HHO generator

[Dania02525]

Anyone that claims they can debunk this on paper is deluding themselves.  There are too many factors involved in mixing these fuels, feed rates, deflagration rates, and variable pressure, temp, and volume, etc.  Yes the law of conservation of energy applies to state the obvious, but the system is theoretically intractable and has to be determined experimentally.  There's a lot more going on than just an alternator performing electrolysis.

 

This.  Its true that if our engines were operating at 100% efficiency already, thermodynamics would make it impossible to extract any additional energy from a lower potential energy substance- like water.  The problem with this is that our engines don't operate anywhere near 100% efficiency, and there are as mentioned by ferox a myriad of factors going into that level of efficiency.  A car engine is not a perfect heat engine- its operation and power output is not precisely dependent on its total energy input, but also the speed of the reaction.  Something that could speed up this reaction itself or facilitate this reaction happening faster could increase its power without adding any additional sources of energy to the system (think catalyst).

 

The real question is whether the amount of whatever you put into this system is enough to meaningfully affect the efficiency. If you consider how much O2 is used by an engine, as well as how much elemental H is used (that in the fuel), I think you would need massively more than what's being produced here.  There could be some other mechanism at work here however.  The hotspots produced from leaning out the engine could perhaps be offset by some localized water vapor conducting the heat away better than the CO2 exhaust.  Or the elemental H2 is acting as an ignition primer for the fuel vapor in the combustion chamber.  The problem with this idea is that you need 4x more H2 in a given area to reach the same flammability as gasoline vapor, which means you would need to be producing 4x more H2 than total gasoline vapor delivered by volume- alot!!!

 

Edit: yes, there are engines running on h2, but they use extremly high pressure tanks to carry enough fuel to go anywhere.  This is because much of the thermal energy that makes our engines turn is a result of the C-H bonds, and the burning of C rather than the burning of H.  You also need lots of volume of H2 to reach the levels it needs to burn. 

Edited October 15, 2014 by Dania02525

[ferox]

Thank you.  I was planning to go over that myself.  The key word is efficiency.  I think the internal combustion engine (even our blessed EJ22s) are generally regarded to be about 25% efficient.  That leaves a lot of energy to be used more efficiently.

[naru]

_{Yeah,right...}

_{You guys are a laugh a minute.}

 

_{Automotive fuel and every variation thereof has been extensively reasearched by people who actually know what they are doing.}

_{Nobody serious buys into the HHO hoax.}

_{Don`t you think manufacturers would be all over this if it worked?}

 

_{Nobody can demonstrate a working version under controlled conditions.}

 

_{Even Cheney and the oil terrorists can`t kill EVERYBODY with a fuel saving idea.}

[subarubrat]

Effit, instead of trying to share a bit if science and keep people from being taken advantage of I am going to start selling these to suckers on ebay.

Edited October 16, 2014 by subarubrat

[bratman2]

Like I said, build one, put it on your car, and prove me wrong. Until then I will enjoy my 40 mpg with my foot stomped

You still have not taken that picture yet!!

[DaveT]

IF I ever see someone talking about one of these systems who does not describe it using BS pseudoscience mumbo jumbo, and / or demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of basic chemistry, physics, or electricity, [or usually, all 3] I would be more interested in investing my time to experiment.

 

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

 

Many of the people making these "cells"  talk about  frequencies that break the water down using less power  than DC.   Has any one of them ever run a comparison of 2 identical, one driven with DC, and another driven with pulses [or whatever] ?  Side by side, power input meters, gas flow output meters.  I've never seen one...

[ferox]

It's entirely possible that a small sub-system can increase the fuel efficiency of a gas combustion engine.  I don't see why so many people react as if it's impossible.  It simply makes better use of a small portion of the relatively large amount of energy that is wasted with every revolution of the engine.  The energy balance argument is flawed because it completely ignores the fact that most of the energy in the internal combustion process is not effectively utilized.  For something that is 25% efficient, even small gains in the overall system will make a big difference.

 

I don't have a working system of my own and I have never tried to make one, but to say it's impossible or that the car companies already would have done it is just silly.  Until recently, fuel efficiency had been on a steady decline in new automobiles since 1985.  They weren't interested in investing in fuel efficiency.  Now, many new cars make 40 mpgs, which is what Sumoco is saying his system gets...that's totally plausible.  He's not claiming 80 mpgs.  The internet is full of dip$hits making all kinds of claims, but that doesn't mean you should forgo critical thinking.   

