Latest posts for the thread "water for fuel?"

Re: Re: Re: Re: water for fuel?

blackslax — GMT

I understand that there are passionate positions on both sides.
Pure science points to the law of thermodynamics.
Car guys point to it works for me.

I have done this experiment and while I do not have a lab coat and a poket protector, my 1988 F-150 has increased mileage by 31%.
This test was not done undr controlled circumstances on a test track, and the use of the vehicle does vary, but averageing duty cycles and has shown a trend of better gas mileage.

I do not have time to go into the plate arrangements, voltages, resonance sensing arguement because it is a beautiful day and I am on vacation this week.

The point I want to make is, in this entire forum arguement there is one key point that is being overlooked.
When you fracture water into HHO you are creating a highly efficient combustion mixture. (not perfect because it is not a lab)
When this is injected or drawn into the intake air flow, it replaces a portion of the oxygen/nitrogen mix.
So, in the oxygen portion we are replacing 1 part oxygen/2parts nitrogen (roughly) with 3 parts oxygen. Akin to Nitrous Oxide being 2 parts oxygen.
THis causes higher volumetric efficiency in the engine.

I understand the thermodynmic principle of conservtion of energy, and the best I can say is that engines are extremely inefficient, both in heat loss and electrical usage. I think we are tapping some of the wasted enrgy and/or possibly the increase in volumtric effeciency help keep the torque of the motor more efficient.

I will have to give that some more thought.

Dont shoot the messenger if you dont like the message. This is not proofed, so dont pick apart diction or spelling as the reason i am wrong.

Re: Re: Re: water for fuel?

Jad2007 — GMT

Haha I got this one, you'll get the next! :)

Re: Re: Re: water for fuel?

sderekh — GMT

Another rational objective argument: How much hyrdogen is produced every hour? Every day? Would there be enough hyrdogen introduced to make a difference? I suspect the amount of hydrogen produced would be very small.

Re: Re: Re: water for fuel?

MrPhil — GMT

OK, so the PM article was about water injection, and has nothing to do with electrolysis and hydrogen injection? As for the latter, it's basic physics and thermodynamics. You have to put in as much energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen as you will get back out by burning the hydrogen. If you're drawing this energy from the alternator, the engine has to work harder (i.e., burn more gas) to produce it. If the energy was coming from solar cells or something, that would be different.

So far, it's a wash, as there's no evidence that hydrogen physically mixed in with the fuel/air mixture will do anything to make the fuel burn more efficiently. Is anyone claiming that? There's the problem that the hydrogen is competing with the hydrocarbons for the fixed amount of oxygen in the air (is the oxygen produced also being injected?). If the hydrogen was somehow being chemically combined with the hydrocarbons in the gasoline (which would require a catalyst and more equipment that simply an injector), they might have something that would burn more efficiently (only if the long carbon-carbon chains and rings are broken up so that the fuel becomes more like Natural Gas, but this would likely require still more energy input).

Now add in the fact that no system is perfect (or fully reversible), so you have losses at every step of the way. The bottom line is that you're probably going to end up burning as much gasoline, if not more, than if you didn't add all this crap onto the engine. Any claimed savings are most likely from drivers being more careful about their driving habits than any real technological fix. This is a well-known placebo effect -- all such devices include hints in their instructions on how to drive more economically.

Re: water for fuel?

crankwalk5 — GMT

YES SIR ,the human body needs water for fuel.

and I repair cars daily,with the Fisher Price tools I had as a kid.

everyone on this site should FLAG your post to death.

I also use helium to fill my tires,you know lightens the load a little,and MAN the fuel milage ,whew! I never have to FILL up but once a year.

Re: Re: Re: water for fuel?

WhyArts — GMT

Water for fuel is a physical impossibility. HHO-enhanced gasoline for fuel is a physical possibility.

Re: Re: water for fuel?

Ron-man — GMT

You know, cappy, that sounds just as plausable as "HHO-enhanced gasoline" advertisements. I am with you! Let's all rewrite the laws of physics while we are at it.

Re: Re: water for fuel?

WhyArts — GMT

You're on your own, binky.

