Browns Gas? For better MPG! Tuning?

[dr_sharp]

check anything I posted. Prove me wrong.

OK, you're wrong. I'm an expert at this.

 

Done.

[mwiener2]

That's not proof. I have the laws of thermodynamics to back me up. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is mostly theory. If it were laws, then the 3 laws of thermodynamics would be redefined. But they havn't been because the theories of Non-equilibrium cannot be proved.

 

If he can type a novel, he can post a mathematical proof showing a net gain... but the math will always show a loss

[dr_sharp]

That's not proof. I have the laws of thermodynamics to back me up. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is mostly theory. If it were laws, then the 3 laws of thermodynamics would be redefined. But they havn't been because the theories of Non-equilibrium cannot be proved.

 

If he can type a novel, he can post a mathematical proof showing a net gain... but the math will always show a loss

It would be a mystery to you, mr. lawyer.

 

Since when did the laws of thermodynamics limit their use to steady state systems?

Most systems found in nature are not in thermodynamic equilibrium

 

 

One fundamental difference between equilibrium thermodynamics and non-equilibrium thermodynamics lies in the behaviour of inhomogeneous systems, which require for their study knowledge of rates of reaction which are not considered in equilibrium thermodynamics of homogeneous systems

 

Wait - isn't combustion a chemical reaction? Where rates of reaction are considered? Hmm.. that's a tough one, Mr. Lawyer.

 

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.

[BAC5.2]

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.

 

100 years ago, man had been flying for almost a decade..

 

Now can we get back to discussing my lawnmower. I had a brief discussion with Fahr_Side, and we have possibly come up with a way to further increase efficiency. What we need, however, is ground unicorn hoof. The right front hoof, specifically. I checked Alibaba, but couldn't source any. I'll have to keep looking.

[dr_sharp]

100 years ago, man had been flying for almost a decade..

 

Exactly my point. Glad you can understand something.

[NSFW]

It is random - there is no exact breaking - for example, heptane will

not exactly break close to the middle so there is not going to be exactly

a 4 and 3 carbon molecule. It is a random effect - and it isn't just about

breaking a single molecule.

 

In your understanding, do you think a single heptane molecule is isolated

from all other heptane molecules?

 

There are only so many possible configurations that will result from breaking a given molecule. What I'm interested in here is the chemical processes which you allege that HHO facilitates.

 

The chemical equations I'm looking for are about what happens to single molecules. Of course there will be multiple such processes happening in parallel with different molecules. The fact that I have to explain this to you, and that you still haven't answered the question, kind of suggests that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

There is one particular reaction that takes place from HHO that has

a powerful effect on fuel and if anyone posts it, I will be amazed. I

already gave reference to Davy, Grubb, etc... so anyone with the

wherewithal can see some of their work and it should be obvious to

those that are skilled in the art.

 

The problem is that you have yet to get anyone here sufficiently interested to go on an easter-egg hunt. If anyone's going to post the details of these reaction, it'll have to be you.

[fahr_side]

I had a brief discussion with Fahr_Side, and we have possibly come up with a way to further increase efficiency. What we need, however, is ground unicorn hoof. The right front hoof, specifically. I checked Alibaba, but couldn't source any. I'll have to keep looking.

I'm working on the purchase. I don't have any results yet, but you can take my word for it.

[dr_sharp]

There are only so many possible configurations that will result from breaking a given molecule. What I'm interested in here is the chemical processes which you allege that HHO facilitates.

 

The chemical equations I'm looking for are about what happens to single molecules. Of course there will be multiple such processes happening in parallel with different molecules. The fact that I have to explain this to you, and that you still haven't answered the question, kind of suggests that you don't know what you're talking about.

Have you studied combustion? His point is valid and true. There are a number of codes that have been developed specifically to predict species that are generated and destroyed during combustion processes. These are not simple codes and are quite computationally intense - and even still, they are just models. I don't think that "random" is an appropriate term, but to list every possible species that are observed during any given combustion process is not only a non-trivial task, but a nearly impossible one. There are so many variables - temperature, pressure, afrs, that vary with time and space... don't let the other fools in this thread make you think that this is something simple...

 

the questions being asked aren't even appropriate, let alone the arguments.

[NSFW]

I had a couple years of chemistry in college, but it was admittedly a long time ago.

 

Perhaps this is indeed above my pay grade. If ever I'm looking for a 4% increase in mileage I'll give it a closer look.

[BAC5.2]

Ultimately, this has nothing to do with anything relating to non-equilibrium thermodynamics. It has nothing to do with plasma-jet ignition.

