It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by CriticalCK
Big deal. He is either not telling the truth or not measuring correctly. The armchair scientists are right. All it takes is a very basic understanding in chemistry - topic: bond energy.
source
US Cl. 48/197FM; 204/268 // 048/197.0FM; 204/268 Int'l. Cl. C10L 3/00 20060101 C10L003/00
Also published as: WO2005076767 (8-25-2005 )
Abstract --- An electrolyzer which decomposes distilled water into a new fuel composed of hydrogen, oxygen and their molecular and magnecular bonds, called HHO. The electrolyzer can be used to provide the new combustible gas as an additive to combustion engine fuels or in flame or other generating equipment such as torches and welders. The new combustible gas is comprised of clusters of hydrogen and oxygen atoms structured according to a general formula H.sub.mO.sub.n wherein m and n have null or positive integer values with the exception that m and n can not be 0 at the same time, and wherein said combustible gas has a varying energy content depending on its use.
Description RELATED APPLICATION [0001] This patent application is a divisional application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/760,336 filed on Jan. 20, 2004, which is a continuation-in-part application of the U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/277,841 filed on Oct. 22, 2002, a continuation-in-part application of the U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/065,111 filed on Sep. 18, 2002, and a continuation-in-part application of the U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/826,183 filed on Apr. 4, 2001.
www.hytechapps.com...
Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc. (HTA) has recently completed an initial round of testing with a Ford F250 (diesel) and on-board system producing Aquygen® gas. HTA was able to show about a 21% increase in fuel economy for these initial tests. Results from this testing can be seen at this link.
You maybe getting better gas mileage by creating a more efficient combustion in the cylinder and eaking out all the power that gallon of gasoline can produce.That's not the same as running solely on hydrogen created by onboard electrolysis.
The HHO process is inefficient and definitely not over unity. But the people making tweaks other than just adding HHO may be getting some changes from the other tweaks they make irrespective of the HHO part of the mod, like tampering with the smog controls might cause the car to fail the smog test, and some of these extra modifications would definitely cause the car to fail the visual inspection by the smog test facilities in my area, as pointed out by this Pop mechanics guy who's experimenting with HHO kits:
Originally posted by CriticalCK
Big deal. He is either not telling the truth or not measuring correctly. The armchair scientists are right. All it takes is a very basic understanding in chemistry - topic: bond energy.
So when he says that "I also think that these mods may be increasing fuel economy independently of the HHO injection." and the mods tamper with the federally mandated smog control systems, then yes it's plausible that the other modifications can have an effect on fuel consumption. But according to the author who tested the HHO kit, it's not the HHO kit that's resulting in any improvement, it's the other mods that likely involve tampering with a federally mandated emissions control system.
But guess what? My fuel economy is exactly the same, whether the HHO generator is turned on or not. And that's exactly what I expected. This isn't anecdotal evidence from several tankfuls of gasoline. It's steady-state, flat-road testing, and I don't even pretend to have actual economy numbers. I'm using fuel-injector pulse widths directly from the OBD II port. That means I'm measuring the actual time the injectors are open and delivering fuel. When the HHO generator is toggled on, there's no change. And when it's turned back off, there's no change. Well, the computer's system voltage sags a couple of tenths of a volt, indicating the current drain to run the electrolyzer.
Before you HHO proponents start bombarding me with hate mail, chill. You may have some amazing anecdotal evidence that these systems work. But I'm not swayed by over-the-road proof unless the conditions are constant--the variables are too, well, variable. And that includes my own testing. There's too much noise in the data collection, statistically speaking, and quite a bit of room for experimenter bias. From considerable experience with other gas savers, I know even the subtlest change in driving habits can influence the results. I won't be convinced of any fuel savings until I see results on a dynamometer, where I can control everything except the HHO.
I spent a good hour on the phone yesterday with Fran Giroux of hydrogen-boost.com. He tells me that the HHO injection is only an enabler for other devices and changes. The fuel savings doesn't come from the energy contained in the hydrogen as it's burned, which is what I've asserted all along was implausible. Giroux sells a system of modifications that disables the engine management's computer and makes the engine run extremely lean--as lean as 20:1. That's far from the normal 14.7:1. The hydrogen is necessary to let the ultralean mix burn completely, he claims. There's also a heater for the fuel to promote complete vaporization, and some additives for the fuel and oil to complete his system.
