Hello
What do people think of the water boost system. I saw an article in car mechanics singing its praises, but is it really that good? Does it have any long term negative effects? Are the claims correct?
Here is the website that talks about it www.waterboost.co.uk
Greg
|
|
Why do you think the car manufacturers dont fit them?
|
It's not as good as a Turbonator or Electric Supercharger.
;-)
|
People who are far more clever than me assure me very convincingly that it's a con. I am more likely to believe them than a magazine which seems to become more biased and erratic with every passing year.
I used to be an avid CM reader in the mid-late 90's, and can't believe how it has changed since then.
|
Wasn't water boost used on the WWII American P47 fighter?
IIRC it shortened engine life drastically.
|
I seem to remember a water injection system that was available in the 70's.
I reckon this system is something very similar - just atomised H2O.
I can recall 'independent' tests carried out that showed it did in fact improve economy and reduce knocking + reduce emissions etc., etc., etc.
|
i cant be bothered reading all those words the seller put but i did try a water injection system on a marina van yonks ago and it did give it more low down grunt,someone told me it was the equivalent of a foggy day though when air mass is wetter or something
i also tried a torque tube on the same van and that made it faster as well,in fact so fast it broke my dv27
Edited by bell boy on 01/05/2009 at 20:57
|
>>> it was the equivalent of a foggy day though when air mass is wetter<<<
That's exactly as I remember the blurb del boy ... I was a sucker for gadgets back then, every car I owned had to have a GM Manifold Modifier fitted in between the carb & the manifold to increase atomisation of the air/fuel mix.
|
Water boost is not as effective as dilithium crystals in the discombobulator.
|
|
|
I'm prepared to believe that the system works but not convinced that it would make much of a net saving - you have to add the weight of the equipment and the water - also it might mean the alternator has to work harder, despite what they say - and then also there'd be more water as a by-product of combustion.
People probably laughed at the person who thought of using an exhaust driven turbine to drive an impeller to compress the induction air. After all, the idea does sound a bit like putting a fan on a yacht to blow into the sails! You can even imagine the advertising copy: "get power for nothing with our amazing new turbocharger device" !!!
|
One of the times when I was as either at Santa Pod or Brands Hatch (in years gone by) I was told some race teams, top fuel, funny cars & dragsters also used additional water injection to do no more than cool the cylinders in an attempt to keep all together in the block.
Found this article too:
tiny.cc/uRs00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "water injection" was actually a mixture of water and alcohol. It was limited to 15 minutes of combat emergency power. A short burst was not harmful but sustained use was. Replacement of the engine was done as a precaution after any use.
|
|
|
Wasn't water boost used on the WWII American P47 fighter? IIRC it shortened engine life drastically.
In WWII on the Merlin engines water injection was used when running at high boost pressures to prevent preignition of the fuel within the Zoller 2 stage superchargers. The Heavy bombers would use it when taking off and I understand it was also used in some of the radial engines as well. The Zoller unregulated "pulling the tit" as it was termed could generate enough heat at low altitudes to preignite the fuel. At altitude water injection was never necessary
I also understand it was used in the modified (end of life) Spitfires and Hurricanes when taking off from aircraft carriers, these planes would run at full unregulated boost and then be ditched in the sea near the carrier after combat the engines being scrap by that time.
The information above from my father who was flight engineer on Lancasters, Wellingtons etc.. during his WWII RAF career.
I did try water injection (same as another poster) in 1978 on an old triumph spitfire, because I had noticed it ran better in damp weather....it didn't really work very well. Either it made no difference or it ran badly. I simply used a spray nozzle at the intake of the SU carb. I suspect people have the idea this generates more power because on a damp (usually cold day), but I think it's simply other factors coming into play ..
Edited by davecuk on 26/08/2009 at 16:52
|
|
|
|
|
"The enhanced fuel/air/hydrogen/oxygen mix burns upto 10 times faster ..........."
That sounds like it might have gone into engine knocking territory.
|
|
Or make a diesel run at 45,000 revs. :)
|
"IN BRIEF: The Waterboost System uses spare electricity from your cars alternator to generate Hydrogen and Oxygen gas from water."
Ah, yes. I have lots of spare electricity. I use it to drive the flux capacitor.
|
|
The permanant connection to the national grid would limit your range a bit. Trollybus poles might do it. :)
Edited by Old Navy on 02/05/2009 at 22:20
|
|
|
|
|
www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_467...m
|
Does the extra pressure in the cylinders created as the water turns to steam outweigh the cooling, and thus contraction, effect on the combustion gases?
