HHO INSTALLATION!!! Almost 49MPG; V8
- Thread starter NateRW21
- Start date
ILLS
Dedicated LVC Member
Oh you guys need to go back to science class. The HHO systems that people talk about do not claim to create energy. The claim is that Hydrogen is "unlocked" in molecular form from H2O molecules which is totally possible from a scientific standpoint. It is called catalyst for a reason. Use a smaller amount of energy to start a chain reaction that in turn releases a larger amount of energy that was otherwise locked up in molecular form. Ahem, take a look at how nuclear warheads work sometime. I am not saying whether these HHO systems work or not but your reasoning for rebuttal is WAY off. From a purely scientific standpoint HHO systems theoretically make sense. You are also flawed in the thinking that you cannot break a molecule apart and make power and then reassemble something similar to it in another completely separate reaction and generate power also. Look at the basis for nuclear fission and then look at nuclear fusion... Very similar concept. Fission unlocks allot of power and fusion unlocks even more.
Guys it totally cool if you want to debate this stuff till the cows come home but please at least have a general understanding of the science behind it when telling others they are wrong. Many people only half-slept through science class in high school and tend to misinterpret the wording behind some of the common "laws" of it.
ILLS
Dedicated LVC Member
Nate you are mistaken in a few items you mentioned also. I am sorry to tell you guys but unless you have a very full understanding of how custom tuning works it is kind of hard for you to debate how the tuning is affected by extra Hydrogen being injected into the system. What most average users view as hard law when it comes to tuning is not that black and white once you have a full understanding of it.
One other thing you guys may want to remember when discussing the Oxygen versus Hydrogen is that they are TOTALLY different. Huge difference because they are on two totally separate sides of the fire triangle. Oxygen is an oxidizer whereas Hydrogen is a fuel. Nitrous oxide is on the same side of the fire triangle (oxidizer) as oxygen. Hydrogen is on the same side of the fire triangle (fuel) as gasoline. When extra oxygen (or other oxidizer) is introduced into an otherwise stoich IC environment then AFR's will drift more lean (above 1.0 Lambda) unless otherwise actively corrected. When extra Hydrogen (or other fuel) is introduced into an otherwise stoich IC environment then AFR's will drift rich (below 1.0 Lambda) unless otherwise actively corrected. This CAN and has been tuned out through custom tuning so that stoich is achieved again even when in closed loop fueling mode (part throttle...fueling data pulled from O2's). It is a much different approach to performance WOT tuning because you are only seeking stoich and dealing with only part throttle AFR's but the tuning is there if you know how to do it.
I know some of you guys will not like the idea of someone like myself telling you that you can only truly understand how and why this stuff can or cannot work unless you are a custom tuner. It would appear at first glance that I am trying to be some sort of know-it-all. That is not the case here. I just want to make it clear that most average joes that are debating this stuff do not have anywhere near the scientific background or tuning background to be properly armed to debate this stuff with any sort of accuracy. Good luck with everything but you guys will probably be chasing your tails without even realizing it.
One other thing you guys may want to remember when discussing the Oxygen versus Hydrogen is that they are TOTALLY different. Huge difference because they are on two totally separate sides of the fire triangle. Oxygen is an oxidizer whereas Hydrogen is a fuel. Nitrous oxide is on the same side of the fire triangle (oxidizer) as oxygen. Hydrogen is on the same side of the fire triangle (fuel) as gasoline. When extra oxygen (or other oxidizer) is introduced into an otherwise stoich IC environment then AFR's will drift more lean (above 1.0 Lambda) unless otherwise actively corrected. When extra Hydrogen (or other fuel) is introduced into an otherwise stoich IC environment then AFR's will drift rich (below 1.0 Lambda) unless otherwise actively corrected. This CAN and has been tuned out through custom tuning so that stoich is achieved again even when in closed loop fueling mode (part throttle...fueling data pulled from O2's). It is a much different approach to performance WOT tuning because you are only seeking stoich and dealing with only part throttle AFR's but the tuning is there if you know how to do it.
I know some of you guys will not like the idea of someone like myself telling you that you can only truly understand how and why this stuff can or cannot work unless you are a custom tuner. It would appear at first glance that I am trying to be some sort of know-it-all. That is not the case here. I just want to make it clear that most average joes that are debating this stuff do not have anywhere near the scientific background or tuning background to be properly armed to debate this stuff with any sort of accuracy. Good luck with everything but you guys will probably be chasing your tails without even realizing it.
