Run your car on water??????

[CAP1]

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

[CAP1]

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?

[Bones]

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

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.

[Maverick]

then how is it that engineers say it's aerodynimcally impossible for a bee to fly?

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]

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.

[CAP1]

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.

[Maverick]

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.

[Holden McGroin]

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.

[Hornet33]

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.

[Maverick]

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.

[Hornet33]

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.

[Elfie]

The idea is so simple that Joe Blow Six Pack can understand it

That would be me~   

[Nashwan]

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.

[gunnss]

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

[vorticon]

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.