You guys have been busy since the last time I was here! I've been reading the many comments posted and I have an observation. It seems many are people of absolutes, either you're mistaken or gullible, or they know themselves to be correct! If any post is potentially made by someone promoting bad information although the person believes the information to be accurate, then potentially all people are mistaken and this includes the skeptics of which I previously belonged.
No one has mentioned the public comment in a TV interview by the CEO of Ford Motor Company about 2 months ago that the hydroxy units show great promise to increase mileage and lower emissions for the 2012 year models. He was referring to the water electrolysis units many call HHO generators. He said that Ford Motor Company is considering the use of these on the 2012 year models which should be 48 volt systems. Not bad for junk technology is it? However, be advised Ford has been in contact with and working with another independent company that currently manufactures and sells these units, so this isn't anything ground breaking, just simple electrolysis of water.
I live in the United States, the state of Texas, and believe it or not there are many of us researching many different angles or fuel improvement devices. Most fuel improvement devices do not work as advertised or if they work there tends to be some negatives such as engine damage or incredible costs to purchase. In the U.S. we are conditioned to pay our electric bill, buy gasoline and smile really big when we pay our taxes! Every bit of this is good for the economy and makes for lots of jobs and progress. Spend all of your money and work hard to make more. That's what we do. Texas probably has at least 3 times more oil reserves than most people realize and it's somewhat unpatriotic to talk about improving mileage. If you talk about electric cars or zero petroleum fuel, you tend to offend most of those involved the lucrative oil industry. I wouldn't expect the entire world to just drop fossil fuels overnight. But I see no harm in studying the other possibilities even if on a small scale. If this offends you, then either you have a lot invested in fossil fuels or live a charmed life with no other serious problems!
I was noting something that dvldoc said, but no one has caught the fallacy in the statement. Instead of comparing apples to apples when he mentioned the trickle of HHO compared to a volume of air, this is an apples to oranges comparison (Yes, we call it HHO - we know it's actually two compounds, H2 & O2 made with electrolysis from another compound H2O which is made from the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen. No sense in revisiting the 6th grade chemistry to try and state the obvious just to point out how ignorant you think we are.). Had he compared the HHO (there I go again) to the trace of gasoline, diesel, propane or natural gas, this would have been a comparison of combustible fuel to combustible fuel, or apples to apples. Atmospheric air is mostly inert, with nearly 21% oxygen which is necessary for any combustion. The only part of the HHO that is remotely comparable to atmospheric air is the oxygen itself. On the comment that the amount of HHO compared to the amount of air being drawn into an engine is only a trace, it could be also stated that the amount of atomized gasoline being delivered compared to the large volume of air being drawn in is also just a trace even if a more significant trace. Here in Texas some of those big Cowboys can fart in the wind and it is more significant than you realize depending on where you are standing!
In a mechanically carbureted engine, the air/fuel mixture is set to balance the oxygen in the air to the appropriate amount of fuel being delivered so that the fuel can burn efficiently. Too much fuel without the proper amount of air leaves unburned fuel or a rich condition. Too much air caused a lean condition which in many cases can be destructive to engine parts such as valves or pistons depending on timing, compression and many other factors. If you increase the amount of combustible fuel without increasing the amount of air, or oxygen, you get a rich condition and fuel is wasted due to a lack of appropriate oxygen. Adding HHO to an already balanced air/fuel ratio does not upset the already set mechanical fuel delivery because the oxygen, O2, is already there in perfect proportions to match up with the hydrogen, H2, thereby eliminating the need for altering the carburetion adjustments on the engine. If you read where someone is adding only hydrogen to an engine to supplement mileage, in that case without the oxygen there is a need to increase the amount of air to ensure the hydrogen burns efficiently. Stating the extra oxygen is bad for the engine when introduced with the hydrogen is forgetting where that oxygen came from, and will return to. It came from water and will return to the original compound which is water. The HHO is it's own balance, and provided the engine was properly tuned prior to adding the HHO this balance does not affect the overall operation of the engine's fuel system. In the EFI systems this balance is adjusted and controlled by a processor that evaluates information from many sensory devices. In these systems the balance changes as the information from the sensors changes. Since the air/fuel ratio changes due to more efficient combustion when HHO is introduced, these systems do not work well with HHO without modifications. Here we are working hard to find a more simple way to get these systems to accept the HHO so we can install these on modern vehicles. So far the best way we've found to get these cars to work with HHO is to buy a special computer program to retune, or reset the settings using a laptop computer.
