Run your car engine on water!

[Vengeance]

Originally Posted By: severach
The mixture should do whatever it was going to do before but with a bit of heat and inert material in the way.
I'm not going to post a detailed rebuttal for the simple fact that you think water is "inert" in the combustion process. It's clear that you don't understand the process of combustion.

 

[Vengeance]

Originally Posted By: oilyriser
You only need a two stroke cycle for a car to run on water. One intake stroke where pressurized water from the overhead storage tank enters the engine and pushes down the piston, and another to expel the water out the tailpipe at low pressure.
I thought you were talking about a steam engine...but the op is about brown's gas.

 

[drifter420]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
If you were splitting the two gasses and not adding the oxygen to the intake, the O2 sensors WOULD have to compensate for the reduced O2.

But these simple kits keep the gasses mixed, so the hydrogen is introduced with enough oxygen to cover it.


Guess I"m going a lil off topic.

A friend of mine has "Supposedly" have some home made electrolysis machine that vents hydrogen into the intake and the oxygen out. I notice his idle isn't very smooth ( was thinking it was caused by the hydrogen ).

So I guess in lamens term.
How would cars with 02 sensors and computer adjust with the hydrogen? And or with the HHO mixture.

 

[severach]

Originally Posted By: Vengeance
I'm not going to post a detailed rebuttal for the simple fact that you think water is "inert" in the combustion process. It's clear that you don't understand the process of combustion.

The amount of steam from burning Brown's gas is pretty small compared to the amount of steam being produced by burning fuel. If water or steam is the magic then I can get as much as I want from a water injection system without the wasted energy from electrolysis. While water injection is well known to reduce knock, the opinion on whether it improves mileage varies widely.

My opinion from reading is that the hydrogen is what does the magic and the oxygen is otherwise worthless and could be discarded for additional benefit. Trace amounts of hydrogen allow the engine to run way outside the allowable range of air fuel ratios. Hydrogen allows you to run the air fuel ratio up to 20:1 and beyond and it will still run without producing the heat or pollution where without the hydrogen the spark would fail to ignite the mixture most of the time. The EFIE just pushes your mixture lean.

But yes, you're right. I know little about combustion other than what I watch on Youtube. Neither does anyone else in the Hyroxy biz either. They are just monkeys with buttons hoping that one of them will bring down the prize. Some get lucky and don't have a clue on how it was done. The science talk is nothing but concentrated buzzwords. I'm all for things that work but to get it out to the general public the process needs to be fairly well understood. I don't see much progress on that front.

I'll play with Hydroxy when I have money to burn.

 

[Kestas]

"save over 40% on fuel costs"

Somebody better tell the clueless automakers in Detroit what they're missing. This is the answer to 35 mpg CAFE and still meet emission standards. They can now lay off all the engineers working to meet CAFE and save the stockholders money.

 

[lame_penguin]

This guy thinks he's gonna a) use electricity produced by the alternator to electrolize water, b) feed the resulting gas to an internal combustion engine to c) produce the power to turn the alternator? This clown seriously lacks comprehension of the second law of thermodynamics.

Now if he's taking the electricity from braking, that would be a bit different, but he'd have to drive like a real jerk to see any benefit;-)

lp

 

[Kestas]

I wonder how many of the above posters touting this device have any formal education on the laws of thermodynamics?

 

[Robb235]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
I wonder how many of the above posters touting this device have any formal education on the laws of thermodynamics?


I guarantee you none of them do.

The idea that you can run your car off water is absolutely ridiculous.

Originally Posted By: severach

My opinion from reading is that the hydrogen is what does the magic and the oxygen is otherwise worthless and could be discarded for additional benefit. Trace amounts of hydrogen allow the engine to run way outside the allowable range of air fuel ratios. Hydrogen allows you to run the air fuel ratio up to 20:1 and beyond and it will still run without producing the heat or pollution where without the hydrogen the spark would fail to ignite the mixture most of the time. The EFIE just pushes your mixture lean.


