What has more energy/power to propel a car for 1 minute?

[BoyntonStu]

What has more energy/power to propel a car for 1 minute?

A: Burning 1 liter of Hydroxy in your engine.
B: Your body metabolism and muscles pushing your car.

My point is that using 1 L/Min Hydroxy to replace fuel will get you no net measurable energy. How far would a piston go on those little snaps igniting your bubbles?

However, using 1 L/Min Hydroxy as a catalyst to make the burning of gasoline more efficiently MAY be valid. I dunno.

BoyntonStu:confused:

[Stratous]

What has more energy/power to propel a car for 1 minute?

A: Burning 1 liter of Hydroxy in your engine.
B: Your body metabolism and muscles pushing your car.

My point is that using 1 L/Min Hydroxy to replace fuel will get you no net measurable energy. How far would a piston go on those little snaps igniting your bubbles?

However, using 1 L/Min Hydroxy as a catalyst to make the burning of gasoline more efficiently MAY be valid. I dunno.

BoyntonStu:confused:

Your forgetting the compression value. In an engine the Hydogen is compressed alot. In my engine its around 15:1 or more. The little bubbles popping you see in youtube videos are not compressed. Compress that hydrogen gas and the force will be alot higher. But you are correct to a degree, the small amount of Hydrogen we inject into our motors would not do much by itself. The purpose is to enhance the burn properties of the gasoline or diesel fuels. I am not sure why you would even question the FACT that hydrogen makes petrol based fuels burn more efficiently. That FACT is well documented and has been for several decades. There are enough reports by people on the internet/ news to substanciate that it is truth and not fiction. Does it work in every application? No, it has been proven that it does not. Most people will see a change in MPG, some get very little and others get alot.

[Smith03Jetta]

The question you asked is sort of like asking which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead.

The kinetic energy of an object (Car) is the extra energy which it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its current velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes.

Assuming the hypothetical automobile is moving the same speed and distance for 60 seconds it does not matter what energy source was used, gasoline, diesel, electricity, solar, hydrogen, muscles or winged monkeys. The kinetic energy of the car is the same regardless of its source.

The motion of the car is a direct measurement of how much energy is put into moving the car. One energy source may produce more potential energy than another but unless the energy is converted into kinetic energy it is wasted as heat.

[BoyntonStu]

The question you asked is sort of like asking which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead.



A pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold.

A gold pound has only 12 oz. compared to 16 oz. for lead.

That would have been a better question.



Hydrogen has a certain energy value. At 1 L/Min this energy is very, very, small. If you generated 1 L/min of gasoline vapor, it would have very, very, little energy too!

Liquid hydrogen has a low density of 71 grams/liter. There is more hydrogen in a liter of methanol (99 grams/liter) than in a liter of liquid hydrogen.

Regular Gasoline has 44.4 MJ/KG or MJ/2.2lb
Hydrogen has 121-141 MJ/KG or MJ/2.2lb

Gasoline weighs 6.073 lb/gal or 3 KG/gal.

Try to produce 6 POUNDS of hydrogen to equal a gallon of gasoline and see how much energy it takes to do it.



If a perfectly operating car runs on 14.7:1 air/fuel ratio, and if you could lean it by using HHO to 17:1, you would gain a 17/14.7 or 15% mpg increase.

That would be terrific IMHO.

Questions?

BoyntonStu

[Smith03Jetta]

No matter what the material, 16 ounces of the stuff equals 1 lb. Weight is a measure of the effect of gravity on mass. Nothing else.

[Stratous]

A pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold.

A gold pound has only 12 oz. compared to 16 oz. for lead.

That would have been a better question.



Hydrogen has a certain energy value. At 1 L/Min this energy is very, very, small. If you generated 1 L/min of gasoline vapor, it would have very, very, little energy too!

Liquid hydrogen has a low density of 71 grams/liter. There is more hydrogen in a liter of methanol (99 grams/liter) than in a liter of liquid hydrogen.

Regular Gasoline has 44.4 MJ/KG or MJ/2.2lb
Hydrogen has 121-141 MJ/KG or MJ/2.2lb

Gasoline weighs 6.073 lb/gal or 3 KG/gal.

Try to produce 6 POUNDS of hydrogen to equal a gallon of gasoline and see how much energy it takes to do it.



If a perfectly operating car runs on 14.7:1 air/fuel ratio, and if you could lean it by using HHO to 17:1, you would gain a 17/14.7 or 15% mpg increase.

That would be terrific IMHO.

Questions?

BoyntonStu

Ok, no one said a "Gold pound" what he did say is a pound of gold. A pound is 16oz regardless of what material you decide to measure. The purpose of adding hydrogen isnt to replace the fuel or displace fuel. Its only purpose currently on these boards is to increase the burn efficiency of the diesel or gasoline engine. Eventually, I am sure we would like to replace gasoline with hydrogen, which has been done recently by Toyota, GM and Honda.

