Browns Gas? For better MPG! Tuning?

[dr_sharp]

Do you realise that several thousand amps is about 50 hp? Are you a f***ing idiot? Seriously?

 

I've really learned alot in this thread - mostly about idiot members not to trust about anything.

[thefultonhow]

I've really learned alot in this thread - mostly about idiot members not to trust about anything.

 

You have yet to make any meaningful contribution to this thread. I just searched and you've posted in it 19 times -- each time has been an ad hominem, or a nitpicky correction to something like the percentage of air that is oxygen (oh no, mweiner2 was 4% off!).

 

Are you going to contribute anything? Or are you just going to continue trolling while people who actually know what they're talking about refute BS?

[dr_sharp]

If you want to defend the members that have posted ridiculous nonsense which includes pictures of cats (or dogs, not sure), lawnmowers, and other random vehicles in this thread, go right ahead.

 

I've called them out when they post BS and nothing more. I clearly stated that I don't fully understand the theory posted. You're correct in that I corrected someone that didn't know the O2 concentration of ambient air and someone that doesn't understand the power requirements of a pump. The fact that these two individuals can't get these simple things correct (simple, because I understand them) insinuates that they don't know their elbow from their ass. They're using their post count and sarcasm to sink a thread that would otherwise be informative because they don't understand it. I'm open to input that would otherwise negate the points I've just described... seriously.

[thefultonhow]

Well, to start with, mweiner may be off on his math, but he's right about the concepts:

 

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam.shtml

[dr_sharp]

What an excellent and reliable source! Thank you so much for providing that link from aardvark.co.nz!!! Good to know that HHO doesn't work on 2.3 HP engines! (according to some asshats in NZ)

 

(/sarcasm) - I added that for the slow people that have posted in this thread.

[thefultonhow]

What an excellent and reliable source! Thank you so much for providing that link from aardvark.co.nz!!! Good to know that HHO doesn't work on 2.3 HP engines! (according to some asshats in NZ)

 

(/sarcasm) - I added that for the slow people that have posted in this thread.

 

What, and qiman is a more reputable source?

 

Can you refute a single thing posted on that site? Yes? No?

[dr_sharp]

And in your wonderful link, I'd like to quote the follwoing mr. sucker,

 

With these inefficiencies taken into account we'd actually need a staggering 1,500A of electrical current to generate the necessary HHO gas to reduce our fuel input by 40%.

 

Wait, lower current than mweiner suggested and 10x the fuel efficiency previously mentioned in this thread?

 

Do you people even read the shit you post?

 

This forum is truly filling of asshats.

[dr_sharp]

What, and qiman is a more reputable source?

 

Can you refute a single thing posted on that site? Yes? No?

If you read and understood what he posted, then yes. If you listen to the people that post pictures of cats (or dogs) and lawnmowers, then no. You decide.

[dr_sharp]

PS, congrats, you've been added to my list of - "don't listen to shit they say"

[thefultonhow]

Wait, lower current than mweiner suggested and 10x the fuel efficiency previously mentioned in this thread?

 

1500 A is still waaaaay outside what a car alternator can produce. 40% is how much HHO proponents claim their devices increase fuel economy, but even at 1/10 the improvement, 150 A is still outside the design capacity of most alternators.

 

As I said, mweiner was off on the numbers, but he had the right idea.

[dr_sharp]

As I said, Im sucking mweiner's dick

We know.

[thefultonhow]

We know.

 

Once again on the ad hominems! You're clearly very mature. When are you going to contribute some actual substance to this thread?

[dr_sharp]

Still waiting for something legitimate to be posted. The fact is that 99.9% of people that post on car forums dont' have the education to refute the information in this thread. As I stated - I am part of that 99.9%. I don't care because I'll never try this - but there's no reason for asshats to post sarcasm and BS to try to disprove someone that knows their shit. These threads are informative for me becuase it points out the fools that will always assume they know everything.

 

Consider this - even Rao stopped posting in this thread :O...

 

I think that says alot. Both about Rao and the 2 or 3 asshats here.

[thefultonhow]

Still waiting for something legitimate to be posted.

 

Plenty of legitimate stuff has been posted. I can't help it if you choose to ignore it.

[thefultonhow]

Who knows? Maybe when you eat shit?

 

"Maybe when you eat shit?" I know I'm on a crusade against ad hominems, but seriously... are you ACTUALLY 14 years old, or do you just act like it?

