Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Why converting water won't increase your MPG

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Justin00LS

I've had two friends tell me they are buying parts to make HHO generators for their cars to boost their MPG. One guy is already making HHO bubbles, just like they do on youtube. Now I am no expert, however I am an Electrical Engr student at the University of Kentucky, and here is what I told them...

Converting water into combustible gas can be done using electricity, but using the vehicle’s own electrical energy to convert water is simply a closed system that uses more energy, thus more gas.

The basic laws of thermodynamics tell us that 1 mole of burning hydrogen produces a fixed amount of energy: 241.8 kJ. Thermodynamics also tells us that the same amount of energy is required to split 1 mole of hydrogen out of water: 241.8 kJ.

If everything involved in the closed system(no outside source of power) was 100% efficient, the absolute best one can do in the closed system is break even. The reality is that internal combustion engines are only about 30% efficient, so for every 100kJ of energy one puts put in, 30KJ go into pushing the car forward, and 70KJ go into heat. Then one has the inefficiency of the alternator, the resistance in the wires between the alternator and the electrolysis tank, heat losses through the bearings in the alternator, transmission driveline losses, etc…

All said and done, for the 241KJ one put into electrolysis, they will lose most of it when it comes to burning it again. This is not just an opinion; this is simple chemistry and thermodynamics that has been 100% proved through theory and experimentation.

Posted by: cammerfe

Please don't confuse me with facts!!!

I'm already baffled with B---S---

KS

Posted by: camthman

you dont get 1.21 jiggawatts????

I mean all you need is a bolt of lightning!

Posted by: TDUB

Quote:

Originally Posted by camthman

you dont get 1.21 jiggawatts????

I mean all you need is a bolt of lightning!

LMAO my favorite movie of all time.

Posted by: 97stscaddy

The gains in MPG do not come from simply adding a stream of HHO to the intake air supply. The gains come from tricking the cars computer into thinking that the engine is running rich, it reduces the fuel mixture (leans out) and you have to match the loss of gasoline with the HHO gas in order to produce the same power. Which is not hard because Hydrogen and Oxygen are both very volatile, and both burn much more efficiently than gasoline.

What you have said is entirely true, and if your friends think that just popping a line into the intake hose on the car is going to get them better fuel economy, they're going to be disappointed.

Posted by: KleenLS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin00LS

Converting water into combustible gas can be done using electricity, but using the vehicle’s own electrical energy to convert water is simply a closed system that uses more energy, thus more gas.

The basic laws of thermodynamics tell us that 1 mole of burning hydrogen produces a fixed amount of energy: 241.8 kJ. Thermodynamics also tells us that the same amount of energy is required to split 1 mole of hydrogen out of water: 241.8 kJ.

If everything involved in the closed system(no outside source of power) was 100% efficient, the absolute best one can do in the closed system is break even. The reality is that internal combustion engines are only about 30% efficient, so for every 100kJ of energy one puts put in, 30KJ go into pushing the car forward, and 70KJ go into heat. Then one has the inefficiency of the alternator, the resistance in the wires between the alternator and the electrolysis tank, heat losses through the bearings in the alternator, transmission driveline losses, etc…

All said and done, for the 241KJ one put into electrolysis, they will lose most of it when it comes to burning it again. This is not just an opinion; this is simple chemistry and thermodynamics that has been 100% proved through theory and experimentation.

Yeah! Wat he Said!!!

hahaha

Posted by: mharrison

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97stscaddy

The gains in MPG do not come from simply adding a stream of HHO to the intake air supply. The gains come from tricking the cars computer into thinking that the engine is running rich, it reduces the fuel mixture (leans out) and you have to match the loss of gasoline with the HHO gas in order to produce the same power. Which is not hard because Hydrogen and Oxygen are both very volatile, and both burn much more efficiently than gasoline.

What you have said is entirely true, and if your friends think that just popping a line into the intake hose on the car is going to get them better fuel economy, they're going to be disappointed.

+1. Fooling the computer while keeping the car running right is definitely the hard part.

Posted by: owlman

But the waaaiiiting is the hardest part.

Posted by: Eric0508

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97stscaddy

This is incorrect. It is impossible to improve your gas mileage by creating hydrogen on the fly using your engine power. Now, you can run your engine lean on gas and add the H2 you are creating, but you will not have any more power, and probably wont see any mpg improvement. In order to get the same power, and increaced mpg, and generate h2 on the fly, you literally would need to create energy from nothing. Which we know is impossible.