 

I use a sub-system called a bicycle to commute 9 miles home from work.  Sometimes I run that same route and it takes a lot more energy to go the same distance, which is strange because with all the bearing friction losses and extra wind resistance from the bike you would think that it would take more energy to ride the bike than run.  I know it sounds impossible, but I've done it and it's definitely more efficient to ride the bike.

[naru]

BS pseudoscience mumbo jumbo

[subarubrat]

• First law of thermodynamics – Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same. For a

  thermodynamic cycle the net heat supplied to the system equals the net work done by the system.

• Second law of thermodynamics – The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
• Third law of thermodynamics – As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum.

These three rules define that it does not work, what are the odds that your more clever than the body of human scientific knowledge and achievement Vs the odds your talking out your backside.

[sumoco]

 

• First law of thermodynamics – Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same. For a

  thermodynamic cycle the net heat supplied to the system equals the net work done by the system.

• Second law of thermodynamics – The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
• Third law of thermodynamics – As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum.

These three rules define that it does not work, what are the odds that your more clever than the body of human scientific knowledge and achievement Vs the odds your talking out your backside.</p>

With this theory putting off road lights on your car destroys your fuel economy.

Last time I checked, it does no such thing. Please explain to me how using unused electricity does not create hydrogen that I can pump into my carb causing less fuel consumption

[Uberoo]

You cannot vary the Wattage like that.

 

the watts will be what they are (there is a value that is required to break the bonds)

 

You get there by using high volts/low amps......or lower volts at high amps.

 

you cannot keep a steady .20 amps while varying the volts over thousand+  ........the load stays the same (water) ???

 

Watts is the required power to do work...........amp/volts combintion is how you get there.

No not .20 amps. At 12V it is 20 amps,but at 1000V it would only be .24 amps.I just didn't have enough space between the period and the 20.

[naru]

With this theory putting off road lights on your car destroys your fuel economy.

Last time I checked, it does no such thing. Please explain to me how using unused electricity does not create hydrogen that I can pump into my carb causing less fuel consumption

 

There is no such thing as "unused electricity".

The alternator does not spin for free.

The more load you put on the alternator,the more gas you need to burn to spin it.

 

Since neither the generation of electricity nor the electrolysis of water is anywhere near 100% efficient,you are losing efficiency not gaining.

 

There is indeed a mpg cost to run offroad lights or any other electrical load.

[Uberoo]

400W of offroad lights = a drag of roughly 1/2 hp.The fuel required to produce 1/2 hp is negligible on an engine already making 80+hp.So it is true that running more electrical load will affect you MPG slightly. The biggest thing would be the increased aerodynamic drag at higher speeds. However,Just pause and consider this for one moment. Lets say you have a device on your car that electrolysis water into H2+02.Lets also assume that this mixture affects combustion in such a way that it burns faster,hotter, or just somehow better than before(this is a big if). So lets say hypothetically the mixture did  something that made the thermal efficiency rise from 25% to 27%.Just a gain of 2%. on an 80 hp engine that would translate into a gain of 1.6 hp.As long as the device didn't consume 1193.6 watts there would still be gains in fuel economy.

 

As for the manufacturers to make something like that it would have to be RETARD proof,because otherwise some idiot would run out water and melt the engine down.Not something the car makers want to deal with. So while it may have a benefit the practical implications make it more cost effective to work on other areas of improvement such as multi port fuel injection or even direct port fuel injection.

 

Another thing, after GM royally dropped the ball with diesels in the 80's, diesel engines have been outcast. Just because of the stigma that they were once slow,noisy,smoke belching monsters,even though modern diesels are far from that.So lets say it did work, with all of those idiots as the car buying public saying your car runs on HYDROGEN would not increase sales because the average moron hears "hydrogen" and thinks "Hindenburg".

