Water 4 Gas

[King of the Americas]

How the heck does the creator of these HHO devices know that they work, if he doesn't even have dynamometer testing results?

I am guessing that he just put one in, drove his car, and then started drawing conclusions and making claims...

My mechanic buddy did the same thing, and he has installed about 5 on other cars.

They ALL report back the same findings- "That they witnessed increased hp & mpg."

Now, I'd gladly conceed that these finding are NOT scientific or conclusive.

Until someone, somewhere produces actual dynamometer test results, all that we have are "unproven claims", theoretical conclusions that refute the findings.

 

[King of the Americas]

More evidence that it's a fraud that King can ignore or handwave away.

Dude, don't be a prick.

I have NOT "ignored or handwaved away" any test results that have been presented.

I am NOT touting these devices as "proven to make your get better milage". I am just passing along the anecdotal evidence collected by my buddy.

I am here looking for test results, that either confirm or debunk his findings.

Your link also did NOT provide any such controlled test results.

At the end of the article is this statement:

...OctaFuel's team of advisors were not sure the product had been tested thoroughly enough in-house, but the feedback seemed positive, with reports of between 20 per cent and 25 per cent fuel savings, so the decision was made to proceed with a public trial," he said.

But later installations in a number of customers' vehicles and the Waikato Times trials "showed that on-demand hydrogen technology is a fraud".

Mr Fresnel said the company would continue exploring hydrogen as a primary fuel for motor vehicles, including reforming of methane from rubbish dumps to hydrogen gas, which can be used to fuel cars."

---

Alright "Waikato Times", what 'deficiencies' did the system cause?

Did the device manage to break even, in over all engine output?

All that is said was that it is a fraud...

Which is what EVERYONE here is also saying, with NO test results to back up that claim.

What I am suggesting is that without actual 'controlled test results', we should all with hold judgement.

 

[bruto]

No it isn't.

Look, I don't know how many times I can say this, "I am NOT selling or advertising for these thing! I am looking for actual test results that will confirm or debunk these claims."

To date I have seen NO such test results, and thus I am with holding my final judgement as to this device's ability to increase efficiency.

If there are no test results, why withhold your judgment? Has there been insufficient time to test it? Have all the for-hire dynamometers in the country burned out? I think you're being way too generous to persons whose entire approach to their invention stinks of fraudulent intent and pandering to magical thinking. If a claim you didn't happen to find so attractive were made by someone else, and the means of testing it it were obvious to you, would you give it even a moment's credence on the basis of the arguments you're putting forth here?

How about a reductio ad absurdum?

I claim that I have the power to increase my car battery's voltage by 10 percent by waving this magic wand over the hood. I'll sell you the plans for the wand for 20 dollars. Various people have been reported to have seen the headlights brighten when I do this on my car. Now you can have this magic on your car for only 20 dollars' worth of plans (you provide the parts for the gadget, sorry I can't tell you what they are until you buy the plans).

Hey, nobody has come up with a definitive test that debunks my claim. Of course if my device actually worked, I could at least measure the effect with a ten dollar voltmeter in front of witnesses, and publish the results, but why should the burden be on me? You disprove it, so that I still have the chance to tell you you did it wrong, built it wrong, or used the wrong technique, and keep on selling my product. So, why don't you send for the instructions?

I repeat, the burden for testing a device like this, whose claimed effect runs contrary to conventional physics and engineering, is entirely up to the person promoting it. An honest person would test his claims, and a dishonest person would not. If the promoter has not provided even the simplest objective test results to back up his claim, it is because he knows no such results can be obtained. You'd be a fool to think otherwise.

It is nobody else's responsibility to debunk this stuff, because until it is proven by its inventor or promoter, it is, ipso facto, bunk!

 

[Brian-M]

OK I have a Invention that will BEAT all those Hydrogen Generator cars, it is called the AIR Car, already in Production and can get as much as 2,000 Miles on just one Full Tank full of Air Pressure with very little Gas.

OK... Now I've had time to finish laughing my ass off and think about it, a pneumatic car actually makes sense, assuming you can store enough compressed air to travel a reasonable distance.

(I must admit, those are three big-ass air cylinders for a lightweight car, and 300 Bar is a hell of a lot of pressure.)

There are a few things which make the video seem a little less credible.

First of all is your claim that it "can get as much as 2,000 Miles on just one Full Tank full of Air Pressure", which is clearly bull****. The video mentions 200km (about 140 miles) on a full tank of air which is far more plausible.
(You're probably meant the air/petrol hybrid... but there's no mention of exactly how much fuel would be required to make the distance.)

For the claims made by the video itself...

The next thing which makes this less credible is the claim that you could fill it up from the air compressor at a service station. Earlier he states that the cylinders hold 300 bar... and then mentions that this is 150 times the pressure you pump your tires to, so he clearly means bar, not psi.

