Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ghi on November 30, 2008, 01:12:13 PM
-
I read the link below on Yahoo News , and i remember the discussion on this forum about Hydroxy gas , looks like it's not just bull if some company invests big $$ to build this car , look at the performances and still running 17.1 km/L =38MPG. I know Santa Claus won't get me this car, but im going to ask for the hydroxy device,it worth 1100$ .
http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/p/948/supercar-runs-on-water (http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/p/948/supercar-runs-on-water)
(http://www.suret.az/az/uploads/posts/2008-08/1218096151_86e8d.jpg)
(http://www.motorauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/odds_and_ends/2008/6/1/hydrogen_scorpion_car_MotorAuthority_main.jpg)
-
mmmm...looks great... :aok
but at $176,000 I'll probably have to pass on it this year
the hydroxy unit retrofit looks interesting, but with gas prices currently back down ( temporarily I'm sure ) I wonder how many folks will try it out
Joker
-
mmmm...looks great... :aok
but at $176,000 I'll probably have to pass on it this year
the hydroxy unit retrofit looks interesting, but with gas prices currently back down ( temporarily I'm sure ) I wonder how many folks will try it out
Joker
Just take a Section 179 depreciation schedule and you'll be fine. You can write off the first $250,000 of any capital improvment or upgrade at 100% this tax year - and when yr done with it roll it into another piece of equipment to defer the depreciation recapture.
-
The article claims the retrofit kit improves the MPG 20-25% and would cost $1,100 USD
If true (and I highly doubt it, though the concept does sound very workable), then $1,100 price is.. iffy.
If you fill up your gas tank 2 times a month (from empty to full).. at $1.60 a gallon, 12 gallon tank.. thats about 20 bucks.. so 40 a month, 480 a year..
25% increase in mpg would mean that in every 4 times you fill the tank, you 'skip' one fueling ... so its 6 fuelings you skip per year.. $120 savings.
And you'd need to own your vehicle for 9 years to have those $1100 balance out.
Yes, most people gas up 3 or 4 times a month but still it'd just mean it pays out in 4-5 years.
Not worth it IMO.
-
The article claims the retrofit kit improves the MPG 20-25% and would cost $1,100 USD
If true (and I highly doubt it, though the concept does sound very workable), then $1,100 price is.. iffy.
If you fill up your gas tank 2 times a month (from empty to full).. at $1.60 a gallon, 12 gallon tank.. thats about 20 bucks.. so 40 a month, 480 a year..
25% increase in mpg would mean that in every 4 times you fill the tank, you 'skip' one fueling ... so its 6 fuelings you skip per year.. $120 savings.
And you'd need to own your vehicle for 9 years to have those $1100 balance out.
Yes, most people gas up 3 or 4 times a month but still it'd just mean it pays out in 4-5 years.
Not worth it IMO.
Not now but when gas was 3-4 bucks double that amount and half the time.
-
The article claims the retrofit kit improves the MPG 20-25% and would cost $1,100 USD
If true (and I highly doubt it, though the concept does sound very workable), then $1,100 price is.. iffy.
If you fill up your gas tank 2 times a month (from empty to full).. at $1.60 a gallon, 12 gallon tank.. thats about 20 bucks.. so 40 a month, 480 a year..
25% increase in mpg would mean that in every 4 times you fill the tank, you 'skip' one fueling ... so its 6 fuelings you skip per year.. $120 savings.
And you'd need to own your vehicle for 9 years to have those $1100 balance out.
Yes, most people gas up 3 or 4 times a month but still it'd just mean it pays out in 4-5 years.
Not worth it IMO.
Yesterday, i payed here in Windsor 0.80CAD/L =aprox. 2.40 USD/gal, (1.23 cad/usd exchange rate, and 3.7L/gal), :.., 25% from 2.40$ would pay sooner the device, and i don't think this low price oil/gas miracle is going to last too long.
When i was born in "70 the world population was about 3.7 billion, today we are over 6.7 billion competing for commodities, natural resources, food ,:the price of oil won't settle here around 50-60$, and can't go lower.