In my limited experience with hydrogen on demand from water for mileage, I've seen some people show me a system they bought off of the Internet or fabricated at home now mounted on their car. The system, poorly constructed and of a bad design, is improperly installed on the car. The owner then proudly states, "I'm getting 15% better mileage!" I think to myself, "If you're getting 15% better mileage with this junk, you're more talented than you appear to be!" Most of the information provided about these units is seriously suspect. I know that professional laboratories and testing facilities have tested these units, but they tend to be somewhat stingy in releasing good information to the public. In the meantime, and before some company like Ford produces something more efficient for us to evaluate, we are left building and testing these ourselves. I actually enjoy it.
Back to the negatives. No one mentioned anything about engine damage did they? Or did I miss that? People have damaged engines using these hydroxy units with corrosive electrolytes, like baking soda for one example. Also when not using a flashback presenter or bubbler others have had explosions and fires that damaged their vehicles, some of them trucks. I know of a couple of people here that have thought, "If a little HHO improved mileage 25%, then a lot of HHO should be much better!" They then burned up their alternator running excess amperage through their unit. I figured that one guy here in Texas can break even if he gets 40% better mileage and drives for another 2 years or 40,000 miles with no other accidents. Clearly he won't save enough money to pay for the expenses of buying the unit and then frying his alternator. Safety first, always install something like this with all considerations for avoiding engine damage or preventing an accident such as a fire or spilling water somewhere destructive.
I always take a calculator and figure what a person spends on fuel in one year of driving. This depends on how many miles/kilometers per year he or she drives and the average fuel consumption of that particular vehicle. If the vehicle consumes a lot of fuel, it's a good bet that even with moderate fuel savings the owner will see a quick return on their investment. However, if the vehicle is already getting good mileage, then the owner may have to drive 5 years, or more, just to pay for the money invested in the mileage device. It all depends on the vehicle.
I will close by saying this; I just cannot get the same mileage with the unit turned off as turned on. Clearly something is making an improvement in mileage. Both of my test cars are older antique cars that are carbureted, so no EFI to modify. With early hydroxy units of poor design the mileage increase was moderate to slight. As we've learned to make more HHO at very low amperage the mileage improvements are more significant. Consistently 35-45% better mileage than baseline before the unit was installed. On my 1967 VW Beetle when the engine is hot it vapor locks badly when the HHO unit is off and is hard to start. I have to run 93 octane with the unit turned off, runs great on 87 octane unit on. I can't imagine driving that car any distance without it. On this car I have so much experience and confidence in this latest unit I do not even have an on/off switch nor do I have an ammeter. Aside from a switch on the throttle that turns the unit off at engine idle, the unit runs, at low amperage continuously (4 amps or less depending on temperature). It does have an electronic pulser unit to control voltage and excess amperage however.
My engines are well tuned in superior mechanical condition for the most part. Both of my test cars have synthetic lubricants in the engine, transmission and differential which boosted mileage some. Tires are in good condition and air pressure checked often. I was already working hard to improve mileage prior to the HHO which allowed me some good mileage documentation. One test run to check mileage may be insufficient. You need an average of many tankfuls to get the proper information.
Ah great more testimonials, 40% better you say, Here's a question can they prove it. Oh yes please provide a transcript or video of the president of ford saying anything about these systems in it's full context. Pretty sure he was talking about a hybrid not a bubbler.
Oh yes Texas, I'm from Oklahoma there's a big difference between a air/fuel ratio of 14:1.1 vs 12000:1.1 that's not apples and oranges. Like I stated before and will say again the amount of hydrogen your making with your pitiful 12v system is a fart in a hurricane. When people use propane injection it's injected up to 20% of the fuel. You could not even produce 1psi of pressure with your system versus a propane injection system making 7psi up to 12psi big difference in volume my friend.
Please give us the volume of hydrogen your unit produces? if you actually know, I seriously doubt it's anything significant.
Why do people that use these system waste everyone's time with testimonials versus any actual proof? It's been how many years now fellow's how hard is it.
