| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Aaron Cake
Administrator
Canada
6717 Posts |
 Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 5:13:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by davezzr
Hi and thanks for your indepth comments,and i would agree on some points with you.Having said that i have spent over a year checking,double checking and checking again that what seemed to be happening was happening and not a blind belief.The said vehicle has been on the analyser (professional)several times with the generator running and not running but still in situ.
Please post the findings! You're the first person I have heard of to do actual study on this junk.
quote:
the unit.For all i know it could be creating 2-3-4l gas per min i have no idea,but i do know it gets very hot pulling over 20amps im sure and liquid is disapearing at quite a rate.
2-4 litres of gas still isn't nearly enough though. Think about how much air an engine moves even at low speeds.
Take a 0.5L lawnmower 4 stroke idling at 600 RPM. That engine will move 75L of air in one minute. That is a huge amount of air, and we are just talking about a 500CC engine at idle. A 1.8L is 4 times larger and you are never cruising around at only 600 RPM. Like most older Mazdas (you have not told us what kind of car it actually is) it probably idles at 750 RPM.
The math just doesn't add up.
The fact you indicate that it's pulling 20A and getting very hot may mean the water is boiling.  But I assume you've already discounted that. 
quote:
Lamda tests prior to fitting the unit 0.9%
Lamda test after fitting 0.08%
What comes out of the tailpipe is cleaner than the air we breath
But you've introduced a vacuum leak. The L-Jetronic with it's Denso AFM goes crazy for vacuum leaks. Any unmetered fluid/gas/solid(!!) entering the intake manifold causes it to go completely wonky. However without knowing exactly what engine you are running I can only guess at the EFI system. I'm assuming L-Jetronic because that's what most Mazdas until '94 or so ran. Including the RX-7 until '92.
quote:
Hydrogen on demand
Ah...
quote:
I read a lot of ads about these magnets,seperating the ion particles or whatever bla d bla.to give huge increases in mpg...not that i would fall for that gumpf.I dare say quite a few people proberbly took a chance at a few $s..and may well have convinced themselves it might just do some good
Yes, obviously complete bunk. I was just using it as an example. Any mileage improvement is likely due to coincidence or the placebo effect.
quote:
Plasmatron reformer? sounds suspiciously very scientific 
Take a look at the studies a few posts up. A plasmatron reformer can actually liberate quite a lot of hydrogen from a hydrocarbon rich fuel (natural gas, etc.) and make a good bit of difference in how the engine runs. But of course even it runs out of gas (so to speak) at higher RPMs. And the engine can't handle much hydrogen either. Really, hydrogen is just generally a very poor fuel to run an internal combustion engine on unless you are talking about something with a long combustion chamber such as the rotary.
quote:
turns out to be a combination of Hydrogen/oxygen gas and an vacuum leak that gives these results then i will keep the leak (if you knew the cost of fuel in the UK you would do the same.$9usd per gallon)
Hehe, true enough. If the leak is having a positive effect, go for it. But keep in mind that over time you will burn valves and pit pistons. There's a reason that most manufacturers tune their cars around stoich under load and then only a tad bit leaner (with a lot of EGR!) under cruise. |
 |
|
|
audioguru
Nobel Prize Winner
Canada
4218 Posts |
Posted - Sep 10 2008 : 7:35:44 PM
|
| When the mixture is lean then there is a lot of nasty nitrous oxide in the exhaust. |
|
|
|
davezzr
Apprentece
8 Posts |
Posted - Sep 12 2008 : 11:58:17 AM
|
Thank you Aaron for your interest in this subject and all your points have been noted.
It would be rather impractical to try and match the amount of hydrogen production with air intake,as in your example of a lawnmower.The intention is not to replace petrol but to make its burn more efficient and to improve the percentage of fuel burned.If you know your history petrol was first developed in the treatment of head lice and not as a fuel (fact)but ended up the motor fuel of choice.Diesel engines on the otherhand were designed to run off oil (from day one),and will burn most any oil from used cooking oil to fresh rapeseed oil which incidently is the only oil you can use straight without any tritration.You can buy rapeseed quite cheaply as its mainly used as animal feed and polish.Cold press the seed and away you go,instant bio-fuel.you can use fresh cooking oil if you insist but will need to be diluted by 25% ordinary diesel to prevent it gumming up.Anyway i diversify from the original thread.
I wont post any findings if you will keep refering to this as JUNK,Aaron.
As i said it does get a tad hot,but not boiling.Think i might have spotted that straight off if that were the case.But i am getting closer to resolving the issue..
