|
J Bonington Jagworth, thanks for the support. My alternator is good for 150 amps, I have designed my HHO generator to consume a maximum of 15 amps. Mapmaker, can I have your opinion on this please? www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFrkHFmjx0c
Edited by marty1979 on 14/04/2008 at 18:12
|
|
|
.. So somewhere, somehow you're getting a FIFTEEN-fold increase in power ..
Mapmaker, you are falling in to the same trap as athe Company I referred to in my first post somehere way above.
" ... Their research Engineers and Scientists spent much time trying to explain to the budding entrepreneurs that their inventions could not work due to laws of nature.
After a couple of months, the Company realised their folly and stopped the scheme and allowed their staff to get on with real work. .."
No amount of calculations by Einstein or Newton or Mapmaker will convince Believers that their device is working against the laws of nature.
I Believe, and so and that it is TRUTH, and you cannot prove me WRONG. So there.
p.s. marty1979 - any chance of posting links to some photos showing your device as installed in your car? (you don't need to include a page from today's newspaper in the photos to prove it is genuinely your car and that the photos were taken today).
mods - is it possible to separate out this "water power" discussion in to its own thread?
Edited by jbif on 14/04/2008 at 18:18
|
Sure, this video is the device installed in my car: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnqissbSaHE
Just to confirm that my user name on Youtube is my baby daughter, Ella. Just incase you didn't believe me.
Edited by marty1979 on 14/04/2008 at 18:21
|
This unburnt fuel bonanza (..with a bit of hydrogen thrown in too) has lain undiscovered despite all the efforts of Toyota,BMW,VAG,GM, Citroen etc., in their quest for greater fuel efficiency. Indeed, Toyota & GM seem to have spent billions of dollars on research into hybrid systems & fuel cells (not to mention BMW's energy scavenging & conservation approach) when a simple £80~(?) device could have achieved nearly the same results.
Now, I've no idea about these things & can't pass judgement - but if it's true, so is the above.
|
|
|
Marty, I saw one of your other videos
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcx_VRgyJZA
Please please understand how dangerous that was. You must keep all sparks well away from a 2:1 mix of H and O. It can explode with fatal force.
Edited to add: www.fuelsaving.info/index.htm seems to be a very good website written by an advanced engine development engineer.
Edited by Billy Whizz on 16/04/2008 at 10:25
|
|
|
|
"their device is working against the laws of nature"
How so? All the man is claiming is that the addition of some gaseous hydrogen and oxygen to the inlet manifold improves his engine's performance. It may seem disproportionate, but it's not exactly cold fusion...
|
>>No amount of calculations by Einstein or Newton or Mapmaker
::blushes at being associated with the other two::
|
Einstein or Newton or Mapmaker ::blushes at being associated with the other two::
Newton was a most unpleasant fellow, but no one with a taste for lateral thinking, a humane outlook and a sense of humour would mind being compared with Einstein...
:o}
|
|
|
|
This link has a very good write up of the device in question. This website is very spectical of such devices and debunks most of them.
www.fuelsaving.info/hydrogen.htm
However, for this method they do in fact think it could work.
"In principle this is a sound idea. Several reputable studies have been done into the idea, and there is no doubt that adding hydrogen to a petrol / air mix gives the following benefits:
* Better ignitability (leaner mixtures can be ignited)
* Higher flame speed (leaner mixture will burn reliably)
* Reduced tendency to knock (so higher compression ratio can be used)
If an engine is designed and optimised to take advantage of these altered properties, then substantial improvements in power and economy can be obtained "
The only flaw that they point to is that an engine would need to be tuned correctly to take advantage of this.
|
Looks like there is lots of research on it; these learned papers are not all readable:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_enhancement
snipurl.com/24e86 [www_eng_bham_ac_uk]
snipurl.com/24e6y [www_sae_org]
Would be interesting to see some independant data on mpg improvement under test conditions?
Don't knock it kids, its the future! ;o)
(Or is it?)
|
|
|
|
>>.. addition of some gaseous hydrogen and oxygen to the inlet manifold improves his engine's performance. It may seem disproportionate ..
Sure JBJ, I lok forward to you posting your calculations showing the energy input in making the "some gaseous hydrogen and oxygen" and the extra energy produced from the improvement to the engine's performance.
.. but it's not exactly cold fusion...
I wish it was. Because I do know a thing or two about that, not enough to be the Prof at Imperial College, but more than enough nevertheless to have earned me a good crust.
p.s. If you want to see how much heat this topic generates, try Google: HHO hoax
Edited by jbif on 14/04/2008 at 19:21
|
|
More hoax material for the non believing in the world: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImGaraPrEo8
|
|
|
"Many thanks to those who support, and to those seaking more info: water4gas.com/2books.htm?hop=lovekae
waterpoweredcar.com/hydrobooster2.html"
I don't believe this for one minute. Modern cars are highly optimised, with complex computer controlled engine management systems to ensure as complete a burn as possible. The manufacturers spend a fortune on research, which is expensive and complex. Do I believe that someone has knocked up a better engine in their garden shed? No, not really. Burning hydrogen would mess up the engine tuning, and injection systems.
What's more the explanations in that first link are dodgy. If they use the current from the battery, then they are using energy generated from the petrol engine to split the water. The amount of energy obtained from burning the hydrogen will be less than the energy needed to create it due to inefficiencies in the system. Therefore the net effect is to reduce the efficiency of the engine.
