Feds

Truth be told, the later EV1s were pretty solid little cars. If you lived in a warm climate.

The Volt could be better, but from what I am getting out of my boys on the inside, it won't be. Typical GM middle-of-the-roadedness will kill it.

I am starting to cotton to the idea of a battery electric with a removable or trailer-mounted generator. Gas-comparable range when you need it, electric only operation when you don't, with no weight penalty to kill your range.

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

Pure plug-in electrics are also problematic - mainly because their range tends to be limited to 40-100km in real-world driving (meaning the stop-and-go of urban environments, not highway cruising). Fine for many people's commute to work (although in large or sprawling cities, like Toronto or Calgary, there would be lots of people who would need access to charging during the day to make the return trip). But completely useless for longer trips. So I'd still have to have, or have access to, a hybrid or conventional fuel car. That may work for many multi-car families, but not for those who rely on a single vehicle. Major breakthroughs in battery technology do NOT appear to be on the imminent horizon, so extending the range of pure electrics remains primarily an exercise in making them smaller and slower - neither of which will expand their appeal.

A plug-in hybrid, such upcoming as the Chevy Volt, might have enough range and flexibility. Since it promises ~60km typical range in pure electric mode, that will get a lot of people to, and possibly from work just on grid-charged battery power. But having the gas engine to recharge the batteries and power the car in conventional mode means not being stranded or limited to short trips. I do have to suspect that battery life of the Lithium ion may be an issue if the car is heavily used in pure electric mode - lithium batteries last best if not deeply discharged or fully charged too often (the Volt will actually only charge to ~85% on plug-in juice for that reason, so allowances do appear to be made).

Do we want to go back to the thread topic of using on-board electrolysis of water to generate hydrogen and O2 to supplement a conventional gas motor?

Trots*88TII-AE*

iTrader: (11)

umm... no

Fair enough, I didn't really want to bring GM up. All I said was I liked the idea of it, being able to operate fully battery-powered, plug in to charge, and run gas as an auxiliary charging method. It's makes a whole lot more sense then having to rely solely on gas engines to charge your battery, and you still have as much range as you have fuel.

I'm not saying pure electrics are perfect, or are the answer, I just don't think that hybrids are as cracked up as they make them out to be. Do you honestly believe that a Prius is better than a similarily fuel efficient diesel?

And really, if we look at how far batteries, and electric-powered vehicles have come in the past 25 years, I wouldn't be that surprised if they become much more practical and common in the next 25. The tesla Model S claims to have a 480 km range (300 miles), cost $4 in hydro to charge and only take 3-5 hours for a full charge (45 minutes for a quick, 80% charge). If it can do what it says, it'll be a pretty good step for electrics. Again, hard to say if they'll even make it as an auto manufacturer.

Aaron Cake

iTrader: (1)

That point is a fuel efficient vehicle though. The Insight is another story of course, because it is the one hybrid that actually delivers on it's promise. I don't think I would personally ever consider a 50+ MPG diesel to be at all equal to a 90+ MPG Insight. I don't drive the car for environmental reasons so if it does turn out that building an Insight causes more damage then a diesel (I don't think that's true when you look at the life cycle of the car) I wouldn't care.

I was excited about the Volt, until I saw what GM did to it.

Yeah...I was excited to see the Volt. It's drivetrain, bold styling and short electric range (adequate for my daily in-city driving) made me really start to consider purchasing it (and it would take a lot for me to buy from GM). But now that it looks like a Malibu...yeah, not so much with the interest. And the price! My word...

That's a plug in hybrid. A small gas engine that's on board seems to be the popular setup and I'm starting to change my opinion on that. As long as the space is used for batteries and not fuel (a tiny 5 gallon tank is enough) then it's a good way to go and far more acceptable to normal people then a little trailer.

This info is a bit out of date, though. We've had batteries for a long time that triple that range. It's a chicken and egg problem: batteries are expensive to produce because of no mass production. But because they are expensive, there is no demand and thus no mass production.

I do agree that the Volt is an interesting stepping stone. However the upcoming plug-in Prius will eclipse it easily on probably all fronts. Toyota just knows how to build a mass produced hybrid and it's only a tiny bit more to add plug in capability to their platform. GM is nearly clueless.

classicauto

iTrader: (3)

Yeah my response was misleading. I didn't mean the car itself was a failure (entirely..) but rather that they HAD that platfrom almost 20 years ago, and crushed nearly every one they made because, um..............urrr, well.....aaaa who knows!

I'd lay money on that!

Uncleskunky

New member feel free to flame, I been lurking for awhile, became a member just to reply in this thread.

I am not a proponent of the HHO tech as I have not tried it myself. But consider this, how is this different than say refining a given amount of crude with the power of your engine?
The water is consumed as is the cathode and anode over time, and wear on the mechanicals.Nothing free, not overunity, magical or perpetual. Loss is evident in every conversion that I am aware of. Even EV born of solar and wind energy with generators gifted by aliens.