-
if you were to do a search for that thread, you'd find that you can build your own unit, for about $350 or so, and get close to 50% increase in mileage. in face, i think one of our members in here did one. i think there's also links in that thread to sites concerning this.
i think it is well worth it, considering, that gas is cheap now, but won't be for long.
-
if you were to do a search for that thread, you'd find that you can build your own unit, for about $350 or so, and get close to 50% increase in mileage. in face, i think one of our members in here did one. i think there's also links in that thread to sites concerning this.
i think it is well worth it, considering, that gas is cheap now, but won't be for long.
These units are scams. According to thermodynamics you couldn't possibly produce more energy than you you used to create the hydrogen/oxygen mixture.
For example, lets say it takes one Joule to break water down from 2(H2O) into 2(H2) + O2 through electrolysis. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can just change states. You apply energy to water in the form of electrolysis to break the molecule apart, but in combustion, you are applying energy, again, to fuse them back together. These energies, should ideally, have a net sum of zero.
Therefore you cannot gain any energy from the processes claimed in these water cars. The only way you go benefit is if some completely external device was separating the Hydrogen and Oxygen before it went into the car. But, as long as the engine is creating the energy for electrolysis, it cannot gain more energy then it used to create the electricity necessary for electrolysis to work.
-
These units are scams. According to thermodynamics you couldn't possibly produce more energy than you you used to create the hydrogen/oxygen mixture.
For example, lets say it takes one Joule to break water down from 2(H2O) into 2(H2) + O2 through electrolysis. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can just change states. You apply energy to water in the form of electrolysis to break the molecule apart, but in combustion, you are applying energy, again, to fuse them back together. These energies, should ideally, have a net sum of zero.
Therefore you cannot gain any energy from the processes claimed in these water cars. The only way you go benefit is if some completely external device was separating the Hydrogen and Oxygen before it went into the car. But, as long as the engine is creating the energy for electrolysis, it cannot gain more energy then it used to create the electricity necessary for electrolysis to work.
Folk that support the idea of electrolysis understand all of the above. Those that don't support it fail to understand it's not a replacement of petrol but a supplement to the combustion process of petrol.
Typically petrol burns from the spark plug out to the cylinder walls. Typically petrol hasn't the time to fully burn before being ejected from the cylinders through the exhaust ports. Hydrogen gas helps in making ALL the petrol burn instantaneously. Hydrogen gas has a unique "escape" feature in that it permutates into the "mix" almost instantly. Hydrogen gas is more combustable than petrol. Add those 2 features to the fuel air mixture and your thermodynamics becomes <drum roll> MORE EFFECIENT.
-
Folk that support the idea of electrolysis understand all of the above. Those that don't support it fail to understand it's not a replacement of petrol but a supplement to the combustion process of petrol.
Typically petrol burns from the spark plug out to the cylinder walls. Typically petrol hasn't the time to fully burn before being ejected from the cylinders through the exhaust ports. Hydrogen gas helps in making ALL the petrol burn instantaneously. Hydrogen gas has a unique "escape" feature in that it permutates into the "mix" almost instantly. Hydrogen gas is more combustable than petrol. Add those 2 features to the fuel air mixture and your thermodynamics becomes <drum roll> MORE EFFECIENT.
I find it hard to believe that in a properly tuned car expels 15%+ of its fuel through the exhaust. In a 10 gallon tank (that's small) that would mean you are spitting more that 1.5 gallons of fuel out of the tail pipe. A catalytic converter would have a fit if that much unburned fuel was dumped through it on a regular basis. There is a reason that cars are now equipped with an army of sensors. They are constantly analyzing the amount of unburned fuel in the exhaust and adjusting fuel/air ratios to keep it near a 14.7:1 stoichiometric ratio. Is 100% of the fuel burned at all times? No. However, the amount is quite small, mostly due to NOx formation. NOx formation decreases the amount of Oxygen available to oxidize HC, so introducing another combustible material into the mix wont help since there is already an Oxygen deficit.
I also find it hard to believe that a cars 100 or so AMP alternator, assuming you used ALL of it for electrolysis (impossible), could produce enough H2 to be of any real benefit. 100 amps will create about 73 liters of "Browns Gas" per hour (again impractical in a car). A 4 liter truck engine, operating at a constant 2000 RPM will consume about 2000 liters of fuel and air per minute (i think i have that right) or 120,000 liters per hour. The total gas H2 AND O2 produced in that hour would be about .0006% of the total FA used by the vehicle.
I'm just crunching numbers here. It seems like an "interesting" idea, but the claims are just so outrageous that i am skeptical.
-
I find it hard to believe that in a properly tuned car expels 15%+ of its fuel through the exhaust. In a 10 gallon tank (that's small) that would mean you are spitting more that 1.5 gallons of fuel out of the tail pipe. A catalytic converter would have a fit if that much unburned fuel was dumped through it on a regular basis. There is a reason that cars are now equipped with an army of sensors. They are constantly analyzing the amount of unburned fuel in the exhaust and adjusting fuel/air ratios to keep it near a 14.7:1 stoichiometric ratio. Is 100% of the fuel burned at all times? No. However, the amount is quite small, mostly due to NOx formation. NOx formation decreases the amount of Oxygen available to oxidize HC, so introducing another combustible material into the mix wont help since there is already an Oxygen deficit.
I also find it hard to believe that a cars 100 or so AMP alternator, assuming you used ALL of it for electrolysis (impossible), could produce enough H2 to be of any real benefit. 100 amps will create about 73 liters of "Browns Gas" per hour (again impractical in a car). A 4 liter truck engine, operating at a constant 2000 RPM will consume about 2000 liters of fuel and air per minute (i think i have that right) or 120,000 liters per hour. The total gas H2 AND O2 produced in that hour would be about .0006% of the total FA used by the vehicle.
I'm just crunching numbers here. It seems like an "interesting" idea, but the claims are just so outrageous that i am skeptical.
YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND automotive engine combustion to understand that. CO is carbon monoxide. this is produced when the air/fuel mixture is not burned completley. HC is hydrocarbons. these are basically raw fuel dumped out your exhaust. CO happens when there is too much fuel in the mixture to allow complete combustion, or in other words, an overly rich mixture. HC happens when there isn't enough air in the mixture, and combustion cannot happen effeciently, thus dumping raw, unburned fuel out the exhaust.
the job of the catalytic converter is to convert these HC, and CO gases into something less harmful.....CO2, or carbon dioxide. different cats accomplish this in different ways. some store O2, on one cycle, then release it on the next, allowing the cat to convert it.
basically, though, that's exactly what your cat does....it "burns" the unburned A/F mixture comming out of your engine.
if you want to try an interesting experiment, and have access to an emissions analyzer, take a tailpipe reading. now remove the upstream o2 sensor, and take a reading from there. you'll most likely be very very surprised at just how dirty your engine really runs.
i don;t fully understand how these hydrogen units work, but lynx had a perfect explanation of what i believe they're doing.
assume it takes 500ms for the combustion process. this doesn't give it time to burn completley. now add something to the air to make the mixture ignite more easily, and then burn more quickly. so now, it only takes 250ms, to burn. in that time, the process comes much more close to burning everything in the mixture.
as for the amp draw, most systems use a max of 20 amps. this allows 2 litres/hour, which when drawn into the engine along with the normal air charge, mixes with the air....and since it is oxygen AND hydrogen, it also addresses the oxygen deficit.
NOX is only generally fomred if the combustion temp is allowd to rise above 2500F, although some is still produced at lower temps.
with your figuring on quantities needed/used, you seem to be assuming that we're trying to replace something. this is not the case. we're supplementing what's already there, thus we don't need as much brown gas as you figured.
i think it was hornet that installed one on his truck. i'll be getting 'round to installing one on my 85E350, with a carb, to see how it acts on non-ecu controlled engines.