[BoyntonStu]

Ok, no one said a "Gold pound" what he did say is a pound of gold. A pound is 16oz regardless of what material you decide to measure. The purpose of adding hydrogen isnt to replace the fuel or displace fuel. Its only purpose currently on these boards is to increase the burn efficiency of the diesel or gasoline engine. Eventually, I am sure we would like to replace gasoline with hydrogen, which has been done recently by Toyota, GM and Honda.

Let's forget feathers and gold.

To replace gasoline with hydrogen, one needs the same energy in the hydrogen as in the gasoline it replaces.

Agree?

IOW If you want the equivalent of a 10% REPLACEMENT you need 10% of the energy.

Now, how much hydrogen do you need to replace 10% of the $4.10 gasoline you are presently burning?

Much, much, much more than 1 L/Min.

BoyntonStu

[Stratous]

Let's forget feathers and gold.

To replace gasoline with hydrogen, one needs the same energy in the hydrogen as in the gasoline it replaces.

Agree?

IOW If you want the equivalent of a 10% REPLACEMENT you need 10% of the energy.

Now, how much hydrogen do you need to replace 10% of the $4.10 gasoline you are presently burning?

Much, much, much more than 1 L/Min.

BoyntonStu

No really?????? You are not stating anything that we havent already discovered for ourselves. What is your purpose on these boards? Do you have any information that can actually help us, or are you here to be the doubting thomas? Hydrogen has more energy than gasoline. We also know that water electrolysis requires more energy input than what it puts out in usable H. We are not trying to replace gasoline with H, just trying to find an acceptably efficient electrolyzer and combine information on automotive adjustments that will increase the efficiency of the internal combustion engine and electrolyzer combination.

[dennis13030]

So many people have and use vehicle and ICEs for a number of reasons. There is no dispute that the Energy Efficiency on all ICEs and vehicles is really bad. Also, if the costs of ICEs and vehicles were greater than the benefits, we would not use ICEs and vehicles.

From all that I know so far about ICEs, vehicles and HHO as a suppliment fuel, HHO can significantly reduce the costs associated with ICEs and vehicles. This includes environmental costs especially.

[BoyntonStu]

No really?????? You are not stating anything that we havent already discovered for ourselves. What is your purpose on these boards? Do you have any information that can actually help us, or are you here to be the doubting thomas? Hydrogen has more energy than gasoline. We also know that water electrolysis requires more energy input than what it puts out in usable H. We are not trying to replace gasoline with H, just trying to find an acceptably efficient electrolyzer and combine information on automotive adjustments that will increase the efficiency of the internal combustion engine and electrolyzer combination.

Will you increase MPG by waving your arms or by using smoke and mirrors?

An EQUAL WEIGHT of hydrogen has more energy than gasoline. A true fact.

When you state: "Hydrogen has more energy than gasoline", you are misleading the reader. 1 L/min of HHO has very little energy. Yes, burning HHO can make a very hot flame, but that is temperature and not heat energy. It's like running your car on a book of matches.


If you could make 1/3 the WEIGHT of a gallon of gasoline in hydrogen, you could replace that gallon.

OTOH It is true that the flame velocity of hydrogen is 3x faster than the flame velocity of gasoline.

Therefore, by introducing a threshold amount (how much?) of hydrogen in your engine, you can increase the burning efficiency and you can lean the engine.


"combine information on automotive adjustments that will increase the efficiency of the internal combustion engine and electrolyzer combination."

Yes. I agree with your statement.

If you can lean it from 14.7:1 to 17:1 you would gain 15% mpg.

This is a fact.

I will, argue facts.

I won't argue opinions.

You are entitled to your opinions.

Boyntonstu

[Stratous]

Honestly, I dont know what your trying to achieve. What actual point are you attempting to make? Agree or disagree all you want, there are to many people having success with adding less than 1LPM to debate over. Results alone is proof and an explanation is not necessary. It works, thats what matters. Now use your obviously educated mind to make it work better.

[stickittoopec]

I will try to explain what we are attempting to do. We are not trying to run our cars or trucks on the hydrogen. We are using the HHO gas as an accelerant. The vapor that comes off the small droplets of gasoline burns at about 4,000 feet per second. Hydrogen in air burns at about 38,000 feet per second. When you do the math, you will see that an engine running at 2000 rpm (appx. highway speed) does not have enough time to completely burn the fuel (the power stroke is only one of the four strokes per rpm). The thought is if you can catch all the fuel on fire at once, rather than waiting for the flame to make its way down from the spark plug and through the gas, you will get a more efficient burn. I hope this sheds some light on what we are trying to do.

