H² + H²O = 25% More HP

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

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

I just question your application and assumptions.

You seem to think I can't do math.

Here's some simple math.

(Thermal efficiency of a typical gasoline engine) + ( energy wasted in a typical gasoline engine ) = (Total energy potential of a measure of gasoline )

Making the usual assumption of 30% thermal efficiency, the equation becomes:

30% +70%= 100%

Can you see where the efficiency gains are to be found?

All you have to do is slide some of the value from the second term to the first and there you will find a gain in fuel efficiency.

The problem with your math application is that you assume there is only one way to apply the math. With enough science, you can see the obvious dead ends. With an even deeper understanding of science, you can see some paths around those dead ends.

[gone-ot]

ICE: 30% usable heat energy + 70% wasted heat energy...water vapor does not create energy.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

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".

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.

I'm not backing off or retracting my challenge at all.
I'm all for ironing out the details. Setting up the kick starter to get the 'pot' large enough to do the measurement. I'm certain of the science.

As for corrections.
I see several things wrong in your 'version' of my position.

#1> I have not claimed 'in any way, shape or form' ... That could and would include many things not being discussed here at all ... Fusion of Hydrogen ... Water reacting with other materials (sodium, etc) ... a 6 cycle engine using a steam power 'cooling' stroke ... Converting potential energy of water held higher above the ground as you let it fall down to the ground with gravity... etc.

I am instead staying on topic of the kind of device described here in this thread. Opening it up with that kind of claim like you wrote is not this discussion in this thread at all. We are not discussing here 'any' method ... what is being discussed here is a far more specific method.

- - - - - - - -

#2> I have not claimed it could not increase the power and efficiency ... power and efficiency are two completely different topics here... The one I posted about was efficiency ... and I already posted that you could get some efficiency improvements ... we already know that from the NASA papers that always seem to get pulled up in these discussions.

But any tiny bit above 0% still counts as an improvement in efficiency ... that is not the same as what you've already claimed of "More than compensate for losses" ... and "measurable gains".

For example:
If you improve a 30% Efficient ICE to 30.1% it is an improvement ... but may not be enough to also accomplish your claim of "more than compensate for losses" and "measurable gains".

If you have to consume 0.1% to gain 0.1% you don't have enough gain to be better off than not taking the 0.1% in the first place.

Also the device and the water itself adds weight and such to the vehicle ... that weight is an automatic penalty ... in order to "more than compensate for losses" ... and have "measurable gains" ... you need to result in more not just breaking even.

Take 100 Joules of Mechanical energy and convert it with many automotive alternators to electrical energy ... and you will get out less than 80 joules of electrical energy ... take that 80 joules of electrical energy and use it in many devices for the electrolysis of water and you will get back less than 60 joules of chemical energy in H2 +O2 ... Use that 60 joules of H2 + O2 in a ~30% efficient ICE to covert it to mechanical energy ... and you get less than 20 joules of mechanical energy.

For the 100 joules of mechanical energy you took away ... you got 20 back ... such a system would have to improve the original Gasoline ICE chemical to mechanical conversion by 80 joules of additional / new mechanical energy output for every 100 joules it takes ... and at that point it is still just dead weight ... no better than carrying around a equally heavy bag of sand.

Now when we look at the % of ICE efficiency improvement that NASA verified ... and how much Hydrogen they needed to use to do get that ... we know it won't work... it will not "more than compensate for losses" and have "measurable gains"... the gap is too big.

- - - - - - - - - -
#3> A key part of what I wrote that you completely left out.

Controlled test results... Simple Road tests are just not good enough ... There are too many uncontrolled variables from a simple road test to be able to get meaningful results.

For example:
For the Gen-1 Insight I know of a someone who got as low as 19 MPG on a tank of gas ... in the same vehicle no equipment improvements I know of someone else who got up to as high as 164 MPG ... that giant swing from 19 to 164 had absolutely nothing at all to do with equipment ... no ICE or vehicle efficiency improvements , etc ... that giant 145 MPG difference is completely from driving conditions and driving methods... So to have meaningful results we need a good dino to put the vehicle under controlled test conditions before and after in order to remove all those other effects that can give false result... and completely remove those illusionary benefits that have nothing to do with the device in question on this thread.

