H² + H²O = 25% More HP

[gone-ot]

Note especially list items #25 and #27:

25. No, water does not burn. We are not combusting the hydrogen in the H2O.

27. '...The last time we checked water wasn't a very good fuel. Water Injection definitely doe not give "a 5-15% increase in fuel economy" as some marketers calim.'

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

Note especially list items #25 and #27:

25. No, water does not burn. We are not combusting the hydrogen in the H2O.

27. '...The last time we checked water wasn't a very good fuel. Water Injection definitely doe not give "a 5-15% increase in fuel economy" as some marketers calim.'

But that does not make them scientists.

Water does INTERACT with combustion and this can be manipulated.

Water and it's electrolysis by-products can extend the lean limits of operation allowing a potential 5-15% gain in fuel economy.

The marketing claims may be unicorn material, but the science certainly isn't.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Its a bit like HHO - although maybe less Unicorn curry flavoured.

I have to ask myself if these systems were so good, why aren't manufacturers fitting them?

There is the simple matter of cost to benefit. Throw in system integration and reliability and these devices, even if beneficial, will be overlooked for much more robust solutions. Customers demand a superficial interaction with their cars. Fiddling with adding fluids on a regular basis brings on irritation.

I remember interviewing with an electric car manufacturer here in Southern California 20+ years ago. They sold only to municipalities and corporations that had technical service departments in place as the lead-acid batteries required re-watering, testing and balancing and constant replacement. Their Geo Metros would have been welcomed on these forums, but for the general public, they were just too "fiddly".

Then of course there is the government emission regulations. The slow rate of reaction of an electrolysis device and a steam generating device means sluggish control. This makes them difficult to integrate into a system that needs milli-second reactions to maintain a clean exhaust stream.

[gone-ot]

Two things to be aware of: 1) you do NOT have to be a scientist to know science facts and (2) water has three physical states:

1) Water DROPLETS are liquid-state; liquid water is NON-compressible.

2) Water VAPOR is gaseous-state; vapor water and *IS* compressible.

3) Water ICE is solid-state; solid water is NON-compressible.

Oh, and mankind has been using water to extinguish combustions for eons, not using it as a fuel.

Lastly, their APPLICATION is knock-reduction, not combusion. Do NOT confuse them. They know what THEY're doing; you seem to be fuzzy about comprehending what THEY're doing.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

Two things to be aware of: 1) you do NOT have to be a scientist to know something and (2) water has three physical states:

1) Water DROPLETS are liquid-state and liquid water is NON-compressible.

2) Water VAPOR is gaseous-state and *IS* compressible.

3) Water ICE is solid-state and in NON-compressible.

...oh, and mankind has been using water to extinguish combustions for eons, not using it as a fuel.

...lastly, their APPLICATION is knock-reduction, not combusion. Do NOT confuse them.

That is the simple answer.

What they don't teach you in 8th grade is that liquid water has a pH - a certain percentage of the H2O dissociates into -OH and H+ ions. As water turns to steam, this dissociation increases proportionally with temperature until around 1200 degrees C, thermolysis of water becomes significant. At 2200 deg C it is around 3%. At 3000 deg C, it is roughly half. This doesn't take into account catalysts that can reduce the thermolysis temperature significantly. Add in the reactivity of Carbon at these temperatures and you can easily see the effect water has on combustion where flame fronts with temperatures of 1200 - 2500 deg C occur. The presence of reactive -OH and H+ radicals effects the combustion balance within the flame front.

And I assure you, I understand the difference between combustion and knock suppression. The link to the original device indicates a study in combustion. You take quotes from a marketeer who specializes in knock suppression. They are very opposite applications.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

That is the simple answer.

Like Einstein says, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

...or, as my Dad put it, "Talk to me in words of one syllable: Yes. No. Maybe has two syllables, so not acceptable."

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

Like Einstein says, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

...or, as my Dad put it, "Talk to me in words of one syllable: Yes. No. Maybe has two syllables, so not acceptable."

. . . not everything is simple or can be simply stated. This is one of them.

My father was a scientist. He finished a degree in Architecture and then completed Chemistry and Microbiology eight years later. He made it clear that as the subject matter became more complex, so must the language.

"Yes and no and maybe" do not begin to describe the language needed to discuss the dynamic interactions of combustion.

Just because this happens to be my field does not mean I have to devolve. I make my posts as reasonably understandable from the viewpoint of the subject complexity. There are enough key phrases and words for anyone to do a quick check on my content - assuming you have the background to understand what Google spits out at you.

[iveyjh]

I saw this on the local News this evening.

Car of the future: less pain at the pump - WOAI News 4 San Antonio - Top Stories

[gone-ot]

All AIR has some amount of water vapor (humidity is never zero), thus all internal combustion engines (ICE) have, since day one, been operating with water vapor (of obviously varying amounts) in the AIR consumed during combustion. That has BEEN and will CONTINUE to be a fact (pending global warming effects).

Adding additional water vapor into AIR is functionally equivalent to driving through air with extreme humidity, akin to "...a foggy London day/night..." That increased water vapor in the AIR does not itself produce ANY additional heat energy (power), rather it allows the engine's EXISTING ignition-mapping (new cars) or ignition-advance (older cars) to simply USE more of the already existing timing advance without fear of detonation from the same octane-rated gasoline. It is the advanced timing--not the water vapor--that produces more power, by extracting more thermal energy from the combustion process before the opening exhaust valve(s) cause the in-cylinder mean-effective-pressure (MEP) to cease.

And current ICE do not have intentional operating combustion conditions sufficiently hot enough to dissociate water vapor back to free H and O atoms...specifically to avoid combusting N2 in AIR into its oxides (smog).

[skunkbait]

I had a Mazda 323 about 5 years ago, and I played with a homemade HHO generator. I had mixed results, but ultimately moved on to other things when the car died. I am definitely a skeptic regarding all of the outrageous claims of greatly improved mileage. But, I will say this, I was definitely converting water into a very volatile mixture. I had taken some shortcuts, and had wired in a toggle switch to turn the generator on and off. I forgot, and left the generator "on", then went to start the car about an hour later. The explosion was deafening! It shattered my aluminum airflow sensor, and the plastic airbox.

I won't be attempting the HHO stuff again, unless I see MUCH more convincing proof in the future. (And if I ever do try it again, I will not be taking any shortcuts!)