Posted by: Justin00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97stscaddy

...

So you’re saying the HHO is just there to trick the computer to make it run leaner… If that was the case, then one should just reprogram (tune) their PCM to actually run leaner and save on gas. They certainly wouldn't need an HHO that consumes energy to “fool” the computer.

Guys, this device defies the basic laws of science and it can not work. Yes it can make hydrogen, which is combustible, but it can not make more energy out of water (or anything else) than it consumes. "Energy can not be created nor destroyed"

I just wanted to let people know that it doesn’t work so they don’t waste their money on such devices. However, if one charged a battery every night and placed it in their trunk then it would theoretically work, because the energy used to convert the water would be from an alternate source.

Posted by: pektel

In reference to Eric's last comment about impossibility of creating energy from nothing:

Wasn't that one of Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics? Something about "Energy is neither created nor destroyed..." then something about "it's transferred from one party to the next." IIRC, that is.

Posted by: jokken

can't we just feed our cars hamburgers? thats how I create energy

Posted by: pektel

red bull ftw

Posted by: n8bachelor

I tend to agree with Eric and Justin on this one. I am not an Electrical Engineer but rather a Civil Engineer by trade (with a heavy emphasis on math and physics in college).

I have seen them all over the place (HHO generators) and they are advertised as wildly varying improvement in miles per gallon (I've seen 35-100% claimed). I must call BS on that claim, especially with modern, fuel injected, computer controlled cars.

Using the energy from the car's battery creates the HHO which then goes into the engine (a profoundly inefficient form of energy transformation), combusts into mechanical energy, and runs back through the alternator and returns to the battery. Even if the car is "tricked" into running lean, more of the combustion's power is required to replace the energy used to create the HHO and not move the car; thus a loss in power for propulsion. Maintaining the same speeds and acceleration then requires more fuel/HHO mixture and thus the net result is null.
One other point.... the rate at which the gas is produced, even in the largest units, is minuscule compared to the volume of air the engine requires to operate.

The only real gains are for those selling the "magic boxes". I have seen them as cheap as a $20 or as much as $500. Just depends on how big of a fish the marketing department is trying to catch.

On a side note: there has been no mention of the maintenance required to make these things run properly. Some require distilled water and vinegar (or baking soda) to be mixed in the chamber at proper proportions, requiring frequent refills and periodic flushing. I dont know about you but I do not keep bottles of distilled water or vinegar laying around in my house or car.

If you are serious about saving money on gas try hypermiling.

Posted by: rubberducky700

i know of a shop in nebraska currently working on a system to fool the efi systems in fords right now. they have the system down pretty good but fooling your O2 sensor to belive your not getting any more air to run lean is a task. When i here more I will let you know. I am interested in trying this on my 90 F-150 to help it out on fuel a little bit

Posted by: BrklynExpress

oh god these hypermilers are ridiculous. On top of those nuts, a lot of corrola, civic, and prius drivers drive very slow around where I live and I end up trying to pass them.

Posted by: ILLS

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubberducky700

i know of a shop in nebraska currently working on a system to fool the efi systems in fords right now. they have the system down pretty good but fooling your O2 sensor to belive your not getting any more air to run lean is a task. When i here more I will let you know. I am interested in trying this on my 90 F-150 to help it out on fuel a little bit

You don't have to fool the system if you know how to tune it... I don't know why those guys are actually building that "optimizer box". Everything you need to fool with is in the tune itself if you felt so inclined to try to do so. I say why reinvent the wheel?

Posted by: ILLS

You guys stating that HHO cannot work due to energy loss are mistaken in your thinking. You said that since the system is closed that it cannot get more energy from anywhere else and thus cannot run efficiently enough to "add" energy rather than just drain it. I am not here to defend those HHO devices but I will respond to those comments...

How do some chemical reactions work? By introducing a small amount of energy which in turn causes the reaction which releases a much larger amount of stored potential energy. This can happen at the moleculare level, atomic level or so on. Look at nuclear fission for instance... While the HHO system is a closed loop system you forget that there is stored potential energy sitting there in that water in the form of H and O. It is something to ponder before automatically saying something like that cannot work based upon scientific principle alone.

While what you guys have said is true in the principle itself, the application of it is incorrect in the context to which you use.