Re: water for fuel?

cappy208 — GMT

I believe we can use the diatomic mass of nuclear fission to power the subatomic particles of unspent petrocarbonic energy in the catalytic converter by using the unturned carbeurator jets ONE turn counter, counter clockwise, every other thursday.

does anyone have any supporting ideas, thoughts or points of view to back up my theory?

thanks for your help, guidance and knowledge.

Re: water for fuel?

circuitsmith — GMT

This thread needs to disappear faster than a pack of smokes at an AA meeting!

http://en....nhancement

Re: Re: water for fuel?

WhyArts — GMT

That's why, as sderekh has acknowledged, "water for fuel" was an ill-advised title for this forum. The real topic is HHO-enhanced gasoline.

Re: water for fuel?

RogerB34 — GMT

Water for Fuel = Medieval Alchemy.
Century 21 version.

Re: Re: Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

WhyArts — GMT

Go right ahead, bscar. The computerized oxygen sensor on your late-model car might give you a problem, though. :o
You'll have to figure out for yourself where to insert the HHO tube, too. ;*

Re: Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

bscar — GMT

why not try it on something from THIS century? :p

Re: Re: Re: Be constructive not destructive

NYBo — GMT

A RAG STUFFED IN THE TAILPIPE to measure emissions??? Surely you jest!

I'll just wait for my Mr. Fusion to arrive from Emmett Brown Enterprises, thanks.

Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

MikeInNH — GMT

And of course you'll be MATURE enough to tell everyone that didn't work right???

HHO-enhanced gasoline

WhyArts — GMT

Why would I waste my time sharing results with someone who'll only accept failure because he insists HHO-enhanced gasoline is the same as water for fuel, a known scientific impossibility? Wake up, get real, design, conduct and evaluate your own exper-r-riments, Dr. No.

Re: Re: Re: Be constructive not destructive

MikeInNH — GMT

I'll be doing this shortly. Clearly you won't trust my results unless I say it failed. Conduct your own experiment.

You call that a VALID experiment?? Sorry, but I don't. But go ahead...Let us know how it works.

Re: Re: Be constructive not destructive

WhyArts — GMT

MikeInNH, stop living in your head and wake up to the world. DO something!

It's a simple experiment. Take an old car with a carburetor. See how she runs. Take a rag and put it to the exhaust pipe. Notice dirty emissions. Turn off the car. Using the car battery, set up a simple water electrolyzer. Conduct the bubbling stream of HHO gas produced by the electrolyzer through a rubber tube to the base of the carburetor. Start the car. See how she runs. Compare. Check emissions with rag. Compare. Decide from the results whether to conduct further tests.

I'll be doing this shortly. Clearly you won't trust my results unless I say it failed. Conduct your own experiment.

Re: Be constructive not destructive

MikeInNH — GMT

Only you can waste your time, MikeInNH. Only you can be constructive with it.

If I spend 1 MINUTE working on it...it's a waste of my time.

See for yourself if HHO enhances the burn of gasoline.

I will when you can show me a VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC STUDY that says it has a snow-ball-chance-in-h*ll of working.

Don't piss on possibilities.

WHAT possibilities??? There is no evidence that it works...or has a chance of working. NONE. Why waste my time on something I believe is NOT going to work. After you fail at this...why not try Cold Fusion next?? There are potentially far more benefits. There's no scientific evidence that it can work...but go ahead...that seems the way you like to approach a problem.

Be constructive not destructive

WhyArts — GMT

Only you can waste your time, MikeInNH. Only you can be constructive with it.

A message for the whole country from here in the Big Easy, my beloved city:
Make Levees Not War.
Be constructive not destructive.
See for yourself if HHO enhances the burn of gasoline.
Don't piss on possibilities.
Be well.

Re: Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

MikeInNH — GMT

Good...I'm glad you'll waste YOUR time and not mine. Now wasn't that easy.

Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

WhyArts — GMT

Sometimes, to learn the truth, you have to venture out of the theoretical and into the actual. It won't be hard, expensive or time-consuming for me to experiment and find out for myself if a continuous stream of bubbles of HHO from water electrolyzed by the car battery added to the gasoline through a tube to the riser plate orifice at the base of my '85 Civic's carburetor makes any significant difference in the way the engine runs. Then I'll see if the a/f mixture can be set to a leaner setting without diminishing performance. If so, I'll realize better MPG. If not, I won't.

Re: water for fuel?