Advances in ignition are no different, its all a trade off.

IMHO a leaner burning engine that doesn't preignite is more efficiently using the fuel to produce comparable power given the conditions, once again, not magic. Is it practical? That depends on a lot of factors mostly market based.

Citing the second law of TD to identify the result in a multi input/loss leveraged system is not as easy as some here suggest.
Further more at first glance HHO seams to have some catalytic properties, again I don't know this but it is a curiosity.
To be the devils advocate, and satiate curiosity I am learning as much as I can from a "emergency" stand point and in respect to multifuel applications.

This link http://www.marchlabs.com/default.asp is to a site with cells as well as free plans and engine management work around devices. The prices cant reflect much in the way of profit when one considers components and labor to assemble and test. Not sure what that means, but they may be the hardest working scammers on the planet if this is all fraud.

If I am understanding the concept at all and engine management is functioning one would not notice the difference by holding there foot in one place and cycling the power. However If normally dangerous advance timing is obtainable they may destroy their engine do to pre ignition. However this would be directly related to how much the system depended on the cooling effect of water formed upon recombination of burning HHO. Likely not much since it has been stated that the volume able to be produced is limited.

Thanks for playing...

Black91n/a

With refining crude, you're taking something with stored chemical energy, separating the various components, then extracting the chemical energy from those components. The beginning does not equal the end.

With HHO, you're taking water, inputting energy to make the gasses, then re-combining it by burning it, whereby you make water once more. Here your beginning equals your end, minus all the inefficiencies along the way.

Uncleskunky

What point are you making? carrier versus stored? the difference comes down to calories to convert, pure and simple, like I said " is it practical?"

Both require energy in to extract usable fuel, a conversion that has loss. with HHO, The recombination of HHO, (the burning of it) and the loss is reflected in the amount of effluent which is less than what you start with(i'm told) as well as all the other mechanical inefficiencies. However the water that is reformed also contributes to the enhancement or increase in efficiency. If you follow the original posters link and watch the video's produced by the guys at ush2.com they do a good job of explaining the effects of hydrogen on combustion and go on to suggest how you can use small percentages of hydrogen as the "octane" to enhance the combustion of very low grade fuels(moonshine). very interesting stuff. 100 years old but interesting just the same. Once again one needs to do research before condemning this as it may very well have a positive effect.

Mit was doing research of this kind ten years ago,hydrogenating fuel.There are electro chemical reactions with fusion like properties that are currently being researched.

Theories of relativity are known by academia to be false but "close enough" for now as they say.

anyone who doesn't believe in conspiracies amongst oil producers and govm't should get their nose out of their physics book and pick up a news paper.

Staff members of the current administration wrote thesis on infiltration of newsgroups and forums like this one to subvert politically incorrect ideas and trends. Sure it sounds like I'm ranting, but maybe I should be as should you.


counting 12345678910... all better...

But above all, seeing is believing....

Black91n/a

The point is that you get a bunch of energy out of refining then burning crude (it starts out with energy in it, vs the "no" energy case of water), whereas in the theoretical, perfect world where no losses exist, the very best you could ever hope to acheive with HHO is no losses of energy.

If you want a cleaner burning, more fuel efficient engine on the cheap, get a megasquirt and tune it. This has been shown repeatedly to give power and efficiency benefits, substantial ones at that.

Aaron Cake

iTrader: (1)

See this thread in my forum:
http://www.aaroncake.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7606

Links to research papers and excerpts are in the thread. Long story short, it takes a lot more hydrogen then is produced by any of these home made Water4Gas devices by orders of magnitude.

And there you have it. Only took until the 2nd post until the conspiracy theory angle is introduced.

Uncleskunky

perhaps i am missing your point, are you suggesting that hydrogen from electrolysis is a myth? the tech has been known for over a hundred years.
the link i posted suggests that hydrogen "characterizes" fuels, enhances fuel, the increase in efficiency is "triggered" the increase is a enhancement to the base fuel. The link suggests ratios of 5-7% h2 to fuels that would not burn at all in an ice can be used efficiently.
I do not believe in magic, and know that certain volumes/percentages would be necessary, but all the opposition here and everywhere else is unable to produce those figures.And using the laws of thermodynamics is misapplied in this regard i believe.I do not suggest there is anything free in this

Uncleskunky

Can you quote figures? the back ground and layout of your forum makes my eyes bleed.