This is garbage.

Do you even understand what happens when Hydrogen ignites? Do you think it simply burns up and disappears into thin air? No, of course it doesn’t. Here is the chemical formula for what happens when you ignite Hydrogen (hint: Oxygen is part of the equation):

(2)H2 + O2 ---Yields----> (2)H20 + Energy

Now, you surmise that when you create Brown’s gas (H2 and O2) that you simply vent the Oxygen away and only allow the Hydrogen to be drawn into the engine. So now you’ve got extra Hydrogen that will ignite, and in order to do so, will react with Oxygen that’s already present in the air charge when the engine draws in fresh air, allowing less oxygen to react with the gasoline, allowing less gasoline to be consumed.

But wait! You’ve left out a critical part of the equation. First we have to OBTAIN this hydrogen before we can use it. These machines that do that use electrolysis to separate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, depicted by the following formula:

(2)H20 + Energy --Yields--> (2)H2 + O2

Now doesn’t that strangely look similar to the formula for igniting your Hydrogen? In fact, they are simply the reverse of each other. You are expending energy (by way of drawing electricity from the alternator) to create Brown’s gas, only to recover that energy by igniting Hydrogen in the cylinders. So in a perfect world where everything operates at 100% efficiency, you would only be breaking even (since you are effectively trying to power your engine using the alternator, which is in turn powered by the engine in the first place).

But wait!
As we all know, nothing operates at 100% efficiency. Your internal combustion engine does not operate at 100% efficiency. The alternator converting the engine’s mechanical energy into electrical energy does not operate at 100% efficiency. Converting the alternator’s A/C current into 12 volt D/C current is not 100% efficient. Even the electrolysis to break water in to Hydrogen and Oxygen is not 100% efficient. So due to these losses caused by less than perfect efficiency, not only are you not gaining anything by trying to burn Brown’s gas, you are actually operating at a loss.

Now the good news is, since these contraptions only produce a few liters of gas per minute, you’re not drawing a whole lot of extra energy from the alternator (and ultimately from the engine), so the decrease in fuel economy will most likely be marginal.

 

[SteveSRT8]

gosh, I can't believe this [censored] is still going around.

 

[Quest]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
gosh, I can't believe this [censored] is still going around.



Well, this "shxt" stays on due to the following reasoning:

(a)internet fosters all the untruth/unsubstantiated informations (I would say over 80% of the info on the internet contains certain degree of "untruth"), and all the conspiracy dittoheads just luv reviving these information over and over again, thus making them virtually impossible to rid of (just like the famous "bonsai kitten", etc.) and these false information simply lingers on to eternity....

(b) it's also a reflection of how most general public are ill-educated, due to their gullibility in absorbing these silly information. Lack of scientific/logical reasoning, academically-related education (don't gimme that crxp about graduated from social university...blah blah) and downright lack of sheer common sense pretty much sums it up.

In the world of science, a law is something that has been proven. So is the law of thermodynamics.

Enuf ranting...going to sleep now.

Q.

 

[VMAXER]

During WWII the UK suffered an oil shortage, farmers were encouraged to collect all their waste from chickens, pigs and livestock. From this a system of methane gas collection was developed, the methane then compressed into large collapsable bags which sat on top of the vehicles roof. These ordinary vehicles ran completely on methane, no major modifications, with a relatively cheap conversion method. There are many old pictures showing these vehicles driving around in war time London.

Vehicles in Australia have been running on LPG for over 25 years, it used to be a very cheap alternative until it's popularity rose significantly and up went the price. In the early 1980's my brother attended an engineering University which had a boat outboard engine running on ordinary tap water (hydrogen). How come we could run engines to methane in 1939-1945 and develop hydrogen running engines in the 1980's and yet here we are in 2010 with no major leap forwards. I think the question answers itself, the technology has been bought by the oil cartels or the inventors have been eliminated.