HBurner — GMT

Having read thru the messages on this subject, two items stood out. First is that they are patented devices which deliver more efficient fuel consumption and that water is not a likely source of combustible material. That being said, our present use of fuel is based upong the CARBON cycle of combustion which provides expansion at a rate of 75 to 1; i.e. each carbon atom when combusted, expands to a volume at a power of 75; when HYDROGEN combusts, it expands at the rate of 2000 to 1, so the developed volume is 2000 times greater than the fuel used. I humbly hope that the raamifications of this is obvious.

Anyway, Russ Bourke received a patent from the United States Patent Office for an engine that uses the hydrogen cylce to work. Incindentally, his device has only THREE moving parts. Since it's fuel efficiency is so great and the lack of moving parts to break are present, many folks would be forced to change streams of income if the engine were widely used.

If you are interested, as I am not the source of the material collected, although in the 1970's I did have the pleasure to meet Lois Bourke & have seen a letter from a Captain Baker of the Army department to his superiors reccommending immediate utilization of this invention, dated December, 1941.
If it's all right with Tome & Ray, here is the best venue for comprehensive information: www.projectbourke.com
Hope this will open a few eyes to the simple fact that the best way to get a machine to work most efficeintly is to go back to square one., NOT to add another gadget to the RubeGoldbergesque monstrosities we aare devouring our fuel with presently.

Re: Re: whyarts

Encreader — GMT

No, the results are there, and the thermodynamic theory goes back to 1970 and before. See my post immediately above. Both consistently show a gain of only a few percent in diesels. Furthermore, I'll posit that the gain in gasoline spark-ignition (SI) engines should be even less, though I can't confirm this because after reading through some of the diesel reports I got bored and stopped looking. The reason is that at any given compression ratio, diesel (DI) engines are less efficient than SI engines. Diesel gains its efficiency through the much higher compression ratio. Further, the ignition phase in SI engines is already more efficient than in DI engines, so DI has more room for improvement. So, 3% in DI may translate to 1-2% in SI. Basically no real-world driver could measure the difference. I think that's the real reason these haven't been adopted by car manufacturers: for 1-2% they simply aren't worth the hassle.

Re: Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

sderekh — GMT

I'd love to hear your results.

Re: Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

JoeMario — GMT

WhyArts wrote:
> Then I'll see if the a/f mixture can be set to a leaner setting without diminishing performance.

How would you change the air/fuel mixture? The a/f screws you have on your 85 Civic carburetor only work at idle. At anything above idle, they are not used at all.

You would need to rejet the main jets in the carburetor to affect the a/f ratio above idle.

Besides, if you really want to change your air/fuel ratio to improve your gas mileage and power, then make your air/fuel ratio 10% richer with fuel for better power and mileage, or up to 16% richer where the power begins to drop off.

As of the EPA requirements in the mid 1970s, all cars have to run at a "14.7:1 stociometric air/fuel ratio". Prior to that, they all typically ran a mixture 10% richer, and up to 16% richer on performance cars. The reason why a richer mixture delivers better performance and mpg is because there is so little time in a power stroke to properly mix the air/fuel mixture to ensure that every oxygen molecule was mated to a fuel molecule. By providing a 110% mixture, it increased the chances of having every precious oxygen molecule have a gas molecule adjacent to it. This was well documented.

Re: Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

MikeInNH — GMT

MikeinNH and cappy 208, it won't be hard, expensive or time-consuming to experiment and find out for myself if a tiny, continuous stream of bubbles of HHO from water electrolyzed by the car battery added to the gasoline through a tube to the riser plate orifice at the base of my '85 Civic's carburetor makes any significant difference in the way the engine runs. Then I'll see if the a/f mixture can be set to a leaner setting without diminishing performance. If so, I'll realize better MPG. If not, I won't.

WRONG WRONG WRONG....It will be very very expensive and time consuming. Obviously you have no scientific or engineering training. You can't take ONE car and see if it makes a difference. You need to take a wide sample of data. You need to setup repeatable controlled tests. It is NOT simple to come with VALID REPEATABLE tests. If you think it's NOT a waste of time...GREAT...Go Ahead....what's stopping you.

Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

WhyArts — GMT

MikeinNH and cappy 208, it won't be hard, expensive or time-consuming to experiment and find out for myself if a tiny, continuous stream of bubbles of HHO from water electrolyzed by the car battery added to the gasoline through a tube to the riser plate orifice at the base of my '85 Civic's carburetor makes any significant difference in the way the engine runs. Then I'll see if the a/f mixture can be set to a leaner setting without diminishing performance. If so, I'll realize better MPG. If not, I won't.

Re: whyarts

MikeInNH — GMT

i for one, and probably more around too, have a hard time reaching the same conclusions with NO real evidence. except for the souce you did a good job locating this, but finding real honest sources of the truth seems to be pretty hard, huh?

I'll go a step further...it's IMPOSSIBLE to find...because there is none.

Re: Re: Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

WhyArts — GMT

Jeremy, (my name too), you should look into the way Wikipedia is administered. It's imperfect, but a useful resource.

You can't believe everything you read anywhere. Anything in words is inexact. Experience is the closest you'll get to knowing the truth.

Re: Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

Jeremy_R_Hoyt — GMT

You should never quote Wikipedia as a source if you want to be taken seriously. Honestly, it really makes you look bad to quote a source that can be changed on a whim and is not subject to verification of facts.

Re: Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

Encreader — GMT

I looked at that website some time ago and I didn't think it was vary good. It didn't appear to be written by a scientist or engineer. Of course Wikipedia always has the problem that someone can always edit what someone else writes.

Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

WhyArts — GMT

See Wikipedia, "Hydrogen fuel enhancement".
http://en...._injection

Re: whyarts

Encreader — GMT

WhyArts, I appreciate you finding the references. I know some of the people from JPL who started this analysis, and they do excellent work. Possibly I wasn't aware of it because it is so old. I dug through some of the details, and here is a quote based on diesel truck fleet testing: "The high flame speed of the hydrogen causes the crank angle duration of combustion to be reduced by several degrees, resulting in a 3% increase in horsepower and torque and a more complete combustion of the fuel." Well, there you have it. It gives about the benefit I estimated for the reason I gave. So, if you want to gain 3% in power, which means roughly a similar improvement in fuel efficiency, and you are willing to risk damaging your engine from increasing the thermal and mechanical loads from the shortened combustion period, then it's your choice. At least it's clear what is based on sound theory and testing and what is marketing hype. Personally I don't drive nearly enough to go through all that to improve my gas mileage by less than 1 mpg.

Re: whyarts

sderekh — GMT

I wish someone(Mythbusters, Popular Mechanics, or someone else we can all trust to be unbiased) would hurry up and do a test and give us the results.

whyarts

cappy208 — GMT

i am not criticizing anyone, or the opinions. however, until you posted those articles and actually have evidence i have seen nothing BUT opinion on this topic.

THEN,, mikeinnh stated that came from a company ad! WOW, who to believe. after reading the post, the university/ college and scientific studies ALL stated increases in combustion. they ALL stated lowering of exhaust gas, pollution or chemicals. BUT NOT ONE stated increased MPG. where is that connection made....

by the advertiser who is marketing these gizmos.

re reading your post you can see exactly where the science, scientific evidence/study leaves off, and the AD starts.

i for one, and probably more around too, have a hard time reaching the same conclusions with NO real evidence. except for the souce you did a good job locating this, but finding real honest sources of the truth seems to be pretty hard, huh?

Re: Re: Re: water for fuel?

sderekh — GMT

I apologize for the title... If I could redo the title I'd use something like... "Do the HHO products work?", Or "Can you get better fuel economy through electroylsis?".

Re: Re: Re: HHO-enriched gasoline

MikeInNH — GMT

Those who believe manufacturers can't tell the truth about their products should disregard the information in my posting. Others should investigate the attributed sources and form their own opinions. I'm in the latter category.

Here's the problem....They didn't post the scientific publications (Vol and number) that it was published in. If the documents were real why didn't post that??? It's easy to do. Pretty much every scientific journal is on-line these days.

Sorry....there is no scientific proof what-so-ever. Myself and others are skeptical...because we've seen this EXACT TYPE OF ADVERTISING before. Slick-50 for one. It's ALL JUNK SCIENCE. If we were to investigate everything like this that comes along we'd be spending all our spare time just investigating this junk. So please do waste your time on investigating this. Let us know what you find. I for one am NOT wasting my time.

