Browns Gas? For better MPG! Tuning?

[fahr_side]

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.

 

So let me get this straight. You admit you don't understand these points, but call them bullshit anyway, and call all who disagree cocksuckers.

Again I'm going to suggest that you go and familiarize yourself with the science involved before coming back here to sell it to the unbelievers.

 

And seriously, does your guardian know how you spend your time on the internet, and how you talk to people who so far have shown you nothing but kindness, tolerance and mostly good-natured humor?

[mwiener2]

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...

 

That has nothing to do with this thread other than you googling "combustion species"

[AKLGT]

THIS IS YOUR FRIENDLY MODERATOR AND PUBLIC WARNING:

 

I'm tired of reading your immature insults. If you want to disagree, that is fine, leave the insults and personal attacks out. This is the FINAL and ONLY WARNING you will receive. If you choose to ignore it, you will pass go and go directly to jail/7 day time off. If you cannot understand this, please let me know so I may clarify it even further.

[seabass07]

Well that was entertaining.

[BAC5.2]

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.

 

You might be part of the 99.9% that lacks the education to understand what is going on. I, like mweiner2, am a part of the 0.1% that do. I actually have a background in quantum and continuum mechanics. I'm the smartest 11 year old you've ever seen.

 

How is my initial assumption wrong? In electrolysis you decompose 2H20 into 2H2 and O2. When you combust Hydrogen, the combustion equation is 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + energy. Chemistry.

 

And no shit the reactions are not ideal. You are generating hydrogen using a pasta sauce jar and some wire under the hood of a car! Did you think that the yield would INCREASE when conditions were non-ideal? Nope. They go down.

 

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.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww1.eere.energy.gov%2Fhydrogenandfuelcells%2Ftech_validation%2Fpdfs%2Ffcm03r0.pdf&ei=l3DfTYy9BsrogQeInozTCg&usg=AFQjCNHr1wwzCUm2mjJVk3GDZzGCYwlMmQ

 

 

Let's think practically for a moment.

 

Faraday's first law tells you, ideally, how much volume of a gas you can expect based on current and time and some constants. That law says that, at STP it will require nearly 2.3 amps to generate 1 liter of hydrogen in an hour. If you wanted to produce it in a timely fashion, multiply as needed. 1 Liter of Hydrogen contains less energy than 1 liter of gasoline (by a factor of nearly 3200). Not very useful.

 

The generation of useful volumes of hydrogen is not likely under the hood of a car. It's obvious that the assumed fuel savings via "HHO" injection is NOT because the hydrogen supplements gasoline.

 

So what else is there? Facilitation of reaction? Not likely. Once you suck hydrogen into the engine, it is in a cavity populated by a bunch of hydrocarbon chains (C8H18, C9H20, C10H22, C11H24, C6H6, C7H8, and C8H10), and air (O2, N2, and trace others), and not much else. As we saw with the power consumption of electrolysis, the contribution of 2H2 and O2 is minimal in comparison.

 

So, what is it going to do? Not a whole lot.

 

The MPG increasing effect of HHO is, in all likelihood, entirely mental.

 

If you want to blindly believe (or simply argue for no other sake) that these "HHO" generators are magical, and that the Government has been hiding pasta-sauce jars from the public for years, then go ahead.

 

How can you disagree, if you don't understand what's going on? Are you doing it for no other reason than to be belligerent? Clearly curiousity isn't your motivation, because you haven't done anything but call out people who know what they are talking about, and support the one person who has left every claim they made unsubstantiated.

 

This thread is a complete waste of time. I'm done.

 

Oh, and here is a cat picture:

 

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii287/bac52/funny-cat-picture.jpg

[fishbone]

They're using their post count and sarcasm to sink a thread that would otherwise be informative

Informative? No. You are hoping someone will post some good information because you seem to have already reached the conclusion that such a contraption should work but you just need proof.

If you want informative there are a bunch of articles written by smart guys who also did testing and they all pretty much say the same thing. The theory on paper is one thing, and in practice is another. And in practice it doesn't make a significant difference. Theories on paper are very effective at separating people from their money.