What kind of service station has a compressor that goes up to 300 bar? That's 4350 psi! That's insane. You might get 300 psi from a service station, but not 300 bar.

Another thing which makes this less credible is the claim that you can fill it up at home with an air compressor for just a couple of dollars a tank.

Let's do a little math. They're light weight cars, so let's assume it can go 100km/h on 20hp. That's 15kw. The video says one tank-full gets 200km, so that comes to 30kw/hours per tank-full. Assuming the car and compressor are each only 50% efficient, thats 120 kw/hours of electricity. I'm currently paying $0.15 per kw/hour, so that comes to $18 per tank. That's a lot more than "a couple of dollars" per tank, but I admit it's still pretty cheap.

ETA: I'm not saying the compressed-air car is woo or bunk, just that getting your info from a You-Tube clip of a TV program isn't particularly reliable. I do look forward to seeing more development in this area.

 

[GreyICE]

I just want to know what sort of tank holds pressures of 2 tons PER SQUARE INCH and is still mobile? I mean assuming the inside of the tank is a few square feet we are talking thousands of TONS of pressure.

I think someone took their tank in Psi and did their math in bar...

 

[Toke]

A compressed air car has been made and functions fine.

You can use a battery of divers tanks.
Problem is that compressed air is a very expensive way to store/transmit energy.
And you need a rather big compressor somevere on the route.

 

[catbasket]

Do you mean expensive as in "inefficient"?

 

[Toke]

Yes, very inefficient.

 

[MRC_Hans]

OK jumping in at this spot for some technical answers (maybe others have made similar answers):

Once an engine is running, it is producing 'surplus' electricity.

No, it is not. It is not possible to produce surplus electricity, since electricity has to go somewhere.

You can jump a car off that has a dead battery, and once it is running, is begins charging said battery.

What happens is that some of the energy from the engine is taken by the generator, which converts it to electricity and feeds it to the battery.

If your car is already producing 'surplus electricity', why NOT use it to create a little H and O, that once ported into the intake, INCREASES engine performance?

The energy to produce H and O is TAKEN FROM the engine. So you take energy from the engine, then feeds it back to it. So at best you get a Zero difference. However, since the generator is lossy, and the H/O generation is VERY lossy, you actually ger much less energy back than you use.

We aren't producing more energy, we are just using what we have more efficiently...

No.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am guessing that he just put one in, drove his car, and then started drawing conclusions and making claims...

My mechanic buddy did the same thing, and he has installed about 5 on other cars.

They ALL report back the same findings- "That they witnessed increased hp & mpg."

Now, I'd gladly conceed that these finding are NOT scientific or conclusive.

Until someone, somewhere produces actual dynamometer test results, all that we have are "unproven claims", theoretical conclusions that refute the findings.

What we have is unproven claims made by the guy who makes money selling the device, against well-proven physical laws that say he must be wrong.

Forgive us for waiting for him to provide conclusive proof, and for not holding our breath in the meantime.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

If it really IS a fraud, then why hasn't the con-side offered up their conclusive dynamometer testing to prove this?

What? Are you suggesting that somebody uses time and money to disprove the claim? That's not the way things work, dude. Onus of proof is on the claimant.

From what I have gathered, in order to achieve actual performance enhancement, you need some knowledge on how to reprogram sensors and or how to augment the fuel mixture ratios.

So what?

According to my mechanic buddy, the extra output by the alternator required to run this device is LESS than what is required to run your headlights on the bright setting.

We are talking about 3 amps...that is the only draw off the engine.

OK, and an alternator is 12V so the power is 36W. That is all you can feed back to the engine, not counting losses. One horsepower is 785W. How much difference do you think 35W makes?

Now is it 'possible' that the injection of even tiny amounts of H & O could achieve a potential gain in hp and thus mpg...?

No, not really. Water injection and various other schemes can be used to boos engine output, but there is always a cost. All this is already well researched.

Again, where is the conclusive dynamometer test results?

Well, why don't you ask that question to the guy who claims this works?

Seriously KOTA, car manufacturers have been optimizing engines for well over a century. Power output and mileage have always been competition factors, during the last few decades they have been major competition factors. Do you really, really think that if there was a way to achieve a significant gain in hp and mpg using a simple device, then car manufacturers all over the world would not be installing it?

Hans

 

[catbasket]

Yes, very inefficient.

Thanks, I thought that was it.

What would be the reasons for the "very"? I'm thinking 1. inefficiency in whatever compressor used, 2. friction? 3. heat? I recall filling scuba tanks with compressed air and they get hot.

 

[Ladewig]

Apparently there is nothing that we can say to dissuade you KoA, so go buy one and use it. Test it on the road and test it on the dynamometer. Then come back and give us the results. This thread has lived well past its usefulness - nothing will be gained by going back and forth, so go get one and use it.

 

[Cuddles]

Thanks, I thought that was it.

