If you search the forum it has been discussed before..
with a similar response...
|
|
A healthy scepticism is no doubt warranted with the fuel prices being what they are. I have read some of the previous posts on similar products, there seems a lively ding dong of claims and counter claims. I still would like to hear from someone with first hand experience of these products, some hard facts would be helpful along with objective evidence.
|
You can only obtain energy from compounds that have an intrinsic level of instability, otherwise they will not react i.e. combust to produce energy in an exothermic reaction. The base products of combustion (CO2 and Water - H2O) are just that because they are no longer reactive and effective. Yes, they still contain valuable chemicals that could become energy again but in order to make that potential energy you have to input far more energy in order split the parts away again. That's it on a chemistry level.
On the level of adding a little water to the combustion chamber to raise compression ratio effectively, thus making the engine produce more power, which means the driver presses the pedal less (in theory)... well it could work but the benefit would be highly marginal, close enough to 0 to be in the realms of experimental error. Think about when you drive on a cool rainy day and the car feels like it has more power... same thing.
|
|
|
i've looked at the site its a CON!!!!
all they have done is pasted together info from various sources and made it look like a unique product.
there is the technology to do this sort of thing but its extremly expensive and complicated to do which is why its still being developed and not widely available.
looking at the kit they are selling its a simple case of replacing the air intake into the engine with hydrogen in the water and wont make any difference to the fuel flow and so i cant see any reasonable benifit in the fuel usage.
you would have to adjust the fuel intake down by 50% to save 50% in fuel usage the combustion gas is not the issue its how much fuel you need to burn.
notice the way they claim a 50% saving at the top of the page but the further you get down the page the less the claims get.
look at the van in the picture the claim on the side clearly states 'This vehicle runs on water' a cliam they state isnt possible further down the page
|
BTW - would you buy something this technical from a man who can't even spell electolYser correctly?
|
"I still would like to hear from someone with first hand experience of these products"
What makes you think that anyone stupid enough to buy one would a) own up and b) be able to write coherently about their experience?
|
"I still would like to hear from someone with first hand experience of these products"
I have first-hand experience of these products.
1. I have never bought one.
2. My car engine runs just fine.
3. I saved £350 by not buying one.
|
I am to say the least sceptical about the system mentioned.
However water injection (not seperating hydrogen) has some potential benefits:
It cools the air making it denser thus enable more to be drawn in to the combustion chamber.
Moist air causes a slower more complete burn thus releasing more of the energy in the fuel.
Moist air reduces pre ignition and thus enables electronically controlled engines to run nearer their optimum, advanced ignition etc.
|
|
|
"We just take EXCESS energy out of the car's battery or alternator (in other words very low current that the engine does not feel)"
So there we are then - Newton and Einstein had everything wrong - there is spare energy all around us just waiting to be tapped! We had better tell Stephen Hawking.
Is this an article intended for Viz?
|
Ring them up and ask them:
The domain is registered to:
Oprint Ltd
Unit 54
Leyland trading Estate
Northants
Wellingborough
NN8 1RS
or 174 Station Rd, Cogenhoe, Northampton, NN7 1NG Tel:01604 890325
so as printers they'll be experts in alternative energy systems....
|
|
|
|
Nuclear submarines use electrolysers to split water for breathing oxygen, They are the size of a small car, are powered by the on board nuclear power station, and would cost a bit more than £350 to replicate.
Edited by Old Navy on 20/08/2008 at 11:27
|
|
You can get much better efficiency from a diesel by injecting a small amount of propane/butane or other LPG into the air, so I don't see why a small of hydrogen wouldn't do the same!?
|
|
|
|
What makes you think that anyone stupid enough to buy one would a) own up and b) be able to write coherently about their experience?
Especially while wearing a straight-jacket.....
|
I'm also substantially sceptical about this. Most of these wonderful gadgets are eithr cons or wildly over optimistic about the efects. But some get through and prove worthwhile. I mean, a long time ago, one aircraft engineer had the idea of feeding the exhaust gas into a miniature turbine connected to a rotary impeller that forced air into the induction system. How his colleagues must have laughed!!!
Actually water is supposedly combustible under extreme temperature and pressure shocks. It separates into hydrogen and oxygen momentarily and recombines explosively as soon as the shock subsides. There's even a scientific name for the phenomenon, but I can't remember it. I don't think it's possible to achieve sufficient heat/pressure shocks in an engine cylinder, though. Thinks - if I can get hold of an old Gardner 6LXB and shave the tops of the blocks down to give an 100:1 compression ratio, maybe it'll run on water, if I can spin it fast enough to start it!!!!