[Stratous]

I will try to explain what we are attempting to do. We are not trying to run our cars or trucks on the hydrogen. We are using the HHO gas as an accelerant. The vapor that comes off the small droplets of gasoline burns at about 4,000 feet per second. Hydrogen in air burns at about 38,000 feet per second. When you do the math, you will see that an engine running at 2000 rpm (appx. highway speed) does not have enough time to completely burn the fuel (the power stroke is only one of the four strokes per rpm). The thought is if you can catch all the fuel on fire at once, rather than waiting for the flame to make its way down from the spark plug and through the gas, you will get a more efficient burn. I hope this sheds some light on what we are trying to do.


That was very well said. :D

[dennis13030]

I will try to explain what we are attempting to do. We are not trying to run our cars or trucks on the hydrogen. We are using the HHO gas as an accelerant. The vapor that comes off the small droplets of gasoline burns at about 4,000 feet per second. Hydrogen in air burns at about 38,000 feet per second. When you do the math, you will see that an engine running at 2000 rpm (appx. highway speed) does not have enough time to completely burn the fuel (the power stroke is only one of the four strokes per rpm). The thought is if you can catch all the fuel on fire at once, rather than waiting for the flame to make its way down from the spark plug and through the gas, you will get a more efficient burn. I hope this sheds some light on what we are trying to do.

Nice posting.

[BoyntonStu]

I will try to explain what we are attempting to do. We are not trying to run our cars or trucks on the hydrogen. We are using the HHO gas as an accelerant. The vapor that comes off the small droplets of gasoline burns at about 4,000 feet per second. Hydrogen in air burns at about 38,000 feet per second. When you do the math, you will see that an engine running at 2000 rpm (appx. highway speed) does not have enough time to completely burn the fuel (the power stroke is only one of the four strokes per rpm). The thought is if you can catch all the fuel on fire at once, rather than waiting for the flame to make its way down from the spark plug and through the gas, you will get a more efficient burn. I hope this sheds some light on what we are trying to do.

I agree.

Now we get down to the issue.

If your car is running perfectly well, it will use air and gasoline at a 14.7:1 ratio.

If you use HHO as an 'accelerant' or as a catalyst how high do you expect the air fuel ratio to go?

If you can lean it to 17:1 you will achieve a 15% mpg gain. Not any more than that.

Why? Because the HHO adds an insignificant amount of energy at 1 L/min.

Today we are using 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol.

Ethanol has only 70% of the fuel energy as gasoline.

Would you expect your mpg to be affected?

BoyntonStu

[stickittoopec]

For now let’s leave the air fuel ratio where it is. The computer will handle that with the oxygen, air flow, and temperature sensors. As stated before the spark plug fires, the flame works its way down through the fumes off the droplets of fuel at about 4,000 feet per second. When the exhaust opens there is still un burnt fuel which is finished in the catalytic converter. Now add hydrogen. The same process starts over but the hydrogen acting as an accelerant burning at about 38,000 feet per second instantly catches all the droplets on fire, giving the fuel more time to burn. The oxygen sensor will see this as a rich mixture and the computer sees there is more work being done (higher rpm than calculated) and there is less un burnt fuel going to the catalytic converter. The next injection should require less fuel to do the same amount of work. There is a limit to what the computer will allow before the process limits are exceeded and it thinks there is a malfunction in a sensor and throws a code. That is when we need to fool the computers sensors to create a normal condition.
That is how I see it. I do plan to test this. I purchased a Scan Gauge for the test car. One of the things you can look at is engine load. That is one thing that will be affected by this and will tell if this works or not. I’m not in this to play with bubbles. If it doesn’t work I’ll move on to the next thing to find what does but I will give this a 100% try.
Info on ScanGauge II: http://www.scangauge.com/


http://www.scangauge.com/assets/graphics/headers/homehdr_2a.jpg

[BoyntonStu]

For now let’s leave the air fuel ratio where it is. The computer will handle that with the oxygen, air flow, and temperature sensors. As stated before the spark plug fires, the flame works its way down through the fumes off the droplets of fuel at about 4,000 feet per second. When the exhaust opens there is still un burnt fuel which is finished in the catalytic converter. Now add hydrogen. The same process starts over but the hydrogen acting as an accelerant burning at about 38,000 feet per second instantly catches all the droplets on fire, giving the fuel more time to burn. The oxygen sensor will see this as a rich mixture and the computer sees there is more work being done (higher rpm than calculated) and there is less un burnt fuel going to the catalytic converter. The next injection should require less fuel to do the same amount of work. There is a limit to what the computer will allow before the process limits are exceeded and it thinks there is a malfunction in a sensor and throws a code. That is when we need to fool the computers sensors to create a normal condition.
That is how I see it. I do plan to test this. I purchased a Scan Gauge for the test car. One of the things you can look at is engine load. That is one thing that will be affected by this and will tell if this works or not. I’m not in this to play with bubbles. If it doesn’t work I’ll move on to the next thing to find what does but I will give this a 100% try.
Info on ScanGauge II: http://www.scangauge.com/


http://www.scangauge.com/assets/graphics/headers/homehdr_2a.jpg

First, see my 20 minute mpg test.

