Gas from water? - A delusion, or maybe not.

[MossRoad]

O.K. folks. The name calling has started. Courteous discussion should resume or the thread will most likely be closed.

 

[jdbower]

I think the biggest question is fundamentally one of how an alternator works, and I'm willing to be edumacated on that. There is no transmission for an alternator to my knowledge which to me implies that one of two things happens:

1. It runs on demand. When the battery level drops enough to warrant a charge the alternator will flip on, but to save fuel the alternator will turn off between charges.

2. The alternator is on all the time and probably generating pretty much the max output, meaning that a lot of the output could be wasted.

If option 1 is correct, then thermodynamic laws apply. Pick up a book, now put it down. Zero work is done, the book is in the same place, but do it enough and your arms get tired because energy is expended. It's the same principle, 2*H2O + ENERGY --> 2H2 + 02 --> 2*H2O + energy. The net effect is zero and we waste energy doing it (unless we're talking about nuclear reactions, then we can convert some matter to energy but you need a Mr. Fusion and some potassium from a banana peel for that). Here perceived mileage increases are often the result of conscious or subconscious changes in driving habits or comparing the measured new mileage to the EPA estimated old mileage. The placebo effect is indeed a strong one. There's also a good chance that tapping into the air intake or changing things around steals a ton of power and gives an actual mileage increase, but you could save a lot of money by just figuring out what side effect is causing the increase. And then, of course, there's the outright lie factor. If you're selling these you'll of course want to claim large increases and if you've bought one you don't want to admit you were taken.

If option 2 is correct, then all you're doing is converting energy that would otherwise be wasted into fuel and you may see a mileage increase, perhaps significantly. However, there are other concerns:

a. You'll be voiding the warranty of pretty much everything. Adding an explosive gas into the engine will void the powertrain, dealing with water in the engine bay will take care of the electronics, and the caustic bases they require will take care of anything corrosion related.

b. As with the guy with the Lexus above, you'll need to do some fuel management reprogramming to get that working well. With a lot of cars this may not even be possible, I looked into it for mine and a two year LEASE on the computer to program my car would cost $250,000 - and that's assuming I have the skills to make those changes. If this is something that can be tweaked using an ODB connection or if your make happens to still be easy to program you may have better luck.

c. You're reducing the capacity of the alternator. This means you could kill your battery if you've got any high-draw electronics like high beams, stereo systems,and other stuff you'd probably be better off removing if mileage is your top concern, a constant 20A draw is a lot of current.

d. You should also compare the cost and danger to simply swapping out the alternator drive pulley or belt so you can underdrive it, aftermarket performance companies have this because the alternator steals engine power but by sending more power to the wheels you should get better fuel economy. A smaller alternator may also provide even better efficiency at a cheaper price.

e. The main reason the car manufacturers wouldn't use it is because it's high maintenance. Hybrids sell because they don't get treated any differently than cars, you fill them at the gas station, they drive normally, and any routine maintenance can be dealt with at oil change intervals at the dealer. Electrics don't sell because if you run out of juice or forget to charge overnight you call a tow truck and try again tomorrow. Depending on how often this tank needs to be refilled that could be a serious issue, even if it's at fuel up gas stations don't sell distilled water so you'd need to have a reservoir big enough to last between oil-change cycles and I doubt that's practical. Plus needing to handle what's effectively drain cleaner makes it a dangerous no-no from a liability standpoint. I'm assuming that when the tank is empty nothing bad happens, in theory you have two charged plates in a lump of acrylic which is mostly harmless. If there's a chance of overheating and fire when dry, for example if the plates are flexible enough to touch when going over bumps or if the water is needed for cooling, that's another major issue.

This can be made better by allowing the capture and selective release of the gas, much like a battery in a hybrid. But then you vastly add to the complexity and price. If I had a spare vehicle I would be tempted to play with one, but I wouldn't use one on a vehicle I needed as a daily driver.

 

[dbdartman]

I am enjoying this, & as a "better educated than most" backyard mechanic am seeing both sides of the debate (not better educated in the scholastic definition, but in the mechanical definition). Sure, the debate almost seems like a replay of "plane on a conveyor belt" with some basic misunderstanding & outright ignorance, but it is educational.

Personally I've only just been introduced to this concept about a month ago, so I haven't formed any opinions, good or bad, yet. Only thing I have now is a "wait & see" attitude as MPG claims need long term monitoring to be valid & I haven't seen where tests have been done long term (more than 2 years).