What would be the reasons for the "very"? I'm thinking 1. inefficiency in whatever compressor used, 2. friction? 3. heat? I recall filling scuba tanks with compressed air and they get hot.

There are two main problems with using compressed air. The first is that compressing gasses is an inherently lossy process. Although it's theoretically possible to do so in a lossless way, any practical situation involving pushing air into a tank will fall foul of the first law of thermodynamics and lose a lot of energy as heat.

The other problem is simply the energy density. Petrol is a great fuel because it has a lot of energy in a fairy small volume. Hydrogen is less good because you need more of it to get the same energy, but it's still not too bad. Batteries can vary, and are getting better, but at the moment you still need a lot of battery volume to hold a useful amount of energy. Compressed air, flywheels and other mechanical ways of storing energy are pretty much useless, since you need so much space and weight to carry enough energy that you either waste most of your power carrying the storage around or have a very limited range.

 

[GreyICE]

There are two main problems with using compressed air. The first is that compressing gasses is an inherently lossy process. Although it's theoretically possible to do so in a lossless way, any practical situation involving pushing air into a tank will fall foul of the first law of thermodynamics and lose a lot of energy as heat.

The other problem is simply the energy density. Petrol is a great fuel because it has a lot of energy in a fairy small volume. Hydrogen is less good because you need more of it to get the same energy, but it's still not too bad. Batteries can vary, and are getting better, but at the moment you still need a lot of battery volume to hold a useful amount of energy. Compressed air, flywheels and other mechanical ways of storing energy are pretty much useless, since you need so much space and weight to carry enough energy that you either waste most of your power carrying the storage around or have a very limited range.

Compressed air currently has a better kJ/kg storage than a lot of batteries (NOT Lithium Ion).

Suggesting it is somehow 'way behind' is a little off.

 

[Cuddles]

Compressed air currently has a better kJ/kg storage than a lot of batteries (NOT Lithium Ion).

Suggesting it is somehow 'way behind' is a little off.

So as long as you ignore the batteries that it's way behind, it's not way behind. OK.

 

[Stout]

Oh..I see what KOA is on about with the "surplus" electricity..

Assuming that the alternator is constantly under load generating electricity and that 'surplus" electricity is being wasted and might as ell be put to use powering the car.

I was actually thinking the same sort of thing, (and yes I''m aware that the "excess" power is very minimal), because upthread I stated that when I turned on the headlights on my old skanky van, I could hear a noticeable drop in engine RPM. Yet when I turn on the lights in my newer, non skanky van, I don't notice the same effect.

I got to thinking that there might be something to this, that my alternator might just be constantly generating power regardless of demand....

But then it hit me last night....it's my daytime running lights.

I don't know if you guys have daytime running lights in the US, but we here in Canada have had them for years..

So my alternator is constantly under load.

Hey i saw a blurb on Discovery Channel about those air cars, the French ones. They do work however the commentator said they go bup bup bup bup , like a single cylinder IC engine at low throttle. A quick trip through wikipedia shows that there are four companies working with this technology, and the range of these things is severely limited.

II agree that filling these things up to 3000-4500 psi can't happen at a gas station, but why couldn't you just stop by the dive shop for a fill up ?

 

[catbasket]

Sometimes I wish I'd finished my A-levels (pure maths, applied maths and physics).

"kJ/kg storage" - I thought energy density would be a cool name for that ... googles ... Wiki/Energy_density -

Energy density by mass (MJ/kg)
* Lithium ion battery 0.54–0.72
Compressed air at 20 bar (at 12°C), without container 0.27
Compressed air at 300 bar (at 12°C), without container 0.512

Energy density by volume (MJ/L)
* Lithium ion battery 0.9–1.9
Compressed air at 20 bar (at 12°C), without container 0.01
Compressed air at 300 bar (at 12°C), without container 0.16

So I guess energy density is one of those half-remembered terms from my school days.


* A typically available lithium ion cell with an Energy Density of 201 wh/kg

 

[Toke]

Well I was thinking fueloil - generator - compressor - hot bottle - aircar

That is alot off loss compared to giving the oil strait to the engine.

The aircar does have emision going for it, maybe for use indoors.
Like forklift or palletlifters.

 

[GreyICE]

So as long as you ignore the batteries that it's way behind, it's not way behind. OK.

Lithium Ion are quite expensive and have roughly 3 times the energy storage of compressed air, kJ/kg. This ignores any improvements in compressed air, such as the combustion/expansion solution they're pursuing right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_vehicle

As for their extreme weight that makes them impossible to move:

# Reduced vehicle weight is the principal efficiency factor of compressed-air cars. Furthermore, they are mechanically more rudimentary than traditional vehicles as many conventional parts of the engine may be omitted. Some plans include motors built into the hubs of each wheel, thereby removing the necessity of a transmission, drive axles and differentials. A four passenger vehicle weighing less than 800 pounds (360 kg) is a reasonable design goal