I note that the site linked to is selling something, based on the hard sell of the water engine idea, so it could well be a quick money making scam. A bit like the magnet that connects to the fuel line. Same old same old.
|
|
Well there you go. I'll continue to save money at the pumps, I think I'm going to need it when the S... hits the fan. All the best guys. Martin
|
I've done my sums. Marty's system produces approx 5 litres of gas/minute. It improves fuel consumption a lot and uses very little water..
Now if he drives at an average 50mph, he in theory at 50mpg could travel approximately 12-14 hours before using a full tank of diesel.
5 litres of gas = 0.005cubic metres. So in 12 hours his sytem generates
12 x 60 minutes x .005 cubic metres of gas.
=3.6cubic metres.
A cubic metre of Oxygen gas weighs 1.43kg and of Hydrogen 0.1kg.
So the average will be (2 parts H to 1 O) 0.5Kg/cubic metre.
His 3.6 cubic metres of gas will weigh 1.8kg which backs up his only needing to top up his water tank a little after using a tank of fuel. (1.8kg is less than 3 litres)
The problem is the energy supplied by 1kg of water is only about 4.4KWH (the hydrogen content).
So his claim is not that the gas by itself adds any energy - it cannot - but it significantly improves combustion.
Now he is adding no extra oxygen to the system - the intake system is unchanged- so any claim of extra fuel burned is just physically impossible. Of course if he tweaks the turbo and EGR and the ECU to increase oxygen levels... but he has made no such claims.
The addition of gases is a zero sum gain in energy used : he needs energy to electrolyse water to gas and it is then reburnt to water again in the engine. (In practise there will be system losses as no system is 100% efficient).
So with no tuning and no added energy he has found a 50% improvement in internal combustion efficiency.
Patent it is my advice. It's not perpetual motion... but the next best thing. Sell it to General Motors. The US needs such a system.
Oh I see, the originators are US based. And THEY have not sold it to GM. I wonder why not?
|
|
|
Well there you go. I'll continue to save money at the pumps I think I'm going to need it when the S... hits the fan. All the best guys. Martin
The moderators may well edit/remove this post, however that site linked to is obviously selling snake oil at £50 a time. The e-books may well contain some information, but are probably worth very little compared to other works available. The site is basically a very hard sell sales pitch, and the text is full of pseudoscientific nonsense. Marty's claims sound unbelievable I suspect that he is associated with that web site.
|
|
I am in no way associated with any websites. Did you not look at the video I posted of my setup? Did it look anything like what was on that site? I wouldn't expect anyone to pay money for anything they weren't sure of, that's why I built my own. Anyway, this is getting old now, so I'll be off. Don't think about it too much though will you.
|
I am in no way associated with any websites. Did you not look at the video I posted of my setup? Did it look anything like what was on that site? I wouldn't expect anyone to pay money for anything they weren't sure of that's why I built my own. Anyway this is getting old now so I'll be off. Don't think about it too much though will you.
Well, I had to include the above for completeness.
"Marty", try dipping a kipper in your tank. It'll do just the same thing, and *reek* of fish.
Oh. It couldn't smell worse. Sorry. This thread is not a good advertisement for HHO, Brown's or Brownes gas, klein gas, hydrogen fuel as a supplement, or anything similar.
Snake oil? Add a few drops per tanker load, and get zillions of MPG extra. You bet!
|
|
Apologies to mods, and almost everyone. This stuff gets my back up, for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
|
"I look forward to you posting your calculations"
I haven't made any, I'm afraid, jbif - I was simply trying to defend someone who, as far as I could see, was honestly describing his own experience. In any case, the situation doesn't appear to rely on a simple addition of the calorific values in the component fuels - if they combine in a suitable manner, they may enhance the combustion process, providing an increase in efficiency (there's plenty of scope, after all), which is as much chemistry as physics.
All I am doing is trying to explain an observed phenomenon that I have no reason to suppose is a hoax. I'm as aware of snake oil as the next man, but I take the view that most BR'ers are honest citizens, and I don't see why anyone would go to the trouble of describing (in some detail) modifications he had made that gave some useful benefit, if it was a complete invention. Other less scrupulous people may be trying to cash in on similar ideas, but that doesn't mean his version doesn't work.
As it happens (and as I have mentioned), I add a small amount of acetone to my petrol, and it gives results beyond the sum of the parts. A cupful of acetone added to a tankful of fuel takes my car roughly the same distance as adding another gallon of fuel. I'm not sure I can explain that mathematically, either, but I thought people here were a bit more open-minded.
|
The vast majority of people on here are open minded and up for discussing any topic, wether it be as mundane as parking tickets or fuel saving devices. A couple of people making a lot of noise shouldn't ever put anyone off taking part in the dicussion.
My instinct tells me that marty is an honest fellow doing nothing more than sharing his findings with us all. He has actually gone to the trouble of building the device and has reported his findings. I think its highly unfair to start making claims that he is associated with certain websites.
Marty reports a gain in mpg, I for one believe that he has actually improved his mpg. What we don't know is how that gain was acheived. We know that it can't be from the energy of the hydrogen (perpetual motion etc) but it could be from one of many other factors - faster burn of the fuel or maybe even some other effect on the engine - maybe it's causing the engine to run leaner?
