
i could be misjudging.....but from what i read of hornet's stuff on these boards, i'd agree with him.
i think the numbers will back up what his wallet says.\
-
So what are the results?
Here's a guy doing another test with HHO injection: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html?series=19 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html?series=19)
Water-Powered Cars: Hydrogen Electrolyzer Mod Can't Up MPGs
After batting down the hype over startups and DIYers claiming they could run a car on water, PM's senior automotive editor installs a hand-built HHO kit—only to find he was right the first time. Can bad chemistry keep the myth of the water car alive? More heavy testing in the PM garage will tell.
By Mike Allen Popular Mechanics
Published on: August 7, 2008
Water-powered cars continue to be the largest single topic taking over my in box—and the Comments section of this Web site. And it's not just my recent column on the truth about water-chugging prototypes. This trend has become an obsession with many backyard inventors, and some of them have become quite strident, insisting that if I knew anything at all about cars, I'd be embracing this technology. They say it could help change the world as we know it. They even say it could eliminate the energy crisis altogether. For this sentiment, I applaud them. And honestly, I hope it's all true.
Unfortunately, I have to indict their physics. The entire concept of running your car on water is based on bad science. The idea is to use electricity from the car's alternator to electrolyze water into HHO, a mixture of pure hydrogen and oxygen. This mix is fed into the intake air, where it is burned along with gasoline, thereby increasing your fuel economy anywhere from 15 to 100 percent—depending on which Web site you're visiting. Believe the hype, and those 1 to 2 liters of HHO streamed into the engine will double the fuel economy, clean the engine out, and maybe even grow hair. Plenty of these budget sites even claim their devices are efficient enough for a version that would run a car entirely on water—no gasoline at all.
If this sounds like it's too good to be true, it is. And I've discussed it in this column too many times to go over again, so I won't. I've tested way too many bogus gas savers and miracle fuel-saving gadgets over the years to buy in to this one. So it's time to put up or shut up, and do what we do best around here—test drive, generate real-world numbers, and come up with realistic answers.
So, last month I received an electrolyzer, fabricated by my old Monster Garage partner, Steve Rumore at Avalanche Engineering out in Colorado. Steve cleverly designed the device into a steel toolbox, making it portable—just the ticket for someone tinkering with HHO/water/hydrogen/Brown's Gaspowered conveyances. Steve isn't a gadget geek—his company fabricates championship off-road vehicles. But he was talked into making a couple of HHO units by one of his customers. And why not? The plans are all over the Internet, and the tech isn't very complicated. The unit consists of eight plastic bottles with stainless-steel electrodes, connected up in series—parallel to the vehicle's battery. The cells are filled with plain ol' water and a small amount of potassium hydroxide electrolyte to conduct electricity. A hose conveys the HHO output to the engine.
It took me a few days of puttering around in my shop to get the electrolyzer up and running. I'm using an HKS Camp 2 onboard computer, hooked into an LCD monitor that's suction-cupped to the windscreen, to check things like mass airflow, fuel-injector pulse width, battery voltage and, of course, fuel economy. The Camp 2 took a little debugging, but now I've got the whole science-fiction mess installed in one of our long-term test cars, complete with wires and hoses everywhere and a back-flash trap/flow meter bubbling away on the dash like Dr. Frankenstein's hookah. This fiendish device prevents any backfire-related explosion in the HHO line from propagating back into the electrolyzer. It also provides instant visual feedback of HHO delivery to the intake, as bubbles scurry from the bottom to the top of the water column. Yes, I have it mounted inside the car.
But guess what? My fuel economy is exactly the same, whether the HHO generator is turned on or not. And that's exactly what I expected. This isn't anecdotal evidence from several tankfuls of gasoline. It's steady-state, flat-road testing, and I don't even pretend to have actual economy numbers. I'm using fuel-injector pulse widths directly from the OBD II port. That means I'm measuring the actual time the injectors are open and delivering fuel. When the HHO generator is toggled on, there's no change. And when it's turned back off, there's no change. Well, the computer's system voltage sags a couple of tenths of a volt, indicating the current drain to run the electrolyzer.
Before you HHO proponents start bombarding me with hate mail, chill. You may have some amazing anecdotal evidence that these systems work. But I'm not swayed by over-the-road proof unless the conditions are constant—the variables are too, well, variable. And that includes my own testing. There's too much noise in the data collection, statistically speaking, and quite a bit of room for experimenter bias. From considerable experience with other gas savers, I know even the subtlest change in driving habits can influence the results. I won't be convinced of any fuel savings until I see results on a dynamometer, where I can control everything except the HHO.
I spent a good hour on the phone yesterday with Fran Giroux of hydrogen-boost.com. He tells me that the HHO injection is only an enabler for other devices and changes. The fuel savings doesn't come from the energy contained in the hydrogen as it's burned, which is what I've asserted all along was implausible. Giroux sells a system of modifications that disables the engine management's computer and makes the engine run extremely lean—as lean as 20:1. That's far from the normal 14.7:1. The hydrogen is necessary to let the ultralean mix burn completely, he claims. There's also a heater for the fuel to promote complete vaporization, and some additives for the fuel and oil to complete his system.
Interesting? Why, yes. But there's a catch.
These mods come under the category of tampering with a federally-mandated emissions control system, making it impossible to pass the underhood visual inspection component of many state smog inspections. To pass this underhood check, no part of the emissions control system can appear to have been modified or disabled. Add in the OBD II pass-fail to the smog check, and odds are these modifications will keep you from getting a smog sticker. That means you might have to disable—and perhaps remove—the system to pass the annual test. Just don't get caught in between.
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.
-
So he says "doesnt work" then he says "maybe, still testing"?
-
This is just too easy, too good to be true.*
So he says "doesnt work" then he says "maybe, still testing"?
