h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Sorry yeah I got your sarcasm after I posted that Dave, bit slow on the uptake,


I'm beginning to lose track of who is being serious with the bollocks and who isn't in this conversation. We need an smile.

>but does it improve the efficency of the internal combustion engine????
<

No

>but does it improve the efficency of the internal combustion engine????
<

No


has anyone apart from the original poster tried it???

or are we all just spouting "my science is better than your science"

i thought The Way was to propose a theory and then try to disprove/prove it by experiment then publish??

or am i being a silly

You are being silly.

>>or are we all just spouting "my science is better than your science"<<

No, some of us just understand (and some even professionally practice) science.

How can a process, that is actually taking energy *from* your petrol burning process make it more efficient?

This has actually already been explained by those here who know what they are talking about.

You might make it more efficient if you attached a hydrogen gas cylinder and fed that directly into your engine (with all inherent dangers of that taken into consideration). But with the system where you electrolyse water to produce hydrogen to then produce water again you just, I'm afraid, are using more energy electrolysing the water than you can ever get back from burning the H2 produced.

So you must in fact be reducing the efficiency of your engine - it's really that simple.


If you refuse to believe us:

Wikipedia on the very possibility violating both the first and second laws of thermodynamics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fueled_car

and another good link explaining why it's all bullshit.
http://eastbay.backpage.com/AutoPartsForSale/run_your_car_on_water_ridiculous_here_s_why_/classifieds/ViewAd?oid=1523702

" HHO brings gains because it forces your engine to utilize more of the gasoline energy that's already in the engine's cylinders. It isn't new energy. HHO just prevents what's there from being thrown away and wasted. If you understand this enhancement limitation and premise, then you'll be pleased with how HHO can significantly improve your engine's efficiency, your car's mileage per gallon and ease the pressure on your finances."

Thanks Orcus, that's all i'm doing....(btw it works, i have seriously improved the mileage on my van).

I think that the OP (jhawkesby) has been frightened off by the vehemence and outright condescencion displayed by you 'scientists'.

alec.

Oh FFS.

> I think you are missing the concept of 'quantity' from that piece of logic. <

I am indeed. Efficiency is a ratio; quantity is utterly irrelevant.

Mosquitonet: > Look, you need to think about what you are posting. <

No - I think you need to think about what I'm posting, and stop trying to infer things that have not been said. If you can refute the premise that a perpetual motion machine is more fuel efficient than nuclear power, then I am all ears

> We need an smile. <

Evidently .

Yes, I apologise for my hastily posted second link which I realised after I posted was (after a fairly reasonable star) an(other) advert for this rubbish.

here's a better one.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html

or this

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam2.shtml

or this

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1830195&postcount=12

or this

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_octafuel.shtml

etc...

The fact is, if you look at the actual proof out there rather than anecdote then it doesn't hold up. because it can't

And I'm afraid I don't believe your anecdote because I don't believe it's necessarily been tested under the same conditions as the original vehicle. Do you drive at the same speed? Same rate of acceleration. Far too many variables for it to be reliable, as the first link above states.
I'm sure you believe you have, I don't believe. Vive la difference.

And if you're going to post crap like water has potential energy then you're going to get called for it I'm afraid. There are people who've posted to this conversaiont who've got good degrees in physics from Cambridge being called up on 'complete bollocks' when in fact they are the ones who are right so excuse me for getting annoyed.


It's actually really hard to find decent informative stuff about this on the net because there's so much crap around. Just goes to show that our advice to out undergraduates is sound - don't look on the net for science fact - look in peer reviewed literature. Anyone can post any old crap on the internet and any fool can believe it.

I leave you to your illusions/delusions and no doubt the thought that my previous sentence was referring to my very self... )

I like the idea of trying to patent it, you should try if it's that good.

AAARGH...NOOOOO! it IS a scam !!

At least some of the guys flogging the books are Nighthubbardites !! from the First Church of Appliantology.

Thankyou for those links Orcus, anything those appliantologists are even remotely connected with sets my alarm bell ringing.

alec

<>

so is the entry real, do you have one and does it work or is it a scam

it can't be both????can it

Yes Taff, I do have one on my van.

I am still apparently using less gas per mile with it than without it.

As is my friend with the Jeep Cherokee.

I am at a loss to explain, but if those crooks are involved, it must be a scam.

alec.

One of those links described an experiment you could do: drive along with your foot in the same position on the accelerator and switch the electrolysing dongle on or off. If it is making the engine work more efficiently, you should see a change in the amount of power generated.

.. yes, I'd like to see cars drive on water even water/petrol mixes


.. aren't we mixing up performance, engine efficiency and the magic Miles Per Gallon number?? I'm reasonably sure that my car could be forced to use somewhat less petrol per mile than it does now, and possibly even by mixing petrol with water (or with on board generated hydrogen / oxygen gas). I'm also reasonably sure that my engine would be very unhappy and likely would break down after some time.
At the very best I'd expect it to perform real bad, stuttering engine, faults and unexpected stops ..


but of course if you find a way to run your car on water, go right ahead, do research, document, publish, and skip the nobel prize, go for the real money you may not have noticed, but most of the planet could just be a bit interested in cars that don't need oil products but can run on water (or even a mix...or even H2 / O2 mixes)
You'll not be surprised that I'm not about to invest in any developments in this direction I hope???

DaveBlackeye:
>...stop trying to infer things that have not been said.

That's quite tricky when you are employing irony don't you think?

> If you can refute the premise that a perpetual motion machine is more fuel efficient than nuclear power, then I am all ears.

Well if we're being that abstract, what about perpetual nuclear power?

<>

do not look directly at the sun!!!!

DB
">> I think you are missing the concept of 'quantity' from that piece of logic. <

>I am indeed. Efficiency is a ratio; quantity is utterly irrelevant."

Well, not so much utterly irrellevant as absolutely essentialy but fully contained within the concept used. But you are still right, what I posted was a tad meaningless.

I think what made me post was your use of fuel->energy->same fuel vs. nuclear reactions. Nuclear reactions can, of course, also be characterised as fuel->energy->fuel. You seemed to be assigning some level of importance to the 'same fuel' product at the end of the reaction when it doesn;t really matter whether it is the same type of fuel or not. It is the amount of said product (or more accurately the amoutn of energy stored within it) that determines how efficient the process is at producing fuel not the type.

>>>> Jhawkesby
I remeber learning about electrolysis and I also remeber doing an experiment with two nails and some salt water which I am sure you have done before. I have seen advertised recently a hydrogen powered car. All this got me thinking. Surely it cant be hard to have a power station that uses electrolysis and then burns the hydrogen like they would do with coal.

No, it's not hard. You may be interested in this hydrogen fueling station:

http://www.schatzlab.org/projects/real_world/h2stn.html

Hydrogen is a way of storing solar energy, please see:

http://www.schatzlab.org/projects/real_world/schatz_solar.html


HN

Traveller in Time not adding water to the fuel
"I did try to drive a car using gasoline instead of diesel recently. (had something to do with while filling up).

All I know is I had a hard job in keeping the engine running as I could not believe it would have been mixed up.

Fuel consumption became huge as we had to clear the system and replace all the fuel. does not really contribute to the story. Maybe I would have driven another 300 km if we did not conclude to have been using the wrong fuel. . .

Maybe if you just do not know there is water in the fuel, you would keep driveing and eventually only using water. "

"Maybe if you just do not know there is water in the fuel, you would keep driveing and eventually only using water"

No you wouldn't... If you think about it, water's heavier that petrol/diesel... The outlet in the tank is near the bottom.

At some stage you're going to be sucking pure water into the fuel circuit.