The claim is that adding these gases into the
carb or fuel injection system results in burning
the fuel more efficiently -- so you're extracting
more energy from the gasoline.

Is there any possibility this could be true?

Scam.

Think about it in these terms:

Gasoline engine bleeds power to battery for electrolysis to generate
hydrogen which is fed to engine as fuel.

This would basically make it a perpetual motion device with no net gain
in energy.

In fact there is energy lost in heat and friction to generate and burn
the hydrogen which means adding such devices to your car would result in
lower mileage.

Scam.

Think about it in these terms:

Gasoline engine bleeds power to battery for electrolysis
to generate hydrogen which is fed to engine as fuel.

This would basically make it a perpetual motion device
with no net gain in energy.

In fact there is energy lost in heat and friction to
generate and burn the hydrogen which means adding such
devices to your car would result in lower mileage.

Frank wrote:

Scam.

Think about it in these terms:

Gasoline engine bleeds power to battery for electrolysis
to generate hydrogen which is fed to engine as fuel.


It is not claimed that all of the energy for the engine
comes from the hydrogen. Most of the energy continues
to come from the gasoline. The claim is that more energy
is extracted from the gasoline by more efficient burning,
due to the addition of the gases from electrolysis.


This would basically make it a perpetual motion device
with no net gain in energy.


While you're out in the weeds, I lost a Frisbee out there.
Could you keep an eye open for that? Thanks.


In fact there is energy lost in heat and friction to
generate and burn the hydrogen which means adding such
devices to your car would result in lower mileage.


If there were no improvement in the combustion of the
gasoline, that would be true. The claim is that the
electrolysis gases improve the combustion of gasoline.

If there were no improvement in the combustion of the
gasoline, that would be true. The claim is that the
electrolysis gases improve the combustion of gasoline.

A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.

Two web sites that were mentioned are:

http://www.savefuel.ca/oxy-hydrogen/

http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/index.html

Unfortunately, the thread wandered off into the weeds
with much of the discussion being about how you can't
get something for nothing, the energy from the gases
is ultimately drawn from the alternator, etc. That's
not the point.

The claim is that adding these gases into the
carb or fuel injection system results in burning
the fuel more efficiently -- so you're extracting
more energy from the gasoline.

Is there any possibility this could be true?
I talked to a friend of mine yesterday about this
subject, because he's thinking about ordering the
plans to build one. (I don't know if it's from
either of the web sites listed above.) He's got
lots of experience with engines and racing, but
doesn't know a heckuva lot of chemistry.

I told him it seemed like a scam, but that I
really didn't know. It's not unreasonable that
burning could be improved this way. Certainly,
the oxygen would improve burning, like a nitro
system. But, apparently the claim is that the
hydrogen is somehow improving combustion. Any
good scam will have a good story behind it.
Even if it were completely neutral on gas
mileage, after people have invested their time
and money building one, they'll be motivated
to see it in a favorable light. If they don't
do strictly scientific tests, they can easily
delude themselves into believing they see a
benefit. A lot of quack medicine is based on
similar placebo effects.

Anyone got any comments on the plausibility
of these devices? Are there any reliable tests
from trustworthy sources validating or debunking
these devices? The plans cost $150, which
further raises the scam alert level.

"hanson" <hanson at (no spam) quick.net> wrote in message
news:Zvg%j.33067$3j.5246 at (no spam) trnddc05...
| "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer at (no spam) usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:0675a4e0-3d55-40f2-bd3f-c864a4a4b99e at (no spam) m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| > Mark Thorson <nos... at (no spam) sonic.net> wrote:
| >> A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
| >> about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
| >> into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.
|
| "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" wrote:
| > It is based on a myth. While it is well-known that the efficiency of
| > the IC engine is around the 30-40% mark at best, the myth is that this
| > is due to incomplete combustion, and that most of the fuel goes out
| > the tailpipe. This is not true. Almost all fuel in a properly tuned
| > engine is combusted.
|
| > The two energy losses are heat into the cooling jacket of any cooled
| > engine, and the energy (heat and pressure) in the exhaust. While
| > there have been attempts at building uncooled (adiabatic) engines, the
| > biggest hangup so far is the lubricants. When internal temps get too
| > high all existing lubricants break down.
|
| > Turbocharging does recover some exhaust energy, but we cannot take out
| > too much exhaust energy, or it will limit engine's ability to breath,
| > reducing horsepower for a given engine size. We can indeed increase
| > thermal consumption by this road, but it results in a heavier engine.
| > That is okay for a stationary engine, but any engine used in
| > transportation, must be as light as possible. If a heavy but more fuel
| > efficient engine is used, the total vehicle weight goes up, requiring
| > more energy, so we end up still burning more fuel
|
| hanson wrote:
| Don, you are kind but you won't change any minds in the
| Alternative- or Hydrogen fuel cults. They have their minds
| made up to get to their vapid heaven... with a religious passion.
| Whenever the fuel prices rise you see 2 phenomena emerging:
| (1) the compulsive savers who wish to beat the transportation
| game at any cost and hence believe anything.
| (2) the conning saviors who accommodate their fantasies
| with any scam the can lay on (1)
| Here is how the current dreams and schemes of (1) and (2)
| will end up, since these 2 cults reject not only the iron existence
| of the laws of thermodynamics but also refuse to believe in
| games that the powerful oil boys play:
| < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/8b67fce923b56a19
| < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/0aa53c5ef7317f6b
| < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34
| ahahaha.... ahahahanson
|
Androlces wrote:
I like the idea of hydrogen as a fuel, don't you?
The problem I see with it is that it takes a lot of crude oil to
electrolyze
the water in the first place and you can't carry much hydrogen around in
a compressed state without cooling it to way down low, which adds up
to danger.
What's needed is another Nobel, someone to come up with a way of
making it as safe as nitro-glycerine in clay, there when you need it but
safe enough to toss around.
Don't you chemical whizzes know of something, a catalyst perhaps, that
can do that? Perhaps if you bonded it with some inexpensive substance
like carbon, there is plenty of coal still around...
.
hanson wrote:

ahahahaha.. See details in the above links... ahahahanson



--
Androcles wrote:
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"hanson" <hanson at (no spam) quick.net> wrote in message
news:Zvg%j.33067$3j.5246 at (no spam) trnddc05...
| "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer at (no spam) usfamily.net> wrote in message
| news:0675a4e0-3d55-40f2-bd3f-c864a4a4b99e at (no spam) m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| > Mark Thorson <nos... at (no spam) sonic.net> wrote:
| >> A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
| >> about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
| >> into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.
|
|
| "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" wrote:
| > It is based on a myth. While it is well-known that the efficiency of
| > the IC engine is around the 30-40% mark at best, the myth is that this
| > is due to incomplete combustion, and that most of the fuel goes out
| > the tailpipe. This is not true. Almost all fuel in a properly tuned
| > engine is combusted.
|
| > The two energy losses are heat into the cooling jacket of any cooled
| > engine, and the energy (heat and pressure) in the exhaust. While
| > there have been attempts at building uncooled (adiabatic) engines, the
| > biggest hangup so far is the lubricants. When internal temps get too
| > high all existing lubricants break down.
|
| > Turbocharging does recover some exhaust energy, but we cannot take out
| > too much exhaust energy, or it will limit engine's ability to breath,
| > reducing horsepower for a given engine size. We can indeed increase
| > thermal consumption by this road, but it results in a heavier engine.
| > That is okay for a stationary engine, but any engine used in
| > transportation, must be as light as possible. If a heavy but more fuel
| > efficient engine is used, the total vehicle weight goes up, requiring
| > more energy, so we end up still burning more fuel
|
| hanson wrote:
| Don, you are kind but you won't change any minds in the
| Alternative- or Hydrogen fuel cults. They have their minds
| made up to get to their vapid heaven... with a religious passion.
| Whenever the fuel prices rise you see 2 phenomena emerging:
| (1) the compulsive savers who wish to beat the transportation
| game at any cost and hence believe anything.
| (2) the conning saviors who accommodate their fantasies
| with any scam the can lay on (1)
| Here is how the current dreams and schemes of (1) and (2)
| will end up, since these 2 cults reject not only the iron existence
| of the laws of thermodynamics but also refuse to believe in
| games that the powerful oil boys play:
| < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/8b67fce923b56a19
| < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/0aa53c5ef7317f6b
| < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34
| ahahaha.... ahahahanson
|
I like the idea of hydrogen as a fuel, don't you?
The problem I see with it is that it takes a lot of crude oil to electrolyze
the water in the first place and you can't carry much hydrogen around in
a compressed state without cooling it to way down low, which adds up
to danger.
What's needed is another Nobel, someone to come up with a way of
making it as safe as nitro-glycerine in clay, there when you need it but
safe enough to toss around.
Don't you chemical whizzes know of something, a catalyst perhaps, that
can do that? Perhaps if you bonded it with some inexpensive substance
like carbon, there is plenty of coal still around...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
))

That would be your myth. It is just a straw man for you to argue against.
The basis of the theory of why mixing hydrogen with gasoline improves
thermal efficiency is not that it results in more complete combustion. Nor
is it that the laws of nature can be broken.
The first study which was sponsored by NASA and involved airplane engines
was done more than 30 years ago and they were able to achieve 20% improved
fuel economy with hydrogen gasoline mixture. Do you think someone forgot
to tell NASA about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Several studies since
then have also confirmed the original findings.
The theory is that hydrogen mixed with petrol does 3 things. 1) under
very light loads it is possible to efficiently burn extremely lean
mixtures this has been shown to achieve 50% less petrol use at idle. 2)
hydrogen mixed with gasoline burns much faster than gas alone. 3) hydrogen
enrichment boosts octane. Engines can be designed to take advantage of
these properties. The theory is that by combusting all the fuel earlier in
the power stroke delivers more of the energy to the drive train. The
gasoline that burns late in the power stroke may burn completely but
because it occurs so late in the cycle the energy is mostly wasted.
There is a Canadian company that that modifies engines at a cost
$4,000-$10,000 that claims 20% improvement in mileage with no performance
loss (they give a guarantee of 10% fuel savings). Needless to say that
won't pay for itself until fuel costs go higher.