He says, ''''I got nothing, my buddy says he got something, but I'm convinced there is some placebo, we are looking at the testing procedure and will get back to you"
GM lost... what... $6 Billion last year because they did not have efficient vehicle fleet to sell?
All they had to do was muck up a few mason jars, some surgical tubing, some wire and some duct tape and they could have increased the fleet MPG by 50%?
And they refused to do it? Somehow it was worth $6 billion to them not to do it?
No car company in the world has seen it to be a profitable idea to be the first to do it?
come on...
*if it seems to good to be true, it is.
-
This is just too easy, too good to be true.*
He says, ''''I got nothing, my buddy says he got something, but I'm convinced there is some placebo, we are looking at the testing procedure and will get back to you"
GM lost... what... $6 Billion last year because they did not have efficient vehicle fleet to sell?
All they had to do was muck up a few mason jars, some surgical tubing, some wire and some duct tape and they could have increased the fleet MPG by 50%?
And they refused to do it? Somehow it was worth $6 billion to them not to do it?
No car company in the world has seen it to be a profitable idea to be the first to do it?
come on...
*if it seems to good to be true, it is.
The reason GM didn't do something like this is it is extremely HIGH MAINTENANCE. It's not something that they can let run off the factory floor and expect it to still be working at the next service.
I know some people who don't even know how to top up their windscreen washer bottle, and yet you seriously expect GM to sell a whole FLEET of cars with an extremely high maintenance gas generator in it that requires daily attention to electrolyte levels in order to operate?
You must be nuts.
I think it's entirely plausible that real savings can be had by those willing to build and install such a thing in their vehicles. I personally would not have the patience to maintain it, and since I already have a dual fuel vehicle I'm really not feeling the fuel bite as much as some others.
-
The reason GM didn't do something like this is it is extremely HIGH MAINTENANCE.
Extremely high maintenance? Just fill it with water and some electrolyte? Whew.. I'm bushed just thinking about it.. I need a Gatorade. I'll just take the powdered gatorade and mix it with some water here and drink it down... that's better. Now, how do I fill this with water and electrolyte?
High maintenance ... $38.7 Billion '07 Loss, GM Plans More Buyouts
High maintenance ... $38.7 Billion '07 Loss, GM Plans More Buyouts
Yeah, I'll choose $38.7 Billion '07 Loss --- GM CEO Rick Wagoner
Yeah I'm sure thats the reason. :rolleyes:
-
Extremely high maintenance? Just fill it with water and some electrolyte? Whew.. I'm bushed just thinking about it.. I need a Gatorade. I'll just take the powdered gatorade and mix it with some water here and drink it down... that's better. Now, how do I fill this with water and electrolyte?
Yeah I'm sure thats the reason. :rolleyes:
i think more of what he's getting at is that it requires any maintenance at all.
look at how many people run their cars low on coolant, oil, tranny fluid, etc. hell....i just had a guy brought me a van the other day. it was knocking its brains out. i checked the oil. it was 4 1/2 quarts low. 5.8L ford.
if people can't check their oil once a month, how could gm expect them to open the hood, and pour the proper mis of electrolyte and water in?
-
I changed my driving habits and have achieved a 38% increase in efficiency.
The only way to test without driving habits or environmental factors weighing in is to run it on a dyno.
Run a scientific test and then get back to us.
you got lab reports to verify this?
you could duplicate your old and new driving habits on a dyno with equipment hooked up.
we can't trust your 38% without lab reports.....unless you have other proof? :D
-
you got lab reports to verify this?
you could duplicate your old and new driving habits on a dyno with equipment hooked up.
we can't trust your 38% without lab reports.....unless you have other proof? :D
Damn it, just broke another sarcasm detector. Cap, I'm sending you the bill. :P
-
Damn it, just broke another sarcasm detector. Cap, I'm sending you the bill. :P
uum.....sorry? nah....no i'm not! :rofl
-
Yeah I read that PM artical. Guess what he didn't install? He didn't have an EFIE installed. He was also using a waterforgas design and those have been proven to be junk. No wonder he didn't see any changes. That's the problem with all the folks trying to debunk the things. They don't know what they are doing and end up with a halfassed install, then claim, "It doesn't work." Well duh. There is alot more to these things than just slapping a booster together and tossing it in the trunk.
Oh and as far as my driving habits go, I really haven't changed anything about how I drive. I still run at 65mph on the interstate just like I always have. I leave the line fast and stop hard. Oh and six months of collecting data on how far I've driven on each tank of gas, logging everything, and then doing the math to get a 6 month baseline average is hard data, but whatever. I know it works because I'm seeing the results.
-
you got lab reports to verify this?
you could duplicate your old and new driving habits on a dyno with equipment hooked up.
As the reason for the dyno is to remove the human factors, to me your sarcasm seems thin.
-
I know you hate math Hornet, but here goes anyway.
I’ve gone through these numbers several times now, and they say this:
From this thread, I think I have found that your hydrogen generator produces 2 liters per minute.
I will assume it is at a pressure of say 20 psi absolute pressure. 5.3 psia over atmospheric. If this pressure is too high, the bottom line number in this post is too low.
The stoichiometric mixture of gasses you produce is by MW, 1:8 Hydrogen to Oxygen.
MW of H2 is 2.016 and O2 is 16.
So by the method of partial pressure, hydrogen is 2.23 psi, and the O2 is the rest.
From the perfect gas law, you produce 0.003331 lbm / hr of hydrogen.
From the JPL reports, from catalytic stripping of fuel, not splitting of water, they produced Hydrogen output flow rates of 0.4 to 2.1 lbm /hr.
This is 120 to 630 times your hydrogen output.
JPL brake specific fuel consumption (including the losses associated with the gas generator) decreases of 6 - 15% from the stock engine were observed over most of the engine BMEP - RPM operating- regime.
Your 11 to 16 mpg is a 45% increase in efficiency.