If it turns out this system really does help improve MPG, then I'll look into fitting it on one of my cars & doing my own long term test, but only after studying the system & it's requirements for weak links (first impression is electric power is the weak link & after dealing with 60's Mopars for the last 30 years I, unfortunately, know all too much about weak/under engineered electrical systems).

 

[jdbower]

I got bored so I calculated the rate at which water will be consumed, but high school chemistry was a long time ago!

1. I'm guessing 1.9LPM refers to the total gas production, 2*H2+O2, and not the H2 production.

2. H2 has an atomic mass of 2, O2 a mass of about 32. This means that H2 has a density of about 0.09g/L and O2 about 1.43g/L. Since there are twice as many H2 molecules the average would be about 0.53g/L.

3. This means at 1.9LPM we end up creating about 1g of gasses per minute. This equates to about a mL of water per minute. If we use a 1L (1/4 gallon) tank as these seem to be you'll use up all the water every 16.4 hours that your car is on. More realistically you'll probably want to top it off in between since I would guess that the production rate goes down the more the plates are exposed to air instead of water.

If we assume that people drive about 1.5 hours a day during the week (should cover a moderate commute plus a few side trips) and you don't want it less than half full it means that you'll probably be filling up the distilled water every week or so - excluding weekend trips. Of course, your commute and the size of the reservoir may vary but once a week isn't awful if you're willing to do this sort of thing yourself. If you want to mass produce it into vehicles you can't rely on the customer having a mechanic fill the reservoir so you need to create a distribution channel for the water/lye solution and safety mechanisms for the general population. What's unclear is if or why you need to keep using a 3% solution. In theory only the water should be extracted and the solute should remain behind so you may be able to just fill with water - this would make things easier for the end user.

Of course, this assumes STP (standard temperature and pressure). More likely they measured the volume locally above sea level (lower pressure) and at engine bay temperatures (both of which inflate the actual volume generated but this also prolongs the water source).

 

[Eagleview]

The biggest reason that manufacturers don't put ALL their available technologies into the current vehicles is because of EPA laws . Every year or so more stringent targets are set for lower emissions . If they where to put all their techs. out on display on say , a 2008 F250 what would they do for the next round of targets ? I know for fact that truck makers do this , they always have new tech. ready for the next model , otherwise it would be pandemonium at the factory every year trying to meet the targets . It's like having money available for the house loan rather than trying to scratch it up 2 days before it's due .

 

[Egon]

Ahh heck; I'm with Eddie, Just do not understand all the fancy dialog surrounding this.

But why does nor someone do a real test on all this stuff. should not be to hard should it???

Maybe we could end up with the "Philosophers stone"

 

[Tig]

By googling hydroxy I found my way to wikipedia and followed a link to another entry which gave the following information.
"Applications - Claimed

[edit] Automotive

See also: water-fueled car

Oxyhydrogen is often mentioned in conjunction with devices that claim to increase automotive engine efficiency.

Many of these claims, prima facie, violate the Law of conservation of energy. See Conservation of energy and Electrolysis of water:Efficiency. To date, none of these claims have been proven, and most have been fraudulent."

 

[Tig]

Also the folowing note in the article.
[edit] Production

A pure stoichiometric mixture is most easily obtained by water electrolysis, which uses an electric current to dissociate the water molecules:

electrolysis: 2 H2O → 2 H2 + O2
combustion: 2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O

The energy required to generate the oxyhydrogen always exceeds the energy released by combusting it. (See Electrolysis of water:Efficiency)."

 

[Egon]

Simple; if it works it pays to get some proper accredited laboratory verification.

If it don't just keep promoting it.

There was fellow once I asked what mileage he got from his truck. Well, he told me he drove from A to B and over to C and back home and only used 1/4 tank of gas. He figured it got terrific mileage?? Never did find out the distance or the amount of fuel used but so be it!

 

[SPYDERLK]

Ahh heck; I'm with Eddie, Just do not understand all the fancy dialog surrounding this.

But why does nor someone do a real test on all this stuff. should not be to hard should it???

Maybe we could end up with the "Philosophers stone"

It strikes me that a small emergency generator would make a good test platform. Battery charger run off gen. Other loads, resistive like heaters or incandescent lights, taylored to the gen. Measure fuel consumption with loads only, then with same loads + batt charger/battery running the electrolysis. If it even runs the same amount of time on a tank it means theres a benefit. Any volunteers?
larry

 

[Tig]

I like your idea Larry. The only thing I would change is get rid of the battery since it could provide extra energy.