I guess what we need is a backroomer with a bit of spare time who could build a device to see if the results are repeatable. If anyones up for it I'l donate a tenner towards to cost.
I would have a go myself, but a young family and work means I don't get spare time!
|
>donate a tenner
ROFL. What do you think Ford's annual research budget is for engines?
|
I think that its more that the cost of the stuff in Marty's set-up wouldn't cost that much and it would only be a trial to see if it did indeed work....
The R&D budget of a large Co is accademic in this case, I feel....
|
|
|
I have no idea what Fords budget is and I dont see what that has to do with anything.
ROFL - I didn't say anything about getting Fords to research it! Read the post again!
Marty said it cost him about £50 in parts, if someone is willing to build one and try it out, I'll donate a tenner towards the cost.
|
"I have no idea what Fords budget is and I dont see what that has to do with anything."
Because if it was so easy, then the big companies would rush to do it. They do not employ fools. And if the management were for some weird reason engaged in a conspiracy with the oil companies, or producers, they could not stop engineers setting up on their own to modify cars. They would make a mint.
Anyway, how come the link given is quite obviously scam sites full of exaggerated claims, pseudoscience, and very hard sell? It is the same style as the sites that peddle various prescription drugs which supposedly enlarge bits of your body. The other links to Wikipedia are not related as they merely explain about alternative fuels, such as hydrogen and ethanol.
Since this is supposedly a free miracle device, why can't Marty describe in technical details in this thread what has to be done to make it work? Or do we have to pay £50 to get the documents from the linked sites? What are the modifications to the engine? How does he introduce the hydrogen to the cylinder? How does he get sufficient pressure in the hydrogen from such a weak source? How does he ensure even mixing of the hydrogen-fuel-air mixture? How does he adjust the engine management system to work with the new mix?
|
The point that I'm trying to make is that Marty gets an increase in mpg - are you not curious to know why? It could be down to the device or it could be something completely different. Maybe the big companies have researched this method but not used for a varity of reasons such as long term engine damage or safety issues.
I didn't provide the link to the dodgy looking site.
The wikipedia link IS related as it all about adding hydrogen to the fuel - exactly what martys device does.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_enhancement
have a read of this site, it's very good and gives a balanced view.
www.fuelsaving.info/hydrogen.htm
I thought marty offered to explain fully how it works. No one said anything about paying for the info. He explained earlier in the thread how the hydrogen is introduced. You don't need the hydrogen to be under pressure as it's sucked into the engine.
Maybe you need to re-read the thread?
I'm not saying the device works or backing anyones claims. Just being open minded, that's all.
Edited by moonshine {P} on 15/04/2008 at 12:12
|
Well, I've read the various blurbs. and the ebay adverts (lots of them claiming 20-40% fuel consumption improvements.)
So I think I may have a go.
All tenners gratefully received. (seriously).
I'll test it on diesel 106 first.. and then Yaris (I understand on EGR cars, feed goes via egr valve?)
|
Hey I'll take tenners too. I guarantee that my motoring will then cost me less. All donations gratefully received.
|
Hi Madf,
If your willing to try it out, then I'll stick to what I said and donate a tenner towards your costs.
|
>Moonshine
I cannot seriously take any money...worse luck!
Thanks for the offer tho!
Edit
Of course if Iraq was sorted and the security situation was OK and the oil fields properly exploited, with a few $billion investment , oil output could rise by 5Million bopd in 10 years and help reduce prices.
I am not holding my breath..
Edited by madf on 15/04/2008 at 12:51
|
|
Madf, are you seriously considering giving this a go? If so I can send you all the info you'll need to get started, via e-mail, or I can post the instructions on here? I will even give you, for free, for no money at all, some stainless plates that I no longer need. It has to be stainless as the oxygen produced will corrode other materials. Let me know. Martin
|
|
Also Madf, you don't want the egr to be involved in the setup. The vaccuum for the egr is only open via a solenoid at certain throttle positions, so there will be a risk of back pressure to the cell. If you meant that you can use the vaccuum line before the solenoid, then yes you are correct, but this vaccuum pressure drops off as the engine speed rises. This is great for idle but you want a more substantial vaccuum as the motor picks up speed, so I would introduce the gas via the air box (easier) or as close to the intake manifold as possible (involves modifying air intake boot)
Edited by marty1979 on 15/04/2008 at 13:35
|
|
Started out as a article about oil prices and ended uo a talk about EGR valves.
|
Marty,
Any chance of you inviting HJ round for a demo and report?
|
|
Whoever wishes to come and look at this for themselves is more than welcome to do so, I live on Bristol by the way. If you would like to see a video of my car with the working unit in, here it is: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnqissbSaHE
|
|
Oh, Andy Bairsto, this topic started off on a negative, I'm trying to end on a positive.
|
I've just read through this thread and a few thoughts occur.
Firstly I believe that the perpetual motion comments are a bit of a red herring.
The energy required to split hydrogen from oxygen is much less than the energy available from its combustion. I seem to recall science class experiments where water was electorlised using a couple of batteries and the gas collected in tubes. The subsequent burning of the hydrogen produced a lot more heat than could be generated electrically by the batteries.