Eric0508
Well-Known LVC Member
Im sorry ILLS, you know more about tuning cars and racing than i ever will but i know what im talking about. We are not talking about fission or fusion, we're talking about combustion. The reaction goes something like this:
2 H20 --> 2 H2 + 02 --> 2 H20
You get the same amount of product as there is reactant. No energy is created, no energy is destroyed. In this reaction, the energy required to break apart H20 is returned when the hydrogen is combusted. The heat of enthalpy must be conserved. Thus, engines being somewhat inefficient (energy lost as heat), it actually will use more energy to introduce hydrogen into the combustion system.
You are correct in your fission/fusion statement, however this is not free energy. In the case of fission (think nuclear power) energy is released when a element is broken down into other elements. However, the products do not return to the reactants (because the products are more stable) so no energy has to be returned.
Im not spouting this off because i have missed some highschool chemistry. Its from years of studying chemistry at MSU.
Okay... simple science...
To burn two volumes of hydrogen requires one volume of oxygen; the resulting byproduct... water. So, to burn water, you must use the same amount of energy which the components produce to separate the molecules. This means that unless your system is 100% efficient, right off the bat an HHO system is a loser; you continue you consume more energy in the electrolysis process than you will be able to produce. In simple terms, the science says in order to keep this HHO system running at peak production, you will require additional energy from the very supply you're trying to reduce consumption of: gasoline.
Now, due to the fact that splitting the molecules of water and then burning them produces... water... oxygen sensors shouldn't detect any change as a result of the introduction of H2O; there is no left over oxygen from the H2O. What kind of results this has on the fuel mapping of the tune, I don't know. But it would seem that your fuel mapping should be fine as-is since the added catalyst and oxidizer's actually cancel each other out.
It should be noted that Hydrogen contains a good deal more energy density than gasoline. However, the difference in the energy volume of gasoline and hydrogen is HUGE... and it's in gasoline's favor. What this means is a "gallon" of hydrogen has only around 350BTU's of energy in a standard atmospheric condition. A gallon of gasoline contains something on the order of 120,000BTU's per gallon. What this means is you would require MASSIVE volumes of hydrogen to make any significant change in the fuel consumption... and due to the inefficiency of the engine in extracting full use of energy contained in it's fuel mixed with the inefficiency of the alternator, resistance in the wires and belt drive, and the natural built in inefficiency of the electrolysis process... you would never be able to reach a state where the HHO system reduces fuel consumption.
If you're running a system that uses 30 amps at 14.5v DC (the typical output of an automotive alternator), and assuming this HHO system is actually a perpetual motion machine (All energy going in comes out: 100% efficient), that means your little device will produce an electrical energy equivalent of 435 watts of power in the form of hydrogen. 1HP=746watts... That means you're producing 3/5ths of a horsepower from your little cluster of junk. The average car requires 20HP to cruise at 65MPH... Assuming all is 100% efficient, you're producing about 3% of that requirement to cruise at 65MPH from the HHO system.
Now for the fun... since an IC engine is only about 30% efficient (I'll totally disregard the lack of efficiency in the belt drive, alternator, resistance in wiring and the electrolysis process itself)... you're now only really making about 1/5 of a HP from the hydrogen produced by the HHO system... OR 1% of the required HP to move that vehicle 65mph. The rest comes from gasoline... and lets not forget the diminishing returns due to the fact that you will consume more raw energy to produce hydrogen than the imperfect process will be capable of supplying.
I'm sure Chris has a much better understanding of all of this; these are just things I REMEMBERED from high school chemistry, and results from research. I stand by my previous statement that any gains from HHO systems are as a result of the modified O2 sensor signals leaning out the engine.
I should hope that you as a tuner is not advocating these kits and should know that sniping the wires to your O2 and tossing in a resistor is only asking for damage; in and of itself should be a reason to steer people away from these kits. I'm sure you know better than I do; installing a resister in-line with the O2's will give a constant reduction in signal in accordance with Ohm's law. This would be fine if you were introducing the exact same amount of hydrogen and oxygen into the engine every intake stroke; in this case, you'd have a finite formula in which proportions could be made to cancel each other out. But due to the fact that the HHO system will only produce a certain amount of hydrogen in a given time and as RPM's increase, the engine will see a smaller and smaller amount of hydrogen per intake stroke, they are trying to solve in infinitely variable problem with a finite solution.
Now, one last thing... Were you inducing a size-able amount of hydrogen and oxygen in a 2-to-1 ratio into the engine... I could very well see how the sensors could be a problem. The volume taken up by the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen you're introducing into the intake is less volume for normal air. Meaning, you're taking away from the available oxygen for the engine to use in burning the gasoline... because as said before, the hydrogen and oxygen you're adding will fully burn together. So in this manor, you would be dumping too much fuel and the sensors would see a fuel rich condition... But, again... as stated earlier... the amount of hydrogen and oxygen these system produces would not require any sort of tuning because they aren't producing enough product to make any real impact. Now for a hydrogen injection system using liquid or high pressure hydrogen... I fully understand the need to adjust the tune. But it's just not possible to produce any significant amount of hydrogen on-board.
To burn two volumes of hydrogen requires one volume of oxygen; the resulting byproduct... water. So, to burn water, you must use the same amount of energy which the components produce to separate the molecules. This means that unless your system is 100% efficient, right off the bat an HHO system is a loser; you continue you consume more energy in the electrolysis process than you will be able to produce. In simple terms, the science says in order to keep this HHO system running at peak production, you will require additional energy from the very supply you're trying to reduce consumption of: gasoline.
Now, due to the fact that splitting the molecules of water and then burning them produces... water... oxygen sensors shouldn't detect any change as a result of the introduction of H2O; there is no left over oxygen from the H2O. What kind of results this has on the fuel mapping of the tune, I don't know. But it would seem that your fuel mapping should be fine as-is since the added catalyst and oxidizer's actually cancel each other out.
It should be noted that Hydrogen contains a good deal more energy density than gasoline. However, the difference in the energy volume of gasoline and hydrogen is HUGE... and it's in gasoline's favor. What this means is a "gallon" of hydrogen has only around 350BTU's of energy in a standard atmospheric condition. A gallon of gasoline contains something on the order of 120,000BTU's per gallon. What this means is you would require MASSIVE volumes of hydrogen to make any significant change in the fuel consumption... and due to the inefficiency of the engine in extracting full use of energy contained in it's fuel mixed with the inefficiency of the alternator, resistance in the wires and belt drive, and the natural built in inefficiency of the electrolysis process... you would never be able to reach a state where the HHO system reduces fuel consumption.
If you're running a system that uses 30 amps at 14.5v DC (the typical output of an automotive alternator), and assuming this HHO system is actually a perpetual motion machine (All energy going in comes out: 100% efficient), that means your little device will produce an electrical energy equivalent of 435 watts of power in the form of hydrogen. 1HP=746watts... That means you're producing 3/5ths of a horsepower from your little cluster of junk. The average car requires 20HP to cruise at 65MPH... Assuming all is 100% efficient, you're producing about 3% of that requirement to cruise at 65MPH from the HHO system.
Now for the fun... since an IC engine is only about 30% efficient (I'll totally disregard the lack of efficiency in the belt drive, alternator, resistance in wiring and the electrolysis process itself)... you're now only really making about 1/5 of a HP from the hydrogen produced by the HHO system... OR 1% of the required HP to move that vehicle 65mph. The rest comes from gasoline... and lets not forget the diminishing returns due to the fact that you will consume more raw energy to produce hydrogen than the imperfect process will be capable of supplying.
I'm sure Chris has a much better understanding of all of this; these are just things I REMEMBERED from high school chemistry, and results from research. I stand by my previous statement that any gains from HHO systems are as a result of the modified O2 sensor signals leaning out the engine.
I should hope that you as a tuner is not advocating these kits and should know that sniping the wires to your O2 and tossing in a resistor is only asking for damage; in and of itself should be a reason to steer people away from these kits. I'm sure you know better than I do; installing a resister in-line with the O2's will give a constant reduction in signal in accordance with Ohm's law. This would be fine if you were introducing the exact same amount of hydrogen and oxygen into the engine every intake stroke; in this case, you'd have a finite formula in which proportions could be made to cancel each other out. But due to the fact that the HHO system will only produce a certain amount of hydrogen in a given time and as RPM's increase, the engine will see a smaller and smaller amount of hydrogen per intake stroke, they are trying to solve in infinitely variable problem with a finite solution.
