Water4gas

-
The six stroke engine was one of Bruce Crower's inventions and seems fairly plausible. Water injection usually is more of an anti-detonant, letting you run lower grade gasoline, more timing, or more boost depending on just what you're up to.

Duster - are you planning to do a dyno test of this thing? I've never seen that done before, and since there's no way this thing could make more mileage by substituting for fuel, if such a thing could possibly work it would need to be by increasing efficiency. So if it did work that way, it should also show a proportional increase in power on a dyno - or you could scope the injector duty cycle and see if it makes the same amount of power with less fuel. But I've never seen one of the people who claim it works ever try this.
 
Right Matt........It seems the developers skip the important tests, and want us to cling to personal testimonies.

The enthusiasts won't grasp this technology with any fervor until some substantive tests are done and the results posted for all to see......and they're going to have to enlist the help of some reputable testing facilities to get it accomplished (not our individuals...I'm talking about the inventor/developers)...........I'm chomping at the bit about this, but don't want to go to great lengths fabricating and testing my own until I see some real documented results...........Dyno testing would be GREAT.

You have a lot of guys watching to see what's gonna take shape. 8)
 
MadScientistMat said:
The six stroke engine was one of Bruce Crower's inventions and seems fairly plausible. Water injection usually is more of an anti-detonant, letting you run lower grade gasoline, more timing, or more boost depending on just what you're up to.

Duster - are you planning to do a dyno test of this thing? I've never seen that done before, and since there's no way this thing could make more mileage by substituting for fuel, if such a thing could possibly work it would need to be by increasing efficiency. So if it did work that way, it should also show a proportional increase in power on a dyno - or you could scope the injector duty cycle and see if it makes the same amount of power with less fuel. But I've never seen one of the people who claim it works ever try this.
Click to expand...

Bruce Crower, I knew it was one of the old school car guys that invented it. Thanks
 
Myth Busters recently did a show on a similar product. The results were that MAYBE the product produced some hydrogen from water, but not nearly enough to affect any performance difference on a vehicle. They also hooked up a straight bottle of hydrogen to see if the car would run off of that and it did, but was obviously not tuned for it and wasnt consistent. Bottom line in my mind... yeah, you probably can extract hydrogen from water, but a $100 kit using mason jars and homemade coils of wire just aint gonna get it. Hydrogen burns, so it is a possible method of fueling a car... just gonna need more technology to make it happen.
 
When you get down to the laws of physics and brass tacks, it's the same principle as adding NOS..........If you introduced ANY combustible gas with your fuel mixture, properly atomized, it has to have a positive effect relative to power output or gasoline savings.......

The AMOUNT of that effect is the issue; that is, whether these kits will be cost and labor effective...........

Again, some solid dyno tests would be the ticket.
 
The other problem besides the amount is that the typical generators take power from the engine to produce the hydrogen. The hydrogen would not only have to contribute its own energy to the combustion, it would somehow have to cause the engine to get 20-50% or so more energy out of the gasoline.
 
Well, if you use higher output electronics and parallel batteries, there shouldn't be a short term problem with the needed amperage for the generator coils.....If efficiency is increased by a better burn, and better HP is a result as with NOS (but on a much smaller scale), then gas should be saved overall. 8)
 
MadScientistMat said:
Try sizing what one of these would need to be to have a real effect, and compare it with the tiny size of these typical HHO generators. The gap is astounding. I've calculated out quite a few numbers on these, mostly because I get people asking me about these systems all the time where I work. I wish I could tell them something like "Sure, it works, you just have to add around 10 degrees more timing and 10% less fuel." But doing just a few back of the envelope calculations tells me this idea's doomed. You'd need some really extraordinary proof to convince me that a claim of this working is valid and not the result of a poorly done test or an outright con artist. Here's some of the numbers I calculated.