You might consider giving it a try.

Only 20 minutes.

There are reports about the Scangauge on the net and Youtube.

Be aware of its limitations.

BoyntonStu

[BoyntonStu]

I will try to explain what we are attempting to do. We are not trying to run our cars or trucks on the hydrogen. We are using the HHO gas as an accelerant. The vapor that comes off the small droplets of gasoline burns at about 4,000 feet per second. Hydrogen in air burns at about 38,000 feet per second. When you do the math, you will see that an engine running at 2000 rpm (appx. highway speed) does not have enough time to completely burn the fuel (the power stroke is only one of the four strokes per rpm). The thought is if you can catch all the fuel on fire at once, rather than waiting for the flame to make its way down from the spark plug and through the gas, you will get a more efficient burn. I hope this sheds some light on what we are trying to do.

Please post the math.

BoyntonStu

[Smith03Jetta]

I have some graphs on my thread of what happens to Engine load when Hydro/Oxy is introduced. The engine load decreases. I've got some spreadsheets that I'll email somebody if they want them. They are on my laptop at home so it will be next day before I can provide any data if anybody is interested.

[BoyntonStu]

I have some graphs on my thread of what happens to Engine load when Hydro/Oxy is introduced. The engine load decreases. I've got some spreadsheets that I'll email somebody if they want them. They are on my laptop at home so it will be next day before I can provide any data if anybody is interested.

Does your spread sheet include the piston speed in ft/sec and flame speeds?


(See the NASA test on my other thread.)

BoyntonStu

[mario brito]

I will try to explain what we are attempting to do. We are not trying to run our cars or trucks on the hydrogen. We are using the HHO gas as an accelerant. The vapor that comes off the small droplets of gasoline burns at about 4,000 feet per second. Hydrogen in air burns at about 38,000 feet per second. When you do the math, you will see that an engine running at 2000 rpm (appx. highway speed) does not have enough time to completely burn the fuel (the power stroke is only one of the four strokes per rpm). The thought is if you can catch all the fuel on fire at once, rather than waiting for the flame to make its way down from the spark plug and through the gas, you will get a more efficient burn. I hope this sheds some light on what we are trying to do.

Finally !!!! just from this post, you should "jump" from newbie to mentor ! points to you ! :)

[Stratous]

I agree.

Now we get down to the issue.

If your car is running perfectly well, it will use air and gasoline at a 14.7:1 ratio.

If you use HHO as an 'accelerant' or as a catalyst how high do you expect the air fuel ratio to go?

If you can lean it to 17:1 you will achieve a 15% mpg gain. Not any more than that.

Why? Because the HHO adds an insignificant amount of energy at 1 L/min.

Today we are using 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol.

Ethanol has only 70% of the fuel energy as gasoline.

Would you expect your mpg to be affected?

BoyntonStu

Do you actually have anything constructive to say? I see you here posting bits and pieces of information that support your asertion that we are struggling against hopelessness. Did you read the entire NASA report because there is alot more information in that report that gives credence to our claim than you brought forth. You must work for OPEC or something.

[HHOhoper]

I figure that there is someone out there somewhere who is so well versed with mathematics, science, chemistry etc, who could probably come up with a formula to PROVE that there is no sun in the sky and that the blue sky is in fact green. Who gives a flying fling what graphs and charts say?? The proof is in the pudding! If you put this in your gas and your engine burns less gasoline for the same mileage as a result, what is there to argue?? Hundreds of people PROVE it everyday, but so many people can't accept it. I don't get it. Just because someone thinks they found a way that doesn't add up on paper, they think the whole concept is preposterous. Wow. To everyone on this forum who is here to help benefit mankind and not hold it back, I extend my appreciation and sympathies because your turn to be burned at the stake is probably coming up.

[Stratous]

What is the percentage of fuel that remains unburned and is ejected from the cylinder? I believe I have read that most gasoline engines are only ~27% efficient. I am pretty sure Hydrogen can increase that by 70 to 80%. Perhaps even double.

[HHOhoper]

I read 25% efficient. A LOT of room for improvement.

[Stratous]

There are other HHO boards out there that have individuals come and try to dissuade people. I have no idea why they do it, but they come and overload people with useless information, cutting a pasting only the info that supports their argument leaving out all the evidence that goes against them. I have seen it several times in places like these.
http://aardvarkforums.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24519#24519

This guy makes me think of the Bruce Simpson character in the above link

[BoyntonStu]

Do you actually have anything constructive to say? I see you here posting bits and pieces of information that support your asertion that we are struggling against hopelessness. Did you read the entire NASA report because there is alot more information in that report that gives credence to our claim than you brought forth. You must work for OPEC or something.

