tommyznr wrote: What is happening in the combustion chamber? Does a little bit of HHO cause a higher rate of gasoline to be burned when crudely mixed in the combustion chamber? If so, is it enough to offset the added load on the alternator? Perhaps there are other factors that should be examined before writing the idea off?
I've wondered if there really is a measurable effect if it's due to the oxygen being produced and not the hydrogen.
tommyznr wrote: Nice red herring Eric. While your numbers may be correct and are of some value, you obviously should have looked at the combustion chamber. But you knew that.
Since we know that we are dealing with a neighborhood of 2 amps at 12 volts we are not producing the quantities of hydrogen that your little calculations show. When you get to the nuts and bolts of it, most of these claims don’t even try to hint that hydrogen is the fuel for the car. We also know that the combustion chamber does not efficiently convert gasoline into heat and energy.
What is happening in the combustion chamber? Does a little bit of HHO cause a higher rate of gasoline to be burned when crudely mixed in the combustion chamber? If so, is it enough to offset the added load on the alternator? Perhaps there are other factors that should be examined before writing the idea off?
What happens in the combustion chamber is irrelevant and can only decrease, and not increase, the usable energy output of the system. The total, theoretical maximum output of the system can not, by the Laws of Thermodynamics, exceed the energy content of the fuels going into the system. If it did, you'd have a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.
The energy content of gasoline, for example, is about 125,000 BTU/gal. There is nothing you can do that will allow an engine to output - in work, heat, overcoming friction (just another way of saying "heat"), etc - more energy than this.
That is why I specified that the numbers only looked at the intake side of the system. Doesn't matter what happens downstream because the potential energy output of the system will never be higher than the energy content at the intake.
Eric
2003 Outback 25FB
There are only 10 types of people in the world:
Those who know binary and those who don't.
I know the laws of thermodynamics. I am suggesting a process efficiency improvement of the cycle. It is my understanding that the combustion chamber does not burn all of the fuel that is introduced. Is it possible that the HHO (perhaps the H, perhaps the O) is causing more of the fuel to burn that otherwise would have been byproduct?
Quote: That is why I specified that the numbers only looked at the intake side of the system. Doesn't matter what happens downstream because the potential energy output of the system will never be higher than the energy content at the intake.
Remember, the gasoline internal combustion engine is only about 15 to 20% efficient.
kmb1966 wrote: We need a sarcasm "smile thing" so that I can determine when somebody is being sarcastic and when they are not. Sometimes I just can't make the determination.
I thought the winky thing would suggest someone was kidding.
tommyznr wrote: Remember, the gasoline internal combustion engine is only about 15 to 20% efficient.
True, the whole "Hydrogen fuel" thing could be a total red herring for a simple water injection system*. In other words, you could turn off the hydrolysis unit and just inject water to get the same (or better) results. Or it could be the extra Oxygen that is making the combustion process more efficient. Or it could be a total scam. Or it could work, but decrease the life of your engine by 100,000 miles.
That is why these sort of things need to be tested in the lab by automotive engineers/scientists, not by some local TV station. No way would I install such a system until I have some solid evidence that it does what it says it does (and does no other harm).
It is like those filters that have a two letter name. They DO increase power and mpg, but they also allow a lot more junk (i.e., particulate matter) to go into your engine. Now if you are racing and rebuild your engine after every race, the extra wear/tear on your engine is not an issue. However, if you are a regular driver, having your engine die after only 50,000 miles due to internal particulate damage is not a good trade-off for the extra power/mpg.
*Note, I am NOT an automotive engineer/scientist, so I am not sure what a water injection system does, but my racing friend sometimes uses such a system in his vehicles.
tommyznr wrote: While I am not quite as skeptical as you, I am intrigued by the reported non-scientific results. I also wonder where this idea came from. There seem to be many players in the field who range from tinkering in the garage to somewhat advanced abilities.
Perhaps someone familiar with the patent web sites can see if this is based on an expired patent?
Just as an FYI, getting a patent on something does not mean it actually does anything useful. The only way (more or less) a patent can be rejected is if it has already been done or is common knowledge. Practicality is NOT a factor.
The only reason I am interested in the patent angle is the fact that these things seem to be coming out of the wood work. The idea came from somewhere.
doug4.7 wrote: That is why these sort of things need to be tested in the lab by automotive engineers/scientists, not by some local TV station. No way would I install such a system until I have some solid evidence that it does what it says it does (and does no other harm).
How many consumer products do you think are tested in a lab as you suggest? While I agree it would be great for this product in particular, don't hold your breath.
Offline
winky thing would suggest someone was kidding.
