HHO ( hydrogen ) for cars true/false

[wumpus]

12 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

An upcoming car engine will use an movable crankshaft to change the compression ratio while driving. It would also need to change the ignition setting and fuel balance but that is software. I assume this also have movable cams. 
Benefit is to combine high performance and low fuel use. 

It sounds nearly ideal*.  It also is *way* too complex to be sold alongside the scam entries listed here.  While pretty much any modern car can have the "ignition setting and fuel balance" changed (by either flashing or replacing the ECU), the whole engine is a big deal (although that miller cycle is just waiting to destroy the turbo with the wrong value opening at the wrong time).

Also include chips that *don't* flash or replace the ECU in the list of scams: these "chips" do almost nothing and if you are unlucky try to change things by interfering with the engine's signals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGtImIP6j3A (note that these aren't the most accurate guys around, their love of black intercoolers has been debunked, but this is a pretty straightforward scam).

* About the only thing "left on the table" are things in a hybrid (and the possibility of using something like a turbo to run a generator to charge the battery).  Unfortunately, all these things add weight (not to mention cost) that the infinity engine doesn't need.  Expect an amazing combination of power and efficiency, as well as some rather strained engineers making sure the controls work *every* time over hundreds of thousands of kilometers (as much as it impresses me, there's no way I'd buy one the first year it's available).

[softweir]

On 8/31/2016 at 0:37 PM, Nefrums said:

so by burning 2H+O that turns it to H2O (water) you get more energy out then the energy you put in to separate the H2O into 2H+O,  logical and absolutely not violating any of the most basic physical laws at all....

 

Your irony magnetised my monitor and has wrecked it. I will bill you!

[p1t1o]

16 minutes ago, softweir said:

Your irony magnetised my monitor and has wrecked it. I will bill you!

At least your monitor gets 40% more miles-per-gallon now!

[Zhetaan]

All right, the on-board oxyhydrogen generator is a scam, the first and second laws of thermodynamics still apply, and that's all well and good.

I'm curious to know whether there could be any benefit to off-loading the production of the gas to a stationary unit.  That is to say, if you happen to have a solar system or wind turbine and can get the electricity essentially for free, is it possible to store the gas and use it as a supplemental fuel source?

Obvious concerns that I can come up with are:

1) that the gas could wreck the engine or otherwise cause damage to internal components, thus reducing the life of the vehicle and costing more than is saved in fuel,

2) that the gas cannot be stored at high pressure lest it explode, thus making it impossible to use except in the aforementioned scammy on-board generators, and

3) that the gas, even if it is relatively safe both to use in the engine and to compress for storage, simply does not burn well enough or efficiently enough to recover even the limited expense of generating it--essentially, unless one had an industrial complex making the stuff, the vehicle would burn through the supply faster than it could be generated, even at 100% production.

In other words, is the oxyhydrogen gas quintessentially uneconomical, or is it only the on-board generation units that are the scam?

[Nibb31]

You won't see any benefit at all. But you will screw up the O2 sensor's readings, which might cause the ECU to run the engine extremely lean. This might reduce fuel consumption to an extent, but it will also cause detonation, valve damage, and increase NO2 emissions.

[PB666]

If you serialized thermocouples around the exhaust system after the catalytic converter, there is alot of waste heat. In addition solar panels can be used to generate solar power. Toyota does not like to put these directly inline with the other electronics because unfiltered static from the panels messes with the other systems.

On your typical car there is alot of waste energy, so there is no need to summarily grab the perpetual motion machine argument . . . . however, there are more efficient ways of storing waste power.

Electrolysis requires water of a certain type, and is very inefficient and produces alot of waste heat.

Compressed air can store work and deliver it on demand (such as for starting vehicles, low weight force engaged shaft impellers can deliver rotational force). You can even used ambient cooled compressed air to aircondition a vehicle. Directly you can eject it out the back at several 280 m/s of (maximum) exhaust velocity 50 kilos of gas with and ISP of 27.4 can generate 13500 dV/cars mass = about 20 miles per hour or add about 2 mph on the freeway (about the same amount on drag the A/C causes when its running). The problem is that you can only do this for a few seconds unless the upstream power conversion is hideously efficient.

Isolated lithium ion battery can store and deliver power just about anywhere with about 90% efficiency. This is particularly useful for hybrid cars because the weak point in the power-train is the first 10 kph. The tranny and engine are about 25% less efficient than optimal because of this. If you can remove the first 5 mph of acceleration you can shift to a continuous variable transmission, and the engines performance can be tuned to just driving not start motions. IOW use an alternative power system to provide impulse for the smalll amount to time the car needs to get moving and devote the engine and power train to efficient motion once moving. 

 

[Red Iron Crown]

49 minutes ago, PB666 said:

In addition solar panels can be used to generate solar power.

Not in any significant amount for operating a production passenger car that meets collision standards. At best a few hundred watts, enough for trickle charging and not much else.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Not in any significant amount for operating a production passenger car that meets collision standards. At best a few hundred watts, enough for trickle charging and not much else.

Actually for an SUV you can generate up to 1000 watts of power. That is sufficient to trickle charge but also provide climb and acceleration assist with a small battery and a auxiliary motor.

Again, direct wiring solar into the electronics has been the biggest hold back, because the solar feed has to be highly filtered. One could have two batteries, one that feeds power to the car and the other from the battery that then switch when loaded to supply and the other to load. As for engineering panels onto a vehicle, the bigger problem, aerodynamics, is doable.

