OK, what KIND of engineer are you (do you drive trains)?

The clasic definition of a catalyst is:

"A substance which increases the rate of a chemical reaction without being consumed in the process."

Obviously the hydrogen generated by our electrolysis process will be consumed (adding a tiny bit of extra fuel to the gasoline fire in the cylinder). Every bit of that hydrogen combines back to form a nice water molecule. This leaves no byproduct at all, thus it cannot act as a catalyst.

In my experience, most engineers take at least a couple of chemistry classes, but maybe your school was outside the US (perhaps the University of New Guinea?) and thus had less stringent requirements, so we move on.

It is possible you were writing meataphoricly, and so were implying that the presence of free H2 in the combustion chamber might somehow combine with the gasoline vapor creating a more energetic fuel. In that case, we might have something to discuss, but I think that if such an improvement was possible the automotive engineers in Detroit (some of whom might have degrees from reputable schools) would probably have stumbled over it by now. After all, thousands of them have been spent entire careers investigating this same fuel technology, which is now more than 100 years old.

And so, we are left with that same old dismal 2nd Law problem. We can't get something (better MPG, higher performance, more power, etc.) for nothing. All the wishful thinking in the world won't change that.

Again, sorry.

d_of_e.

 

I might be willing to believe something along the lines of "hydrogen burns hotter, and the result of mixing it with gasoline is a more complete burn of said gasoline making the engine more efficient." Even if that were true, these devices don't produce enough hydrogen to have even a minuscule effect on the combustion.

Nobody that claims these things work has ever provided a valid theory as to why they might work, or provided any evidence that they do. This thread needs to die.

 

This is what I was suggesting. I suppose catalyst was the wrong word to use, whatever. The whole point of the "engineers in detroit would have stumbled over it by now" neglects the fact that car companies won't sell nearly as many cars if they require an additional fluid to be checked. Think about how few rx-8's they sell, and I guarantee you a large reason they don't sell well is because of the rotary consuming oil. People are much more accepting of what they know. Once you throw something new in there, everyone freaks out and throws a hissy-fit.

By the way, just because your differing, dead-locked opinion on the matter doesn't perfectly meet up with mine doesn't mean that you're better, smarter, or even that you have a better grasp on science and automotive design than I do. There are too many variables going into combustion to say definitively that a little bit of hydrogen won't do a damn thing to power, fuel economy, etc. Hell, changing out your coils on this car will make a difference of up to 30 horsepower, and that's all because the coils don't generate an extremely strong spark. There are so many different factors that can change from putting foreign chemicals into known system that the only way to really know for sure is to test it.

 

Yes exactly! just because we dont have a theory to explain it doesnt mean there isnt something there worth taking a look at.

If you say they cant generate enough gas then how come people are making blow tourches with cells like these? Look on youtube there is a guy on there that has a 12-15 part series explaining and showing you how you can get an engine to run off of H2. He has more accurate figures in there as to how much H2 you need and vice versa. Although his series focuses on running a car off of hydrogen, it still provides basic knowlege.

I love how people that dont totally understand something immediately dismiss it. There are a few valid vids on youtube with people having home made cells in their cars with instant MPG guage readings. all the info is out there, you just have to want to find it

 

I have to agree with OpTiCaL and onefatsurfer. Just because the automotive industry has not jumped all over the idea dosen't mean it's not a fesable option. There may be more to their choices in this regard than we know, such as the impact on sales and that they feel that adding water when filling will deter customers. What ever the reason, this thread is here to explore the options we have. I don't care about laws of thermodynamics or what ever. Can you honestly say that over the last decade the human race has not defied laws that were once thought to be unbreakable or unbendable. I dont have a degree in engineering or chemistry but i like to think we are able to design products that might challange the laws of science. Also who ever said this thread needs to die should post else where if he/she dosen't like what is being discussed here.

 

There have been cars already running on hydrogen for longer than most of us have been alive. And there have been people murdered and sent to insane asylums because of their findings and research. So out of respect for these poor folks, please research before ******* something that DOES work and people have lost their lives for. And for the people who "think" they understand physics, yet don't fully "understand" the concept, please research it more before pulling out and quoting from old college text books.

Electrolysis isn't "creating" hydrogen. It's merely a tool to extract it for use.

