Car running on water...

[dockeryfan]

So it's an old topic, but I'm curious if any mechanics out there ever tried to boost their engine efficiency with HHO. It does sound plausible that you could use the current of a running engine to run an electrolysis cell, isolate hydrogen gas from water, and feed that right into a cylinder. The videos have been on the net for years, and they even did a mythbusters on it.

I have never known of anyone, or even heard of anyone, to try this.

So I put it out to the ES community. Has anyone ever met someone who tried this?

[greenspandan]

i don't know anything about this, but any car made in the last 10 years has computer controlled ignition timing and i would think probably freak out if something other than 87-94 octane unleaded were blowing up in the cylinder.

also, at first glance, i'm not sure how you are getting past the first law of thermodynamics. it sounds like you're trying to get more energy out of a system than you're putting in. using the current generated by the engine to feed energy back into the engine, and having the result be a net gain rather than a loss, should be impossible. maybe i'm misunderstanding the concept here.

[mjah]

You'd be generating electricity by putting an additional constant load on the gas engine, only to run that energy (subject to losses) back into the cylinders with Hydrogen as the carrying medium, where additional thermodynamic inefficiencies would further reduce the energy yield when the Hydrogen combusted.

First Law of Thermodynamics. If you could get the electricity for free in the first place, it would be a different story. But running your air conditioner is not free, and running a Hydrogen separator wouldn't be free either.

[dockeryfan]

You'd be generating electricity by putting an additional constant load on the gas engine, only to run that energy (subject to losses) back into the cylinders with Hydrogen as the carrying medium, where additional thermodynamic inefficiencies would further reduce the energy yield when the Hydrogen combusted.

First Law of Thermodynamics. If you could get the electricity for free in the first place, it would be a different story. But running your air conditioner is not free, and running a Hydrogen separator wouldn't be free either.

Well, my knowledge of engines is poor, but let me know if the first law of thermodynamics is still broken.

Engine fires with gasoline, turns a crankshaft. That mechanical power of the crankshaft turns the alternator and generates current. The current runs the lights, the radio, charges the battery, etc. Why couldn't you use some of that current to run an electrolytic cell to generate hydrogen, which would then feed back into the firing chamber as extra fuel? You would still need gasoline, but would simply be increasing the efficiency of the firing chamber. Maybe you need much more electricity to run an electrolytic cell. I have no idea.

I think what you are saying is that just like running an air conditioner, running an electrolytic cell would be an extra load on the engine. (Which I actually don't fully understand, but I know to be true from personal experience) I'm just not sure how much of a load the electrolytic cell would be compared to an air conditioner. Does running the radio decrease fuel efficiency, or does some threshold have to be met?

[PeterMP]

Well, my knowledge of engines is poor, but let me know if the first law of thermodynamics is still broken.

Engine fires with gasoline, turns a crankshaft. That mechanical power of the crankshaft turns the alternator and generates current. The current runs the lights, the radio, charges the battery, etc. Why couldn't you use some of that current to run an electrolytic cell to generate hydrogen, which would then feed back into the firing chamber as extra fuel? You would still need gasoline, but would simply be increasing the efficiency of the firing chamber. Maybe you need much more electricity to run an electrolytic cell. I have no idea.

I think what you are saying is that just like running an air conditioner, running an electrolytic cell would be an extra load on the engine. (Which I actually don't fully understand, but I know to be true from personal experience) I'm just not sure how much of a load the electrolytic cell would be compared to an air conditioner. Does running the radio decrease fuel efficiency, or does some threshold have to be met?

The problem is that you are generating your hydrogen from water. Presumably, if you did this then, when you use the H as "fuel" in your firing chamber, that would be it reacting with oxygen to reform water.

You're going from water, to hydrogen, back to water. Assuming 100% effeciency (which wouldn't be the case), it would be completely energetically neutral. And since it wouldn't be 100% effecient, you'd be wasting energy.

[greenspandan]

it's that darned entropy.

[Titaw]

What I don't understand iswhy we can have alternators charging car batteries and run electronics in the car but if you have an electric car you have to plug it in. Why not have an alternator on each wheel that charges the batteries of the car while in motion? I have no knowledge of engines so I could be completely off base.

[Pwyl]

Unless you're somehow capturing the waste energy released by the engine (ie anything not going directly into propulsion) you're not going to see a net gain.

[PokerPacker]

Well, my knowledge of engines is poor, but let me know if the first law of thermodynamics is still broken.

Engine fires with gasoline, turns a crankshaft. That mechanical power of the crankshaft turns the alternator and generates current. The current runs the lights, the radio, charges the battery, etc. Why couldn't you use some of that current to run an electrolytic cell to generate hydrogen, which would then feed back into the firing chamber as extra fuel? You would still need gasoline, but would simply be increasing the efficiency of the firing chamber. Maybe you need much more electricity to run an electrolytic cell. I have no idea.