-
YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND automotive engine combustion to understand that. CO is carbon monoxide. this is produced when the air/fuel mixture is not burned completley. HC is hydrocarbons. these are basically raw fuel dumped out your exhaust. CO happens when there is too much fuel in the mixture to allow complete combustion, or in other words, an overly rich mixture. HC happens when there isn't enough air in the mixture, and combustion cannot happen effeciently, thus dumping raw, unburned fuel out the exhaust.
the job of the catalytic converter is to convert these HC, and CO gases into something less harmful.....CO2, or carbon dioxide. different cats accomplish this in different ways. some store O2, on one cycle, then release it on the next, allowing the cat to convert it.
basically, though, that's exactly what your cat does....it "burns" the unburned A/F mixture comming out of your engine.
if you want to try an interesting experiment, and have access to an emissions analyzer, take a tailpipe reading. now remove the upstream o2 sensor, and take a reading from there. you'll most likely be very very surprised at just how dirty your engine really runs.
i don;t fully understand how these hydrogen units work, but lynx had a perfect explanation of what i believe they're doing.
assume it takes 500ms for the combustion process. this doesn't give it time to burn completley. now add something to the air to make the mixture ignite more easily, and then burn more quickly. so now, it only takes 250ms, to burn. in that time, the process comes much more close to burning everything in the mixture.
I understand how engines work, but i also have enough chemistry and physics to make the numbers seem wrong. While adding gaseous hydrogen to an IC engine might act as a catalyst of some sort, the amount of H2 that your cars weak electrical system could produce seems woefully insignificant. Not to mention that the "experts" on the pro HHO websites cannot seem to agree on what adding H2 does.
Let me lay it out this way. clerick's HHO red flags.
1. The amount of H2 that an automotive alternator's current could produce is quite small compared to the volume of FA an engine uses.
2. To gain fuel mileage by using Hydrogen as a "catalyst" wold mean that the % gained would be roughly equal to the % of fuel the car dumps out the exhaust. These claims of 12-50% increase in mpg would mean that roughly 12-50% of the fuel that enters the combustion chamber would be unburned. This quantity of fuel would quickly destroy a catalytic converter quite possibly the car from the resulting fire.
3. The mechanical load placed on an alternator when powering the electrolysis process, would also place an additional load on the engine, requiring more power, thus more fuel. ANY gains in MPG would have to overcome this parasitic loss.
4. If this is SO great then why are we wasting out time and billions of dollars developing alternative fuels? Apparently we already have one that any dope with a craftsman tool kit can install. And PLEASE don't tell me its a conspiracy between Detroit and "Big" oil.
-
This stuff was recently tested in mythbusters and they busted it pretty bad. They did manage to run an engine blowing pure hydrogen from a container on the carburetor though. But the hydrolysis device didn't produce anywhere near enough hydrogen. A typical engine sucks thousands of liters of fuel air mixture while hydrolysis generates only a few liters.
-
This stuff was recently tested in mythbusters and they busted it pretty bad. They did manage to run an engine blowing pure hydrogen from a container on the carburetor though. But the hydrolysis device didn't produce anywhere near enough hydrogen. A typical engine sucks thousands of liters of fuel air mixture while hydrolysis generates only a few liters.
Alla be praised....myth busters really knew what they were doing. :rolleyes:
However, to support there less than objective attempt there are HHO systems being marketed that are little more than a joke. Jam jars and a pieces of twisted wire do more harm than good.
-
I understand how engines work, but i also have enough chemistry and physics to make the numbers seem wrong. While adding gaseous hydrogen to an IC engine might act as a catalyst of some sort, the amount of H2 that your cars weak electrical system could produce seems woefully insignificant. Not to mention that the "experts" on the pro HHO websites cannot seem to agree on what adding H2 does.
Let me lay it out this way. clerick's HHO red flags.