If an increase of 5mpg was important for me I would go buy a car that got that much better gas mileage vs the one that I have instead of voiding warranties.

And if you want to invoke some generalist bullshit about oil and dependence of foreign sources, "but it's good for the environment" etc then the entire premise is wrong because the air pumps we are all driving these days are HORRIBLY inefficient. And by "you" I just mean as a general term for those that reason these contraptions in such a way.

If these contraptions worked and made a difference we'd have seen them in reputable news sources. It's the same story with every other gimmick. It ain't in the news because it's a conspiracy. If it worked then the oil companies would have already purchased and burried all patents. Just like someone mentioned plasma ignition. It ain't mainstream because a handful of assholes are sitting on the technology.

 

Oh, and I don't have a stake in this. I'm ... agnostic if you will. But the evidence I have read (and common sense) seem to indicate it's just another gimmick, like those Radioshack resistors sold to fool the MAF. If someone comes out with a product that can be verified to work to my satisfaction, I may buy it.

[LongHiway]

and that the Government has been hiding pasta-sauce jars from the public for years, then go ahead.

 

you mean flux-capacitors are fiction too?

[mwiener2]

I put a magnet on my fuel line once. It broke the fuel line. The complex chains breaking down into simpler ones were too great and ruptured my fuel line at the magnet.

[LongHiway]

I put a magnet on my fuel line once. It broke the fuel line. The complex chains breaking down into simpler ones were too great and ruptured my fuel line at the magnet.

 

Wow, you are old. That's because you were using leaded gasoline at the time. Everyone knows you need a lead magnet to do that.

[BAC5.2]

and that the Government has been hiding pasta-sauce jars from the public for years, then go ahead.

 

you mean flux-capacitors are fiction too?

 

Those are real.

[qiman]

I'm busy with work so haven't had a chance to respond, but at a brief

glance, I'm compelled to answer some the degenerate logic and nonsense

from the cynics.

 

Very soon - just as a preliminary note from the posts that came as a

response to my posts, there are perpetual motion nuts and those nuts

are the ones that claim perpetual motion when over 1.0 systems are

mentioned and those people are too ignorant to understand the difference.

 

A refrigerator is about cop 3.0~5.0 and has nothing to do with perpetual

motion. Neither do any of the systems that I mentioned or their connection

and relevance to the non-equilibrium systems. They are NOT theoretical

and only the ignorant and blind will make such pathetic and ridiculous

claims.

 

I'm busy this weekend as it is a holiday weekend with family but I will

get back to this thread.

[NSFW]

I put a magnet on my fuel line once. It broke the fuel line. The complex chains breaking down into simpler ones were too great and ruptured my fuel line at the magnet.

 

Do not taunt happy fun mod.

[mwiener2]

A refrigerator is about cop 3.0~5.0 and has nothing to do with perpetual

motion.

 

I'm busy this weekend as it is a holiday weekend with family but I will

get back to this thread.

 

No they aren't regardless of how improperly you use COP and don't bother, you'e the only one waisting time.

[lgt_nube]

How behind the times this purported device is. I well remember at state fairs back in the 50's the demonstrations of engine gadgets that, as soon as activated, increased engine RPMs a lot. Some things never die...

[qiman]

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.

 

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

 

Yes, but you still seem to be completely unable to comprehend the point.

 

You fail to understand the distinctions in their entirety. You are

making an argument for something that was never part of the

conversation. You think it was because again, you have no idea the

distinctions.

 

I am not saying that the electrolysis cell is producing enough hydrogen

that is combusted that runs a generator to produce enough electricity

in order to produce enough hydrogen to keep itself running.

 

You are either unable to comprehend what I have shared or you are

intentionally spreading your misdirecting misinformation for the purposes

of throwing people off.

 

What you're argument is has NOTHING to do with anything that I have

posted - and if you maintain that it does, that just backs the fact

that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about because

you can't even comprehend the distinctions.

 

Your argument is: "the energy required to decompose water into it's molecular components is sufficiently greater than the energy released during combustion."

