Water4Gas

[18vtx00]

Originally Posted by christcorp dchamberlain; I really can't believe that you think that way. Sorry, but what you believe in is wrong. There is a difference in PRODUCING energy and CONVERTING energy. The law of Thermodynamics applies differently to both. If you don't realize that, then nothing anyone says will make any difference. Here are 2 things to think about. 1) A car stereo using 240 watts is approximately 20 amps. Are you saying that having your stereo blasting away is reducing your mileage significantly? 2) Putting up a solar panel is inefficient in the amount of energy it can produce. (Inefficient in the amount of photons that can be converted). Yet, is solar energy a waste of time? The law of thermodynamics applies when producing energy used to produce another form of energy. It doesn't apply in the same context when CONVERTING energy from energy already available. If it takes 10 amps to make a hydrogen generator work (Whether the hydrogen is of any use or not); the amount of load on the engine for the alternator to produce that additional 10 amps is so negligible that you can't even measure it in loss of horsepower or MPG. That part of Thermodynamics is what is "Non-Negotiable". We don't produce the sun's energy; or the river's energy; or the wind's energy. Therefor, thermodynamics is NOT an issue. It's not even a FACTOR. Economics might be a factor, but NOT thermodynamics. While an alternator does in fact put a load on the engine to operate; the difference in LOAD between the alternator working at 0% and 100% load, is so negligible that Thermodynamics is NOT an issue. Sorry, but that is the LAW OF MATH, and that is Non-Negotiable. If you want to prove me wrong, then drive your car for 10 fill ups and check your mileage with absolutely NO electrical load other than the minimum required to operating the ignition system. NO LIGHTS, NO STEREO, NO HEATER, NO ANYTHING ancillary. Then do it again for 10 more fill ups with a 200 watt stereo on full blast, headlights on all the time day and night, heater continuous, etc... There will NOT be any significant load change or change in MPG and efficiency. Again, there is a difference between PRODUCING energy and CONVERTING energy. I think you need to understand that, then you can understand thermodynamics. I like this one!! good job.

[FTE Ken]

If these systems produce 40% more economy (power)....

Please, can anyone produce dyno results. No. I've seen none to date.

Drive your car with the HHO generator on at 60 mph on a flat road. Keep the throttle pedal absolutely stationary. Turn off the HHO generator. With the pedal in the same position the speed should drop to about 45 MPH. Again, no one has been able to produce these results either.

Suckers....

[80F100man]

If it is Soooooo good............why hasn't it been researched enough to be "on the market" already?????

[christcorp]

dchamberlain; I'm not the one having a hard time understanding thermodynamics. You are. While you understand it, fairly well, you are trying to apply it to something that has no bearing.

I'll try one last time to illustrate the significance in a simple matter. Imagine you live along side of a river. For all intent and purpose, you own the river. You can do with it what you want. You put a paddle wheel generator on the river to produce electricity. You're pumping out plenty of power to run your house. You are a happy camper. You want to talk thermodynamics. Fine. I am declaring a NEW RULE of thermodynamics. Rule #258: It doesn't matter if there is LOSS from the source energy to the production/conversion of the secondary energy IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO PRODUCE OR PAY FOR THE SOURCE ENERGY. I.e. It doesn't matter if there's a 40% LOSS in the transfer of energy. In the case of a paddle wheel on a river, the energy you can then use on the OUTPUT of the paddle wheel is 100% efficient. WHY; because you didn't have any stake or interest in the ENERGY used to produce YOUR ENERGY that you are using. This is the same for solar, wind, etc.... The ONLY factor in producing such energy for use is whether it is economically feasible.

It is no different than if I was to sneak over to your house at night when you weren't looking and connected an extension cord to an electrical outlet in your garage and used it to create a hydrogen generator. The laws of thermodynamics mean absolutely NOTHING to me at that point. I am not the one who has invested time, money, resources, etc... into creating the electricity that I plugged the extension cord into.

Now, back to the car. There is a 12 volt DC source of energy that is available on your car. Whether you use it or not will have no significant affect on your fuel economy. Consider it a mini version of the sun. While you are driving, your gasoline engine that propels you from point "A" to point "B" is producing a BY-PRODUCT energy source. Namely 12 volts DC. It is more energy than you normally require to use. As such, if you use some of that residual energy to operate a hydrogen generator; a 200 watt car stereo; a power inverter to run a laptop computer; or anything else you can think of; (Staying within the max amperage limit of the alternator); you will have virtually zero affect on the efficiency of the motor and mileage of the motor that is turning the alternator and creating this energy. What part of this do you not understand.

