I am a high school chemistry teacher
Then you should know better than to fall for this scam.
I wish all the know-it-alls had dispensed with the insults. I thought the original question a legitimate one. There have been many valuable inventions and patents through the years, especially in the automotive industry, that have been suppressed, for whatever reason.
I too would like objective EVIDENCE – not a lot of name calling. The website sderekh originally mentioned provides a good theoretical explanation as to why it shouldn’t work. But as we know, many rules have exceptions.
So my corollary question is, if I spend the money on one of these devices (and I suspect they are scams), will they cause irreparable damage to my vehicle? Or can I remove it safely, and not have problems with valve seals, etc.
As for the people who would argue that if fuel efficiency could be dramatically improved, it would have been, I would remind them that 20 years ago, cars did get better gas mileage than they do now. Explain that. (Simple supply & demand, with cost considerations answers it – I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories.)
Amen brother! Thank you for the positive feedback. When I first asked the question I expected to receive objective rational response and I was surprised at the insults, insinuations and outright accusations (from a few people, not everyone). I do thank those who did take my question seriously and gave positive useful information. Here are some good reasons the product may not work. 1. The amount of energy used to produce the hydrogen has by electroylsis would offset any gains in fuel effiency. 2. The amount of hydrogen produced would be too small to have any effect.
If you’d like more scientific evidence that suggests this product won’t work see this site: “http://mb-soft.com/public2/hydrogen.html”.
-I had also hoped to find out that a test (to see if a device installed on a vehicle to produce hydrogen by electroylsis would increase fuel effiency) had been done, but I don’t think one has been done, or someone would have mentioned it by now.
-Another valid question is whether or not such a system would damage your vehicle in any way.
Amazing. A high school science teacher who believes in these scams and even provided a link to one of these bogus outfits.
Note in that link they’re throwing the stoichiometric ratio clean out the door. As I stated earlier; we don’t need no stinkin’ physics.
So how much is the high school science teacher involved in this?
http://www.educationmatters.us/?p=818
no, this is further proof not all teachers are genius’
There have been many valuable inventions and patents through the years, especially in the automotive industry, that have been suppressed, for whatever reason.
I hope you’re not referring to such urban legends as the Fish carburetor.
I would remind them that 20 years ago, cars did get better gas mileage than they do now. Explain that.
Easy: They didn’t get better fuel economy 20 years ago. What’s impressive is the fact that compared to the equivalent model of 20 years ago, today’s cars are heavier, more powerful, safer, have more convenience features, produce tremendously lower emissions, and still use the same amount or less fuel.
derek. this is really boring.
you cry that you are getting rude responses. these responses didn’t start until after you got whining about your insistence that every responder should ‘give’ you the proof you want.
sorry it does not work that way. why do you insist to bug this forum with these requests?
this forum is to help people who have a hard time deciphering their car repair questions. or need to be nudged in the right direction to DIY. (do it yourself)
the scientific proof you want is NOT on this forum.
even the links you post are NOT proof, or further evidence of acceptability of this ‘fuel alternative’; rather they are all listing reasons why there may be reason (or not) to expect (or not) that this will work.
go elsewhere and find the proof. until then, why bug people who just want to get their cars fixed, or others who don’t mind helping them?
you asked somewhere, what questions or topics do we like to discuss. that’s just the dilemma. i will discuss anything, with most anyone. but you seem to expect all the responders to agree with you, or find evidence to help you make a decision on an esoteric topic. that is not an reasonable expectation. you are not paying for this information here, it is free. why bug the bejesus out of the responders?
as several responses have said, if you DO find the proof (not an advertisement) that this works, then PLEASE post those results here. i am sure we would all like to know the results. but (again) this is NOT the forum to get definitive answers from on this topic.
Amen brother! Thank you for the positive feedback.
We’re still waiting for the PROOF that ANY of these products work.
Second that.
Chemistry teacher again - lab report
In class, we split water molecules in to oxygen and hydrogen using a 9V battery. After an hour we only had a large test tube of each. Though it did not produce a lot of gas, it is interesting to note that it did not take much power.
As suggested in the lab manual, we tested to be certain that the oxygen had collected at the cathode and hydrogen at the anode. The tube with hydrogen gave a loud ?pop? when the flame was introduced and the oxygen caused an ember to flame.
These HHO generators (or glorified water electrolysis kits that are being marketed as such) do not create enough O2 and H2 to supplement the fuel. (Even when the surface area is increased, for example, by using perforated stainless steel for the electrodes.) That is a misunderstanding ? the idea that the hydrogen is a fuel source. Though hydrogen is a fuel source in hydrogen fuel cells, that is a different idea. These generators create a cleaner burning environment.
Combustion is burning a hydrocarbon in the presence of oxygen, producing carbon dioxide and water. In the ideal lab with a completely closed system, all of the hydrocarbon is consumed and produces a large amount of CO2. But in our car engines, we have air coming from the environment with many other compounds.
Dynamometers show us the emissions from the car exhaust. Not only is CO2 produced, but CO, nitrous oxides, particulate matter and even the unused fuel is discharged. One does not have to be a tree-hugging environmentalist to realize that these products may be harmful, but consider the ?waste not, want not? principle. If we are not efficiently burning the fossil fuels that we are paying, on average today, $3.75 per gallon, then what can we do to improve that?