 

[SPYDERLK]

I like your idea Larry. The only thing I would change is get rid of the battery since it could provide extra energy.

Regular old batt chargers have a lot of ripple - the battery would smooth it. Best tho, would be a real constant-voltage-constant-current lab power supply. Good quality DC w adjustable output. Great if you got one.
larry

 

[turnkey4099]

It was was under 'Turbodiesel'
Turbodiesel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Turbocharging is the norm rather than the exception in modern car diesel engines........ These improvements in power, fuel economy and Noise, Vibration, and Harshness in both small- and large-capacity turbodiesels over the last decade have spurred their widespread adoption in certain markets".

Thanks. The one I found I got through Google.

Although it starts out by including 'economy' the write up does not support it. It repeatedly states that additional fuel is used when the turbo is working. One place it even states that when the turbo is not working, the economy isn't quite what the same engine normally aspirated would pull.

Any economy would be relying on using a smaller engine and staying out of boost.

Harry K

 

[VA_Joe]

I believe the current price of LPG is based on supply and demand. If suddenly there were thousands more cars on the road using LPG then the demand would go up and so would the price. Road taxes on LPG would be increased to equal those on gasoline and suddenly LPG would be more than gasoline.

If you use LPG, SHHHHH, don't tell anyone or you will drive the price up.

It's all supply and demand. Natural gas used to be cheap and plentiful until the clean air act forced power companies to go natural gas on new power plants (vice coal). This caused the price of natural gas used for home heating to skyrocket. The same will happen to propane with increased demand. Also - since propane is one of many byproducts of the oil refining process - it is subject to many of the same pricing pressures as gasoline and diesel.

 

[Reg]

20amps /1.7 litres sounds fair. Don't want to be accused of making it too easy.

Now the next step is to feed that hydroxy gas into the airflow, which then mixes with the petrol to create a concoction that has God only knows what combustion properties. Where does your equation go from here?

I don't have the other side of the equation, I was just offering the 280 Watts side as a starting point for discussion.

I think the Oxygen component can probably be discounted HEAVILY.
As I said earlier, there are relatively inexpensive mature techniques for cramming a LOT more air into engines of any given displacement - turbo or superchargers.
So what is the hydrogen component "worth" ?

On the subject of why engineers aren't doing x,y, or z;
It is generally true that engineers engineer (verb).
WHAT they engineer is decided by policy makers, who are driven by financial goals.
I don't take the fact that a company with engineers doesn't do something to mean that their engineers couldn't do that thing, or that the laws of nature would need to be repealed in order to allow it to be done.

C'mon will SOMEBODY please tell us what the hydrogen portion of the 1.7 l per minute could contribute when exploded in however much air it would take ?


One more OPINION, since we are going in several different directions with this thread.
Measuring fuel consumption is incredibly difficult to do with any precision.
Day to day variations in temperature, humidity, traffic, head wind, load, stop lights,,,,,,,, can all add to make for the worst case, or off-set each other.
On my duramax I have the detailed gauge set and a scan gauge II, I do WATCH my "instantaneous consumption" a lot while driving and I'm fairly sure it affects my driving style (favorably).
I can not say with much certainty why I sometimes get 16 MPG when towing and other times get 14. I would like to believe that when it is good it is because I have driven well and when it is bad it is because of factors beyond my control, but...
Anyway, experiments in which one plays the role of lab rat as well as experimenter rarely produce credible results.
So yes, I do think there is a high risk of self delusion in the group that claim measurable improvements in MPG.

Say, "double blind" and I'll listen more attentively.

 

[Egon]

Add proper accredited testing facility and then we should be getting close!

 

[MossRoad]

Add proper accredited testing facility and then we should be getting close!

Your place or mine?

(We're still talking about drinking it, right?)

 

[MossRoad]

Your place or mine?

(We're still talking about drinking it, right?)

OOPs, that was the corn to fuel thread.

 

[Egon]

Definitely my place Moss. Got the prefect spot in mind already!

 

[MossRoad]

Definitely my place Moss. Got the prefect spot in mind already!

Yes! Double blind testing could work there. Well, maybe not blind, but impared, for sure!