Hydrogen cell
Thread Starter
|
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
From: Portugal
Hydrogen cell
Veteran member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 14,803
Likes: 4,101
From: Great Mills, MD
Ah, a new version of the same old scam that has been going on for years. The only thing that it hslps with is getting your money into someone elses wallet.
Let me explain to you what they are proposing and why in reality it doesn't work. These "boxes" are also referred to as "HHO systems". What you are doing is essentially taking water, passing a current through it, breaking the water down into hydrogen and oxygen gas (both of which promote combustion). So, the thinking is by adding these gases into the combustion chamber, these will make the combustion process better and more efficient due to the explosive rate at which hydrogen burns. Well, ironically, gasoline/petrol burns at a faster rate than hydrogen. So, strike one against this.
Now, assuming that by adding these gases we can have a noticeable affect on the combustion of the engine. How much of this gas would be required? Lets make an assumption that adding 1% of this gas to the incoming air is enough to make the claimed gains. So, at highway speeds, your car is using about 133 cubic feet of air per minute to make the engine run. So, you need to add in 1.33 cubic feet of the HHO gas to get the 1% ratio. Having worked around machines that did this very thing, our machine generated 135 cubic feet of oxygen per hour running at 1350 amps at 50 volts (or 70KW roughly). Now, since we are using both the hydrogen and oxygen, this would really mean for this power, my machine made 400 cubic feet of gas (135 x 3 - 1 part oxygen, 2 parts hydrogen, then rounded slightly). So, every minute, the machine I worked around is making 5.8 cubic feet of gas. So, you would need 20% of that which would mean you need an electrical system on the car that can make 14 KW of power (70KW x 20%). At 12 VDC, that would mean you would need an alternator that can output around 1200 amps (yes, 1200). This electrical loading would effectively double the amount of power that the engine would have to produce to make this possible. OH wait, if the engine is needing to make twice the power, then it has to use twice the amount of fuel. So much for the fuel savings as you are saving 30%, but using 100% more, for a net of 70% loss. Strike 2.
Now, for the final strike which is what they never say in the add. There is this silly rule in the engineering world that at best, power out is always less than power in. You are using power to break the water into its gaseous parts to only take that gas and recombine it to get that power back out. So, even in a perfect world, you are only going to break even. You have to figure out a way to remove your losses (friction/decay heat are the big two) and take that energy and apply it to the crankshaft of your car. That is how you get better mileage while maintaining the same power. Sure, I can make a car get better mileage. But, this is normally done by doing 2 things. The first being taking a smaller displacement engine which makes less power and use that to move the car. Less power, less fuel needed to move it along, therefore less fuel is need (this whole concept is fairly true). The other being that you need to remove the frictional losses which occur with the air moving over the body, the friction in the wheel bearings, friction in the engine at all the bearing surfaces there, etc. Less friction, the engine needs to make less power to get the same power to the wheels (remember, power out = power in - losses, less losses, for the same power out, power in is less). Less power in means less fuel required, therefore mileage goes back up.
The only way to really make this system get the claims that it is stating is to have an off vehicle system set up that uses solar energy to disassociate the water (break it down into hydrogen and oxygen) and then store those parts in large tanks inside the car. You are now using other wasted energy (sunlight) in a useful manner. Granted, keep in mind that you have now created a large bomb that you are hauling around all the time in your vehicle. I am not sure how you feel about that.
So, as you can see, this is not what it all seems to be. I propose an alternate idea to really make you think. If there was something out there that for say $100 USD could raise a car' making 30 mpg up to 40 mpg and is a simple add on to a vehicle, don't you think all the automotive manufacturers would be adding this to their vehicles to meet the worldwide mandate for more fuel efficient vehicles? Just saying. I know the gas/petrol companies would be against it and tossing more money at things like this to shut it down. But, you don't hear them discussing how they need to stop something like this.
Let me explain to you what they are proposing and why in reality it doesn't work. These "boxes" are also referred to as "HHO systems". What you are doing is essentially taking water, passing a current through it, breaking the water down into hydrogen and oxygen gas (both of which promote combustion). So, the thinking is by adding these gases into the combustion chamber, these will make the combustion process better and more efficient due to the explosive rate at which hydrogen burns. Well, ironically, gasoline/petrol burns at a faster rate than hydrogen. So, strike one against this.
Now, assuming that by adding these gases we can have a noticeable affect on the combustion of the engine. How much of this gas would be required? Lets make an assumption that adding 1% of this gas to the incoming air is enough to make the claimed gains. So, at highway speeds, your car is using about 133 cubic feet of air per minute to make the engine run. So, you need to add in 1.33 cubic feet of the HHO gas to get the 1% ratio. Having worked around machines that did this very thing, our machine generated 135 cubic feet of oxygen per hour running at 1350 amps at 50 volts (or 70KW roughly). Now, since we are using both the hydrogen and oxygen, this would really mean for this power, my machine made 400 cubic feet of gas (135 x 3 - 1 part oxygen, 2 parts hydrogen, then rounded slightly). So, every minute, the machine I worked around is making 5.8 cubic feet of gas. So, you would need 20% of that which would mean you need an electrical system on the car that can make 14 KW of power (70KW x 20%). At 12 VDC, that would mean you would need an alternator that can output around 1200 amps (yes, 1200). This electrical loading would effectively double the amount of power that the engine would have to produce to make this possible. OH wait, if the engine is needing to make twice the power, then it has to use twice the amount of fuel. So much for the fuel savings as you are saving 30%, but using 100% more, for a net of 70% loss. Strike 2.