That statement was in response to a you tube video someone posted with an englishman "debunking" the on board hho devices, never stating figures, only repeating what someone else said,flaming people as conspiracy nuts. Call me a nut but until you produce figures I will only consider you uninformed.

please explain how "big oil" will embrace a business model where individuals can produce there own fuel? perhaps then you can regain some credibility.

a business model that relies on induced obsolescence would be conspiracy would it not? individuals joining together to oppose an idea without factual credibility is a conspiracy.


don't be a sheeple, bring some figures to the table.

classicauto

iTrader: (3)

By all means I urge you to follow your above advice after:

Base lining some mileage on your current car
Building and installing an HHO system
Recording the massive benefits afterwards!

Then we can be swooned by your figures and have our heads withdrawn from the sand.

In all seriousness, it doesn't work (as you would expect, and as people tout it to) You can make the hydrogen. You can burn the hydrogen. But thats where the truth of this ends.

EDIT: The only way HHO will make my car go further for less money out of MY pocket is if I sell a homemade HHO kit to some sucker who pays me in fuel.

EDIT2:

You read popular mechanics at all?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...o/4276846.html

Now perhaps his findings are off. I think most of those guys at PM are part owners of Shell

Uncleskunky

I am not saying it does/doesn't work, as much as others want someone to prove it does i would like someone to prove it doesn't.

i have and continue to research the material, i am not satisfied to parrot others statements, and I only suggest that those who do have their heads in a much darker comfortable place.

it has been confirmed by mr. cake that the effects of induced h2 have the indicated results, leaner more complete combustion. now for volume and density, again is it practical?
the plasmatron mentioned on mr.cakes forum is the device i mentioned developed by mit. from his thread i gather they where reforming h2 from cng, To my understanding reformation takes place at 1000c. what is the efficiency of this process?
I believe electrolysis of water is 40% efficient. I am trying to learn, not sell you a HHO generator.

If you know why it doesnt/cant work, post the figures.

if you don't know, say I don't know...

Together now "I don't know"

Aaron Cake

iTrader: (1)

I'm not going to copy and paste 4 pages while trying to keep formatting in place.

Just disable visual styles in your browser.

In IE: Tools -> Internet Options -> Accessibility (button) -> check "Ignore colors specified on webpages"

In Firefox: Tools -> Options -> Content -> Colors (button) -> uncheck "Allow pages to choose their own colors...."

The research papers linked to on my forum provide all the numbers, figures, etc. needed to debunk this crap, when common sense is ignored.

Uncleskunky

I managed to read the relevant post with the gov'mt study link, haven't read the study yet.
what i did gather,from your forum and previous reading on the subject is that the device is reforming the hydrogen from the base fuel, with plasma. You are no doubt interested in the figures of volume and density as its obviously a different process requiring different energy input. As a comparison I am not sure if there is any relevance.

The folks at the ush2 site have comparable percentages indicated but are using substandard fuel, and a "unthrottled" mechanism. so the question remains what volume and density will effect the previously confirmed combustion characterization of pump gas? can it be achieved on vehicle?, is it practical?

Common sense?
Ever heard of the semleweis syndrome?

Uncleskunky

Did you read beyond the title?

they state that some folks are experiencing some "consistent results" 10-12% on diesel applications, but they are probably imagining it, I love that.

Another thing hard to move much gas with that line he's using, systems Ive seen use line much larger.

I don't think he's your champion, son...

But we'll put him down as a maybe in the yes or no category.

Uncleskunky

This is good advice, I have investigated the megasquirt and would love to fool with one, originally to FI my motorcycle. The MS would allow a person to really see what if anything is going on with HHO. A wideband(afr) would greatly enhance the investigation. Imagine if there was an increase in efficiency, and one could use sequential spray and spark. I am mostly interested in H2 for its capability to characterize homemade fuel, even to the point of producing it off vehicle and storing in a carbon fiber tank. Being a conspiracy theorist/nut my faith in infrastructure and corporate benevolence is non existent. I don't like to depend on established fuel streams. My vehicles have always been my wellspring of independence.

classicauto

iTrader: (3)

The thing is - it doesn't. It works in the theoretical sense....its creating hydrogen and that gas is being burnt in the engine and thats where it stops.

So build one?

If you're horny for numbers, lets just play for a second with some basic, round numbers.

If a car gets 10L/100km highway (assuming 100km/hr)
To increase the mileage by, lets say a modest 20%, you need to displace 2L of fuel per 100km. Or using a time average, create 2L of hydrogen fuel in slightly under a minute, every minute.

Knowing this - and ignoring entirely the fact that you need to burn more hydrogen then gas to get the same net energy - try to fill a 2L bottle with hydrogen from electrolysis in one minute. (FWIW the traditional science class room experiment will fill a small ballon in about 4 minutes)

This production CAN be accomplished, but not at the sub 500W you'll be able to recover from your charging system. You'd need more on the order of 5 to 6 KILO watts (and a more effcient unit like a stuart IMET generator used in hydrogen production plants) which just simply won't happen from an 80-100amp alternator. The most the alt. itself would generate would be around 120watts before you start to simply run the battery dead.