What I am trying to say is that hydrogen as a fuel has an inherent energy in the same way that petrol does. Obviously it takes less energy to refine and produce petrol than there is in the fuel itself or it wouldn't be viable. We don't think of oil refineries as being perpetual motion machines.
I'm not convinced by the unburnt fuel arguement as being the reason for the improvement in efficiency. Surely igniting hydrogen and oxygen together will give an explosive result in its own right which will augment the burning of the fuel.
Finally we all know that injecting nitrous oxide into the engine will improve performance by making more oxygen available. Perhaps there is a similar effect in play here ?
Sorry but I don't have any hard maths to back up my thoughts, but I can understand:-
1. You can get hydrogen and oxygen from water using a battery.
2. Hydrogen and oxygen combined with an ignition source goes bang.
3. More oxygen in a combustion situation improves efficiency.
Just my 2 cents.
|
>>The energy required to split hydrogen from oxygen is much less than the energy available from its combustion
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
The amount of energy required to split H2O into hydrogen and oxygen is EXACTLY, PRECISELY the same as the amount of energy released when the two are recombined.
It is fundamental that this is the case otherwise you have invented perpetual motion.
>Sorry but I don't have any hard maths to back up my thoughts
Nope.
This is my last posting on this thread before my blood pressure goes up. Until the next one...
>>What I am trying to say is that hydrogen as a fuel has an inherent energy in the same way that petrol does.
Indeed that is true. But it has nothing to do with your earlier comments.
>>Obviously it takes less energy to refine and produce petrol than there is in the fuel itself or it wouldn't be viable. We don't think of oil refineries as being perpetual motion machines.
Indeed you are correct. But separating petrol from oil from gas is a mechanical process - like separating the sultanas from oats in muesli. Separating Hydrogen from Oxygen is a chemical process.
Edited by Mapmaker on 15/04/2008 at 17:55
|
>>The energy required to split hydrogen from oxygen is much less than the energy available from its combustion.
No.
If that were the case, water would be scarce, as it would not naturally occur in a higher energy state. We would be getting hydrogen and oxygen coming out of exhaust pipes instead of water/steam.
|
>>No. If that were the case, water would be scarce, as it would not naturally occur in a higher energy state.
Unless I'm missing something, NC, that sounds at least s confused as the earlier comment, if not more so.
|
I don't suppose anybody'll click through, but... on the right hand side you have hydrogen and oxygen coexisting quite happily, as a (muesli-style) mixture. Better still, imagine chocolate drops and oats.
Apply a spark, and you give it an energy kick - the activation energy - so a chemical reaction happens and energy is released - we end up in the lower energy state on the left hand side of water. Imagine heating the chocolate drops and ending up with a chocolately-oaty mess.
In order to get back to the high-energy state we have to put back in as much energy as we got out. (If we didn't then it's obvious that by cycling to-and-fro we could create free energy - or perpetual motion.)
xs.to/xs.php?h=xs226&d=08162&f=ea_s301.png
|
>>Unless I'm missing something...
What I'm getting at is that combined, as water, it's a lower energy state than when the hydrogen and oxygen are split. i.e., you need to add energy to water to obtain the gases.
The energy difference between the two states may be (ideally) numerically the same whichever way you go, but that doesn't mean that the two states are at the same energy level.
Most things that we find are in their lowest energy states, for example, reactive metals are usually found as ores rather than as the metallic element itself.
|
OK... but that's totally irrelevant for correcting our poster's misunderstanding. To him the relative energy levels of the two states are irrelevant; the important point is to convince him that if the reverse and forward reactions have different energy requirements/yields then he has invented perpetual motion.
Diamond is the obvious example of something that is found naturally otherwise than in its lowest energy state.
|
>>but that's totally irrelevant
No, not really.
Our responses to stackman are really just two sides of the same coin.
Your point is that the forward and backward energy is the same, which is quite true. My point is to clarify which is the low energy product of the forward reaction.
|
Okay, okay, I bow to greater knowledge.
One thing I learnt in science is that intuition and gut feeling don't necessaily make something right.
|
Marty Any chance of you inviting HJ round for a demo and report?
One of the most sensible suggestions on this thread. Of course HJ might not agree, for various reasons, but hopefully someone respected could view the modified engine.
The problem here is that someone is making a very grand claim, which if true, would be astounding. That is the reason for my scepticism.
The link given earlier about using H2 as an additive supports the idea that this would not work without some fairly fancy tweaking of the engine management system, and modifications to the cylinders to allow higher compression ratios.
Further to someone else's comments that Marty is giving advice for free, I'm afraid I am at heart very cynical. Marty might be an honest person telling the truth. However, what better way to advertise a fraudulent product on a web site than to pretend to be someone ordinary who has used the device and found it to work. In other words, the claims are so grand that I cannot believe a word of this until some independent expert gets to examine and test the vehicle. And I'm assuming that they can check for fraud e.g. a secret second fuel tank. I am also assuming that they would be able to check for self delusion i.e. Marty being honest, but misleading himself.
Marty: I suggest that you contact a motoring magazine, and explain what you have, and ask if they would like to test it. Then we can look forward to a nice glossy article, and fame and fortune for you. At that point I will eat humble pie. Until then, I don't believe a word of it.
|
I'm not sure that HJ (or anyone else for that matter) seeing the device would really help.
