I just said I was not convinced, I did not assume any thing. and scientific peer review is why im asking you guys. no one is addressing any of my queries. I m trying to learn here. please read all my questions. the introduction of O2 would also increase combustion efficiency, no? I have yet to see anyone take that factor into account. you can t ignore one of the variables and get a scientifically accurate result can you?
I just told you why more O2 does not increase combustion efficiency.
And forget all the theory stuff. The bottom line: test it. It’s been tested, many times, and found to be worthless.
@texases, the car in question had no computer. and I only read the article, I did not go to the other links. and more O2 certainly accelerates combustion. again I m not saying you are wrong. I specifically asked how it would effect old V8s, computers are not involved
…guys, I m only asking in relation to old V8 engines, no computers
Wesw, running electricity through H2O does not separate the molecules without using more energy to separate the hydrogen and the oxygen than is contained in the released hydrogen. If separating the two took less energy than became available, you’d have a true perpetual motion machine. And you’d have proven the most fundamental law of thermodynamics to be wrong.
I wouldn’t have worked in my '61 Beetle either.
…mountain, that theory is not valid, you did not take the energy, needed to combust the hydrogen, into account. you can t ignore a major variable. and what if the hydrogen were separated using electricity generated by solar power. not valid argument in my opinion
did that 61 beetle have a V8? if not it does not apply to my question
With a carb, you’d be worse off, the extra O2 would make it run lean. If that gets extra mpgs, then the carb was running too rich in the first place (which is what I think happened with your son’s car).
But think about the tiny amount of O2 we’re discussing - the gas slowly bubbles off those electrodes. How much can that be, compared to the air (and O2) rushing through the carb? I bet it would be too small to make ANY difference, plus or minus. So you’re left with the cost of the electricity.
its certainly possible it was too rich. but wouldn t the leaness caused by the O2 be offset by the added H2?. in the article you linked to, I believe it said that 1 liter of H2 a minute was produced. and it sounds like you finally viewing my queries with an open mind, and thinking about them instead of dismissing them arbitrarily. thanks I appreciate it.
To the extent the O2 burns the H2, you’re correct, then it makes no difference in combustion, and you’re left with a net loss because of the electricity used to generate the O2/H2.
mountain, that theory is not valid, you did not take the energy
Sorry…but you’re WRONG.
First law of Thermodynamics… You can’t get more energy out then what you put in. Sorry it’s just plain IMPOSSIBLE. It’s call physics.
These types of products are designed for the simple minded. It’s called junk science. It’s right up there with UFO’s and Ghost hunters. These types of gadgets have been around since there have been technology. The new miracle device.
This device has been tested by many CREDITABLE scientists and engineers. Do a google search and you’ll see for yourself.
Here’s a few links.
http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/658
http://damnedhammer.hubpages.com/hub/The-HHO-scam
As for your son reporting a 15% increase…BOGUS. He didn’t calculate it correctly.
Yes, wesw, it is valid. The theory if it were valid would apply to my '61 Beetle. As well as my '64 Fairlane and all my other cars. They all operate on the same principles. Physics doesn’t change because the number of cylinders varies.
I understand that you’re saying that I’m not adding into the equation the electrical energy (heat energy, actually, created by electricity) necessary to expode the mix, however recognize that the electrical energy from the battery is created by the turning crankshaft, which is turned by the combustion process driven by the exploding fuel. Again, that energy is not free. And that’s only after losses from the processes of turning the alternator armature, dragging magnetic fields through one another to induce current and losing energy due to friction.
Now I understand also that you’re proposing that using solar energy to separate the H2O would create greater efficiency. The problem is that if a solar system existed that could create that much energy without being too large and heavy to not experience a net loss, it would be better to simply us it to power the wheels. Every conversion process you introduce has inherent losses, and converting solar energy to electrical energy to H2O separation to combustion to torque is too many processes and too many inherent losses to expect efficient. It’d be better to just convert the solar energy to electrical to torque.
It’s becoming apparent that you choose to believe that your son’s hydrogen generator improved his gas mileage no matter what we all say. That’s okay, I support your right to do so. Just don’t write a physics thesis on it.
In the 17th Century someone posted the Law of Conservation of Energy; Newton one of the first to formalize it. Since that time the various laws of thermodynamics were formulated. Your son is not about to violate those laws.
In short, you cannot create eneregy or destroy it. There is no such thing that generates more energy than it consumes. Therefore Hydrogen Generators would be perpetual motion machines, which we all know do not exist. If someone GIVES you free hydrogen, you would get better mileage, but it took energy to generate that hydrogen in the first place.
So, @wesw, the observations were pure fiction, wishful thinking or incorrect measurements. I dreamed of such machines when I was in elementary school.
When someone installs a gadget that increases miles per gallon they ususally start driving more carefully; the resultant increase is always due to better driving habits.
I missed the solar part. I’d STRONGLY advise against generating and storing H2/O2 gas mixture, it is VERY EXPLOSIVE and dangerous. H2 has some of the widest (most dangerous) flammability conditions of any gas, much worse than methane or gasoline fumes.
We humans have an amazing capacity to believe what we want to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary.
The laws of thermodynamics, and actual experimental evidence, all prove that it’s impossible to get energy for “free,” which is what the hydrogen scam promises. Yet your son is convinced he is getting 15% improvement in gas mileage due to hydrogen. Which he is absolutely not.
Gas mileage measurements are notoriously variable, depending on driving conditions, speed, engine condition, etc, etc. Any variability your son notices is due to one or more of these. Not hydrogen.
no, you assume too much mountain, I never said I believed it and I never said you guys are wrong. no energy is free, the gas we burn takes energy to produce be it hydrogen gas or gasoline. and I don t appreciate those of you talking down to me. … its called civilility, mike in new Hampshire. just remember, its hard to learn if you already know everything
yes, @texases, I agree. and I made the point about the danger many times in earlier posts. if my son had consulted me, before installing the device I would have vehemently objected. I am not about to install such a device in my truck. I was just curious. for those of you offering physics lessons, thanks sooo much. a lot of words have been put in my mouth by people other than me. I tire of this discussion. @texases, thanks for having a civil discussion with me.
If your impression was that I was talking down to you, I sincerely, sincerely apologize. I never meant to sound that way. I hope you can forgive me. You’re a very articulate writer, which speaks to intelligence, and focus on the subject at hand which speaks of decency.
I never meant to make you feel like I was talking down to you. I feel terrible for having given you that impression.