JPL achieved 6 to 15% with 120 to 630 times the hydrogen production, and produced it in a more energy efficient manner.
JPL produced 1/3 your improvement with 120 to 630 times the effort.
-
As the reason for the dyno is to remove the human factors, to me your sarcasm seems thin.
actually, it's not.
you can manually run a car on the dyno, with a tach hooked up, exhasut probe, fuel gauges, and load it to any specific load you want.
-
I know you hate math Hornet, but here goes anyway.
I’ve gone through these numbers several times now, and they say this:
From this thread, I think I have found that your hydrogen generator produces 2 liters per minute.
I will assume it is at a pressure of say 20 psi absolute pressure. 5.3 psia over atmospheric. If this pressure is too high, the bottom line number in this post is too low.
The stoichiometric mixture of gasses you produce is by MW, 1:8 Hydrogen to Oxygen.
MW of H2 is 2.016 and O2 is 16.
So by the method of partial pressure, hydrogen is 2.23 psi, and the O2 is the rest.
From the perfect gas law, you produce 0.003331 lbm / hr of hydrogen.
From the JPL reports, from catalytic stripping of fuel, not splitting of water, they produced Hydrogen output flow rates of 0.4 to 2.1 lbm /hr.
This is 120 to 630 times your hydrogen output.
JPL brake specific fuel consumption (including the losses associated with the gas generator) decreases of 6 - 15% from the stock engine were observed over most of the engine BMEP - RPM operating- regime.
Your 11 to 16 mpg is a 45% increase in efficiency.
JPL achieved 6 to 15% with 120 to 630 times the hydrogen production, and produced it in a more energy efficient manner.
JPL produced 1/3 your improvement with 120 to 630 times the effort.
dude,
forget reports. they're like politics. they can and will be swayed one way or another.
you've heard of it working. hornet is showing it to work.
do you think any of the great minds of the past just said "it's impossible, and here's why?""
or possibly they said something more like " i wonder what will happen if i try this""?
when hornet runs on the dyno, and it proves out, what then? faulty dyno run?
i'm not tryin to be wise asss...nevermind, i am......but anyway, open your friggin mind dude. unlearn a little, and you might learn something
-
you've heard of it working. hornet is showing it to work.
Hornet is running his vehicle and is getting better milage.
That is what we know. As to why, well that what science is all about. If it weren't for skepticism, we would still believe that the sun returned to the east on the back of a turtle.
Science requires skepticism and incredible results require incredible proof. That proof requires incredible scrutiny.
I am giving him scrutiny, and that is part of the process. You are believing unquestionably: that is religion, not science.
As for forgetting about reports, well those who forget about the past are doomed to repeat it.
-
Hornet is running his vehicle and is getting better milage.
That is what we know. As to why, well that what science is all about. If it weren't for skepticism, we would still believe that the sun returned to the east on the back of a turtle.
Science requires skepticism and incredible results require incredible proof. That proof requires incredible scrutiny.
I am giving him scrutiny, and that is part of the process. You are believing unquestionably: that is religion, not science.
As for forgetting about reports, well those who forget about the past are doomed to repeat it.
nosir,
i am not believing unquestionably.
i know what goes on inside the combustion chamber when you mix air, fuel, and a little spark. i know how that process makes power. i know how that process is almost the cause of its own in-effeciency. i know that by adding this in, we're creating a situation that allows us to burn the mixture faster, thus burn the mixture more effeciently, and completley before the exhaust valve opens, thus using less fuel to create the same power.
that is why i believe hornett, and not your un-disputable numbers. there are times when you need to look at things from a different perspective.
as for not believing the reports you mentioned? as hornet mentioned......they used the crappy jar one with baking soda and tap water. that would skew the results.
almost any results in almost any report, especially from a magazine reporter can, and quite often will be skewed to favor what they want it to favor.
so....if this guy has been on record saying these units don't work, then he tests one and finds it to work, don't you think he's going to look kind of bad?
-
as for not believing the reports you mentioned? as hornet mentioned......they used the crappy jar one with baking soda and tap water. that would skew the results.
I believe that NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory used only excellent quality Mason(r) jars and only MIL spec 3M duct tape in the last study I quoted.
-
Well since we have gotton back to this whole thing about testing and reports. Holden several other people and myself have posted articals from a bunch of major universities written by proffesors and engineers on this very subject and ALL of them have stated that the introduction of tiny amounts of HHO gas to the fuel air mix of an ICE WILL increase the thermal efficiancy of that engine. With that increase the amount of fuel needed to produce the same amount of power with the HHO will be less, hence the engine will use less gasoline for the same amount of power.
That is the science behind the entire process. Yes, you have to add an EFIE device or some other device to change the fuel air mixture. Why? Because most people don't want to spend the large amounts of money to have their vehicles ECU reprogramed. It's easier to fool it by sending a "modified" signal from the O2 sensor. OK no big deal. The outcome is the same.
I've agreed that you can't get more out than you put in, 2nd law of thermodynamics and all. All the electrical power used to generate the gas IS wasted. No doubt about that, but when the HHO gas is added to the F/A mix and the thermal efficiancy of the engine is increased, that overcomes the miniscule loss of power from generating the gas via the battery and alternator resulting in a net gain in fuel used for a set amount of power output from the engine itself. That is were the savings come into play. The thermal efficiancy of the engine, alternator and booster are NOT directly proportional so an over all gain in total efficiancy of the system (engine, alternator, battery, booster) can be achieved.
That's basic science right there telling me that, and backed up by scientists and engineers.
-
Hornet I am really anticipating seeing the results of both dyno tests. :)
-
x2
-
I believe that NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory used only excellent quality Mason(r) jars and only MIL spec 3M duct tape in the last study I quoted.