We need to keep our remaining oil for the future production of lubricants, synthetics and plastics. Hydrogen has to be the future and it's got to be coming real soon, the Germans, Chinese and the Japanese have already developed this technology, they don't have any oil (or little of it). I think your major problem in the USA is your economy is well and truly in the pockets of the oil companies.

Cheers from downunder

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: VMAXER
In the early 1980's my brother attended an engineering University which had a boat outboard engine running on ordinary tap water (hydrogen).


The universities DID and DO have negines running on hydrogen, but it's hydrogen gas, produced by the gas companies using demin water and HUGE amounts of coal fired electricity.

These scams are all in car generators that somehow produce more power than they consume...can't work...unless it's a Joe Cell, and they are drawing the zero point energy from the aether.

BTW, Grandad used to run his trucks on charcoal gas, and a workmate is just perfecting his Land Cruiser's wood fired gasification plant.

 

[labman]

Originally Posted By: VMAXER
During WWII the UK suffered an oil shortage, farmers were encouraged to collect all their waste from chickens, pigs and livestock. From this a system of methane gas collection was developed, the methane then compressed into large collapsable bags which sat on top of the vehicles roof. These ordinary vehicles ran completely on methane, no major modifications, with a relatively cheap conversion method. There are many old pictures showing these vehicles driving around in war time London.

Vehicles in Australia have been running on LPG for over 25 years, it used to be a very cheap alternative until it's popularity rose significantly and up went the price. In the early 1980's my brother attended an engineering University which had a boat outboard engine running on ordinary tap water (hydrogen). How come we could run engines to methane in 1939-1945 and develop hydrogen running engines in the 1980's and yet here we are in 2010 with no major leap forwards. I think the question answers itself, the technology has been bought by the oil cartels or the inventors have been eliminated.

We need to keep our remaining oil for the future production of lubricants, synthetics and plastics. Hydrogen has to be the future and it's got to be coming real soon, the Germans, Chinese and the Japanese have already developed this technology, they don't have any oil (or little of it). I think your major problem in the USA is your economy is well and truly in the pockets of the oil companies.

Cheers from downunder


Not. We have better technology than ever in many fields including extracting oil and refining it into gasoline. OPEC carefully prices oil where they get filthy rich, but it doesn't quite pay for us to switch to other things. It is not that we don't know how, it is that gasoline is still cheaper and we have the infrastructure in place to produce and use it.

Hydrogen takes more energy to produce than we can get from it and is difficult to transport and store. It may or may not ever be a practical form of energy to use.

 

[Roland]

Can creating Hydrogen and O2 from water at even a 50% efficiency loss, then introducing that HHO back into a gasoline fueled combustion chamber, give better efficiency at the crank shaft?
The correct answer is yes it is possible. Is it worth the effort and inconvenience and money is the real question.

It is simple a matter of being able to recapturing any wasted energy. With a ICE there is plenty of wasted energy to recapture.

So yes, HHO boosting a Gasoline ICE, CAN improve it's MPG.So it is not really a "scam". It is just not as easy as many make it out to be.

FWIW Adding steam or water vapor can also increase MPG.

 

[SteveSRT8]

It is a scam.

It defies well proven laws of Physics.

But if you really believe it, then it is true... for you.

 

[Roland]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
It is a scam.

It defies well proven laws of Physics.

But if you really believe it, then it is true... for you.

Look at the claims, the title is deceptive. Their not "running the car on water" their essentially only using water to change the burning characteristic of Gasoline. By doing that it is possible to loose less energy (out of the exhaust as heat, or changing burn speed for better mechanical conversion / less fiction...)

It absolutely does NOT defie ANY laws of physics.
You have to look at the big picture Of "energy in, too energy out" to clearly understand why No laws are broken.

Not flaming, I just perfer Clarity Over Agreement.