- - - - - - - -
#4> You have to try and compare as close to apples to apples as you can.

So if you are just running the engine leaner ... than you have to compare apples to apples ... and also run it lean without the water and electrolysis.

You don't get to run a ICE at say 20% efficiency ... then 'fix' it to 30% ... then add your system ... and call the 50% improvement the result of the water or electrolysis... the fixing of it to 30% is the actual cause of / source of the gains.

- - - - - - - -
#5> Even if it gets you some tiny % ... it is not a net benefit "measurable gain" ... unless it does a better job than alternatives it is competing with.

For example:
As for running lean ... Honda made the Gen-1 Insight Run as lean as 25.8 to 1 Air to Fuel Ratio and achieved as much as 20% improved BSFC from it ... and they did it all without water or electrolysis ... if the water and electrolysis can't beat what honda did without it ... than the water and electrolysis are not a "measurable gain"... at best it is an inferior "less gain" method of doing the same thing... and people would be better off doing the "more gain" thing than the "less gain"

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

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."

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.

The problem is you re-phrased position there is too vague.
You might not even be on-topic for this thread anymore.

A 6 stroke engine with water as a cooling stroke would meet your overly vague re-phrased description ... but would not at all be the device being discussed here in this thread.

Your overly vague re-phrasing can also include fusion of hydrogen ... which is not being discussed here in this thread.

etc ... etc.

- - - - -

Further ... adding the phrase 'under specific conditions' just screams to me of building yourself an escape hatch to an already overly vague re-phrasing.

What are the specific conditions you want to make a claim about ? ... define the method of water and electrolysis specifically ... if it is the concept that is on-topic for this thread ... than it will not ... have "measurable gains" ... and will not "More than compensate for losses".

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

The problem with your math application is that you assume there is only one way to apply the math. With enough science, you can see the obvious dead ends. With an even deeper understanding of science, you can see some paths around those dead ends.

We've pointed you to you some of the science showing you this is a dead end.

So far I'm still waiting for you to show this other science refereed to here ... where you think it isn't a dead end.

I'm left to wonder why you are being so overly vague about it??

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

With enough science, you can see the obvious dead ends.

...uh, do I hear a distinct "echo" of P.T.Barnum marketing-speak here?

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

With an even deeper understanding of science, you can see some paths around those dead ends.

...and, am I hearing a distinct "echo" of perpetual motion handwaving here?

Granted, anything MAY be theoretically probable, but is it functionally & realistically possible within current (usable) technology? That is where your arguments begin to flounder.

[ChazInMT]

2 guys go up to the bar, the first one says, "I'm Thirsty, I'd like a glass of H2O", the second guy says, "I'm thirsty as well, I want a glass of H2O too", the second guy died.

And that's all I have to say about this.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

2 guys go up to the bar, the first one says, "I'm Thirsty, I'd like a glass of H2O", the second guy says, "I'm thirsty as well, I want a glass of H2O too", the second guy died.

And that's all I have to say about this.

And welcome to the discussion ChazInMT.

Do you want to join IamIan and Old Tele man in raising money to pay off their bet? I am thinking of inviting Old Mech since he has offered prize money in the past. Tvago has challenged me to put my money where my mouth was, and since I already have, I invite him to be part of the bet payout. Oh, UFO too since he is so sure and has been a most vociferous opponent of this technology.

I am going for a walk along the beach. It's a beautiful night in San Diego.

And H202 is a wonderful oxidizer.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by IamIan

We've pointed you to you some of the science showing you this is a dead end.

So far I'm still waiting for you to show this other science refereed to here ... where you think it isn't a dead end.

I'm left to wonder why you are being so overly vague about it??

A variation of repeated calculations and assumptions that numerous opponents have thrown at me for decades. Simple. High School stuff.

Are you actively in a research position? I am. And I am waiting on an e-mail from my employers. Vague? Out of necessity and because Old Tele man could not wrap his head around the concept of water thermolysis. He still thinks water is non-reactive at common temperatures. I am trying to reduce and simplify for his and others' sake, the contents of a white paper that now exceeds 300 pages and is still growing.

And I am thinking of a nicer way of taking your money.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

A variation of repeated calculations and assumptions that numerous opponents have thrown at me for decades. Simple. High School stuff.

