why all "water car/hydrogen generators" are scams

[fastpakr]

You're confusing two issues. One is that adding hydrogen can have beneficial effects. Fair enough, I'm not going to argue that. The second one that you're tryign to combine with it is using electrolysis to generate that hydrogen. That is excludable through simple physics, demonstrating that the amount of hydrogen released carries a net energy loss when compared with the energy required to free it.

 

[BlackDogSociety]

I don't think they are separate issues. Yes there are inherent energy losses in splitting water into H2 and O2. But according to this report there are additional gains there also because hydrogen increases the hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the fuel.

In the right combination I’ll bet that this gain can overcome the losses in splitting the water. And no that does not mean it is making energy, it’s just improving the burning efficiency of the hydrocarbon fuel. The ‘gained’ energy is actually reclaimed energy from the traditional fuel.

 

[Evan]

In the right combination I’ll bet that this gain can overcome the losses in splitting the water.

Let's see some equations to prove it.

You've got a lot of energy loss to make up for, given the highly-inefficient conversion process...

 

[BlackDogSociety]

Let's see some equations to prove it.

You've got a lot of energy loss to make up for, given the highly-inefficient conversion process...

Equations I don't have (if I did I’d be rich right now ) but the aforementioned article published by the DOE says that an I.C.E. can run at A/F ratios of 180:1 which is much, much lower than the 14.7:1 gasoline ratio. But that’s only considering H2 in air, it does not consider the additional O2 available from splitting the water. The actual A/F ratio will be even lower.

A lot of energy loss? Not really, I can add another alternator and battery to the system and only lose about 3-5 HP. Supposedly I can make that up simply by improving the air flow through the motor.

What people have to understand it that an ICE is a very inefficient piece of engineering. It wastes a heck of a lot of its available energy to produce HP, anything we can do to improve its efficiency will reduce the energy lost. And that equates to more MPG even if we have to use some energy to make it more efficient. The possibility is there for systems such as these to work. Again it’s just a matter of figuring out the right mixture…

 

[Beanmachine7000]

Equations I don't have (if I did I’d be rich right now ) but the aforementioned article published by the DOE says that an I.C.E. can run at A/F ratios of 180:1 which is much, much lower than the 14.7:1 gasoline ratio. But that’s only considering H2 in air, it does not consider the additional O2 available from splitting the water. The actual A/F ratio will be even lower.

A lot of energy loss? Not really, I can add another alternator and battery to the system and only lose about 3-5 HP. Supposedly I can make that up simply by improving the air flow through the motor.

What people have to understand it that an ICE is a very inefficient piece of engineering. It wastes a heck of a lot of its available energy to produce HP, anything we can do to improve its efficiency will reduce the energy lost. And that equates to more MPG even if we have to use some energy to make it more efficient. The possibility is there for systems such as these to work. Again it’s just a matter of figuring out the right mixture…

The fact is still you are using energy to make the "HHO" gas, and you can never get that amount of energy back... I don't understand where you are coming from...

 

[BlackDogSociety]

Yes you do use energy to make HHO and some of that energy is lost as heat in the conversion but the rest of the energy used is held in the H2 and O2 produced which will be used in the burn. So all we really need to over come is the energy lost in the conversion. I believe it is possible to improve the efficiency of the burn high enough to overcome this lost. Again it is not making energy from nothing...

 

[AllanD]

Yes you do use energy to make HHO and some of that energy is lost as heat in the conversion but the rest of the energy used is held in the H2 and O2 produced which will be used in the burn. So all we really need to over come is the energy lost in the conversion. I believe it is possible to improve the efficiency of the burn high enough to overcome this lost. Again it is not making energy from nothing...

The energy released by burning the Hydrogen will NEVER equal
the ammount of energy you'll put into seperating.

Look up the laws of thermodymanics.

They are about as flexible as the laws of gravity and motion.

AD

 

[BlackDogSociety]

The energy released by burning the Hydrogen will NEVER equal
the ammount of energy you'll put into seperating.

Look up the laws of thermodymanics.

They are about as flexible as the laws of gravity and motion.

AD

I agree totally and I've never said anything to the contrary. What I have said is that the addition of HHO can improve the efficiency of a wasteful system. And any improvement in efficiency recovers lost energy from the hydrocarbon fuel. In the proper proportions this recovered energy can overcome the energy lost in the conversion of water to H2 and O2. That does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Consider this hypothetical example:

We all know that a gallon of gas has a set amount of total available energy in it. Let’s say we put that gas in a car and run it down the road. Now this car’s motor is very inefficient it only uses 25% of the total available energy. Now let’s say that we install a HHO generator which adds another load on the motor and drops this number down another 2%. Now let’s say we are able to tune this car to run really well on a mixture of gasoline and HHO and as the paper published by the DOE suggests we improve the efficiency of the car by 10%. We would get a net gain of 8%, did we violate any laws of physics doing it? No, no energy was created; the total available energy is still the same; we are just making better use of it.

