nige Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 what a big difference between plain water and the salt solution! I don't know if it produces enough to solely run on HHO, but i agree with you in the second video, there is definitely enough gas being produced to impact your mileage when mixed into the gasoline fuel supply. Where would you introduce the gas to the fuel delivery system? Could you run a line to the intake box or would you need something similar to a nitrous oxide injection system like the drag racers use? Pretty cool so far, keep up the efforts David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezzy Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Alright, I gotta ask, how do you manage to NOT be banished to the garage for these experiments! Pretty cool stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mws Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Just scale that up about 20,000X and you're good to go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StatutoryApe Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 i'm sorry that i'm not about to contribute anything of importance to this thread, and that i haven't been keeping up with it, even though it looks interesting. but i find it funny that the next video on that little "related videos" list on the right of youtube is titled something to the effect of "running your car on water doesn't work. it's a scam." but good luck with your experiment! we need more people like you to pioneer these new and important experiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittamaru Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 That's pretty cool... can you upscale that maybe, 5x? Would that have any effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unccpathfinder Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 (edited) Cool stuff...you get an attaboy for attempting it and getting results...if you could safely build a "manufacturing facility at your house (or in a field somewhere) you could possibly run it and compress it into a tank to use... I havent followed along a lot in the thread but doesnt hydrogen burn a lot hotter than regular fossil fuel? if so how much does that shorten the lifespan of the rings/head gasket and does the cooling system need to be upgraded? I also remember going to several seminars on hydrogen fuel cells in college and its not near as "violent" as its hyped up to be and most of them equated it to the equivalent of gasoline Have you tests just getting a 20lb cylinder and injecting it into the pathy pure or mixed to see if it'll run? or not even the pathy a lawnmower or something like that? I know mythbusters got the car to run as a carburetored engine but didnt see anything on FI Hope it works out for ya Edited July 9, 2008 by unccpathfinder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeV Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Excellent info as usual Dave! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HitTheTrails Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Now that I've had a bit of time to read up on this subject I have to say that you will not be gaining fuel mileage by doing this. As with the current dilemma on using fuel cell technology, the amount of energy put into converting the water to Hydrogen and Oxygen is too great. In you situation you will be taking electrical energy from you alternator (which in turn is taking mechanical energy from your engine) and using it to produce gases from water by electrolysis. You will then take these gases and extract energy from them to power your engine. Because of the losses involved (mainly heat losses) you will not be able to get back as much energy as you put in (conservation of energy) and thus you will be decreasing fuel mileage. Basically you will be using more energy to produce the gases then you will be receiving back by burning the gases. It looks like you are having fun doing your experiments and I am glad to see that because you won't be gaining any fuel mileage.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPB Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 the thought of hydrogen in something I am going to use offroad quite frankly has my hair standing on end . I have visions of the first guys trying to fly jumping off cliffs with kites strapped to their backs . However the first gas engines were called internal explosion engines by the steam power guys so maybe it's not as dangerous as I am thinking. Good luck . What are your plans for fooling your O2 sensor? I'm thinking of running one of these: http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/products/lc1.php JP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mws Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Now that I've had a bit of time to read up on this subject I have to say that you will not be gaining fuel mileage by doing this. As with the current dilemma on using fuel cell technology, the amount of energy put into converting the water to Hydrogen and Oxygen is too great. In you situation you will be taking electrical energy from you alternator (which in turn is taking mechanical energy from your engine) and using it to produce gases from water by electrolysis. You will then take these gases and extract energy from them to power your engine. Because of the losses involved (mainly heat losses) you will not be able to get back as much energy as you put in (conservation of energy) and thus you will be decreasing fuel mileage. Basically you will be using more energy to produce the gases then you will be receiving back by burning the gases.It looks like you are having fun doing your experiments and I am glad to see that because you won't be gaining any fuel mileage.... Hey now, don't be clouding the issue with facts! Yes, your statements are correct, but the best way to debunk these myths/fads/scams is to let honest, methodical, scientifically minded folks do the experiments themselves and publish their actual results. But don't let the fruit jar scam ruin your opinion of hydrogen as an automotive fuel source. Hydrogen IS viable and is being researched. One of the keys (as with ethanol) is the need to have a huge source of CHEAP electricity to power the production of the fuel. This is why many want to see a couple hundred new nuclear power plants be built in the US. It is working for Brazil and their nuclear/ethanol model. I believe