Inject hydrogen into your intake = double the mileage

[MikeK]

http://www.hydrorunner.com/

Interesting product, it uses some of the electricity generated by the engine to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, which is then sucked into the intake. I wonder if something like this will end up being common on trains and trucks.

At the current gas prices it would still take years to pay for itself (the website claims it costs $3500, but doesn't say whether this includes installation), so you would probably have to keep it each time you sold your car to make it worthwhile.

[sperry]

Oh god, not this here.

I'm not even gonna click on the link. All I'm gonna say is:

2 H20 -> 2H + 02 takes X energy
2H + 02 -> 2 H20 yields X energy

Therefore, you will never produce any net power to help push the car.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by sperry

Oh god, not this here.

I'm not even gonna click on the link. All I'm gonna say is:

2 H20 -> 2H + 02 takes X energy
2H + 02 -> 2 H20 yields X energy

Therefore, you will never produce any net power to help push the car.

And turbochargers don't produce more power from smaller displacement engines when needed while permitting lower fuel consumption when cruising vs. large displacement engines.

And regenerative braking justs wastes all that tire warming heat by recharging hybrid batteries.



[Clearly this is a Dean and Scott bash heads kind of day.]

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by sperry

Therefore, you will never produce any net power to help push the car.

They installed one in a Furd truck and got nearly 40 mpg.

[Nick Koan]

Originally Posted by Dean

[Clearly this is a Dean and Scott bash head's kind of day.]

The internet got a lot more interesting.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by MikeK

They installed one in a Furd truck and got nearly 40 mpg.

I don't believe it. You cannot use on-board electrolysis powered by the engine to generate hydrogen as fuel for the engine. It's a perpetual motion machine. The laws of physics don't allow it.

Now if the hydrogen as an additive somehow makes the engine use diesel or gasoline more efficiently, then you might have a case. But I've never heard of any chemistry where burning hydrocarbons in the presence of hydrogen yields more energy out of the hydrocarbon combustion. Remember burning the hydrogen can at best yield the same amount of energy you already spent to get the hydrogen out of the water to begin with.

I still think it's snake oil, or this "technology" would be on production cars from the factory.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

And turbochargers don't produce more power from smaller displacement engines when needed while permitting lower fuel consumption when cruising vs. large displacement engines.

And regenerative braking justs wastes all that tire warming heat by recharging hybrid batteries.



[Clearly this is a Dean and Scott bash heads kind of day.]

What does this have to do with the law of conservation of energy?

A turbo doesn't make energy out of nothing, it allows you to cram more air into a small motor so it has an effectively larger displacement. You still need to dump the appropriate amount of fuel in there which is where the energy comes from. And a turbo motor off boost is usually much less efficient than a N/A motor of the same size because the N/A motor has a much higher base compression. What do you think is more efficient a 2.0L 8.5:1 motor, or a 2.0L 10:1 motor?

And regenerative braking recovers energy that would otherwise be wasted as heat. It's not creating energy out of thin air (or water as it may be) either.

You want to talk about vastly improving combustion motor efficiency? Scrap all this water-as-fuel nonsense and start building 6-stroke Crower cycle motors that turn waste heat into kinetic energy.

[MattR]

The F150 takes off.

[Kevin M]

There's a hint of something about using "unused" electricity from the alternator for "on demand" H/O2 supply. If there is electrical current being created using energy fromt he motor that not being turned in to anything but heat, then theoretically there could be a gain sort of like regenerative braking charges hybrid batteries. But I can't conceive of any possibility of 75-125% gains in fuel efficiency. Maybe like 5%.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by sperry

What does this have to do with the law of conservation of energy?

Nothing, which is what the conservation of energy has to do with on demand injection systems of any type which this is.

Perhaps you should click the link.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

Nothing, which is what the conservation of energy has to do with on demand injection systems of any type which this is.

Perhaps you should click the link.

