Home made Hydrogen generator for my Feroza

[Heath]

Weren't the Wright brothers told they were wasting their time with trying to fly?
The earth is the centre of the universe, with everything orbiting it!
You'll never make a pulse jet in your garage!
Splitting the atom? Hah, what nonsense!

All well known facts until they were proven wrong. Seems that the know alls didnt know everything after all and it is the little guy and the battlers that seem to prove them wrong.

Dont listen Meece, you tinker and do your thing. You may not prove the HHO thing to be perfect but you may stumble accross something else while you are at it.

[KiwiBacon]

Weren't the Wright brothers told they were wasting their time with trying to fly?

If they were, it was by the general public who were completely ignorant of the laws of physics. Flight was always known as possible, but the attempts at it killed many.
A poor analogy as this time it is the people who don't understand physics who are attempting this.

The earth is the centre of the universe, with everything orbiting it!

That was the line taken by the churches who controlled the population, not the scientists who knew. HHO isn't science, only the loonies believe the oil company conspiracy.

You'll never make a pulse jet in your garage!

No-one has made a pulse jet in their garage. A turbo running on LPG is not a pulse jet, it's just a pointless waste of fuel.
etc.
etc.

[fweddy]

Claiming a benefit from a fuel source derived (at poor efficiency) from the engine you're feeding it back into is the "perpetual motion" part.

Don't we do that every time we start our car and use the engine power to charge a battery to make a spark to ignite the fuel to power the car to charge the battery? That is only possible because we are adding another energy source into it - i.e. fuel of what ever type.

[KiwiBacon]

Claiming a benefit from a fuel source derived (at poor efficiency) from the engine you're feeding it back into is the "perpetual motion" part.

Don't we do that every time we start our car and use the engine power to charge a battery to make a spark to ignite the fuel to power the car to charge the battery? That is only possible because we are adding another energy source into it - i.e. fuel of what ever type.

Nope, because the spark is necessary to make it work.
There is only one energy source for your car engine, that's the liquid petrol or diesel you put in the tank.

[Heath]

You'll never make a pulse jet in your garage!

No-one has made a pulse jet in their garage. A turbo running on LPG is not a pulse jet, it's just a pointless waste of fuel.
etc.
etc.

Check this link

http://www.interestingprojects.com/

There was a Kiwi who also made a pulse jet in his garage some time ago and he tried to get permission to test fly it but was shut down because it was classified as a cruise missile, and capable of carrying a payload.

I'll find the link to that and post it to.

I just get Pissed when the nay sayers scream louder than anyone else.

You say the scientists etc knew it could be done, was that before or after. Did they prove their theory or discover it?

I dont want to enter a pissing contest and compare brain sizes but maybe just maybe (yeah I know the brainiacs out there hate this), just let us tinker, sure offer encouragement or a rational explanation as to how it wont work but dont keep on like a stuck record.

[fweddy]

Nope, because the spark is necessary to make it work.
There is only one energy source for your car engine, that's the liquid petrol or diesel you put in the tank.

yeah, but we could run another thing off the same power that is not essential to make it work, a head light for instance, or a cd player etc etc, so we have energy to spare here that is not needed to keep the engine going, so lets stick that in a preserving jar with water in it and maybe it might seperate the molecules or do something that might make something that goes bang, and we shove that into the engine to make it go more.

I see that the point is that the amount of energy going into the jar to do its thing, is more than the amount of energy that the output is going to produce. i.e. if there is x amount of energy being used to do the electolisys, which generates y amount of gas which makes the engine run z amount better and then z amount must generate x or more energy.

In that case there are a few things to consider.

Is this infact the case? how do we prove it?
Are we accounting for the energy that is being inputted from the water? (remember it gets used up)
If the above is true and we use more electicity than the extra benefit (if any) is it indeed wasted? remember we have electricity to spare from that battery to other nonessiential things so in effect this is 'spare energy' in that we are not robbing (much) the engine to make it so then ANYTHING we output is benefit.
If we eliminate the fossil fuel powering the main thrust of the engine, and solely rely on water then we have a bit more of an issue that might not work.