Now, for the final strike which is what they never say in the add. There is this silly rule in the engineering world that at best, power out is always less than power in. You are using power to break the water into its gaseous parts to only take that gas and recombine it to get that power back out. So, even in a perfect world, you are only going to break even. You have to figure out a way to remove your losses (friction/decay heat are the big two) and take that energy and apply it to the crankshaft of your car. That is how you get better mileage while maintaining the same power. Sure, I can make a car get better mileage. But, this is normally done by doing 2 things. The first being taking a smaller displacement engine which makes less power and use that to move the car. Less power, less fuel needed to move it along, therefore less fuel is need (this whole concept is fairly true). The other being that you need to remove the frictional losses which occur with the air moving over the body, the friction in the wheel bearings, friction in the engine at all the bearing surfaces there, etc. Less friction, the engine needs to make less power to get the same power to the wheels (remember, power out = power in - losses, less losses, for the same power out, power in is less). Less power in means less fuel required, therefore mileage goes back up.
The only way to really make this system get the claims that it is stating is to have an off vehicle system set up that uses solar energy to disassociate the water (break it down into hydrogen and oxygen) and then store those parts in large tanks inside the car. You are now using other wasted energy (sunlight) in a useful manner. Granted, keep in mind that you have now created a large bomb that you are hauling around all the time in your vehicle. I am not sure how you feel about that.
So, as you can see, this is not what it all seems to be. I propose an alternate idea to really make you think. If there was something out there that for say $100 USD could raise a car' making 30 mpg up to 40 mpg and is a simple add on to a vehicle, don't you think all the automotive manufacturers would be adding this to their vehicles to meet the worldwide mandate for more fuel efficient vehicles? Just saying. I know the gas/petrol companies would be against it and tossing more money at things like this to shut it down. But, you don't hear them discussing how they need to stop something like this.
Veteran Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 304
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Thermo, what if you combine it with one of those $8.99 Tornado Turbonator things, one of those improved grounding kits and the $35 performance chip? You telling me my car wouldn't kick-***?
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 11,057
Likes: 2,272
From: Perth Ontario Canada
Chris is spot on. Scammers have been pushing these widgets for decades.
The short version is, yes they produce hydrogen which the engine can burn.
The AMOUNT of hydrogen they can produce is tiny- not enough to to even run the smallest model airplane engine.
The other factor is that it takes more energy, robbed from the car's engine via the alternator, to produce the hydrogen than the energy the hydrogen itself contains.
All of this means that it's losing proposition all around. The car is producing less net energy with one of these widgets, not more. Putting two of them doubles the losses.
The short version is, yes they produce hydrogen which the engine can burn.
The AMOUNT of hydrogen they can produce is tiny- not enough to to even run the smallest model airplane engine.
The other factor is that it takes more energy, robbed from the car's engine via the alternator, to produce the hydrogen than the energy the hydrogen itself contains.
All of this means that it's losing proposition all around. The car is producing less net energy with one of these widgets, not more. Putting two of them doubles the losses.
Veteran Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 27,522
Likes: 4,911
From: Yorkshire, England
It ought to be illegal to push those gadgets, but I suppose laws are lax in many places and fools are available. Don't be a fool!
If such things worked, the car makers would fit them!!
If such things worked, the car makers would fit them!!
Veteran member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 14,803
Likes: 4,101
From: Great Mills, MD
Alfa, you never mentioned the Tornado pieces. You mix that with the hydrogen cell, oh hell. You are going to have a monster on your hands. I bet you won't be able to keep that car on the road after you do all that. Oh the power that you are going to see. Just makes me want to go out and do that sort of thing. Might as well toss on the muffler turbo too since you are at it.. That should add a lot more power too.
Veteran Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 304
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Oh hell yeah! I'll get right on it! Probably will add another couple hundred horsepower and triple the fuel mileage for about an hour's worth of work. All that for less than $100. I can't believe the major manufacturers haven't caught on. Must be a conspiracy from Big Oil!
Trending Topics
Veteran Member
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 269
Turboencabulator?
Ultrasonic Transducer Water Vaporizer?
Ultrasmooth sub-micron carbon spheres oil additive?
Other such snake oiled energy crystals conveniently listed & discussed here:
The Unicorn Corral - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com
Ultrasonic Transducer Water Vaporizer?
Ultrasmooth sub-micron carbon spheres oil additive?
Other such snake oiled energy crystals conveniently listed & discussed here:
The Unicorn Corral - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FS[Western US]: Jaguar X308 MISC Parts
perezal
PRIVATE For Sale / Trade or Buy Classifieds
2
Dec 29, 2015 08:48 PM
Aus V8S
F-Type ( X152 )
50
Nov 13, 2015 11:01 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)