Europe (especially France and Germany) have the potential to make hydrogen an option as they have dozens of nukes - but I'm not sure how much excess capacity they have. And how much more risk the citizens are willing to accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unccpathfinder Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 The biggest risk with a nuke plant is the waste...I think the US is deathly scared of them b/c of Chernoble and 3 mile island (still producing power today after a partial meltdown of reactor 2 or was it 1)...The westeren US seems to be pretty terrified of them for some reason but the east isnt so much. Duke Pwr is building one right outside of Charlotte, NC (makes like 3 or 4 plants within something like a 50 mile radius of the largest city in NC) and after interviewing with several companies I think they have incorporated many more fail safes than in the early years...with this said accidents can still happen...My thing is what do we do with the waste What about solar or wind energy in the deserts of CA? or even the new toyota Prius (they stole my idea) put solar panels on the vehicle (or house) to produce enough energy to make the fuel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittamaru Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Trails, one problem - conservation of energy is severely flawed thanks to dark matter, negative energy, and other fun things like super conductors But yes - producing this while the pathy is running might not work so well... unless you can increase the alternator output without a significant increase on engine strain... EG - dual alternators, one in place of the AC Compressor. Use that to power the electrolosis. Take a hit in raw power to the ground for an increase in miles per gallon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mws Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 (edited) What about solar or wind energy in the deserts of CA? or even the new toyota Prius (they stole my idea) put solar panels on the vehicle (or house) to produce enough energy to make the fuel? Technically feasible, but financially burdensome at this time. It would take millions of wind generators or millions of acres of photo cells to meet needs of US. Several orders of magnitude more expensive than burning fossil fuels at this time. I mean, we're talking the kind of money Georgey is spending in Iraq!!! Oh, if only.... Covering the entire Prius with solar cells wouldn't meet 1% of the needs of the car. That is the challenge - getting the energy density necessary. It'll help recharge, but getting 1 minute of driving for every 4 hours of charging isn't going to meet the needs. Another example: A house COMPLETELY covered in solar cells, in direct sunlight, would still not be able to generate enough electricity to run the A/C to keep it cool. Where the sun is most intense, temps are high. So the system always needs to be supplemented. But that is a viable goal, to get every house covered in solar cells to reduce the amount of fossil fuel/nuclear. If everybody would just cough up the $30K -$200K necessary to do their home, we could be well on our way.... But most people would rather pay $100 month forever than $50K now. See the challenge? Great stuff being done in Spain: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6616651.stm But don't compare the cost per megawatt to a natural gas powerplant! The upfront costs are outrageous. And there is still a lot of maintenance and operating costs. Just to give an idea of scale dollars, it would take over 100 of these solar towers to equal the output of 1 nuke.... Edited July 9, 2008 by mws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mws Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Trails, one problem - conservation of energy is severely flawed thanks to dark matter, negative energy, and other fun things like super conductors But yes - producing this while the pathy is running might not work so well... unless you can increase the alternator output without a significant increase on engine strain... EG - dual alternators, one in place of the AC Compressor. Use that to power the electrolosis. Take a hit in raw power to the ground for an increase in miles per gallon? But any increase in alternator output WILL cause increase in engine load. More than the extra fuel will return. That is the crux of the issue - How to get more energy out than you put in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HitTheTrails Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Trails, one problem - conservation of energy is severely flawed thanks to dark matter, negative energy, and other fun things like super conductors as far as i'm aware, you still cannot get more energy out of something than you put in... this reminds me of perpetual motion machines, nobody has made one yet... that would be cool to see though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HitTheTrails Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 But any increase in alternator output WILL cause increase in engine load. More than the extra fuel will return. That is the crux of the issue - How to get more energy out than you put in? +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HitTheTrails Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 (edited) But don't let the fruit jar scam ruin your opinion of hydrogen as an automotive fuel source. Hydrogen IS viable and is being researched. One of the keys (as with ethanol) is the need to have a huge source of CHEAP electricity to power the production of the fuel. This is why many want to see a couple hundred new nuclear power plants be built in the US. It is working for Brazil and their nuclear/ethanol model. I believe Europe (especially France and Germany) have the potential to make hydrogen an option as they have dozens of nukes - but I'm not sure how much excess capacity they have. And how much more risk the citizens are willing to accept. Oh, I'm all for hydrogen as a fuel source. Up here in BC we are doing a lot of research into alternative fuels, including hydrogen powered vehicles, both internal combustion and fuel cell. Some links, local Vancouver companies: http://powertechlabs.com/cfm/index.cfm?It=901&Se=13 http://www.westport.com/about/index.php http://www.ballard.com/ I work in the hydro-electric industry myself. Edited July 9, 2008 by