Androcles wrote:
"hanson" <hanson at (no spam) quick.net> wrote in message
news:Zvg%j.33067$3j.5246 at (no spam) trnddc05...
| "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer at (no spam) usfamily.net> wrote in message
|
news:0675a4e0-3d55-40f2-bd3f-c864a4a4b99e at (no spam) m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
| > Mark Thorson <nos... at (no spam) sonic.net> wrote:
| >> A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
| >> about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
| >> into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.
|
|
| "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" wrote:
| > It is based on a myth. While it is well-known that the efficiency of
| > the IC engine is around the 30-40% mark at best, the myth is that
this
| > is due to incomplete combustion, and that most of the fuel goes out
| > the tailpipe. This is not true. Almost all fuel in a properly tuned
| > engine is combusted.
|
| > The two energy losses are heat into the cooling jacket of any cooled
| > engine, and the energy (heat and pressure) in the exhaust. While
| > there have been attempts at building uncooled (adiabatic) engines,
the
| > biggest hangup so far is the lubricants. When internal temps get too
| > high all existing lubricants break down.
|
| > Turbocharging does recover some exhaust energy, but we cannot take
out
| > too much exhaust energy, or it will limit engine's ability to breath,
| > reducing horsepower for a given engine size. We can indeed increase
| > thermal consumption by this road, but it results in a heavier engine.
| > That is okay for a stationary engine, but any engine used in
| > transportation, must be as light as possible. If a heavy but more
fuel
| > efficient engine is used, the total vehicle weight goes up, requiring
| > more energy, so we end up still burning more fuel
|
| hanson wrote:
| Don, you are kind but you won't change any minds in the
| Alternative- or Hydrogen fuel cults. They have their minds
| made up to get to their vapid heaven... with a religious passion.
| Whenever the fuel prices rise you see 2 phenomena emerging:
| (1) the compulsive savers who wish to beat the transportation
| game at any cost and hence believe anything.
| (2) the conning saviors who accommodate their fantasies
| with any scam the can lay on (1)
| Here is how the current dreams and schemes of (1) and (2)
| will end up, since these 2 cults reject not only the iron existence
| of the laws of thermodynamics but also refuse to believe in
| games that the powerful oil boys play:
| < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/8b67fce923b56a19
| < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/0aa53c5ef7317f6b
| < http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/msg/bb4dbe2a7fac0a34
| ahahaha.... ahahahanson
|
Androcles wrote:
I like the idea of hydrogen as a fuel, don't you?
The problem I see with it is that it takes a lot of crude oil to
electrolyze
the water in the first place and you can't carry much hydrogen around in
a compressed state without cooling it to way down low, which adds up
to danger.
What's needed is another Nobel, someone to come up with a way of
making it as safe as nitro-glycerine in clay, there when you need it but
safe enough to toss around.
Don't you chemical whizzes know of something, a catalyst perhaps, that
can do that? Perhaps if you bonded it with some inexpensive substance
like carbon, there is plenty of coal still around...
.
hanson wrote:

Fred Kasner wrote to Andro:
That idea has been played around with on this NG many years ago. Jed
Checketts, a sincere, but misinformed inventor produced an encapsulated
version of NaH or Na that could be crushed and dropped into water to
produce hydrogen. He saw this a way to produce hydrogen on demand to feed
an engine. However the dangers of hydrogen aside he was also transporting
a dangerous solution for a passenger vehicle that was a lye solution. Can
you see the hazard when a collision sundered the tank and a strong lye
solution splashed out onto a city street? Also his processes for producing
the NaH used some considerable chemical processes which produced the CO2
that he felt he was avoiding in such a process. He eventually left the
field and sold his company for producing the process. We have heard no
more of this and Jed has not been on this NG for quite a few years. I can
see a couple of niche uses for such a system but not any wide spread use.
Getting rid of the lye solution is one super problem.
FK

hanson wrote:

(3) on 2/23-2003 the Saudis sent their next depeche in which

(4) from 2007 on the Arabs sent yet a message once more.

SoKaz, urge your ilk here and the ones in the USA's parasite

and urge your kin, here and there, to stop the corruption that

So, Kaz, urge them to LEAN to live in peace with their neighbors