As an aside, with a turbocharged engine, would it be beneficial to cool the exhaust a little way DOWNSTREAM of the turbo in order to reduce gas pressure, and thus back pressure? If so, is this done at all?
Edited by Sofa Spud on 26/08/2009 at 15:00
|
Going back forty-odd years to O-level physics.
Cooling the gas would make it denser and therefore more difficult to pump.
I expect to be shot down in flames by the likes of NC. ;>)
|
Of course water boosting works.
It defies the conservation of energy and creates it from nothing so it must work.
Only those of a gullible and credulous nature believe in it. The sellers of such systems do not or they would patent it and sell it to car manufacturers and get a royalty of £10 per car sold..
|
When I had my Saab 99 Turbo, the injection system was a mechanical one ( K Jetronic) I think and I know that the turbo, having a mechanical wastegate, could be coaxed into giving higher boost pressure to give an increase in performance.
The only problem was that too much extra boost would often cause pinking or knocking. At the time there was available a water injection kit to help cool the charge.
In fact just to make sure, i have just got this off Wikipedia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
" Turbo?Introduced in 1978. It was fitted with a turbocharged version of the 2-litre engine. The body was originally a 3-door Combi coupé version but later the company produced a two-door model, which was a limited homologation exercise, to enable the production of a rally car. It was available in red, silver, and black. The Turbo S was a special model with factory-mounted water injection, giving an extra 15?20 hp. In 1978 there was a very limited edition of a little over 100 five-door 99 Turbos. They were only available in cardinal red metallic.[1]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
So I reckon, if Saab offered it then, it must have worked for that application.
Edited by Mr.Tee43 on 26/08/2009 at 19:48
|
Since then we have seen the popularity of intercoolers for reducing the temperature of the turbine compressed air, and I believe compression ratios have fallen since the earliest turbo cars to reduce the risk of knocking in turbo'd engines (as well as reliable electronic control of boost and fuelling).
Water coolers are redundant for road use, and are pointless for non-turbo cars anyway.
|
Petrol engines do sometimes run sweeter and give a bit more power when the air is cool and moist. It isn't clear to me whether the improvement comes when the engine is otherwise in good tune, but I imagine so.
So a well-designed water injector may possibly give slightly improved running anyway in very dry atmospheric conditions. On bell boy's ideal foggy morning, perhaps it won't.
Very thick fog or thin rain with near-freezing temperatures could produce carburettor icing though at steady cruising speeds. A case of too much of a good thing.
|
Since everybody has drifted off the original 'Waterboost' subject and onto the separate subject of water-injection:
One of the limiting factors in the internal combustion engine is the amount of oxygen (air) that can be forced into the engine to allow the fuel to burn. No oxygen=no combustion, then no go. Vapourising water into the fuel-air mix will cause the air to become denser and cooler. Cool, dense air (dense air=more air) results in a better charge into the cylinder head, which results in a more powerful burn during combustion (a turbocharger is also intended to increase the air flow/pressure) . This naturally results in more power. Water injection is used on WRC (World Rally Championship) cars but is detrimental to power when the charge air temperature is below 42°C and boost pressure is below 0.6BAR. www.carbibles.com/fuel_engine_bible_pg2.html
Anyone interested in returning to the Waterboost subject....?
|
|
What is the 'Waterboost subject'? If you use the link you just get a page of records from some boy band no one has ever heard of or wants to hear of again. It isn't a subject.
|
www.carmechanicsmag.co.uk/cgi-bin/purchase.cgi?s=bi
Car Mechanics magazine May 2009
Front page, feature article and advert on Waterboost.
What is the 'Waterboost subject'?
|
/bullet proof vest on
the electricity used isn't free, and isn't made 100% efficiently.
the use of the hydrogen to produce power (to drive the car (and alternator)) is even less efficient than the electrical generation.
If the combined efficiency exceeded 100% you'd have a perpetual motion machine.
/bullet proof vest off.
I'll get me coat....
|
Has anyone actually read the Waterboost claims on their website? They are truly amazing, for example on the page dealing with their "Water Welder", there is the claim:
"The flame produced by the gas is cold enough to touch but can instantly turn sand into glass (approx.1500 degrees C)"
Now you must all agree that this is really impressive .......
|
Has anyone actually read the Waterboost claims on their website? They are truly amazing
Probably not.
|
|
Hi, I have been reading the posts on this system and I do know the Waterboost system is well advertised as a great device.