Re: Re: HHO-enriched gasoline

WhyArts — GMT

Good eye, MikeinNH. I found the information by googling "HHO-enriched gasoline", and didn't realize the page was associated with the website of an HHO generator manufacturer called Hydrogen-Boost until your post.

Those who believe manufacturers can't tell the truth about their products should disregard the information in my posting. Others should investigate the attributed sources and form their own opinions. I'm in the latter category.

Hydrogen-Boost sells the technology for $1000, by the way. From the photo of what you get, it looks like you could duplicate it all yourself for much less if your car has a carburetor rather than a fuel-injector with computerized oxygen sensor.

Re: HHO-enriched gasoline

MikeInNH — GMT

This sounds like it was taken verbatim from one of their advertising flyer's.

You posted several references here. Could you please name the source and publication and pier review articles.

HHO-enriched gasoline

WhyArts — GMT

[I think I've finally found a comprehensive and impartial assessment of the possibilities inherent in HHO-enriched gasoline.]

Hydrogen Injection

The technology of using hydrogen as a combustion enhancement in internal combustion engines has been researched and proven for many years. The benefits are factual and well documented.

Here is a synopsis of a sampling of the research that has been done:
In 1974 John Houseman and D.J/Cerini of the Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology produced a report for the Society of Automotive Engineers entitled “On-Board Hydrogen Generator for a Partial Hydrogen Injection Internal Combustion Engine”.
In 1974 F.W. Hoehn and M.W. Dowy of the Jet Propulsion Lab, prepared a report for the 9th Inter society Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, entitled “Feasibility Demonstration of a Road Vehicle Fueled with Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline.”

In the early eighties George Vosper P. Eng., ex-professor of Dynamics and Canadian inventor, designed and patented a device to transform internal combustion engines to run on hydrogen. He later affirms: “A small amount of hydrogen added to the air intake of a gasoline engine would enhance the flame velocity and thus permit the engine to operate with leaner air to gasoline mixture than otherwise possible. The result, far less pollution with more power and better mileage.” In 1995, Wagner, Jamal and Wyszynski, at the Birmingham, of University Engineering, Mechanical and Manufacturing>, demonstrated the advantages of “Fractional addition of hydrogen to internal combustion engines by exhaust gas fuel reforming.” The process yielded benefits in improved combustion stability and reduced nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions.

Roy MacAlister, PE of the American Hydrogen Association states the “Use of mixtures of hydrogen in small quantities and conventional fuels offers significant reductions in exhaust emissions” and that “Using hydrogen as a combustion stimulant it is possible for other fuels to meet future requirements for lower exhaust emissions in California and an increasing number of additional states. Relatively small amounts of hydrogen can dramatically increase horsepower and reduce exhaust emissions.”

At the HYPOTHESIS Conference, University of Cassino, Italy, June 26-29, 1995, a group of scientists from the University of Birmingham, UK, presented a study about hydrogen as a fraction of the fuel. In the abstract of that study it stated: “Hydrogen, when used as a fractional additive at extreme lean engine operation, yields benefits in improved combustion stability and reduced nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions.”

In the Spring of 1997, at an international conference held by the University of Calgary, a team of scientists representing the Department of Energy Engineering, Zhejiang University, China, presented a mathematical model for the process of formation and restraint of toxic emissions in hydrogen-gasoline mixture fueled engines. Using the theory of chemical dynamics of combustion, the group elaborated an explanation of the mechanism of forming toxic emissions in spark ignition engines. The results of their experimental investigation conclude that because of the characteristics of hydrogen, the mixture can rapidly burn in hydrogen-gasoline mixture fueled engines, thus toxic emissions are restrained. These studies and other research on hydrogen as a fuel supplement generated big efforts in trying to develop practical systems to enhance internal combustion engine performance. A few of them materialized in patented devices that didn’t’t reach the level of performance, safety or feasibility that would allow them to reach marketing stages.

California Environmental Engineering (CEE) has tested this technology and found reduction on all exhaust emissions. They subsequently stated: “CEE feels that the result of this test verifies that this technology is a viable source for reducing emissions and fuel consumption on large diesel engines.”

The American Hydrogen Association Test Lab tested this technology and proved that: “Emissions test results indicate that a decrease of toxic emissions was realized.” Again, zero emissions were observed on CO. Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. Vehicle subjected to dynamometer loading in controlled conditions showed drastic reduction of emissions and improved horsepower.