It's not a matter of whether the laws of thermodynamics are argued or not. It's a matter of; the laws of thermodynamics have no relevance to this topic and therefor doesn't mean crap. Do you not agree that thermodynamics is irrelevant when discussing solar energy; hydro energy; and wind energy? ALL FROM THEIR NATURAL FORM. I don't care if it take 1000 watts of solar photons to create 100 watts of usable electricity in a battery. I DIDN"T PAY TO CREATE THE SUN. I didn't pay your electricity bill either; so thermodynamics mean nothing to me if I STEAL your electricity. Thermodynamics mean absolutely NOTHING when using the 12 volt DC voltage coming from the alternator of a vehicle. The energy the motor uses to make that alternator turn and create the 12 vdc is going to happen whether you use it or not. Why is it so difficult to understand. I won't argue thermodynamics with you in principle. My argument is that thermodynamics is TOTALLY IRRELAVENT to the discussion. As it would be irrelavent if discussing solar panels, hydro-electric, or wind power.

[18vtx00]

Good times!! Christcorp.. I understand perfectly well.
The water was already running down hill!!
The sun was going to shine anyways!!
The wind blew because it can!!
I have never read so many arguments on all of the forums I have been on since I navigated to the alternative fuels forum.
Did we forget about the fuels or vehicles for that matter here?

[EPNCSU2006]

Wow. The energy to turn the alternator comes from where? Right the combustion events in the engine, which gets its energy from the fuel. I'm not sure what fuel you are buying, but mine sure isn't free like river water or the sun. There are energy conversion efficiencies associated with everything that converts one form of energy to another regardless of if the energy source is free or not. If the alternator required no work to generate electricity, OEM's would not be seeking low current LEDs for lighting and they would not install alternators that are computer controlled. In this day and age of fuel economy, every little thing makes a difference. Even half a mile per gallon is important.

I haven't seen anything that DChamberlain posted that was not a correct statement. I remember there was an exhibit at Discovery place many years ago where they had a bicycle that you would pedal that was connected to a generator. This generator powered several different devices such as lightbulbs and blenders, and the more that were turned on, the harder it was to pedal. Same thing with the car alternator. That energy has to come from somewhere. Even if you put a wind turbine on the alternator, that would alter the fuel mileage because of the increased drag of pushing the car down the road. Whether you think it is insignificant or not, the electrical demand on an alternator does affect fuel economy. And a 240 watt stereo is usually an RMS value, so it won't be using the full 240 watts constantly.

[FTE Ken]

Christcorp,

How about a $250 wager, plus the loser pays for the dyno time? Just how confident are you in psuedo science? I have 100% confidence in physics.

Do you know what the background of the water4gas guy is?

[christcorp]

I am not arguing the laws of thermodynamics. I know what they are and in "Theory" you are correct. However, that is the problem with certain scientific thinking. It usually is looked at in a sterile environment where all things are considered equal. This is one of many situations where things are not equal, and therefor the laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant. Not that they don't apply, but they are irrelevant.

If your whole reason in life to START your car and HAVE an alternator was to create the 12vdc required to operate the HHO generator, then these laws would be relevant. That's why all things are not equal. My challenge again, is for you to drive your car with absolutely NO electrical drain other than the minimum required to operate the ignition. Accurately determine your fuel efficiency. Then do it again with as many electrical devices drawing electricity as the car can handle. Again, check your fuel efficiency. If you see a "Significant" difference, I'll back off and apologize. The thing is however, is you won't. Why; because all things are NOT equal. The first and main thing that is NOT equal is that a car is not traditionally a very efficient means of transferring energy. Your car requires the alternator to be there to operate. The energy created by the alternator is more than you traditionally will use. Adding another 10 amps of draw on it will not put a significant additional load on your motor.

You are correct that electrical use from the alternator puts a drain on the motor; but not significantly. Why? Because all things are NOT equal. You are correct that a 250 watt stereo is RMS and not direct power drain. But your alternator is producing more current than you are using. That is the variable factor that you are missing. The reason thermodynamics is irrelevant when talking about the sun, river, and wind; is because the source energy used to convert to a useable energy source is EXCESS energy. Energy that is there whether you use it or not. Energy that doesn't cost you anything additional to tap into it. 10 amps needed to operate an HHO generator is also coming from EXCESS energy. Mathematically, there is an additional load on the engine when you add an additional 10 load on the alternator. In practicality, the combustion engine in your car is inefficient and is produces excess energy that isn't being used. Your alternator happens to be one of those places. With an 80 amp alternator installed, using on average 20-30 amps, your fuel requirements do not change measurably because you are now using 40 amps.