Stand back folks!!!!!!
Edited by Sofa Spud on 20/08/2008 at 22:15
|
I read that someone is working on a 6-stroke diesel/steam engine, using a converted bus or truck engine.
The first 4 strokes of the cycle are the normal diesel engine ones, while on the 5th stroke a second injector injects water, which instantly turns to steam in the hot cylinder, driving the piston down again, while the 6th stroke pushes out the spent steam.
Apparently this cools the engine enough to dispense with a cooling system. The next step would be to use a closed-circuit condensing water supply. The biggest problem with the design at present is said to be cross contamination between engine oil and water supply.
|
I read that someone is working on a 6-stroke diesel/steam engine using a converted bus or truck engine.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_stroke_engine ?
|
First law of thermodynamics, as taught at school:
"Energy cannot be created or destroyed"
However, by tinkering with an engine, I'm sure that you might improve its efficiency just a little bit. (A turbocharger does this). I leave it up to the R&D departments of vehicle manufacturers to do this.
|
>The biggest problem with the design at present is said to be cross contamination between engine oil
>and water supply.
But you don't need to use oil if the engine has been treated with 'DURA LUBE' or 'Prolong' do you? It was only Slick50 who paid out $20M in damages after the FTC forced them to admit their product was snake oil :-o
Kevin...
|
The wikipedia article seems to describe the same 6-stroke cycle as I mentioned.
|
Quote: "Energy cannot be created or destroyed"
No, but it can appear to be, to the uninitiated. I mean a nuclear explosion APPEARS to create energy from nowhere unless one understands nuclear physics and the energy released by fission or fusion.
Similarly, some magnetic set-ups appear to exhibit over-unity, as do cavitation water heaters - but again, probably there is energy being unlocked rather than created.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 21/08/2008 at 15:10
|
|
a long time ago one aircraft engineer had the idea of feeding the exhaust gas into a miniature turbine
Fair enough. Don't you think that car manufacturers are DESPERATELY trying to improve the efficiency of their machines? How much more would people pay for a system that improves MPG by 50%. Yet, with just a few bits of tubing YOU can achieve exactly the same.... Yeah right.
Actually water is supposedly combustible under extreme temperature and pressure shocks. It separates into hydrogen and oxygen momentarily and recombines explosively as soon as the shock subsides. There's even a scientific name for the phenomenon
Bunkum? Piffle? Nonsense? Can't think of any other scientific names for it... Thermodynamics Laws mean that the energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen is EXACTLY the same as the energy released when they recombine into water.
>>Magnets create energy.
Yeah right, and they stop arthritis, help with slimming and make you better looking too.
|
"Yeah right, and they stop arthritis, help with slimming and make you better looking too."
And if you put them on fuel lines they get all the molecules facing Mecca so they burn much better, and improves MPG by at least 15%. Or so I'm told.
|
Well I talk to my greenhouse plants and they grow, so I've started talking to my Yaris.. I expect it will have a full tank of diesel by next week and grow into a Mercedes 500 by Christmas..
Just as logical and a lot more likely to happen than saving 50% off my fuel bills..
(Just how do I get my Yaris to actually do 90mpg?)
Edited by madf on 21/08/2008 at 17:19
|
(Just how do I get my Yaris to actually do 90mpg?)
That's easy - you use the power of magnets.
[A large one, on the end of a long rope. You stick it to the back of the truck in front and hope he's going to the same place as you are....]
|
And some people serious believe the ad-mens' hype that you can "magnetize" oil droplets and get then to stick to your pistons - even though they're made of alloy....
[Cavitation is an interesting effect that still isn't fully understood; ask any marine engineer.]
|
>>that still isn't fully understood
SL, I hope you'll forgive a pedantic point.
Nothing is fully understood. We have ideas, theory and models, but, we can't claim any of it is the truth. All we can say is that certain theories haven't yet been shown to be false.
Going one step further, because we know what the limitations are, we routinely use a theory which has been shown to be false under certain circumstances - for example, Newton's laws of motion.
Engineering, even the most scientific ivory towered parts of engineering are quite pragmatic - even though the laws aren't known, engineering moves forward by analysis, and by test to make things that, amazingly, do work.