Please refer to the report and the sections that you would like to share.


BoyntonStu

[BoyntonStu]

I read 25% efficient. A LOT of room for improvement.

Exactly!

That is why NASA spent to bucks to investigate.

How do you propose to raise the efficiency?

BoyntonStu

[BoyntonStu]

What is the percentage of fuel that remains unburned and is ejected from the cylinder? I believe I have read that most gasoline engines are only ~27% efficient. I am pretty sure Hydrogen can increase that by 70 to 80%. Perhaps even double.

"I am pretty sure Hydrogen can increase that by 70 to 80%. Perhaps even double."


Pretty sure? Based on what evidence?

70% and 80% are more than double.

What objective evidence do you have?

BoyntonStu

[Stratous]

"I am pretty sure Hydrogen can increase that by 70 to 80%. Perhaps even double."


Pretty sure? Based on what evidence?

70% and 80% are more than double.

What objective evidence do you have?

BoyntonStu

Increasing anything by 70 to 80% is not double. Double would be increasing by 100%.

[Smith03Jetta]

It does not have the piston speed or flame spread speeds. I don't have all the sensors that NASA has in my car's computer. I do have ignition position, air mass, O2 Lambda readouts, RPM Kilometer per hour, engine load, ECU Voltage, Engine temp, and lots of other stuff.

If you want piston speed you can derive that from RPM and engine data for a 2003 VW Jetta 2.0 liter engine.

To double a number you must multiply it by 100.
To more than double you must increase it by more than 100%. DUH! I think I'll have a DUFF's Beer.

100% increase of 20 mpg = 40 mpg.
100% of 20 mpg = 20 mpg.
Let's say I get a 37% increase. That's changing from 25 mpg to 34.25.

[nickalderson]

70% increase is not double

10 * 1.7 = 17

[BoyntonStu]

Increasing anything by 70 to 80% is not double. Double would be increasing by 100%.

I stand corrected. I thought that I had read "to" instead of "by".

"I am pretty sure Hydrogen can increase that by 70 to 80%. Perhaps even double."


Pretty sure? Based on what evidence?

BoyntonStu

[BoyntonStu]

It does not have the piston speed or flame spread speeds. I don't have all the sensors that NASA has in my car's computer. I do have ignition position, air mass, O2 Lambda readouts, RPM Kilometer per hour, engine load, ECU Voltage, Engine temp, and lots of other stuff.

If you want piston speed you can derive that from RPM and engine data for a 2003 VW Jetta 2.0 liter engine.



"When you do the math, you will see that an engine running at 2000 rpm (appx. highway speed) does not have enough time to completely burn the fuel (the power stroke is only one of the four strokes per rpm)".


Have you done the math or are you guessing?

BTW It seems that math, science, and engineering are not welcome in these parts. If you mention them, you are accused of working for the oil companies.

Have you heard about the 6 stroke engine

Now, THAT is a big breakthrough in recovering the wasted heat of an ICE.

BoyntonStu

[Stratous]

Based on the evidence that my truck saw an increase of 37% in MPG. Thats all the evidence that I need. I dont wanna be ugly with you, but honestly I dont give a crap if you believe it or not.

[Stratous]

"When you do the math, you will see that an engine running at 2000 rpm (appx. highway speed) does not have enough time to completely burn the fuel (the power stroke is only one of the four strokes per rpm)".


Have you done the math or are you guessing?

BTW It seems that math, science, and engineering are not welcome in these parts. If you mention them, you are accused of working for the oil companies.

Have you heard about the 6 stroke engine

Now, THAT is a big breakthrough in recovering the wasted heat of an ICE.

BoyntonStu

Math and science are welcome here when it is used properly. You and I both know that hydrogen injection into a internal combustion engine does increase engine effiency which results in increased MPG. Why do you feel the need to argu that? Its documented all over the internet. What is your purpose here? Your not helping us, so I must assume that your hear to dissuade people from trying. You want proof that hydrogen injection does work? Then go build your own and install it on your car.

[BoyntonStu]

Math and science are welcome here when it is used properly. You and I both know that hydrogen injection into a internal combustion engine does increase engine effiency which results in increased MPG. Why do you feel the need to argu that? Its documented all over the internet. What is your purpose here? Your not helping us, so I must assume that your hear to dissuade people from trying. You want proof that hydrogen injection does work? Then go build your own and install it on your car.

"Math and science are welcome here when it is used properly."

Please give us an example of the improper use of math and science?

How do you measure you MPG?

Is that with efie and O2 mods?