Aaron you keep mentioning this bloody air leak..I dont have an air valve or any holes where air can get in.I had been very careful to seal all fittings so this would not happen,Im not a DIY bodger.The only air that gets in is throught the proper channels and none of my own making.I think you got water4gas desing on your mind!!walk it off, my friend there are other systems out there
Glad you mentioned pistons and valves.I colourtuned and compression tested my engine only a few weeks ago and she is nice.I will do this again in a month or so and report any major changes that could be the result of anything other than wear n tare
1.8L mazda mx5 1993 jap import (Eunos Roadster)
|
|
|
|
davezzr
Apprentece
8 Posts |
Posted - Sep 12 2008 : 12:14:07 PM
|
Going back to the heating issue i have just added a thermal switch to shut off at a designed temperature and it does seem to hold its promise,so far.I do want to fit a PWM or DC motor speed controller to set the amps to a realistic level but i dont feel i need to pay £30 ($60) for one when there are so many free circuit diagrams and parts lists available.However i will be honest and say these mean nothing to me as im not that savvy with electonic circuits.
If someone wants to build one for me that will handle 30a top end load for a small renumeration and a christmass card every year then i wouldnt say no |
|
|
|
davezzr
Apprentece
8 Posts |
Posted - Sep 12 2008 : 12:51:22 PM
|
It has to be said,while i crack my second beer that there are so many people around the world who are not trying to produce and sell hydrogen generators but are still showing good results from there own experiances.So no matter how sceptical a man can be he has to bow to the fact that there may well be something to this.Forget all the physics about getting less out than the energy you put in its not about how much energy is used,its about the gains wether great or small from your very expensive petrol.
I did meet a couple of guys at a new energy type show in Brighton in the summer who had the water4gas units in a car and we got talking (as you do)They had 3 units linked up together and was producing what i can only describe as a pathetic amount of bubbles,not convinced i saw any gas though only bubbles.Even they seemed a bit confused as to why there was an air intake valve on the top of each unit saying that the brochure said it needed the extra air to carry the gas (I sniffed the air and could only smell bull shit)There intention was to promote the water4gas units for resale and had an impressive list of names and contact details to follow up.
We have been in contact several times since then and they have convinced themselves that the water4gas is not the best unit to go with. They say the units are poorly designed using amature materials with little gas production (there words,not mine)
They have however show excitement in my little effort (chest beating will commence shortly)
There are far to many sceptics in this world,and if more people kept an open mind and urged others on in their endevours instead of putting them down then we will all learn something new .Dont knock people for trying things if you dont have the heart to try things yourself
|
|
|
|
audioguru
Nobel Prize Winner
Canada
4218 Posts |
Posted - Sep 13 2008 : 1:07:20 PM
|
The sceptics say, "Why hasn't anybody done a blind test to prove it?"
Stan Meyers got a patent but couldn't prove it and was sued and lost in court for fraud.
Probably because it doesn't work. |
|
|
|
Aaron Cake
Administrator
Canada
6717 Posts |
Posted - Sep 14 2008 : 10:18:08 AM
|
The simple reason for so many skeptics is because this "technology" has been around for 100 years (check the online patent search) and has been time and time again proved to be ineffective. The simple fact is that with the basic systems promoted on the scam websites and by the HHO people, enough gas cannot be generated to make an effect. The three studies carried out by the US Department Of Energy (from page two of this thread) back this up with scientific data.
Even without any scientific evidence that it's junk, simple common sense would have a person ask:
"If this simple system which can be manufactured for a few dollars and easily adapted to any car on the road makes a measurable positive effect on fuel consumption, then why is it not already included from the manufacturer on every vehicle?"
And the answer of course is "Because it doesn't work".
However if you feel your system works, you can easily earn quite a lot of money. Bruce Simpson, the author of the content quoted all the way back on page 1, has issued a One Million Dollar HHO Challenge.
Bruce Simpson has offered $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove this junk works.
From Bruce's page:
------------------
Since I originally published my pages debunking the science behind HHO and exposing these schemes as blatant frauds, I've had hundreds of emails from scammers who insist that *they* are getting the claimed "40% improvement in gas mileage".
Well I'm calling their bluff by announcing the One Million Dollar HHO Challenge.
