Gas from water? - A delusion, or maybe not.

[Reg]

Here is the beginning of the energy equation;

20 amps times 14 volts equals 280 Watts - we could argue fine points about efficiency and EXACT voltage and current, but as a first approximation that will do.

On the other side of the equation; Does the (claimed) 1.7 liters per minute produce more than 280 Watts - and can it be realized as available energy ?
{Having typed that I'm not even sure if the 1.7 L per min is for the 10 amp or 20 amp version. No matter, right now the approach matters more than the arithmetic}

PLEASE bear in mind that the claim is that the energy required to SEPARATE the two gases is less than the energy that can be derived from "burning" them, with fossil fuel.

This is NOT about perpetual motion machines - of which I have several that need just a LITTLE more de-bugging (-:

 

[turnkey4099]

I dont think you understand what is being claimed. You are not getting more energy out of the hydrogen. You are getting more (usable) energy out of the petrol!

Look at it this way. Wikipedia states that a turbo added to a diesel engine improves power and fuel economy. The turbo obviously requires power to spin it but it improves the efficiency MORE than it costs to run it. I see a parallel here with the hydrogen gas system. The hydrogen gas system uses power to run it, but it improves efficiency beyond what it costs to run.

Don't forget that both examples are still burning up a fossil fuels. When they run out of diesel or petrol THEY WILL CONK OUT. They are not perpetual motion machines. Both examples must be viewed in their totality. You can't just look at the hydrogen gas unit in isolation and ignore the fact that that part of a petrol burning system.

I admit I still don't know if these gas gadgets work. They may not, but I just can't see how this perpetual motion argument can possibly be used if we are talking about a system that burns petrol. When the petrol runs out, the engine stops, the hydo gas system alone will not keep it going. That sounds nothing like perpetual motion to me.

It doesn't matter that it is burnign in conjuction with regular fuel - it is burning. It is also not increasing the fuel efficiency as the engineers are already squeezing out everything they can get.

'perpetual motion' is not quite the accurate description although if it worked, one could be built using the techniqu. The proper term would be 'over-unity energy' - i.e., gettin more out than you put in.

Could you supply a link to the wiki article. I tried turbo charge and turbocharge but get no hits. I may be mistaken but a turbo charger works by compressing air thus allowing burning more fuel per charge. I can't see where it would result in an increase in economy.


It all comes back to "If it worked, cars would have them on it coming out the factory door". Would save the engineers blood, sweat and tears trying to increase their mpg by a few percentages.

It still is a violation of the laws ot thermo.

Harry K

 

[SPYDERLK]

1. I have read the entire thread.

2. Noone is claiming it as perpetual motion true. Too bad that that is _exaclty_ what it is and it has been pointed out by others also. For it to do what is claimed it _has_ to get more energy out of the hydrogen than the energy it took to produce that hydrogen. The electricity coming from the generator is not free, the engine has to work harder to drive the generator.

Harry K

Again...... :

In an engine about 75% of the fuel energy is wasted in the exhaust and cooling system. If H2 + O introduction were somehow to cause a situation yielding less waste, by an amount exceeding the energy to split water, there would be no thermodynamic conflict to higher fuel mileage.
larry

larry

 

[alchemysa]

It doesn't matter that it is burnign in conjuction with regular fuel - it is burning. It is also not increasing the fuel efficiency as the engineers are already squeezing out everything they can get.
Harry K

Are you serious? You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[alchemysa]

Here is the beginning of the energy equation;

20 amps times 14 volts equals 280 Watts - we could argue fine points about efficiency and EXACT voltage and current, but as a first approximation that will do.

On the other side of the equation; Does the (claimed) 1.7 liters per minute produce more than 280 Watts - and can it be realized as available energy ?
{Having typed that I'm not even sure if the 1.7 L per min is for the 10 amp or 20 amp version. (-:

20amps /1.7 litres sounds fair. Don't want to be accused of making it too easy.

Now the next step is to feed that hydroxy gas into the airflow, which then mixes with the petrol to create a concoction that has God only knows what combustion properties. Where does your equation go from here?

 

[EddieWalker]

I'm enjoying this discussion for the simple reason that I don't know anything about what you guys are talking about. Obviously it's way over my head, but I find it fun reading both points of views and your reasons for them.

One thing that I've been thinking, and it might explain why the manufacturers do not have this on their vehicles, if it works, is that the restrictions on it might make it impossible to offer it to the public. I think there are many things that they can do to their vehicles to make them get more mileage, but due to a variety of restrictions and laws, are not able to do so. The new diesel engines are a very good example. Mileage is down considerably in the new ones compared to just a few years ago.

Another thing that I've been thinking is how the aftermarket industry has come up with so many inovations from racing and street applications that eventually work their ways back to the manufacturers.