To test if the device works you would at the very least need run a few tanks of fuel using the device and then a few more without as your control. Then you need to watch out for all the variables such as:
driving style
weather
temperature
tyre pressures
traffic conditions
differing loads in the van
etc
As an extreme example I can improve my mpg from 35mpg to 50+mpg without any devices - just a radical change in driving style. Just knowing that the device is on the car could affect the way you drive and therefore mess up the results.
Maybe it would be better to test on car with an onboard fuel computer and the device wired to an on/off swtich allowing for comparison runs along a defined route?
Edited by moonshine {P} on 15/04/2008 at 19:15
|
Some of the article refer to the water fuel cell invented by Stanley Meyer, and which was declared to be a fraud:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell
It's the usual wacko conspiracy theory nonsense.
|
Leif,
Why have you provided a link to an article relating to a device that is nothing to do with the one marty has built?
Either you have completely failed to understand what we are discussing, or you are linking to devices that are obviously frauds as an attempt to discredit?
The following link to wikipedia relates to the device marty has built, not the one you provided.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_enhancement
We are not discussing the stanley meyer device here, any fool can see that was a con!
Edited by moonshine {P} on 15/04/2008 at 21:25
|
Leif Why have you provided a link to an article relating to a device that is nothing to do with the one marty has built?
Because one of the articles linked to earlier mentioned the Meyer engine. I know full well what you are discussing which is why I do not believe it. One of the links I gave was to a company that does R&D in this area, and they spend a fortune on research and say that significant modifications are needed to get 20% fuel savings, far less than the 50% claimed by Marty using his garden shed modifications. Also that article that you link to would appear to contradict Marty's claims. Modern petrol and diesel engines are very efficient, due to significant research.
|
Leif,
First you say it's all a scam, and now you say it does work and gives 20% fuel savings?
You seem to have missed the point again. I'm also very spectical of such a device but we have very different approaches to the situation.
I'm interested in discussing the reasons why the device works/doesnt work.
You are only interested in discrediting it at all costs.
Stop bleating on about it being a scam and join in the discussion and try understand why it does/doesn't work.
|
Moonshine: "Stop bleating on about it being a scam and join in the discussion and try understand why it does/doesn't work."
Clearly you have not bothered to read my earlier posts as I have explained why I do not believe this. But since you are cannot be bothered to read what I have already written, I will repeat it again for you.
If you look at some of the earlier links, you will see some claims that some companies have done significant research which shows that adding H2 to the fuel can improve burn efficiency. One company quotes up to 20%, which is much less than Marty's 50% claim. That is the first anomaly. Secondly, these companies have spent a fortune on R&D, and they have had to extensively modify the engine (cylinders and cylinder head). Unlike Marty who claims a simple modification. That is the second anomaly. Those are two key reasons why I think this is suspect.
Like someone earlier said, this might be kosher, but the smell of snake oil is in the air.
Clearly hydrogen enhancement of fuel is a real technology. And clearly some web sites are making fraudulent claims about this technology to sell e-books at high prices, and which most probably contain nothing that is not already in the public domain, and free online.
And what about Marty?
Discussing this online will come to no conclusion apart from "Well, he seems such a nice person, so how could he not be honest, and telling the truth". In reality we need some respected body to perform measurements on his engine. And that is what I have suggested. Until that happens, it is impossible to be sure, and comments here are nothing more than hot air.
|
Moonshine: If you had bothered to read earlier posts you would have seen that Marty gave the following post:
marty1979: "More disinformation promoted by the government or powers that be. Non believers please watch www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8F44mrrlbA"
That is a video of the fraudulent Stanley Meyer vehicle.
|
Moonshine: It was Marty himself who posted links to two hard sell sites:
Marty posted this: "Many thanks to those who support, and to those seaking more info: water4gas.com/2books.htm?hop=lovekae
waterpoweredcar.com/hydrobooster2.html"
|
"Because if it was so easy, then the big companies would rush to do it"
Not necessarily. I think they would run a mile from the suggestion of an on-board hydrogen generator!
|
Not necessarily. I think they would run a mile from the suggestion of an on-board hydrogen generator!
Why?
|
|
If anyone is local to Bristol, I will be more than happy to have a meet up so my system can be varified visually at least.
|
|
According to the AA, I'm over 600 miles from Bristol. Surely some of you must be a lot closer?
|
|
A visual inspection won't demonstrate the economy benefits so I am not sure what meeting up would achieve. I could go along but my Bristolian is a bit rusty. I could be persuaded though if people think it's worth it.
|
"Why?"
Because the general public associate hydrogen with explosives, the Hindenberg* and so on. Also, a generator could be left running, which really might cause an explosion, if it was in a confined space with a source of ignition (say a garage with a central heating boiler). Insurers would probably load such a vehicle, and however blameless the extra equipment, it would attract adverse publicity the first time such a vehicle caught fire.
The real risk is minor, but that's not how it would be perceived. Manufacturers also require something that can be 'designed in', not a bolt-on that requires separate attention.
*I know it was caused by the doping of the fabric and not the hydrogen, although I daresay it wouldn't have gone up in quite the same way if it had been filled with helium.
|
|
JBJ: I see where you are coming from, but I think you overestimate the perceived danger.
|
"you overestimate the perceived danger"
I don't, but I think American lawyers might!
|
No need to visit Brostol. Lots of kits for sale on ebay: Search under "hydrogen " in Motors.
|
Apparently if you put a magnet around a fuel pipe you can get fuel savings of up to 50%.