Full story: http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_challenge.shtml
------------------
All you need to do is demonstrate a consistent improvement in fuel economy with no negative effects within 6 months and you win. Couldn't be easier. |
|
|
|
spaman
Apprentice
USA
128 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2008 : 7:34:52 PM
|
Hello Aaron,
Well here's the update from 8-3-08 posting, I have installed a 6 pack in a tractor trailer, that 6 pack has delivered 3 miles per gallon increase over the past 5 weeks saving the trucking firm $3276.00 in fuel cost. I received the money for my installation and the contract for 122 tractors within the next 3 months. This junk is not working then so be it. Someday everyone will be using hydrogen for fuel, its to bad that your pride has you choked up and keeps you from even trying it, but thats ok its just junk anyway.
I said i would reply with the results and i did, hate that i cant keep reading the mass effort you exert in kicking it down, that energy could have re-directed in a more postive side of you. I am very busy now and really dont have time to absorb the negative feedback i might expect, so thanks Aaron for all the good you done with this forum.
Oh, by the way, Uncle Sam (US Goverment)has joined in on this scam as you describe it, check out this link, even thought Canada is your home country its ok, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/technologies.html
|
Edited by - spaman on Sep 21 2008 7:45:25 PM |
|
|
|
Aaron Cake
Administrator
Canada
6717 Posts |
Posted - Sep 22 2008 : 7:22:02 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by spaman
Hello Aaron,
Well here's the update from 8-3-08 posting, I have installed a 6 pack in a tractor trailer, that 6 pack has delivered 3 miles per gallon increase over the past 5 weeks saving the trucking firm $3276.00 in fuel cost. I received the money for my installation and the contract for 122 tractors within the next 3 months. This junk is not working then so be it. Someday everyone will be using hydrogen for fuel, its to bad that your pride has you choked up and keeps you from even trying it, but thats ok its just junk anyway.
What scientific testing have you done to confirm the fuel savings? I assume a proper double-blind test was done in which dummy units were installed in some trucks, real units in others, and the drivers (nor the mechanics installing or those making the measurements) were uninformed as to which unit they had?
Otherwise it is impossible to verify where the fuel savings had actually come from. I used the example before of the fuel line magnets. The thing is that if people believe they have a magic device that saves fuel, they will save fuel. Physcological effects are very interesting. For example, if you offer a person two potato chips and tell them that one chip is three times the price of the other, they will like the expensive chip and always rate it higher on a scale. Nevermind that both chips came from the same bag.
Now, you don't need to worry about my "pride" because believe me, if someone came up to me with a real scientific study, I'd be all ears to hear the information. But the issue that no one has yet proved scientifically that these systems work, and all the calculations and studies say they don't. The burden of proof lies on the one making extraordinary claims, not those debunking them.
When I have some time, I fully intend to construct my own mason jar electrolyzer and connect it to a spare single cylinder Briggs and Stratton engine. I will then put one cup of fuel into the tank and run it without the device, recording how long it runs. I will then repeat with the electrolyzer. Any difference more then 10% would be considered a result. However as I have a very long list of things to do, this is very low on my priorities. Maybe I can convince a student to do it as a project instead?
It's good however that you have had success with your devices, regardless of what is causing that success. I suggest that you can make some serious money by submitting to the Million Dollar HHO Challenge: http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_challenge.shtml
quote:
I said i would reply with the results and i did, hate that i cant keep reading the mass effort you exert in kicking it down, that energy could have re-directed in a more postive side of you. I am very busy now and really dont have time to absorb the negative feedback i might expect, so thanks Aaron for all the good you done with this forum.
If you don't want to read the whole thread, read just the big post in which I link to the Department of Energy studies.
quote:
Oh, by the way, Uncle Sam (US Goverment)has joined in on this scam as you describe it, check out this link, even thought Canada is your home country its ok, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/technologies.html
Maybe I'm missing something here, but that site describes hydrogen as a fuel source in a fuel cell based system. Nowhere does it mention electrolyzers under the hood of gasoline vehicles or even burning hydrogen in internal combustion engines. Certainly in certain circumstances fuel cells run by hydrogen could be a viable power source for electric vehicles but that is likely never going to happen. The fact is that it's just massively more efficient to recharge batteries using the electrical infrastructure that already exists. |
|
|
|
Aaron Cake
Administrator
Canada
6717 Posts |
|
|
davezzr
Apprentece
8 Posts |
Posted - Sep 25 2008 : 6:20:11 PM
|
Hi Aaron im back again,just read your piece on building your own mason jar and testing using a cup of fuel...exactly what im in the proccess of doing now only with a bit more fuel per run.Now to make the test a bit more fair ive decided that all circumstances should remain identical.
engine temp
ambiant air temp
RPM at 750
fresh oil.air filter,fresh plugs
useing a measured 1litre per test run from no fuel in the system (dry) to dry
I shall run 3 test runs with fuel only and no HHO generator attached
3 test runs with HHO generator attached but not activated
and 3 test runs with HHO generator attached and activated
from each 3 runs i will note times to run out and take the mean average as final figure.