1. The amount of H2 that an automotive alternator's current could produce is quite small compared to the volume of FA an engine uses. This is very true but remember you are not replacing the fuel
2. To gain fuel mileage by using Hydrogen as a "catalyst" wold mean that the % gained would be roughly equal to the % of fuel the car dumps out the exhaust. By adding the HHO there is next to no unburnt fuel. It all goes "BANG" at once. Faster than a normal mix which is slower in comparison. This means less friction and less heat on the piston / rod / crank. More bang for the buck if you like by upgrading the efficiency of the process. Not replacing the process. These claims of 12-50% increase in mpg would mean that roughly 12-50% of the fuel that enters the combustion chamber would be unburned. You are using the theory of replacement. This quantity of fuel would quickly destroy a catalytic converter quite possibly the car from the resulting fire. Only if you were replacing which it isn't
3. The mechanical load placed on an alternator when powering the electrolysis process, would also place an additional load on the engine, requiring more power, thus more fuel. ANY gains in MPG would have to overcome this parasitic loss. Correct and this is what is claimed by making the burn process MORE efficient
4. If this is SO great then why are we wasting out time and billions of dollars developing alternative fuels? Apparently we already have one that any dope with a craftsman tool kit can install. And PLEASE don't tell me its a conspiracy between Detroit and "Big" oil.
Here lies the rub. Take your pick...consumer scepticism, fiddly maintenance (home made kits), cost (fully automated), definitely big oil and in the case of the UK.....Tax.
Maybe GHI is showing us the first "commercialised" attempt.
-
The article claims the retrofit kit improves the MPG 20-25% and would cost $1,100 USD
If true (and I highly doubt it, though the concept does sound very workable), then $1,100 price is.. iffy.
If you fill up your gas tank 2 times a month (from empty to full).. at $1.60 a gallon, 12 gallon tank.. thats about 20 bucks.. so 40 a month, 480 a year..
25% increase in mpg would mean that in every 4 times you fill the tank, you 'skip' one fueling ... so its 6 fuelings you skip per year.. $120 savings.
And you'd need to own your vehicle for 9 years to have those $1100 balance out.
Yes, most people gas up 3 or 4 times a month but still it'd just mean it pays out in 4-5 years.
Not worth it IMO.
At 26 gallons per fill up even at $1.50 it gets expensive quick. I fill up at least once a week.
If I did it, it would pay off in a little over two years. If gas goes back up to $4/gallon I'd pay it off in under a year.
-
This stuff was recently tested in mythbusters and they busted it pretty bad. They did manage to run an engine blowing pure hydrogen from a container on the carburetor though. But the hydrolysis device didn't produce anywhere near enough hydrogen. A typical engine sucks thousands of liters of fuel air mixture while hydrolysis generates only a few liters.
i saw that episode. they were pretty much a pair of clueless nutballs on this one, like a few others.
-
I understand how engines work, but i also have enough chemistry and physics to make the numbers seem wrong. While adding gaseous hydrogen to an IC engine might act as a catalyst of some sort, the amount of H2 that your cars weak electrical system could produce seems woefully insignificant. Not to mention that the "experts" on the pro HHO websites cannot seem to agree on what adding H2 does.
Let me lay it out this way. clerick's HHO red flags.
1. The amount of H2 that an automotive alternator's current could produce is quite small compared to the volume of FA an engine uses.we aren't replacing fuel or air. we're mixing something more flammable into the intake air.
2. To gain fuel mileage by using Hydrogen as a "catalyst" wold mean that the % gained would be roughly equal to the % of fuel the car dumps out the exhaust. These claims of 12-50% increase in mpg would mean that roughly 12-50% of the fuel that enters the combustion chamber would be unburned. This quantity of fuel would quickly destroy a catalytic converter quite possibly the car from the resulting fire.i repeat......run an emissions test on your car, taking your reading from in front of the cat. you'll be VERY surprised at the readings.
3. The mechanical load placed on an alternator when powering the electrolysis process, would also place an additional load on the engine, requiring more power, thus more fuel. ANY gains in MPG would have to overcome this parasitic loss.most vehicles are equipped with 100+amp alternators. some with 80 amp alts. doing their normal job, they never reach that full output. adding another 20 amp draw to an already running alt will use well under 5hp.
4. If this is SO great then why are we wasting out time and billions of dollars developing alternative fuels? Apparently we already have one that any dope with a craftsman tool kit can install. And PLEASE don't tell me its a conspiracy between Detroit and "Big" oil.
nope..not a consoracy at all. the fact is, that this is not the answer to our problems. it is simply a stopgap. it'll help conserve some 'till something else better is discovered.
there's also the refusal of most to either think outside the box, or even think for themselves to begin with.