If all things were equal; if the engine ONLY produced enough energy to move the car with no leftover energy to turn an alternator, water pump, ps pump, etc...; if the combustion engine was 100% efficient and didn't waste energy in excess heat or friction; then thermodynamics could be discussed. But they aren't equal.

Consider this; Why even have an alternator? A battery could be developed that could run the electrical requirements of the automobile, lights, stereo, heater, cigarette lighter, etc... and could last easily a week. THEN, once a week, you simply RECHARGE the battery with a battery charger. Why don't they do that? Because that is extremely inefficient and it would take way too much energy to have to continue charging the battery each week. The combustion engine is already turning. It's doing this to move your car from "A" to "B". However, it creates a lot of excess energy. If they didn't, we wouldn't have 1 liter engines up to 7.5 liter engines and beyond. Going from using 20 amps to 40 amps doesn't REDUCE your mileage in half. Does it? That's because the 2 forms of energy being discussed are NOT equal. One has the capability to inately produce more than you can use. As such, you are just finding more uses for some of the excess energy. Yes, mathematically the load on the engine increases, but the alternator isn't the major load on the engine, and as such, there is no significant change in fuel economy/efficiency by going from a 20 amp electrical load to a 30 amp load.

Again, I am not arguing the laws of thermodynamics. But sometimes they just don't apply. Or better yet, they are irrelevant. You can wrap a fish in Aluminum Foil and put it on your exhaust manifold and cook it while driving for an hour. Do the laws of thermodynamics apply? Is your fuel economy going to change? When you plug in a 400 watt DC/AC Power inverter into your cigarette lighter while you are driving to operate a TV and PC for your kids on that long drive to visit grandma, do you really think your fuel economy is going to change dramatically? You can't even measure that small of significance.

Maybe you all are right. Maybe my mom was right when I was a kid. She use to drive the car and wait till the very last minute until she couldn't see any longer before turning on the head lights. For the longest time she thought she was saving electricity. After my grandfather, father, uncles, grandmother, and aunt said; "Here's your sign"; and explained what an alternator actually does in relationship to the motor; she finally caught on.

So, I assume that if from now on I only drive during daylight hours, never use the stereo or blinkers, I am going to increase my gas mileage by a lot. This is cool. Then I don't have to worry about the price of gas. The laws of thermodynamics are not wrong or being challenged. They simply are not relevant to this discussion.

[christcorp]

FTE; WHY do you keep bringing up the HHO debate with me. I have NOT said whether it will work or not. Not ONCE have I defended it, other than to say I would try it. My contribution to this thread is to argue AGAINST the concept of thermodynamics, and that somehow it is going to USE MORE ENERGY to operate the HHO generator and therefor result in a NET LOSS of energy from what the HHO generator could possibly produce. ASSUMING IT WORKED. My argument is that thermodynamics have no relevance in this discussion, because the combustion motor in the car is inately inefficient and wasting energy, in which we would be using some of that wasted energy to operate the HHO generator. Therefor, whether the HHO generator worked or not, operating the HHO requres no significant use of energy and won't affect your fuel economy.

Now, it's possible that the HHO produced could or could not be beneficial to the efficiency of the motor. But that is a separate attitude in this discussion. Not what I am discussing. Please, don't talk to me about whether HHO will or won't work. At this stage of the game, that is not what I am discussing or arguing.

[aurgathor]

Originally Posted by christcorp

. My argument is that thermodynamics have no relevance in this discussion, because the combustion motor in the car is inately inefficient and wasting energy, in which we would be using some of that wasted energy to operate the HHO generator. Therefor, whether the HHO generator worked or not, operating the HHO requres no significant use of energy and won't affect your fuel economy.

The wasted energy is mostly heat, and most of it gets dissipated through the radiator.

As for alternators, a good, short reading is: Alternator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Efficiency of automotive alternators is limited by fan cooling loss, bearing loss, iron loss, copper loss, and the voltage drop in the diode bridges; at part load, efficiency is between 50-62% depending on the size of alternator, and varies with alternator speed.

[FTE Ken]

Because you're ignoring science when it doesn't suit you, saying the laws of physics aren't relevant to this. (Like this alternator thing.) Thermodynamics has everything to do with this. Thermodynamics is relevant to every means of power generation, conversion, storage and transport --- there is no way to get around physics.

I'm also willing to wager hard cash that the load produced by an alternator is significant enough to impact mileage (GM says daytime running lights alone account for about a .5 mpg loss).