Now, one last thing... Were you inducing a size-able amount of hydrogen and oxygen in a 2-to-1 ratio into the engine... I could very well see how the sensors could be a problem. The volume taken up by the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen you're introducing into the intake is less volume for normal air. Meaning, you're taking away from the available oxygen for the engine to use in burning the gasoline... because as said before, the hydrogen and oxygen you're adding will fully burn together. So in this manor, you would be dumping too much fuel and the sensors would see a fuel rich condition... But, again... as stated earlier... the amount of hydrogen and oxygen these system produces would not require any sort of tuning because they aren't producing enough product to make any real impact. Now for a hydrogen injection system using liquid or high pressure hydrogen... I fully understand the need to adjust the tune. But it's just not possible to produce any significant amount of hydrogen on-board.
good read:
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam.shtml
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam.shtml
btw... just to clarify...
Nuclear Fission is the splitting of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of large amounts of energy when a heavy nucleus is present...
Nuclear Fusion is the union of atomic nuclei to form heavier nuclei resulting in the release of enormous quantities of energy when certain light elements unite
A key thing to note here is that Fusion is the inverse to fission. Fission is splitting a single nucleus where fusion is uniting two or more "nucleuses" (nuclei is the correct plural word)... However, the weight of the nuclei involved determine weather one of the processes will absorb or produce energy. Meaning, in Fusion if X and Y creates energy... fission to split the resulting nucleus, it will absorb energy. Hence fourth the laws of matter still apply 100%; you aren't able to split a nucleus and get energy... then put it back together again... and get energy. Doesn't work like that.
Combustion on the other hand is rapid oxidation.
Fission and Fusion are simply the inverse of each other, not only in terms of splitting and uniting... but also in terms of energy production and energy absorption... combustion isn't even remotely related to the two as it is a chemical reaction where whole molecules are exchanged... in tact and unchanged... unlike the other two which are nuclear reactions happening at an atomic level creating massive changes to the elements involved.
Eric, if I'm off on any of this stuff... let me know; I'm just a trigger puller... not a scientist!
ILLS... I've got to get my digs in when I can... But it looks like you're the one that needs to go back to science class!
Nuclear Fission is the splitting of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of large amounts of energy when a heavy nucleus is present...
Nuclear Fusion is the union of atomic nuclei to form heavier nuclei resulting in the release of enormous quantities of energy when certain light elements unite
A key thing to note here is that Fusion is the inverse to fission. Fission is splitting a single nucleus where fusion is uniting two or more "nucleuses" (nuclei is the correct plural word)... However, the weight of the nuclei involved determine weather one of the processes will absorb or produce energy. Meaning, in Fusion if X and Y creates energy... fission to split the resulting nucleus, it will absorb energy. Hence fourth the laws of matter still apply 100%; you aren't able to split a nucleus and get energy... then put it back together again... and get energy. Doesn't work like that.
Combustion on the other hand is rapid oxidation.
Fission and Fusion are simply the inverse of each other, not only in terms of splitting and uniting... but also in terms of energy production and energy absorption... combustion isn't even remotely related to the two as it is a chemical reaction where whole molecules are exchanged... in tact and unchanged... unlike the other two which are nuclear reactions happening at an atomic level creating massive changes to the elements involved.
Eric, if I'm off on any of this stuff... let me know; I'm just a trigger puller... not a scientist!
ILLS... I've got to get my digs in when I can... But it looks like you're the one that needs to go back to science class!
revolutionaryconcepts
Active LVC Member
I'm not going to argue semantics on this forum, there are too many people that immediatly shut down the possibility that something new works becuase their friend who might know someone who teches chemistry or electrical engineering at the local college says no, so basically I dont care what people say about hho systems, most of them are crap believe me, the system in question from my earlier post created by a customer of mine does yeild better fuel economy, its not "creating" matter or energy, its breaking down water into a burnable substance, that DISPLACES a small amount of fuel, true hydrogen doesnt produce near the energetic response that petrolium does, but it does off-set of air/fuel ratio enough to reduce the need for it - slightly, and so far this particular system is functioning as theorized, over the last 15 (20g) tanks of fuel his truck has averaged about 21-22 mpg, thus a raise from 14-15, its doing something, not much but something, and I assure you this particular system is Far more complex than those jank ass kits you see on ebay lol
n8bachelor
Dedicated LVC Member
So let's do some quick math here....
15 (tanks) x 20 (gallons) x 22 (mpg) = 6,600 miles
15 (tanks) x 20 (gallons) x 15 (mpg) = 4,500 miles
Gas is cheaper right now but just for the sake of the discussion let's round it up to $3 per gallon.
