Why Obama/Romney never say HHO or Magnets for fuel devices

All i know is that i made my own HHO devise and put it in my car, It was high maintanance but it gave me an extra 8 MPGs bringing me up to 30 MPGs.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Hijinx
Okay, and if a gasoline engine has a 20% efficiency, and an HHO has an 80% efficiency,

But it does not....

You're right, it doesn't have an 80% efficiency, BUT an internal combustion hydrogen engine is 20% more efficient than a gasoline engine.

I wiki'd that by the way. HHO engines are more efficient than gasoline period. The means of producing the fuel for the engine could pose an issue, what with have a life electrical circuit producing hydrogen AND oxygen in a closed vessel, I could see sloshing, some kind of sediment in the Electrolysis vessel causing a spark, followed by a catastrophic explosion.

How ever on the argument of gasoline vs Hydrogen, hydrogen wins. More efficient, less emissions, so can we lay that part to bed?

en.wikipedia.org...

Oh and there are even Forklifts that run on hydrogen, so it is a useful source of energy.

Now, hydrogen is notoriously dangerous when exposed to oxygen and a potential source of ignition. So the issue with hydrogen vehicles is not their efficiency, but the fact collisions, refueling, leaks in the system could result in an explosion is more than likely the reason these systems aren't mass produced. Not to mention, current costs are more than a typical gasoline engine, but that's more the fact no one mass produces hydrogen engines.

Originally posted by hawkiye
Where did you copy that nonsense from? The Alternator in most vehicles is already putting out more electricity then is being used so the excess is utilized for the electrolisis in an HHO generator and not requiring the engine to work harder. Gasoline is only about 20% efficient and most of it that you paid over 3 bucks a gallon for is going out the tail pipe or being burned in the catalytic converter with no benefit to the car.

The alt. may be putting out more voltage then your car needs but that is not watts/work. If you pull X watts from the alt. to split your water, the alt. will put a X * (1/alt efficiency) watt load on your engine. I don't know what the efficiency of a car alt. is, but I can guaranty it is

reply to post by numb99


Depending on the vehicle. Average is 40-100amps output, but again larger vehicles with more accessories can have much higher amp alternators. I did look it up, as well as the amount of energy for electrolysis, it would seem for a system to produce efficient gas for engine consumption would require electrodes with large surface areas for this to even be plausible, and the biggest set back to that is the materials needed for the electrodes are typically quite expensive.

It is however entirely possible for a car's alternator to provide sufficient energy for electrolysis, it's just the scale of it far outweighs the gain.

You'd be investing a hell of a lot of money and time working out the electrolysis system to keep up with the needs of the engine. I believe it could be done, but with the money required for materials, you may as well just purchase tanks of hydrogen, unless you're exceptionally well off. Electrolysis as a means of creating fuel for your car from water in the same system is just madness.

You'd almost be better off to procure the means to capture and compress said gas in a system at home, for later use in the vehicle itself.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

Before you make up your minds just inject 20 lpm of browns gas into your ride while blocking off the exhaust system and pulling the fuel relay fuse

are you claiming that 20l/min delivery of your alledged browns gas - will run an engine with no other fuel ?

PS - what displacement engine , and at what rpm ????????????????????

5.3l engine only low rpm and no other fuel.
however it does not run from the alternator alone. i have two 12v batteries and that is where the energy comes from. blocking the exhaust does not make a bomb it only slows the burn rate down enough so no engine mods are needed.
i am not claiming anything other than i was bored and wanted to run a gasoline truck from the power of the sun and have no emissions. it will idle until the batteries run down. the 200amp alternator causes to much drag at idle speeds but that may change at around 3000rpm.

reply to post by deadeyedick


On a 5.3L truck, you can get a significant increase, but you have to at least triple the amount of electricity generation. To do this, the most direct way is to remove the powersteering pump and air conditioner and run additional alternators in their place. If you have the means, you can also retrofit regenerative braking from the Chevy Hybrid truck. With all that extra amperage, you can produce enough Oxygen and Hydrogen Gas through electrolysis that it will significantly impact the fuel/air mixture. But, to make this effective, you also have to have a custom, programmable chip for tuning the engine, and you will need MAP and Oxygen sensors that can be adjusted for the new mixture. You are on the right track with the additional batteries. Using 4 batteries in series for the electrolysis is optimal. Your electrolysis canister also needs ideal catalysts to use as little electricity as possible. Making the water mixture about 30% alcohol, with a little bit of salt, and the correct anode/cathode screens will maximize the reaction.