Corrections Canada tested several systems and concluded, “The hydrogen system is a valuable tool in helping Corrections Canada meet the overall Green Plan by: reducing vehicle emissions down to an acceptable level and meeting the stringent emissions standard set out by California and British Columbia; reducing the amount of fuel consumed by increased mileage.”
Additionally, their analysis pointed out that this solution is the most cost effective. For their research they granted the C.S.C. Environmental Award.

We also conducted extensive testing in order to prove reliability and determine safety and performance of the components and the entire system. As a result of these tests, we achieved important breakthroughs as far as the designs of the components were concerned. We have since increased the hydrogen/oxygen production significantly. This has resulted in increased effectiveness on engine performance.

The results of these tests were able to confirm the claims made about this technology: the emissions will be reduced, the horsepower will increase and the fuel consumption will be reduced.

From researching the Internet we also found the following information

To best describe how Hydrogen Enhanced Combustion works, we are providing this excerpt from a University Technical Report, written by Mr. George Vosper, P.Eng.;

...a Hydrogen Generating System (HGS) for trucks or cars has been on the market for some time. Mounted on a vehicle, it feeds small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen into the engine’s air intake. Its makers claim savings in fuel, reduced noxious and greenhouse gases and increased power. The auto industry is not devoid of hoaxes and as engineers are sceptics by training, it is no surprise that a few of them say the idea won’t work. Such opinions, from engineers can’t be dismissed without explaining why I think these Hydrogen Generating Systems do work and are not just another hoax. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a likely source of those doubts. Meaning ...the law -would lead you to believe that it will certainly take more power to produce this hydrogen than can be regained by burning it in the engine. i.e. the resulting energy balance should be negative. If the aim is to create hydrogen by electrolysis to be burned as a fuel, the concept is ridiculous. On the other hand, if hydrogen, shortens the burn time of the main fuel-air mix, putting more pressure on the piston through a longer effective power stroke, and in doing so takes more work out, then this system does make sense.

Does it work? Independent studies, at different universities, using various fuels, have shown that flame speeds increase when small amounts of hydrogen are added to air-fuel mixes. A study by the California Institute of Technology, at its Jet Propulsion Lab Pasadena, in 1974 concluded:

The J.P.L. concept has unquestionably demonstrated that the addition of small quantities of gaseous hydrogen to the primary gasoline significantly reduces CO and NOx exhaust emissions while improving engine thermal efficiency.

Re: Re: water for fuel?

WhyArts — GMT

Alrighty then, cappy208. You get a gold star for being so smart.

See folks, this is why the forum title "water for fuel" is misleading and wrong. The real issue is HHO-enhanced gasoline.

Re: water for fuel?

cappy208 — GMT

this post (and the associated responses) is EXACTLY the reason why internet access during working hours should be prohibited!

enough with the pseudo science.

real results, with documented evidence. theoretical be damned.

Re: Re: Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

WhyArts — GMT

JLeather, that's the page I'm on. I'm intrigued with something that seems it could/maybe/possibly provide better MPG. Your '81 Dodge seems an excellent trial vehicle. Think I'll try it on my '85 Civic. Just be careful to monitor the water level and not to run the a/f mixture too lean for too long. Please let me know what happens, WhyArts@juno.com.

Re: Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

JLeather — GMT

Just to clarify, I'm not yet ready or willing to say that HHO does or does not enhance fuel mileage. I was previously only approaching this on the terms of energy released, and that vantage point has been beaten to death now. I have not considered the potential for Hydrogen to improve combustion (I remain skeptical, but I need to research this more).

It may simply come down to my own trial. Perhaps I'll have to simply build one of these devices and see what it does for myself. Certainly not on my brand new Kia, but I have several beaters that might serve the purpose (my 1981 Dodge 1/2 ton with a slant-6 seems the best choice). We'll see...

Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

WhyArts — GMT

JLeather, we're on the same page now with the shift in your attitude that *something's* happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear. I think even the HHO generator manufacturers don't fully understand how their machines work, or want to protect their secrets - their focus is on taking advantage of the suddenly sticker-shocked public interest in boosting our MPGs, and not helping us do it ourselves. I became interested to save money, not spend it. I don't want to throw away money on technology I don't understand, which led me here to this discussion.

