Nay Sayers

[dennis13030]

Check this out.

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-123863.html

[mikestrikes]

Heres one from a guy I just cant get him to undersatnd it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No offense intended, but I think the idea of improving mileage is HIGHLY improbable without adding electrical energy. You say it takes "at the most 25 amps..." That's a lot of juice. Where does that 25 amps come from? It comes from the alternator which has to be powered by (ultimately) gasoline. People who certainly know such things better than I say that it requires more energy to produce hydrogen and oxygen than they can produce in burning.

[Smith03Jetta]

Forget about the electrical system for a minute. Think about what really gives the car it's power. Oxygen and Gasoline. The Oxygen is a pretty consistent factor of Engine RPMs so we won't worry about that. The faster the engine runs the more Oxygen is sucked in through the air filter.

Gasoline, on the other hand has the specific job of igniting the oxygen to create horsepower. Most people on this forum would tell you that gasoline burns at 20% efficiency. I disagree with that. I believe it burns at approximately 30% efficiency based on what I've read. That leaves us with an unused gasoline potential of 70%.

The Hydrogen that is created from the devices we build does not power the engine. FUGGEDDABOUTIT. That's the lamest excuse from skeptics. Conservation of energy, Bullcrap. Nobody says we are not wasting electrical energy. We know we are doing it. It takes more energy to break the water apart than we are getting from the Hydrogen.

That's not the point......................................

The point of generating the hydrogen is this... The hydrogen, when introduced to the gasoline in the combustion chamber, changes the efficiency of the gasoline burn. It allows gasoline's efficiency to change from 30% to a higher number. That number will be different on each car. It's dependent on the engine's compression ratio, the number of cylinders, the car's fuel air ratio and the amount of Hydrogen produced.

Cars that are older and do not have emmissions sensors and computers to deal with are easier to get bigger gains from. Adding 2H 2O to the engine will do nothing but cut back the need for extra gasoline without affecting much. Some owners are able to lean out their carburetors or change the ignition timing to even get better results.

Cars that are newer (Like Mine) have sensors that monitor air flow and adjust the gasoline accordingly. They have another sensor that monitors the emissions levels. If the emissions levels change significantly in either direction the computer will change the fuel level to compensate. That's the reason why on a normal car when the O2 sensor goes out you get worse fuel mileage.

When we introduce 2H 2O to the engine the sensor (Goes Out) for all practical purposes. Even though we may be getting a benefit from the 2H 2O the engine counteracts the benefit by adding more gasoline to the fuel air mixture. The engines are running rich which can damage things after a while.

The challenge for owners of new cars is to fake out the computer's programming to lower the fuel ratio back down to normal levels or lower (Like a Carbureted engine).

I hope you understand now that the goal is not to release energy from Hydrogen to power our cars. The purpose (Which seems to allude skeptics) is to change the burn efficiency of gasoline. THAT'S ALL.

[Johnh]

Most people on this forum would tell you that gasoline burns at 20% efficiency. I disagree with that. I believe it burns at approximately 30% efficiency based on what I've read. That leaves us with an unused gasoline potential of 70%.

That's one problem the skeptics have is the efficiency.
I cant find the reference at the moment but a common bible in the education of engineers states a 98% efficiency in fuel burn. The 30% efficiency of the ICE comes from losing 70% of the peak heat in thermal losses. (cylinder wall and head transfer, piston cooling from splashed cooling oil and then finally the waste heat and velocity left in the exhaust stream.) and some smaller losses in mechanical efficiency

But the point is the engineers are being taught that the burn is efficient so very little gain can be had from that source. There is a long thread on the subject on one of the forums with quotes but I can't find it at the moment.
Interesting subject and I'll keep looking
John

[Johnh]

Just found the thread in
http://www.fuel-saver.org/Forum/showthread.php?tid=814&page=1


RE: chemistry of Brown's Gas in cars


Dino Wrote:
From what I can understand from all of this is that the hydrogen makes the gas burn better and cleaner because you have less unburned gas. This is also why you can run leaner because you are burning a higher percentage of your gas thanks to the HHO so you can get away with using less without damaging your engine.

Thanks but I'm not sure if I believe this because my standard textbook on internal combustion engines (Pulkrabek, Engineering Fundamentals of the Internal Combustion Engine) says that IC engines already have a combustion efficiency of 98%. So the HHO must be affecting combustion in some way other than increasing efficiency.

Are there any combustion chemists on this board who can comment?

[dennis13030]

... People who certainly know such things better than I say that it requires more energy to produce hydrogen and oxygen than they can produce in burning ...

I want to challenge this statement and test this for myself. It's easy enough to measure the BTUs of burning HHO and measure watthours used to make the HHO. I just do not have the $$$ to do this testing at this time.

[Painless]

I'm certainly no expert, but one point that comes to mind to highlight the inefficiency of the burn is that of the twin-spark engine design, originally used by Alfa Romeo I think?

This design uses two spark plugs, one fires initially and the second a fraction later, the point being to burn mixture that did not ignite in the initial plug fire.

You could also bring up the use of the hemispherical head design, again, this is commonly used to increase the eveness and efficiency of the burn over a standard head combustion chamber shape.

Both of these, although probably more the first, should help to highlight burn inefficiency.

[jlind]

Man can not fly.
Man can not travel faster than 15 mph lest he sufocate.
Man can not breath under water.
Man are we limited.

Years ago I visited holding Cell where an imate had drawn pictures of space crafts on the walls. He was thought to be mad. His drawing pre dated TV, Radio, Phones. more impossibles. Did he see something?

Maybe we are all a little mad? Maybe the simple calculations at the pump are wrong?

All the wonderful technologies we have are because someone somewhere looked out side the box or made a mistake which became something good. Like kevlar.

The box is the problem. It's safe in the box. And all the member in there can look out at and down on anyone trying something different.

There are those who will try and fail many times. But it only takes one success to make a differents. The helocopter would have never been if Some guy didn't figure out that you couldn't attach the blades rigidly.

As this HHO concept grows and more see and follow. The crowd in the box will start to talk among them selves. Then One will step out of the box to see and maybe join us. Offering a beer wouldn't hurt either. I'd check it out just for the beer.

Don't be discoraged by the Nay Sayers. Just smile at the others at the pump. Knowing you have something special going on. If they will listen great. If not move on to the next.

Talk about condervation of energy. Don't waste time on them. You can't convince them. You have to show them.

[mikestrikes]

Don't waste time on them. You can't convince them. You have to show them.

YUP.......... ;)

[rmptr]

Smith has got it right...

His vehicles are highly engineered. They have the absolute least potential to show improvement.

Older, dirty-burners could show the most improvement.

Unless it is discovered you are going through batteries and alternators every couple months, the mpg figures speak for themselves.

THAT engine which powers the alternator, to charge the battery, is what is measured for MPG's. IF it took TOO MUCH energy to create the Dr Brown's gas, that would be reflected in poor MPG's.

Best

[Smith03Jetta]

Why do Harley Davidson Spark Plugs fire on the exhaust stroke? To burn up unused gasoline. That's what Catalytic Converters do too... The UNUSED GASOLINE passes through a Platinum screen on the way out the exhaust. The heat and catalyst finished burning up the UNUSED gasoline so the exhaust pipe doesn't spit out UNUSED gasoline into the air. UNUSED, UNUSED, UNUSED...