 

[Red Iron Crown]

Just now, PB666 said:

Actually for an SUV you can generate up to 1000 watts of power. That is sufficient to trickle charge but also provide climb and acceleration assist with a small battery and a auxiliary motor.

Still insignificant for motive power. 1.34 horsepower (and that only in direct, perpendicular sunlight) is just not worth the complexity and cost for the gain of less than a percent for most SUVs. 

It makes more sense in an EV or hybrid where the electrical storage and propulsion system already exists, but even then it's not a significant part of the equation during operation. 

[magnemoe]

On 1.9.2016 at 2:56 PM, Nibb31 said:

You won't see any benefit at all. But you will screw up the O2 sensor's readings, which might cause the ECU to run the engine extremely lean. This might reduce fuel consumption to an extent, but it will also cause detonation, valve damage, and increase NO2 emissions.

Yes, its another factor, an efficient engine runs very hot this create a lot of no2.  

[lajoswinkler]

It's a scam. "HHO" is a term used exclusively by either ignorants or scam artists. The term was invented by the latter ones.

It does not help the engine and it certainly can't allow the car to "run on water". At actually slowly ruins the engine block by turning it more and more brittle and by introducing excess water vapor and acid/base/salt (whatever electrolyte is used) inside.

 

It's a scam that's been coming back every few decades, with its latest incarnation being called "HHO" and spreading on Internet forums dealing with car modifications which are visited, let's be honest, mostly by people who aren't knowledgeable of thermodynamics and chemistry.

[steve_v]

On 2/09/2016 at 0:43 AM, Zhetaan said:

In other words, is the oxyhydrogen gas quintessentially uneconomical, or is it only the on-board generation units that are the scam?

There's nothing stopping you from running an engine on an H2 + O2 mix, but there's little point in using a mix (free O2 fron the atmosphere and all that) and it makes storing it ludicrously dangerous. H2 is bad enough on it's own.
You would need extensive re-tuning of the ECU though, either for gas only operation of for a constant ratio. Poking some H2 in every now and then is bound to confuse the computer.
Given the inherent problems safely storing hydrogen, I really doubt it's worth the effort - perhaps if one was using it to run a fuel-cell, but then you're talking electric, and batteries are pretty good these days. Just get an EV and use your windmill to charge it.  

[Green Baron]

Oh, by the way, i once tried to run an engine on H2O. Didn't work.

After taking on diesel on a sailing boat i left the tank open, then was commanded to clean the deck from the saltwater with a water hose. The tank-opening was flush in the deck and some 30l of water ran into the tank despite of a sign "diesel only" before i realized.

The owner was not amused :-)

 

[DDE]

5 hours ago, lajoswinkler said:

It's a scam. "HHO" is a term used exclusively by either ignorants or scam artists. The term was invented by the latter ones.

They should try 'dihydrogen monoxide' for a change.

[razark]

1 hour ago, DDE said:

They should try 'dihydrogen monoxide' for a change.

I don't know.  I've heard that's very dangerous stuff.

[cubinator]

HHO is actually dihydrogen monoxide. Don't be fooled, this stuff is way too dangerous to even consider using as fuel for anything but rockets. /joke

Hydrogen/oxygen cars might actually make for an interesting concept, albeit a bit difficult considering the...ahem...behavior of liquid hydrogen at human-friendly temperatures. What I'm talking about doesn't violate thermodynamics like "put water in, get water and energy out", it means pumping hydrogen into your car at the gas station. Would hydrogen from a fuel tank be able to combust with oxygen in the air, or would there have to be an oxidizer tank on the car as well? Is it easier to harvest hydrogen than fossil fuels? (It's obviously going to take something more complex than a plastic jerry can to hold.) Which would be a safer, more economic, or more fuel-efficient option to fuel a car with (assuming an abundance of hydrogen fueling stations): liquid hydrogen, which must be cooled to extreme temperatures or it will boil off, or pressurized hydrogen gas, which doesn't require cooling but can give you a very bad time if ruptured? I'm going to look into this a little bit.

Edit: apparently such vehicles do exist, using hydrogen gas as fuel and combusting it with oxygen from the air to produce energy for a motor. 

Edited September 3, 2016 by cubinator

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Oh, by the way, i once tried to run an engine on H2O. Didn't work.

After taking on diesel on a sailing boat i left the tank open, then was commanded to clean the deck from the saltwater with a water hose. The tank-opening was flush in the deck and some 30l of water ran into the tank despite of a sign "diesel only" before i realized.

The owner was not amused :-)

Lots of people has tried to run marine diesels on h2o, it would be very practical if it worked.
Yes you could do it, however an pure hydrogen fusion reactor is hard. 

 

[cantab]

Ways to improve your fuel economy: Drive more efficiently. Keep the tyres at the right pressure. Look for bargains on fuel but don't make too big a detour for them. Take the roofrack off. Grow your own biofuel, if you happen to own a field and a tractor. Etc.

Ways to not improve your fuel economy: Stupid scam gadgets that claim to break the laws of physics.

[lajoswinkler]

On 04.09.2016. at 2:03 AM, cantab said:

Ways to improve your fuel economy: Drive more efficiently. Keep the tyres at the right pressure. Look for bargains on fuel but don't make too big a detour for them. Take the roofrack off. Grow your own biofuel, if you happen to own a field and a tractor. Etc.

Ways to not improve your fuel economy: Stupid scam gadgets that claim to break the laws of physics.

I don't think that would be efficient at all. Such things become efficient (poorly; it's a controversial thing) when done on massive scales.

But you're spot on about other things.

[Peder]

Hello all.
Thank you very much for all the many good comments and debate on the HHO topic, it made me wiser about many things.  ;-)