Even with all of those optimal configurations, the only reason it works is because the engine was so inefficient to begin with. The 5.3L engine is producing a lot of horsepower for hauling and towing that isn't needed in everyday driving conditions. That wasted horsepower can be converted to the extra duties of electricity generation. BUT, if the truck was properly tuned and configured to only produce that horsepower as it is needed, and it was running efficiently without waste, then the electricity generation would just be an added load that produces less power than it requires to operate.

In other words, instead of wasting time creating a whole new inefficient system, engineers need to be working on making the current system as efficient as possible. WHICH, they are already doing with technology like randomly shutting down fuel injectors when the engine isn't under a load, and adding CVT transmissions, extra gears, synthetic lubricants, etc., etc.

The "Brown's Gas" is mostly a myth. It exists, but it is not the secret ingredient that makes HHO work. The H2 + O2 reaction is well known, and its properties are well studied, and it works, but it is much less efficient than using Hydrocarbons as fuel. There is a reason that the Hydrocarbons are as popular as they are. They are the cheapest and most efficient bang for the buck at this time.

reply to post by hawkiye

Hydroxy gas burns much hotter and quicker then gasoline and when introduced into the manifold acts like a catalyst to fully burn the gasoline with 80 - 90% efficiency thus increasing mileage from 20 - 80% along with more power and cleaning the engine.

Petrol 400 MJ per 100KM
Hydrogen 500 MJ per 100KM

Efficiency?

I'm a revhead. Done engine swaps, head gaskets etc so I know a little bit about cars. I like the fast ones and we mod them to go faster.
Putting strange fuels in your engine that the car was not designed to run on is not a good idea. Will probably damage your motor and I would never do that, but if you want to try it go for it. Don't be surprised if your motor dies though.

reply to post by JimTSpock

You are very correct.
I use a liquid ceramic treatment.
That alone will boost mpg

Yeh its not efficient right?


The inventor was killed... hrmmm

The Honda Clarity is a hydrogen car. It uses a hydrogen fuel cell to generate electricity to power an electric motor. But you have to get the hydrogen from somewhere to fill it up.

automobiles.honda.com...

The hydrogen fuel cell is better than using batteries I think because it fills up faster and you don't have to plug the car in for hours to recharge the batteries. Maybe this is the car of the future.

reply to post by LeoStarchild

Yeh its not efficient right?

Meyer was a fraud, previous attempts to dupe people was a scam that claimed you could fill your car with water and just add a tablet and it would run.

Police agencies getting duped into buying something useless does happen:

The GT200 is a fraudulent[1] "remote substance detector" that is claimed by its manufacturer, UK-based Global Technical Ltd, to be able to detect from a distance various substances including explosives and drugs. The GT200 and its many iterations (Sniffex, ADE651, HEDD1) have been sold to a number of countries for a cost of up to £22,000 ($36,000) per unit, but the devices have been criticised as little more than a "divining rod" which lack any scientific explanation for why it should work.[1][2]

en.wikipedia.org...

All the "HHO" kits require people to remap their oxygen sensors. The perceived improvements people are seeing is simply from that, which can be done without a contraption hooked up.