For some really cool stuff Google search "Geet Paul Pantone"

 

Well, people stumble on things like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-oOgytBWYs

And some people work years and dont give up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1M4a-UEmJI

 

Wow, i was kinda with you till that statement. Although electrolysis has more to do with dissociation than it does the laws of thermodynamics.

We used to think the earth was flat, that pluto was a planet, and dark matter was only in scifi, but now we have proof otherwise! This was all becuase someone didnt give up untill all options were exhausted.

 

FALSE!

FALSE!

This person is making false statements. Dont buy anything from him. He either doesn't understand what he is talking about OR he is just lieing to sell his product.

 

oh yeah and keep your eyes on mike aLLEN'S COLUMN AT POPULAR MECHANICS

http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...s/4271579.html

 

Sorry For The Caps- Holding The Baby And Too Tired To Fix It

 

In reply to zoom44 that was merly what they emailed me regarding what i asked them about. I just wanted to provide what info i had. Im not that gullable. I hope to optain hard facts rather than what a company says when trying to sell a product.

In reply to OpTiCaL i was just trying to get my point across. People keep mentioning laws of thermodynamics in argument to this theory. I won't claim to be an expert about this, but i was just trying to say that just because some one says it cant be done dosen't mean it can't. Does that sound right, I'm having trouble explaining exactly what im thinking. It is 2:15 in the morning though.

 

Ok i just read the artical posted by zoom44. Very interesting!! I will be following this artical to see how things work out. I know the author here shares the same, theres no such thing as a free lunch, view as many here. But he is still testing it himself to get all the facts. I hope it works but at least we will have a first hand report and a final decision in does this kind of kit work or not. I will remain optimistic though

 

I believe that it is possible.... it just needs a few thousand engineers to focus on the problem and created a few hundred patents and then one japanese company to put allt he patents together to make it work... thats usually how things are done in this world

 

I do not think that anyone here is arguing that hydrogen will or will not work in an engine, mazda has an 8 that is running on hydrogen.

The problem is with the way people are suggesting it be produced. Using the alternator to perform electrolysis is not the way to go, there will be losses in the system due to friction, heat, electrical resistance, mechanical losses, etc. this will result in energy in (to produce H2) < energy out (provided by H2) just as said before "no free lunch".

 

He's a tad off the scientific approach to testing ideas - his basic supposition about the whole concept of his article is that it is - "rubbish" and "There isn't no such thing as a free lunch."

Thanks for that Captain Obvious (although homeless centers across America seem to have already succeeded where he expects to fail on that last point).

Then he tells us he will proceed with the experiment. Yea-right...I'm not saying these others he mentions are 100% right, but....they are trying and putting money where they think there's a future success. On the other hand, his sarcastic arrogant attitude is just a tad much to be taken seriously, one way or the other. If all the famous inventors and scientists of history had such a negative view of the "impossible" where would the world be today?

There is a solution to our energy needs for transportation out there, and only people willing to fail, repeatedly, while changing small nuisances during each experiment will unlock the "impossible".

I guess his role is keeping the true charlatans at bay.

 

*Sigh*... I am really getting tired of that old "Detroit and/or Big Oil hide major advances in order to screw you." line. The reality is that GM and Ford, Exxon and BP and the rest are all out to make money. Remember, gasoline is a commodity. Everybody's product is pretty much identical to evreybody else's. This means that even a minor increase in applicable fuel energy content would be a huge selling advantage to both the oil company, and to any company making a vehicle that could use it. If there was ANY way to "hydrogenate" gasoline which would make the new product even slightly better for the same cost, it would have been done decades ago.

And no, research into hydrogen as a fuel is not "something new". Hydrogen powered vehicles go back decades (at least). What's new (maybe) about this is that you are introducing hydrogen (in very small quantities) directly into the combustion chamber to be burned alongside gasoline vapor. If I had even a couple of Internal Combustion Engine courses under my belt (wait, I do!) then I'd be suspicious of the possibillity that the hydrogen might not ignite at exactly the right time in the combustion cycle. Pre ignition of gasoline can quickly ruin an engine. Pre ignition of hydrogen is even worse in terms of the potential damage created (this is one of the tricky design issues facing hydrogen as a fuel in the first place).