I will post a link to information on William Ford's comments on Hydrogen from Water systems that show great promise after the collaboration between Ford Motor Company and a company here in the U.S. that manufactures these units for installation on cars. This company, name not available to me currently, has made units for smaller car companies that build custom sports cars. I promise to post the information. This was a very big issue at the time and everyone called me to talk about it at the time. I am surprised this was not big news in the Philippines. I have to look through my archives to find it, a very time consuming task. I did a Google search for the terms "Ford" and "Hydrogen" and even adding "water" plus "hydrogen on demand" to get between 20,000 to 50,000 results. Clearly doing a Google search won't help me here. I friend, a retired physics professor, thinks he may have the information in his computer. Once I get it, I'll post it here with related information.
These units produce hydrogen/oxygen at a rate of trace amounts to great volumes depending on plate surface area and volts/amps provided to the unit. Another factor are the electronics that pulse the current to the unit to reduce amperage such as the units that pulse several cells on and off so that no two cells are active at the same time. This prevents many cells, say 10 cells drawing 5 amps, from drawing the total of 50 amps. By pulsing them several hundred times per second the amp draw is only 5 amps while production of hydrogen/oxygen is closer to the 50 amp range. These cells are more complex and most do not have the ability to utilize these electronics, so for this comparison we'll not consider this. For comparison purposes the unit on my AMC Gremlin produces around one liter of hydrogen/oxygen per minute at 15 amps. There is a pulser, but only an on/off one pulsing all cells simultaneously plus an electronic throttle switch/relay. If memory serves me the cell contains nearly 60 cubic inches of plate surface area.
So let's take figures into account. In your apples to oranges way of measuring my Dodge Intrepid has a fuel to air volume ratio of 1 to nearly 9,000. OK, is this a fart in a hurricane? I await your answer while in the meantime I will get more figures as time permits. If this is considered a trace amount, then what would you consider worthwhile?
These units produce hydrogen/oxygen at a rate of trace amounts to great volumes depending on plate surface area and volts/amps provided to the unit. Another factor are the electronics that pulse the current to the unit to reduce amperage such as the units that pulse several cells on and off so that no two cells are active at the same time. This prevents many cells, say 10 cells drawing 5 amps, from drawing the total of 50 amps. By pulsing them several hundred times per second the amp draw is only 5 amps while production of hydrogen/oxygen is closer to the 50 amp range. These cells are more complex and most do not have the ability to utilize these electronics, so for this comparison we'll not consider this. For comparison purposes the unit on my AMC Gremlin produces around one liter of hydrogen/oxygen per minute at 15 amps. There is a pulser, but only an on/off one pulsing all cells simultaneously plus an electronic throttle switch/relay. If memory serves me the cell contains nearly 60 cubic inches of plate surface area.
HUH?
This is a container ship load of pseudoscientific rubbish.
Pulsing is a very widely used technique in electronics in order to throttle down circuit activity and reduce power consumption when the additional electrical activity is not needed.
If I pulse 10 5-amp cells to work alternately, 1/10th of the time each instead of having them run at the same time, at best I will get the same output as having one 10-amp cell running continuously, less in the real world due to losses from the switching itself. There are applications where you want to do this, and the redundancy may make the circuit more reliable but you will not get more power out of it unless you actually get all the cells to produce power simultaneously.
Managing 10 5A cells in order for them to work individually 1/10th of the time will get you 5A worth of electricity total. Current is a measure of charge flow relative to time.Pulse Width Modulation reduces the amount of time the circuit is active. This will reduce the average current even if the instantaneous current draw during the pulsing is the same.Electricity works the same whether you use 1 cell or 10 cells to produce/draw the 5A, it's still 5A. Assuming that the operating voltage is the same you can't get 5A to produce the amount of work that 50A does.
The only way you could get 10 5A cells to produce 50A worth of work is to get them to run together continuously. Which will eat up 50A.
What you're basically saying is that I can get 10 times as much light output by putting 10 similar lamps on a pulse-width modulation dimmer set to light up the bulb for 1/10ths of a time, just by switching it really, really quickly. PWM dimmers readily exist for anyone to try this out.
__________________
Ang hindi marunong tumingin sa pinanggalingan, mababangga sa likuran! Drive safely everyone!
I promised to deliver the goods on Ford's collaboration with Dutchman Enterprises, and here it is. Of course, the video at cnbc.com is gone, or at least I can't find it. But I do have a lot of information in print as well as a letter from Dutchman Enterprises sent to Dr. Spreadbury, a member of our hydrogen group. If anyone can find the video at cnbc.com please pass it on. Here are some links: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Letters to Dr. Spreadbury: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
More information: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
This is a container ship load of pseudoscientific rubbish.
