I didn't say anything about running a car on 40% hydrogen. I am addressing the claims of 40% better fuel efficiency.

I just supplied math showing its not. No matter what percent of the power it provides (5%, 40% percent, whatever), if you plug that number in the equations still show it takes more power to produce the hydrogen than results from burning it.

Water injection is not a fuel, unlike HHO. Water injection is about cooling the intake charge, and its long term use is detrimental to the engine.

And I have shown that 10 amps doesn't produce enough hydrogen.

And you, repeatedly, have remarked with falsehoods. Have you ever taken physics? That's a really simple question which you've not answered.

While I provide matchematics, you relagate to more psuedo science. If you don't think the alternator doesn't put a greater load on the engine when the engine is running a lot of electrical eccessories then its pointless to go on. I didn't say anything about starting the car. Maybe you're so tied up in winning a point of view that you not only ignored physics, you ignore what's being said.

Its really simple, even at idle to prove it:

Run the vehicle at idle on the dyno with a fixed load. The PCM maintains the same idle speed regardless of load (unless carburated systems) by adjusting fueling. So, its just a matter of datalogging the fuel pulse widths. Run the engine with all accessories turned off and datalog the pulsewidths. Turn everything on and you'll see the pulsewidths go up in order to maintain the same speed. In other words the engine needs more fuel to maintain the same speed because there is a greater load on it. Pushing the alternator doesn't hurt the engine, but it does require more fuel.

Basiclly, put up or shut up. I'll back any point I've made here with dyno time. Loser pays the bet plus dyno time. How much? $250, $500, $1000, you name it. We'll put it into an escrow service to guarantee we're good for it. We can even do this as a feature article for the site. How confident are you in your opinions?

 

Yes I have taken physics. But the problem is, you're comparing apples to oranges. The horsepower loss from drawing 1 amp on the alternator to 10 amps on the alternator is not 10 times as much. It's not a linear loss. That is reality. A combustion engine burns a combination of gasoline and oxygen to operate. Adding hydrogen to the air mixture changes the combustion properties.

Now, I've already said numerous times that I don't know if generating hydrogen and adding it to the air supply will increase the fuel efficiency or not. I haven't tried it, therefor I don't know. I've already said that. But, the loss of horsepower, thus additional fuel required to supply the 10 amps needed to produce the hydrogen, is negligible. It is not significant.

Where we disagree is on whether or not the slight loss of horsepower and fuel economy can be offset by whatever gain the hydrogen can produce. But, things are not linear, so that has to be factored in. If the energy coefficient were equal between hydrogen and gasoline, then what you say is 100% accurate. There would be absolutely no gain, and in fact there would be a net loss. However, hydrogen and gasoline are not equal in their ability to be an energy source. And, with the traditional gasoline combustion engine being so inefficient, there is plenty of room to increase efficiency with an actual net gain.

Hydrogen produces approximately 61,000 BTU of latent energy per pound compared to regular gasoline which has 20,500 BTU per pound. Head to head, hydrogen is a problem because it occupies 10,000 times more space than gasoline. But, because of the inefficiencies of the gasoline combustion type engine, and the energy gains of hydrogen over gasoline, it is POSSIBLE that any loss in horsepower and fuel economy of the gasoline engine being loaded down by the alternator using 10 amps to create Hydrogen, could be offset by the higher energy efficiency of hydrogen compared to gasoline.

I don't however know if the quantity of hydrogen produced to be added as a supplement to the air mixture would be enough to make such a positive difference. I do know however that the loss of horsepower and fuel economy required by the engine to turn the alternator to produce the 10 amps to produce the hydrogen is negligible enough to warrant trying it. That's because you are driving to a destination and needed the motor and alternator to operate anyway.

Again, the efficiency of gasoline and hydrogen are not equal; therefor comparing them side by side is not accurate. There is plenty of research being done by major companies in the use of hydrogen as a fuel. These are not scam companies. There must be a reason. It must be economically beneficial or they wouldn't be exploring it. It appears that the problem is not hydrogen itself, but how to do it efficiently.

We use coal, natural gas, gasoline, solar, wind, nuclear, etc... all to produce electricity. Each one has a different efficiency factor. Yes, thermodynamics prove that there will always be a loss in energy from source to donor. The transfer of energy will never allow more to be gained than what is lost. I agree. I am not arguing. However, what we use AS energy is never 100% efficient. Even beyond the laws of gravity, friction, motion, etc... A heating stove at home can burn coal, gas, wood, pellets, etc... Each one has a different level of efficiency.