Sorry, just like teasing my brain...

[Heath]

Nope, because the spark is necessary to make it work.
There is only one energy source for your car engine, that's the liquid petrol or diesel you put in the tank.

Isnt the alternator taking energy from the engine and storing it in the battery so the engine can use that stored energy to create a spark? There fore the engine requires two energy sources to work (fuel and electricity). if you disconnect the battery from a petrol engine will the engine continue to run?

[TJ]

Laws of physics are simply based on what we understand "now". By assuming that we can't explain everything through these known laws of physics is the same as saying "we know everything there is to know, everything else is a lie". A very arrogant approach as far as scientific research is concerned IMHO. Experimentation and exploration of new ideas is what our advancement as a civilisation is based on. I say tinker on Meece, may be you are on to something (may not, but thats not the point). At worst, you would end up blowing up your engine. There are many many examples of scientific "discoveries" that were either discredited in the beginning or simply came about through an accident.

Look at examples like Bill Gates with a crappy product that crashes all the time, university drop out, running a near monopoly - not exactly the things that can be explained by our conventional understanding of marketing. But he is on to something ($$$) beyond the norm - something that can't be explained. I mean for goodness sake, the company has the two words "micro" and "soft" that no man would ever use in his vocabulary to name his proudest product.

[TJ]

Isnt the alternator taking energy from the engine and storing it in the battery so the engine can use that stored energy to create a spark? There fore the engine requires two energy sources to work (fuel and electricity). if you disconnect the battery from a petrol engine will the engine continue to run?

In the old days, some cars came equipped with generators which would have allowed the engine to run. Increasingly the cars are equipped with alternators, which need some electrical charge to work.

[smurf182]

The energy required to crack the water into it's component parts (O2 and H2 is the result) is greater than that returned by combusting the resulting hydrogen and oxygen. That is why the efficiency is said to be less than 100%.

It really is that simple. There is no 'spare energy', all the chemical energy in the battery has come from the chemical energy of the fuel (petrol/diesel/whatever), same for the electrical energy produced by the alternator. Yes there is energy in the water, but to use it we have to put more energy in than we get out.

There are many unexplained problems in physics. This is not one of them.

[KiwiBacon]

You'll never make a pulse jet in your garage!

No-one has made a pulse jet in their garage. A turbo running on LPG is not a pulse jet, it's just a pointless waste of fuel.
etc.
etc.

Check this link

http://www.interestingprojects.com/

There was a Kiwi who also made a pulse jet in his garage some time ago and he tried to get permission to test fly it but was shut down because it was classified as a cruise missile, and capable of carrying a payload.

Seen that, he's full of it.
He doesn't have the capability or the facilities to build a cruise missile.
What he is claiming is like having two bricks and telling everyone you're going to build a skyscraper.

[KiwiBacon]

Claiming a benefit from a fuel source derived (at poor efficiency) from the engine you're feeding it back into is the "perpetual motion" part.

Don't we do that every time we start our car and use the engine power to charge a battery to make a spark to ignite the fuel to power the car to charge the battery? That is only possible because we are adding another energy source into it - i.e. fuel of what ever type.

The battery is only storage, to allow you to start the car from energy stored last time it ran.
My vehicles all run on the alternator without the battery being present, try it yourself.

[KiwiBacon]

yeah, but we could run another thing off the same power that is not essential to make it work, a head light for instance, or a cd player etc etc, so we have energy to spare here that is not needed to keep the engine going, so lets stick that in a preserving jar with water in it and maybe it might seperate the molecules or do something that might make something that goes bang, and we shove that into the engine to make it go more.

No, everything you run off your engine (headlights, stereo, windscreen wipers etc) puts more load on the engine and makes it burn more fuel.