Amount of water needed to separate to get the energy equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline: 2.2 gallons
Minimum amount of gasoline a gas-powered generator would need to separate 2.2 gallons of water: 3.3 gallons

Mass flow rate of the typical 1 liter / minute hydrogen generator: 5 grams per hour
Mass flow rate of a single fuel injector on a mild street V8: 8600 grams per hour - and there are eight of them.


I've done the math, and if you wanted an onboard hydrogen generator that could take a car from 20 mpg to 30 mpg, you'd need a minimum of 2500 amps. That's not a typo. If you used an alternator, you'd better get a Gilmer belt or a chain to drive it, and the 50+ hp this alternator would sap way more fuel than you'd get by burning the hydrogen. To power it, you'd be looking at a battery pack recharged by household power... and to have it last a decent amount of time, expect it to weigh a metric ton.
Click to expand...

I dont mean to dis your knowledge but...while I do agree that the water4gas system is likely too small to have any real impact i think the theory of it is sound. After all the idea is to supplement the gasoline burn by increasing combustion temps,not replace it. Much the same effect is achieved when installing a propane system on a diesel.


So you and some others seems to have a problem with the energy put in not equating to much energy put out.
Explain the atom bomb then. Or nuclear fission. Lets face it, the laws of physics and thermodynamics as we know them dont mean a whole lot. There were many genius inventors who flat out smashed all we knew about those laws and practically rewrote them. There WILL be an energy revolution,and soon.

For those who have trouble swallowing the $100 for 2 pdf files,I posted this link a while back. It is the same concept, only bigger and more output.

And the best part is it's free.

It was scoffed at by some. I challenge the naysayers to spend the $100 or so to build this hydrogen booster (as I am). Just be aware you need to fool the O2 sensor if so equipped.

http://smacksboosters.110mb.com/

There is a local gent who is running something similar in a mid 80"s Olds V8 sedan. He is netting better than 40 mpg. He made the local paper due to high gas prices. I am a believer just because I feel this is repressed tecnology
 
pastortom1 said:
Well, if you use higher output electronics and parallel batteries, there shouldn't be a short term problem with the needed amperage for the generator coils.....If efficiency is increased by a better burn, and better HP is a result as with NOS (but on a much smaller scale), then gas should be saved overall. 8)
Click to expand...

The trouble is, you'd need a lot of batteries to generate enough hydrogen to do much of anything. I once calculated out what you'd need to get enough energy to get the equivalent of a 1 gallon of gas per hour - the results were things like a 2,500 amp current (assuming a 12 volt electrical system - it would be a better idea to have 2,500 volts and 12 amps), about one ton of batteries, etc.

needsaresto said:
I dont mean to dis your knowledge but...while I do agree that the water4gas system is likely too small to have any real impact i think the theory of it is sound. After all the idea is to supplement the gasoline burn by increasing combustion temps,not replace it. Much the same effect is achieved when installing a propane system on a diesel.
Click to expand...

That's not the theory most people who build these seem to go by - many of them seem to think they're adding fuel. However, if this is working it should be easily measurable using a couple of thermocouple probes to verify a hotter combustion temperature, and a dyno to verify more efficiency. Why have I never seen a dyno test of such a thing?

So you and some others seems to have a problem with the energy put in not equating to much energy put out.
Explain the atom bomb then. Or nuclear fission.
Click to expand...

In both cases, these reactions convert mass to energy, and have nothing to do with the HHO arguement at all.

There were many genius inventors who flat out smashed all we knew about those laws and practically rewrote them. There WILL be an energy revolution,and soon.
Click to expand...

A while ago you were saying the theory is sound, now you are saying that if such a thing works it will require rewriting the laws of physics. Which is it?

It was scoffed at by some. I challenge the naysayers to spend the $100 or so to build this hydrogen booster (as I am). Just be aware you need to fool the O2 sensor if so equipped.
Click to expand...