Pulsing is a very widely used technique in electronics in order to throttle down circuit activity and reduce power consumption when the additional electrical activity is not needed.
If I pulse 10 5-amp cells to work alternately, 1/10th of the time each instead of having them run at the same time, at best I will get the same output as having one 10-amp cell running continuously, less in the real world due to losses from the switching itself. There are applications where you want to do this, and the redundancy may make the circuit more reliable but you will not get more power out of it unless you actually get all the cells to produce power simultaneously.
Managing 10 5A cells in order for them to work individually 1/10th of the time will get you 5A worth of electricity total. Current is a measure of charge flow relative to time.Pulse Width Modulation reduces the amount of time the circuit is active. This will reduce the average current even if the instantaneous current draw during the pulsing is the same.Electricity works the same whether you use 1 cell or 10 cells to produce/draw the 5A, it's still 5A. Assuming that the operating voltage is the same you can't get 5A to produce the amount of work that 50A does.
The only way you could get 10 5A cells to produce 50A worth of work is to get them to run together continuously. Which will eat up 50A.
What you're basically saying is that I can get 10 times as much light output by putting 10 similar lamps on a pulse-width modulation dimmer set to light up the bulb for 1/10ths of a time, just by switching it really, really quickly. PWM dimmers readily exist for anyone to try this out.
I only hope I was somewhat less rude than you are when I made this argument and the argument that hydrogen from water absolutely does not work. I probably was nicer considering that all of the people making the other side of the argument are my friends. Well, you are probably very much right when it comes to motors. Have you actually tried this with HHO? I have and here is what I found out if you care to listen. I hope I'm not wasting my time here.
In actual practice a cell drawing 10 amps will never produce the same amount of gas as the same cell forced down to 10 amps from higher amperage, or volts, with a pulser, or even a 1 ohm resistor. Try as you will, gas output will always exceed the production of 10 amps brute force if a pulser is used, even one not designed for hydrogen generators and essentially is a motor controller. What's more, if you have a cell drawing 50 amps and force it down to 10 amps you will start seeing some startling efficiency numbers. Even if not pulsed, keeping volts at the proper level and controlling amps works wonders on these cells. Clearly brute force amperage is not as efficient as proper application of electrical current. Even more important, every day or so we learn something new. To date the cells with 4 neutral plates or 5 cells tend to be more efficient brute force when 12-14 volts are applied. However the 3 neutral plate cells perform at the same efficiency level when a pulser is applied and voltage, not amps, is reduced to 2.5 volts per cell. You need to test voltage between each plate to be sure voltage is at the proper level which is sensitive. If you drop to 2.4 volts between cells efficiency drops some. If raised to 2.6 volts between cells efficiency drops again.
These cells do not act like an electric motor. When I connect a LED light (of course I use the proper resistor for 12 volts) to the same circuit with an electric motor, when the power is cut the LED light tends to glow until the motor comes to a complete stop. Of course, this is the armature of the motor creating a small current as it turns. Once the motor stops the LED light goes out. However, the same LED light continues to glow for several minutes once the circuit is open on the Dry Cell Hydrogen Generator showing residual voltage carried by the cell which is itself a capacitor of sorts. For this reason I've mounted a plastic skull head on my Dry Cell in my 67 Volkswagen and the LED lamp glows for so long that it takes minutes for the glow to diminish at night time or in total darkness. I've noticed Dry Cells carry this on for much longer that wet dry cells (submerged) or Smacks units, probably due to the plates being dry on the outside. Possibly the reason why pulsing has a benefit.
No sir, I've done way too many tests of this type and we keep breaking new ground in this area alone. We now have broken into two teams to speed up what we find out and will unite our information next month. Do the 10 cells at 5 amps really make the same gas as the same cells at 50 amps brute force? I doubt it, but being our next venture we have not yet verified this claim made by others. I personally believe it will be better than brute force but with somewhat less gas production than the full 50 amps. The person claiming to do this claimed the same production as 50 amps at only 5. We will find out for ourselves and I will be glad to share this information once tests are completed. I will actually do it before I condemn it however.