HitTheTrails Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unccpathfinder Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Technically feasible, but financially burdensome at this time. It would take millions of wind generators or millions of acres of photo cells to meet needs of US. Several orders of magnitude more expensive than burning fossil fuels at this time. I mean, we're talking the kind of money Georgey is spending in Iraq!!! Oh, if only.... Covering the entire Prius with solar cells wouldn't meet 1% of the needs of the car. That is the challenge - getting the energy density necessary. It'll help recharge, but getting 1 minute of driving for every 4 hours of charging isn't going to meet the needs. Another example: A house COMPLETELY covered in solar cells, in direct sunlight, would still not be able to generate enough electricity to run the A/C to keep it cool. Where the sun is most intense, temps are high. So the system always needs to be supplemented. But that is a viable goal, to get every house covered in solar cells to reduce the amount of fossil fuel/nuclear. If everybody would just cough up the $30K -$200K necessary to do their home, we could be well on our way.... But most people would rather pay $100 month forever than $50K now. See the challenge? Great stuff being done in Spain: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6616651.stm But don't compare the cost per megawatt to a natural gas powerplant! The upfront costs are outrageous. And there is still a lot of maintenance and operating costs. Just to give an idea of scale dollars, it would take over 100 of these solar towers to equal the output of 1 nuke.... Yea I was speaking of solar and wind as an individual car not a national level yet so if you could build a home/mobile station to produce fuel to store then I think that would be a more practical method than producing while on the road but if mixed with fuel could increase efficiency you could drive further on a single tank of fuel Another thought would be to create some sort of brushless motor for all 4 wheels that could be used to generate energy while rolling (granted I know this isnt creating energy but is it really increasing the friction to over come so you can recoup some of the energy lost? or even if you were coasting down hill you're turning potential energy into kinetic energy which would in turn go to electrical energy and so on and so forth I interviewed with these guys and they're fixin to build another solar plant out here in CA in Boron...I found the technology very interesting and even if it was cloudy they have the ability to use CNG to produce energy at still a lower emission rate than coal fired plants http://www.fplenergy.com/portfolio/solar/index.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headpeace Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Send me the plans TC, I'm hopefully skeptical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittamaru Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 as far as i'm aware, you still cannot get more energy out of something than you put in...this reminds me of perpetual motion machines, nobody has made one yet... that would be cool to see though ZPM... Zero Point Energy Basically, using a large superconductor and the earths magnetic field to generate power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kittamaru Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 Another thought would be to create some sort of brushless motor for all 4 wheels that could be used to generate energy while rolling (granted I know this isnt creating energy but is it really increasing the friction to over come so you can recoup some of the energy lost? or even if you were coasting down hill you're turning potential energy into kinetic energy which would in turn go to electrical energy and so on and so forth Prius has that I believe ... it's called Regenerative Braking. Time to take it to the next level - the magnetic field that generates power IS the brake. When not applied, it only works while the car is coasting DOWNHILL (sensed by a small gyro or something similar). When the brakes are lightly applied, it also takes effect to slow the car via magnetic friction. When the brakes are moderately applied, it takes full effect with a lot of friction and a lot of generation. In emergency braking, conventional brakes take effect as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrailChaser Posted July 10, 2008 Author Share Posted July 10, 2008 Alright, I gotta ask, how do you manage to NOT be banished to the garage for these experiments! Pretty cool stuff! The simple answer... She puts up with A LOT of my crap like this. Besides it's over 100degs in the garage when it cools down. i'm sorry that i'm not about to contribute anything of importance to this thread, and that i haven't been keeping up with it, even though it looks interesting. but i find it funny that the next video on that little "related videos" list on the right of youtube is titled something to the effect of "running your car on water doesn't work. it's a scam." but good luck with your experiment! we need more people like you to pioneer these new and important experiments. I've seen a couple of those videos... My local Fox News station did a story on it a few months ago debunking all this stuff. It doesn't affect my opinion or views one way or the other since I understand that there are lots of people with lots of $$$ who want this buried. That's pretty cool... can you upscale that maybe, 5x? Would that have any effect? A lot of the people who HAVE got it to work end up using more than one cell. Cool stuff...you get an attaboy for attempting it and getting results...if you could safely build a "manufacturing facility at your house (or in a field somewhere) you could possibly run it and compress it into a tank to use... I havent followed along a lot in the thread but doesnt hydrogen burn a lot hotter than regular fossil fuel? if so how much does that shorten the lifespan of the rings/head gasket and does the cooling system need to be upgraded? I also remember going to several seminars on hydrogen fuel cells in college and its not near as "violent" as its hyped up to be and most of them equated it to the equivalent of gasoline Have you tests just getting a 20lb cylinder and injecting it into the pathy pure or mixed to see if it'll run? or not even the pathy a lawnmower or something like that? I know mythbusters got the car to run