 

[VMAXER]

Hydrogen is the future non polluting fuel which will be used in engines and also used to produce our power. Sure the USA has tremendous technology, great skill at sourcing, distributing and marketing oil & gas. But your large cities (as indeed so are ours) are polluted by you and I burning fossil fuels. I was in LA 2 years ago, at the Griffiths Laboratory lookout, when I commentated to some LA localls how disgusting was the "haze" surrounding the picturesque view.

"Oh my" they said "the air is clean now compared to 20 years ago" ! My God come on World, it's time we went into our next dimension, if we can send craft on controlled missions into space, surely we can manufacture and distribute a clean burning source of fuel ?? Are we that complacent ? Complacency is sure to end when the price of oil rockets again.....it's coming !

Cheaper methods of Hydrogen production are coming out of the woodwork, the old expensive methods are, as has been pointed out, more expensive than gasoline per hp(kw). I think pretty soon the price of gasoline will rocket by 50% or more, demand already outstrips supply. If your government committed a fraction of the expenditure used by NASA into producing cheap Hydrogen, three things are certain :
1/ You won't be dependent on imported oil from volatile, unstable areas of the World
2/ Your cities and ours won't be polluted to the extent they are today.
3/ We will all enjoy efficient low cost motoring, like we used to 25 years ago and maybe even have our own home based hydrogen generating equipment ?

http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/factSheet_production.pdf
http://www.hydrogensolar.com/
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/doe_h2_production.pdf
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/hydrogen-production.htm

There are many other links, just go search online.

Cheers from downunder

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: VMAXER
Hydrogen is the future non polluting fuel which will be used in engines and also used to produce our power.


Hydrogen should NEVER be tought of as a "fuel" in the manner in which oil and coal are.

Hydrogen is simply a storage medium, for electricity that's been made out of some other primary energy source.

Just like a battery, pump storage hydro, flywheel etc.

The US allegedly has 400 years of coal "at current consumption", double it to replace oil (to make hydrogen), and factor in 3% growth p.a., and you are looking for a coal alternative "fuel" within 65 years.

Coal and oil are condensed solar energy (albeit a little may be made through other processes), and fuel sources in their own right.

Hydrogen makes coal easier to get into your tank.

And it's heaps worse to transport and handle than methane (which one of your links is pointing to as a source for hydrogen)...using methane to make hydrogen is insane.

 

[labman]

Originally Posted By: VMAXER
if we can send craft on controlled missions into space, surely we can manufacture and distribute a clean burning source of fuel ??

Cheaper methods of Hydrogen production are coming out of the woodwork,


We can't manufacture energy. Hydrogen is not a source of energy. As gasoline prices rise, we may or may not develop effective ways to use hydrogen in its place. Even if we do, the energy will still have to come from somewhere else, coal, atomic, solar, biomass, wind, wave, etc.

 

[Roland]

Yes hydrogen is basically a storage unit like a battery. And yes creating hydrogen is not creating energy. (the possibilities of OU is a different subject, and not relevant to boosting ICE with HHO) so yes hydrogen is limited, no doubt.

None of that has anything to do with weather an engine creating HHO and then adding it back into itself can improve its output energy at the crankshaft.

If the gasoline consumed by a ICE has a energy value of 100,000 BTUs. the average engine sees about 30% of that at the crankshaft, or 30,000 BTU of that energy. The rest is wasted in heat (maybe 55%) friction (maybe 10%) and unburnt gasoline (maybe 5%).

If we take some of that 30,000 crankshaft energy to make HHO, say 5,000 BTUs. And that HHO causes 20% less wasted heat, zero % unburnt gasoline and less friction due to a faster flame speed. Then that would mean a big gain at the crankshaft. Taking a large chunk of that 70,000 wasted BTUs and recouping it, possible adding A 15,000 - 20,000 BTUs to the crankshaft. Would that be worth the cost of 5,000 BTUs?