yeah it doesn't actually do anything better, lets just leave it at that and not make a 4 page thread on it here too...
yeah it doesn't actually do anything better, lets just leave it at that and not make a 4 page thread on it here too...
-David<br /><br />2000 Taco TRD Access Cab<br />v6 | 5spd | 33" BFG A/Ts on 15x10 alloy | 33" PC Mud Terrains on 15x8 black steel | 3" Susp. Lift | OME 882's | Bilstein HD struts front | Rancho shocks rear | Chevy leaf spring swap | Custom sliders | Custom front bumper |3" BL | U-Bolt flip | Flowmaster exhaust | Uniden CB | Firestik II | Dual Hella Black Magic's | Maglite Mod | Kenwood Speakers | Grey Wire Mod | Aux. Reverse Lights | Deckplate Mod<br /><br />Pictures
I saw a couple of comments that getting greater than 100% efficiency is impossible but that's not entirely a true statement if you only take into account the obvious inputs. In the case of an internal combustion engine, yes, 100% is currently impossible. If you take a heat pump for instance, they regularly generate efficiencies of well over 100% (often 150-300% efficient), but it is because the energy is being taken out of the air or water (so really the true system efficiency is quite a bit lower than 100%).
- Jamie<br /><br />1996 SR5 4Runner 4X4 Auto, Deckplate Mod, Hayden Tranny Cooler, Amsoil Air Filter, OME 881/906 N86C/N91SC Lift - SOLD, but still miss it!<br /><br />2005 Silverado 2500HD Duramax Diesel 4WD
No.
Greater than 100% efficiency is always impossible.
That is called perpetual motion.
You must always take into account the whole system.
-I love you.-<br /><br />1987 BigWheel
i haven't investigated it yet, but doesn't the alternator put out more power than necessary anyway, but the voltage/amperage is regulated to the electrical system? if so, then there could be energy there that is being paid for (via ICE power already consumed to spin the alternator) that could be put to use for dissociation to produce the hydroxy to supplement the fuel.
dunno, but it's an interesting topic and the people who are adamant about how well it works don't seem to be making all THAT much money off it since they post their plans on the 'net for free.
-andy
The apparent efficiency will only exceed 100% if you are mis-calculating the efficiency and not taking into account all of the energy inputs. Even if some engine is getting energy from a tear in the space-time continuum and you can't seem to describe how it is happening, that energy still has an efficiency attached to it.Originally Posted by MTL_4runner
This is actually a very good analogy of why the "HHO" crackpots are still around (HHO is a crackpot term itself)- sloppy efficiency calculations. They plug some hydrogen into an engine from an external tank, and in turn see an apparent "increase" in mpg. What is really happening is you're burning hydrogen and gasoline together (rather than just gasoine alone) and developing less horsepower in the process. So these people claim hydrogen increases efficiency of fuel combustion (which is B.S.), and through some fuzzy scientific claims try to sell the idea that burning hydrogen made in an on-board electrolysis plant will net the same results.
What they fail to take into account is you are burning less gasoline becasue you are burning more hydrogen from an external fuel source. Calculating miles per gallon with just the gasoline but ignoring the hydrogen (even though you pay for and use the hydrogen too) appears to show an increase in efficiency, when in fact you are just ignoring another energy input. No magic, just selective blindness...
Burning hydrogen from an external tank is also far different from burning hydrogen that has been electrolyzed on-board. Hydrogen in a tank has already been made, so it is a stored form of energy (like a tank of gas or a pre-charged battery) so you can burn and use that energy. But, if you are using electorolysis on board you have to use energy from your engine to make it, and then you try to reclaim some of that energy. Problem is, electrolysis is at best 90% efficient, and your ICE is about 20% efficient. So basically for every 1 unit of energy you use to produce hydrogen, you only get back 0.18 units of energy; you wasted 82% of your energy in the process for nothing, causing a net DECREASE in fuel mileage.
The alternator will only create as much power as is needed to maintain voltage in the system. If you're only running the radio, it will only produce enough to run that; if you have your auxillary lights and your radio, it will produce enough to power those, up to its maximum current output. The alternator's drag will change based on the electrical system's load, but there is no free energy to be had from it.
Brian
1998 Toyota 4Runner SR5 4x4
Supercharged, URD'd, Lifted, etc. etc.
the only way the alternator will "only create as much power as is needed to maintain voltage in the system" is due to the use of a voltage regulator. the alternator revolution speed is directly proportional to the engine RPM speed via the mechanical linkage of the belt/pulley system.
if you do not have a maximum electrical load (almost never do), then the speed of the alternator is faster than required to keep up with the load. however, the torque required to spin the alternator for a low-load situation is less than the torque required when there is a high load. i.e., more power is required as input to the alternator when there is more load on the electrical system.
now, if the speed is already there, and the cumulative torque produced by the engine during combustion is more than required for the current vehicle speed/load (peak torque is reached early in the RPM band), then the additional fuel that would be consumed to provide the necessary power for the electrolysis is insignificant compared to the torque required to turn the drivetrain and maintain speed. we're talking a 20-30 amp current here - the equivalent of a set of 55W fog lights! if burning your fog lights doesn't pull your MPG's down, then neither would this type of small-scale electrolysis.
the only "cost" would then be the equipment (less than $100 of capital and less than $20/year in consumables) as well as the fuel (distilled water and potassium hydroxide - both VERY cheap). therefore, if the extra amount of gas that is burned to produce the electrical current needed is negligible, and the other costs are negligible, then it's something worth investigating. ya never know... i'm not going to toss this one out with the trash just yet...