Edited October 17, 2014 by Uberoo

[djellum]

the body of scientific knowledge has proven time and again that it can be wrong, and wrong by a long shot in some cases.  simply being Science with a capital S doesn't give it any more credit than any other label or name.  there are new discoveries every hour that contradict what has been established.  sometimes it gets proven, most times its shown false, and many times its just considered "interesting" but not definable.  being over aggressive and closed minded, even about something as grounded as the laws of thermodynamics, is a terrible attitude.  nobody on this post has stated that they are buying anything, or shown any adds for complex systems that cost thousands, or anything else that you keep mentioning while your insulting the people who are exploring an idea.  we are all participating in a debate and experimentation, while not in a lab since we don't have one available, which is exactly what "science" is.  If i had a full lab id show you numbers when I build one, but I can't in most cases.  neither could most of the geniuses that built the modern beliefs of science when they first had the idea that changed the world.  

 

the law of thermodynamics is quoted a lot in any of these discussions, but were not talking about an isolated system where were simply measuring energy output.  the power that is supplied from the alternator is for lack of a better word a waste energy.  the fuel is used to create kinetic energy (sorry if I am misusing that term, idk the actual definition) which spins the crank and pumps the bellows.  most of the energy created when that happens is used to push the car and a small amount is used to create the electricity for the system.  that electrical output is variable without significantly changing the power or the mileage of the vehicle.  Alternators can push 50 amps, 100 amps, 200 amps, without a large change to the system other than wiring or the loss from running tandems.  Not saying its free electricity, but you cant just use the raw electrolysis numbers, you have to weigh the cost of the electricity against the final output of the motor not the fuel, since that is what produces the electricity. 

 

from a non scientific logical outlook this is what I see as evidence for the possibility.

 

1) Hydrogen has at least as much potential energy as gasoline.  many times more depending on what your reading, but I think we can agree that hydrogen "can" add energy to the combustion of the engine.

2) you are replacing a portion of the intake charge of gasoline with something else.  whether its cow farts or Mtn Dew there is less space for gas and atmospheric air so you will 100% reliably use less gasoline per cycle of the cylinder since it cant fit.

3) as long as what you add to the combustion chamber can react like gasoline and produce similar power to it, then you will at least get added mileage equal to the reduction in space for the gasoline.  the cost of the second fuel must now be evaluated as well to properly tell if its a gain. 

 

the cost of the hydrogen is a huge consideration, I'm not saying it isn't.  theres also the point I mentioned before about using needed life materials for fuel.  I dont think this could be some self contained system that will run itself for free, energy just doesn't work like that.  but I do believe in the possibility that you can take a small to negligible loss to the power of the car due to added electrical production and gain money from using less gasoline.  the system needs to be evaluated as a whole though.

 

I think a lot of the terminology doesn't translate well.  in reality your not getting any more efficiency out of a motor running dual fuels, you just aren't measuring the second fuel so you see high numbers on the other.  that said the gasoline fuel is the only one that has a significant money value to most of us so as long as your water is cheap and available its the one we value more.  it is also true that the extra draw on the electrical system will reduce power to a degree.  but nobody has come up with any dyno numbers or anything to measure actual power loss compared to mileage gains.  The butt dyno says its not much, but until you actually get some measurements its a guess at best.

 

the current HHo craze is admittedly a frankenstein application, and its completely fine to doubt it from an efficiency standpoint.  there are no good test numbers, no good flow rate equipment used on most of the motors, and many other gaps that would add precision to the system.  Its important to remember though that people have a very specific use for this, which is high gasoline mileage (not fuel mileage, people don't actually measure or care how much actual fuel they use, as long as the gasoline portion is less).  I for one am not saying its the best fuel, most efficient fuel, most efficient process, or that it produces more power.  the only claim I make is that I see potential for added gasoline mileage for little cost to the car and dollars (if I build my own).

[sumoco]

the body of scientific knowledge has proven time and again that it can be wrong, and wrong by a long shot in some cases. simply being Science with a capital S doesn't give it any more credit than any other label or name. there are new discoveries every hour that contradict what has been established. sometimes it gets proven, most times its shown false, and many times its just considered "interesting" but not definable. being over aggressive and closed minded, even about something as grounded as the laws of thermodynamics, is a terrible attitude. nobody on this post has stated that they are buying anything, or shown any adds for complex systems that cost thousands, or anything else that you keep mentioning while your insulting the people who are exploring an idea. we are all participating in a debate and experimentation, while not in a lab since we don't have one available, which is exactly what "science" is. If i had a full lab id show you numbers when I build one, but I can't in most cases. neither could most of the geniuses that built the modern beliefs of science when they first had the idea that changed the world.

 

the law of thermodynamics is quoted a lot in any of these discussions, but were not talking about an isolated system where were simply measuring energy output. the power that is supplied from the alternator is for lack of a better word a waste energy. the fuel is used to create kinetic energy (sorry if I am misusing that term, idk the actual definition) which spins the crank and pumps the bellows. most of the energy created when that happens is used to push the car and a small amount is used to create the electricity for the system. that electrical output is variable without significantly changing the power or the mileage of the vehicle. Alternators can push 50 amps, 100 amps, 200 amps, without a large change to the system other than wiring or the loss from running tandems. Not saying its free electricity, but you cant just use the raw electrolysis numbers, you have to weigh the cost of the electricity against the final output of the motor not the fuel, since that is what produces the electricity.

 

from a non scientific logical outlook this is what I see as evidence for the possibility.

 

1) Hydrogen has at least as much potential energy as gasoline. many times more depending on what your reading, but I think we can agree that hydrogen "can" add energy to the combustion of the engine.

2) you are replacing a portion of the intake charge of gasoline with something else. whether its cow farts or Mtn Dew there is less space for gas and atmospheric air so you will 100% reliably use less gasoline per cycle of the cylinder since it cant fit.

3) as long as what you add to the combustion chamber can react like gasoline and produce similar power to it, then you will at least get added mileage equal to the reduction in space for the gasoline. the cost of the second fuel must now be evaluated as well to properly tell if its a gain.

 

the cost of the hydrogen is a huge consideration, I'm not saying it isn't. theres also the point I mentioned before about using needed life materials for fuel. I dont think this could be some self contained system that will run itself for free, energy just doesn't work like that. but I do believe in the possibility that you can take a small to negligible loss to the power of the car due to added electrical production and gain money from using less gasoline. the system needs to be evaluated as a whole though.

 

I think a lot of the terminology doesn't translate well. in reality your not getting any more efficiency out of a motor running dual fuels, you just aren't measuring the second fuel so you see high numbers on the other. that said the gasoline fuel is the only one that has a significant money value to most of us so as long as your water is cheap and available its the one we value more. it is also true that the extra draw on the electrical system will reduce power to a degree. but nobody has come up with any dyno numbers or anything to measure actual power loss compared to mileage gains. The butt dyno says its not much, but until you actually get some measurements its a guess at best.

 

the current HHo craze is admittedly a frankenstein application, and its completely fine to doubt it from an efficiency standpoint. there are no good test numbers, no good flow rate equipment used on most of the motors, and many other gaps that would add precision to the system. Its important to remember though that people have a very specific use for this, which is high gasoline mileage (not fuel mileage, people don't actually measure or care how much actual fuel they use, as long as the gasoline portion is less). I for one am not saying its the best fuel, most efficient fuel, most efficient process, or that it produces more power. the only claim I make is that I see potential for added gasoline mileage for little cost to the car and dollars (if I build my own).

An extremely solid and respectful response sir. I don't understand how this has turned into a fire fight. I would also like to apologize for my prior comment, I had read the comments before mine wrong and got it in my head that people were saying hydrogen couldn't power a car.

[naru]

400W of offroad lights = a drag of roughly 1/2 hp.The fuel required to produce 1/2 hp is negligible on an engine already making 80+hp.So it is true that running more electrical load will affect you MPG slightly. The biggest thing would be the increased aerodynamic drag at higher speeds. However,Just pause and consider this for one moment. Lets say you have a device on your car that electrolysis water into H2+02.Lets also assume that this mixture affects combustion in such a way that it burns faster,hotter, or just somehow better than before(this is a big if). So lets say hypothetically the mixture did  something that made the thermal efficiency rise from 25% to 27%.

 

You are right,that is a really BIG "IF".

It gets to the crux of the issue.

Nobody can explain how it MIGHT work without invoking majic.

 

Your 400 watts of offroad lights would load the engine to the tune of 1 HP not 0.5 HP since your alternator is only about 50% efficient.

 

Additionally,your 80 HP engine only makes 80 HP at full throttle on a good day.

Probably something more like 25 or 30 HP at a normal cruise.

Thats makes the added load around 3-4%.

Whether this is negligible or not depends on your definition of negligible.