If Marty did this as well as his 50% fuel saving as a result of his hydrogen plant then he would be able to use no petrol at all!
Now, I am no Wikipedia freak. However...
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydrogen_fuel_e...y
...suggests that most of the work on this page has been undertaken by a tiny handful of people. I don't understand the science involved; I doubt anybody here does. It is perfectly possible that this is a completely fraudulent Wikipedia entry; made up of a smattering of real papers that say exactly what it is claimed that they say, but drawing completely false conclusions. Beware Wikipedia.
|
Apparently if you put a magnet around a fuel pipe you can get fuel savings of up to 50%.
"If you do the same with your domestic water system, it won't fur up"
If manufacturers, or even independent motor engineers, could provide even a 5% "fuel
saving", let alone 40%, with an easily incorporated device that cost virtually nothing to
produce in quantity, and could be fitted to new cars, and retro-fitted to old ones, don't
you think they would? Of course they would!![1] It would be in common use, not to say
ubiquitous. It's not as though this "brainwave" is in any way new, is it - it's been around
for years and years. It's had much more than enough time to be both developed and
implemented. It has not been. The reason for this is that it doesn't do what is claimed,
or anything remotely like it at all, full stop. PFD cubed.
[1] Cue: "oil-company/government conspiracy", perhaps?
|
>Beware Wikipedia.
Like all things, be it cars, eBay, Wikipedia, one needs to understand how they work before you can assess their strengths and weaknesses.
|
|
I just thought I'd throw this out there. Most of you seem to think that any amount of energy created is proportionate to what's put in, according tho the "law of physics", yes? Well, then how do you explain how power invertors can produce 240 volts with only 12 volts input? Yes, it's a step up transformer, but you're still getting more out than is put in. Just to upset you all some more. I have now finished my power generator setup, and with a slight adjustment to the ignition timing (TDC) I am able to run my small generator completely on HHO. You want to know how? I will tell you, if not I won't waste anyone elses time. Oh and by the way, I am not the first person who has done this, I am really just copying what others have done. Yes there are false products out there that claim to save fuel e.t.c. but the real things are out there and they do work. The reason why this technology hasn't been implemented in cars is because of the money that would be lost in the economy e.t.c. I don't know too much about that. Did I mention that sea water can be used? Water shortage, I don't think so, the sea's are still rising.
Edited by marty1979 on 16/04/2008 at 11:07
|
>Well, then how do you explain how power invertors can produce 240 volts with only 12 volts input?
I take it you don't have 'O' level Physics then...
|
I take it you don't have 'O' level Physics then...
You are blunt, Billy. It is obvious early on what academic qualifications have or do not have. But I think said earlier, a Disbeliever can never change the views of a Believer .
If JBJ believes his acetone device works, why should anyone try to stop him using it? Similarly if marty believes is getting a benefit from his hydrogen generator, why should anyone try to stop him using it. They may have found a new "placebo" effect which works in non-living things such as car engines.
"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. "
Donald Rumsfeld
As a disbeliever, I think this hydrogen device is in the known known category, in that the energy it consumes is a lot lot lot lot more than the energy gain it produces. But the Believers probably think it is in the unknown unknown category, as they think there is mystery "catalyst" or "nuclear fusion" type action at work which magnifies the energy gain beyond the physical and chemical limitations of the real world.
How do I know this? Well, I am a psychic and I also manufacture and sell homeopathic concotions which contain nothing but water.
p.s. Chris Longhurst (he of the Oil Bible, quite often referred to on this site ) has a section dealing with these devices. Scroll down to the last item on this page:
www.carbibles.com/fuel_engine_bible_pg3.html
(Chris invites people who have fitted these hydrogen devices to write to him).
Also, in addition to "Mythbusters", other people have spent time debunking these claims
www.fuelsaving.info/hydrogen.htm
www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/autos/aut10.shtm
|
I think it's interesting that you choose the Donald Rumsfeld quotes - I had been thinking along similar lines.
As an engineer, I can admit that there are phenomena in engineering which fit into each of those categories (if there weren't, there wouldn't be much need for engineering research!).
However, the thermodynamics of heat engines, and circuit theory are two areas which are very well known indeed - certainly "known knowns".
A quick suggestion for Marty - the device represents a significant change to your fuel system. You should inform your insurers of its presence - without informing them, you might find it difficult to make a claim, and if the device were at all implicated in any accident, they might try to recover third party costs from you.
|
I think it's interesting that you choose the Donald Rumsfeld quotes
I actually heard him live making that statement. I was amazed to see the reaction of the journalists who could not understand what he meant.
|
Just to keep some balance, it's worth pointing out that the fuelsaving website page does not completely debunk the device. It says that there may be some truth in it but that an engine would need to be modified to take advantage - so not a clear cut debunking.
That fuelsaving.info site is very good BTW, I linked to it earlier and it's well worth having a read of some of the other articles on the site.
|
"If JBJ believes his acetone device works"
You make it sound like religion! It's not just me, though:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=33064&...f
Results are variable, of course, but it works for me and several other BR'ers. Whether you choose to believe us is entirely up to you.