This should give an indication of wether the system is giving a positive result.
If you would like me to take any other reading during this test period please let me know before i commence |
|
|
|
Aaron Cake
Administrator
Canada
6717 Posts |
Posted - Sep 28 2008 : 11:16:24 AM
|
I'm planning to have someone else randomly switch on the "HHO" generator without my knowledge. It's going to be very difficult to control ambient air temp perfectly but a few degrees here and there won't make much of a difference.
Keep in mind that (like everyone else who has performed this experiment) I'm not expecting much of a result. Mainly I'm doing it to counter all the "HHO" spam currently on YouTube. |
|
|
|
Alien
Apprentice
Canada
149 Posts |
Posted - Sep 29 2008 : 02:37:03 AM
|
It's been a long time since I've been here.
With the shitty gas prices I decided to give this a try. Cost me about 25$ total in ABS piping, fittings, relay...etc
It's pretty well built, but I have no proof of it making an actual difference. Since I'm messing with the O2 sensor output, the ECU will send less gas whether or not there is enough H2 to replace it.
Still, I'm running it this week, see what happens. How could I monitor differences in the operation of the engine, like the temperature if it's running too lean?
> I was thinking of your arguments earlier. If injecting the hydroxide should raise RPM or boost horsepower, shouldn't leaning out the engine result in the opposite?
quote:
8% of 1125 is 90 litres of hydrogen!
Maybe I'm waay off but from what I understand...
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-announces-the-bmw-hydrogen-7/
17.6 lbs, or 17.6 lbs/(4.432 lbs/ft3) =
3.97 ft3 = 112L of liquid H2 to go over 125 miles (201.2Km)= .56L/Km.
|
-----------------------------
Andy
|
Edited by - Alien on Sep 29 2008 10:13:06 AM |
|
|
|
Aaron Cake
Administrator
Canada
6717 Posts |
Posted - Oct 03 2008 : 11:10:21 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alien
It's been a long time since I've been here.
With the shitty gas prices I decided to give this a try. Cost me about 25$ total in ABS piping, fittings, relay...etc
It's pretty well built, but I have no proof of it making an actual difference. Since I'm messing with the O2 sensor output, the ECU will send less gas whether or not there is enough H2 to replace it.
Exactly. And whether you know it or not, you are driving differently then before you started. I've recently read a bunch of automotive forum posts where people say how much this "HHO" junk is making their mileage increase...only to have them post back in a week apologizing and saying that it was their different driving style or some other external factor.
quote:
Still, I'm running it this week, see what happens. How could I monitor differences in the operation of the engine, like the temperature if it's running too lean?
Your best bet is to use an EGT probe. Run the engine unmodified and monitor EGTs. Then add in your modifications. As the EGT increases, you are running leaner.
quote:
I was thinking of your arguments earlier. If injecting the hydroxide should raise RPM or boost horsepower, shouldn't leaning out the engine result in the opposite?
Yes. You start leaning the engine past stoich and you loose torque and HP, EGTs go up and you may actually use more fuel. NOX skyrockets as well. Most engines happy at stoich under light load, and often just a bit leaner under steady state. But they will want much richer ratios under throttle (commonly around 13.5:1 to 12.5:1 for NA, as rich as 11:1 or even a bit richer for forced induction).
Now you could tune leaner and then supplement your primary fuel with another fuel. No rocket science here...you're still burning the same amount of fuel.
quote:
Maybe I'm waay off but from what I understand...
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-announces-the-bmw-hydrogen-7/
17.6 lbs, or 17.6 lbs/(4.432 lbs/ft3) =
3.97 ft3 = 112L of liquid H2 to go over 125 miles (201.2Km)= .56L/Km.
Not sure what you mean. Liquid hydrogen and gaseous hydrogen are a bit difference in density. |
|
|
|
davezzr
Apprentece
8 Posts |
Posted - Oct 12 2008 : 5:54:19 PM
|
Hi Aaron,well the results are in and as i said i followed my test method to the letter with an unbias view.Would you like to know the results??
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Hydrogen Fuel for Cars