Experimenters do seem to reliably be getting about 10-40% better gas mileage by combining a trickle of HHO from small amounts of electrolyzed H2O with ordinary gasoline as it enters the combustion chamber. I suspect the reason is chemically-enhanced combustion of the gasoline. What would a chemist say? Could it damage the engine?

Re: Re: water for fuel?

JLeather — GMT

Well, not exactly. The device is in fact producing Hydrogen (H2) and Oxygen (O2) as two compeltely separate gases from the electrolysis of the water. It is not merely producing water vapor. The H2 and O2 (or HHO or "Hydroxy" or whatever the website is calling it at the time) do not recombine into water until they are burned. Water is the byproduct of their combustion. The science behind electrolysis of water is quite proven and undisputed. Even adding the oxidizers as some of these machines do is not being called into question.

The question at hand is whether or not the H2 and O2 gases being produced and added to the engine provide any meaningful gains in economy over the energy required to produce the gases in the first place. It has been proven that you could not run the car entirely on water for any meaningful length of time (although some devices do claim to be able to do this). That would violate the 1st law of Thermodynamics. However, what this new crop of devices is claiming is that a small amount of Hydrogen (and it is a very small amount) will enhance the combustion of gasoline (which remains the primary fuel) and thereby increase mileage.

Not being a chemist, I cannot disprove this on a chemical level. However, the websites for these devices are fraught with misnomers, half-truths, and outright lies. Later I'm going to dissect a few of the MagDrive's claims as being mostly irrelevant and misleading. Doesn't mean it doesn't work (like I said, I haven't tried it) but I haven't found a single site yet that offers even a decent explanation for why they claim it works.

I'm not particularly ready to fork over several hundred dollars to a site that can't tell me why their device works, yet they claim to be improving it every few months (MagDrive is on their 10th iteration of their device, yet they offer no explanation of the science behind why it works).

Hopefully on my lunch break I have time to delve into a few of their errors.

Re: water for fuel?

TJScott2012 — GMT

this doesnt work. gas prices are hitting records, of course there will be tons of things that "increase" your mileage. for one, it sounds like they are trying to say that they dry the water, which will seperate the hydrogen from the oxygen and burn it. well, where is the oxygen going to go? and another thing, when h20 dries, there are not seperate hydrogen and oxygen molecules, it is still h20 combined, its just in a vapor form.

Re: Re: Re: Re: HHO-enhanced gasoline

Encreader — GMT

I'm a theoretician, not an engineer, so I'll defer to JLeather if he also responds. But I took a look at the MagDrive website and I found a few flaws. On the "Test Results" page they state that "Gasoline is but only 13% efficient on average when it comes to actual power produced by the combustion process." I'm not completely sure what they mean by this, but it is true that the average overall efficiency of a typical spark-ignition engine is on this order. But that's not due to poor combustion; it's due to several losses, including the actual combustion efficiency falling below the theoretical (Otto cycle) optimum of about 0.6; something called pumping loss, which occurs when the engine is running off the "sweet spot" (which it usually is); and various friction losses. Adding anything to the combustion can't do anything about the pumping and friction losses, it can only boost the combustion efficiency closer to the theoretical limit (if that). But in the next statement, they claim "Adding an additional fuel [Hydrogen] and oxidizer [Oxygen] "aka HHO" causes the inefficient gasoline to burn at a rate of better than 95% efficiency." Well, now I'm really confused. Even if this could somehow make the engine reach the Otto optimum (which it can't), it would still have about 50% loss due to all the other sources it didn't address. So something is fishy here. The only way I can see for this to give some improvement, as I've said in earlier posts (but not in these words), is to shorten the time of combustion and make it coincident as possible with TDC. The theoretical optimum condition in the Otto cycle is constant-volume detonation (the left-hand edge of the canonical slanted parallelogram in P-V space, if you have seen that figure) and HHO (or, as JLeather correctly points out, 2H2+O2) flashes to 2H2O much faster than gasoline combusts. So if the HHO flash speeds the gasoline detonation then it's possible to get some improvement there. But it's also possible to cause all sorts of other problems. And, though I haven't looked at (i.e. modeled) this specific situation I would expect a maximum improvement of a few percent.