HHO H2O Water or Dihydrogen Oxide They all come three ways as a vapor or gaseous state, a liquid, or a solid or ice. It's still just water and it "DON'T burn" So far all the replacements for gasoline cost more to produce and consume more energy and create more pollution than just driving your every day auto.
Some day it may happen but for now these are a replay of the same old scams that have been around since the car was invented.
Every time gas gets expensive, these scams surface. They are all just scams.
If any of them worked, do you think GM would be worried about meeting the new tougher mileage standards?
These vensors just play on people's desperation. To a person making a say $20,000 income, $4 gas is a commuting killer, and these unscrupulous vendors try to prey on them.
Every time gas gets expensive, these scams surface. They are all just scams.
If any of them worked, do you think GM would be worried about meeting the new tougher mileage standards?
These vensors just play on people's desperation. To a person making a say $20,000 income, $4 gas is a commuting killer, and these unscrupulous vendors try to prey on them.
Jim G
Hey guys,
Had some free time (finally) and thought I'd drop a note. Looks like the forum is doing well.
Yes, there's a ton of 'gas mileage' scams...they always start advertising in the spring of the year when your vehicle mileage naturally begins to get better because of faster warmups, warmer weather, and better fuel. Gas is hitting 1.40 a litre up here, same for diesel. The ONLY thing I've ever found and have professionally endorsed is remapping the engine computer.
Whizbang air gadgets, flow enhancers, etc...magnets to H2 generators just are not going to work. Enhancing airflow will always decrease mileage in a closed loop system.
One H2 Generator company recently contacted us, and I asked them how much H2 their generator made. The answer was around 2 litres of gas in a minute. I asked further clarification of whether this was at any specific 'pressure' to try to figure out the density of this gas. Ultimately, lets say it makes 2 cubic litres of gas in a minute, which is very much on the high side.
If an engine is 6.0 litres of displacement, rough rule of thumb dictates that at 600 RPM (idle), this engine should have moved 1800 "litres" of air...in a minute. This would be a ratio of something that couldn't possibly do much. Another way to look at it is with the MAF sensor....note the amount of air movement in lbs or grams/sec. Typical idle is 7-8grams of air by weight per second.
Take care, and keep up the SSR's alive !
Lyndon
Westers Garage (Only 7K on my Blurrrrr !)
Last edited by Programmer : 08-09-2008 at 10:09 AM.
Reason: No Coffee !!
Programmer: It's early in the morning, and I have not yuet had my coffee, but I can tell you were sleepy when you posted.
A 4-cycle engine only sucks in more air for eachcylinder every SECOND revolution. So, at 600 rpm, air required is:
600 / 2 x 6.0 liters = 1800 liters.
STILL a very bad ratio of course, so your point stands.
Hey Programmer, how do you help a sidevalve engine breathe? (1952 288 cubic inch inline 8 cylinder Packard - my temporary daily driver while I wait for David Horner to do the body work and paint on "Red"). When I add AC to it, I figure it is going to knock the wind out of its sails, since it has only 135 crank horsepower to begin with, and THAT was optimisitically measured per 1952 standrads that were, uh, "less stringent".
Yes, corrected that ! Sheesh...I run a dyno all day long, and can't even get RPM right when I'm tired.
Anyways, get the static compression up first. Build a good engine to begin with. It's hard to make a silk purse from a sows ear, but for some reason, the common thought out there is that you can make big HP from low compression.
That'll get the torque up. After that, it's cylinder head, intake and exhaust work. Is this a 'flathead' engine (valves in cylinder block) ??
Yes, sidevalve = flathead. I used "sidevalve" so you wouldn't automatically assume a Ford Flathead V8. This is entirely different.
The Packard inline 8 engine was a very high quality engine, and Packard itself applied the "higher compression" methodology to it in 1953 through 1955, when it finally threw in the towel and produced its V8 - just slightly before going out of business altogether.
The Packard Thunderbolt 288 has the following characteristics:
- inline 8
- sidevalve design (i.e. "flathead")
- mechanical lifters
- peak torque at 2000 rpm = 235 ft lb
- peak power at 3600 rpm = 135 hp
- bore = 3.5" and stroke = 3.75"
- 288 cu inch displacement
- Compression ratio = 7 to 1 (Packard offered optional 7.5 to 1, but only added 3 hp!)
- 5 main beaings and crank weighs almost 100 lb (so you cannot spin it too fast!)
- weight with clutch & transmission = 860 lb!
- Cast iron head (some more expensive models were larger displacement & aluminum head!)
- currently single 2-barrel Carter carb (Packard itself did use twin carb and 4 barrel configuraitons later and on more costly models)
- single exhaust
- very smoooooooth
Jim G
Last edited by JimGnitecki : 08-09-2008 at 10:30 AM.
I just love to read all the Expert advise in these threads. Of course you all know what an Expert is , don't you?
#1. X is the unknown quanity and spert is a drip under pressure.
#2. Or someone expounding great knowledge, or what he thinks is great knowledge, who happens to be more that 10 miles from home. I will leave you with one last thought........."He who is afraid to experiment, discovers nothing". MSD
Last edited by It do run : 08-12-2008 at 11:07 PM.
"He who is afraid to experiment, discovers nothing".
True, but the key is to understand the physics and chemistry(all developed with past experimentation) in order to have a base to work from. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I did pass high school chemistry. The second law of thermodynamics postulates the conservation of energy theorem. The problem is that it takes more energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis than can be recovered by burning the gases.
The equation gets a little better if you add an electrolyte to the water and add heat, but still not efficient from an overall energy standpoint. Heat in an automobile engine is "free", but the electrical input is not. As someone pointed out earlier, the amount of hydrogen produced is very low and that hydrogen is produced at an overall loss of energy.
There are people a lot smarter than me(and maybe even you) working on the electrolysis process, looking for the magic electrolyte to add to water or better anodes/cathodes to gather the gases. There may or may not be a solution to the problem, but most likely it isn't going to be Gomer and Goober with a piece of PVC pipe.
So why are the strange anecdotal results showing up? Old timers used to add a dash of water to the carburetor to clean out an old engine. It is marginally effective at blowing out carbon buildup as long as you don't blow the gaskets and rings. This is an old trick that used to be done on engines to revive hopeless cases. The newer gas additives do the same thing with less risk. It's reasonable to see a short term improvement after cleaning the cylinders with a squirt of water, but it's not a sustainable long term improvement and will eventually destroy the engine. But don't take my word for it, do the experiment.
texster68
Last edited by texster68 : 08-12-2008 at 09:27 PM.
(Only 7K on my Blurrrrr !)
Linear Mode
