H² + H²O = 25% More HP

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

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).

Everything you have said is correct as far as combustion quenching using the tremendous heat capacity of water. I am simply making the point that water does interact with the combustion process in a way that could change the pressure profile if used accordingly.

And water dissociates even in liquid form and that is why we measure a pH of pure water. Water is actively dissociating at temperatures where carbon would be reactive. These steam temperatures of only a few hundred degrees C occur all throughout the engine cycle. The FLAME front is in the thousands of deg C. This heat may only occur for a few milli seconds before work is extracted and the heat dissipated, but it does exist.

I am in no way supporting the claims of the Aquatune company. I am simply stating that there is some good science that again is being thrown out with the idiot product claims. Their claim of water splitting by a resonant cavity is bunk science. Their water addition without any form of dynamic feedback would be useful in improving engine efficiency at only one specific set of conditions of engine load and atmospherics.

Again, I am speaking of water reactivity in combustion. You are speaking of water quenching.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by 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

Unfortunately, it gives us very little to work with as far as discussion.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by 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!)

Stoichiometric hydrogen and oxygen has extremely high burn rates. And using it in an engine via simple water electrolysis is largely hit or miss as you have found out.

[iveyjh]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Unfortunately, it gives us very little to work with as far as discussion.

I just thought it helped give credence to the concept if an institute thought it (hydrogen enrichment of gasoline) was worthy of investigation.

[gone-ot]

re: "At no time did I say the water adds heat to the system."

I did not claim that you did, rather, I wrote that water, itself, did not add heat to the process and thus could not/did not provide energy (rebuffing the '...+25% More HP...').

Adding H2 to the intake AIR stream of an ICE is simply "adding" a second level of FUEL, albeit a pure gaseous rather than liquid hydrocarbon fuel. And, since the added H2 is gaseous, it displaces AIR and reduces O2 content available for combustion. Not a winning path.

Attempting to "create/generate" H2 (from water) on-the-fly is a genuine 'fools-errand' because it takes more ENERGY in creating the electrical energy from the engines power than the miniscule amounts of H2 can/could/will every produce, both: singularly, by its combustion (robbing O2 from the gasoline), as well as collectively, by its contibution to the now overly-rich gasoline combustion process.

I *DO* state that 100% hydrogen fuel would be greener for the atmosphere since it's combustion by-product is pure water vapor...which, while not as bad as CO2, is still actually a contributing green house gas.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

re: "At no time did I say the water adds heat to the system."

I did not claim that you did, rather, I wrote that water, itself, did not add heat to the process and thus could not/did not provide energy (rebuffing the '...+25% More HP...').

Adding H2 to the intake AIR stream of an ICE is simply "adding" a second level of FUEL, albeit a pure gaseous rather than liquid hydrocarbon fuel. And, since the added H2 is gaseous, it displaces AIR and reduces O2 content available for combustion. Not a winning path.

Attempting to "create/generate" H2 (from water) on-the-fly is a genuine 'fools-errand' because it takes more ENERGY in creating the electrical energy from the engines power than the miniscule amounts of H2 can/could/will every produce, both: singularly, by its combustion (robbing O2 from the gasoline), as well as collectively, by its contibution to the now overly-rich gasoline combustion process.

I *DO* state that 100% hydrogen fuel would be greener for the atmosphere since it's combustion by-product is pure water vapor...which, while not as bad as CO2, is still actually a contributing green house gas.

. . . can change the pressure curve reducing the energy lost before and after the power stroke. The increase in effective BMEP ( brake-mean-effective-pressure ) results in more power - power that can more than compensate for the losses in producing the hydrogen/oxygen and that can compensate for the energy lost to the water interaction.

Can this result in a 25% gain in fuel efficiency? No, probably not. But can it result in a measurable gain? I say yes and I am willing to stand by that statement. Are you willing to stand by yours? I am willing to bet you are not as sure of your science as I am of mine.

And I can tell by your last post that you know very little of what actually goes on in a combustion chamber.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

But can it result in a measurable gain? I say yes and I am willing to stand by that statement. Are you willing to stand by yours? I am willing to bet you are not as sure of your science as I am of mine.

Changes in driving conditions and driving methods can give illusionary benefits ... but this device will not be the cause.

Too many conversion step losses ... it will NOT "more than compensate for losses" as you claim... nor be a "measurable gain" as you claim.

Take a real look at the additional 3 conversion steps you're adding.

#1> Chemical(Gasoline) to Mechanical -->
#2> Mechanical to Electrical -->
#3> Electrical to Chemical(H) -->
#4> Chemical(H) to Mechanical

The best devices I've seen that are custom designed to do each of those additional steps are not able to achieve .. "more than compensate for losses".

(Simplified) The best I can see would need to net ~1.28 Joule increase from Step#1 output for every 1 joule taken through the additional path of losses ... just to break even and be a dead weight device... which is still not any "measurable gain".

(Simplified) More realistic device would need to net ~2.08 joule increase from Step #1 output for every 1 joule taken through the additional path of losses... just to break even and be a dead weight device... which is still not any "measurable gain".

Given the validated results we've seen on the amount of H needed for the amount of ICE improvement in the often sited NASA papers ... that just will NOT ... "more than compensate for losses"... nor will it be a "measurable gain".

