Author Topic: Run your car on water??????  (Read 13377 times)

Offline LYNX

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
Re: Run your car on water??????
« Reply #180 on: August 08, 2008, 10:56:07 AM »
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.

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Run your car on water??????
« Reply #181 on: August 08, 2008, 11:07:29 AM »
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
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Re: Run your car on water??????
« Reply #182 on: August 08, 2008, 11:24:49 AM »
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 McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Hornet33

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
Re: Run your car on water??????
« Reply #183 on: August 08, 2008, 11:37:15 AM »
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%


AHII Con 2006, HiTech, "This game is all about pissing off the other guy!!"

Offline Hornet33

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
Re: Run your car on water??????
« Reply #184 on: August 08, 2008, 11:54:09 AM »
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
AHII Con 2006, HiTech, "This game is all about pissing off the other guy!!"

Offline Hornet33

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
Re: Run your car on water??????
« Reply #185 on: August 08, 2008, 02:35:50 PM »
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.
AHII Con 2006, HiTech, "This game is all about pissing off the other guy!!"

Offline CAP1

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22287
      • The Axis Vs Allies Arena
Re: Run your car on water??????
« Reply #186 on: August 08, 2008, 02:43:14 PM »
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?
ingame 1LTCAP
80th FS "Headhunters"
S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning in a Bottle)

Offline Hornet33

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
Re: Run your car on water??????
« Reply #187 on: August 08, 2008, 02:47:19 PM »
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.
AHII Con 2006, HiTech, "This game is all about pissing off the other guy!!"

Offline RTHolmes

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8260
Re: Run your car on water??????
« Reply #188 on: August 08, 2008, 02:53:11 PM »
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?
71 (Eagle) Squadron

What most of us want to do is simply shoot stuff and look good doing it - Chilli

Offline Hornet33

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
Re: Run your car on water??????
« Reply #189 on: August 08, 2008, 03:08:45 PM »
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.
AHII Con 2006, HiTech, "This game is all about pissing off the other guy!!"

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: Run your car on water??????
« Reply #190 on: August 08, 2008, 03:19:17 PM »
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.
See Rule #4

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Re: Run your car on water??????
« Reply #191 on: August 08, 2008, 03:36:09 PM »
Awww I quit with Holden, he's an engineer.

Apparently you haven't.

Quote
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".

Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Hornet33

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
Re: Run your car on water??????
« Reply #192 on: August 08, 2008, 03:37:40 PM »
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.
AHII Con 2006, HiTech, "This game is all about pissing off the other guy!!"

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Re: Run your car on water??????
« Reply #193 on: August 08, 2008, 04:01:56 PM »
here you go Hornet here is a quote from the executive summary of your JPL document: 

Quote
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

« Last Edit: August 08, 2008, 04:03:50 PM by Holden McGroin »
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Hornet33

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
Re: Run your car on water??????
« Reply #194 on: August 08, 2008, 04:28:48 PM »
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
AHII Con 2006, HiTech, "This game is all about pissing off the other guy!!"