No, I'm really not "dead-locked" on this issue. I've said right along that there may be some wiggle room in the "gasoline + H2 = Better" equation, but based on my earlier arguments, I feel the chance of that is well below 1%.

However, I DO feel that I am in fact better, smarter, and especially that I have a better grasp on science and automotive design than you do.


...and I love how people who don't understand something hasten to assume it's the best thing since sliced bread based merely on hearsay.

The issue is not about how much hydrogen you can generate with an alternator or whatever. It's about the 2nd Law requirement that the energy used to generate the hydrogen is far greater than the energy that hydrogen gives you back in the combustion chamber. In other words, it's a net loss no matter HOW much you generate. The same thing applies when you add a hydrogen "cell". You had to use energy to generate that hydrogen, yes? It came out of a wall socket, or in the form of a gasoline burning generator, right? How much did that energy cost? I bet it is more than the equivalent amount of gasoline for the same horsepower delivered to the wheels.

Hey, I have an idea! I'll sell folks "power cells" filled with a mystery fluid that increases MPG on all vehicles. Just trickle a little juice from my "power cell" into your fuel tank and Viola, you get better gas mileage. My secret? The "power cell" is just cheap gas (I can make it cheaper than regular gasoline because I can ignore detergents, additives and octane). Of course dribbling it into your tank will increase your MPG because you calculate that based on how many gallons you put in at the pump. My "power cell" gives you another couple of gallons which you don't use in your calculations, for an amazing 20% or so MPG increase! Even better MPG increases can be obtained using my patented "Placebro" additive (only $4.99 extra!) Pretty nifty, eh? Order now! Operators are standing by!


YES! Let's get off that, shall we?

Yes again! Why is this concept so difficult? Is there anything is our experience that does NOT work this way?

I don't think this thread should die, but I do think we should be very careful evaluating the claims being made by the folks who sell this stuff. Can they offer any real evidence? Remember, snake oil is a terrible lubricant and it leaves you with a nasty hangover!

d_of_e.

 

i never said using hydrogen in engines was new. i said that it's new to a person to have to add water to a separate tank for their car. economics is the reason why a hydrogen generator such as this, should it happen to work, would never have been included in a design by car manufacturers, until gas prices shot up to at least the levels they're at now. The inconvenience/stupidity/laziness factor would have made it not worthwhile.

Additionally, to think that GM/Ford/etc didn't suppress/ignore technology is retarded. Everything these companies put into their econobox cars is based solely on economics. In the 90's, when gas was cheaper than dirt, car companies had no reason to look toward increasing fuel economy. nobody gave a crap about fuel economy, they just wanted the biggest SUV they could buy. case in point: Turbochargers. Turbos are, without a doubt, an excellent tool to increase fuel economy. You can get the power of a larger engine with less displacement, and the power is only there when you need it. The technology has been around forever, but only now are the car companies really starting to use turbos as a way of getting better fuel efficiency. why? because now, fuel efficiency is what the public wants. The only fuel efficiency options that car companies did were ones that wouldn't increase the cost of a car by much, and definitely only ones that won't detract from the amount of sales the car makes. They use EGR because it's cheap and the average joe doesnt even know that it's there. Hell, people don't even change their oil on time...

 

D of e has some valid points that make me think more about the hydrogen production via electrolysis. However i have to disagree with d of e regarding car companies motives and agree with onefatsurfer on this one. IMHO car companies are no doubt driven by the almighty dollar. We need to remember a car company is a business and in any successful business money needs to be made at the cheepist cost to the seller. Now that money can be made by creating a car that has the power most of us want with the added bonus of fuel economy the car companies are starting to look at new ways to produce this.

 

Yeh, theres other ways other then electricity, I quote youtube alot since its prettymuch prof, especialy info from the guys that arnt in it for the money. Bet this would run your car pretty good for a onboard hydrogen producer, just gotta keep the nasty gook out of your engine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e85aPS6P72A

 

hehe, i like it when ppl quote me Clearly you did not read any of my previous posts... and last time i checked electricity is the cheapest for of energy... at least my electric bill is the lowest and all my appliances are electric!

The funny thing is your "power cell" would proly make a few 100 grand!