Supercar runs on water

[Bodhi]

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.

[CAP1]

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.

[CAP1]

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.

[clerick]

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.

[CAP1]

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.

[clerick]

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

[CAP1]

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. 

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.