Such a concept could be useful only if you can use excess energy from your vehicle to generate hydrogen. This is much like the idea of using braking to generate electricity to help recharge batteries in an electrical car. In the case of our vehicles, a lot of energy is wasted as heat in the exhaust gases. We need a way to use the heat to generate hydrogen, or we need a way to turn the sunlight energy that hits our vehicle into hydrogen instead of heat. There are possibilities, but the current approaches simply do not, and cannot, work. But ingenious people are working on such ideas-check back later.
But NO DETAILS on this mythical "generator". I sure would like to see some numbers to back up their claims. You know, things like how much energy needs to be supplied to the generator and how much energy (in the form of hydrogen and oxygen) is created? It's a pretty simple set of measurements. And they require potassium hydroxide to be added to the water. That's a very exothermic reaction. I wonder if they're not just creating "steam" and are touting the same virtues as "water injection". Of course, this is water injection with the near chemical equivalent of Drano added into the mix. Not sure I'd want that anywhere NEAR my engine.
~Rick
Now that is the kind of stuff (the link) I want to read concerning this. That news article has meat to it!! Not just someone blowing smoke, but someone who has done it.
Would like to know more about that WalMart rig too. Wonder if it is a company owned tractor or a owner-operator's rig.
jferre9570 wrote: This link refers to some of the research on this issue WikipediaI have seen a Wal-Mart road tractor with an experimental rig installed and have spoken to the assigned driver. He says gains have been in the range of 15% over a wide range of operating conditions.
I read your Wikipedia link and the main point of the article isn't that power is improved. It's emphasis is on cleaner emissions. It does say fuel requirements can be cut at idle, but at most loads, the air/fuel ratio remains at the stoichiometric value so there is no fuel savings, just a reduction in emissions.
Not sure how that link applies to the topic of the thread.
~Rick
2005 Georgie Boy 3625 DS on a Workhorse W-22 (Class A)
Rick, Gail, 1 girl (12-Angel), 1 girl (7), 2 boys (8 & 5), 1 plump Golden Retriever.
2001 Honda Odyssey with Demco Aluminator tow bar & tow plate, SMI Silent Partner brake controller.
jferre9570 wrote: This link refers to some of the research on this issue WikipediaI have seen a Wal-Mart road tractor with an experimental rig installed and have spoken to the assigned driver. He says gains have been in the range of 15% over a wide range of operating conditions.
I read your Wikipedia link and the main point of the article isn't that power is improved. It's emphasis is on cleaner emissions. It does say fuel requirements can be cut at idle, but at most loads, the air/fuel ratio remains at the stoichiometric value so there is no fuel savings, just a reduction in emissions.
Not sure how that link applies to the topic of the thread.
~Rick
"Under most loads near stoichiometric air/fuel mixtures are still required for normal acceleration, although under idle conditions, reduced loads and moderate acceleration hydrogen addition in combination with lean burn engine conditions can guarantee a regular running of the engine with many advantages in terms of emissions levels and fuel consumption.[9]" You took idle conditions out of context. This, in quotes, is the entire sentence.
"Under most loads near stoichiometric air/fuel mixtures are still required for normal acceleration, although under idle conditions, reduced loads and moderate acceleration hydrogen addition in combination with lean burn engine conditions can guarantee a regular running of the engine with many advantages in terms of emissions levels and fuel consumption.[9]" You took the "idle conditions" out of context. This, in quotes, is the entire sentence.
Well, we were actually talking about this at work yesterday and my first reaction as a science trained person that there is no way it would help just as all the arguments above. I still think that as stated above it still won't work but I started thinking about it in another way. I am not thinking about absolute energy but about effeciency. Is it possible that a process added to a car or truck could alow the vehicle to be more efficient in its use of fuel thus giving you better end result such as fuel milage.
As an example, I am sure many have noticed a better fuel mileage when traveling to a higher altitude. Compatible with conservation of energy, you get better milage but less horsepower and acceleration. Its a trade off. GM is trying a version of this by reducing the number of cylinders running when at steady state on the interstate. You need less horsepower when at this time. You still have some losses secondary to drag, and dead mass from the unused cylinders.