BoyntonStu

[Stratous]

"Math and science are welcome here when it is used properly."

Please give us an example of the improper use of math and science?

How do you measure you MPG?

Is that with efie and O2 mods?

BoyntonStu

No, I have no mods on my truck. I filled up my tank, drove for a few days, then filled up my tank again from the same pump. I divided the mileage by the amount of fuel it took to fill the tank. Thats close enough.

Oh you should read this. It based on a report by JPL. I found the report, but its not available for download on-line for some reason. http://www.chechfi.ca/pdfs/hydrogen_injection.pdf

[mario brito]

Please give us an example of the improper use of math and science?

BoyntonStu

it looks to me that you have too much free time on your hands... or maybe this is a full-time job for you ? but lets skip that, because i'm sure you have your's "100 ways to dodge tricky questions" manual.

and i'm getting pretty sure by now, that the fact that you are posting here, means that we are getting somewhere... no, i'm not going to proof that, because i'm too busy trying to find the true meaning of "Neutral Plate". sorry...

but i've got time to give you some advice...

- stop shooting on every direction ! we are not stupid, we are not kids, and we all have our own level of expertise on different fields.

- if you are so good on so many fields, this is a piece of cake for you, so show us your HHO unit, show us your best design, the problems you had and tell us how did you solved them !

- everyone here is pretty much able to calculate his own MPG ratio. if you don't believe on such a simple statement, you have no place here.

- finally, if we are so stupid as you insinuate on every post, LEAVE !

now i've got to go back to my book "Neutral Plates - what are they ?"

thanks

[BoyntonStu]

No, I have no mods on my truck. I filled up my tank, drove for a few days, then filled up my tank again from the same pump. I divided the mileage by the amount of fuel it took to fill the tank. Thats close enough.

Oh you should read this. It based on a report by JPL. I found the report, but its not available for download on-line for some reason. http://www.chechfi.ca/pdfs/hydrogen_injection.pdf

Thanks, interesting reading for a qualitative discussion, not quantitative.

How much is "A small amount of Hydrogen"?

According to NASA it is about 1/2 a POUND.

BoyntonStu

[stickittoopec]

Wow, what late breaking news! A report made in 1977 (31 years ago - You had to dig deep to find that.) using a 1969 Cadillac 7.4 liter (a real pig on gas even in its day) engine about 2 to 3.5 times larger than what most of us are using today.
This is from page 15 of the pdf file or page 13 of study: The ignition delay period is characterized by slow combustion within the volume containing the spark plug and the quiescent wall boundary layer. The energy release is extremely restricted within this volume for a period of time. Variations in the ignition delay period may cause cycle-to-cycle variations in peak cylinder pressure and IMEP. Figure 8 shows a sizable reduction in ignition delay time with the addition of hydrogen for all equivalence ratios. The advantageous thermal properties of hydrogen appear to diminish the thermal loss from the developing flame kernel and to quicken the energy release rate.” Sounds like what I was trying to say only a lot more technical. Well, if you still need the math, you know where to find it. They like math.
For their time and what they had available to work with NASA did OK , except for one major thing. The timing they used needs some explanation. According to their study, hydrogen with gasoline is 61% faster (page 13 of pdf file or page 11 of study). On page 17 of the pdf file and page 15 of the study, they say they use 23 to 54 degrees timing angles. If the flame speed is 61% faster, why are they using so much timing? It would make sense to move timing closer to top dead center and take advantage of the faster flame speed. Otherwise you will fight it and lose efficiency because you are fighting the faster rising pressure. I learned that from Roy McAlister. No mention of moving timing to top dead center or even trying it, unless I missed something. They should have tried that. It seems to be the trick, according to Roy McAlister, and he has been doing this since 1965.
You can do a search on Youtube for Roy McAlister. He did the same thing as the NASA 1977 study in a Geo Metro and got a 30% increase in mileage. He can run a gasoline engine on gasoline, a home made fuel he called turpine, diesel, alcohol and other fuels. As long as they are hydrogen boosted, they run great. And it doesn't take as much hydrogen as you would think. He also has a book called the “Philosopher Mechanic” that explains a lot of his ideas. http://www.knowledgepublications.com/978-1-60322-044-6_detail_page.htm
He videoed the whole thing, so if you have questions or sarcastic remarks to make, you can bother them. http://www.knowledgepublications.com/H2DVD001_detail_page.htm
The Oregon Chapter of his organization converted a 1978 Cadillac to run on a hydrogen boost gasoline also known as Hyboosting. They were able to get a 23% increase in mileage. What do they know that NASA doesn't?
Roy can give you all the math you want. He was on the design team at Chrysler and served as a Research Professor at Arizona State and he is now the president of the American Hydrogen Association.. He is also the author of “Solar Hydrogen Civilization” which is another good read.
Now with all this said I'm through with this petty bickering. If you are interested in helping us to reach a conclusion through positive input then good. I'll be glad to work with you. There is an abundant supply of people who sit around and whine about what can't be done (just look at congress). And a very short supply of those who prove what can be done. I choose to work with the can do crowd no matter what path that takes me down.