OOOOOO....government scientists?? suuuurrrreeeeeee, we can definitly believe them. i must now apologize for doubting you, go bury my head in the sand, as government scientists are never ever wrong, and never ever change their findings to suit the political climate.
-
Here ya go, have you seen this one
http://www.preignitioncc.com/default/index.htm
-
Now THOSE claims seem a little inflated to be sure.
If they were trading here in Oz the ACCC would be all over them like a Nigerian on an eBay newbie.
-
Yes, you have to add an EFIE device or some other device to change the fuel air mixture.
Lets see... so if I fool the oxy sensor so I can run a leaner fuel air mixture... that would mean I would burn less fuel per revolution of the engine...
-
would be all over them like a Nigerian on an eBay newbie.
not sure,,,,,,,but THAT seems like sig. material!
:aok :rofl
-
Lets see... so if I fool the oxy sensor so I can run a leaner fuel air mixture... that would mean I would burn less fuel per revolution of the engine...
meaning you're going to need to run more revolutions to maintain the same power output. if it was as easy as running at less than optimal mix, people would be doing so.
-
Lets see... so if I fool the oxy sensor so I can run a leaner fuel air mixture... that would mean I would burn less fuel per revolution of the engine...
Yea ... but he's replacing it with the hydro. Otherwise it might be to rich.
-
meaning you're going to need to run more revolutions to maintain the same power output. if it was as easy as running at less than optimal mix, people would be doing so.
I guess I wont mess with the mixture knob in the Cessna anymore. It's useless for saving fuel.
-
meaning you're going to need to run more revolutions to maintain the same power output. if it was as easy as running at less than optimal mix, people would be doing so.
he's burning less gasoline but replacing the gasoline with hydrogen to maintain the same power.
-
he's burning less gasoline but replacing the gasoline with hydrogen to maintain the same power.
yeah i got that bit. i was responding to holden claiming that would be the entire source of the fuel savings.
"I guess I wont mess with the mixture knob in the Cessna anymore. It's useless for saving fuel."
I may be wrong but...everything i know says you're going to get better mileage by maintaining the right A/F mixture and adjusting the throttle rather than adjusting the A/F mix...not only will there be less potential power from each stroke, you won't burn properly and get even less power.
-
meaning you're going to need to run more revolutions to maintain the same power output. if it was as easy as running at less than optimal mix, people would be doing so.
actually, you're not fooling the o2 sensor into tleaning out the mixture.
there's hydrogen AND oxygen being pulled into the engine. thus, there will be a higher than normal oxygen in the exhaust. so what the EIFE does, is to simply re-adjust the readings from the o2 back to where the ECU expects to see them.
-
I guess I wont mess with the mixture knob in the Cessna anymore. It's useless for saving fuel.
i'm not sure on this....and i will ask the clubs mechanic tomorrow before i go up........but don't lycomings tend to run overly rich with the mixture full in?
if so, then when we lean the mixture, we're actually bringing it closer to optimal 14.7 to 1...
i think
-
actually, you're not fooling the o2 sensor into tleaning out the mixture.
there's hydrogen AND oxygen being pulled into the engine. thus, there will be a higher than normal oxygen in the exhaust. so what the EIFE does, is to simply re-adjust the readings from the o2 back to where the ECU expects to see them.
again, i understood that part. i was responding to holdens implication that the fooling of the o2 sensor was what was causing the improvements in mileage.
-
again, i understood that part. i was responding to holdens implication that the fooling of the o2 sensor was what was causing the improvements in mileage.
The following data is from http://www.knfilters.com/airfuelmonitors.htm (http://www.knfilters.com/airfuelmonitors.htm)
----------- ECONOMY BEST ALL-AROUND POWER
Light 1 -Light 2 Light 3 Light 4 Light 5 Light 6 Light 7 Light 8 Light 9 Light 10
Gasoline 17.1 16.0 15.1 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.0 13.2 12.1
Alcohol 7.6 7.1 6.7 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.1 5.8 5.3
Propane 17.9 16.8 15.9 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.0 14.0 13.0
A leaner mixture of 17.1 'economy ratio' vs a 14.7 'best all around' ratio would mean that each displacement of the engine would pull in 1/17.1 vs 1/14.7 or an 16% fuel savings.
If your car was running in the fuel full rich power zone, 1/17 to 1/12 yeilds a 41% fuel burn savings.
41% -- 45% spooky.
Of course pulling a trailer up hill or 0-60 time would be affected.
When you adjust the mixture lean you increase the exhaust gas temperature and begin to make nitogen oxides, a key pollutant that the oxy sensor tries to avoid by keeping out of the lean zone.
Too hot exhaust gas temp can be tough on valves and other parts of the engine.
-
The following data is from http://www.knfilters.com/airfuelmonitors.htm (http://www.knfilters.com/airfuelmonitors.htm)
----------- ECONOMY BEST ALL-AROUND POWER
Light 1 -Light 2 Light 3 Light 4 Light 5 Light 6 Light 7 Light 8 Light 9 Light 10
Gasoline 17.1 16.0 15.1 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.0 13.2 12.1
Alcohol 7.6 7.1 6.7 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.1 5.8 5.3
Propane 17.9 16.8 15.9 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.0 14.0 13.0
A leaner mixture of 17.1 'economy ratio' vs a 14.7 'best all around' ratio would mean that each displacement of the engine would pull in 1/17.1 vs 1/14.7 or an 16% fuel savings.
If your car was running in the fuel full rich power zone, 1/17 to 1/12 yeilds a 41% fuel burn savings.
41% -- 45% spooky.
Of course pulling a trailer up hill or 0-60 time would be affected.
When you adjust the mixture lean you increase the exhaust gas temperature and begin to make nitogen oxides, a key pollutant that the oxy sensor tries to avoid by keeping out of the lean zone.