- - - - - - - - -
And Yes I am VERY certain of the science.
I'm happy to walk through some of it if you like.

I am also willing to discuss the terms of a 'bet' ... Done correctly I am certain what the outcome will be ... are you ?

By correctly I mean ... no simple road test ... we need to remove conditions and driving method effects ... which means a good professional dino with before and after testing ... you say it's a "measurable gain" ... we need to measure it ... We need trusted witnesses from both sides at the testing to inspect for 'satisfaction' (agreed to prior) ... the required 'significant' winning test results need to be agreed to prior to testing ... and the total 'pot' for the bet would have to be more than 10% larger than double the total cost of the dino testing + any other 3rd party legal or arbitration costs... that way , after the dino tests are done the winning side makes 10% more than they put in... and there is created a well documented validated test result we can pull out the next couple thousand times someone makes these kind of claims... Those results would be a win for either side ... if the tests show it doesn't work ... that's good for that side ... and if the tests show it does produce "measurable gain" and "more than compensate for losses" ... that's good for that side... plus the 'winning' side makes $money ... To help reach the required total 'pot' size , we could use something like kickstarter to help raise the total 'pot' funding needed...If there does end up being too much legal issues with a pay out bet , then it might have to be reduced to just a measurable validated test results outcome... which I would also be willing to put a few kick starter $ toward such an effort... it would be a win either way.

[maxc]

Water Fuel Technology For Everyone. AquaTune Hydrogen Fuel Systems. - YouTube I ask him to show 2.5 lpm of HHO flow @ 1.5 amps. He deleted my post. It's a bad water injection system. You can see big drops of water in the clear tubes!

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Changes in driving conditions and driving methods can give illusionary benefits ... but this device will not be the cause.

Too many conversion step losses ... it will NOT "more than compensate for losses" as you claim... nor be a "measurable gain" as you claim.

Take a real look at the additional 3 conversion steps you're adding.

#1> Chemical(Gasoline) to Mechanical -->
#2> Mechanical to Electrical -->
#3> Electrical to Chemical(H) -->
#4> Chemical(H) to Mechanical

The best devices I've seen that are custom designed to do each of those additional steps are not able to achieve .. "more than compensate for losses".

(Simplified) The best I can see would need to net ~1.28 Joule increase from Step#1 output for every 1 joule taken through the additional path of losses ... just to break even and be a dead weight device... which is still not any "measurable gain".

(Simplified) More realistic device would need to net ~2.08 joule increase from Step #1 output for every 1 joule taken through the additional path of losses... just to break even and be a dead weight device... which is still not any "measurable gain".

Given the validated results we've seen on the amount of H needed for the amount of ICE improvement in the often sited NASA papers ... that just will NOT ... "more than compensate for losses"... nor will it be a "measurable gain".

- - - - - - - - -
And Yes I am VERY certain of the science.
I'm happy to walk through some of it if you like.

I am also willing to discuss the terms of a 'bet' ... Done correctly I am certain what the outcome will be ... are you ?

By correctly I mean ... no simple road test ... we need to remove conditions and driving method effects ... which means a good professional dino with before and after testing ... you say it's a "measurable gain" ... we need to measure it ... We need trusted witnesses from both sides at the testing to inspect for 'satisfaction' (agreed to prior) ... the required 'significant' winning test results need to be agreed to prior to testing ... and the total 'pot' for the bet would have to be more than 10% larger than double the total cost of the dino testing + any other 3rd party legal or arbitration costs... that way , after the dino tests are done the winning side makes 10% more than they put in... and there is created a well documented validated test result we can pull out the next couple thousand times someone makes these kind of claims... Those results would be a win for either side ... if the tests show it doesn't work ... that's good for that side ... and if the tests show it does produce "measurable gain" and "more than compensate for losses" ... that's good for that side... plus the 'winning' side makes $money ... To help reach the required total 'pot' size , we could use something like kickstarter to help raise the total 'pot' funding needed...If there does end up being too much legal issues with a pay out bet , then it might have to be reduced to just a measurable validated test results outcome... which I would also be willing to put a few kick starter $ toward such an effort... it would be a win either way.

You are saying that:
"The addition of water and or the products of electrolytically splitting the water via on-board production, added to the combustion process of an internal combustion engine cannot in any way, shape or form increase the said power and efficiency of the engine when consuming hydrocarbon fuels and air".

I am saying that:
"The addition of water and or the products of electrolytically splitting the water via on-board production, added to the combustion process of an internal combustion engine does improve the said power and efficiency of the engine a measurable amount when consuming hydrocarbon fuels and when certain conditions are in place."

Please review your position statement as I have written it and make modifications as you see fit. But, don't back off or retract your challenge.

As you can see, I do not believe you can simply slap an electrolyzer on an engine and see measurable gains. I, more than most people, can see the futility of that exercise. But, under specific conditions, there can be benefits.

[gone-ot]

...putting some 'numbers' to IamIam's insightful statement (using simple 90% efficiency example):

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...it's all about simple mathematics:

90% = 90% (one conversion)

81% = 90% of 90% (two conversions)

73% = 90% of 90% of 90% (three conversions)

66% = 90% of 90% of 90% of 90% (four conversion)

...the fewer times you convert energy, the "...more of it (energy) you have...", or stated conversely the "...less you've lost."