I must point out it is now old technology and the claims were exagerated just a bit.
The system has moved on now with other companies like hydrodrive using a new dry cell system, making it safer to have in your vehicle and producing more then enough hho gas using a max pull of 10A.
There are loads of conns out there, people trying to cash in on home made systems and stuff they buy off the net. Its all rubbish in my opinion having tested most of these products myself.
Please dont be put off by these dodgy products as the system if instlaaed correctly can work well and save you money.
As I have learned there are quite a few people out there who dont belive it works and will put the system down in every way possible.
I would just say in a very none biast way, check it out for your self, do your own reasearch, find reviews etc before you make a decision.
I have been running my vehicles on this for a while now and I wouldnt go back not having one fitted. first of all I probs would loose out on going to the pub as often as I would have to spend more on fuel and that would lead to staying in more with the wife.
On a more serious note though just look about and have a go, see what you think.
There is a network of people fitting these devices and they are the new dry cell type which is CE approved, DVLA approved and due to that they can have your car tax lowered to a dual fuel band saving you even more.
And just to add for those who are still against it, and saying why the car manufactures arnt using this technology, THEY ARE NOW. It has been something that needed a hell of a lot of testing but now they are looking into producing vehicles with the system as standard to their vehicles.
There are some pages on the nes about Chevrolet, Kia, even Nissan have been looking into it.
One of the main things about the system is that it does cut down on emissions, hence local councils and haulage companies are looking into having these systems fitted to all their vehicles.
If anyone would like to ask any questions or there not sure of anything I dont mind answering them.
I hope this has helped and cleared up a few sceptical peoples issues.
Hydrodrive
Happy to let this post stand for the moment as the poster is open as to his/her connection with the product
Edited by Pugugly on 16/10/2009 at 12:05
|
If anyone would like to ask any questions or there not sure of anything I dont mind answering them.
Where is the information about Chevrolet, Kia, even Nissan "looking into producing vehicles with the system as standard to their vehicles"?
Where is the information about "local councils and haulage companies are looking into having these systems fitted to all their vehicles"?
Where is information from any independant and authoritative tests that have been carried out?
Looks to me like simpli a con, and just another dodgy product - in fact, dodgy is, as far as I'm concerned, a very polite term to apply to it. So - can you answer the questions above?
|
|
When there is a queue of people waiting to buy cars manufacturer fitted with this device please let me know.
|
|
|
lol, have you ever used google, only takes a few seconds.
for starters
hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/hyund.../
and the other information is my business
open your eyes get off your backside and look for yourself or dont bother putting people down who have bothered to look.
Anyway I did find this forum just by chance but I see its full of sceptics so I will get back to work now (fitting these units) and leave you to it.
Thankyou for you great input
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 16/10/2009 at 13:32
|
lol have you ever used google only takes a few seconds. for starters
This thread wasn't about hydrogen fuel cells!
|
"local councils and haulage companies are looking into having these systems fitted to all their vehicles"
On the other thread you say you fit them to Council vehicles every day.
So are Councils using them or not?
If they are I'd be interested to know which ones.
|
On the other thread you say you fit them to Council vehicles every day. So are Councils using them or not?
No they are not - speaking as a Council Tax payer, I'm thankful for that.
|
|
|
On the other thread
What other thread? Has it been deleted already?
|
|
There's a thread in technical about fitting one to a VW.
|
|
I just looked at it. That's where he claims to've "studied hydrogen fuel cells at university", yet equates them with this sort of snake oil "HHO". 'nuff said. Great publicty to stop people being ripped off, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh well, that speaks volumes.
It is my opinion that this product, "Water Boost", is less than worthless, and you have wimped out at the first hurdle of proving me wrong - i.e. by being able to back up your own claims made above.
lol have you ever used google only takes a few seconds. for starters hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/hyund.../
I don't need to prove your claims - you do, and you can't. The product you're pushing is a waste of time, money, and effort.
The URL you contribute is to do with hydrogen fuel cells, which work (although their economig and "green" application to transport is extremely dubious). Hydrogen fuel cells are not, of course, the same as the worthless rubbish you're pushing.
and the other information is my business
"Meet Hydrodrive - secret advisor to Car Manufacturing Giants!" No, I do not think so.
open your eyes get off your backside and look for yourself or dont bother putting people down who have bothered to look.