15 (tanks) x 20 (gallons) x $3 = $900 spent on gasoline
$/mile with the "far more complex" HHO system = $0.13637 per mile driven
$/mile with the factory setup = $0.20 per mile driven
which represents a savings of $0.06364 per mile driven
How much did this "far more complex than those jank ass kits you see on ebay" cost? $200? $500? $1000? $2000
And how about maintenance? Do you to add anything to the "kit" other than just tap water?
Assuming that nothing but tap water is required for proper operation the "kit" will break even in 3,142mi (for a $200 investment), 7,856 mi ($500), 15,713mi ($1000), or 31,426mi ($2000).....
So how about it? How much did your boy's kit cost? does it require any additional purchases? Has he really saved anything yet?
These points are the same used in disuading people from buying the hybrid verision of the car they are interested in. The fuel savings relative to initial cost is not cost effective.
revolutionaryconcepts
Active LVC Member
the kit cost him about 100 bucks to build, then again he has a fabrication facility so ya basically according to your math he would have saved roughly 300 bux over an oil change interval, which in his particular case is good for him, I never said that it was cost effective, which in this case it happens to be, bearly, I simply stated that this particular conglomeration of parts actually produces about 20-25% better fuel economy, and complex as it may be it was still manufactured with crap he had layin around his shop lol
Eric0508
Well-Known LVC Member
please, tell me where the energy comes from to "break water down."
Also, i am not saying that hydrogen assisted systems cant help fuel economy. They can, with hydrogen generated from some external source. Im saying that you cant gain fuel efficiency by generating the hydrogen from the engines power. And please dont say it comes from "the extra energy generated by the alternator," there is no such thing and im sure you are smart enough to understand that.
revolutionaryconcepts
Active LVC Member
O no I agree it takes energy to break down the water, usually quite a bit, however the electrolizers are getting more effecient, this particular system uses about 10 amps to run 8 cells, so ya it takes some to make some no doubt but the system is still comming out in the green for the time being, personally i think its a dead end technology but to each his own
Eric0508
Well-Known LVC Member
do you understand that in a 100% efficient system, you can only get the same amount of energy out as you put in?
revolutionaryconcepts
Active LVC Member
your absolutely correct, and to that note the energy transfer from the combustion process, into electrical energy from the charging system, and into a combustable product in this case hydrogen, is at a loss in this system thus in-efficient due to the reduced energy release of hydrogen compaired to gasoline however its manifesting itself differently, insted of directly off-setting any gain in fuel economy its resulting in my opinion in a loss of engine torque output more than likeley, even having said that its still producing roughly a 20% gain in fuel economy even though there is a loss in the system, true it is in-effecient but the result is the same, its displacing petrolium as a burnable fuel, now place the same system in a situation with set variables where the engine is at max torque output and it will be completley pointless but as it stands its functioning as its functioning, resulting in less petrolium fuel burned, even at a loss
revolutionaryconcepts
Active LVC Member
anyway to clarify the garbled up mess of a post above this one, its not that the system isnt losing any energy, it is, but the energy that isnt lost and that it is transfering is being transformed into a burnable substance that isnt gasoline, hence, the vehicle probably does use more "fuel" but 100 of that fuel is no longer gasoline
Eric0508
Well-Known LVC Member
yes you are right, the hydrogen is displacing gas, but it costs gas to make the hydrogen in the first place.