Posted by: MMAFIGHTER121

http://www.cracked.com/article_16484...ly-trying.html
a good read and actually this is addressed in it --- and its hilarious!!
and hypermilers actually end up costing more gas if you count things like the fact that because pokey in his 94 corolla wants to save tons of gas going through his green light at 4mph accelerating 1mph an hour that now 95 other cars are going to be trapped at the stoplight behind them idling for an additional 45 minutes...

Posted by: Justin00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILLS

How do some chemical reactions work? By introducing a small amount of energy which in turn causes the reaction which releases a much larger amount of stored potential energy. This can happen at the moleculare level, atomic level or so on. Look at nuclear fission for instance...

You are right about this, however let me comment on your comment which was about my previous comment regarding my original comment

Bonds differ in strength in that there are weak bonds and strong bonds. Strong bonds are very stable and take a considerable amount of energy to break them. Our example-water

Nuclear energy is stored in the nucleus of atoms such as uranium, plutonium, etc, with UNSTABLE covalent bonds. The potential energy in nuclear power can be released easily because the bonds holding the matter together are UNSTABLE and EASILY BROKEN.

Water makes up a majority of earth and is abundant, and one reason is because the bonds of its diatomic constituents (hydrogen and oxygen) are STABLE, strong, and “happy” when they are together (together as in water).

Since water is in a stable state, it takes a considerable amount of energy to break the covalent bonds and convert it into hydrogen and oxygen. And regarding the covalent bond between hydrogen and oxygen, the amount of energy it takes to break that bond into its diatomic constituents IS EXACTLY THE SAME as the amount of energy released.

Energy in = energy out = 0%

Clear as mud?

Posted by: 97stscaddy

Quote:

So you’re saying the HHO is just there to trick the computer to make it run leaner… If that was the case, then one should just reprogram (tune) their PCM to actually run leaner and save on gas. They certainly wouldn't need an HHO that consumes energy to “fool” the computer.

NO NO NO! Read it again, because that's not what I said.

YOU have to fool the computer into leaning out the mixture, by either changing the signal from the 02 sensors or re-programming the ECM, or any of the other creative ways that people have to screw with the computer in the car. You then add HHO to MAKE UP FOR the lower fuel ratio in the mixture.

Quote:

You still run the car primarily on gasoline so you do not need to produce as much HHO as what would be required to run solely on HHO.

You guys aren't taking into account the fact that Hydrogen and Oxygen are both more volatile fuels than gasoline. Meaning you will get MORE energy from burning those two than you would get from burning the same amount of gasoline.

Posted by: rainjacks

Keep in mind that the alternator is always producing more electricity than the car actually needs. That is unless you have a kicking sound system. So, if one were to use only the extra power already available through the alternator to cause the reaction you would be using energy that would otherwise be wasted. Still, these HHO things are crap and there is no way they can produce enough Hydrogen or Oxygen to make any difference to the performance of the car or its mileage. The additional weight of the device and the water would be more of a problem than the solution can overcome.

I'll wait for the Mr. Fusion to be available. I think LSKoncepts has it on backorder.

Posted by: Justin00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97stscaddy

Meaning you will get MORE energy from burning those two than you would get from burning the same amount of gasoline.

But the water needs to be converted into useable energy first. If I bought 1 mole of gasoline from the gas pump, it is ready to burn. If I bought 1 mole of HHO, it would be ready to burn.

But if i bought 1 mole of water, I would need to convert it into its diatomic constituents (HHO) BEFORE it is ready to burn. The problem is that this takes energy to convert it into something (HHO) that I can use for energy. It takes 241.8kJ (which is the exact same amount of energy I would get from 1 mole of HHO) to convert 1 mole of water to HHO.

Posted by: Justin00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainjacks

Keep in mind that the alternator is always producing more electricity than the car actually needs.

Too bad that is not the case

Posted by: Kelleyo

"leaning out" your engine is a good way to burn a piston.

Also the lean mixture can result in very high NOx emissions http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/nox/ that may need to be cleaned up with special catalysts.

I agree lean burn is the future but will be in cars that have been designed for it and have the proper catalysts. Trying to make our today's cars leaner is a recipe for disaster.

Posted by: Kelleyo

Quote:

Originally Posted by 97stscaddy

You guys aren't taking into account the fact that Hydrogen and Oxygen are both more volatile fuels than gasoline. Meaning you will get MORE energy from burning those two than you would get from burning the same amount of gasoline.