Seen here.

reply to post by JimTSpock


Fuel cells are different than HHO, however I do agree fuel cells are even more efficient, how ever the cost of a fuel cell to power a commercial car is somewhere in the $100,000-$300,000 range. As well they are subject to the same issues hydrogen gas is. They can explode, as well they have inefficiencies when running in high temperature environments, as well they have issues at freezing and below freezing temperatures. The water vapor, will become a solid rendering the cell useless.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye

Hydroxy gas burns much hotter and quicker then gasoline and when introduced into the manifold acts like a catalyst to fully burn the gasoline with 80 - 90% efficiency thus increasing mileage from 20 - 80% along with more power and cleaning the engine.

 

Petrol 400 MJ per 100KM
Hydrogen 500 MJ per 100KM

Efficiency?

The top should be 480. (I made a typo)

Essentially, hydrogen burns at about the same efficiency as petrol in automobiles.

Hydroxy gas burns much hotter and quicker then gasoline and when introduced into the manifold acts like a catalyst to fully burn the gasoline with 80 - 90% efficiency thus increasing mileage from 20 - 80% along with more power and cleaning the engine.

Given that we have already established a 1.5 HP load on the engine to produce "HHO" in situ, the alternator is only going to get 50-60% efficiency (Top ones claim 70%). *. Now that the power has been converted from gas, mechanical, to electrical, the efficiency of hydrolysis is usually around 70% in optimum conditions.*. Given that the MJ needed to power a hydrogen car is relative to powering a petrol car, there really is nothing efficient about making hydrogen under your hood.

If you start out with 100 MJ of petrol power, it will get converted by your alternator (x55%) ~55 MJ, then hydrolysis (x70%) ~38.5 MJ, then it needs to be combusted to give power to the wheels.

A full cycle of energy created from your onboard hydrolysis equipment will continuously decrease until the energy is null.

All you are doing is taking 100 MJ of potential petrol energy, reducing it to 38.5 MJ and then burning it as hydrogen. When you could have just burned the petrol and kept 100 MJ for direct usage.

Given that Hydrogen and Petrol are almost identical, from how far they can get by means of energy value.... I would really like someone to point out this major problem with the idea to me.

Or are we just going to keep spamming Stan Meyer videos and blame it all on big oil suppression?

reply to post by boncho


If there is no suppression going on then why would modifying your o2 sensors alone increase your fuel mileage? It seems irrational to build such an inefficient engine for so many years.

Also no one is trying to say that hydrogen is more efficient than petrol.
Only that a mixture of hydrogen and petrol is more efficient than petrol alone in the current engines.
Less emissions and mpg gain.
Look at where petrol comes from and look at how hho can be made from the sun through solar panels.

I do think that the new liquid metal batteries will change many problems with eletric vehicles and that may be the future of auto.

reply to post by deadeyedick

If there is no suppression going on then why would modifying your o2 sensors alone increase your fuel mileage? It seems irrational to build such an inefficient engine for so many years.

Exactly. People put their "HHO" systems on remapping the o2 sensors and wonder why their efficiency changes:

The engines designed for lean burning can employ higher compression ratios and thus provide better performance, efficient fuel use and low exhaust hydrocarbon emissions than those found in conventional petrol engines. Ultra lean mixtures with very high air-fuel ratios can only be achieved by direct injection engines.
The main drawback of lean burning is that a complex catalytic converter system is required to reduce NOx emissions. Lean burn engines do not work well with modern 3-way catalytic converter—which require a pollutant balance at the exhaust port so they can carry out oxidation and reduction reactions—so most modern engines run at or near the stoichiometric point. Alternatively, ultra-lean ratios can reduce NOx emissions

Lean burn engines.

1991–95 Civic ETi D15B 930 2050 4.8 20.8 59 MPG = 49 45 9.9 11.9 938 583 5spd manual, 3dr hatch, VTEC-E[2]

Knocking:

If detonation is allowed to persist under extreme conditions or over many engine cycles, engine parts can be damaged or destroyed.

Detonation.

-

Emission standards and engine cost, complexity. It's not that crazy...