There is no free lunch, there is no "spare" energy, your fuel tank always pays.

I see that the point is that the amount of energy going into the jar to do its thing, is more than the amount of energy that the output is going to produce. i.e. if there is x amount of energy being used to do the electolisys, which generates y amount of gas which makes the engine run z amount better and then z amount must generate x or more energy.

That's the problem X is around 3 times bigger than Z.
It takes maybe 3 times more energy to generate any hydrogen than you get from it.

[Steve_t647]

Sorry boring technical Information

[Heath]

You'll never make a pulse jet in your garage!

No-one has made a pulse jet in their garage. A turbo running on LPG is not a pulse jet, it's just a pointless waste of fuel.
etc.
etc.

Seen that, he's full of it.
He doesn't have the capability or the facilities to build a cruise missile.
What he is claiming is like having two bricks and telling everyone you're going to build a skyscraper.[/quote]

But he did make a pulse jet in his garage.

[mercutio]

that guy was on scrapheap challenge when they had to build jet powered cars
he was the expert they called in

[KiwiBacon]

But he did make a pulse jet in his garage.

Okay I screwed that one up. I thought he had a turbo-based gas turbine on that kart.
But the cruise missile claim is ridiculous.

[Swaney]

I say go for it... go make the generator... test it.. tinker with it.. spend some FUN hours doing something that interest you.

You might make a million dollars of your troubles or you might just happily kill a few hours

either way its win win... what isnt win though is jumping on here and getting bashed for giving something ago.

i guess it is easier to bitch and moan than get out and actually do shit eh

best of luck and if it works and u make millions hook the offroadexpress community up with freebees / cheapies.

[DieselBoy]

The issue with this system has been put nice and simply:

.............................................................

I see that the point is that the amount of energy going into the jar to do its thing, is more than the amount of energy that the output is going to produce. i.e. if there is x amount of energy being used to do the electolisys, which generates y amount of gas which makes the engine run z amount better and then z amount must generate x or more energy.

..........................

This is exactly what smurf182 has been saying all along:

The energy required to crack the water into it's component parts (O2 and H2 is the result) is greater than that returned by combusting the resulting hydrogen and oxygen. That is why the efficiency is said to be less than 100%.

There are many unexplained problems in physics. This is not one of them.

[fweddy]

The issue with this system has been put nice and simply:

This is exactly what smurf182 has been saying all along:

Yep fair comment and that's based on the presupposition that that is correct (First of those comments was actually mine (quoted by KiwiBacon) and based on hypothesis and gathered comments).

And it may well be correct and seems that that is what sciences says. but

a. That doesn't mean there may be other ways discovered to do it more efficiently (we haven't PROVEN this system breaks LoT no.1)

b. That this 'system' doesn't have some value as it seems to be producing some sort of beneficial results.

What we do have is an apparent conflict between apparent science and some tinkering, what's the solutions?

Do nothing - who cares (reasonable stand to take)
Test and experiment (commendable stand to take)

what isnt win though is jumping on here and getting bashed for giving something ago.

I don't know that that has really been the attitude of most here, just throwing in ideas, if 'bashing' was intended its worth overlooking.

I've enjoyed the discussion.

We haven't heard from Meece for a bit, hopefully he's off tinkering (and not blown himself up Hydrogenated Meece)

[KiwiBacon]

Yep fair comment and that's based on the presupposition that that is correct (First of those comments was actually mine (quoted by KiwiBacon) and based on hypothesis and gathered comments).

I can confirm that. I had a response to that along the same lines.

Efficiency of fuel burnt to turn the crank (petrol) 25%.
Efficiency of alternator to produce the electricity, 60%
Efficiency of electrolysis, I'll be generous and call it 80%

Total conversion efficiency = 0.25x0.6x0.8 = 0.12
That's 12%.

a. That doesn't mean there may be other ways discovered to do it more efficiently (we haven't PROVEN this system breaks LoT no.1)

How much efficiency are you planning to gain? Even if you make 100% (which you can't) you still aren't winning anything.

b. That this 'system' doesn't have some value as it seems to be producing some sort of beneficial results.