Originally Posted by sperry

2 H20 -> 2H + 02 takes X energy
2H + 02 -> 2 H20 yields X energy

Therefore, you will never produce any net power to help push the car.

Tell me where the energy is coming from to do the electrolysis. Keep in mind that combustion engines are around 20% efficient. That means to make the power needed to extract 1 unit of hydrogen out of water, you need 5 units of hydrogen. I don't have to click the link (though I did and saw nothing to explain how it's supposed to actually work, it's just a bunch of marketing crap) to know that on-demand hydrogen systems that uses water electrolysis are bullshit.

There was one promising method of using an electrolysis type process on an aluminum alloy that releases hydrogen with a cost much lower than the energy created by burning the hydrogen, but the energy cost of creating the aluminum alloy was like 10 times more than that of the available hydrogen thus making the overall process not worth it.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Kevin M

There's a hint of something about using "unused" electricity from the alternator for "on demand" H/O2 supply. If there is electrical current being created using energy fromt he motor that not being turned in to anything but heat, then theoretically there could be a gain sort of like regenerative braking charges hybrid batteries. But I can't conceive of any possibility of 75-125% gains in fuel efficiency. Maybe like 5%.

If there's "unused" energy in the alternator, just slap an electric booster motor on the transmission that's directly powered by the alternator's "free" power. Why bother with this long drawn-out process of electrolysis generated hydrogen boosting the power of the ICE motor? Especially considering electric motors are more efficient than combustion motors.

I'm still calling bullshit. This stuff is a scam.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by sperry

I'm still calling bullshit. This stuff is a scam.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by sperry

I'm still calling bullshit. This stuff is a scam.

That may well be true, but the hydrogen may also cause the fuel to burn more quickly and completely thus increasing the overall efficiency of the system.

That is why your "formulas" do not really apply as they do not include the entire system.

That was my point. You threw out pseudo formulas like they made you right without even clicking the link. That is what I was calling you on.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

That may well be true, but the hydrogen may also cause the fuel to burn more quickly and completely thus increasing the overall efficiency of the system.

That is why your "formulas" do not really apply as they do not include the entire system.

That was my point. You threw out pseudo formulas like they made you right without even clicking the link. That is what I was calling you on.

Yeah, 'cause I've never seen anything like this on the internet before.

http://www.google.com/search?q=water...ient=firefox-a

I tell you what. If I were selling something like that and it wasn't a scam, I'd have my patent number for my chemical process that allows hydrogen to make diesel and gas burn 80% more efficiently all over my website.

I'd also be selling it directly to Toyota, GM, and Ford... not viral marketing it via MySpace, Craig's List, and eBay as a pyramid business where random people build kits out of masons jars based on my eBook instructions.

And those "pseudo formulas" are in fact the formulas for electrolysis of water, and combustion of Hydrogen. And the laws of physics do require that the energy created by one equal the energy required for the other. This is basic high school chemistry. The formulas don't make me right, the laws of physics do. You cannot under any circumstances net surplus energy in a hydrogen powered engine fueled by electrolysis that's also powered by that same engine.

And as far as Hydrogen as a catalyst in diesel/gas combustion, I'd very much like to see the formulas for how that's supposed to work. If, as the site claims, the hydrogen from 1 liter of water is enough to get 80% more efficiency for 3000-4000 miles worth of gas, why isn't the gov't mandating just putting a tiny amount of hydrogen into the fuel at the gas station? Assuming a 20mpg car, that's only 2/3 of a liter of hydrogen per 175 gallons of fuel, or about a 0.1% hydrogen/fuel mixture.

No way I believe that a 0.1% hydrogen/diesel mixture burns 80% more efficiently than straight diesel. Give me a break.

[Dean]

But imagine if you used a Tornado with it? Gas would flow out of the tank!

They are formulas of sorts for electrolysis and combustion, but are not really related to conservation of energy and certainly not the entire combustion process of an ICE. E=mC^2, 2H+S+202=H2SO4...

