Hydrogen assist

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Jul 9 2007, 08:36 AM) [snapback]475462[/snapback]</div>

In past discussions, the only hypothesis that makes sense is hydrogen may improve ignition . . . in a marginal car. IMHO, if it helps, the engine probably has many other problems that need to be fixed first. I believe Mythbusters did a test and busted it.

Bob Wilson

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bwilson4web @ Jul 9 2007, 09:01 AM) [snapback]475473[/snapback]</div>

Thanks Bob, I was wondering about this too.

Some companies on the internet try to cell these hydrogen generators for thousands of dollars says that it will save you on fuel. The problem with this is that it still requires the mechanical power of the engine to produce electricity from the alternator, and then it must use the electricity to produce the hydrogen. Each step has its inefficiencies and waste "energy". So how can that be good for fuel efficiency? As an extra boost I can see it helping, but for fuel efficiency, I think it is a scam.

 

It's snake oil. Yes, hydrogen does burn, and if you inject it you will get some extra mileage, but it takes more power to separate the hydrogen than you recover from burning it, so your net is an energy loss. Save yourself the trouble and use a few $20 bills for fire starters.

Tom

 

This is something I have seen done in a university laboratory. Adding hydrogen to the intake charge does impact combustion, and generally for the better. But it won't do a lick of good in a regular ICE. If it were purpose built for a hydrogen/gasoline mix (fuel on the lean side, perhaps higher compression) then sure you could take advantage of it. Personally I'll stick to sane driving methods to deliver better fuel economy.

 

I think it would work about as good as filling the tires with hydrogen to make the car lighter!

:lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bwilson4web @ Jul 9 2007, 10:01 AM) [snapback]475473[/snapback]</div>

Mythbusters actually got a regular car to run off of nothing but hydrogen by pumping pure hydrogen into the alternator, if I remember correctly.

 

Into the carb, actually. It did actually run, but also backfired. (They used an older non-fuel injected car to test the "100 MPG carburetor" myth.)

Their electrolysis rig was not able to make enough H2 to run the car. They used bottled H2 for their run test, which was probably way more expensive than the gasoline.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(alanh @ Jul 10 2007, 01:54 PM) [snapback]476229[/snapback]</div>

Stanley Meyer built a system that could run on water to power a dune buggy. He was poisoned the day before he was to meet with an investor that was "going to market the device"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9JagAv2nUE

watch a movie on http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com after you watch the stanley meyer youtube video.

Since 1924 phones and mobile devices have come a long way.
Since 1924 the gas milage on cars has not changed. Why do you think this is true?
Watch the above videos.

here is another video of a man that runs a car on water except he seperates the hydrogen and oxygen after it is created and mixes them at different rations for putting into the combustion chamber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j7d-FJ7TQk&NR=1

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Jul 9 2007, 08:02 AM) [snapback]475500[/snapback]</div>

Or, buy lottery tickets....


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rand Reed @ Jul 9 2007, 03:24 PM) [snapback]475777[/snapback]</div>

Get big enough tires and you might be able to offset 1,000 lbs of mass.... But then there is the added weight of the larger tires.... Hmmm, anyone for anti-gravity magnetic levitation????

 

From: - http://www.nowpublic.com/life/energy-seawater-myth-or-legend

Stanley Meyer, inventor of the 'water-powered car'. Meyer just wanted to give people cheap, clean energy....In 1996 he was found guilty of
"gross and egregious fraud" by an Ohio court. He died in 1998 after
eating at a restaurant; the coroner diagnosed an aneurysm, but the
conspiracy web still suspects he was poisoned [by oil companies]...

...It's not easy to establish how
Meyer's car was meant to work, except that it involved a fuel cell that
was able to split water using less energy than was released by
recombination of the elements. Dig a little deeper and you will
soon find the legendary Brown's gas — a modern chemical unicorn to
rival phlogistion — in which hydrogen and oxygen are combined in a
non-aqueous state called 'oxyhydrogen', in the same proportions in
which they are found in water (2:1). Brown's gas was allegedly used as
a vehicle fuel by its discoverer, Australian inventor Yull Brown.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Sep 19 2007, 05:25 AM) [snapback]514694[/snapback]</div>

Thank you for noting that apriusfan does not have the ability to think freely enough with open eyes to see the truth. Several cars have hydrogen systems similar to the stanley meyer prototype but stanley had injectors that were able to break the water supplied to them up into H2 and O2 as a direct injection device to the cylinders. This technology has been supressed for many many years.