Our current problem is the fact we have gotten remarkable efficiency numbers using pulsers or 1 ohm resistors. But pitiful overall gas production. We are hoping to apply what we've learned to get the same numbers at higher amperages. Not going to be easy for sure. On dry cells the individual cells can be separated and pulsed individually, or even disabled depending on driving conditions.
I've done your argument. In actual practice, things are different than you imagine. Instead of criticizing the ideas, I instead sought to figure it out. I find this stuff amazing! Takes on a life of it's own believe me. I looked at my notes from work we did even two months ago, and as happy as we were with those cells, they are garbage compared to what we've been able to assemble these days. The Dry Cell in my 67 Beetle was the best we had ever assembled 2 weeks ago. It's obsolete now. Yes, there is a lot yet to learn here.
Thank you Art for your very civilized posts... not only are they informative - they really make sense! :-)
For those who wish to join this forum - BE ADVISED.... You don't need to use Rudeness, Arrogance and Sarcasm to make you look smarter or more good looking. On the Contrary - it will only do anything but the mentioned attributes ... There is no excuse for Rudeness. Just go straight to the point. If you don't agree - just state so without showing your true color.
As what my 'best friend' GH mentioned before... What you post here will remain and will work both ways. It can either Make you or Break you. The proponents in this thread are respected professionals in their field and are not 'over-aged children' or trying to be some Smart Alek just to make an impression. They are here contributing what they know to enlighten the uninformed or ill-informed. They are also not selling you anything whatsoever. The object is to present, if you have a valid argument to refute - then we can have a rebatal of arguments. If you have no background in basic Argumentation and Debate... it's never too late to google about it.
Let the Good Guys in... and the Cons... just enter as you wish but try to be civil. OKIDOKI?
__________________
How can you sleep while your beds are burning?...
Last edited by ehnriko; 10-27-2009 at 02:41 PM.
Reason: grammar
I am fully aware that electric motors are vastly different from hydrogen cells. I am also aware that pulse modulation technique can greatly increase the efficiency of cells due to the different loading effect phenomenon when using them. They tend to lose efficiency when highly loaded/made to work harder and separating/sharing their load can help by keeping them working near peak efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artnesmith
Our current problem is the fact we have gotten remarkable efficiency numbers using pulsers or 1 ohm resistors. But pitiful overall gas production. We are hoping to apply what we've learned to get the same numbers at higher amperages. Not going to be easy for sure. On dry cells the individual cells can be separated and pulsed individually, or even disabled depending on driving conditions.
This, is in fact the sort of thing I would expect from such an experiment. Good efficiency increase but output will still be low. The tradeoff is mainly in the increase in hardware and complexity with using pulse modulation technique vs. brute force method. I'm pessimistic mainly about the 10-fold sharing = 10x output claim, unless the efficiency of the previous setup was outright atrocious and was made to do much more work than designed. Right now you're probably approaching the point of diminishing returns if not past it altogether. Soon you'd be at the limit of the technology if not simply
I'm curious to see if you can take it much further than what you have right now. While your initial post stated the 10-fold increase with the pulse technique the paragraph above shows more realistically what is possible.
__________________
Ang hindi marunong tumingin sa pinanggalingan, mababangga sa likuran! Drive safely everyone!
I promised to deliver the goods on Ford's collaboration with Dutchman Enterprises, and here it is. Of course, the video at cnbc.com is gone, or at least I can't find it. But I do have a lot of information in print as well as a letter from Dutchman Enterprises sent to Dr. Spreadbury, a member of our hydrogen group. If anyone can find the video at cnbc.com please pass it on. Here are some links: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Letters to Dr. Spreadbury: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
More information: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Dear god are your serious with these links?
These are about as creditable as testimonials. These no way anyone could just type those up right?
Now to crush your claims of this being legitimate. Do you really think the CEO of Ford would waste time with this company especially since they have a case filed against them by the federal trade commision. Here's a real site not done by places that sell or promote HHO junk. But one from the United States Federal government.
Please defend this. Why don't HHO guys bother to research before they post non credible information. The U.S is done with dealing with these kits and claims they have been proven not to work and 99% of their claims are false.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Quote:
FTC Sues Promoters of Bogus Fuel Efficiency Device
Ads Appeared in Major Magazines Promising to Turn Any Car Into a Hybrid
At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, a federal court has temporarily halted the deceptive advertising campaign and frozen the assets of an operation claiming its device can boost automobile gas mileage by at least 50 percent and “turn any vehicle into a hybrid.” The Commission is seeking a permanent ban on the ads and a further order providing reimbursement to customers who purchased the device.