Eddie

 

[turnkey4099]

It doesn't matter that it is burnign in conjuction with regular fuel - it is burning. It is also not increasing the fuel efficiency as the engineers are already squeezing out everything they can get.

'perpetual motion' is not quite the accurate description although if it worked, one could be built using the techniqu. The proper term would be 'over-unity energy' - i.e., gettin more out than you put in.

Could you supply a link to the wiki article. I tried turbo charge and turbocharge but get no hits. I may be mistaken but a turbo charger works by compressing air thus allowing burning more fuel per charge. I can't see where it would result in an increase in economy.


It all comes back to "If it worked, cars would have them on it coming out the factory door". Would save the engineers blood, sweat and tears trying to increase their mpg by a few percentages.

It still is a violation of the laws ot thermo.

Harry K

Being a slow day I got curious and did some poking on the question of turbocharging. Did find two source without digging deeply, one of them from wiki.

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

From: HowStuffWorks "How Turbochargers Work"
In this article, we'll learn how a turbocharger increasï½*es the power output of an engine while surviving extreme operating conditions. We'll also learn how wastegates, ceramic turbine blades and ball bearings help turbochargers do their job even better. Turbochargers are a type of forced induction system. They compress the air flowing into the engine (see How Car Engines Work for a description of airflow in a normal engine). The advantage of compressing the air is that it lets the engine squeeze more air into a cylinder, and more air means that more fuel can be added. Therefore, you get more power from each explosion in each cylinder. A turbocharged engine produces more power overall than the same engine without the charging. This can significantly improve the power-to-weight ratio for the engine (see How Horsepower Works for details).

-------------------------------------
Note that "more fuel" bit. It comes down to: you can use a turbo to get more HP from an engine (at a cost in fuel) or you can use a smaller, lighter engine to get the same HP (from the same amount of fuel). There is no increase in economy in either case...well, I suppose hauling less weight in the engine compartment would add a bit of economy but then you have added a bit more work for the the engine to begin with so...

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

From: Turbocharger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Working principle
A turbocharger consists of a turbine and a compressor linked by a shared axle. The turbine inlet receives exhaust gases from the engine causing the turbine wheel to rotate. This rotation drives the compressor, compressing ambient air and delivering it to the air intake manifold of the engine at higher pressure, resulting in a greater amount of the air entering the cylinder. In some instances, compressed air is routed through an intercooler which cools the air before introduction to the intake manifold, as the reduced density of hot air will cause a loss in power gained through turbocharging.
The objective of a turbocharger is the same as a supercharger; to improve upon the size-to-output efficiency of an engine by solving one of its cardinal limitations. A naturally aspirated automobile engine uses only the downward stroke of a piston to create an area of low pressure in order to draw air into the cylinder through the intake valves. Because the pressure in the cylinder cannot go below 0 psi (vacuum), and because of the relatively constant pressure of the atmosphere (about 15 psi), there ultimately will be a limit to the pressure difference across the intake valves and thus the amount of airflow entering the combustion chamber. This ability to fill the cylinder with air is its volumetric efficiency. Because the turbocharger increases the pressure at the point where air is entering the cylinder, and the amount of air brought into the cylinder is largely a function of time and pressure difference, more air will be forced in as the inlet manifold pressure increases. The additional air makes it possible to add more fuel (if a turbo is attached without any other engine enhancements it most likely will cause the engine to run lean -- too much air, not enough fuel), increasing the power and torque output of the engine to about 15 to 40 percent, particularly at high engine rotation speeds.
---------------------------------------------

Again note the "more fuel"

I can see nothing either source that mentions 'economy'.

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

Are you serious? You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

I suggest you adjourn to your local college and check it out with a physics professor. Even your HS physics teacher should be able to confirm it.

There are all kinds of claims being made, most of them relying on smoke an mirrors, just as your magical 'mix' is doing.

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPYDERLK
In an engine about 75% of the fuel energy is wasted in the exhaust and cooling system. If H2 + O introduction were somehow to cause a situation yielding less waste, by an amount exceeding the energy to split water, there would be no thermodynamic conflict to higher fuel mileage.
larry

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

True. All lyou have to do is discover that "somehow" and Detroit will beat a path to your door.

Harry K

 

[alchemysa]

Being a slow day I got curious and did some poking on the question of turbocharging. Did find two source without digging deeply, one of them from wiki.

I can see nothing either source that mentions 'economy'.

Harry K

It was was under 'Turbodiesel'
Turbodiesel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Turbocharging is the norm rather than the exception in modern car diesel engines........ These improvements in power, fuel economy and Noise, Vibration, and Harshness in both small- and large-capacity turbodiesels over the last decade have spurred their widespread adoption in certain markets".