revolutionaryconcepts
Active LVC Member
yes underneith it all it does take fuel to seperate hydrogen from water but the gasoline off-set, meaning the gasoline it takes to produce x amount of hydrogen is less than x amount of hydrogen displaces in fuel, so say, x = 100% of the liquid fuel volume required to run the vehicle, and the amount of x used to create the electrical system amperage to seperate water into hydrogen is 1% so now you have more than the origional amount of fuel x required to run the vehicle so in reality you have x+1 percent of fuel going into the chambers, well that 1% of fuel required to seperate the water yields H amount of hydrogen, so lets say volumetricly H is equal to roughly 10% of x, because hydrogen is a gas so your still x-9 in the green, because gas Per cc has a higher potential energy release than hydrogen, so assuming for :q:q:q:qs n grins that gasoline has 3 times the potential energy release of hydrogen meaning 1cc of gas = 3cc of hydrogen for the same chemical energy release 1% gas used = 3% hydrogen offered to burn, yielding the same energy release from the combustion event, yielding a 20% reduction in the amount of gasoline used, even though the combustion event is the same, and there is gasoline used, the vaporous hydrogen displaces more fuel volume than the liquid fuel.... or maybe it could be that the vaporous hydrogen displaces oxygen in the cylinders thus resulting in a rich condition, allowing the pcm to pull back fuel trims lol
Eric0508
Well-Known LVC Member
Please enlighten me how what you are saying is not:
a. creating energy from nothing
b. the hydrogen is just causing the engine to run lean
c. 2H20 --> 2H2 + O2 --> 2H20 + energy
thank you
revolutionaryconcepts
Active LVC Member
burning hydrogen doesnt make engines run lean, hydrogen is a fuel, if the air charge remains constant it will actually result in a rich condition, the o2 sensors are a different story, a byproduct of hydrogen being burned is oxygen which makes the 02 sensors read lean lol so its a downward spiral
energy is not being created in this system, energy from the combustion process is transfered into mechanical energy, at a huge loss btw, then into electrical energy, which changes the state of the water (potential energy thats been added to the equation) and then returns to the electrical system, hence the reason everything needs a ground, the stored energy that is released from the water is then burned, in the form of hydrogen, so basically your taking energy, using it to seperate water into h & o, and then returning it in the form of a fuel, that isnt gasoline.
energy is not being created in this system, energy from the combustion process is transfered into mechanical energy, at a huge loss btw, then into electrical energy, which changes the state of the water (potential energy thats been added to the equation) and then returns to the electrical system, hence the reason everything needs a ground, the stored energy that is released from the water is then burned, in the form of hydrogen, so basically your taking energy, using it to seperate water into h & o, and then returning it in the form of a fuel, that isnt gasoline.
Eric0508
Well-Known LVC Member
untrue, oxygen is consumed in hydrogen combustion. See equation:
2H2 + O2 -->2H20
There is no "stored energy" in water. Water is extremely stable, thats why it takes so much energy to seperate it. Why do you think most of the surface of the planet is water? Any why there isnt much hydrogen in the atmosphere? Because water is more stable.
So what your saying is: you take a certain amount of energy to break apart water into "h & o" and then burn it to make even more energy? This violates the first law of thermodynamics.
1W=3.4BTU
30Ah x 14.5V=435
3.4x435=1479BTU/hr
This means at 30Ah, being 100% efficient, you can make 1479BTU's worth of HHO gas in an hour. This is simple science and is undisputable.
1HP=746W
3.4 x 746=2536.4 BTU
2536.4 x 1.7=4311.88BTU
Here I'm converting the power output of an IC engine in HP to Watts, then from watts to BTU's. Because it is the output and engines are only about 30% efficient, I'm multiplying the output by 1.7 to determine approx BTU input.
1479 x 4311.88= 0.343
The above equation is stating that in one hour, if the electrolysis process were 100% efficient, a 30A cell would provide you with 0.343 HP in an hour of operation.
Hydrogen
270 BTU/cu.ft. @ 14 PSI or 1 BAR (atmosphere) @ 60 degrees F.
1 cu.ft. = 28.3L
270BTUs/28.3L= 9.54BTU/L
Because this is pure hydrogen and what we are seeing is 2:1 hydrogen/oxygen, we must decrease the BTU/L by 30%
9.54BTU/L x .7= 6.678 BTU/L HHO
1479BTU/hr of HHO /6.678= 221.74L of HHO produced at 100% efficiency in one hour from a 30Ah cell.
Now lets look at the air intake of a 4 cycle, 4L displacement IC engine running at 2500RPM:
4Lx2500/2=5000L/min
5000x60= 300,000L/hr
Now, lets examine how what percentage of air intake would be occupied by the HHO gas while the engine is running at 2500RPM:
221.74 HHO Lhr /300,000=0.000739 OR 0.074%.
NOW I'M NOT A TUNER, BUT THAT SEEMS AN INSIGNIFICANT CHANGE AS TO EFFECT THE READOUT FROM THE 02 SENSORS.
It should also be noted that since the HHO will burn itself, the volume it is occupying will actually decrease the volume available for air in the intake cycle. Were you inducing a large amount of HHO into the intake... lets say a full 10%, that would be 10% less oxygen available for the burning of gas.
Air is about 21% oxygen.