Now these figures are merely speculations but based on what I’ve read and seen on these systems it is my guess these numbers aren’t too far off.

So I hope you can see now what I’ve been trying to say…

 

[gwaii]

wow.

 

[IRKillroy]

Disclaimer: I did not read past the first page.

The only way alternate fuels will be viable in an automobile is if they can be produced with less engergy than what the fuel produces. This is why fossil fuels are so lucerative (sp), They are already made, they just need to be refined. There are biologists who have microbe that turns your crap (litterally and figuratively) into hydrogen, and do it in a short time frame that could actually produce real world numbers we can use. but until fossil fuels are gone these more expensive processes will be put on the back burner.

no one cares about the environment when their bottom line is being affected.

 

[link040188]

i have read every single post in this thread (im not gonna claim i remember each) i searched hydrogen on the forums because my instructor at ATI told me as a class project we could build a hydrogen booster. he has been in the auto for a very long time and has worked for ford, gm, Toyota. he was one of the first the techs that figured out why the f-150s were catching fire and ford told him not to give the real reason (it got out eventually as we all know) he has worked setting up manufacture schools in other country's such as Russia. he claims that this booster will give me better mpg. he has no reason to lie he is not selling it what scam is he running? so i decided to search the interwebs for more info on hydrogen. after two days of hunting it hit me im a member on a ranger forum with an alternative fuel discussion section and came upon this thread where it seems like both side are backed by crazy ppl. some shoot down a alternative fuel in a alternative fuel sections the others defy the laws of physics. some how results are being seen perhaps the gains are from steam? im assuming these things heat up sending steam into the engine in small amounts this would clean out tons of carbon. or maybe like a more recent post stated. the loss at the crank from increasing the load on the alternator is small and the improvement to the gasoline combustion is more than that small loss than you are doing the same thing as improving gas or improving air delivery to increase efficiency. regardless im going to try it i saw someone else post they would back in 2008 but never got back what happened its been over 2 years. if anyone has tried it and would like to give any helpful info post back

 

[rboyer]

Just do the math first. I have yet to see somebody show pure mathematical evidence that an HHO generator will ever work. There is a reason behind that. When somebody does show me the math that proves it I will embrace it with arms wide open, mostly because when they do that it means that I will also have the ability to fly and put out house fires with my own urine since the laws of physics have been totally twisted into a pretzel. Then again the laws of physics have also allowed this thread to be brought back to life on several occasions so who knows?

 

[IRKillroy]

Just do the math first. I have yet to see somebody show pure mathematical evidence that an HHO generator will ever work. There is a reason behind that. When somebody does show me the math that proves it I will embrace it with arms wide open, mostly because when they do that it means that I will also have the ability to fly and put out house fires with my own urine since the laws of physics have been totally twisted into a pretzel. Then again the laws of physics have also allowed this thread to be brought back to life on several occasions so who knows?

Guilty.... I'll haze my face now.

 

[AllanD]

I agree totally and I've never said anything to the contrary. What I have said is that the addition of HHO can improve the efficiency of a wasteful system. And any improvement in efficiency recovers lost energy from the hydrocarbon fuel. In the proper proportions this recovered energy can overcome the energy lost in the conversion of water to H2 and O2. That does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Consider this hypothetical example:

We all know that a gallon of gas has a set amount of total available energy in it. Let’s say we put that gas in a car and run it down the road. Now this car’s motor is very inefficient it only uses 25% of the total available energy. Now let’s say that we install a HHO generator which adds another load on the motor and drops this number down another 2%. Now let’s say we are able to tune this car to run really well on a mixture of gasoline and HHO and as the paper published by the DOE suggests we improve the efficiency of the car by 10%. We would get a net gain of 8%, did we violate any laws of physics doing it? No, no energy was created; the total available energy is still the same; we are just making better use of it.

Now these figures are merely speculations but based on what I’ve read and seen on these systems it is my guess these numbers aren’t too far off.

So I hope you can see now what I’ve been trying to say…

Ok, so let me get this straight (as I put on my best "pulling the wings off of a fly" face) having a "wastful system" an wasting even more energy will be made up for the hydrogen that extra waste produced....

Ok, yeah... if you believe that there's this bridge I no longer want to own...

AD

 

[IRKillroy]

there is a reason why some reactors don't work, the output needs to be greater than the power that is required to create it...

example, we can turn lead into gold, only problem is that it costs more than the gold is worth. (Perhaps that is why China is buying gold options and aiming to make it 5k an oz) So with that kind of cost, who will do it? No one will.

If you can't create the energy that is required to start and sustain the reaction (don't forget the power required due to friction) then how can it possibly sustain itself in real world applications? You'd have to have something constantly producing the extra energy to make up the difference.

the Original arguement was that even if everything was perfect conditions there was still a negative difference.