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Dean

But imagine if you used a Tornado with it? Gas would flow out of the tank!

They are formulas of sorts for electrolysis and combustion, but are not really related to conservation of energy and certainly not the entire combustion process of an ICE. E=mC^2, 2H+S+202=H2SO4...

That's just the thing, the formulas for burning hydrocarbons are actually very simple, and none of them involve hydrogen outside of the hydrogen contained in the hydrocarbon.

Here's the formula for propane that I just ganked off Wiki:

Propane + Oxygen -> Water + Carbon dioxide + heat
C3H6 + 5 O2 -> 4 H2O + 3 CO2 + heat

It's just a simple equation... for every propane molecule, you need 5 oxygen molecules to produce 4 water molecules, 3 carbon dioxide molecules and heat. Of course if you're burning in air (instead of pure oxygen) there's nitrogen involved, but it's just a present in the same quantities before and after the reaction.

Adding ambient hydrogen to that equation does nothing... if there's excess oxygen available, then the hydrogen will burn with the oxygen to produce water. But in reality, because the car is fueling the reaction based on a metered amount of air, you in fact should have just enough oxygen for the fuel, which means that if there's free hydrogen present, it will react with some of the available oxygen and therefore result in unburnt fuel in the exhaust. So what happens then? The O2 sensor in the tailpipe senses that the car is running "rich", and trims back the fuel. Hey, there's your so called "fuel savings" as noted by the car's on-board mpg computer, except you're now trying to run on hydrogen while adding drag to the alternator in the same amount of energy as the energy density of the hydrogen you're producing.

So what you're getting is something that reduces the injector duty cycle as seen by the ECU so your mpg computer reads that you're getting better mileage in trade for making less power, running the motor lean, and ultimately worse mileage. It would be far better just to reprogram the trip computer to report that you're getting 5mpg more than you actually are... it's the same effect w/o damaging the motor.

[100_Percent_Juice]

I think the only way to solve this is for Scott to buy the kit and install it on the wrx. If it doesn't work, then Dean must purchase said wrx. Its a win win.

[JC]

Originally Posted by 100_Percent_Juice

I think the only way to solve this is for Scott to buy the kit and install it on the wrx. If it doesn't work, then Dean must purchase said wrx. Its a win win.

Then Scott will just claim it blew his motor because we all know what happens when Scott tries anything on his WRX.

On a serious note, I'm skeptical but they do have actual evidence. I'd like to see this on mythbusters or something.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by sperry

That's just the thing, the formulas for burning hydrocarbons are actually very simple, and none of them involve hydrogen outside of the hydrogen contained in the hydrocarbon... Blah, blah, blah...

Now please describe in detail the thermodynamics, flame front propagation and combustion details in a mixed fuel of your choice and hydrogen environment at varying levels. Animation and ultra slow motion video would be appreciated with and without Tornado intake insert for extra credit.

[sperry]

Why? It's obvious at a much more remedial level that it doesn't work.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by JC

Then Scott will just claim it blew his motor because we all know what happens when Scott tries anything on his WRX.

On a serious note, I'm skeptical but they do have actual evidence. I'd like to see this on mythbusters or something.

The first page of their test results says the test was conducted using the car's onboard mpg computer. Hardly a rigorous scientific examination of the system. They didn't even do the old drive 100 miles and fill it up to see how much gas it took.

[MikeK]

So only Scott and I believe this is possible?

[MPREZIV]

Things like this make me Picard...

[JC]

Originally Posted by sperry

The first page of their test results says the test was conducted using the car's onboard mpg computer. Hardly a rigorous scientific examination of the system. They didn't even do the old drive 100 miles and fill it up to see how much gas it took.

Ya I noticed that too and it made me laugh. We both went to engineering school, we both know the whole thing seems like BS. All I'm saying is that they do have actual non-scientific proof which is enough to make me want to see a scientific test. The concept seems stupid to me but I'm far from an expert so I'm not going to sit here and say it's unpossible.