-andy
... and all of our alternators have voltage regulators.
Sure, if the alternator is spinning faster than needed, it can take more load. The point isn't that.
The point is, an electrolysis system stores energy by splitting water into H2 and O2. BUT, you can only store as much energy as is being put into the electrolysis system in the first place. This is because water doesn't have any inherent energy stored in it; any energy you get out of burning the hydrogen and oxygen mixture must first be put into the water through your electrolysis system.
SO, even if the electrolysis system is 100% efficient, and you're putting in 30 amps (which is 360 Watts in a 12 volt system), that means you're making 360 watts worth of hydrogen and oxygen. Now, you burn the H2/O2 mixture in your engine, which is 20% efficient at most, and get about 72W back as mechanical power. In case you aren't keeping track, that's an additional .096 hp added to the engine, but you used .48 hp to make that power because you're driving the alternator and electrolysis system with the engine. So in reality, you're just increasing the drag on the engine by .38 horsepower, not making anything more.
Brian
1998 Toyota 4Runner SR5 4x4
Supercharged, URD'd, Lifted, etc. etc.
Brian and Axle, reread my comment and you'll see that I was really agreeing with you.
- Jamie<br /><br />1996 SR5 4Runner 4X4 Auto, Deckplate Mod, Hayden Tranny Cooler, Amsoil Air Filter, OME 881/906 N86C/N91SC Lift - SOLD, but still miss it!<br /><br />2005 Silverado 2500HD Duramax Diesel 4WD
It's because of people like you that innovative technologies stay underground as long as they do. If Anthony1 wants to experiment with Brown's gas, back the f-ck off and let him.
Your discouragement is shameful. Especially when you have no hands-on experience with HHO injection. Preaching theory is one thing, but don't dissuade someone from experimentation.
'95 4Runner, 3.0, Auto, 140K.
i'm not saying that i'm buying into it, but i am saying that it's worth a deeper look when people who have NOTHING to gain monetarily swear by it - and i happen to personally know one person who has one of these and says that he's seen it get as much as 44MPG on his Z71, but he keeps blowing fuses (too high of an electrolyte concentration, but it makes more dissociated gasses).
i'm an engineer, a chemical engineer, and i currently work with ammonia systems (important later) in the design of refrigeration systems. anyway, when you do the mass/energy balance around the entire system, i realize that you're not getting "free" energy. however, water is next to free in price (for now), and there is energy in the molecular bonding between the atoms - that's why it takes energy to seperate them and they readily re-combine during combustion, giving off energy.
i know that the energy that you get back from re-combining the hydrogen and oxygen will be less than the electrical energy that you put in the system to dissociate them in the first place, but what you are not taking into accout is the fact that you are adding a VERY strong oxidizer and a good reducer to a volitile mixture of atomized/vaporized hydrocarbons and air under high compression in the combustion cylinder. there *may* be some secondary or tertiary reactions going on with the hydrogen and the hydrocarbons to allow for further cracking or breaking of some double or triple bonding between the carbon atoms, yeilding lower molecular weight hydrocarbons which could have a higher combustion coefficient and lead to a more complete and more volitile burn.
for instance, if you put nitrogen gas (in air) in the presence of dissociated hydrogen under higher pressures and temperatures, you will form ammonia, especially in the presence of iron oxide (engine block). in it's vapor form is HIGHLY flammable. so, you're putting 80% nitrogen thru your air intake, add some hydrogen and some heat and pressure (inside the engine) and you have a NEW FUEL formed that is MUCH more reactive than hydrogen alone. also, this reaction is EXOTHERMIC, producing heat, which means that it will readily occur and produce pressure in the cylinder, helping to drive the piston down with more force.
another reaction is the production of ammonium nitrate, NH4NO3, which can also be formed when hydrogen gas, oxygen gas, and nitrogen are present under high pressures and temperatures. put ammonium nitrate in the presence of a hydrocarbon (like gas or diesel) and then add an energy source (detonation by the spark plug) and you have a VERY violent explosion which would create POWER in a piston-driven engine. for reference, IIRC, just 1000lbs of ammonium nitrate fertilizer soaked with less than 100-gallons of diesel fuel that was ignited with a single stick of dynamite is what brought the murrah federal building down in oklahoma city.
anyway, the haber process combines nitrogen and hydrogen to produce ammonia, part of which can be oxidised to nitric acid and combined with the remaining ammonia to produce the nitrate. Another production method is used in the so-called Odda process.
under extreme temperatures (like what you would find in an engine), ammonium nitrate can break down and produce nitros oxide. we all know what that does for an internal combustion engine.
anyway, it's worth looking into - that's all i'm saying. when adding highly reactive hydrogen and oxygen atoms produced by dissociation (not the fairly inert atom pairs as they are found in nature) and combine them with a supply of nitrogen, hydrocarbons, heat and pressure, you will get all kinds of chemicals formed, most of which would be considered to be fuels.
however, the down side of this would be the production of NOX gasses from the reactions involving the combustion of nitrogen-containing chemical compounds. NOX gasses are bad (smog) and therefore, this would not be commercially viable unless more was done to control the exhaust makeup, possibly requiring larger or different catalytic converters.
links:
http://www.ausetute.com.au/haberpro.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Cracking
http://www.answers.com/topic/cracking?cat=technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_(chemistry)
-andy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote