|
Manufactures have huge R&D departments. If any of these things worked they would be using them. Making oxygen on a sub you want to keep underwater has a huge purpose despite cost.
If these things worked you would not sell on line for £50 but sell to a car maker for £xmillion. How I made £100m through property investment; buy the book for £9.99. Why are you selling books if you have made £100m?
|
Manufactures have huge R&D departments. If any of these things worked they would be using them. Making oxygen on a sub you want to keep underwater has a huge purpose despite cost.
If these things worked you would not sell on line for £50 but sell to a car maker for £xmillion. How I made £100m through property investment; buy the book for £9.99. Why are you selling books if you have made £100m?
This idea is a variation on perpetual motion machines, quite impractical as any physical chemist would tell you, given the large currents needed for any worthwhile amount of hydrogen.
Here are the figures:
The exact amount is 0.007 Liters/minute @ STP (aka standard Liters per min, or SLPM) of H2 for every Amp that is put through each cell (0.007 SLPM/A/cell)
In practice, this gives you two variables to play with: Current and Number of Cells. For example. If you wanted 7 SLPM of H2 you could design a single cell electrolyzer and pump 1000 A through it (0.007SLPM/A/cell * 1000A * 1 cell) or you could design one with 10 cells and only have to put 100 A through it (0.007 * 100A * 10 cells). This allows you to get a rough estimate of how many cells you might need based on the current available.
Edited by galileo on 21/04/2018 at 00:05
|
|
|
Manufactures have huge R&D departments. If any of these things worked they would be using them.
You've never heard of the guy who invented the engine that ran on water alone? On the day he was going to announce it to the world's media, he was killed in a mysterious hit & run.
Big oil and the car manufacturing cartel will do anything to protect their monopolies *tinfoil hat*
|
Manufactures have huge R&D departments. If any of these things worked they would be using them.
You've never heard of the guy who invented the engine that ran on water alone? On the day he was going to announce it to the world's media, he was killed in a mysterious hit & run.
Big oil and the car manufacturing cartel will do anything to protect their monopolies *tinfoil hat*
I'm just trying to figure out whether your tongue is in your cheek or not. Not always easy to do so on a forum. Claimed PMM2 machines like these don't and can't work, ever (in my view).
It would be different if they took energy out of the air, as modern A/C heat pump systems do when in use (hence why they have a coefficient of performance [COP] of more than 1, even in heating mode in winter) as they either take heat in (winter heating) or reject it (summer cooling), though obviously are far better doing this in summer cooling mode and thus achieve far better COPs when doing so.
HHO machines don't do this - they just use the engine power to produce small amounts of hydrogen from incoming air to give the engine a boost, but unfortunately the former process uses more energy (taking useful power away from the driven wheels etc) to make the hydrogen than can ever be added back, even if the former was 99.999% efficient. Simple physics.
|
|
Nit necessarily, Andy. For example, if adding a small amount of hydrogen improved the ignition wave of the air/fuel mixture, enabling more energy to be extracted, efficiency might be improved. Not saying it is but it is not a simple calculation.
|
Nit necessarily, Andy. For example, if adding a small amount of hydrogen improved the ignition wave of the air/fuel mixture, enabling more energy to be extracted, efficiency might be improved. Not saying it is but it is not a simple calculation.
Refer to the figurees I quoted above, 1000 amps to produce 7 litres of hydrogen per minute.
Even a 1 litre engine at 1000 rpm sucks in 1000 litres of air per minute, how much difference would 7 litres of hydrogen make IF you had a power source for the 1000 amps?
For larger engines at higher RPM the proportion of hydrogen in the intake gas becomes negligibly small.
(The "inventor" admits his systtem has been used on submarines - a nuclear powered submarine would have power enough and weight/space capacity for electrolyte cells,a car will not.)
Edited by galileo on 21/04/2018 at 16:54
|
|
|
Nit necessarily, Andy. For example, if adding a small amount of hydrogen improved the ignition wave of the air/fuel mixture, enabling more energy to be extracted, efficiency might be improved. Not saying it is but it is not a simple calculation.
Oh dear. Watch the John Cadogan videos on You Tube. He explains better than I can EXACTLY how you are dead wrong. He's not just a commentator/journo, but an engineer and knows his stuff.
|
|
Andy, your comment was based on the energy returned on burning hydrogen compared with the energy needed to produce it. I was simply pointing out that there may be ither factors to consider. Presumably using your logic, injecting water into a combustion system would not be beneficial.
|
Andy, your comment was based on the energy returned on burning hydrogen compared with the energy needed to produce it. I was simply pointing out that there may be ither factors to consider. Presumably using your logic, injecting water into a combustion system would not be beneficial.
Water injection is not comparable to the 'magic hydrogen' scheme. Water injection has many benefits and is a well proven technology using a cheap and harmless substance.
Used for WW2 aircraft engines and in more recent times for race/drag cars.
|
|
|
Andy, your comment was based on the energy returned on burning hydrogen compared with the energy needed to produce it. I was simply pointing out that there may be ither factors to consider. Presumably using your logic, injecting water into a combustion system would not be beneficial.
If I am wrong (and John Cadogan, plus many others here and elsewhere) on this issue, put your money where your mouth is and buy it, fit it, and tell us how much 'extra' mpg you're getting as a result in a scientific, public test (just in case ego requires the results to be 'fiddled' to get round why the adventure might've been an monumental mistake based on bad science).
If not, then arrange for another mug, ahem, sorry, 'customer' to do the same testing (not just believing the hype on the 'manufacturer's' website) and get back to us with the results.
Then we'll see who is right and who...isn't. Won't we?
|
|
Your assumption that I believe the device actually works is way off the mark. My point was that the assumption you made was one which does not allow for other factors to influence the process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nit necessarily, Andy. For example, if adding a small amount of hydrogen improved the ignition wave of the air/fuel mixture, enabling more energy to be extracted, efficiency might be improved. Not saying it is but it is not a simple calculation.
BUT
Think about what an ECU does . It comtrols the air/fuel mix.. and assumes the AIR is err AIR - NOT air and added hydrogen. So it cannot know what has been added to the air which the engine is using.
So I am being asked to believe that adding hydrogen improves efficiency and the ECU does nothing to allow for that.
NOT in any way believable.
|
|
The amount of power you get from burning hydrogen is very small, and it also burns very quickly. That is why fuel cells were developed to take hydrogen and and convert it into useful electrical energy. This guy is proposing taking electricity and making hydrogen? I am sceptical to say the least.
|
This guy is proposing taking electricity and making hydrogen? I am sceptical to say the least.
I believe the main selling point was that adding some hydrogen would clean up the exhaust. He did also claim improved consumption, which most of us here don't believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