[EPNCSU2006]

Thermodynamic laws always apply, no matter how insignificant they might be. Cooking a fish on the exhaust would not change fuel economy because exhaust is waste heat to start with. There are folks working on ways to turn this waste heat in the exhaust into electricity to reduce load on the engine and gain fuel economy. To you .5 MPG might seem insignificant, but when there is a corporate average fuel economy that a fleet of vehicles must meet, it is significant, believe it or not.

Electrical demand is measured in amps, of which there is no excess. There is no resistor block that dissipates excess current. If current demand is 10 amps, the alternator puts out 10 amps. If the demand and output increase to 20 amps, it takes additional mechanical energy to supply that electrical energy. All energy used in conventional vehicles comes ultimately from the fuel tank, and nothing in there is free.

[christcorp]

Using the daylight running light argument, here's a good article on how much gasoline is used to run them Assuming between 100-120 watts (9-10 amps); each bulb is normally 50-60 watts. The calculated amount of gas for a single car running daylight running lights all year long, is approximately 2 gallons of gas. This is of course using direct math. But, because a vehicle is only about 25% efficient and an alternator is only about 75% efficient, direct math doesn't always equate In other words, the energy required is not linear. E.g. The difference in gas mileage of your car with a 10 amp load is not doubled because you now have a 20 amp load. Even so; considering the average car uses approximately 450-500 gallons of gas per year, that would be that running lights, or in the case of a hydrogen generator (Which uses about the same amount of power), is approximately one half of one percent of the gas usage. If a car gets 30 mpg, that means running lights or in this case a hydrogen generator would reduce the mileage approximately 0.15 mpg.

But, as with any statistics, they can be twisted to say what you want. Just because GM says it can reduce mileage by UP TO .5 mpg, that could be under worst case scenarios or under conditions that benefit GM if they are trying to lobby against or for the use of running lights.

HowStuffWorks "If daytime running lights were mandatory in the U.S., and all ve"

[FTE Ken]

Do you know how much power is required to generate enough hydrogen?

It takes about 20 HP to maintain highway speed.

Convert that to electrical energy:

Multiply 20 by 746 (the number of watts in a horsepower). 14,920 rounded up to 15KW.

To replace 40 of that power with HHO:

15KW x .4 = 6,000 watts (6KW)

If electrolysis were 100% efficient you would need 6000W/12V or 600 amps of current to make enough HHO to produce 8 HP of the 20 HP.

Since engines are about 30% efficient if 6KW of HHO was feed into the engine it would produce about 2KW of power.

In other words, when you look at the inefficiencies and the loses (both are thermodynamics) you'll need about 1500 A of current to produce enough HHO to displace 40% of the gas.

Now, as to the power loss due to DRLs, and other things, have you ever been in a car with a high power stereo and seen what happens when you crank it up? Its like turning on the AC with the load it puts on the alternator.

[christcorp]

When you say "To replace 40 of that power" I assume you mean 40% of the 15Kw.

Who here has said anything about running a car on 40% hydrogen? Maybe you are responding to someone else. Again, I haven't made comments directly concerning Hydrogen. However, to supplement/augment the "Air Supply" via vacuum; similar to water injection; but with Hydrogen; it is quite plausible that a Hydrogen mix could be beneficial with no significant additional load in producing that supplement/augmentation.

Running a car on 100% hydrogen; or any significant replacement of gasoline; would be a totally different discussion all together. Just like we can talk about water injection; which is very common, especially with racing vehicles; yet we don't talk about RUNNING the car totally on water.

But again, you must be responding to someone else on this topic, because I have not mentioned the use of Hydrogen as an automobile fuel. My comments have only referred to the production of hydrogen via a "Brown's Type Generator" and the average 10 amps required to do so. Nothing about replacing 40-100% of the gasoline with hydrogen. So, you must be responding to someone else./

P.S. Concerning you analogy of a high power stereo turned on while trying to start the car; that is totally irrelevant. You are trying to run the stereo, plus including a MAJOR LOAD of starting the vehicle, and allocating that work to the battery. Once the car is started, you no longer have the load of starting the vehicle. Also, the alternator is producing more than enough via the engine, to satisfy electrical requirements. CCA of a battery is approximately 70-80% of requirements. Adding on electrical loads to the battery pushes the battery to the limit. Pushing the alternator to the limit does not have the same affect. You can burn up the alternator, but you're not going to hurt the motor. That 302 or 460 is going to be able to handle hundreds of alternators at the same time if it wanted to,