Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or Not ???

A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.

Two web sites that were mentioned a

http://www.savefuel.ca/oxy-hydrogen/

http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/index.html

Unfortunately, the thread wandered off into the weeds
with much of the discussion being about how you can't
get something for nothing, the energy from the gases
is ultimately drawn from the alternator, etc. That's
not the point.

The claim is that adding these gases into the
carb or fuel injection system results in burning
the fuel more efficiently -- so you're extracting
more energy from the gasoline.

Is there any possibility this could be true?
I talked to a friend of mine yesterday about this
subject, because he's thinking about ordering the
plans to build one. (I don't know if it's from
either of the web sites listed above.) He's got
lots of experience with engines and racing, but
doesn't know a heckuva lot of chemistry.

I told him it seemed like a scam, but that I
really didn't know. It's not unreasonable that
burning could be improved this way. Certainly,
the oxygen would improve burning, like a nitro
system. But, apparently the claim is that the
hydrogen is somehow improving combustion. Any
good scam will have a good story behind it.
Even if it were completely neutral on gas
mileage, after people have invested their time
and money building one, they'll be motivated
to see it in a favorable light. If they don't
do strictly scientific tests, they can easily
delude themselves into believing they see a
benefit. A lot of quack medicine is based on
similar placebo effects.

Anyone got any comments on the plausibility
of these devices? Are there any reliable tests
from trustworthy sources validating or debunking
these devices? The plans cost $150, which
further raises the scam alert level.

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
> The claim is that adding these gases into the
> carb or fuel injection system results in burning
> the fuel more efficiently -- so you're extracting
> more energy from the gasoline.
>
> Is there any possibility this could be true?


No, not likely.

Modern systems already do a pretty good job of burning the fuel
to near completion. There is little left over to recover.

Losses due to friction and unused heat would seem to be the biggest
remaining factors which might be improved, and this hydrogen oxygen
(Brown's gas) thing is not geared to help minimize those losses.

It is sort of like cost accounting...take into account all the factors, and
this
electrolysis bit doesnt really help the bottom line.

You still cannot get around the laws of thermodynamics.

Scam.

Think about it in these terms:

Gasoline engine bleeds power to battery for electrolysis to generate
hydrogen which is fed to engine as fuel.

This would basically make it a perpetual motion device with no net gain
in energy.

In fact there is energy lost in heat and friction to generate and burn
the hydrogen which means adding such devices to your car would result in
lower mileage.

Frank wrote:
> Scam.
>
> Think about it in these terms:
>
> Gasoline engine bleeds power to battery for electrolysis to generate
> hydrogen which is fed to engine as fuel.
>
> This would basically make it a perpetual motion device with no net gain
> in energy.
>
> In fact there is energy lost in heat and friction to generate and burn
> the hydrogen which means adding such devices to your car would result in
> lower mileage.

That might not be the point.
AIUI modern engines recirculate exhaust gasses to cool the flame and
produce less NOx. It also reduces engine efficiency. Maybe injecting the
mix raises the temp back up and increases efficiency (at the cost of
more NOx).

Also water injection is an old technique of getting better mileage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_i..._%28engines%29

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

Frank wrote:
>
> Scam.
>
> Think about it in these terms:
>
> Gasoline engine bleeds power to battery for electrolysis
> to generate hydrogen which is fed to engine as fuel.

It is not claimed that all of the energy for the engine
comes from the hydrogen. Most of the energy continues
to come from the gasoline. The claim is that more energy
is extracted from the gasoline by more efficient burning,
due to the addition of the gases from electrolysis.

> This would basically make it a perpetual motion device
> with no net gain in energy.

While you're out in the weeds, I lost a Frisbee out there.
Could you keep an eye open for that? Thanks.

> In fact there is energy lost in heat and friction to
> generate and burn the hydrogen which means adding such
> devices to your car would result in lower mileage.

