Browns Gas? For better MPG! Tuning?

[mwiener2]

 

These all oxidize the hydrocarbon molecules and allow more BTU's of

what is ALREADY there to be released. These oxidizers also are able

to oxidize the nitrogen that is coming into the combustion chamber.

 

So now inert gases are flammable?

[BAC5.2]

So now inert gases are flammable?

 

You forget charitable language.

 

What he really said is that they flower the spoons that jar in the shoe.

[qiman]

As stated, electrolysis produces H2 and O2. Nothing else. Your "species" are bunk.

 

Don't underestimate the power of stupidity that you demonstrate. You have

revealed yourself as the ignoramus that you are. Only H2 and O2?

You have the chemistry understanding of an imbecile.

[qiman]

You forget charitable language.

 

What he really said is that they flower the spoons that jar in the shoe.

 

Most explosives are nitrogen compounds. But you read what into things that you want to see. It isn't the nitrogen that explodes.

What kind of dufus statements are these?

[qiman]

Like I have already posted - DOCUMENTATION - a system can get a net gain

by taking a portion of the energy to allow more energy to be released. It is not

creating energy from nothing.

 

Only an idiot will claim this violates thermodynamics.

 

Some of you ALREADY admitted it works but only on a diesel - but the fact

is that it doesn't matter it is a diesel, it was an increase by 4%, meaning that

no thermodynamics were violated and a net gain was achieved and any claim

that any possible gain violates thermodynamics are too pathetically ignorant to

comment on.

[BAC5.2]

Most explosives are nitrogen compounds. But you read what into things that you want to see. It isn't the nitrogen that explodes.

What kind of dufus statements are these?

 

You just said that hydrogen oxidizes nitrogen.

 

That's not true. Hydrogen can't oxidize nitrogen. Hydrogen can oxidize metals, but not inert gases.

[BAC5.2]

Don't underestimate the power of stupidity that you demonstrate. You have

revealed yourself as the ignoramus that you are. Only H2 and O2?

You have the chemistry understanding of an imbecile.

 

Stop insulting other members. You are nothing more than a child.

 

Cool. Show us your documentation.

 

The overall reaction is 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2

 

Period.

 

There is no ozone produced, no HO3, no O2-. Just hydrogen and oxygen.

 

Unless, of course, you've now changed your story and are talking about the electrolysis of something other than water. Those kits you claim work DO require you to empty the pasta sauce out of the jar before using, you know.

[BAC5.2]

Like I have already posted - DOCUMENTATION - a system can get a net gain

by taking a portion of the energy to allow more energy to be released. It is not

creating energy from nothing.

 

So what, exactly, do you call it? You can't walk up to a coin changer, put a quarter into it, and get a dollar out.

 

Where does the energy come from to break all of these bonds come from?

Only an idiot will claim this violates thermodynamics.

 

Stop insulting other members. Why is this hard for you to understand?

 

Some of you ALREADY admitted it works but only on a diesel - but the fact

is that it doesn't matter it is a diesel, it was an increase by 4%, meaning that

no thermodynamics were violated and a net gain was achieved and any claim

that any possible gain violates thermodynamics are too pathetically ignorant to

comment on.

 

Stop insulting other members. This is, absolutely, the last time I will ask.

 

No one is saying Hydrogen injection does not work. It does. It acts as a supplemental fuel. The documents you've linked show it does (even though you seem to think it only acts like a catalyst). The documents I've linked show it does.

 

The second article I linked, at your request for a "high profile source" article, was published by the SAE. It showed that the hydrogen produced via electrolysis of water could improve efficiency. It goes on to state that you need to inject 2.8L of hydrogen per minute, in order to achieve any measurable gains. The power required to generate that kind of hydrogen from laboratory equipment is in the hundreds of amps. That proves that, while hydrogen generation from electrolysis CAN be used to improve efficiency, it can also NOT be produced onboard. You simply cannot generate the quantity of hydrogen required to have a positive impact on economy and emissions, onboard a vehicle. You would have to tow an external generator, towed behind your car!