-
This is very true but remember you are not replacing the fuel
This doesn't matter. According to the calculations i have made the amount of H2 one of these systems could produce under the best (overly optimistic) automotive conditions is around .004% of the entire volume of the engine. Put another way that's 1/10th the amount of CO2 that naturally exists in the air we breathe! By the way, that number was achieved assuming that ALL of a 100amp alternators power was being transferred, with 100% efficiency, into the electrolysis. More realistically the amount produced is probably well below .004% which would mean it has a lower partial pressure than the Methane that naturally exists in our air. How can this small a quantity of H2 diffused in a fuel/air mixture cause enough of an efficiency increase to not only overcome the additional parasitic loss from the added load on the alternator AND have a net increase beyond that.
By adding the HHO there is next to no unburnt fuel. It all goes "BANG" at once. Faster than a normal mix which is slower in comparison. This means less friction and less heat on the piston / rod / crank. More bang for the buck if you like by upgrading the efficiency of the process. Not replacing the process.
I would argue that there is next to no unburnt fuel. If, as you claim, the fuel is not all being burned and, that the addition of H2 is causing it all to be burned, then modern cars must be dumping a LOT of raw fuel out the tail pipe. I have been unable to find any evidence that adding H2 to an IC engine increases adiabatic efficiency, though I am looking.
From what I can tell there is just enough science in this to make it seem plausible. However, the numerous snake-oil salesman out there promising incredible gains are making it hard for people to get to the reality of the situation. Could these claims work in theory? I'll see.
-
This doesn't matter. According to the calculations i have made the amount of H2 one of these systems could produce under the best (overly optimistic) automotive conditions is around .004% of the entire volume of the engine. Put another way that's 1/10th the amount of CO2 that naturally exists in the air we breathe! By the way, that number was achieved assuming that ALL of a 100amp alternators power was being transferred, with 100% efficiency, into the electrolysis. More realistically the amount produced is probably well below .004% which would mean it has a lower partial pressure than the Methane that naturally exists in our air. How can this small a quantity of H2 diffused in a fuel/air mixture cause enough of an efficiency increase to not only overcome the additional parasitic loss from the added load on the alternator AND have a net increase beyond that.
I would argue that there is next to no unburnt fuel. If, as you claim, the fuel is not all being burned and, that the addition of H2 is causing it all to be burned, then modern cars must be dumping a LOT of raw fuel out the tail pipe. I have been unable to find any evidence that adding H2 to an IC engine increases adiabatic efficiency, though I am looking.
From what I can tell there is just enough science in this to make it seem plausible. However, the numerous snake-oil salesman out there promising incredible gains are making it hard for people to get to the reality of the situation. Could these claims work in theory? I'll see.
running a 20 amp draw through this system, produces 2 litres per minute of brown gas.
-
running a 20 amp draw through this system, produces 2 litres per minute of brown gas.
I cannot get your numbers to work out. According to my calculations 20 amps would produce approx. .21 liters of "brown gas" per minute. I used a mathematical form of Faraday's First Law of electrolysis. (anyone feel free to verify my rusty math skills).
I'm not trying to argue as much as ferret out good information
-
I cannot get your numbers to work out. According to my calculations 20 amps would produce approx. .21 liters of "brown gas" per minute. I used a mathematical form of Faraday's First Law of electrolysis. (anyone feel free to verify my rusty math skills).
I'm not trying to argue as much as ferret out good information
i understand that you're not trying to argue. these kinds of conversations on these bbs's are what makes them worth it. :D
i was wrong though. they only produce 1 litre/minute. that's still enough to help though....i think.
this is the design i made. the guy seems like....well.....a smack......but a smart one. he has a whole series of vids. this one is the one that shows the output though....on a weak battery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwMiIHieTQ0&feature=related
i think where the numbers don't end up working out, is because they don't take into account the combining of the extra hydrogen, and oxygen into the incomming air.
check the vids.......they're somewhat interesting, and he has a website too, with the plans. they're free, and MUCH better than that "run your car on water" crap.