The possibilities of it working are alluring, but even in an ideal example, ignoring losses, ineffciencies and well.....reality for the most part it doesn't look that awesome. The theory is sound, but the results are not. If it were true science it would be repeatable. If its magic one person will have amazing results while other won't notice any change. The only repeatable item in this process is the hydrogen production - because its science.

The plasmatron reformer technology is relatively new (IIRC around 1999 they were testing it on buses) and it has nothing to do with an HHO system. Its a promising technology but alot of it revolves around reducing emissions by converting gases in the exhaust into useable fuel for the engine. Its promsing but entirely seperate from HHO magic and fairydust.

classicauto

iTrader: (3)

Whoops mixed up

Uncleskunky

Classicauto,

Your entire post suggests one is displacing gasoline with hydrogen, that is not what is being suggested. it is not contested that one cannot provide enough fuel hydrogen to "displace" gas.
It is suggested that introduction of hydrogen enhances combustion of gas. The idea of "characterization" of other fuels with hydrogen is not new, and is the subject of the plasmatron tech, hence its mention by both myself and mr.cake. It is uncontested.




I pointed out immediately that plasma reformation is a different process and requires different energy requirements. Mr. Cake referenced it when suggesting volume and density requirements, I suggested at that time the conditions where so dissimilar that it was not as relevant to this discussion as we might like. However, for the sake of argument the temperatures required for reformation do exist in the combustion chamber for what thats worth.
Further more the plasma reformation process is to induce h2 prior to combustion to reduce emissions as well as aid combustion. If you read my post thoroughly you would see that I am not unfamiliar with the subject.

If I can manage to come up with enough positive scientific information I would certainly be interested in building one if not but for curiosities sake. I have not seen convincing information to either prove nor disprove its potential, that is why I am engaged in this discussion, for information.

Uncleskunky

I do not pretend to be a mathematician, nor do I know the equation you are using to come up with your figures. But marchlabs crown jewel electrolytic cell will produce 25lpm by their claims.

I believe to supplant gas the volume and density would need to be much higher.
But again is this or 1-3lpm enough to characterize gas allowing a lean combustion condition without harm to the engine, that is what I need to find out.

Uncleskunky

I may have answered my own question, perhaps one of you might double check.


Gasoline has an energy density by volume of 34.2(MJ/L) and Hydrogen gas has 0.01079 (MJ/L).
To replace the same density by volume I calculate that 3,169.60148litres of hydrogen gas would be required.

Not gonna happen...

To provide 4% (low end)by volume per litre to characterize low grade normally noncombustible fuels as suggested by Roy Mcalister at ush2.com this would be 126litre.

So 126litres of H2gas is 4%of one litre of gasoline. or 0.264172052 gallons.

umm, yeah, uh. hold on.

rx7 gets 14mpg, or 0.3247 litres per mile or roughly 3 miles per litre. at 60 mph i am burning 1 litre of gas every 3 minutes.
So if my calculations are correct and likely are not I would need to produce 42lpm of h2 to supply 4% by volume to characterize very lowgrade fuel (not pump gas).

I believe a HHO generator would need to produce 62.5lpm HHO to equal 42 lpm h2.

I imagine this amount would decrease significantly to characterize pump gas.

If one takes into account I am a hs drop out, and math being my worst subject. these figures seem to me to be in the practical range for production on vehicle.

If someone wants to check them, be kind

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

So we're clear here then - the volume of hydrogen required to significantly affect fuel economy is relatively huge (as would then be the volume of water carried on board, as an incidental consideration).

The fact is that the hydrogen electrolysis is not a "free energy" process - it requires electrical energy to be input, and depending on the efficiency of the electrolysis, yields about 20%-30% of the electrical energy input as chemical potential energy in the form of hydrogen as an output. That electrical energy input came from the car's electrical system - which in turn used gasoline to produce that energy. Since a good deal more electrical energy has to be input to produce the H2 than is yielded in chemical potential energy in the H2, the process can only result in a net loss of energy in the system - quite aside from considering the energy losses in generating the electricity with the alternator, and in burning what small volume of hydrogen is produced.

In other words, onboard H2 electrolysis can only result in a net increase in fuel consumption - it's simple physics. Any fuel economy improvement attested to by the H2 crowd is simply placebo effect, outright dishonesty, or a result of the fact most of these systems introduce vacuum leaks into the intake system, leaning out the mixture. The same effect could be achieved by drilling a hole in the intake, or removing a vacuum line or plugged port - of course, at the possible expense of burned valves and pistons, or in a rotary, broken apex seals.

Uncleskunky

One thing is clear, few if any people in this thread really read the posts, even their own, for clarity.

energy conversion has loss, find one that doesnt.

Dont worry folks, go back to sleep, it cant be done, I was just kidding, haha

end of story.

Thanks rx7racerca for enlightening us all.