FWIW, I've been using it in three vehicles for nearly two years now, and none of their fuel system seals has failed, as the doom-mongers forecast. My bike has a diaphragm on-demand valve that obviates the need to turn the tap on and off, and if anything was going to go, that would.
|
Results are variable, of course, but it works for me and several other BR'ers. Whether you choose to believe us is entirely up to you.
;-) I believe that you all believe the results you are getting. I also believe that scientific tests have shown that the benefit outweighs the cost. But those are my beliefs, and as I said, you are free to carry on with your proven system which clearly works for you.
;-)
|
Marty,
This post doesn't help your cause at all.
Power invertors - there is no net gain in energy. Yes, a change in voltage but you also need to consider the amps.
You run your generator completely on HHO? Sorry, impossible. Where is the energy coming from?
|
"I am able to run my small generator completely on HHO"
That depends on where you're getting your electricity from (to create the hydrogen) in the first place!
|
"Apparently if you put a magnet around a fuel pipe you can get fuel savings of up to 50%.
If Marty did this as well as his 50% fuel saving as a result of his hydrogen plant then he would be able to use no petrol at all!"
MM, I think (hope!) you're being disingenuous. The percentages add geometrically, not arithmetically, as any fule kno...
|
Because the general public associate hydrogen with explosives the Hindenberg* and so on. Also a generator could be left running which really might cause an explosion if it was in a confined space with a source of ignition
There are several videos on YouTube which show these hydrogen generators exploding/ having exploded. Down to poor design and poor workmanship?
snipurl.com/24lb0 [www_youtube_com]
Edited by Rich 9-3 on 16/04/2008 at 10:55
|
>Down to poor design and poor workmanship?
you left out "idiot users".
|
>>>Most of you seem to think that any amount of energy created is proportionate to what's put in, according tho the "law of physics",
I haven't laughed so much in ages. There was a modicum of this thread that might have been believable - maybe adding hydrogen does improve burning efficiency; who knows. However the idea of a generator that runs COMPLETELY on HHO "technology" - i.e. our hero HAS invented perpetual motion suggests pretty strongly that the rest of his inane postings are based on a similar amount of science.
I think this thread should be locked, and our Hero's links removed so that this site isn't encouraging confidence tricksters.
|
... maybe adding hydrogen does improve burning efficiency; who knows.
www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2005/11/69529
www.chechfi.ca/sotesti.htm
www.etvcanada.com/verifiedtechs.asp "Canadian Hydrogen Energy Company Ltd. Bowmanville, Ontario"
www.etvcanada.com/data/PDF_CHEC.pdf
Only one drawback: " The HFI units are relatively small and cost between $4,000 and $14,000, depending on the size of the vehicle. "
At that kind of price, Mapmaker can buy 10 bangernomic Mondeos or Vectras.
Edited by jbif on 16/04/2008 at 12:13
|
|
Until one of you lovely people decide to "try" and build one of these devices, instead of searching the internet for information that you haven't earned yourselves, please just forget that I ever mentioned anything. I thought this site was set up to help fellow motorists, because that's all I was trying to do. For now I say goodbye, although I fear that this topic won't be easily forgotten by most of you. Many thanks to those who have given me support, and I wish you "all" the best. Martin
|
jbif: one car is more than enough for me. I haven't taken it more than 500 yards outside the congestion zone since Christmas and I haven't burnt so much as a full tank of petrol.
|
Right, I have been giving this some thought, based on some of the comments here and there are some things that maybe need clearing up for the dim witted amongst us, including me.
Mapmaker wrote
"The amount of energy required to split H2O into hydrogen and oxygen is EXACTLY, PRECISELY the same as the amount of energy released when the two are recombined.
It is fundamental that this is the case otherwise you have invented perpetual motion. "
Explain to me then, why when 2 pieces of Uranium 235 or whatever are fired into each other to create an atomic explosion, the amount of energy released is millions of times more then the amount of energy expended, detonating the bomb.
I believe that there is confusion about the fact that it is "matter" that cannont be created or destroyed.
Surely, we are talking here about releasing stored energy.
Stored energy comes in many forms, Methane, Coal, Petrol, Diesel, wood etc etc.
You cannot say that to release that energy, we have to expend an equal amount of energy.
What we do is convert one form of stored energy to something else that we find useful, usually heat in some form.
Now to say that water is not stored energy and that it is impossible to release that energy
without expending an equal amount of energy is just short sighted.
And don't say that if it was the case, somebody would have discovered it, because there are probobly millions of things waiting to be discovered, or are you saying that mankind is so cllever we have thought of everything .
To some up this has nothing to do with perpetual motion, it is about matter conversion.
Just because it may seem too good to be true, does not make it impossible and you cannot deny that whenever something new is discovered, there are Luddites or those with vested interests who will do anything to destroy or ridicule.
|
Mr.Tee43, does this help?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction
I'll have a look around to see if I can get anything else.
|
Mr.Tee43, here's another one:
www.scienceclarified.com/Mu-Oi/Nuclear-Fission.html
(I covered nuclear power generation in depth for my engineering science degree).
Edited by Billy Whizz on 16/04/2008 at 20:26
|
>>Mapmaker wrote
And he was right.
MrTee, you've got it seriously wrong. Sorry.
