What we need in these internet forums is more math, calculations, numbers. Some of you, I see are engineers, but not very smart ones. Otherwise you would have quickly caught on to what I was saying.
Moving on.
Efficiency calculations. No one has provided calculations or rigorous theories on how to find out efficiency.
First I should state that I hold no investments or any "position" on the hydrogen device. I have not purchased one, or owned one. I come here to show everyone on this forum how to calculate and prove or disprove the device. Teach a man to fish...
If our calculations prove or disprove a device, then we have saved ourselves massive time. Laws only provide us good reference and provide us tips on "what" to calculate. If we do not calculate, we have wasted our time yapping about a law, instead of using it.
How many forum posts have we spent, is what we should ask. We should not be proud of how many posts have we accumulated! The amount of posts one makes, is related to the act of clicking before thinking. Writing before thinking too.
The calculations and math shall start now.
HOW TO CALCULATE:
"Conventional original equipment replacement alternators typically operate at 55% efficiency... blah blah... Others work at 70 percent..." -- Some Website
"Modern Engines generally operate at 25 percent efficiency.. blah blah others work at 30 percent." -- Some Website
We must electronically power some device that is more efficient than the original 25 percent combustion engine. Can we do so? You calculate, and you find out.
It has to scale, obviously - i.e. a tiny miniature turbo charger has diminishing returns. A large enough 55-70 percent efficient alternator that powers a device that is also over 50 percent or so, would be wonderful. Just like a turbo charger or super charger is useful depending on the size of it and conditions.
Sound obvious? well some seem to miss the point entirely. Some continually bring up the fact that the alternator puts drag on the engine. Wow, so does a turbo. Death to turbos! A turbocharger puts drag on the engine, temporarily. Sound obvious? Well then you take that turbocharger knowledge for granted. Otherwise you would not need to be here listening to my explanation on why an Alternator can act as a super charger. Again it is about the alternator, not just the hydrogen process.
The alternator could power some other device too, and you could make gains, so long as that device was more efficient than 25. If it was 26-27 then it would not be worth the time, but it could still help and one would have to calculate what is worthwhile.
But no one is calculating in this forum. All are yapping engineers. I however do question whether the people here are successful engineers or just, workers that are used by their employers for mundane tasks.
What is so alarmingly funny, is that no one yet has figured out the simple calculation that must be done - and it is so simple, that it really begs the question: what do you all do for a living, and why are you still doing it at this intelligence level, without being fired. Oh that is right, I am speaking to people who drive gas guzzling trucks around town... the intelligence level should have been known before hand.
For 11 pages in this forum post, people have been wondering.. hmm.. how do we actually, ugh, duh, calculate though? No one said the word calculate probably, but I know that is what they all wanted without knowing it: to actually calculate instead of talk. Their solution is: let's get everyone to drive the trucks and bring back empirical evidence, instead of actually using theory and math to calculate ahead of time. Definitely engineers rather than scientists here. Want to tinker before understanding.
Definitely not any mathematicians here either (or good ones anyway).
So, the answer is 25. That is the number to beat. Depending on how old the engine is. Possibly engines are now 30, 40 percent efficient?
Anyway, that is how to calculate. Find efficiency of your engine without an alternator, find efficiency of your alternator in theory if it was spun by something, find efficiency of the device being hooked up to alternator. Then find someone smarter than yourself, who actually has the knowledge to calculate the numbers, and average them out - so that you can find out if the device is worth the buck. Or, you could, yap on the forums, skip the calculations altogether, and rely on empirical "test cases" so that you never understand why or how it works, just that it works "some how".
The calculations have already been provided on another site dedicated to this, and linked to numerous times.
__________________ -Ken
If you need to get in touch with me email me at ftsservice at gmail dot com or via AOL IM: motorhavenken. The best is yet to come....
What we need in these internet forums is more math, calculations, numbers. Some of you, I see are engineers, but not very smart ones. Otherwise you would have quickly caught on to what I was saying.
Moving on.
Efficiency calculations. No one has provided calculations or rigorous theories on how to find out efficiency.
First I should state that I hold no investments or any "position" on the hydrogen device. I have not purchased one, or owned one. I come here to show everyone on this forum how to calculate and prove or disprove the device. Teach a man to fish...
If our calculations prove or disprove a device, then we have saved ourselves massive time. Laws only provide us good reference and provide us tips on "what" to calculate. If we do not calculate, we have wasted our time yapping about a law, instead of using it.
How many forum posts have we spent, is what we should ask. We should not be proud of how many posts have we accumulated! The amount of posts one makes, is related to the act of clicking before thinking. Writing before thinking too.
The calculations and math shall start now.
HOW TO CALCULATE:
"Conventional original equipment replacement alternators typically operate at 55% efficiency... blah blah... Others work at 70 percent..." -- Some Website
"Modern Engines generally operate at 25 percent efficiency.. blah blah others work at 30 percent." -- Some Website
We must electronically power some device that is more efficient than the original 25 percent combustion engine. Can we do so? You calculate, and you find out.
It has to scale, obviously - i.e. a tiny miniature turbo charger has diminishing returns. A large enough 55-70 percent efficient alternator that powers a device that is also over 50 percent or so, would be wonderful. Just like a turbo charger or super charger is useful depending on the size of it and conditions.
Sound obvious? well some seem to miss the point entirely. Some continually bring up the fact that the alternator puts drag on the engine. Wow, so does a turbo. Death to turbos! A turbocharger puts drag on the engine, temporarily. Sound obvious? Well then you take that turbocharger knowledge for granted. Otherwise you would not need to be here listening to my explanation on why an Alternator can act as a super charger. Again it is about the alternator, not just the hydrogen process.
The alternator could power some other device too, and you could make gains, so long as that device was more efficient than 25. If it was 26-27 then it would not be worth the time, but it could still help and one would have to calculate what is worthwhile.
But no one is calculating in this forum. All are yapping engineers. I however do question whether the people here are successful engineers or just, workers that are used by their employers for mundane tasks.
What is so alarmingly funny, is that no one yet has figured out the simple calculation that must be done - and it is so simple, that it really begs the question: what do you all do for a living, and why are you still doing it at this intelligence level, without being fired. Oh that is right, I am speaking to people who drive gas guzzling trucks around town... the intelligence level should have been known before hand.
For 11 pages in this forum post, people have been wondering.. hmm.. how do we actually, ugh, duh, calculate though? No one said the word calculate probably, but I know that is what they all wanted without knowing it: to actually calculate instead of talk. Their solution is: let's get everyone to drive the trucks and bring back empirical evidence, instead of actually using theory and math to calculate ahead of time. Definitely engineers rather than scientists here. Want to tinker before understanding.
Definitely not any mathematicians here either (or good ones anyway).
So, the answer is 25. That is the number to beat. Depending on how old the engine is. Possibly engines are now 30, 40 percent efficient?
Anyway, that is how to calculate. Find efficiency of your engine without an alternator, find efficiency of your alternator in theory if it was spun by something, find efficiency of the device being hooked up to alternator. Then find someone smarter than yourself, who actually has the knowledge to calculate the numbers, and average them out - so that you can find out if the device is worth the buck. Or, you could, yap on the forums, skip the calculations altogether, and rely on empirical "test cases" so that you never understand why or how it works, just that it works "some how".
Total B.S.! Do you try and piss off everybody, everywhere you go, or just here?
__________________ FABMANDELUX. Don.
Oregon Chapter Leader: To join the Oregon Chapter, click HERE
If you want calculations, why didn't you post any of them for us to use to learn what we're missing?
Show me a P-V diagram of a normally aspirated engine, the P-V diagram of a normally aspirated engine running one of these hydrogen generators, and the P-V diagram of a turbocharged engine. Do you even know what a P-V diagram is?
You've wasted a lot of time on two lame attempts to troll. It's so lame I'm not even upset that you insulted all the engineers here.
To all of us wasting our time on hho , it's our time to waste . To all the naysayers wasting their time bebunking something they don't even seem that interested in , or are you , and why do you care so much about our waste of time ? Do not criticize those who choose to try , even if we fail , we are at least trying , and are willing to invest our time in something other than telling people their wrong so we feel smart . Trial and error is how most things get done , so you can stop worrying yourselves about us , because some of us are passing you at the pump , but you would not believe the proof anyway . Have a good day !
To all of us wasting our time on hho , it's our time to waste . To all the naysayers wasting their time bebunking something they don't even seem that interested in , or are you , and why do you care so much about our waste of time ? Do not criticize those who choose to try , even if we fail , we are at least trying , and are willing to invest our time in something other than telling people their wrong so we feel smart . Trial and error is how most things get done , so you can stop worrying yourselves about us , because some of us are passing you at the pump , but you would not believe the proof anyway . Have a good day !
Wow..Who pissed in your cornflakes?????
__________________ FABMANDELUX. Don.
Oregon Chapter Leader: To join the Oregon Chapter, click HERE
I'm curious about the guy with the 66 mustang who said he would try the hydrogen additive. As far as I know there are no O2 sensors to be manipulated on that car. I wonder if he ever gave it a shot?
I know a guy who runs a 99 7.3 with propane as an additive to diesel(not in place of), much like this HHO stuff and he claims 20 mpgs(auto tranny). My 99 only gets 14.5mpg. Does the propane make the combustion more complete or what? If it does and that's where the improvement is gained then perhaps the "emu oil" may have some theraputic benefit???
I don't know. I do think our government and those who manipulate it would have everything to gain from our low gas mileage vehicles. It is rediculous that Ford/Toyota/etc. manufacture very effecient cars that WE AREN"T ALLOWED TO BUY in the US under the guise of EPA emission standards. Perhaps that could be a theory as to why hydrogen hasn't been explored further. Research requires large amounts of funding which doesn't usually come from people who don't intend on making money from it or losing money because it kills a revenue stream. If this happened to work, even just a little, it would be enough to scare the major players into action. I believe they would do anything to debunk it out of fear of it becoming mainstream, therefore, tweaked and researched even more. Who knows? If I were a major stock holder in gas companies you can bet your a-- I would lobby against(in any fashion) hydrogen if there were a possibility of success. Is that what is happening here?