 

Yes, I agree with you on that point - I have never stated anything to the

contrary.

 

You evidently do not know what a catalyst is or how it works - so let me

spell it out in elementary language. You get a little something that

stimulates a whole lot of something - sort of like enzymes that recycle -

they are in effect catalysts as are minerals are catalysts in a way that

let vitamins work, etc... in this case, the HHO is simply a catalyst that

allows the fuel to be used in a more efficient way. That has NOTHING to

do with claiming that the HHO cell is producing enough to produce enough

electricity to keep itself running, which is the actual premise to your

argument, even if you are not consciously aware of it. That extra energy

that is released made possible by the HHO interaction with fuel and air

was ALREADY sitting there in the forum of potential in that fuel.

 

If what your lack of comprehension states is true in a faulty context,

you are saying that a CDI for example can never do anything - and you

would be dead wrong, indisputably.

 

With a cdi, you have have 2~4uf microfarad cap that is charged between

400~500 volts then discharged into the primary of an ignition coil. Because

of that stronger spark, MORE fuel is able to burn and MORE power is

released from the fuel than the electricity it took to run the CDI. That is

because the small input of the CDI charging power simply let more of

the potential that was ALREADY in the fuel (didn't magically come from

outer space) to be converted into actual measurable joules of energy

or in other words, WORK.

 

You put a little electricity in to produce some HHO and that HHO causes

MORE of the potential in the fuel that is ALREADY there to be released

so it can do more WORK.

 

It is a perfect analogy to a CDI. If what you say is true, when you turn

on a CDI, the HP would have to REDUCE because you are drawing power

from the engine to charge the cap and you could never see an increase

in power because it takes more power to charge the CDI than will be

added to the combustion process.

 

I did post one federal govt document that acknowledged a test showing

that hho cells work - provide ONE single legitimate reference - not

lip service - from a credible university or credible lab showing that there

is zero benefit from a HHO cell. I posted one reference, there are more.

You and the birds of a feather ignore it and respond with childish jokes

and foolishness while all at the same time, all completely being unable

to comprehend anything I said.

 

Also, the only real perpetual motion nuts are the ones that argue about

perpetual motions claims when there is no discussion about perpetual

motion. When people get distracted - their mouths start moving - just

watch any audience when the show gets disrupted. Just because

thoughts are going through their minds doesn't mean they are actually

thinking.

[qiman]

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.

 

Thank God!

[qiman]

There is no way that energy can mysteriously appear from nowhere, and any time energy changes states, a bit is lost due to entropy.

 

There is entropy in BOTH closed and open system governed by conventional

closed system thermodynamics and open system non-equilibrium

thermodynamics. BOTH systems contribute to entropy of the universe.

 

In my kite flying analogy, there is free energy input from the wind while

AT THE SAME TIME, there is entropy. However, the actual work in joules

of energy done in this system can be MORE than the child has to

contribute. So, there can be a net gain in work from a small investment.

This is the way EVERY natural system works - natural systems do not

obey the classical laws of thermodynamics - only a fool would believe

such a thing. All natural systems are perfectly described by

non-equilibrium thermodynamics, which DOES violate the conventional

closed system thermodynamics taught in elementary physics textbooks.

[qiman]

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?

 

Yes.

 

An associate added plasma ignition and steam injection. Leaned out the

jets on an old VW (1300cc I think) - and got a 43% increase in mileage.

Everything is cleaner, less emissions, more power, more mileage, and

there is NO detrimental effects from the lean mixture because the plasma

can extend the lean burn limit significantly.

 

The exhaust temp reduced by over 150 degrees!

 

The steam was super low tech - dripping water on the exhaust manifold

and the flash steam was ducted to the carburetor with a pipe.

 

Of course you'll need an o2 sensor mod as well as maybe the map/maf

sensor. But don't do that unless you know what you're doing. If you

have electronics that is.

[qiman]

Originally Posted by rice_rocket http://legacygt.com/forums/skynetim/buttons/viewpost.gif

 

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.