There is a guy on eng-tips who built and tested one of these, he's the first to have a credible before and after test, he found no difference to fuel consumption.
That is the only credible test I've found so far. The problem is the tinkerers don't have enough science to even quantify any gains.

[Steve_t647]

Sorry boring technical Information

[coxsy]

god steve leave it alone your getting boring

[TJ]

My first concern is, can the results be repeated? If yes, then lets try to work out what is happening. Meece getting better mileage is a physical act, can it be repeated with as many variables as possible kept constant. Second would be to actually chemically test the gas being produced as to figure out exactly what the chemical composition is. We know the contents going in, so it should be easy chemistry to work out the reaction and its by-products.

So how about Meece, lets try and pass the first test of repetition of your results. Now if the engine blows up in the process, well then we have confirmed some of the other assumptions, but its all fun and games. One test run is not sufficient to conclude anything.

[tpft]

i read threw most of the other posts just now, and for sure there are some smart people on here that know all the science and chemistry of making hydrogen from water, all prob smarter then me.....

and i read the posts of the dreamers and conspiracy theorists (prob more like me).
I agree with both camps, the smart ones "this won’t work" cause fact is this won,t
and the others, technology maybe exists but, they keeping it hidden.

It takes a little of both to come up with a totally new avenue of research.

Big minds and big money are seeking for "cheap" energy, cheap by the way, not free.
No company is going to spend millions looking for alternative means of powering transport unless they stand to gain billions in return.

And crackpots and backyard inventors trying new things and variations on the same old thing over and over again.
Personally I hope a crack pot flukes on to something and leads the world into a new age.

But the only way to gain energy from h2o is to heat it.
There is a way to produce enough heat to produce steam, and its already commonly being used, makes a pretty good bomb too.

Otherwise compressed air or Electric will prob win, easy to charge money for, easy to make and a spill doesn’t give u radiation sickness.

[TJ]

But the only way to gain energy from h2o is to heat it.
There is a way to produce enough heat to produce steam, and its already commonly being used, makes a pretty good bomb too.

Imagine a 4x4 powered that way, what a novel concept. I suppose you would need a large vehicle (thus submarines) for the scale of things.

[mercutio]

i must admit the idea of a steam engine made with modern technology has intrigued me would be wicked and awesome torque

[KiwiBacon]

i must admit the idea of a steam engine made with modern technology has intrigued me would be wicked and awesome torque

That's how nuclear power plants work.
Peresonally the idea of striking up the car well before a drive doesn't appeal.
Power = torque x rpm. Lots of torque at low rpm doesn't make much power.

[mercutio]

That's how nuclear power plants work.
Peresonally the idea of striking up the car well before a drive doesn't appeal.
Power = torque x rpm. Lots of torque at low rpm doesn't make much power.

nuclear plants use steam turbines though i was thinking more along the lines of a steam piston engine
there was a bunch of researchers in aussie during the 70's built a steam powered car capable of 200mph it had a monotube boiler only took about 30 secs to build up a head of steam

[KiwiBacon]

That's how nuclear power plants work.
Peresonally the idea of striking up the car well before a drive doesn't appeal.
Power = torque x rpm. Lots of torque at low rpm doesn't make much power.

nuclear plants use steam turbines though i was thinking more along the lines of a steam piston engine
there was a bunch of researchers in aussie during the 70's built a steam powered car capable of 200mph it had a monotube boiler only took about 30 secs to build up a head of steam

There were a whole lot of steam world-speed-record attempts in the past. I think the massive attraction was building steam in advance, then laying it all down. Not like internal combustion engines where you can't store the pressure.