 

Wait a second, doesn't the alternator produce more electricity than is neccessary, thus "free" or wasted energy? Recouping this with the hydrogen system seems like a good Idea?

Writing this off as hogwash at first glance seems shortsighted to me?

Am I wrong?

 

Hi All,

There has to be conservation of energy. There has to be conservation of energy. There has to be conservation of energy.


Consequently its impossible to power a car from sea water alone in a non-nuclear fashion. Sorry. That as basic as gravity.

Get over it. No other BS washes.

What might be advantageous to fuel economy is to get more of the gasoline energy into the engine output shaft. Remember, standard Otto engines are only 10 to 25 % efficient, depending on load. That is 75 percent wasted energy! Could that energy be tapped? We know it can with different engine designs, like those in the Prius and Diesels.

Is it possible to make a gasoline calibrated Otto engine an HCCI, or psuedo-Diesel by injecting H2 and O2, or some other gas (HO and H mixture ?) along with gasoline? I think that is worth investigating. Will it punch a hole in a cylinder in an engine not designed for the specific burn that does occur? Could. Will it generate lots of NOx, like other Diesels? Could. Will it result in 20 % better fuel economy? Could.

 

http://www.nowpublic.com/life/energy-seawater-myth-or-legend

Now why would anyone want to know how it actually works?

I'm ready to convert my Ford Explorer to run on seawater. It only gets 15 mpg on gasoline, so what kind of mileage can I expect with seawater? Can I get 100 miles per 17 gal tank? Sign me up.

If this works as advertised, I will be able to sell my Prius and drive my SUV using seawater.

No kidding. :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dallas2727 @ Sep 19 2007, 07:05 PM) [snapback]515016[/snapback]</div>

Yes, you are wrong. Every bit of electricity from the alternator is paid for by burning gas, and you don't trade evenly for it. You have to consume more energy than the alternator produces, so it works at a net loss (this is basic thermodynamics). From a fuel efficiency standpoint, you are better off to not make the extra electricity and save the fuel used to make it.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(D Rock @ Sep 18 2007, 07:55 PM) [snapback]514622[/snapback]</div>

Too funny. Interesting that he could never really explain just how he violated the laws of thermodynamics. Just that he could. He makes energy out of water. And we're even told that Hydrogen is "More powerful" than the energy in oil. OK. Whatever that means. It sure sounds impressive!

Well, there are several reasons. But before we start, can anybody show me the 1924 5-passenger car that could go over 100 mph and still get 50 mpg at 60mph? Ready? Go! Oh wait... how about one that does that AND burns the gasoline insanely cleanly?

And as usual, we can separate H2 and O2 using less energy than the H2 then holds, right? Nope. It hasn't been done.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dallas2727 @ Sep 19 2007, 04:05 PM) [snapback]515016[/snapback]</div>

Yup. I'm afraid you're wrong. No such thing as producing more electricity than is neccessary. What you don't use isn't produced. What you produce takes more energy than can be returned. Otherwise, we could be driving around in... water-powered cars!

Nobody wants free energy more than I do. But this all just pegs the BS meter at max. You can't surpress this, folks. Not world-wide. Not even nation-wide. We've got too many smart people (and too many quacks too, apparently).

As the Zeitgeist movie says, "truth is not told, it is realized." Well, the "water into energy" movies tell us what to believe. Yet nobody has yet realized it.

 

How about a deep-cycle battery that gets more efficient with use, runs on water and bananas, and is genetically predisposed to being plugged in?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 19 2007, 09:43 PM) [snapback]515138[/snapback]</div>

I still think my idea of magnetic levitation-based anti gravity unit is the best idea for efficiency improvements. In fact, with a suitable implementation, it should be able to drive with no refilling for at least 10 years. Maybe longer with more efficient anti gravity units.