That I believe is where we really disagree. I am concentrating on USABLE energy and you are concentrating on gross energy. In theory, if I can get 75% efficiency of energy from one type of "Fuel" and 25% efficiency of energy from another type of "Fuel"; and I can use the 25% efficient fuel to produce the 75% efficient fuel, and I can do this without a loss of 50%, then in theory there can be a net gain without breaking the law of thermodynamic. It is not linear. The best example for an automobile is this; Using a motorcycle; because it has the least amount of additional weight outside of the engine; 2 150lb passengers will NOT make the motorcycle get half the gas mileage as 1 150lb passenger riding the motorcycle. Not even 20-30% less (Taking out the weight of the frame factor). Yes, the mileage per gallon has gone down, but the energy coefficient has been improved to more than make up for it. Why car pool? Because the energy efficiency of 1 car with 4 passengers is greater than 4 cars with 1 passenger each. Why have a room mate? Because 2 people can live in a 2 bedroom apartment cheaper than 2 individuals living in 2 1 bedroom apartments. I know that isn't energy related, but the concept is identical. Gasoline combustion engines are inefficient. Because hydrogen is more efficient in WHAT WE ARE USING IT FOR, it is possible to use gasoline to produce hydrogen and have a net gain in energy efficiency. Not the energy itself, but the efficiency of our USE of the energy.

I am not trying to argue to "Win a point". I am trying to explain that usable energy, for the purpose we have for it, can be supplied through conversion with a net gain. That's because we have changed the energy coefficient of what we are using the energy for. Ethanol is NOT as efficient as gasoline and gasoline is not as efficient as hydrogen.

 

And you claim to understand physical laws, electricity and such. Good lord. This is absolute BS. There is no reality here.

If the alternator uses x horsepower to generate 1 amp at a given voltage, then it most certainly needs 10x horsepower to generate 10 amps at the same voltage. To claim otherwise is claiming that the alternator makes electricity out of nothing.

Let me put the whole argument another way. If the energy draw on the alternator required to generate HHO is insignificant, as you claim, then the amount of HHO generated is insignificant, and the amount of energy that can be generated with the HHO is insignificant.

 

David,

I've given up. You can lead a horse... well, you know the rest.

 

Yeah. I'd given up once. But it's sorta like a train wreck. You gotta look.

 

Neither one of you have to give up. You both can continue on with this thread and the HHO discussion. I will gladly move on. Based on your thinking, it's a total waste to even try and harness energy because any effort on the input will result in a loss, so why even try. The fact that different forms of energy can be utilized more efficiently than others, and that some methods of converting energy produces more energy than is being used seems to be conveniently overlooked. But in pure theory, you are absolutely correct. So I concede. I will move on to other areas.

 

There is no efficiency contained or associated within any fuel. The efficiency factors in when that fuel is converted into work. Hydrogen might have more stored energy per pound, but the same percentage of that energy is going to be converted to work in the engine. The conversion efficiency depends mostly on the engine itself, not the fuel being burned. Ethanol gets less miles per gallon than gasoline not because it is a "less efficient fuel", but rather because it has less stored energy than gasoline and it requires more fuel per the same amount of air to meet the stoichiometric ratio. The conversion efficiency has not changed. Efficiency is what you get divided by what you paid for, or (work out)/(energy in).

I think I'll stop trying too, like Ken and David...

 

Here's an alternator company saying for every 25 amps about 1 HP is needed:
Frequently Asked Questions

Here's another alternator company saying 1 HP for every 30 amps plus 1-2 HP for engine muffling loads.
Learn about choosing and retrofitting high output alternators

Another one 1 HP per 25 amps:
Alternators

A good article about them (again, stating 1 HP per 25 amps):
High Output Alternator

A good explanation of how to calculate the horsepower needed:
FAQ

Another alternator company states "Keep in mind that the horsepower draw of an alternator is directly proportional to the amperage being drawn from it.":
XS Volt Racing

Good paper by Cummins concerning engine speeds, horsepower loads, etc. with a specific alternator:
http://www.cumminspower.com/www/lite...rnator-Pt2.pdf

Another alternator company, providing formulas for calculating horsepower required for amperage loads (for their alternators which have less parasitic loss than standard alternators):
http://www.sullivanuav.com/images/pr...ta%20Sheet.pdf

A page from the book "Principles and Practice of Electrical Engineering", one of the exercises is computing horsepower load of an alternator:
Principles and Practice of ... - Google Book Search

Here are the formulas and theories, going as far back as 1893, in the book "Electrical Engineer":
Electrical Engineer: An Illustrated ... - Google Book Search


Generator company, showing the horsepower required to produce different power outputs. Notice how it gets less efficient, not more efficient, as power needs go up:
KILOWATTGENERATORS.COM | TNT Standby Power | SIZING

Basically all of them back the laws of physics. To make 4 time more electrical energy the alternators use 4 times more horsepower. 10 amps uses about 0.4 HP, 100 amps uses about 4 HP. Specs for portable gas generators often specify fuel consumption for given amperage loads. The higher the amperage load the more fuel they use. Heck, if you have a generators (I do) you'll even hear the engine kicking in to work harder when you add more electric load! Take a look at the intelligent alternator load management hybrid cars use in order to save fuel.