[BoyntonStu]

They were able to get a 23% increase in mileage.

How much hydrogen to achieve that?

BoyntonStu

[stickittoopec]

See the NASA report thread I have an answer there.
http://www.hhoforums.com/showthread.php?t=574&page=3

[BoyntonStu]

See the NASA report thread I have an answer there.
http://www.hhoforums.com/showthread.php?t=574&page=3

This legitimate answer is what I was seeking.

Range in mixed highway and city driving using 22 gal.
286 miles with gasoline alone.
352 miles with hydrogen.
Hydrogen use was 5% heating value of the gasoline.
According to them this comes out to 413 cubic ft.

22 gallons of gasoline at 113,602 BTU per gallon has a heating value of 2,499,244 BTU

Hydrogen use was 5% heating value of the gasoline.

5% of 2,499,244 BTU is 124,962 BTU.

Hydrogen has 290 BTU in a SCF (standard cubic feet)

124,962 / 290 = 430 cubic ft. We practically agree!

413 cubic foot = 11,695 liter of hydrogen used

Hydroxy has 193 BTU in a SCF and therefore one would need 290/193 or 1.5 times 11,695 liters or 17,543 liters of Hydroxy.

So at 60 mph 352 miles would take 352 minutes.

17,543/352 = 50 liters minute, which is darn close to your 30.45 l/min


Houston, we have ignition!

You and I are in the same ballpark.


Now all you got to do is produce 30-50 liters each minute and you will have your 23% mpg gain.

What is interesting is that by supplying 5% of the energy you gain 23% efficiency. The problem of course is the energy required (lost) in producing the 5%.

Thinking out loud: A good generator will produce a liter at about 13 Amps at 14 Volts. 50 x 13 = 650 Amps Yuch!!!

If we carried batteries at 48 volts we would need 650 / 4 or 162.5 Amps

You see where I am going......>>>>...... Electric motor.

BTW An electric motor just for acceleration would be very useful.

We would all get highway mpg!

Would you expect the same 23% mpg increase if you generated only 1 l/min of Hydroxy;)?

I don't think so.

This is fun!!

BoyntonStu

P.S. This is what I do in my spare time:

See my $100 elevator video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hom61NxuaE






:

[stickittoopec]

Not so fast. You can't compare a 7.?? liter motor running unthrottled to just boosting a 1.8 to 2.?? liter motor. The part you didn't include in my post is running the engine unthrottled. That will require far more hydrogen than what these guys are trying to do. On the video where he is running the Geo unthrottled, he shows the tip of the injector and said it's about the same size as an equine vet's needle. He stated it is about 1/32”. I think there is a picture on the site for the info on the CD. He also stated the pressure is at about 5 psi. That is about 6.7 liters a minute running an engine unthrottled. Now what all these guys, myself included, want, is a flash to start the process a little earlier. Question is how much gas does that take? Can it be a homogeneous charge or will it be required to be a stratified charge? I don't know yet. I haven't gotten that far. I don't plan to candy coat this in either direction. I am looking for the truth. Everything is on the table, including Brown's Gas.
The only way we are going to solve this problem we are faced with is to explore all options with an open mind. We might find we have been overlooking something all this time. I, for one, would hate to be very close to something and give up because of preconceived ideas. That is how nothing changes, and we would not be where we are today if those before us just gave up because all the know it alls said it wouldn't work. We have to be honest with ourselves about what we see and learn from it and move on. What does not work is just as important as what does.

[BoyntonStu]

Not so fast. You can't compare a 7.?? liter motor running unthrottled to just boosting a 1.8 to 2.?? liter motor. The part you didn't include in my post is running the engine unthrottled. That will require far more hydrogen than what these guys are trying to do. On the video where he is running the Geo unthrottled, he shows the tip of the injector and said it's about the same size as an equine vet's needle. He stated it is about 1/32”. I think there is a picture on the site for the info on the CD. He also stated the pressure is at about 5 psi. That is about 6.7 liters a minute running an engine unthrottled. Now what all these guys, myself included, want, is a flash to start the process a little earlier. Question is how much gas does that take? Can it be a homogeneous charge or will it be required to be a stratified charge? I don't know yet. I haven't gotten that far. I don't plan to candy coat this in either direction. I am looking for the truth. Everything is on the table, including Brown's Gas.
The only way we are going to solve this problem we are faced with is to explore all options with an open mind. We might find we have been overlooking something all this time. I, for one, would hate to be very close to something and give up because of preconceived ideas. That is how nothing changes, and we would not be where we are today if those before us just gave up because all the know it alls said it wouldn't work. We have to be honest with ourselves about what we see and learn from it and move on. What does not work is just as important as what does.