 

And it does violate the second law. It requires more energy to produce the hydrogen, than you recover by burning it. If it didn't, you'd be able to run a generator on the hydrogen that the generator provides the electricity to perform electrolysis. And since you say that burning hydrogen is a net-zero process, where it simply turns back into water, then you could run that generator on the hydrogen it produces, and use the "exhaust" (which, according to you is just water), as the water used in the electrolysis process. It would be a completely closed system! Power would be free!

 

There was 5 million dollars riding on the Mainstream X-Prize challenge. Don't you think that, if a sauce jar under the hood could give a 4% gain, it would have been used? 4% at 100mpg is a big deal. It wasn't used, because it doesn't work.

[SBT]

qiman - enough with the insults and name-calling.

 

Discussing something in rational terms is one thing. Running roughshod (and stumbling terribly while running) through any discussion about scientific laws and their applicability to this discussion is both foolish and shows a lack of respect for the truth of the matter and those who are seasoned practitioners in their scientific fields. Truth stands on it's own and needs no propping-up, so discuss this topic in reasonable terms without the bullying defensiveness.

 

Only warning - next one comes with time-out.

[thefultonhow]

Don't underestimate the power of stupidity that you demonstrate. You have

revealed yourself as the ignoramus that you are. Only H2 and O2?

You have the chemistry understanding of an imbecile.

 

I have the chemistry understanding of someone who has taken high school chemistry.

 

Unfortunately, it seems that you do not have anything close to that much.

[wpgspecb]

 

Mr. Lawyer, if there were internet forums 100 years ago, You'd be the one arguing that man cannot fly, let alone reach the moon. Your type don't belong in disucssions of this nature.

 

 

^--- THIS!!!! x 10000

[NSFW]

"HHO" can't LET the car do anything. That's the same as saying that a stove LETS water boil.

 

Stoves are pretty inefficient. If you put an insulated shroud over the pot, so that less heat was lost to the air around burner and the pot, the water would boil sooner than otherwise. Would it be wrong to say that the shroud "lets" the stove boil the water in less time?

 

Or would that violate the 2nd law?

 

Because you suck at reading comprehension, I am compelled to point out explicitly that I am not saying that HHO is like putting a turbo jacket around the whole motor to keep the heat in.

[NSFW]

Stop insulting other members. You are nothing more than a child.

 

Cool. Show us your documentation.

 

The overall reaction is 2H2O -> 2H2 + O2

 

Period.

 

There is no ozone produced, no HO3, no O2-. Just hydrogen and oxygen.

 

Pot. Kettle. Black, etc.

 

Also, this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone#Electrolytic

[BAC5.2]

Stoves are pretty inefficient. If you put an insulated shroud over the pot, so that less heat was lost to the air around burner and the pot, the water would boil sooner than otherwise. Would it be wrong to say that the shroud "lets" the stove boil the water in less time?

 

Or would that violate the 2nd law?

 

Because you suck at reading comprehension, I am compelled to point out explicitly that I am not saying that HHO is like putting a turbo jacket around the whole motor to keep the heat in.

 

Yes it would be wrong to say that the shroud "lets" the water boil in less time. It would be correct to say that water boils in less time because the shroud makes the stove more efficient. And that has nothing to do with the violation of the second law.

 

And since I don't suck at reading comprehension, I know that you are NOT saying that HHO is like putting a turbo blanket around an engine.

 

Again, no one is saying that Hydrogen injection doesn't work. What is being said, and has been proven, is that onboard "HHO" generators do not work.

[BAC5.2]

Pot. Kettle. Black, etc.

 

Also, this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone#Electrolytic

 

There's no pot or kettle here. He is calling everyone who disagrees with him an idiot. That's childish.

 

Thanks for the wiki link. Electrolysis is not just a process you can apply to water. It applies to any liquid.

 

In order to get ozone out of the electrolysis of pure water, post processing of the product of that electrolysis must be performed (that is, conversion of the liberated oxygen into ozone). Alternately, you can use H2SO4 (sulfuric acid) as the electrolyte to directly generate ozone... which is ill advised, because H2SO4 is pretty dangerous stuff.

 

No ozone is directly produced through the electrolysis of water. Nothing but hydrogen and oxygen are directly generated through the electrolysis of water.