Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com - View Single Post

Istas · 07-02-2009, 02:31 PM

I hate doing this, but after about 200 posts I just stopped reading, instead skimming. The majority of words in this thread seem to have been back-and-forth "you're wrong" "no you're wrong", supplemented with some very obvious talking-out-of-the-rear-end, and that's hard to read through.

I think there may be potential in supplementing gasoline with on-board-electrolyzed oxygen and hydrogen. I think this because it makes some logical sense to me, and I don't have the knowledge and data to automatically know it does or doesn't. I also think the effectiveness would probably vary by make and model, and even probably vary by identical cars that were owned by different people or driven in different areas. So I'm still waiting for a thorough, standardized test of an actual, whole car, working as a total system, with analyzed component wear and exhaust gas.

There's something I haven't seen stated though, regarding why car companies don't use this, and it seems to be either "it's bogus" or "oil company supression" option. While I don't deny the possibility of either of these, I think there is another option:

These systems listed here require adding water (possibly distilled), the electrodes presumably get crudded up over time and would either need to be cleaned or replaced, and the electrolyte content might even need to be monitored.

Given that car companies don't produce vehicles like the boxfish car simply because (they state) they're too ugly and nobody would buy them, why would they think a car that would require more regular maintenance would fly? We're talking about a culture that (at least in my area) has introduced pull-tabs on soup cans because apparently a can opener was too much of a hassle. I imagine that even adding water would be a burden in many people's minds.

Would I try the hydrogen(-and-possibly-oxygen)-into-engine thing? I sure would, if it were proven with hard numbers to improve fuel economy (enough to more than offset maintenance costs) while not harming, or even improving, the emissions, and also while not increasing wear on the engine. I would be willing to put up with the extra bit of hassle, because I find it interesting and I also crave efficiency. But I don't think it's out of the question that car companies think there's not enough general demand for such maintenance to put it into a production car, and that's assuming it works.

07-02-2009, 02:31 PM	#273 (permalink)
Istas is not covered in bees. Join Date: May 2009 Location: Seeley Lake, Montana, USA Posts: 207 Honda - '05 Honda Accord EX 90 day: 27.16 mpg (US) Insight - '00 Honda Insight w A/C 90 day: 66.55 mpg (US) Thanks: 53 Thanked 51 Times in 26 Posts	I hate doing this, but after about 200 posts I just stopped reading, instead skimming. The majority of words in this thread seem to have been back-and-forth "you're wrong" "no you're wrong", supplemented with some very obvious talking-out-of-the-rear-end, and that's hard to read through. I think there may be potential in supplementing gasoline with on-board-electrolyzed oxygen and hydrogen. I think this because it makes some logical sense to me, and I don't have the knowledge and data to automatically know it does or doesn't. I also think the effectiveness would probably vary by make and model, and even probably vary by identical cars that were owned by different people or driven in different areas. So I'm still waiting for a thorough, standardized test of an actual, whole car, working as a total system, with analyzed component wear and exhaust gas. There's something I haven't seen stated though, regarding why car companies don't use this, and it seems to be either "it's bogus" or "oil company supression" option. While I don't deny the possibility of either of these, I think there is another option: These systems listed here require adding water (possibly distilled), the electrodes presumably get crudded up over time and would either need to be cleaned or replaced, and the electrolyte content might even need to be monitored. Given that car companies don't produce vehicles like the boxfish car simply because (they state) they're too ugly and nobody would buy them, why would they think a car that would require more regular maintenance would fly? We're talking about a culture that (at least in my area) has introduced pull-tabs on soup cans because apparently a can opener was too much of a hassle. I imagine that even adding water would be a burden in many people's minds. Would I try the hydrogen(-and-possibly-oxygen)-into-engine thing? I sure would, if it were proven with hard numbers to improve fuel economy (enough to more than offset maintenance costs) while not harming, or even improving, the emissions, and also while not increasing wear on the engine. I would be willing to put up with the extra bit of hassle, because I find it interesting and I also crave efficiency. But I don't think it's out of the question that car companies think there's not enough general demand for such maintenance to put it into a production car, and that's assuming it works.