I've got a better challenge. Anyone in the Atlanta area who thinks they can produce a measurable increase in engine efficiency with an HHO system, PM me and I'll see if I can arrange to get you some time on a chassis dyno. We'll take a couple of pulls with and without the system on, and if it's on an injected car I will be measuring the injector pulse width as a proxy for fuel flow. If this thing works, it should show a significant gain in horsepower as well as mileage since you are claiming it boost efficiency.
 
I don't get the argument over the theory myself. It would just be a simple mater of calculating mileage before and after to prove if this invention works. Period.
 
Longgone said:
I`d like to hear what he`s got to say.
Click to expand...
Welp. Customer walked in the shop today hanging his head, and said "You were right on two counts, Chris." I asked "How so?". He said, the Check Engine Light came on, and the kit didn't work on his vehicle. He actually reported a loss of fuel economy by over 9%. Whoops!

:wack:
 
I'm sorry this is basic junior high chemistry. It simply has to take more energy to crack the water molucule than you would get in burning it. This will do nothing for your mileage. The math on mileage is really quite simple. You can only get a certain amount of energy out of each gallon of gas. The way to improve your mileage is to reduce the energy requirements of you car. How do you do that make it lighter and give it less power. Why do you think scooters get 100 MPG. Light with small motors that won't propel you over 25 MPH. Cars today are heavier and we demand better responsiveness when we drive. Your typical family sedan has 200 horsepower and weighs around 4000 lbs. You just aren't going to get 50 MPG from that.
 
Duster346 said:
Welp. Customer walked in the shop today hanging his head, and said "You were right on two counts, Chris." I asked "How so?". He said, the Check Engine Light came on, and the kit didn't work on his vehicle. He actually reported a loss of fuel economy by over 9%. Whoops!

:wack:
Click to expand...

Damn, that is wacked. Evidently ,the system is not made for everyone. :toothy10:
 
Tadjou said:
I don't get the argument over the theory myself. It would just be a simple mater of calculating mileage before and after to prove if this invention works. Period.
Click to expand...

The biggest trouble is coming up with a good, consistant way to test mileage. My car's mileage seems to bounce around by a good 3-4 mpg between tanks, and my motorcycle has been known to get 10 mpg more in the summer than in the winter.

There have been a lot of people claiming that some patently absurd things (magnets on the fuel line or a spool of wire placed over the negative terminal of the battery, for example) get them better mileage. That's why I have been challenging proponents to try a more rigorous test. A dyno test can yield more repeatable results, and it's possible to conduct the test in a uniform way that isn't affected by driving technique.

I know I may have seemed a bit too abraisive and confrontational with my last post, but my offer to hook up anyone who has a HHO system and would like some more precise testing in the Atlanta area with a dyno test still stands. I get enough people asking about these at work that I'd like to do some testing and have some results, either positive or negative, that I can point them to.
 
An experiment: set your carb to run your engine at 2,000 r.p.m. Take a bottle of propane (soldering tank), put the nozzle over the carb intake, and turn on the gas. If your r.p.m. increases, then you are producing more power. This can also be translated to cruising at a specific speed on the road; you would require less throttle to maintain that specific speed.

Then, there is the question of how much energy Brown's gas provides as compared to the same volume of propane.

As far as the cost of the produced Brown's gas is concerned, you first need to determine how much improvement in mileage/power you are getting from it. Most of the electricity potential produced by your alternator is not used during cruising condition, anyway. A more powerful alternator will draw a little more engine power to turn, but this might be relatively tiny.
 
Duster346 said:
Welp. Customer walked in the shop today hanging his head, and said "You were right on two counts, Chris." I asked "How so?". He said, the Check Engine Light came on, and the kit didn't work on his vehicle. He actually reported a loss of fuel economy by over 9%. Whoops!

:wack:
Click to expand...


If the check engine light came on, wouldn't that put the engine into a limp home mode and be running rich as a default? That would account for the loss in fuel economy. I've had the check engine light come on a few times in my 2005 Grand Caravan and the loss in fuel mileage was terrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top