• Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.

Hydrogen??

reno

New Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
641
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Never mind, I was reffering to watts in an electrical state of mind only and you were using in a physics state of mind. 1W=V X A (Ohms law).

And a KWatt=~1.35hp
 


samsonitesamsonite

Active Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2003
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
3
Points
38
Age
35
Location
Bellingham, Wa
Vehicle Year
1993
Make / Model
Jeep
Engine Size
2.5
Transmission
Manual
The whole HHO gas thing is a scam. It takes more power to create the hydrogen and oxygen than you get by burning it in an ICE. As for the claim that it "improves combustion", that would be easily identifiable in the lab. The fact that nobody has made a major announcement that would reinforce this "theory" means that it's a load of BS.

Try basic physics for a change. Do you really think that using an inefficient internal combustion engine to turn an inefficient alternator to produce the power required to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen will somehow produce more energy than you put in?

I can see the arguments now. It's improving combustion efficiency, the government doesn't want you to know this secret to better fuel economy, my foil hat is too tight becasue the "man" is restricting the supply of aluminum, etc, etc. Failure to properly research and educate yourself about the inner workings is not an excuse to proclaim success on the grounds of "it just works". If you were to actually learn the physics and chemistry behind what this whole scam is proposing, you'd realize how flawed this whole setup is.
Man If you havn't done it yourself, then don't knock it. I have done it on 2 different cars now, and it DOES work.
 

krugford

New Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
733
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Iowa
Vehicle Year
2003
Make / Model
Ford
Transmission
Automatic
Got proof? How about a simplified chemical equation showing the inputs and outputs of this HHO gas mixing with a gasoline/air mixture and burning?

How about something as simple as:

Fuel+Air => H2O+CO2+N2+Energy

Let's let fuel be isooctane (C8H18) and Hydrogen gas and let's combine it with O2 and air (O2 and N2 essentially)
Surely you can either work out the constants and energy release for complete combustion or find them online somewhere. I'm not asking for a detailed analysis or anything, but I'd like to see where all the extra energy is coming from. Because I can sure as heck tell you where it's not coming from. It can't be that hard.

That fact that you've paid money for one of these devices is sad.
 

Dryoo7

New Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
79
Vehicle Year
2008
Make / Model
Ford
Transmission
Automatic
Well I guess I got some answers. I do have a local mech. that has a home made set up on his car. He said it seems to work well enough. He has not done a mpg check, and he does drive a little 4 cyl. car. He said he's got better bottom end with the set up. I am not a mech. and certainly not a wizkid math guy. I've not spent money on these things but am intrested in anything that will inprove my mpg.
Chuck
 

BrianS

New Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Vehicle Year
1998
Make / Model
Ford Ranger
Transmission
Automatic
I'll be doing some tests on my own vehicle in the conversion area of this forum. I really don't think this is going to work, but I'm going to try it anyway just to finally disprove or prove it for once. The people that say it doesn't work....have never used it....and the people that use it swear it works. Sounds a little strange to me. :stirthepot:
 

Jason

New Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
28
Points
0
Age
43
Vehicle Year
(formerly) 200
Make / Model
Ford
Transmission
Automatic
Then, you're only getting a few dozen watts of power at most. 1 HP = 748 Watts. Physics works. Pay attention.
You seem to be incapable of wrapping your head around this concept. You are only separating the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in the molecule. This takes very little power. FAR LESS power than you would yield by simply burning the hydrogen. Think of it as pumping hydrogen from one holding area to the engine. Essentially that's all it is.

Also, "pay attention"? Try using real logic and using your mind to see things from both sides before you try to play teacher. The fact that you are listed here as a tech adviser is starting to make me question the site as a whole. You are supposed to advise on facts, not opinions and lackluster attempts at sarcasm and humor.
 

krugford

New Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
733
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Iowa
Vehicle Year
2003
Make / Model
Ford
Transmission
Automatic
You seem to be incapable of wrapping your head around this concept. You are only separating the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in the molecule. This takes very little power. FAR LESS power than you would yield by simply burning the hydrogen. Think of it as pumping hydrogen from one holding area to the engine. Essentially that's all it is.

Also, "pay attention"? Try using real logic and using your mind to see things from both sides before you try to play teacher. The fact that you are listed here as a tech adviser is starting to make me question the site as a whole. You are supposed to advise on facts, not opinions and lackluster attempts at sarcasm and humor.
Do you even know what combustion means? What you are proposing is a device that puts out more energy than you put in. Burning hydrogen in the presence of oxygen results in nothing but water and energy in an ideal sense. That energy you get out is equal to the energy you put in to turn the water into hydrogen and oxygen in the first place. The real world is far less accomodating.
 

Jason

New Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
3,559
Reaction score
28
Points
0
Age
43
Vehicle Year
(formerly) 200
Make / Model
Ford
Transmission
Automatic
What you seem to miss is that water is a "fuel" in this process. The energy being released is held within the water much in the way that gasoline holds energy that is released.

Why is the pro side of this debate perpetually difficult for some people here to understand?
 

MAKG

New Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,634
Reaction score
18
Points
0
Location
California central coast
Vehicle Year
1991
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0L
Transmission
Manual
What you seem to miss is that water is a "fuel" in this process. The energy being released is held within the water much in the way that gasoline holds energy that is released.

Why is the pro side of this debate perpetually difficult for some people here to understand?
This is astonishing.

Electrolysis means taking the oxygen atom out of the water.

Combustion means putting it back in (well, a different oxygen atom, but they are all the same).