Too hot exhaust gas temp can be tough on valves and other parts of the engine.
on most cars, the o2 sensor has nothing to do with oxides of nitrogen.
they're controlled by the egr systems, or by three way catalytic converters.
-
quick question - about how much of the water/electrolyte mixture is used per mile?
(its probably been mentioned already but over 250 posts...)
-
The following data is from http://www.knfilters.com/airfuelmonitors.htm (http://www.knfilters.com/airfuelmonitors.htm)
----------- ECONOMY BEST ALL-AROUND POWER
Light 1 -Light 2 Light 3 Light 4 Light 5 Light 6 Light 7 Light 8 Light 9 Light 10
Gasoline 17.1 16.0 15.1 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.0 13.2 12.1
Alcohol 7.6 7.1 6.7 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.1 5.8 5.3
Propane 17.9 16.8 15.9 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.0 14.0 13.0
A leaner mixture of 17.1 'economy ratio' vs a 14.7 'best all around' ratio would mean that each displacement of the engine would pull in 1/17.1 vs 1/14.7 or an 16% fuel savings.
If your car was running in the fuel full rich power zone, 1/17 to 1/12 yeilds a 41% fuel burn savings.
41% -- 45% spooky.
Of course pulling a trailer up hill or 0-60 time would be affected.
When you adjust the mixture lean you increase the exhaust gas temperature and begin to make nitogen oxides, a key pollutant that the oxy sensor tries to avoid by keeping out of the lean zone.
Too hot exhaust gas temp can be tough on valves and other parts of the engine.
can't argue with that. further looking into (not easy, everything i found was on forums or sites of people trying to sell me something) it says it would only be useful (or safe) for cruising. even if it is the entire cause for his noticed improvements, his HHO setup supposedly decreases engine temperatures, this would make it safer for him to run a leaner mix.
-
quick question - about how much of the water/electrolyte mixture is used per mile?
(its probably been mentioned already but over 250 posts...)
You might need to add around 1/2 liter a month. The water level in mine has only dropped about 6ml since I installed it, but I also have an automatic refill tank on mine so when the booster cools down and creates a negative pressure in the chamber it sucks fresh refill water from the tank through a one way valve. I used a plastic lab container that has ml messurements on the side, and so far I'm down by 6ml on the tank.
So water/mix per mile used is so small it really can't be messured.
-
ty, I only ask because I was thinking about the maintenance issue for universal adoption. assuming (big assumption here :)) that you do pretty average yearly mileage, a 10l tank would last a year so could be refilled at service time (or DIY if you like) so maybe not such a big issue. if it runs low it would be pretty trivial for the ECU to switch to a more conventional setting until its topped up again.
-
Posted by CAP1
on most cars, the o2 sensor has nothing to do with oxides of nitrogen.
they're controlled by the egr systems, or by three way catalytic converters.
Nitrogen Oxide is caused by high flame temperature. High temperature combustion allows oxygen and nitrogen to fuse more easily than a low temp flame. Lean mixture yields a high temperature flame. O2 sensor keeps the AF mixture near 14.7, thus keeping the flame temperature down by staying away from the lean side of thee spectrum.
So the oxy sensor does play a part in nitrogen oxide control.
Further looking into (not easy, everything i found was on forums or sites of people trying to sell me something) it says it would only be useful (or safe) for cruising. even if it is the entire cause for his noticed improvements, his HHO setup supposedly decreases engine temperatures, this would make it safer for him to run a leaner mix.
OK Vorticon, Hornet’s system produces 0.0033 lbm / hr of hydrogen.
In that same hour, driving at 60 mph, and now getting 16 mpg,
16 mpg --- 60 mph --- yielding 3.75 GPH fuel burn
3.75 * 6.2 lbm / gal = 23.25 lbs gasoline per hour
0.0033 / 23.25 = 0.000143
0.000143 lbs of hydrogen per lb of gasoline is 1.4/100 of 1% by weight
JPL needed more than 100 times the hydrogen to make 1/3 the difference.
By the way this is all in an air flow thru the engine (at 14.7) of 342 lbs. That is 4600 cu ft of air blowing thru the engine every hour.
Do you really think the hydrogen bubbler is making all that much difference?[/b]
Here is an abstract of a paper from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers:
Proceedings of ICES2006 ASME Internal Combustion Engine Division 2006 Spring Technical Conference May 2006, Aachen, Germany
Enrico Conte Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
Experimental investigations were carried out to assess the use of hydrogen in a Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) engine. Injection of small amounts of hydrogen (up to 27% on an energy basis) in the intake port creates a reactive homogeneous background for the direct injection of gasoline in the cylinder. In this way, it is possible to operate the engine with high EGR rates and, in certain conditions, to delay the ignition timing as compared to standard GDI operation, in order to reduce NOx and HC emissions to very low levels and possibly soot emissions.
The results confirmed that high EGR rates can be achieved and NOx and HC emissions reduced, showed significant advantage in terms of combustion efficiency[/i] and gave unexpected results relative to the delaying of ignition, which only partly confirmed the expected behavior.
A realistic application would make use of hydrogen-containing reformer gas produced on board the vehicle, but safety restrictions did not allow using carbon monoxide in the test facility. Thus pure hydrogen was used for a best-case investigation. The expected difference in the use of the two gases is briefly discussed.
27% on an energy basis.
Hornet’s example is 0.0033 lbm per 23.25 lbs of gasoline.
That’s 0.0033 lbm * 55,000 btu/lb … 180 btu
180 btu for every 23.25 lbs * 18550 btu/lb … 431,288 btu gasoline
180/431,288 = .0004 ---- 0.04% on an energy basis
Enrico Conte found “significant advantage in terms of combustion efficiency” using only 675 times more hydrogen.
JPL had to use 120 to 600 times more hydrogen to make their efficiency improvement of 6 to 15%
Now we know we can change the fuel flow by adjusting the mixture from rich (12:1) to lean (17:1) and achieve 40% better fuel efficiency.