Oxygen is not a fuel, it is an oxidizer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidizer

The other thing you are not taking into account is the density of hydrogen. Since these "systems" being discussed in this thread are not compressing hydrogen at all there is only a minuscule/negligible amount of the gas entering the system. Barely more than is avaialbe in the ambient air.

To put it another way, in order to get hydrogen to the same energy density as gasoline you have to compress it: A gallon of gasoline is around 6 pounds, and has 126,000 Btus of energy in it. A gallon of hydrogen (gas) only contains around 40 Btus in it. Quite a difference! Instead of a two cubic foot gasoline tank (15 gallons) in your car, you would need a tank more than 3,000 times bigger, over 6,000 cubic feet, for the equivalent Hydrogen! That's a little more than TWO standard semi trailers (8'wide x 8'high x 45' long or 2900 cubic feet each). Pretty big gas tank!

Well, that is obviously not going to happen! So, the many ongoing explorations into using Hydrogen as a fuel always involve carrying HIGHLY COMPRESSED Hydrogen in very thick, heavy tanks. If you have ever seen the kinds of tanks used for the Oxygen for a worker's oxyacetylene cutting torch, that's the kind. Such tanks can hold Hydrogen at around 100 times atmospheric pressure, or 1500 PSI, an extremely high pressure (or even higher) (We will later mention even higher pressure hydrogen tanks at 3000 PSI).

Well, at 100 times atmospheric pressure, the Ideal Gas Law tells us that the Hydrogen would now only take up 2900/100 or 29 cubic feet. That works out to around 60 of those (fairly large) high pressure storage tanks (to match the effective capacity of the 15 gallon gasoline tank.). Each tank is very massive to withstand the very high pressure, and each weighs nearly 100 pounds empty. (And around 1/4 pound more when filled with Hydrogen!) So the normal American car which presently weighs around 2800 pounds would have around an extra 6,000 pounds added, so the vehicle would now weigh more than three times as much as current cars! (This tremendously affects acceleration, handling and other performance, and it would be like that car pulling a huge 6,000 pound trailer behind it.

Source: http://mb-soft.com/public2/hydrogen.html

Posted by: rainjacks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin00LS

Too bad that is not the case

I was referring to the fact that the engine is always turning the alternator pulley weather you are pulling 1 amp or 20 amps. The point is that there is wasted energy there that wasn't taken into account in previous posts. Of course, I also mentioned that it doesn't really matter anyway. Because there is simply no decent way to utilize this wasted energy to create thrust. And coming up with a method as long and convoluted as HHO certainly won't do it. Just get a bottle of Nitrous. That way the process of creating the volotile combustible is already done for you. And we all know how much adding NOS into the mix improves mileage

Posted by: joegr

rainjacks, this is just not true. The alternator makes exactly as much power as is consumed by the car's electrical system (including battery charging) and no more.
Also, it is important to understand that the more power that is drawn from the alternator, the harder it is for the engine to turn it. Also, note that the alternator is not 100% efficient.

For example, if you draw 50 watts of electrical power from the alternator, then the car engine must provide about 70 watts of mechanical power to the alternator pulley. If you want 100 watts out instead, then the engine will have to provide 140 watts of mechanical power to the alternator.

There is no magic free power here. To get power out, you must put power in.

Posted by: Justin00LS

That's a pretty good read kelleyo, thanks!

Posted by: G-RELL

my head hurts

Posted by: Kelleyo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin00LS

That's a pretty good read kelleyo, thanks!

Thanks. I recommed a book called the "Hydrogen Economy". Every premise is wonderful but in the end the realization is that getting the hydrogen is the problem. It takes more fossil energy to get the hydrogen out of water (steam reclamation or electrolysis) then if you just burned the fossil energy to begin with. We will need lots of nuclear plants to make it more economical. Hopefully fusion reaction will be the ultimate answer.

Think of hydrogen as nothing more than an energy store or battery. It is much cleaner to put hydrogen into a fuel cell or burn it directly than to store electricity with chemical batteries (nasty toxic chemicals and heavy metals).

I wish more money were spent here (fusion/hydrogen/nuke) than on stupid things like Ethanol which is nothing more than another farm subsidy that the lobbyists at ADM have gotten out of congress with clever marketing...