It's really that simple.

You're asserting it's a perpetual motion machine. You're severely wrong.
 

BrianS

New Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Vehicle Year
1998
Make / Model
Ford Ranger
Transmission
Automatic
You're asserting it's a perpetual motion machine. You're severely wrong.
So are you saying that solar power is a perpetual type machine? If anything it's closer because you don't have to keep adding water to make it run. From what I've read your not creating or destroying any energy...H2O stores the energy and your basically cracking it open to release his energy. It's that simple. I'm not saying it works at all so no flames yet. Just read about and after all is said and done, try it, if it doesn't work your out maybe 25-30$ and you know he answer so you don't have to prove it to anymore. Just don't knock it when you've never tried it or at least seen it run in person and talked to whoever owned the vehicle.
 

bobbywalter

TRS Technical Staff
V8 Engine Swap
TRS Technical Advisor
TRS Banner 2012-2015
TRS 20th Anniversary
TRS Event Participant
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
22,277
Reaction score
2,826
Points
113
Location
woodhaven mi
Vehicle Year
1988
Make / Model
FORD mostly
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
BIGGER
Transmission
Automatic
2WD / 4WD
4WD
Total Lift
sawzall?
Tire Size
33-44
My credo
it is easier to fix and understand than "her"
Has anyone tried one of these conversion kits? I've heard good things from some of the mech. in my area. Any input? I've a 2008 4.0 Ranger.
Chuck
no luck yet....but still tryin:black_eye:


i am a glutton...
 

MAKG

New Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,634
Reaction score
18
Points
0
Location
California central coast
Vehicle Year
1991
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0L
Transmission
Manual
So are you saying that solar power is a perpetual type machine? If anything it's closer because you don't have to keep adding water to make it run. From what I've read your not creating or destroying any energy...H2O stores the energy and your basically cracking it open to release his energy. It's that simple. I'm not saying it works at all so no flames yet. Just read about and after all is said and done, try it, if it doesn't work your out maybe 25-30$ and you know he answer so you don't have to prove it to anymore. Just don't knock it when you've never tried it or at least seen it run in person and talked to whoever owned the vehicle.
If you use solar to do the electrolysis, explain how your Rube Goldberg machine is better than a solar powered electric vehicle.

Energy in = energy out. Period. Full stop. End of story. A few dozen watts from a solar cell is comparable to the power you get from whacking off in the driver's seat.
 

AllanD

TRS Technical Staff
TRS Technical Advisor
Joined
Jun 1, 2001
Messages
7,899
Reaction score
126
Points
63
Age
61
Location
East-Central Pennsylvania
Vehicle Year
1987... sorta
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
'93 4.0
Transmission
Manual
Too bad you missed Chemistry so you could take all those extra Physics classes. The "power required to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen" is just a few amps. About the same if not less that your cigarette lighter uses. It's not like you need a nuclear reactor in the bed of the truck to pull this off.
You must be just a little bit Special (See the Stephen Lynch song for a definition)

a SMALL ammount of energy only produces a small ammount of hydrogen
Gaseous hydrogen at Standard temperature and pressure contains very little energy.

People think of hydrogen being so energetic... in truth it really isn't

People think of space launches and of the Hindenburg.

The vst majority of the energy released in the hindenburg
disaster was actually the nitrocellulose in the paint reacting
with the pigment Aluminum flake) in the paint... NOT the
200millions liters of hydrogen gas...

Believe it or not even liquid hydrogen sn't terribly energetic compared to other things, for Example NASA is considering using cryogenic methane
instead of LH2 in the next generation of manned spacelift vehicles.

No Methane isn't more energetic by WEIGHT, but it is more energetic by VOLUME so the savings of making a smaller (lighter) Fuel tank is justification alone, add to this that cryogenic methane doesn't require NEARLY as much insulation results in a further savings.

hydrogen burns clean but it's lack of density is it's biggest problem for terrestrial fuel use.

So even with a freakin HUGE fuel tank you wouldn't get much range.

TANSTAAFL.

AD
 

reno

New Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
641
Reaction score
1
Points
0
There is no such thing as a perpetual machine. Why is it HHO is ineffective and gasoline is effective. There is WAY more energy used in making gasoline. If very little energy can be used to add to a high energy made fuel and get greater mileage,cooler running engine and better bottom end power,then why not? True, takes approx. 30 amps @ 12v = 360ftlbs of power. Or 3.6 HP, far better than gas Alone.
Now please Makg, instead of having fun and using sarcasm, use advise where we would be going wrong and guide us in the right direction. Something tells me that when enough reports come out and it is considered official that HHO is working phenominally better than anyone could hope for, you will blasting all naysayers. Now please stay on a professional level with this. I for one will try it, if it works it works, if I get an additional 10-25mpg, that will be fine with me.

John
 

MAKG

New Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,634
Reaction score
18
Points
0
Location
California central coast
Vehicle Year
1991
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
4.0L
Transmission
Manual
The reason gasoline is effective is because MOST of the energy invovled in making it was done hundreds of millions of years ago by photosynthesis and geologic processes. If you tried to make it from carbon dioxide and water, then you would be doing what this "HHO" scam is claiming.

And where on Earth did you get 10-25 MPG? Based on 50 HP to cruise on the highway, a MUCH more reasonable estimate is 0.5 MPG, assuming the hydrogen is made somewhere besides your vehicle (and assuming perfect efficiencies with your 30A estimate -- it's probably dozens of times lower in reality). It's NEGATIVE if it is made on-board.
 

Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

Top