[dr_sharp]

"Maybe when you eat shit?" I know I'm on a crusade against ad hominems, but seriously... are you ACTUALLY 14 years old, or do you just act like it?

I am 14 years old.

 

Mweiner is 12 years old.

 

Bac5.2 is 11 years old.

 

Truth is told.

[dr_sharp]

Plenty of legitimate stuff has been posted. I can't help it if you choose to ignore it.

Please quote legitimate information. I am slow

[thefultonhow]

Please quote legitimate information. I am slow

 

I'm not going to stay up all night quoting multiple posts per page that have legitimate information in them. I grant that you have to pick through a lot of stuff that's irrelevant and some stuff that is slightly inaccurate, but in the end, the reasons HHO doesn't work are conceptual and hold true even if there are slight errors in numbers or calculations.

[dr_sharp]

I'm not going to stay up all night quoting multiple posts per page that have legitimate information in them. I grant that you have to pick through a lot of stuff that's irrelevant and some stuff that is slightly inaccurate, but in the end, the reasons HHO doesn't work are conceptual and hold true even if there are slight errors in numbers or calculations.

I am prepared to be mature about this - and I am asking you to confirm the "legitimate" posts because I affirm that there are not legitimate posts. Until you point them out, I (and other readers) can assume that there are none.

 

As I've pointed out several times - those that pretend to know what they're talking about don't actually know much about this topic.

 

PS. sorry for being immature (I am 14) I deleted one of my posts. I really get into arguments. I am seriously interested in this one and seriously doubt those that question the validity. I am seriously ready to learn otherwise - but the arguments thus far have been full of cats, dogs, mowers, etc. I may very well be making a fuss over nothing, but I do want to hear a legitimate argument.

[fahr_side]

Please quote legitimate information. I am slow

I think it's your job to prove it works, not the other way around. Calling those who disagree with you cocksuckers is not a valid argument. Regurgitating pseudo-science that you yourself don't understand is not proof.

If the only people you can be civil to are those who agree with you, perhaps this is not the right forum for this discussion.

[thefultonhow]

Let's start with this post, which was posted less than 24 hours ago. Yes, there are some lawnmower jokes in it. That doesn't invalidate the actual substantive points made.

 

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

[dr_sharp]

I think it's your job to prove it works, not the other way around. Calling those who disagree with you cocksuckers is not a valid argument. Regurgitating pseudo-science that you yourself don't understand is not proof.

If the only people you can be civil to are those who agree with you, perhaps this is not the right forum for this discussion.

 

NO. Absolutely not. What others have posted in response to quiman have been BS. I've tried to call these others out on their BS... but I am not the best person to do so becasue I don't fully understand his point. That doesn't negate the fact that they are posting BS. If you cant understand the topic, it is YOUR job to do the research... it SHOULD NOT be assumed that the poster if full of BS when he is posting legitimate information.

[thefultonhow]

NO. Absolutely not. What others have posted in response to quiman have been BS. I've tried to call these others out on their BS... but I am not the best person to do so becasue I don't fully understand his point. That doesn't negate the fact that they are posting BS. If you cant understand the topic, it is YOUR job to do the research... it SHOULD NOT be assumed that the poster if full of BS when he is posting legitimate information.

 

fahr_side has a point, though. qiman has yet to prove HHO does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. That's the basic crux of the argument.

[dr_sharp]

Let's start with this post, which was posted less than 24 hours ago. Yes, there are some lawnmower jokes in it. That doesn't invalidate the actual substantive points made.

 

I'm sad that I actually have to respond to this, but OK...

 

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.

Your intitial assumption is wrong - you know, the one that you base your entire arguement on?

 

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

 

When you're injecting HHO, these reactions are not ideal and they are not, in any manner, predicable. Combustion IS chemistry, reguardless of what you or others say.

 

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

Please post a wonderful link from IEEE.

 

Lets look at some combustion tables... scroll down:

https://www.llnl.gov/str/Westbrook.html

 

You see that simple fuels are easily predictable, but more complex fuels have MANY, MANY species (OMG, SPECIES, not what mweiner was talking about). Add another compound into this mix and the combustion process becomes far more convoluted. If anyone in this forum thinks they can predict the combustion species, they are full of something.

[dr_sharp]

Does that LLNL link work for others?:

https://www.llnl.gov/str/Westbrook.html

It doesn't work for me... I'll just paste the pictures if necessary...