In a more direct analogy than your Uranium example, consider a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. If you supply a spark, then, BANG. You get out much more energy than you put in. But, to create the hydrogen and oxygen from water in the first place takes [in ideal circumstances] exactly the same energy as was released in the explosion.
In your Uranium example, you've not considered the reverse process.
[in ideal circumstances] - by this, I mean that any real process will have losses - for example, in using electrolysis to split the water into oxygen and hydrogen, there are resistive losses in the generator, the cable, connections, electrodes, and in the water itself - these represent losses to low grade irrecoverable heat.
|
Just read this on wiki:
Oxyhydrogen gas is effective at improving emissions and efficiency in internal combustion engines when used as a fuel supplement. See Hydrogen fuel enhancement; hydrogen affects the burn rate of fuels and lean combustion capabilities of internal combustion engines. Fuel Enhancement systems are designed "to feed the hydrogen and oxygen gases directly to an internal combustion engine without intermediate storage".
For diesel applications, it is claimed that "When the hydrogen enriched air is compressed, the diesel fuel is introduced with a resulting improvement in fuel efficiency and maximized combustion of the fuel". Fuel enhancement has the potential to substantially reduce pollution emissions of internal combustion engines; research in 2004 concluded that "HC-emissions as well as NOx-emissions could be reduced to near zero". A 50% reduction in gasoline consumption, at idle, was reported by numerically analyzing "the effect of hydrogen enriched gasoline on the performance, emissions and fuel consumption of a small spark-ignition engine". Hydrogen "addition can guarantee a regular running", of the engine "with many advantages in terms of emissions levels and fuel consumption reduction". Hydrogen fuel enhancement can be optimized by implementing established lean burn concepts, and at minimum to achieve an actual increase in gas mileage the air/fuel ratio needs appropriate modification.
Fuel enhancement systems are optimally implemented in a feedback arrangement, where the energy consumed to produce oxyhydrogen comes from a portion of the energy produced by the engine. The end result of positive feedback is often amplifying and "explosive", i.e. a small perturbation results in big changes. Considering feedback arrangement an external energy source is not required for a fuel enhancement system because "increases in engine efficiency are more dominant than the energy loss incurred in generating hydrogen". This is supported by computational analysis that "has marked the possibility of operating with high air overabundance (lean or ultra-lean mixtures) without a performance decrease, but with great advantages on pollution emissions and fuel consumption.
I don't know what that means?
|
nor do I but I do know that if I go "the long way round" to work, the car keeps moving at a steady speed and clocks about 54mpg on the fuel consumption display. The shorter route is more stop / start and I get a display in the mid to high 40s. So I prefer the longer route! Irrational or what? I reckon the 2 routes are about equal in terms of fuel consumed.
$105 / barrel :-(
JH
|
>Alan
It means there may be something in it all.
I'm going to try it out. As I have some physics training, I might even be able to test it rigorously.
|
Mapmaker wrote >> "The amount of energy required to split H2O ... is EXACTLY PRECISELY the same >> as the amount of energy released ... . ... otherwise you have invented perpetual >> motion. " Explain to me then why when 2 pieces of Uranium 235 or whatever are fired into each other to create an atomic explosion the amount of energy released is millions of times more then the amount of energy expended detonating the bomb.
They are very different reactions, aren't they. I wouldn't want one of the latter under *my* bonnet!
you cannot deny that whenever something new is discovered there are Luddites or those with vested interests who will do anything to destroy or ridicule.
a) It's not new.
b) Ah. It's a conspiracy! I thought it would be.
|
Number_Cruncher is spot on.
When you electrolyse water, you put in enough energy to overcome the chemical bonds holding the O and H together. When O and H burn, they release that energy. It is akin to pushing a bike up a hill (putting energy in), then free wheeling down the other side (getting that energy back).
When you split U235, you are splitting the nucleus (not chemical bonds), and releasing the energy stored in the nuclear bonds that were holding the now two separate nuclei together. You could also take the two nuclei created from the U235, and push them back together. It would take huge amounts of energy, and in fact as much as was released when the U235 split. In fact scientists do just that by firing (charged) atoms at each other at very high speeds and some of them fuse.
|
And further to FotheringtonThomas, there is an argument that goes like this:
1) You ridicule my idea.
2) All great ideas were ridiculed in their time.
3) Therefore my idea is great.
This uses the same logic to reach an absurd conclusion:
1) Excrement tastes disgusting.
2) The finest foods such as blue cheese taste taste disgusting the first time you try them.
3) Therefore excrement is one of the finest foods.
Alternatively:
1) My idea would put X out of business.
2) Therefore X is trying to discredit my idea.
|
Gotta say, I'm loving this thread!
It's covered everything from nuclear chain reactions to the taste of poo :)
|
MrTee>>You cannot say that to release that energy, we have to expend an equal amount of energy.
I don't. I only say that in order to store that much energy, you have to put that much energy in.
Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen is a way of storing energy. Burning it is a way of releasing the energy again.
When you carry water up a hill, you are storing energy; when you bring the water down the hill, you release energy (think Dinorwig Pump Storage Scheme - PU will give you a tour this afternoon if you wish as he is in the area). In order to release that energy you ALSO have to put bacon sandwiches into the operator, and burn candles so that he can see; that energy is much smaller than either the energy stored or released. The energy stored, however, equals energy released.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