746 watts equals one horsepower.

To convert amps to watts:

amps X volts = watts

So, with a 50 amp load on a 12 volt truck:

50 x 12 = 600 watts or nearly 1 horse power.

Now, factor in energy loss (conversion) to bearings, pulleys, belts, heat, etc. and you increase the number of watts (horsepower) by nearly double so 600 watts (50 amps) is about 2 horse power.

Those numbers (science) match up exactly with what the alternator companies say.
The conversion of Amps to Watts is governed by the equation Watts = Amps x Volts

For example 1 amp * 110 volts = 110 watts

Given that it takes about 20HP to maintain highway speed, a full 100 amp load on the charging system requires that the engine produce 24HP in order to have 20HP to maintain speed. Thus, its very simple, using math to show that a 100 amp load decreases economy by about 20%.

Now, in order supply enough hydrogen to replace 40% of the gas (to get the 40% gas savings claims) it takes about 1500 amps of power to split the required volume of hydrogen. That's 60 horsepower just to split the hydrogen, which is more power than burning it returns! That's a 40HP deficit to maintain highway speed. In other words... it can't be done.

Basically, mathematically its very easy to prove the horsepower loss due to HHO generation, and the HHO gain by burnig HHO. The loss is always much greater than the gain.

Take a long look at the guy behind the water4gas site (and his copycats), he has a history as a scammer. That's my opinion, based on the following data:

http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic....3ccabe318350e6

I think all of these systems can be mathematically disproven. Remember Stan Meyer's water -> HHO engine claims? Disproven in court. He made the laughable claim that high alternating current (tens of kilohertz) set up a resonating frequency in the water to make it crack with less energy. He conveniently forgot (or just didn't know) that the resonating frequency of water molecules is around 22 gigahertz!

 

I'm curious. Based on a 200hp motor; how much horse power is created with the engine started and idling? How much is created going 50mph? Is the difference in HP totally used in propelling the vehicle the 50mph? How much of the created horsepower from the engine is wasted? How much of it is sitting in reserve to propel you FROM 0 to 50 in less time than a motor with half the available horsepower? Because of transmission/gearing factors, 2 identical engines both capable of producing 200hp; yet because of gearing, one holds you at 50mph at 2000 rpms and the other one at 2500 rpms; how is the reserve horsepower rated? Obviously, a motor idling at 800 gets better fuel efficiency than a motor turning 2000 rpm's. However, an idling motor is of no use to you because you will never reach your destination.

So, a 200hp motor in a 1966 VW Bug doing 50mph or a model 1300 stock motor in the same beetle delivery 50hp. The laws of physics say that it "Should" take the same amount of energy to propel the same weight, aerodynamics, friction, etc... the same distance. So, what about all the additional horsepower available on the 200hp model. The car isn't producing 0 hp at idle; nor is it producing 200hp at 50mph.

It's most definitely true that you can't produce/expel more energy or even equal enery to the source energy. That law indeed can not be changed. However, the source energy has many variables. I.e. If I had my son on a stationary bike that could turn a generator and develop 60 watts of electricity; in theory, would the amount of electricity developed SAVE me money on my next electric bill or produce a net LOSS because of any EXTRA FOOD I might have to feed my son??? Two totally different sources of energy with different values and ROI qualities. Plug in a 12vdc 1000ma power pack into the A.C. house current to operate your calculator. Even though the calculator only requires 200ma. Do you save energy? No, because the power pack is a fixed converter that will draw "X" amount of current from the A.C. wall whether the output device only requires 200ma, 600ma, or the full 1000ma. Plug one in and don't plug the output to a device. The power pack still gets warm after a little bit.

Anyway; the source energy source; especially in a car; has so many variables such as excess available power in relationship to what is being consumed, that a flat statement of it's not efficient, economical, etc... is not appropriate. There's a lot of leftover energy from the sun even after all the solar panels in the world, living creatures, etc... have used their fill. There's a lot of leftover energy in a river after it propels a hydro-electric generator. Personally, I believe that there's a lot of leftover energy in my 1966 mustange with a 250hp V8 in it; while I am driving. Enough so as to not affect my fuel economy. Especially 1/2hp because of 10amps out of my alternator.