 

----------------

The red is mwiener2's response above:

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The average HHO cell is 20-30 amps. No less than 50 and up to 200+?

That is a ridiculous attempt at explaining what these boosters draw.

 

Those people that are using ultra high amperage are NOT trying to use

their a water cell as a catalytic booster, they are trying to get their

car to run on just water and will fail doing it that way.

 

So according to your analysis of a stereo draw, the average HHO cell

is drawing no more than your radio.

 

Simply looks like more convenient disinformation in order to strengthen

your bogus argument. Sorry folks if you're falling his ill-informed

explanations - he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

 

An EFFECTIVE cell that DOES boost power, mileage and reducing emissions

only needs 20-30 amps at the most. Any more than that and you

will be losing power. Only so much HHO can release more of the potential

that is ALREADY stored in the fuel and any more than that will be an

effort in futility.

 

I'm telling you the facts - mwiener is grasping for straws based on

no experience in this field whatsoever.

[qiman]

What, and qiman is a more reputable source?

 

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

 

 

I posted a document from the department of energy stating that an HHO

cell gave a truck 4% increase in mileage and 7% decrease in particulate

emissions.

 

You and the other "skeptics" ignore that and you post a link to some NZ

google ad website and that is a scientific report? Get real!

 

mwiener stated that my DOE reference was about bottled hydrogen

because he was incapable of comprehending the report. I pointed out

it was about hydrogen injection from a simple electrolysis cell and he

ignored that and so do you.

[qiman]

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.

 

mweiner and his skeptic associates are wrong.

 

But I have to admit that MOST of the people out there experimenting

and using HHO also don't know what they're doing.

 

But what you are doing is spreading misinformation too.

 

You state that "40% is how much HHO proponents claim their devices increase fuel economy"

 

Sorry, you're pulling numbers of out thin air and you are taking it out

of context.

 

The facts are that SOME people using HHO will claim that much and

higher. Most do not get that kind of improvement. The ones that do

get that kind of improvement, which some do, is because their cars

are only getting 1/2 the mileage the cars are supposed to get and

by getting a better burn, their mileage can start to creep up to where

it is supposed to be.

 

I have a friend that got a 100% increase in fuel mileage with a gas

additive. An old Chevy truck he was getting 7mpg on the highway and

got 14mpg on the highway after a couple tanks.

 

So, you need to keep things in context and actually be honest about

it. You state it as if all HHO users are claiming 40% and that is only

true in your imagination.

[qiman]

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.

 

That has nothing to do with the argument.

 

It is whether or not HHO works and it does.

 

I bring up the equilibrium and non-equilibrium thermodynamics to show

the distinctions that I am starting to believe that I am the only one here

that understands what it means.

 

The HHO booster does not violate thermodynamics.

 

It is a catalyst and pushing the violating thermodynamics falsehood is

simply proof (not evidence) that you and the others griping about

thermodynamics have no idea what you are talking about.

[qiman]

Originally Posted by qiman http://legacygt.com/forums/skynetim/buttons/viewpost.gif

A refrigerator is about cop 3.0~5.0 and has nothing to do with perpetual

motion.

 

No they aren't regardless of how improperly you use COP and don't bother, you'e the only one waisting time.

 

So am I wrong that a refrigerator can't be over 1.0 COP? Most are under

2.0 but I don't deal with most conventional technologies when it is so easy

to increase the COP of any refrigerant by 25% or more on demand. That is

normal, it can be up to 5.0 - but you probably don't know how or why.

 

Again, what are the COP's of a refrigerator?

 

Also, I posted links to references of wind generators using COP, etc...

 

You of course conveniently forgot those and ignored those references

that dispute your claim that cop can only apply to heat pumps.

 

A ratio of our input to the output not including free environmental input

IS COP regardless of what kind of device it is on. It was only heat pumps

that used them first and for you to think you are such an expert on

heat pumps that COP can't be used on other systems is downright

laughable.

 

Again, what is the COP of a refrigerator?

[rao]

I KNEW this stuff worked!

[fahr_side]

http://i.imgur.com/jdNJA.jpg