Run your car engine on water!

Status
Not open for further replies.
We are possibly talking about 5 different types of energy transfers. Mechanical to electrical,(= Loss in energy, agreed) electrical to chemical (=loss in energy, agreed), chemical to chemical (???) and chemical to mechanical and even mechanical to mechanical.

I just think problem for some not understanding how this does not break any laws of TDs, may be they don’t consider the chemical to mechanical energy transfer and the mechanical to mechanical transfer and how they work together. During the combustion, energy transfers from liner to rotary. This works better at different points and less at others. At TDC or “0” degree no energy is transferred, between 10 and 60 ATDC degrees much energy is transferred, and between 100 and 175 little energy transfer. If gasoline starts burning 20 degrees BTDC or more, and continues to burn to 180 degrees ATDC and more, then some of that energy has little to no chance to be transfered to the rotary crankshaft. If the burn curve is shorten (by speeding the flame) and the same energy (or even less) is in effect squeezed into the optimal transfer points then that would equal more energy transferred and less energy wasted. You can see why this does not break any Laws of Thermal Dynamics. IMO, Further evidence of this happening, is the lower exhaust temps, lower head temps, and lower hydrocarbons in the exhaust. IMO These 3 things point to faster more complete combustion.

I will cut to the chase. Bottom line is my personal generator tests has in fact shown lowered fuel consumptions when boosting with HHO. (Which are easily duplicated by anyone) I electrolyzed water with power generated from the 12 volt side of the generator. The load being constant and the same in all tests. 3000 watt generator under 1900 watt load. The governor controlled the throttle position. The least amount gain I saw was 8%. That was without changing anything on the engine.

This does not prove that it works on every engine, but it does prove my point. If I get fuel efficiency gains consistently, on this simple ICE, then this alone proves HHO boosting CAN’T be breaking any Laws of Thermal Dynamics.

Here are some papers…
http://www.floridabiodieselinc.com/HHOdiesel.pdf
Here is 1 paper on the effect of Hydrogen boosting. But it is not the same ratios that most find beifial. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf
Here a video Of a Young man’s collection of papers on the subject HHO boosting. (You can find the papers he mentions by Google searches) He is apparently doing this for his Doctorate thesis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4BQ4nfn2To&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DSYs0qIa-U&feature=related


Most folks who play with HHO boosting say that the gain comes from the new flame speed and burning cariterstics. And don’t attribute any other factor. http://www.fuelsaver-mpg.com/store/how-does-hho-work . (Personally I do think there is other factors)

I plan on doing more tests this summer to isolate the effects of the water vapor from that of browns gas. I will be trying to see how far I can push this gains, weather it be water vapor & or HHO.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Roland
I will cut to the chase. Bottom line is my personal generator tests has in fact shown lowered fuel consumptions when boosting with HHO. (Which are easily duplicated by anyone) I electrolyzed water with power generated from the 12 volt side of the generator. The load being constant and the same in all tests. 3000 watt generator under 1900 watt load. The governor controlled the throttle position. The least amount gain I saw was 8%. That was without changing anything on the engine.


I did a quick glance on those papers, and will have to read more thoroughly to get a better feel. However, from what I saw, and from what your experience tells me, the gains in efficiency are mostly noted in engines that are not very advanced or tweaked for efficiency by the factory already. I'll also have to check the work on the first paper, and see if the authors correctly accounted for the fact that they generated the gases using a separate generator.

Diesels are fairly efficient, by their nature. There still are, however, lots of gains to be made, particularly in diesel generators. Some of the more modern diesel engines have less room to maneuver.

Older gasoline engines and gasoline generators, too, have a lot of wiggle room. It's going to be much easier to get a little extra efficiency out of an old, carbureted design, even using electrolysis, than it would be out of a modern vehicle. What works with an old Honda generator isn't going to work on a brand new Prius.

Extra oxygen can help when an engine uses a carb. We all know how inefficient they are compared to fuel injection. As you've stated, it's about getting as much energy out of the gas as we can. With a modern gasoline engine, you're going to run into diminishing returns, or even be counterproductive to the systems already in place.

By the way, the load you tested of 1900 watts, was that an externally generated load? I'm just trying to clarify how you accounted for output used to power electrolysis.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak

Older gasoline engines and gasoline generators, too, have a lot of wiggle room. It's going to be much easier to get a little extra efficiency out of an old, carbureted design, even using electrolysis, than it would be out of a modern vehicle. What works with an old Honda generator isn't going to work on a brand new Prius.

Actually Bob Boyce did boost his Prius with some success. I think he claimed 65 MPG hwy in flat FLA driving.

But I do agree less efficient engines have much more to gain.


Originally Posted By: Garak
By the way, the load you tested of 1900 watts, was that an externally generated load? I'm just trying to clarify how you accounted for output used to power electrolysis.

I ran 8 halogen lights as the load on the 120 volt side. The electrolyzer was on the 12 volt side, the draw was about 8 amps. Really my Generator fuel use testing has barely gotten started at this point. I have many test planed this summer. I really want to understand why Water Vapor by itself gives significant gains in fuel saving. I’m really more interested in WVI lately (Steam in particular) It is much simpler than HHO boosting and gives what seems like the same types results.
 
Roland said:
Actually Bob Boyce did boost his Prius with some success. I think he claimed 65 MPG hwy in flat FLA driving./quote]

I still have some reading and analysis to do. As for "real world" testing, I'm skeptical. There are too many uncontrollable variables in real world driving. Bench tests, like what you're conducting and were referenced in the papers, have a lot less variables.

I took about a 300 mile round trip one day a few years back in a 1990 Town Car. On the way out, I got about 22 mpg, thanks to a headwind. The tail wind on the way back gave me an astounding 38 mpg (in a 302 V-8 boat, no less). That would not have been a good day to test electrolysis, even though the ambient temperature didn't change, the route was the same, same oil in the engine, same speeds, and so forth.
 
Garak, I skipped the chemical reaction subject because i think the mechanical part was more important. and i wanted you to have a chance to review those papers. But I did want to address the chemical reaction subject. And explain how gains are made there also.

This thread does a better job than i could, so ill just supply the link, Bob Boyce and the other BB ke6gwf have Great info on HHO
http://www.fuel-saver.org/Thread-Testing-The-Strength-Of-your-HHO-Gas?page=2
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top