Quote:
Originally Posted by seanfromnh
Your right in your numbers but its the fuel thats missing... The air doesn't get swapped with the hydrogen-just the gasoline does.... so instead with that 2.0L your only using about .13L of gas per stroke... at 1,000 rpm thats about 130L/min.... thats alot but not too bad (in my opinion) to make it work a 1.0 turbo charged 3 putter would perform normal and make it alot more achievable....
in my setup i only had three sandwich containers with a gallon and a half of water- pretty easy to hide- i only used 5 amps of power and i made this pretty quickly in my basement.... i made about 10 L/min with my little setup... bump it up to 20 amps and you've got 40 L/min! (i only have three cells) with 10 cells you'll get about 130 L/min- enough for that 2.0 in your MR2!! thats also only five gallons of water which doesn't take up much space at all....
just youtube some videos of it and definately research stan meyers... theres some interesting stuff out there with resonant frequencies and whatnot...
|
So somehow, hydrogen coming in through the intake is having a profound effect on the engine computer causing it to yield petrol flow to the injectors? I don't buy it.
Furthermore, burning hydrogen in the cylinder still puts off significantly less energy per mass than would gasoline. Other than being simple chemistry, this was PROVEN ON THE ROAD with the BMW Hydrogen-7 vehicle.
Even the reaction that converts HHO to H2O puts off less energy.
I'm also assuming that you're creating these litres of hydrogen at standard temperature and pressure (STP). Given that 1 litre of petrol at STP is WAY different than 1 litre of hydrogen at STP on the mass scale and you factor in the inherent lower energy density of the hydrogen... There is just no way it's adding any appreciable amount of power or efficiency to your car.
If adding jar-fulls of gaseous hydrogen would remotely meet the needs of the engine, the boys at R&D wouldn't be spending nearly as much time or money trying to create a compressed hydrogen storage tank for automotive use.
Moreover, this is also a simple violation of the law of conservation of energy. If you are convinced that the alternator, using x amount of power and electrolyzing y amount of water to produce z amount of hydrogen and then combusted in that engine is going to have a net energy benefit larger (or even CLOSE to, considering substantial heat loss) than x, then you need to be talking to those Nobel guys.
More bad news? Check out
Popular Mechanics on the subject.
It's simply bad science. If you wanted to do better to convince me otherwise,
then run your car on pee, the conversion is simpler.
I'm just trying to say- I'm not knocking the idea because I'm a hard-headed neigh sayer. I'm knocking it because I haven't seen a shred of science that actually supports it working in the method that it is claimed to be working. All science is pointing in the other direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanfromnh
Im not sure why theres a big problem with coming up with the extra electricity required for the electrolysis cells... I know plenty of people with sound systems that require more.... or just think about limousines, 6 tvs, surround sound, laser lights, fog machines, lights, microwaves, fridges etc. or look at some of the hybrids out there- they gain the electricity to power that massive electric motot just by hitting the brakes! Its not too hard too get alot of power from your motor... after all, even the modern day engine isn't even 30% efficient, which means theres ALOT of extra energy there to use...using the HHO that same motor is about 80-90% efficient. these are true facts, im not just blowing smoke here... im just trying to get people to look at it differently.
The only way to know is to test it yourself... math isn't always the answer, sometimes you just have to experiment...
|
The problem exists as I said before in the law of conservation of energy, but I'll humor you for a minute.
All of those gizmos sap more juice from the alternator which in turn forces the engine to run harder and impacts fuel economy. Limos, people with insane in-car-entertainment, etc., run high output alternators which ALSO sap more power, in addition to extra batteries to feed those amps.
Alternators are do not just spin faster and faster and put out an infinite amount of power based on how fast you can turn it. They lose efficiency due to heat, internal resistance + inductive reactance in addition to magnetic braking caused by eddy current formation. It will get to a point where it will spin faster, but it will not produce any more electricity- only heat.
Hybrids use regenerative braking to make up some of the energy wasted by having to use the brakes. And when the batteries need more power? It's time to fire up that engine and let it rev higher to charge those batteries (and for this reason is why the mkI Insight for example only used a 1.3l engine- to minimize fuel use at added RPMs to recharge the battery).
Also, you're misinterpreting the engine being "only 30% efficient." What that means is that only 30% of the energy put off from the engine is used to power the electronics and move the car. That other ~70% is GIVEN OFF AS HEAT which you ARE NOT going to harvest through electrolysis.
And your "true facts" are blatant lies, guy. Hate to break it to you, but you either ARE blowing smoke or someone, somewhere, sometime has absolutely and profoundly misled you.