Re-phrased, if we really did understand all of what is going on in Physics, Chemistry, Maths, and Engineering, there wouldn't be any need for university level research into them.
|
NC
So what you really mean is that there are known knowns; known unknowns and unknown unknowns....
Or is quod erat demonstrandum nearer the mark?
|
>>So what you really mean is...
Ha ha!
I think there are fewer known knowns than many might imagine!
For example, a short while ago, I looked into the accuracy of balances - simple, see-saw type balances. It's surprising just how recently research into these devices has been active!
|
|
Actually water is supposedly combustible under extreme temperature and pressure shocks. Back in the 1960's when I spent time in foundries training to be a metallurgist, I saw what happened when water was thrown onto the white hot coke dropped at the end of the day out of the cupola furnace - the first two or three buckets full turned to hydrogen / carbon monoxide and burnt most impressively.
Not a very practical method for fuelling a vehicle (though didn't they tow coke filled gas producers behind buses/trucks during the war when petrol was in short supply?)
|
|
And rubber bladders with hydrogen/methane and other gases, producer gas, from coke, on car roofs I believe. Or it could have been derived from animal dung - in which case it would be a faintly perfumed methane.....
|
And rubber bladders with hydrogen/methane and other gases producer gas from coke on car roofs
Just remember to take your bayonet off before sticking the gun through the roof (for Dads Army followers)!!
|
Actually water is supposedly combustible under extreme temperature and pressure shocks. It separates into hydrogen and oxygen momentarily and recombines explosively as soon as the shock subsides. There's even a scientific name for the phenomenon
Bunkum? Piffle? Nonsense? Can't think of any other scientific names for it... Thermodynamics Laws mean that the energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen is EXACTLY the same as the energy released when they recombine into water.
No, I stumbled across this by accident on the net when reading about some dubious technical invention, but I surfed on and found that the water combustion thing appears to be a phenomenon within conventional science, with a name, which I'm trying to find out.
|
Quote:...."Energy cannot be created or destroyed"
E=mc2. There is a relationship between matter and energy. One can be transformed into the other, as matter is considered to be a concentrated form of energy. So Einstein thought, anyway.
Re. the exploding water, maybe there is a partial (i.e. non-chain) nuclear reaction taking place, which would account for the excess energy. The Tunguska 'meteor', which exploded over Siberia almost exactly 100 years ago, is thought to have actually been part of a comet, composed of ice, not a meteor.
It hit the atmosphere at 90,000 kmh, supposedly - faster than most meteors. That would fit with the water explosion theory - extreme heating and shock on hitting atmoshere causing ice to explode violently. Radiation was detected at the site on the ground in the explosion area, years afterwards, indicating the possibility of a partial nuclear event.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 22/08/2008 at 12:18
|
Normal water on Earth contains about 0.02% heavy water, or water where deuterium replaces hydrogen. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen that contains a neutron in the nucleus as well as a proton and one orbitting electron.
So could an extreme heat / pressure shock on water be forcing the neutrons out of the small amount of the deuterium as bonds with oxygen atoms are broken, causing the large burst of energy? But it stops short of a full nuclear chain reaction because there is not enough deuterium?
Cometary water, as possible in the Tunguska event, might contain a much higher portion of 'heavy water'.
On the strength of this, I'm just about to fit a crystal pyramid above the Briggs & Stratton engine on my lawnmower and fill the petrol tank with Perrier water LOL
Edited by Sofa Spud on 22/08/2008 at 12:57
|
.................and one orbitting electron........
I suspect Sofa Spud knows full well that the concept of 'orbitting' is just a convenient description that fits within peoples understanding of Newtonian mechanics. For people who wish to educate themselves a little further try reading Schrodingers Kittens and the Search for Reality by John Gribbin. Good holiday reading. makes you think about reality!
Conventional science does not actually explain everything, it just tries to explain within the confines of presently accepted 'knowledge' which in many cases is fundamentally flawed.
We all 'know' that magnets on the fuel line are modern snake oil, however magnetism does actually affect certain measurable attributes of the fuel in unexplained ways. Who is to say that in the future magnets, electricity and water will become the basis of energy systems? If you had tried to explain some of modern technology only 100 years ago you would have been laughed 'out of court'.
pmh
|
>>So could an extreme heat / pressure shock on water be forcing the neutrons out of the small amount of the deuterium as bonds with oxygen atoms are broken, causing the large burst of energy? But it stops short of a full nuclear chain reaction because there is not enough deuterium?