Of course, the ultimate question then is; will whatever loss in fuel economy caused by the loss of 1/2hp be compensated by the amount of hydrogen produced to be added to the car??? Of course, because hydrogen is a much more efficient fuel than gasoline, there's a new variable in the cost factor. While the laws of energy can not change, the laws of economics change all the time. If I use 1 gallon of gasoline per month to produce the hydrogen in the converter. And, that hydrogen, because of it's thermal efficiency properties can improve my fuel burn efficiency even by as little as 5%, then the average consumer using 40 gallons of gas per month, would save in theory 2 gallons of gasoline. That of course is in theory. But, because of variables such as the price of gas and it's thermal efficiency; compared to the price of creating the hydrogen and IT's thermal efficiency; it is quite possible to be an efficient means.

That is why ethanol is not that great of a deal. It's thermal efficiency is less than gasoline. It requires too much land mass to grow the required amount of corn (Current method), it uses too much water, etc.... There are a lot of variables when considering the SOURCE energy than just the amount of loss to the donor energy.

 

My head hurts...

 

All things being equal (such as weight), two engines of differing horse power outputs require the production of roughly the same amount of power in order to keep a car moving at 50 mph. Here's a good explaination with formulas:

Horsepower requirement for steady cruise

Now, as the engine spins faster the parastic loss per mile goes up due to engine friction, intake air resistance, exhaust back pressure, etc. That's why the higher RPM engine uses more gas. In a world without friction the faster spinning engine would require much less fuel per combustion event than the slow engine, and the fuel economy differences would be much smaller.

But, since we are dealing with friction (and momentum) how hard an engine must "work" to maintain a speed varies greatly depending on the engine size and the RPMs needed for a given speed. If you hook an SCT Xcal2 or Xcal3 tuner to two identical vehicles with different gear and data log the computed load the PCM supplies you'll find the loads are different.

The difference in HP and torque comes into play when acceleration rate is factored in. A 150 HP engine is producing at or near 100% "load" when accelerating at its fastest rate. The closer it gets to 100% load the more inefficient an engine becomes. A 300 HP engine accelerating at the same rate would be producing in the neighborhood of 40-60% load, and at 100% load would accelerate far faster. Its one of the reasons a V6 in an F150 doesn't see much better fuel economy than a V8 --- it has higher loads to produce the same results.

Now... lets use an example of cruising at 50 mph requiring 20 HP. The 150 HP engine is operating at 13.3% load and the 300 HP engine is operating at 6.6% load. These are all very rough numbers and the real world numbers are quite different due to natural inefficiencies in engine design and differences in tuning but they're good enough to illustrate it.

 

The real problem is that there is no Government agency to fight these scammers and they are making a killing with their false MPG claims. They have been around for years and no one seems to care. Even Ebay allows its sellers to claim ridiculous improvements on products like this which I have been fighting for a while. Seems like anybody today can make a product out of $10.00 in parts; claim that does miracles, that it defies every law of physics/basic chemistry in doing so, strike it rich, and never worry about anybody calling you out on your scam or have to prove that it works. This country really does need to pass some new Federal laws against such scams.

 

I think the Government should focus on the real scam...the price of fuel and freedom.

 

"Plug in a 12vdc 1000ma power pack into the A.C. house current to operate your calculator. Even though the calculator only requires 200ma. Do you save energy? No, because the power pack is a fixed converter that will draw "X" amount of current from the A.C. wall whether the output device only requires 200ma, 600ma, or the full 1000ma. Plug one in and don't plug the output to a device. The power pack still gets warm after a little bit."

The pack get warm due to the heat generated from converting the 120Vac to 12Vdc. If you connect an ammeter to the +12vdc wire you will find that the only time that the pack puts out any amps is when the calculator is plugged in.

So, a 200hp motor in a 1966 VW Bug doing 50mph or a model 1300 stock motor in the same beetle delivery 50hp. The laws of physics say that it "Should" take the same amount of energy to propel the same weight, aerodynamics, friction, etc... the same distance. So, what about all the additional horsepower available on the 200hp model. The car isn't producing 0 hp at idle; nor is it producing 200hp at 50mph.

If both engines are in the same exact vehicle then at 50mph both engines are supplying the same amount of Hp, the difference is the efficiency of the engines and how much torque they make at a given rpm (ie horsepower)

 

The government doesn't and shouldn't set the prices of fuel, and there isn't much they can do in the short term, anyhow.