The FTC filed a complaint against the promoters of the Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell (HAFC), which placed advertisements in Newsweek, Popular Science and Smithsonian magazines. The ads made phony claims that the device, priced at over $1,000, uses “longstanding, proven technologies” to drastically improve fuel efficiency, the complaint alleges.
The FTC’s complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Dutchman Enterprises, LLC and United Community Services of America Inc. (UCSA). It also names as a defendant Dennis Lee, chief operating officer of Dutchman Enterprises and president of UCSA. Lee is a convicted felon who has been prosecuted in at least eight states in the past for violating consumer protection laws.
In papers filed with the court, the FTC states that since at least February 2008, Dutchman and UCSA have used magazine and Internet advertisements to mislead potential customers into buying an HAFC kit, based on the false claim that it would increase auto fuel efficiency by 50 percent or more, and has been scientifically proven to do so.
According to the FTC, the advertising campaign has claimed that the HAFC kit offers “Incredible Savings,” fostering “Less Dependence on Foreign Oil.” One magazine advertisement claimed that the HAFC kit increased a 2007 Honda Civic’s gas mileage from 35 miles per gallon to 85 miles per gallon, and had increased mileage from 33 mpg to 121 mpg on a 2006 Mazda. Another ad claimed that the device would “double mileage, even with SUVs.” On a Web site registered to the HAFC promoters, they claimed to have “scientific data on over two hundred vehicles right now that have gotten over 50% increase in fuel economy and there are a dozen of the smaller four cylinder cars that have gotten over 100 miles per gallon.”
Lee made similar claims in video infomercials posted on the Internet, according to the FTC. The companies also promote the device through representatives, whom they referred to as “dealers.”
The FTC asserts the defendants’ advertising campaign has used pseudo-scientific explanations to describe how their device purportedly works. For example, according to the papers the FTC filed, the promoters of the HAFC have claimed that the device uses electricity to turn plain water into “water gas” that has five times the potential energy of gasoline, and that it uses powerful magnets to ionize gasoline so that it burns more completely.
However, in papers filed with the court, the FTC states that these and other claims defy well-established physical principles and contain “gross errors and misrepresentations of fact.” According to an expert hired by the FTC, the device does not even meet the scientific definition of a “fuel cell,” and several of the processes touted by the companies either are impossible or would lead to a net loss of energy. The promoters “are marketing a product that cannot exist and function as claimed,” the FTC stated in the court papers.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 4-0. NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law.
The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].
MEDIA CONTACT:Peter Kaplan Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2334STAFF CONTACT: Joshua S. Millard
202-326-2454
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
And this is a good one from Dateline NBC [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Now if you can get through the Dateline article and not know this is a scam by now then there is really no help for you.
Quote:
Historically whenever gas prices have gone up, charlatans have come out of the woodwork offering drivers all manner of devices that are claimed to provide dramatic reductions in fuel consumption. From magnets that are clamped to fuel lines, to assorted vacuum advance devices, and intake vortex generators and magical carburetors none of these have actually been demonstrated to work. Many of these old school devices can still be found, but one of the most popular new devices is the on-board hydrogen generator and injection system.
The basic premise is that injecting hydrogen into the intake stream will displace some of the gasoline required, reducing both gasoline consumption and emissions. Just have hydrogen and injecting it will actually achieve this result since the hydrogen burns and produces only water and trace amounts of NOx (although much lower than gasoline or diesel engines). Burning more hydrogen means less gasoline is consumed. Easy right? Not so fast there buddy! Where does that hydrogen come from? The marketers out there are selling on-board hydrogen generators which are claimed to provide enough hydrogen to reduce gas consumption by 30-40 percent or more. Is this plausible? Not even close. Read on after the jump to find out why.
[Sources: Wikipedia, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]][Only registered and activated users can see links. ] is a process that's been known for over two centuries. It's not complicated, just stick a pair of electrodes into water and pass a current through them. Oxygen bubbles will be produced on one electrode and hydrogen on the other. Unfortunately as with all such processes it isn't 100 percent efficient. Some of the electrical energy put into the system is lost as heat. The process has gotten better over the years but it is still about 70 percent efficient at best.