Occam's razor says that the most simple explanation is most probably the true explanation.
Either using much less than 1% of the hydrogen that NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory needed this system gets better than three times the results, and using 675 times less than Enrico Conte of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology found necessary to show 'significant advantage in terms of combustion efficiency' this system achieves magnificent reslults, or like probably millions of people have found out since the invention of the internal combustion engine, leaning the mixture results in better fuel economy.
You might need to add around 1/2 liter a month. The water level in mine has only dropped about 6ml since I installed it, but I also have an automatic refill tank on mine so when the booster cools down and creates a negative pressure in the chamber it sucks fresh refill water from the tank through a one way valve. I used a plastic lab container that has ml measurements on the side, and so far I'm down by 6ml on the tank.
So water/mix per mile used is so small it really can't be measured.
6 ml... a far cry from the 27% by energy ratio Enrico Conte found.
I think driving habits and fooling the oxy sensor to create lean mixture are the most probable reasons for the mileage increase and the Hydrogen injection is just the misdirection of the magic trick.
-
"Do you really think the hydrogen bubbler is making all that much difference?"
not directly no.
"Now we know we can change the fuel flow by adjusting the mixture from rich (12:1) to lean (17:1) and achieve 40% better fuel efficiency."
"Finally there is lean cruise mode. In this mode the ECM commands a leaner than 14.7 A/F ratio or less fuel. This mode can only used be used at light loads when the vehicle speed is above a certain value, in other words, hiway cruise. In this mode, the ECM commands the leaner A/F ratio, increases spark advance, and occasionally returns to closed loop mode to double check itself. There is one problem with this mode. GM ultimately did not enable this mode since it allowed them to circumvent the emissions laws to achieve better gas mileage. This mode is only used by GM EFI tuning experts with enough knowledge to make it work without damaging their engine. If the engine is run too lean, spark plugs, valves, and pistons can be damaged. However, when done correctly, up to 10% in mileage gains are possible above the already excellent mileage from closed loop mode.""
http://www.customefis.com/GMEFI.html
we also know this massively increases the risk of his engine getting severely damaged.
and we know that the HHO decreases running temperature.
IF the HHO is making it so he can safely run a slightly leaner mix, then it is working. not the way anyone expected, but its working.
i dont have much faith in these but assuming they are correct...
"
So why is a certain amount of gas needed? It is a disturbing fact that around 25% of the gas that is injected is used to quench and cool combustion. The extra fuel cannot be burned because there is not enough oxygen.The only purpose for this extra fuel is to put out the flame and cool the explosion. That part of the fuel is wasted. It passes through the exhaust pipes and is burned in the catalytic convertor. "
http://www.fuelmileagespecialists.com/Air_Fuel_Ratio_Myth.htm
and assuming the HHO does enough of a job cooling the explosion to replace at least partially the supposed extra gas entering the cylinder then...
no major loss in power would be seen, engine running temps. would not increase to a unsafe amount, and the HHO would be working exactly the way it is supposed to - replacing gas in the cylinder...but not power producing gas soooo...laws of physics are not broken.
again, i don't have much faith in that.
you need to understand that i'm in this thread because a lot of it is interesting, and i think i can learn something. I do not know, or even care much if his HHO generator works - if it does, then understanding why is important.
-
we also know this massively increases the risk of his engine getting severely damaged.
Yup
and we know that the HHO decreases running temperature.
Well we know that Hydrogen does, at 100 to 675 times the levels this system provides. We have several independent labs that confirm this. HHO, on the other hand... JPL and the Swiss strip hydrogen from fuel or use pure hydrogen they do not make HHO.
21% of the atmosphere sucking into the engine is Oxygen and in the engine I run professionally, a Siemens 501 Gas Turbine, the O2 in the exhaust is about 16%. That is amazingly close to the % you breathe out.
So 23.25 lbs/hr of fuel, at 14.7 requires 345 lbs of air, of which 21% is Oxygen by volume, about 30% by weight. So 23.25 x 30% = 6.98 lbs of oxygen Now we add 0.0264 / hr of O2 from the bubbler. That's a measly 4/10 of a % increase in oxygen mass flow. That's going to be tough to measure, let alone see any difference in flame temperature or efficiency improvement due to the O2.
IF the HHO is making it so he can safely run a slightly leaner mix, then it is working. not the way anyone expected, but its working.
But it is my contention that the piddly amount provided by this electrolysis system doesn't do squat. It's a match struck amidst a raging forest fire. Yes it adds to the fire, but not as much as would make a difference.
6 ml is 6 grams of water. 6 grams of water = 6 grams of HHO. What's that... the mass of a few sheets of paper?
you need to understand that I'm in this thread because a lot of it is interesting, and i think i can learn something. I do not know, or even care much if his HHO generator works - if it does, then understanding why is important.
That's cool.
-
Well we know that Hydrogen does, at 100 to 675 times the levels this system provides. We have several independant labs that confirm this. HHO, on the other hand... JPL and the Swiss strip hydrogen from fuel or use pure hydrogen they do not make HHO.
21% of the atmosphere sucking into the engine is Oxygen and in the engine I run professionally, a Siemens 501 Gas Turbine, the O2 in the exhaust is about 16%. That is amazingly close to the % you breathe out.
So 23.25 lbs/hr of fuel, at 14.7 requires 345 lbs of air, of which 21% is Oxygen by volume, about 30% by weight. So 23.25 x 30% = 6.98 lbs of oxygen Now we add 0.0264 / hr of O2 from the bubbler. That's a measly 4/10 of a % increase in oxygen mass flow. That's going to be tough to measure, let alone see any difference in flame tempereature or efficiency improvement due to the O2.
But it is my contention that the piddly amount provided by this electrolysis system doesn't do squat. It's a match struck amidst a raging forest fire. Yes it adds to the fire, but not as much as would make a difference.