I think what you are saying is that just like running an air conditioner, running an electrolytic cell would be an extra load on the engine. (Which I actually don't fully understand, but I know to be true from personal experience) I'm just not sure how much of a load the electrolytic cell would be compared to an air conditioner. Does running the radio decrease fuel efficiency, or does some threshold have to be met?

the amount of energy stored from electrolysis will be equal to or less than the amount of energy put into the process to store it. That energy comes from the alternator in the form of electricity. the alternator receives its energy in the form of kinematic motion from the engine, and the engine receives its energy from combustion of gasoline. running the electrolysis process would eat up more energy, and if you trace back the path of the flow of energy. In the end, you're basically charging one battery with another (taking energy stored in the form of gasoline and converting it into HHO). Beyond that, our conversion processes are not very efficient. We lose a lot of energy when converting it from one form to another, so converting gasoline into kinematic energy through combustion, and then to electricity, and then to HHO, and then back into kinematic energy would be a net loss of energy compared to just running off gasoline.

also, having a huge electrical load put on the alternator would really cut down on its life.

---------- Post added May-18th-2011 at 12:43 PM ----------

What I don't understand iswhy we can have alternators charging car batteries and run electronics in the car but if you have an electric car you have to plug it in. Why not have an alternator on each wheel that charges the batteries of the car while in motion? I have no knowledge of engines so I could be completely off base.

because if you hooked up the alternator to the wheel, it would steal energy from the wheel. the wheel's energy is kinematic. by stealing the energy, its basically bringing the car to a stop. However, there is a similar setup in hybrid cars where they hook it up to the breaking system, so that when you ARE stopping, it activates an alternator type dealie to capture some of that wasted energy and put it in the battery.

[mjah]

Maybe you need much more electricity to run an electrolytic cell. I have no idea.

Bingo. On the money.

All of the Hydrogen-bound energy you'd release in the vehicle cylinder -- and then some -- would come from additional electricity generated by the alternator, which in turn would come from your engine's combustion of extra gasoline. It's more efficient to just explode the gasoline in the cylinder and drive the vehicle via the crankshaft, rather than siphon energy from the crankshaft to go alternator -> fuel cell -> hydrogen tank -> cylinder -> crankshaft again, with losses at each step.

[HBnotBlades]

Bingo. On the money.

All of the Hydrogen-bound energy you'd release in the vehicle cylinder -- and then some -- would come from additional electricity generated by the alternator, which in turn would come from your engine's combustion of extra gasoline. It's more efficient to just explode the gasoline in the cylinder and drive the vehicle via the crankshaft, rather than siphon energy from the crankshaft to go alternator -> fuel cell -> hydrogen tank -> cylinder -> crankshaft again, with losses at each step.

Yup. Good explination.

The key takeaway is that the electrolysis process to turn H2O into HHO requires energy. In a perfect world, we'd get all of that energy back during combustion, when HHO reverts to H2O, but we don't get back anymore energy that was required to create HHO in the first place or else we violate the laws of thermodynamics.

In the real world however, we have to deal with losses. We lose energy when we create the oxyhydrogen (HHO) and we lose energy in combustion, meaning that a cycle of electrolysis and combustion built in to an automotive engine would be a net energy loss.

[greenspandan]

What I don't understand iswhy we can have alternators charging car batteries and run electronics in the car but if you have an electric car you have to plug it in. Why not have an alternator on each wheel that charges the batteries of the car while in motion? I have no knowledge of engines so I could be completely off base.

it's the energy released from burning the gasoline that provides the charge to the battery (beyond its initial charge). as others are explaining, the laws of thermodynamics basically state that in a closed system, the amount of energy you get out of it cannot exceed the amount of energy you put into it (gasoline is just like a battery. it's a different storage medium for energy). in the real world, every time you move or change that energy from electrical to heat to motion and back, you lose some of it. i'm not a physicist so i probably am not precisely nailing the exact terms but that's the gist.

[Devastate]

My car runs of rainbows and good intentions

[Mickalino]

My car runs of rainbows and good intentions

My car runs on fumes, and still gets me there

[Tulane Skins Fan]

What about Gatorade instead?

Ba dum dum.

[Mickalino]

What about Gatorade instead?

Ba dum dum.

For the electrolytes ?

[DieselPwr44]

This guy already tried it...

Doesn't work.........

[dockeryfan]

You'd be generating electricity by putting an additional constant load on the gas engine, only to run that energy (subject to losses) back into the cylinders with Hydrogen as the carrying medium, where additional thermodynamic inefficiencies would further reduce the energy yield when the Hydrogen combusted.

First Law of Thermodynamics. If you could get the electricity for free in the first place, it would be a different story. But running your air conditioner is not free, and running a Hydrogen separator wouldn't be free either.