How about a simulated high altitude situation by using liquid nitrogen to dilute out the oxygen in your intake stream. Your computer would on its own using its oxygen sensors or better yet, use a high speed O2 sensor to adjust the fuel ratios acordingly so at steady state you are using less fuel and thus generating less horsepower. When you need it, a solonoid would cut the N2 and boom, instant horsepower as O2 levels would be instantly higher. obviously this is just in my mind so the logistics and amount of N2 used or needed to simulate high altitude have not been thought out. I present this as an example of what could be or might be usefull.
FWIW.
On edit, above was stated for argument sake as it obviously takes energy to make liquid N2. Think in terms of effeciency.
Jeff
2005 Newmar Kountry star 3910
Spartan Chassis with ISC Cummins 330 Hp
Now why do all that when the computer can simply lean out the engine?
We run Lean Burn engines at work. They lowered the compression ratio, increased turbo boost by 5 times, the the engines make more power, less emissions, and better fuel economy. 1500hp engines with less than 1/2 gram of Nox per HP/Hr. Then the manifolds are wrapped to keep the heat in, and any heat that is there is used to produce other energy to power other items (of course these are stationary engines).
You have to remember, making an engine more effecient is the key. The engine and drive train is very ineffecient in a vehicle to begin with.
PCAracer wrote: Well, we were actually talking about this at work yesterday and my first reaction as a science trained person that there is no way it would help just as all the arguments above. I still think that as stated above it still won't work but I started thinking about it in another way. I am not thinking about absolute energy but about effeciency. Is it possible that a process added to a car or truck could alow the vehicle to be more efficient in its use of fuel thus giving you better end result such as fuel milage.
As an example, I am sure many have noticed a better fuel mileage when traveling to a higher altitude. Compatible with conservation of energy, you get better milage but less horsepower and acceleration. Its a trade off. GM is trying a version of this by reducing the number of cylinders running when at steady state on the interstate. You need less horsepower when at this time. You still have some losses secondary to drag, and dead mass from the unused cylinders.
How about a simulated high altitude situation by using liquid nitrogen to dilute out the oxygen in your intake stream. Your computer would on its own using its oxygen sensors or better yet, use a high speed O2 sensor to adjust the fuel ratios acordingly so at steady state you are using less fuel and thus generating less horsepower. When you need it, a solonoid would cut the N2 and boom, instant horsepower as O2 levels would be instantly higher. obviously this is just in my mind so the logistics and amount of N2 used or needed to simulate high altitude have not been thought out. I present this as an example of what could be or might be usefull.
FWIW.
On edit, above was stated for argument sake as it obviously takes energy to make liquid N2. Think in terms of effeciency.
Jeff
Visit our site
Jodi & Richard
98 Tiffin Allegro Bay 34' w/Slide
01 Ford Ranger 5 speed - US Gear Brake
00 HD E-Glide
PCAracer wrote: GM is trying a version of this by reducing the number of cylinders running when at steady state on the interstate. You need less horsepower when at this time. You still have some losses secondary to drag, and dead mass from the unused cylinders.
That's correct. I have the Pontiac G8 GT equipped with Active Fuel Management. It's has L76 6.0L engine, 361HP and 385lbs of torque. Runs the 1/4 mile in 13.8 second and accelerates 0 to 60 mph in 5.3 seconds.
Cruising at 75 mph on the interstate we get a consistent 24/25 mpg. Not bad considering it keeps up the the 5.7 HEMI Charger.
decan9 wrote: Perpetual motion machines went out in the 30's
1+1=2
But much has changed in Physics since the 30s. What was known about the universe in the 30s is way out of date, and that changes everything we thought we knew!
Offline
And they require potassium hydroxide to be added to the water. That's a very exothermic reaction. I wonder if they're not just creating "steam" and are touting the same virtues as "water injection". Of course, this is water injection with the near chemical equivalent of Drano added into the mix. Not sure I'd want that anywhere NEAR my engine.