Interesting? Why, yes. But there's a catch.
These mods come under the category of tampering with a federally mandated emissions control system, making it impossible to pass the underhood visual inspection component of many state smog inspections. To pass this underhood check, no part of the emissions control system can appear to have been modified or disabled. Add in the OBD II pass-fail to the smog check, and odds are these modifications will keep you from getting a smog sticker. That means you might have to disable--and perhaps remove--the system to pass the annual test. Just don't get caught in between.
I had another long talk yesterday with Steve Rumore, my off-road buddy turned HHO donater. He's experimenting with several vehicles, and actually getting some consistent results--fuel-economy improvements to the tune of 10 to 12 percent on diesel trucks pulling trailers. He's tinkering with some of the same things Giroux is suggesting. We're looking into ways to refine both his and my experimental methods. But I'm convinced there's a lot of placebo effect. I also think that these mods may be increasing fuel economy independently of the HHO injection. So stay tuned, because we're still testing. Once we get some more data onboard, we'll be dyno testing.
Originally posted by CaptainIraq
Basic thermodynamics. Can't get as much, or more, energy out (especially not with combustion) as you put in to separate the H2 and O2 gases.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
The only reasonable way to do this would be Hydrogen fuel cells, but even that's not an efficient process. Besides, it would be nice to avoid using the same stuff we need to survive to power our cars .
The really interesting/promising stuff has to do with super/ultra-capacitors. Lots of energy storage and a much higher charge/discharge rate than any Lithium Ion battery.
Originally posted by James1982
The fact this thread has gone on so long shows some people don't understand some fundamental issues.
I'll try to break it down in a way that's easy to understand:
Electricity is ran through water, which breaks it into Hydrogen and Oxygen.
You route the Hydrogen to the combustion chamber in the motor, then it combusts and moves the pistons, which turns the crankshaft, which turns the belts, which turn the alternator.
The electricity from the alternator is routed back to the water, to split the Hydrogen and Oxygen out of water.
Yeah it sounds good, but it won't work. Ever. It's not physically possible. Why?
Because when you are using electrolysis to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, you are using a given amount of energy. Lets call that value "n"
So the process of splitting water into Hydrogen and Oxygen consumes "n" amount of energy. Now you have the Hydrogen in a free and combustible form. Here is the kicker. The amount of energy contained in the hydrogen, is always going to be LESS than "n" This is physics. Simple physics, really, that many here are too dense to understand.
So when you use electrolysis to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, you are always going to consume more energy, than the energy contents of the Hydrogen that you have isolated. This is fact, and it's never going to change.
So it doesn't matter where the electricity comes from, as long as it's coming from the combustion of the Hydrogen, it's a circular system that is operating at a loss. Meaning, even if you were JUST trying to have a motor/generator combo that ran on ITS OWN with just water, it wouldn't work. Add in the energy required to move a car, AND split water? Sorry, it's BS
Your car was in hideous shape if 20 percent of the fuel wasn't being burned.
Originally posted by deadeyedick
you are right and wrong.the gain from one hho cell on your car is to help the gas burn faster and cleaner.Once the proper adjustments are made to the computer the vehicle will see an average of 20 percent better gas milage and the exhaust is cleaner than most new vehicles if not better since all the gas is being burnt.
So if you really got a 20% improvement due to a more complete burn, it was because your car was in hideously bad shape. You won't get that from a more complete burn of gas in a well maintained modern car where the total opportunity is only 1-2%.
A more complete / faster burn.
Typically makers of these product suggest that a large proportion - 10% or more - of the input fuel escapes unburnt from the engine, to be either released into the atmosphere as pollution or uselessly burnt in the catalytic converter. This is just not true, at least for any reasonably modern car in good condition - the true loss is only about one or two percent, so the potential for improved economy is equally small.