We'll say an engine takes in 10 cubic ft of air on it's intake stroke. 2.1 cubic foot will be oxygen available for combustion with the gasoline. If you introduce 1 cubic foot of the HHO mixture into the intake, that displaces 1 cubic foot of air. Because the HHO gas will burn itself, leaving neither oxygen or hydrogen left over for combustion, you are decreasing the available oxygen for use in combusting the gasoline by 10%... you now have available 1.89 cubic foot of oxygen available to burn the same amount of gasoline. In this situation, you have a resulting rich condition; there is not enough available oxygen to burn all of the fuel that the engine was tuned to use. Keep in mind this was extremely simplified.
End result, 0.074%... or 74 hundreths of a percent at 2500 RPM is not displacing enough oxygen in the intake to warrant any tuning. It's not even enough to give a noticeable mileage increase.
30Ah x 14.5V=435
3.4x435=1479BTU/hr
This means at 30Ah, being 100% efficient, you can make 1479BTU's worth of HHO gas in an hour. This is simple science and is undisputable.
1HP=746W
3.4 x 746=2536.4 BTU
2536.4 x 1.7=4311.88BTU
Here I'm converting the power output of an IC engine in HP to Watts, then from watts to BTU's. Because it is the output and engines are only about 30% efficient, I'm multiplying the output by 1.7 to determine approx BTU input.
1479 x 4311.88= 0.343
The above equation is stating that in one hour, if the electrolysis process were 100% efficient, a 30A cell would provide you with 0.343 HP in an hour of operation.
Hydrogen
270 BTU/cu.ft. @ 14 PSI or 1 BAR (atmosphere) @ 60 degrees F.
1 cu.ft. = 28.3L
270BTUs/28.3L= 9.54BTU/L
Because this is pure hydrogen and what we are seeing is 2:1 hydrogen/oxygen, we must decrease the BTU/L by 30%
9.54BTU/L x .7= 6.678 BTU/L HHO
1479BTU/hr of HHO /6.678= 221.74L of HHO produced at 100% efficiency in one hour from a 30Ah cell.
Now lets look at the air intake of a 4 cycle, 4L displacement IC engine running at 2500RPM:
4Lx2500/2=5000L/min
5000x60= 300,000L/hr
Now, lets examine how what percentage of air intake would be occupied by the HHO gas while the engine is running at 2500RPM:
221.74 HHO Lhr /300,000=0.000739 OR 0.074%.
NOW I'M NOT A TUNER, BUT THAT SEEMS AN INSIGNIFICANT CHANGE AS TO EFFECT THE READOUT FROM THE 02 SENSORS.
It should also be noted that since the HHO will burn itself, the volume it is occupying will actually decrease the volume available for air in the intake cycle. Were you inducing a large amount of HHO into the intake... lets say a full 10%, that would be 10% less oxygen available for the burning of gas.
Air is about 21% oxygen.
We'll say an engine takes in 10 cubic ft of air on it's intake stroke. 2.1 cubic foot will be oxygen available for combustion with the gasoline. If you introduce 1 cubic foot of the HHO mixture into the intake, that displaces 1 cubic foot of air. Because the HHO gas will burn itself, leaving neither oxygen or hydrogen left over for combustion, you are decreasing the available oxygen for use in combusting the gasoline by 10%... you now have available 1.89 cubic foot of oxygen available to burn the same amount of gasoline. In this situation, you have a resulting rich condition; there is not enough available oxygen to burn all of the fuel that the engine was tuned to use. Keep in mind this was extremely simplified.
End result, 0.074%... or 74 hundreths of a percent at 2500 RPM is not displacing enough oxygen in the intake to warrant any tuning. It's not even enough to give a noticeable mileage increase.
Revolution... I'm sorry to say it, but your arguments break so many rules of science that its crazy
First, oxygen is never a bi-product of combustion; combustion is rapid oxidation (you must have not read my previous post)... oxidation consumes oxygen... it doesn't release it! Were that the case, everyone would be setting fires so they could "clean the air"... resulting in oxygen instead of carbons, hydrocarbons and such.
You keep arguing that you're making water into fuel for the engine, then that fuel is make electricity to make more fuel... In the most basic of terms I can see how you're looking at this and not understanding what we are saying. What you seem to be missing is the fact of diminishing returns; the reason science says a perpetual motion machine is impossible is because there is always lost energy; no process is 100% efficient.
So, we'll start from the output of an electrolysis cell:
Say that cell puts out enough product to produce 10HP if an engine were 100% efficient...
Since it's really only 30% efficient, you produce 3HP...