To be blunt ... That 'Simple' High School stuff, is more than what you've offered here... The scale is solidly and legitimately not tipped in your favor.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Are you actively in a research position?

Yes.
And , irrelevant.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I am. And I am waiting on an e-mail from my employers. Vague? Out of necessity

Justified , or necessary vagueness perhaps ... but still intentional vagueness... Rejection and Skepticism should be expected, as the reasonable response.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

and because Old Tele man could not wrap his head around the concept of water thermolysis. He still thinks water is non-reactive at common temperatures.

Not relevant.
Give me the legitimate / validated science ... I don't care if you don't think someone else will understand it or not.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I am trying to reduce and simplify for his and others' sake, the contents of a white paper that now exceeds 300 pages and is still growing.

Forget simplifying it.
Present it.
I don't care if your explanation requires solving quantum field equations, or special relativity, Lorentz Transformations, etc ... Stop hiding behind vagueness and dodging questions ... otherwise you should expect exactly the kind of rejection and skepticism you are getting, as the reasonable response.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

And I am thinking of a nicer way of taking your money.

You are still a long way from meeting the requirements I outlined for that.
Best of luck.

I've paid for classes , I've paid for books, I've paid for research papers , I've paid to buy testing equipment , etc ... I enjoy learning and I don't mind sometimes paying $ for it... But so far (no offense meant) you're all claims , and no substance... even many of you're claims have been extremely vague, and unspecific... So far I don't even know if the 'thing' whatever it is you think you have, is even on topic for what is being discussed in this thread.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by IamIan

To be blunt ... That 'Simple' High School stuff, is more than what you've offered here... The scale is solidly and legitimately not tipped in your favor.

blah, blah, blah . . .

I've paid for classes , I've paid for books, I've paid for research papers , I've paid to buy testing equipment , etc ... I enjoy learning and I don't mind sometimes paying $ for it... But so far (no offense meant) you're all claims , and no substance... even many of you're claims have been extremely vague, and unspecific... So far I don't even know if the 'thing' whatever it is you think you have, is even on topic for what is being discussed in this thread.

I will use an electrolysis device, running on electricity from the engine alternator. I will introduce only pure water - no methanol/ethanol or such mixed in. I will apply these ingredients into the intake manifold. I will make no mechanical changes to the engine between tests.

But, I will manipulate intake air temperature, ignition timing and air/fuel ratio along with the attending electromechanical controls to do so.

You will be the test driver. Distance will be measured, fuel will be weighed, and miles-per-gallon calculated. It was good enough for the Auto Xprize, it is good enough for us.

We will meet at the Green Gran Prix next year and join other enthusiasts who can witness and verify the test. It will be the simple A-B-A test on a specified course at a prescribed speed. There will be a driving aid to allow you to hit the driving profile within a narrow percentage along with providing data logs to show consistency or not.

And, after being berated by my son for "attempting to steal candy from a baby" and doing nothing to benefit the community, I propose our bet start with the currency of Ecommoder stickers. I bet 1000 Ecommoder stickers that the test engine cannot run, or run well, at the modified run settings, without the HHO and water vapor. And further more, that water/HHO does effect the combustion to the point that the engine can run under the set conditions to a measurable efficiency advantage. The loser pays for the stickers and hands them out to attendees and guests of the Green Gran Prix. Please contact the Forum mods to make sure you will have the required number of stickers to pass out.

Do you want dynamometer numbers? I can provide a rolling dyno so you can collect information to your hearts delight. I just received a reply from my employers and, no, I cannot divulge the dynamometer work we had collected a couple decades ago for just precisely these tests. But, we are free to collect our own data if you are willing to pay for it. And neither can I show the white paper. White papers such as this one are used in business proposals to show to prospective investors or buyers that your technology is sound. I actually have to split our research and rewrite the gasoline portion as we have a meeting with a potential buyer next month up in Silicon Valley. Unless you have some deep pockets, you don't get to see the paper. However, the science is common knowledge and I can remark on that in follow up posts should you decide to accept my challenge.

If the costs are too high for you, feel free to ask Old Tele man and the other nay-sayers to help fund the 1000 sticker pot you will need to see my engine work. It will be fun for all and will benefit our community.

Cue the Morricone Spaghetti Western Music.

So, what do you say IamIan? Do you feel lucky?