6 ml is 6 grams of water. 6 grams of water = 6 grams of HHO. What's that... the mass of a few sheets of paper?
That's cool.
all right.
i'm going to wait on his dyno results...and i DO want to see the results with the system turned off.
-
well, I'm following this thread for a couple of reasons...
1. I want to see what the results are and what Hornet finds out testing his
2. I want to find out about engine damage.
this below I pulled from the comment section on that Popular Mechanics article
I have a buddy that has been fiddling with this for a couple of years now. He began with the now famous water 4 gas.com and has the "PICC" and all the other modifications listed on the website that go with it. We both have the same GMC truck 4wd with the 5.3 liter engine. I challenged him to a round trip fuel mileage contest to Kingman, az and back (we live in Victorvile, ca) We drove together and the only rule was we had to go at least 55mph. Away we went and when we tanked in Kingman, him 25.5mpg, me 23.5 mgp. Whoops, I need a different stratety. I did think 25.5 was really impressive for the trucks we were driving, it was disapointing to him as all the money he has spent and my only non-stock item was a K & N air filter. My only trick to the 23.5 was not to use the cruise control. My ticket to better fuel mileage was to keep a steady throttle opening, not a steady speed. It did look like I was going to lose this, and a little better attention to my throttle action and I appeared to be using less fuel on the way back, but I radioed my buddy and he thought he was doing about the same, but his engine was running a little rough. Then it happened. About Barstow, his truck began to misfire and smoke. We parked, I went home and got my trailer and towed him home. We opened the engine and found holes in #2 and #5 pistons and several exhaust valves in various stages of being burnt. I might add that my friends truck, while the same year only has 72,000 miles on it, while mine is at 112,000. So the bottom line to this experiment was maybe it does save some fuel, but considering that you will need to replace your engine more often, will it really pay for itself? This damage occurred in about 20,000 miles. I went to the demonstrations in Los Angeles, I talked to people who have claim double the fuel mileage or more, but I can't seem to find one who has more than a few thousand miles on. So who out there has been using this system for more than 20,000 miles will let me take a look at their vehicle and report on it? I need documentation of the mileage. Perhaps a carfax report listing the last smog check. Any takers? Email me at spnkybnky@verizon.net
-
Nitrogen Oxide is caused by high flame temperature. High temperature combustion allows oxygen and nitrogen to fuse more easily than a low temp flame. Lean mixture yields a high temperature flame. O2 sensor keeps the AF mixture near 14.7, thus keeping the flame temperature down by staying away from the lean side of thee spectrum.
So the oxy sensor does play a part in nitrogen oxide control.
OK Vorticon, Hornet’s system produces 0.0033 lbm / hr of hydrogen.
In that same hour, driving at 60 mph, and now getting 16 mpg,
16 mpg --- 60 mph --- yielding 3.75 GPH fuel burn
3.75 * 6.2 lbm / gal = 23.25 lbs gasoline per hour
0.0033 / 23.25 = 0.000143
0.000143 lbs of hydrogen per lb of gasoline is 1.4/100 of 1% by weight
JPL needed more than 100 times the hydrogen to make 1/3 the difference.
By the way this is all in an air flow thru the engine (at 14.7) of 342 lbs. That is 4600 cu ft of air blowing thru the engine every hour.
Do you really think the hydrogen bubbler is making all that much difference?[/b]
Here is an abstract of a paper from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers:
27% on an energy basis.
Hornet’s example is 0.0033 lbm per 23.25 lbs of gasoline.
That’s 0.0033 lbm * 55,000 btu/lb … 180 btu
180 btu for every 23.25 lbs * 18550 btu/lb … 431,288 btu gasoline
180/431,288 = .0004 ---- 0.04% on an energy basis
Enrico Conte found “significant advantage in terms of combustion efficiency” using only 675 times more hydrogen.
JPL had to use 120 to 600 times more hydrogen to make their efficiency improvement of 6 to 15%
Now we know we can change the fuel flow by adjusting the mixture from rich (12:1) to lean (17:1) and achieve 40% better fuel efficiency.
Occam's razor says that the most simple explanation is most probably the true explanation.
Either using much less than 1% of the hydrogen that NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory needed this system gets better than three times the results, and using 675 times less than Enrico Conte of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology found necessary to show 'significant advantage in terms of combustion efficiency' this system achieves magnificent reslults, or like probably millions of people have found out since the invention of the internal combustion engine, leaning the mixture results in better fuel economy.
6 ml... a far cry from the 27% by energy ratio Enrico Conte found.
I think driving habits and fooling the oxy sensor to create lean mixture are the most probable reasons for the mileage increase and the Hydrogen injection is just the misdirection of the magic trick.
at the normal air/fuel ratio that most cars run at, without an egr system, the average combustion temp. goes above 2500F. this is when oxides of nitrogen are created in an automotive engine.
what the egr system does is to re-circulate small amounts of exhaust gas back into the combustion process, thus lowering the combustion temp. below the 2500F threshold.
out of ALL of the NOX failure i've diagnosed(been doing this for 23 years) i think maybe.......half a dozen were caused by bad o2 sensors, maybe 1 or 2 bad cats, and virtually every other one(and i've diagnosed quite a few in my 23 years) has been something in the egr system.
all the o2 does is create a sine wave for running from .1 to .9 of a volt.....1 being lean, .9 being rich. this gives the ecm the needed information to fire the injectors on the right duty cycle. most all ecm's will run the engine very fat during hard acceleration. some will shut down the injectors randomly under closed throttle de-acceleration.
on the other hand though, there are some out there that are eliminating the egr systems. these are using the three way catalytic converters though.
-
This brings up another possible test variable. That would be the performance for the vehicle with the reset sensor modification both with and without a hydrogen gas emitter active on the vehicle. In other words defining what the mileage performance change is really due to, the gas or a reprogrammed fuel management system.