Proponents, who sell the units (often called "HHO devices"), claim that the dynamics are often misconstrued, and due to the chemical properties of the resulting mixture, it is possible to gain efficiency increases in a manner that does not violate any scientific laws. Many tests by consumer watch groups have shown negative results. This technique may seem appealing to some at first because it is easy to overlook energy losses in the system as a whole. Those unfamiliar with electrodynamics may not realize that the electrolytic cell drains current from a car's electrical system causing an increase in mechanical resistance in the alternator that will always result in a net power reduction.[16][17][18] [19] Since it requires more energy to separate hydrogen from oxygen than would be gained from burning the hydrogen produced in this method, the concept of such a device is often stated to be in direct violation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

en.wikipedia.org...-11

Uh oh... Suppression!

One fuel-saving technology that undoubtedly has been supressed - but for very good reasons - is lean-burn.

However, in 1992 all these engines disappeared from the European market (and from the US market a few years earlier) with the adoption of the "Euro 1" vehicle emissions standards. Many people see this as "proof" that a conspiracy between oil companies, governments and car makers acted to supress the technology and so force people to use more petrol.

In fact the truth is much simpler, and can be summed up in one word: NOx. NOx (oxides of nitrogen) is one of the three main toxic pollutants from car exhausts, and by some measures is the most dangerous of the three.

However, despite all the above, lean-burn is not totally dead. Stratified-charge direct-injection engines (such as Audi's FSI and Ford's SCi) use an extremely lean mixture with fuel concentrated near the spark plug to help it burn. This reduces NOx to very low levels, and the engines also employ an additional "NOx trap" to store and destroy the NOx. In this way the required emissions levels can be met, while still giving very good fuel economy.

Unfortunately these engines are very expensive to make, because of the complex technology involved, and also require ultra-low sulphur fuel to give their best. As a result they have had limited sucess in the marketplace, but seem to indicate the likely future for the petrol engine.

www.fuelsaving.info...

If you remember back in the 80s Acid Rain was all the rage. Forget global warming and banking, acid rain was the "in" thing to get mad about...

Formation of nitric acid and acid rain
Mono-nitrogen oxides eventually form nitric acid when dissolved in atmospheric moisture, forming a component of acid rain. The following chemical reaction occurs when nitrogen dioxide reacts with water:
2 NO2 + H2O → HNO2 + HNO3
Nitrous acid then decomposes as follows:
3 HNO2 → HNO3 + 2 NO + H2O
where nitric oxide will oxidize to form nitrogen dioxide that again reacts with water, ultimately forming nitric acid:
4 NO + 3 O2 + 2 H2O → 4 HNO3

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by boncho


CONT:

Blame acid rain and the efforts to stop it...

Acid rain is caused by emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which react with the water molecules in the atmosphere to produce acids.

en.wikipedia.org...

Effects of acid rain.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye

Hydroxy gas burns much hotter and quicker then gasoline and when introduced into the manifold acts like a catalyst to fully burn the gasoline with 80 - 90% efficiency thus increasing mileage from 20 - 80% along with more power and cleaning the engine.

 

Petrol 400 MJ per 100KM
Hydrogen 500 MJ per 100KM

Efficiency?

This response it irrelevent because you did not read what I wrote or if you did you did not understand what I wrote as is indicative you quoting me out of full context...

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by hawkiye

Hydroxy gas burns much hotter and quicker then gasoline and when introduced into the manifold acts like a catalyst to fully burn the gasoline with 80 - 90% efficiency thus increasing mileage from 20 - 80% along with more power and cleaning the engine.

 

Petrol 400 MJ per 100KM
Hydrogen 500 MJ per 100KM

Efficiency?

This response it irrelevent because you did not read what I wrote or if you did you did not understand what I wrote as is indicative you quoting me out of full context...

I knew you would have no idea of what I was talking about, so I explained it much better in this post.

reply to post by boncho


Perhaps you could dumb it down for the slower part of ats,me.
You claimed there is no suppression and i gave you an example of suppression.
What rational reason do they have to serve us such crap?