Again, the dynamometer showed that fuel was being burned more efficiently (yes, using ratios). According to the dynamometer, there was a 61% increase in fuel efficiency. Now this is not based on miles per gallon alone - going from 9.4 to 23.2 mpg is a 250% increase in mpg and when the vehicle was road tested, it got 16.1 mpg which is a little more than 58% increase in mpg.
Overheating the engine and damage to the seals is my main concern at this point. Any feedback on that part?
There have been many valuable inventions and patents through the years, especially in the automotive industry, that have been suppressed, for whatever reason.
Name some of these “suppressed” patents and inventions. Trust me, if they worked worth a darn they would not be suppressed.
MOST HS science and math teachers have no where near the competency as someone working in industry in the same field. They usually don’t have anywhere near the education and almost 0 practical experience. HS computer science teachers are a joke. I ended up teaching my Daughter and Son AP-CS because the teacher was a complete idiot. He was the head of the English department and taught this class because he was the only teacher who knew the first thing about programming (he took 2 classes in college some 20 years ago). One test he gave my daughter a 65. I went over the test with her and I didn’t see one mistake. Had a sit down with the teacher and principle and right after that I started tutoring her. She got a 5.0 on the AP exam…and only 1 other person who took the class (of 22) passed the test with a 3.0 (his dad was also a software engineer).
I went to the TV report you posted a link for and at least one glaring error popped out right away. There was a statement about 15% of the fuel passing unused out the exhaust. Not a single car in the world would pass a hydrocarbon emission test if that were true. Next, closed loop fuel injection systems test oxygen levels in the exhaust and the intake and adjust the fuel supply to stoichiometric levels (look it up). Adding more oxygen to the intake will just cause the computer to adjust the fuel supply to match.
I don’t know what they did to get their results, but I know enough about news reports to not trust them to get anything right.
That would have to be a horrendously malfunctioning fuel injection system to be allowing that much unburned fuel out the exhaust. Being a chemistry teacher I’ll put it this way. There is an ideal mixture, a “balanced equation”, that all FI equipped cars are striving for. Given X volume per cylinder, your goal is to fill it with a perfect ratio of fuel and air each time. If you have an ideal ratio of fuel and air all of the gas will be combusted, all of the air will be used, and the only thing coming out of the exhaust will be the new products (CO2, CO, NOx, etc). The only way to have unburned fuel come out of the right side of this equation would be if the ratio is wrong on the left side. There’s no such thing as a “cleaner burning environment” in this case. If you put in the right ratio, you’ll get the right outcome.
In other words, if you add Hydrogen and Oxygen to an engine that already has enough oxygen, you’ll just end up with unused oxygen. Once all the gas is combusted the remaining oxygen is wasted. This is detrimental, in fact, because the car will be running lean meaning it runs hot and produces less power. Furthermore, in a properly function system the car is constantly compensating (many many times per second) based on the unused oxygen coming out of the cylinders. The car will richen up the fuel mixture to try and use the new excess oxygen and you’ll actually end up losing mpg.
Cars today run at very nearly perfect ratios of fuel and air all the time. Every more sophisticated fuel injection system makes more iterations per second and gets closer to a perfect A/F ratio at all throttle positons, loads, atmospheric pressures, humidities, etc, etc. Adding an un-metered amount of an excess combustion product does not help. As a chemistry teacher you should realize that all you’re doing is unbalancing the equation that the car is working so hard to perfect.
Good luck! I would recommend reading this thread from the beginning and my original post. You may also want to check out the Better Business Bureau.
How much hydrogen was produced over what time period? Has anyone else been able to reproduce your results? This site suggests that the amount of hydrogen produced would be very small: http://mb-soft.com/public2/hydrogen.html
At least we agree on one thing Mike; education. That is a real sore point with me due to the dumbing down of the educational system where Job 1 appears to be holding the smart back to a lesser level.
Both of my sons excelled in school, in spite of the system and with a little help at home, and more than once a high school science or AP physics teacher became irritated when they were corrected by my offspring.
Here in OK it appears that OSU is even carrying this a step further by dropping the required ACT score for admission from 24 to 20. Why stop there? Just go to single digits and make it real easy.
When you burn hydrogen you end up with water, H2O. You can then separate the hydrogen from the oxygen by electrolysis, as these devices claim to do. Unfortunately, these chemical bonds take more energy to break than is retrievable when they form. What you are getting when you burn the hydrogen is pressure created by the newly formed water molecule, which moves the pistons. You are also getting energy in the unusable form of heat and light and sound. When you reverse this reaction to separate the hydrogen you have to pump in all the energy you just got, including that significant amount that your car engine cannot use. So, getting hydrogen from water is always a losing proposition, energywise you have to give more than you get. If you had some source of electricity in the car which would otherwise somehow go to waste, then you could make a case for these devices, but such is not the case.
So my opinion is that these things work, in the sense that they create hydrogen, but are actually about as functional as a hole in your gas tank. You would have to spend money to purchase it and then spend money to run it (reduced mileage because of increased load on your alternator). Not a chance of ever breaking even.
I’m not sure how to answer this… Why would someone spend time reading something that bored him?
-There seem to be a lot of people who enjoy discussing the topic. I believe some people may have forgotten what the Original Post was, and I suggest they reread it. I started this thread in the hopes of having my question answered: Will a device that produces hydrogen from electroylsis improve your fuel economy when the hyrogen gas is introduced into your intake manifold. Based on my research, I don’t think it would… and I wouldn’t recommend anyone buy one. But, I would like to see an unbiased test. I don’t believe there has ever been a test to prove one way or the other.
Great response and great argument! I agree.