-
heres an idea to test, why not just test this on a pre 1968 car, remove all the computers and sensors...
-
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/me3.html
"water injection" using 4 parts water 1 part alcohol.
-
heres an idea to test, why not just test this on a pre 1968 car, remove all the computers and sensors...
if i still owned any carbeurated cars, i would do that.....but even my race care is EFI
-
It's now the end of September, what was the results of the testing? I hadn't heard anything so went looking for the thread to check it out. Nothing posted yet.
-
It's now the end of September, what was the results of the testing? I hadn't heard anything so went looking for the thread to check it out. Nothing posted yet.
Agreed where are the results? Even the 1st Dyno Test? Post it.
-
Sorry guys, been busy with my new girlfriend and haven't been back for the second test, nor really even thought about it. The results from the before run I have but posting those wouldn't tell you anything other than how an almost stock 5.9L MOPAR engine with 78,000 miles on it runs. I say an almost stock engine because I do have a K&N cold air intake on it, but other than that she was pure stock for the first run. No booster or EFIE electronics installed.
Now the readings I have been taking have shown a decent increase in milage. I've recorded every drop of gas that I've put into the truck along with the odometer readings at those fill ups and accourding to my handy little calculator and basic math, I've managed an average of 7.2mpg increase since I installed the booster. I haven't really noticed any additional horse power but then again my truck is so light in the rear end anyway, I never really get in it all that hard because even before the booster went in I could break the tires loose with no problem. I also haven't towed anything since I put it in.
I did go camping last weekend though and it was about 240 miles from my house to the campsite. I topped off right before we left Friday and then had to stop on the way home. On the interstate at 65-70mph cruising for most of the trip I was getting just over 18mpg. That's up from an average of 13mpg before I installed the booster and EFIE. I ran the booster the entire time, around 4 hours and it was still running pretty cool when we got there, under 140 degrees. I had to add about 18Fl.oz of water to my refill tank when I got home and that only holds 30Fl.oz so for around 8 hours of driving time on the highway I used half my spare water supply, and that is pretty darn good.
Guess I need to get off my butt and see about getting my second dyno run done though so you whinners will get off my back :lol If my girl gets mad though because I'm wasting time in a garage instead of hanging with her, I'm pointing her in your direction.
-
heres an idea to test, why not just test this on a pre 1968 car, remove all the computers and sensors...
ya know........i'm glad someone kicked this thread.
i completley forgot about my 85 E350 cargo van parked on the side of my garage. i'll install mine on that first.
it's a 351W with a holley 600 vac secondary carb. everything else is bone stock on this van. it used to get around 12 miles/gallon.
i'll top the tank up, drive it through, see what it gets, then install the booster.
-
September 29, 2008, 12:36:18 PM
Well this thread has been dormant for six months. I expected some amazing dyno data, and all I hear are crickets.
Ford, GM and Chrysler could all save their tulips with SUV's that get double the milage with only a few hundred dollars worth of mason jars and copper wire, but they stubbornly refuse to make their cars efficient. (Even Toyota is losing money) The payoffs from the oil companies don't seem to show on the auto companies ledgers, even though they must be enormous for GM to lose billions and still somehow make money through oil company payoffs.
NBC Dateline is going to go on the air this Sunday with a show on HHO:
Sunday, March 29: Promises, Promises
With the economy in freefall and unemployment reaching record highs, Hansen investigates two schemes that sound too good to be true. One involves scams targeting people desperately searching for jobs, and the other, a self-professed visionary who claims he can increase gas mileage by 50 percent. Airs at 7 p.m. ET, 6 p.m. CT.
-
Yesterday I went to town and did some shopping without using any gasoline.
I used the bike I gave to my wife when she became 30.
:devil
-
It's odd you necrothread this one Holden. I was thinking about it the other day.
I wonder what's happened?
-
It's odd you necrothread this one Holden. I was thinking about it the other day.
I wonder what's happened?
i've built my unit, but not installed it as yet. i've been spending 90% of my time trying to build my business. that
s a bit more important.....although i may pull everything out, and install it now.....
-
I missed the Dateline show, what was the verdict?
-
It's odd you necrothread this one Holden. I was thinking about it the other day.
I wonder what's happened?
They are scheduled to run it again on the April 5 Dateline, because east coast time the basketball pre-empted it, so you get another chance to see it.
It is based around a guy named Dennis Lee who sells "Hydrogen Asssist Fuel Cells"
Here is his sales website (http://www.deitechnology.com/order.htm) if you want to bite on this scam, but please note the right hand column, where he says, "This 318 cu. in. V-8 got 16 MPG (highway) and will now get over 100 MPG with a PICC"
Directly under it, is a picture of a Honda that he says, "This Honda can Now get 85 MPG (highway)"
If a van with a V8 gets over 100 mpg, why is it the Honda is not getting 200?
This on demand HHO is such bulls--t that I am amazed that anyone takes this seriously.
-
Well this thread has been dormant for six months. I expected some amazing dyno data, and all I hear are crickets.
September 29, 2008, 12:36:18 PM
2 more months and it's a year.... Still waiting on dyno tests... anybody still believe this crap?
-
2 more months and it's a year.... Still waiting on dyno tests... anybody still believe this crap?
Its not crap. It is possibla.
-
I dunno, if the website doesn't allow you to just close the window and has several popups for a "Special Discount" when you talk with an agent, it is a pretty safe bet that it is a load of bull.
On the bullchit-o-meter, it is right up there with free Viagra emails and Russian brides interested in you.
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/7/27/128932347586485210.png)
-
Just spent two hours reading through this crapfest. I'd like to see what happens when he unhooks the HHO supply hose, plugs the hole in the engine, and drives. Betcha he still gets his increased mileage.