Posted by: rainjacks

Quote:

Originally Posted by joegr

rainjacks, this is just not true. The alternator makes exactly as much power as is consumed by the car's electrical system (including battery charging) and no more.
Also, it is important to understand that the more power that is drawn from the alternator, the harder it is for the engine to turn it. Also, note that the alternator is not 100% efficient.

For example, if you draw 50 watts of electrical power from the alternator, then the car engine must provide about 70 watts of mechanical power to the alternator pulley. If you want 100 watts out instead, then the engine will have to provide 140 watts of mechanical power to the alternator.

There is no magic free power here. To get power out, you must put power in.

Apparently my understanding of automotive alternators is off. My bad. I had assumed that an alternator worked similar to a standard alternator with a built-in voltage regulator. But, if I understand you correctly, then when I install a high power sound system and am sitting with my engine idling the engine will rev higher when I turn up the volume? If not where is that extra power coming from?

I understand the alternator isn't 100% efficient that wasn't the point. I have no problem claiming newbie on this. My background is in engineering not autos. What I was trying to express is that the car has the capacity to put out more electrical energy than it typically does under a standard load without working harder. It is at all points wasting some energy turning the alternator. You can simply waste less by pulling more power. Still under the rated load of the alternator. My understanding was that the alternator always produced slightly more power than was needed and the voltage regulator was there to get down to the correct voltage for the current load. So, using that logic, keep the alternator spinning at the same speed and let the voltage regulator allow more output. Instead of diving into the difference between amps and volts, current and load, take a look at what I'm trying to convey here.

Which is simply that it is irrelevant because the hydrogen system doesn't work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joegr

There is no magic free power here. To get power out, you must put power in

That is exactly what I was trying to say in my first post. I will say no more on this. Sorry for any distraction to the thread.

Posted by: joegr

I guess I am not making this clear.
When you draw more power from the alternator, your engine will not rev up, but it will work harder and consume more fuel because the alternator is putting more mechanical load on the engine.

If you were spinning the alternator by hand, it would get harder to turn as you added more electrical load to it. There's no "free" electrical power available in any way.

Do you have any working DC motors laying around? They also work as generators. Grab one and turn its shaft, making note of how easy it turns. Now twist the two power wires that go to it together. Now turn the motor shaft. It is now much harder to turn, because there is now a much bigger electrical load on it.

Is there anyone on here that can explain this better?

Posted by: joegr

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainjacks

What I was trying to express is that the car has the capacity to put out more electrical energy than it typically does under a standard load without working harder.

My point is that this is simply and completely incorrect. If you pull more electrical power out of the alternator, more mechanical power has to go in. The more mechanical power doesn't mean the engine has to run faster, it means that the engine has to supply more torque to turn the alternator. More torque out of the engine means more fuel into the engine. Every watt you pull out of the alternator, will cause more fuel to be burned (although just a little). It's not free.

If it worked like you claim, I wouldn't have burned so much gas in my generator at home after the hurricane. It would run many hours on a tank of gas if I turned my air-conditioner off. With the air-conditioner on, not so many hours. And, yes the generator always ran at exactly the same speed, 3600 RPM.

Posted by: rubberducky700

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILLS

IN most this is true but as in older fords where they cannot except the tune you have to work around it. and trust me where i live if you were to tell half of these guys trying this stuff that all they need is a computer tune they would draw a blank. COMPUTER WHAT???

Posted by: squidnomore

Good thing you're still in school...

Do some more reading. http://www.panaceauniversity.org/

The small systems you are talking about installing won't yield much more than making a profit for the builders. But, there are systems that are getting closer to using only the water. The problem is volume. The 1 liter engines are close to running water alone.

http://www.celsias.com/article/japan...r-powered-car/

The bigger engines need more gas than the smaller modules can produce. But there are vehicles running on water alone. It can be done. It's not creating energy, it's breaking the liquid back into a gas and using it instead.

Posted by: rubberducky700

[quote=squidnomore;414849]Good thing you're still in school...QUOTE]

What are you referring too?

Posted by: squidnomore

[quote=rubberducky700;414959]

Quote:

Originally Posted by squidnomore

Good thing you're still in school...QUOTE]

What are you referring too?

Post #1.

Posted by: CROWDA

so i've read this whole thread... now is my degree in the mail or do i have to go pick it up? lol

Posted by: rubberducky700

[quote=squidnomore;415232]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rubberducky700

Post #1.

I had to go back and read that but ya true. Ill just stick with construction Managment