Is the average person who tries these things crazy, stupid, and wasting their money? Maybe so...maybe not. But not trying and accepting the status qou is not any way to move forward with progress. I think there are too many people who have had positive outcomes after installing these things to not give it due process. Would we not have heard of engine failures by now if running lean was the reason for improved mileage? Were all these positive outcomes some kind of placebo? Things to ponder rather than dismiss.
I am still on the fence about this but I think I would tend to error on the side of "hey lets give it a try" vs. "it ain't gonna work".
Perhaps we could use a little insight from both sides to see where this thing really stands would be better than the stand off that is currently in play.
Anyone who tries to apply results from diesels to gasoline engines or vice versa is clueless. They are not interchangeable.
For diesels, hydrogen or propane enrichment can yield greater efficiencies but you aren't going to get it from a jelly jar rig.
Science required that an hypothesis be tested without bias. It also requires that results be repeatable and explainable an, as a result, a hypothesis can be either proved or disproved. Such rigor has been sorely lacking in seemingly every case of reporting on this stuff.
Quote:
But not trying and accepting the status qou is not any way to move forward with progress.
As long as you have a testable hypothesis and can account for all the variables, sure, go ahead. Don't forget to apply existing scientific laws (thermodynamics, in this case) in both your hypothesis and in your testing.
Quote:
Perhaps that could be a theory as to why hydrogen hasn't been explored further.
What's to explore? We already know what hydrogen is and what it can do. The difficulty and expense is in transporting it in portable 5000 psi cylinders and then converting its potential into usable energy whether by combustion or by conversion to electricity. A good example is the pilot program in California with hydrogen-power vehicles and home processing/refilling stations fed by natural gas. All this is expensive and will take time to develop affordable equipment and processes.
You would likely be surprised at how much the major oil companies have and continue to invest in alternative energies. While oil is their current revenue stream, they do have to research energy production and delivery for the future if they plan on being in business a generation or two down the road.
Quote:
Would we not have heard of engine failures by now if running lean was the reason for improved mileage?
Seriously, would you publicly report you holed a piston or burned out a valve after bragging how much fuel you saved? Human nature says such a person will slink off into a corner, lick their wounds, and keep quiet.
Quote:
Were all these positive outcomes some kind of placebo?
Between testing bias, placebo affect, and running ultra-lean (causing both excessive pollution and risk of damage), yep, that should cover the "positive outcomes".
Quote:
Perhaps we could use a little insight from both sides to see where this thing really stands would be better than the stand off that is currently in play.
Insight? How many posts are in just this single thread? Isn't that insight? Standoff? What standoff? The proponents cannot point to a single experiment that meets scientific rigor that has demonstrated positive results without causing other problems or excessive risks.
Given the attraction of scammers and crooks to the promotion of this scheme last year due to the run-up in energy prices, a lot of desperate and technically ignorant individuals fell into this scheme and it became a matter of faith, not technology, if it appeared to work. Obviously, some of them are still cruising around the boards....
Steve
__________________
If your original owner's manual is missing, download a soft copy from www.fleet.ford.com under the MAINTENANCE tab.
Think about it: Ignorance can be addressed through education but you can't fix stupid! ...apologies to Ron White
Sounds reasonable...with the exception of oil companies investing in alternative energies. They are indeed but only ones they can control. I read a story on how big money was buying up agriculture infrastructure because they know that we are headed in the direction of biofuels. It is a move to control price thru distrbution, which is what they do now. Sounds like a conspiracy but that is exactly what I would do if I were in big money shoes.
At the risk of hijacking the thread how does propane work, as an additive in a diesel engine, to improve gas mileage? What is it doing to the combustion process?
I would hate to lean out an engine to the point of failure but it seems there is an answer SOMEWHERE as to why we haven't been able to improve such a ineffecient motor, 25-35% is horrible.
Thanks for addressing some of my statements without treating me like an idiot...ignorant, yes but rectifying it...stupid, no.
Well, duh! Why would they make an investment now if there wasn't a VERY good chance it would be profitable later? I wouldn't with my money....
The low efficiencies of ICEs is due to heat loss and friction. Almost all of the fuel is burned, usually 97-99% or better on a decently maintained engine.
[quote]At the risk of hijacking the thread how does propane work, as an additive in a diesel engine, to improve gas mileage? What is it doing to the combustion process? {/quote]
I'm aware the processes exist but I have not studied their applications for diesels. Just be advised that scammers have also infiltrated that market segment.
Valves usually get burned due to excessive heat. Lean mixtures cause elevated burn temperatures and severe risk of pre-detonation. The pre-detonation can hole the piston. Additionally, those elevated temperatures cause increased production of NOx pollutants.
Steve
__________________
If your original owner's manual is missing, download a soft copy from www.fleet.ford.com under the MAINTENANCE tab.
Think about it: Ignorance can be addressed through education but you can't fix stupid! ...apologies to Ron White
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
-Ken