as a carburetored engine but didnt see anything on FI Hope it works out for ya It does burn hotter, but one of the main problems is that gas absorbs a lot of the heat and w/out as much in the cylinder things do tend to get hotter just like when you lean out a carbed engine. The goal is to have the gas made on demand, storing it would defeat the purpose. Besides, I wouldn't want to be in a wreck with compressed hydrogen in the vehicle. That's why I don't carry my cutting torch with me, besides a wreck a slow leak in the cab would be BAD when you open the door and the dome light comes on. Now that I've had a bit of time to read up on this subject I have to say that you will not be gaining fuel mileage by doing this. As with the current dilemma on using fuel cell technology, the amount of energy put into converting the water to Hydrogen and Oxygen is too great. In you situation you will be taking electrical energy from you alternator (which in turn is taking mechanical energy from your engine) and using it to produce gases from water by electrolysis. You will then take these gases and extract energy from them to power your engine. Because of the losses involved (mainly heat losses) you will not be able to get back as much energy as you put in (conservation of energy) and thus you will be decreasing fuel mileage. Basically you will be using more energy to produce the gases then you will be receiving back by burning the gases.It looks like you are having fun doing your experiments and I am glad to see that because you won't be gaining any fuel mileage.... I'm really not trying to be rude here, but.... As I stated in a previous post, I've heard/read all that a thousand times from posted by people just like you who want to "seem smart" about something they read up on or learned in college. Bottom Line... When you finish trying it yourself and it doesn't work THEN go out into the internet and tell everyone it doesn't work based on YOUR experience. This is a good post by a fellow experimenter over on the Dallas Jeep Forums from the link on the first page. (quote from Luv-N-Mud)Originally Posted by Luv-N-Mud View Post Im curious if his gain are typical results or an exception. If they are typical, then, 10 tanks in my van would pay for it. Just seems like there would be a pretty big boom on these things if they worked as well as we are hearing. (quote from Chris) This thread is 9 pages, and 95% of it is mostly people yelling "snake oil" before I even have the thing built yet. That's why there is no "boom". That's why I've elected not to post anymore of my project info in this thread. I want the next thread to actually be nothing but technical info. This one can just continue to be the debate about whether it's "snake oil" or not. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He hit the nail on the head with that post. 100% of the people I've seen who say it won't/can't work have not tried it themselves. I've had this offer on the table all this time and you all bitch about gas prices, yet I have not had one PM request for this info. If it doesn't work I may feel like a fool for trying it all out and wasting some $$$ in the process, but I KNOW people who are actively running these and are getting good results. What are your plans for fooling your O2 sensor? I'm thinking of running one of these: http://www.innovatemotorsports.com/products/lc1.php JP I have plans from my kit to make a controller, but for $50 I may just buy one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unccpathfinder Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 The goal is to have the gas made on demand, storing it would defeat the purpose. Besides, I wouldn't want to be in a wreck with compressed hydrogen in the vehicle. That's why I don't carry my cutting torch with me, besides a wreck a slow leak in the cab would be BAD when you open the door and the dome light comes on. Like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j41sTPj0ERw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HitTheTrails Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 I'm really not trying to be rude here, but.... As I stated in a previous post, I've heard/read all that a thousand times from posted by people just like you who want to "seem smart" about something they read up on or learned in college. Bottom Line... When you finish trying it yourself and it doesn't work THEN go out into the internet and tell everyone it doesn't work based on YOUR experience. If it doesn't work I may feel like a fool for trying it all out and wasting some $$$ in the process, but I KNOW people who are actively running these and are getting good results. I have plans from my kit to make a controller, but for $50 I may just buy one. I'm not trying to "seem smart" I'm simply stating that you cannot get more energy out of something then you put in, so there is no way to improve your fuel mileage. Why would I bother wasting time and money on something that is obviously a scam. Why don't I try the fuel line magnets while I'm at it... If you KNOW people who are running these and are showing good results they must have changed their driving habits since installing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPB Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 I'm not trying to "seem smart" I'm simply stating that you cannot get more energy out of something then you put in, so there is no way to improve your fuel mileage. Why would I bother wasting time and money on something that is obviously a scam. Why don't I try the fuel line magnets while I'm at it... If you KNOW people who are running these and are showing good results they must have changed their driving habits since installing... From what I have been reading the hydroxy works as a combustion aid allowing a more complete burn of the gasoline therefore equaling a higher volumetric efficiency. As a result you can lean out your air to fuel mixture = less fuel used = higher mpg. Similar to running propane injection on a diesel motor. The cells in this discussion draw 10-20 amps to run so even if you upgrade your alternator to a maxima or quest one you will still gain mpg because your hp to run the higher amperage alternator won't negate the decrease in fuel usage. Lets say you gain 5mpg from adding the hydroxy but lose 1mpg from having to drive your alternator harder, you still net 4mpg. JP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now