I have. The Web is full of reports of just how useless products like the one you are pushing are - and you can't contribute information to reverse that. QED.
Anyway I did find this forum just by chance but I see its full of sceptics so I will get back to work now (fitting these units) and leave you to it.
Perhaps you're fitting them at the rate of one every year.
Thankyou for you great input
It's great when articles like this one appear on the 'net, so that anyone in the whole world can see that the claims made about these products is utter rubbish, and avoid buying them
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 16/10/2009 at 14:42
|
>>check it out for your self, do your own reasearch
No.
If you're selling it, it's up to you to convince us.
Has there been any independent research done backing your claims? Any papers accepted into a peer reviewed automotive engineering journal? Any replication of results by more than one research group?
|
Mods, time to wipe this rubbish methinks?
Next it'll be elctric superchargers and the ever-popular "Turbonator."
|
Mods time to wipe this rubbish methinks?
If it's left on view, it will be a service to any misguided people considering buying this useless thing.
|
10 Amp draw = 120 watts being used to hydrolyse water into H2 and 02.
Burning this gas in the engine will return perhaps 40% at best = 50 watts (less than 0.1 bhp) - assuming the engine management allows efficient use of non-hydrocarbon fuel...
While the engine is under load, the 120 watts are being taken by the alternator from burning fuel to produce the 50 watt return (not very good, eh?).
While the engine is on the over-run, the "free" hydrogen and oxygen is pointless anyway as it will go straight through the engine.
Snake 1 - Science 0.
|
only for the naive who believe all they read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed on the BBC, I *think*, this morning, that there's to be a test of a car fitted with one of these type of things, broadcase tonight. Can anyone tell me when?
|
|
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8313832.stm
|
|
Why dont I find that a surprise? Could it be that I am a cynical old sod who waits for vehicle manufacturers approval of devices and even then suspect marketing hype?
Edited by Old Navy on 19/10/2009 at 15:19
|
I'm not a cynic.
But I am also not an idiot.
Perpetual motion - as described in these devices - is a tool to separate idiots from their money.
Edited by madf on 19/10/2009 at 16:05
|
|
|
|
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8313832.stm
Ah, good, thank you very much indeed macavity.
"The full report can be seen on Inside Out (BBC East) on BBC One at 1930 BST on Monday, 19 October."
It would be nice to see this permenantly available on-line.
As stated earlier - "It's worse than useless".
|
I think Sky users anywhere in the country can get regional BBC One - channels nine hundred and something if memory serves.
|
"When confronted with the evidence, Steven Cordner of Hydro-Fuel Systems claimed the system worked but admitted he had no proof to show us. He said they had stopped selling the product.
The devices are still widely available on the internet, with prices ranging from £100 to £500. "
The mating call of a liar and fraudster ?
|
|
In racing engines the air intake is usually routed to give the highest pressure from forward motion, but also the coolest air-flow. This is because cooler air is more dense and so the engine can take-in more air (and thus more fuel) per revolution to give more power.
|
|
|
|
"The full report can be seen on Inside Out (BBC East) on BBC One at 1930 BST on Monday 19 October."
...but not BBC South unfortunately, although they did show the first part of a story on the British steam land speed record car which was quite interesting.
|
"The full report can be seen on Inside Out (BBC East) on BBC One at 1930 BST on Monday 19 October." >>
watch it on iplayer soon:
www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0071mjk
Just missed
19/10/2009
More:programme information
Broadcast today, 19:30 on BBC One (Cambridgeshire, East only) and available soon on BBC iPlayer.
David Whiteley investigates systems that claim to enable cars to run on water.
|
|
FT, could I intrest you in some serpent unguent?? Will improve your fuel efficiency as much, if not more than the gadgets in this discussion? For just £1000 I can tell you more...
|
|
Don't be silly. My impression of these products is stated above. I am just surprised that they are so widely advertised as "legit", and, apparently, installed by companies. One would expect that anyone, after installing such a device, would notice that the result is nil (or less), and take appropriate action - however, that doesn't seem to be the case. I wonder why.
|
|
You're forgetting that with the right advertising, some of the general public can be made to believe just about anything.
|
Remember carbon-flo (50p worth of tin nuggets in a wee bag that were dropped into the fuel tank for 90 quid) that supposedly acted as a lead replacement.
By the time you find these things are rubbish you money and the sellers are long gone.
|
Magnets attached to the fuel lines work miracles. I get 70mpg out of my Camaro.
|
|
|
|
|