I downloaded and viewed the video.

In it, he says that he supplied 5%-10% of the gasoline heat energy with hydrogen. The interviewer said, 7% and he agreed. That is the bottom line, he used the equivalent of 30-50 liters/min throttled or not. Am I mistaken here?

Also, a stock Geo Metro generally achieves 50 mpg, doesn't it?


You and I are in sync with regards to truth finding.

A lot of folks believe because they want to and need to believe, not because of any objective data.

FYI This from an email friend with a booster in his wife's car:


I have a scan gage. I tested mileage on a 2 way trip without enhancement, or hydrogen. 33mpg

I made the same trip with enhancement and no hydrogen. 41mpg and the engine got hot.

I made the same trip with enhancement and hydrogen. 44mpg and normal engine temp.
------------
Enhancement = efie and o2

The Hydroxy gave only a 2 mpg improvement, but it also cooled the engine. That is significant and it may be the key to the whole story.

IOW If you effie and o2 and engine, you will gain mpg.

In order to make it work, you need Hydroxy to cool.


Is this the breakthrough we are both seeking?

BoynytonStu

[stickittoopec]

In his setup if you take away the the hydrogen the car can not run. His setup depends on the hydrogen to run and can not run without it. This is not true with our vehicles. I guess what we are looking for is the super spark plug that ignites from all directions in the cylinder at once. Hydrogen is a very good candidate for this and the oxygen won't hurt.

[mario brito]

You and I are in sync with regards to truth finding.

A lot of folks believe because they want to and need to believe, not because of any objective data.

BoynytonStu

ok ! everybody go home ! there's nothing to see here ! the truth has been found ! please delete this forum from the web and remove your HHO's unit from your car ! you have all been mistaken by your "need to believe"...

[BoyntonStu]

ok ! everybody go home ! there's nothing to see here ! the truth has been found ! please delete this forum from the web and remove your HHO's unit from your car ! you have all been mistaken by your "need to believe"...

One question: How was YOUR mpg before and after YOU installed YOUR booster?

BoyntonStu

[justaguy]

Wqw, and to think I spend my time and money to build a generator when all I have to do was believe it works.

I think now I will get three cracker boxes hook them up in series and believe i,m getting extra mpg. Thats much easier, thanks boynton

[justaguy]

Wow, and to think I spend my time and money to build a generator when all I have to do was believe it works.

I think now I will get three cracker boxes hook them up in series and believe i,m getting extra mpg. Thats much easier, thanks boynton

[BoyntonStu]

In his setup if you take away the the hydrogen the car can not run. His setup depends on the hydrogen to run and can not run without it. This is not true with our vehicles. I guess what we are looking for is the super spark plug that ignites from all directions in the cylinder at once. Hydrogen is a very good candidate for this and the oxygen won't hurt.

In his setup if you take away the the hydrogen the car can not run. His setup depends on the hydrogen to run and can not run without it.


Yes, because he is using crappy gasoline fuel blended with turpene and who knows what. His purpose of using hydrogen was to help the crap burn. I'm OK with that. Remember 1 liter/SECOND!

New spark plug?

http://www.pulstarplug.com/index.html claim a 6% mpg boost for $24.95 per.

BoyntonStu

[BoyntonStu]

Wqw, and to think I spend my time and money to build a generator when all I have to do was believe it works.

I think now I will get three cracker boxes hook them up in series and believe i,m getting extra mpg. Thats much easier, thanks boynton

Do you read the posts?


I never said that Hydroxy does not work.

You and others just believe that I said it.

Do you mod efie and O2?

If so, did you measure mpg with and without Hydroxy?


What do you use and what was your before/after mpg?


BoyntonStu

[mario brito]

One question: How was YOUR mpg before and after YOU installed YOUR booster?

BoyntonStu

stock :

6.5 Liters petrol 95 octanes ( city ) / 100Km ( small engine :) )

first try this morning :

12.8V / 7.2 A / ?? LPM ( still not measured )

6.5 liters petrol 95 octanes ( city ) / 123Km

in my country that's 23% increase !

and this was my first try... i'm also showing photos from my HHO unit just finished this morning... could you please show some of your unit ?

thanks

[justaguy]

Do you read the posts?


I never said that Hydroxy does not work.

You and others just believe that I said it.

Do you mod efie and O2?

If so, did you measure mpg with and without Hydroxy?


What do you use and what was your before/after mpg?


BoyntonStu

LMAO, now all we have to do is BELIEVE you said it doesn't work. If you want to know the answers above, read the fu^^king forum instead of trolling.