 

No one with any background in science will argue that the field of non-equilibrium thermodynamics is a nonexistant theory. The field is, however, almost entirely theoretical. Anyone with a background in science will realize that the idea of rejecting the laws of classical thermodynamics is a completely crackpot idea. Disproval of the second law would be the most earth shattering discovery in all of modern history, and it simply has not been done.

 

This thread is about the concept of building an electrolysis chamber for the explicit purpose of improving fuel economy.

 

Electrolysis is not a question. A sufficiently large current will provide the energy to decompose water into molecules of Hydrogen and Oxygen. It's a simple reaction oxidation equation.

 

H2O turns into 2H2 and O2. In ideal combustion, 2H2 and O2 are supplied energy, and combust to produce water vapor + heat.

 

The point that people who actually understand thermodynamics are making is that, the energy required to decompose water into it's molecular components is sufficiently greater than the energy released during combustion. This can be easily seen by observing the chemical reactions that occur along the way.

 

2H2O + Energy -> 2H2 + O2 (the electrolysis equation)

 

2H2 + O2 + Energy -> 2H2O + heat.

 

To those that believe that this results in a net energy gain, think about what you are actually proposing.

 

You require energy to complete electrolysis. This comes from the alternator, which is relatively efficient (somewhere in the 90% range), but is powered by the engine (which isn't so efficient). Now, you have generated hydrogen and oxygen in sufficient proportions to facilitate a proper flame. You inject that mixture into your engine and, according to the people who drank the kool-aid, increase efficiency of the engine. This increased efficiency would directly translate into the increased efficiency of power generated, and would further stimulate the creation of even more Hydrogen and Oxygen... and the cycle goes on... and you have disproven the second law of thermodynamics with little more than an empty pasta sauce jar, some nails, and some bits of wire.

 

When you lay it out like that, the craziness of the theory suddenly doesn't seem so far-fetched, does it?

 

If you had a laboratory setting, you would find that the energy required for electrolysis is about the same as the energy released from the combustion of the pure results of electrolysis (i.e. if you populated a vacuum with the results of electrolysis and then measured the total combustion energy). "Success!" you might think, but not quite. That electricity had to come from somewhere, right? So you have to account for the energy lost during electricity generation, as well. Now we are at a net-decrease in energy production.

 

The shear volume of hydrogen necessary to provide significant improvement in fuel efficiency in a normally injected car is staggering. Hydrogen is EXTREMELY energy dense by weight, almost 3 times that of gasoline. Unfortunately, energy density by volume is almost 3200 times lower for Hydrogen than it is for gasoline (at STP).

 

It also goes without saying that hydrogen fueled vehicles (cars powered solely by hydrogen) are less efficient than those powered by gasoline or diesel. The IEEE put together a wonderful report about the use of hydrogen in vehicles. Their conclusion was that a hydrogen powered engine (a converted gasoline combustion engine) with standard injection will only be about 85% as efficient as a gasoline powered equivalent. This changes with high-pressure direct injection in favor of the Hydrogen, but this certainly does not apply to anyone considering putting a mason jar under the hood.

 

The bottom line is this:

 

Hydrogen powered vehicles are very likely going to be the next-phase in mass transit. The biggest hurdle right now is fuel storage. Building an engine designed solely to burn hydrogen is a fantastically wonderful concept that could see thermodynamic efficiences nearly double that of current gasoline engines. This is a change we should all embrace, as Jay Leno says, because it will leave more gasoline for the enthusiasts of the world to play with.

 

But "HHO" generation is not hydrogen powering a vehicle. It is supplementing traditional fuel with hydrogen and oxygen produced onboard, under non-ideal circumstances. Inefficiently producing hydrogen onboard is not a way to improve efficiency. The generation of that hydrogen in sufficient quantities requires absurd amounts of energy. Just two moles of hydrogen and one mole of oxygen require hundreds of kilojoules of energy to produce, and regardless of how much energy they produce, the energy required to provide sufficient volume to be of any impact is relatively astronomical.

 

No one is doubting that hydrogen is an acceptable fuel source. But what is under argument, is the idea that you can generate hydrogen on-board in sufficient quantities to power, or provide supplemental power, to a vehicle.

 

In the real world, under the hood of your car, the energy required to facilitate electrolysis is greater than the energy returned while burning the resulting gas in the combustion chamber.

 

Now can we PLEASE get back to my lawnmower?

 

I spent a long time this morning modifying it a little so that I could look a little cooler on my drive to work. What do you think?

 

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii287/bac52/john-deere-chopper-lawn-mower.jpg

[LosAngelesLGT]

Arent there entire forums dedicated to this subject? Why argue when you can just make one of these

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkcn8ZkvKKc]YouTube - ‪Forever Electric car ( by wind force generator)‬‏[/ame]

[BAC5.2]

Lol. I should add that to my mower!