If you convert 1 US gallon of water to hydrogen by electrolysis it will yield [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (H2 gas). If the electrolysis is 100% efficient it will take 16.821 kWh of electricity to crack 1 gallon of water. That 420 g of H2 only has an energy density of 14 kWh [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]* .4206). That's 16% more energy to crack the water than you get out of it. At 70 percent efficiency that means it would take about 24 kWh of input energy to produce hydrogen with 14 kWh of energy output.
Quote:
To electrolyze water on the fly means the energy has to come from the engine via the alternator. Whatever electricity the alternator produces has to come from mechanical energy to drive it via the belt from the engine. That means the 24 kWh of energy will ultimately come from the engine while only 14 kWh will get put back in. As a result of this parasitic loss, on board hydrogen generation is an energy negative process that will actually reduce the total fuel efficiency of the vehicle because the load on the engine will be increased.
The only way that the fuel consumption of the vehicle can be reduced by hydrogen injection is to produce the hydrogen outside of the vehicle and store it as a gas on board. The total energy requirement doesn't change but off board generation opens up the possibility of using renewable sources like solar and wind to power the electrolysis.
With all of those companies selling on board electrolysis systems claiming to reduce fuel consumption there have even been news reports claiming these systems work. The answer to this is cheating. Ask any veteran NASCAR mechanic about places to store extra fuel on board a car. The same thing is being done by these scam artists. They are using stored hydrogen somewhere on board to make it seem as though their systems are beneficial.
Hydrogen injection is fine as a stop-gap but the hydrogen must be produced outside the vehicle. If home electrolysis systems or hydrogen filling stations are readily available, existing cars could fairly easily be retro-fitted with injection systems to reduce gasoline consumption. In India they are already experimenting with vehicles fueled by hythane (a blend of natural gas and hydrogen) but that is produced and sold that way.
The bottom line is don't waste your money on these devices. Want to save money and use less fuel? Drive less, consolidate trips, drive less aggressively.
dvldoc, the link you posted on the investigation on Dutchman is from last February. I read these things believe it or not and they've reached an agreement to change wording that implied performance beyond what the product was capable. Check into this further. When you do a search using keywords like "scam" "problems" "complaints" you get only the negative information.
In the 1 to 9,000 ratio I posted above for my Dodge Intrepid, be advised that this ratio comes out to a rate of less than .015%. I asked before, and I ask again, is this a fart in the wind by your definition? Waiting for your reply.
I am fully aware that electric motors are vastly different from hydrogen cells. I am also aware that pulse modulation technique can greatly increase the efficiency of cells due to the different loading effect phenomenon when using them. They tend to lose efficiency when highly loaded/made to work harder and separating/sharing their load can help by keeping them working near peak efficiency.
This, is in fact the sort of thing I would expect from such an experiment. Good efficiency increase but output will still be low. The tradeoff is mainly in the increase in hardware and complexity with using pulse modulation technique vs. brute force method. I'm pessimistic mainly about the 10-fold sharing = 10x output claim, unless the efficiency of the previous setup was outright atrocious and was made to do much more work than designed. Right now you're probably approaching the point of diminishing returns if not past it altogether. Soon you'd be at the limit of the technology if not simply
I'm curious to see if you can take it much further than what you have right now. While your initial post stated the 10-fold increase with the pulse technique the paragraph above shows more realistically what is possible.
You're right about the complexity and ease of use. That's on my mind every day as we continue to test and try new ways of applying current to these cells or changing the shape, spacing and construction of the cells. Recently I talked to a gentleman that built a homemade cell installed on a Dodge Diesel pickup truck. I mentioned just a few things we had done in layman's terms. He didn't understand anything I told him! There is such a thing as going overboard for minimal benefit. Someone that works with JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratories) recently gave us information on the work JPL did on this technology. They had a system so complex I doubt any average person could attempt to construct one. In their system the chemistry allowed for extra hydrogen production as well as generated some of its own electricity. They shelved it when it became apparent that the need for gasoline or diesel could not be eliminated as the amount of hydrogen necessary to run an engine could not be achieved solely with one of these units.
For all of you guys irritated at us for daring to build these, we're not going to bankrupt the oils companies because we still need gasoline or diesel. You jobs are still secure!
Re: Run your Car on Water!
Linear Mode