Do you not think somebody might have tried that with pure deuterium? If nuclear fusion were possible at 500 degrees C, we'd be laughing...
|
I never meant to suggest that a 'water combustion', whether it be a small-sclale deuterium/deuterium nuclear reaction or not, was possible in an internal combustion engine since they achieve nothing like the phenomenal temperatures needed to trigger such a supposed effect. Hence my earlier joke about the Garder engine with the blocks skimmed to give a 100:1 compression ratio.
Cold fusion has been tried and claimed to work buy the discoverers but hasn't been verified. I don't know the technicals of the process but if it worked demonstrably it would either be commonplace by now or subject to official secrets rules!
Edited by Sofa Spud on 22/08/2008 at 15:01
|
The vast majority of such schemes will indeed be snake-oil, but just occasionally someone might be on to something. Hats off to Sofa Spud for at least keeping a sceptical but nonetheless open and enquiring mind about things, unlike some cartographers.
It?s easy to fall into believing that we?re well on top of all things technological these days, but in that case it?s almost laughable that our vehicles are still propelled via a choice of fixed cogs connected to reciprocating lumps of metal being flung about by exploding some petrol.
Doubtless, car manufacturers ARE desperately trying to improve the efficiency of their machines, but they?re staffed by engineers who went to university, taught by lecturers who went to university, taught from textbooks written for the purpose of teaching a student the principles which enable him to gain a qualification recognising him to be an engineer?
These principles have served us ?very adequately?, but they may not contain the whole story: As Number Cruncher said, ?we routinely use a theory which has been shown to be false under certain circumstances - for example, Newton's laws of motion?.
Unusual results often seem to have been achieved by experimenters who didn?t follow the ?rules? first laid down in textbooks a century or more ago, but time and again they failed to get sufficient development because funding wouldn?t be made available for something that was ?obviously daft?, or threatened to pull the rug from under the profits of those bodies which had sufficient money to provide funding. This isn?t conspiracy-theorising, it?s simply the way the commercial world, and human nature, tends to operate.
As far as I know it?s entirely true that in the 1930s Henry Moray made several demonstrations, witnessed by respected electrical engineers, of a box which, apparently furnished from the thin air, would export 50kW in to a resistive load, even in the middle of a desert.
Slightly more anecdotal is the story of Nikola Tesla in 1931, in a test apparently supported by Pierce-Arrow and General Electric, driving around with his nephew for a week in a Pierce-Arrow (at speeds up to 90 mph) which had had its engine replaced by an 80hp AC motor, again connected to nothing except a box containing a 12-valve (thermionic, not poppet!) circuit built by Tesla.
These and dozens of other tales may be dismissed as ?tricks?, but if we accept that ?even today? we don?t know everything for certain (for example, what ?transmits? gravity, IIRC?), then it?s just possible, maybe, that there?s actually a bit of something in it, and had engineering taken a slightly differently-angled path of development 100+ years ago, perhaps today we could legitimately be dismissive of the idea that we would still be mobilising the world with the internal combustion engine.
|
I'm not sure which NASA ship ran an internal combustion engine in 1977[??] but what is even slightly surprising about the fact that adding a highly-volatile gas to the mix means that you use less gasoline for the same output?
So self-evident in fact, that it wasn't even worth the effort of testing.
Now factor-in the cost of making, or buying, that hydrogen and it becomes economically pointless.
|
>>(for example, what ?transmits? gravity, IIRC?)
Quite true tunacat. Working in support of scientists who are looking at exactly this problem is what has been providing some humble meals in the NC household for the last few years. SWMBO, however, has a proper job, and is responsible for the odd feast!
How gravity travels, and what happens to gravitational attraction at very small seperations are two currently unknown aspects of gravity, and provide ways to test both the inverse square law, and the existence of Gravitational Waves, which were a prediction resulting from the General Theory of Relativity.
The difference between this work, and the electrolysis machines is that testable theories exist, which can, although with difficulty, be verified. Testing the veracity of the electrolysis claims are, by comparison, child's play. That the tests haven't been done allows only the obvious conclusion to be drawn.
The NASA research is quite interesting, although, thanks to political meddling, it represents a dead end. The addition of hydrogen could provide more stable flame initiation, and enable an engine to run further into the lean burn regime (even accounting properly for the extra hydrogen fuel) without the misfiring, and cyclic dispersion which normally affects engines running lean. Of course, such an engine would produce NOx, which, owing to the excess oxygen in the exhaust could not easily be reduced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