[mwiener2]

I wanna know about the new species of life being created all of a sudden.

[fahr_side]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Sujv90PLLY&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ‪The fastest way to charge your Nissan Leaf without power supply‬‏[/ame]

 

These guys have a better idea... this is perpetual motion that really works, so long as you ignore the Tundra. Yay, death to the second law of thermodynamics!

[goneskiian]

Arent there entire forums dedicated to this subject? Why argue when you can just make one of these

 

And if you lean back a bit you'll never need to visit the barber again!

 

"Please keep your hands and feet in your lap at all times when the vehicle is moving!"

 

:lol:

[NSFW]

BAC, I agree with what you're saying about getting no additional energy from putting the H's and O's back together.

 

But he never claimed that it worked that way. In fact he claimed the opposite - it works as catalyst.

 

As I recall from school, one can describe the chemical transformations that a catalyst facilitates... but he can't, and apparently that's not the right question to ask anyway. So I'm pretty much stumped here.

[mwiener2]

there are no transformations happening. It's spontaneous formation of new species of life which we then kill just to drive our big metal boxes around.

[thefultonhow]

I have only ever taken high-school chemistry, and that was years ago, so I'm not sure how to figure out how much activation energy it takes to break C-C and C-H bonds. But my guess is any benefit in lowered activation energy would pale in comparison to the amount of activation energy required for hydrolysis, especially considering the energy required for hydrolysis is a larger amount than the bond-dissociation energy of C-H bonds.

[mwiener2]

So are you saying that with your basic high school education you know that it can't work?

[thefultonhow]

So are you saying that with your basic high school education you know that it can't work?

 

Yes, actually. This is not chemistry anyway, it's physics. There is no way that energy can mysteriously appear from nowhere, and any time energy changes states, a bit is lost due to entropy. I don't need to have taken orgo or quantum mechanics to know that one. From a practical standpoint, too, the only ways to improve MPG are to either make the engine more efficient (convert less energy into heat and more into power, or use the heat and convert it into power), make the power transfer from the engine to the ground more efficient (better aerodynamics, less rolling resistance, less drivetrain loss), or to add an auxiliary power source that does not burn fuel (i.e. use regenerative braking, or store excess energy produced by the engine in low-load states in a battery or hydraulic system). This does none of those.

[fishbone]

Brown gas may be the new in, but text wrapping is definitely going out of style for some.

What I want to know is, injecting steam into my intake, will that help clean my engine?

[thefultonhow]

What I want to know is, injecting steam into my intake, will that help clean my engine?

 

It's gonna be like a dinnerplate, man.

[fishbone]

Great! Wouldn't I be able to somehow retrofit one of those bedroom humidifiers into this?

[rice_rocket]

Wow this has gotten interesting since I haven't read it in ages.

 

The bottom line still is just.. will it/does it work? I've thought of it for a while... even if it was for fun.

 

I know, the alternator has to run more energy to fuel the reaction. The reaction needs some materials (which is also pretty cheap). Does the HHO mix increase the combustion at all? Well sure it should.

 

I'm sure I'm adding fuel to the fire yet again. Here's a thought: I have a sub and an amp that draws some good current when I'm bumping the music. I certainly don't see a loss in gas mileage whether the radio is on or off driving to and from work.. so why would running an HHO bubbler be any different?

 

Ultimately I don't care anymore, as a new father I don't have time to jimmy up contraptions and think of these things.. Diapers cost more than the gas I'm paying right now

[mwiener2]

 

The bottom line still is just.. will it/does it work? Not to increase overall fuel economy

 

I know, the alternator has to run more energy to fuel the reaction. The reaction needs some materials (which is also pretty cheap). Does the HHO mix increase the combustion at all? Well sure it should. If you had enough brown gas, yes it does have a favorable impact on the combustion. The onboard generator cannot produce enough gas to make that impact.

 

I'm sure I'm adding fuel to the fire yet again. Here's a thought: I have a sub and an amp that draws some good current when I'm bumping the music. I certainly don't see a loss in gas mileage whether the radio is on or off driving to and from work.. so why would running an HHO bubbler be any different?You listen to your stereo using about 100 watts for the speakers and maybe 60 watts for the sub, on average. Even though you have a million watt amplifier, you hardly ever use all of it. You'd be deaf if you did. That 160 watts comes out to about 11.4 amps. Well be genrous and say the whole stereo only draws 20 amp on average. The electrolysis HHO generators probably don't draw less than 50 amps and may even go 200+ amps. It would take probably several thousand amps of 12 volt power to get enough gas out of the generator to make a difference.