If there were no improvement in the combustion of the
gasoline, that would be true. The claim is that the
electrolysis gases improve the combustion of gasoline.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
>>Scam.
>>
>>Think about it in these terms:
>>
>>Gasoline engine bleeds power to battery for electrolysis
>>to generate hydrogen which is fed to engine as fuel.
>
>
> It is not claimed that all of the energy for the engine
> comes from the hydrogen. Most of the energy continues
> to come from the gasoline. The claim is that more energy
> is extracted from the gasoline by more efficient burning,
> due to the addition of the gases from electrolysis.
>
>
>>This would basically make it a perpetual motion device
>>with no net gain in energy.
>
>
> While you're out in the weeds, I lost a Frisbee out there.
> Could you keep an eye open for that? Thanks.
>
>
>>In fact there is energy lost in heat and friction to
>>generate and burn the hydrogen which means adding such
>>devices to your car would result in lower mileage.
>
>
> If there were no improvement in the combustion of the
> gasoline, that would be true. The claim is that the
> electrolysis gases improve the combustion of gasoline.

any car whose combustion can be "improved" to the point that you notice
a difference needs a tuneup, not H2 injection.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message

> If there were no improvement in the combustion of the
> gasoline, that would be true. The claim is that the
> electrolysis gases improve the combustion of gasoline.

We have all read the claims, Mark. The science is bogus.

There we go again, folks.More Snake Oil!
cuhulin

Mark Thorson wrote:
> A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
> about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
> into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.
>
> Two web sites that were mentioned a
>
> http://www.savefuel.ca/oxy-hydrogen/
>
> http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/index.html
>
> Unfortunately, the thread wandered off into the weeds
> with much of the discussion being about how you can't
> get something for nothing, the energy from the gases
> is ultimately drawn from the alternator, etc. That's
> not the point.
>
> The claim is that adding these gases into the
> carb or fuel injection system results in burning
> the fuel more efficiently -- so you're extracting
> more energy from the gasoline.
>
> Is there any possibility this could be true?
> I talked to a friend of mine yesterday about this
> subject, because he's thinking about ordering the
> plans to build one. (I don't know if it's from
> either of the web sites listed above.) He's got
> lots of experience with engines and racing, but
> doesn't know a heckuva lot of chemistry.
>
> I told him it seemed like a scam, but that I
> really didn't know. It's not unreasonable that
> burning could be improved this way. Certainly,
> the oxygen would improve burning, like a nitro
> system. But, apparently the claim is that the
> hydrogen is somehow improving combustion. Any
> good scam will have a good story behind it.
> Even if it were completely neutral on gas
> mileage, after people have invested their time
> and money building one, they'll be motivated
> to see it in a favorable light. If they don't
> do strictly scientific tests, they can easily
> delude themselves into believing they see a
> benefit. A lot of quack medicine is based on
> similar placebo effects.
>
> Anyone got any comments on the plausibility
> of these devices? Are there any reliable tests
> from trustworthy sources validating or debunking
> these devices? The plans cost $150, which
> further raises the scam alert level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_injection

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

On May 26, 2:33 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> A couple years ago, there was a thread in rec.autos.tech
> about devices to electrolyze water and feed the gases
> into an engine, supposedly greatly increasing gas mileage.
>

It is based on a myth. While it is well-known that the efficiency of
the IC engine is around the 30-40% mark at best, the myth is that this
is due to incomplete combustion, and that most of the fuel goes out
the tailpipe. This is not true. Almost all fuel in a properly tuned
engine is combusted.

The two energy losses are heat into the cooling jacket of any cooled
engine, and the energy (heat and pressure) in the exhaust. While
there have been attempts at building uncooled (adiabatic) engines, the
biggest hangup so far is the lubricants. When internal temps get too
high all existing lubricants break down.

Turbocharging does recover some exhaust energy, but we cannot take out
too much exhaust energy, or it will limit engine's ability to breath,
reducing horsepower for a given engine size. We can indeed increase
thermal consumption by this road, but it results in a heavier engine.
That is okay for a stationary engine, but any engine used in
transportation, must be as light as possible. If a heavy but more fuel
efficient engine is used, the total vehicle weight goes up, requiring
more energy, so we end up still burning more fuel :-(