Well, that's what I'm trying to see. AT this stage, it's all just a thought experiment, but I wanted to know if someone actually tried it. You say you can't get electricity for free, but there probably is a min amount that the alternator does, and if you don't use it to run lights or radio, it'll just charge the battery or be lost. Maybe running an electrolytic cell flies under the radar like that, so in effect it WOULD be free electricity. Never having made one of these cells, I have no idea how much juice you need.

I know that an ICE runs pretty inefficiently. I have heard from mechanics that the engine only captures like 30% of the energy max. Well, if a little hydrogen in the mix increases the efficiency in the firing chamber, maybe you DO end up with better fuel efficiency, even if it does cost some energy to get there.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

For the electrolytes ?

Its what plants need.

[PokerPacker]

Its what plants need.

they don't need 'em, just crave 'em.

[Burgold]

Y'know if it takes a miracle for a man to walk on water how do you think a car is going to run on it?

[greenspandan]

I know that an ICE runs pretty inefficiently. I have heard from mechanics that the engine only captures like 30% of the energy max. Well, if a little hydrogen in the mix increases the efficiency in the firing chamber, maybe you DO end up with better fuel efficiency, even if it does cost some energy to get there.

the total potential energy of the system is only what is stored in the gasoline (plus whatever's stored in the battery). as you burn that gas, you move the energy around from the combustion chamber to the wheels, or to the alternator to charge the battery. overall, you gain no energy by sending that energy through another system to undergo additional transformations. you can't create additional energy in a closed system by ANY process.

that 30% efficiency number is just talking about how much of the energy stored in the gasoline is lost in changing forms from gas to heat to motion, and getting it through the drivetrain to the wheels. adding in another set of transformations -- electricity to hydrogen (which is essentially another battery) to heat again -- doesn't affect the efficiency of the other systems, and would introduce additional total energy loss (because all transformations of energy result in energy lost).

again i hope i'm not making anyone who is good at physics cringe with my terminology, but i think i have the concepts right.

[PeterMP]

the total potential energy of the system is only what is stored in the gasoline (plus whatever's stored in the battery). as you burn that gas, you move the energy around from the combustion chamber to the wheels, or to the alternator to charge the battery. overall, you gain no energy by sending that energy through another system to undergo additional transformations. you can't create additional energy in a closed system by ANY process.

that 30% efficiency number is just talking about how much of the energy stored in the gasoline is lost in changing forms from gas to heat to motion, and getting it through the drivetrain to the wheels. adding in another set of transformations -- electricity to hydrogen (which is essentially another battery) to heat again -- doesn't affect the efficiency of the other systems, and would introduce additional total energy loss (because all transformations of energy result in energy lost).

again i hope i'm not making anyone who is good at physics cringe with my terminology, but i think i have the concepts right.

You actually have it done pretty well. The two big things are the alternator is NOT just taking on "excess" energy. The system has been deliberately designed to shunt some of the energy produced from the gasoline to systems other than turning the wheels (i.e. the battery) via the alternator.

And the low efficiency is not due to the energy being "lost" because gasoline is not completely consumed (in an engine that's working well), but because the energy is lost elsewhere in the system due to things like heat and friction.

If you could capture that heat energy, then you might make some gains, but the system you have in place has to be low enough weight and effecient enough that you don't offset it by having to use more gas to move the larger mass and heat is pretty low energy and hard to capture and hold.

[dockeryfan]

the total potential energy of the system is only what is stored in the gasoline (plus whatever's stored in the battery). as you burn that gas, you move the energy around from the combustion chamber to the wheels, or to the alternator to charge the battery. overall, you gain no energy by sending that energy through another system to undergo additional transformations. you can't create additional energy in a closed system by ANY process.

that 30% efficiency number is just talking about how much of the energy stored in the gasoline is lost in changing forms from gas to heat to motion, and getting it through the drivetrain to the wheels. adding in another set of transformations -- electricity to hydrogen (which is essentially another battery) to heat again -- doesn't affect the efficiency of the other systems, and would introduce additional total energy loss (because all transformations of energy result in energy lost).

again i hope i'm not making anyone who is good at physics cringe with my terminology, but i think i have the concepts right.

Yes. I have heard this before. But what I'm really looking for is someone with actual experience with engines. (This isn't the bible where someone quotes chapter and verse of the laws of thermodynamics and everyone joins in a resounding amen.) If the hydrogen burns hotter/cleaner/etc, and a little added to the chamber helps you get more out of the gasoline...then in effect, you would get more out of your fuel.

Now how much energy does it cost to produce the H gas? Does that constitute a load on the engine? Do you just end up using more gasoline to do this?

That is what I am talking about.

If

[greenspandan]

well, if it contributed appreciable gains in fuel efficiency, i'm sure the manufacturers would already be doing it somewhere in the their product line. if it was an issue of cost, it'd be a premium feature offered on SOMEBODY's luxury cars, and if it was an issue of making engines "too efficient for the oil companies liking" it'd still show up in hybrids or econo cars, where MPG is paramount. but that is just a supposition, certainly not proof of anything.