If there were no loss in the process of converting that HP into product from your cell, you'll be putting 3HP worth of product into the engine. BUT... again... the engine is only 30% efficient... so now that product is giving 1HP... next time around, you'll get 1/3HP... and the cycle continues over and over and over.
That is called diminishing returns; you lose energy potential because the process isn't capable of converting without loss. Whatever you put into an engine, you only get 30% back out in the form of rotational power.
This is why it's impossible for these systems to truly work.
As I illustrated earlier... because of the very low output of these systems in comparison to the air intake requirements of an IC engine, there is zero need to alter the tune of the engine. So kits that come with something to change the signal of the oxygen sensors are showing a mileage gain simply through leaning out the fuel supply, which is dangerous.
An engine tuned to run on a percentage of hydrogen as it's fuel (or even all hydrogen), stored in either HP tanks or liquid hydrogen have shown positive results, but one would need to do a cost comparison between what the hydrogen would cost and what the extra gasoline would cost.
First, oxygen is never a bi-product of combustion; combustion is rapid oxidation (you must have not read my previous post)... oxidation consumes oxygen... it doesn't release it! Were that the case, everyone would be setting fires so they could "clean the air"... resulting in oxygen instead of carbons, hydrocarbons and such.
You keep arguing that you're making water into fuel for the engine, then that fuel is make electricity to make more fuel... In the most basic of terms I can see how you're looking at this and not understanding what we are saying. What you seem to be missing is the fact of diminishing returns; the reason science says a perpetual motion machine is impossible is because there is always lost energy; no process is 100% efficient.
So, we'll start from the output of an electrolysis cell:
Say that cell puts out enough product to produce 10HP if an engine were 100% efficient...
Since it's really only 30% efficient, you produce 3HP...
If there were no loss in the process of converting that HP into product from your cell, you'll be putting 3HP worth of product into the engine. BUT... again... the engine is only 30% efficient... so now that product is giving 1HP... next time around, you'll get 1/3HP... and the cycle continues over and over and over.
That is called diminishing returns; you lose energy potential because the process isn't capable of converting without loss. Whatever you put into an engine, you only get 30% back out in the form of rotational power.
This is why it's impossible for these systems to truly work.
As I illustrated earlier... because of the very low output of these systems in comparison to the air intake requirements of an IC engine, there is zero need to alter the tune of the engine. So kits that come with something to change the signal of the oxygen sensors are showing a mileage gain simply through leaning out the fuel supply, which is dangerous.
An engine tuned to run on a percentage of hydrogen as it's fuel (or even all hydrogen), stored in either HP tanks or liquid hydrogen have shown positive results, but one would need to do a cost comparison between what the hydrogen would cost and what the extra gasoline would cost.
ILLS
Dedicated LVC Member
Did you ever read anything in my previous posts that resembled me advocating the use of the HHO systems or the other "ghetto" mods that some people do in hopes of seeking better MPG???
I will reply to the rest of your post later when I have more free time.
ILLS
Dedicated LVC Member
btw... just to clarify...
Nuclear Fission is the splitting of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of large amounts of energy when a heavy nucleus is present...
Nuclear Fusion is the union of atomic nuclei to form heavier nuclei resulting in the release of enormous quantities of energy when certain light elements unite
A key thing to note here is that Fusion is the inverse to fission. Fission is splitting a single nucleus where fusion is uniting two or more "nucleuses" (nuclei is the correct plural word)... However, the weight of the nuclei involved determine weather one of the processes will absorb or produce energy. Meaning, in Fusion if X and Y creates energy... fission to split the resulting nucleus, it will absorb energy. Hence fourth the laws of matter still apply 100%; you aren't able to split a nucleus and get energy... then put it back together again... and get energy. Doesn't work like that.
Combustion on the other hand is rapid oxidation.
Fission and Fusion are simply the inverse of each other, not only in terms of splitting and uniting... but also in terms of energy production and energy absorption... combustion isn't even remotely related to the two as it is a chemical reaction where whole molecules are exchanged... in tact and unchanged... unlike the other two which are nuclear reactions happening at an atomic level creating massive changes to the elements involved.
Eric, if I'm off on any of this stuff... let me know; I'm just a trigger puller... not a scientist!
ILLS... I've got to get my digs in when I can... But it looks like you're the one that needs to go back to science class!
Nate the concepts are similar enough to have made a comparison like I did. As for your explanation of fusion and fission...well tell us something we don't know. You are stating the obvious with your explanation of how they both work. I would hope that anyone seriously discussing this stuff would have enough of an understanding of that.