View Single Post
buffordboy23
buffordboy23 is offline
#9
Aug20-08, 10:58 PM
P: 540
russ_waters,

I have seen some of your posts in other threads. You have a keen scientific mind, but you are wrong in regards to this topic. Moreover, you have pulled specific comments, while neglecting others that were logically sound, from my previous posts in an attempt to discredit my knowledge on the subject. You are committing a large disservice to the members of the forum with your biased comments and reporting.

I realize that I have made mistakes with previous posts and have used poor logic to explain why the device should work, such as the alternator idea that you refer to. However, I admitted my mistakes in my posts, and began to offer what everybody was asking for instead, scientific data that proves that the idea works. So, I shall do the same here by analyzing your previous arguments.

From post #8 on the thread
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=249170
you said,
It isn't possible for this to work. It is a direct violation of conservation of energy because using the car's alternator to power electrolysis makes the engine work harder, more than cancelling any effect of burning dissolved hydrogen.
Your statement and analysis on post #13 of the same thread suggests that this mysterious extra energy only comes from the combustion of hydrogen. This is a large misconception, but if this was all there were to how explain why it works, then you would be correct in saying that it is a violation of energy conservation. However, this is not the role of hydrogen.

The role of hydrogen is to enhance and modify the combustion of the gasoline. Hydrogen has a flame velocity of 2.0 m/s relative to the 0.4 m/s flame velocity of gasoline and is extremely diffusive. So, when sufficient amounts of hydrogen are added to the combustion of gasoline, it has the following effects. First, the gasoline burns faster. This means that a smaller volume change occurs between the initial volume of the piston-cylinder system before combustion and the final volume after the combustion. Said another way, the gasoline burns closer to TDC (top dead center). This has the effect of increasing the work done on the piston, and thus increases thermal efficiency. Second, the chemical energy of the gasoline is released more homogeneously. This means that localized air charges with extreme temperature gradients between various small spaces in the engine are mitigated. The result here is an increase in the thermal efficiency.

In this thread, you said
I hadn't seen that thread before. Without double-checking the numbers myself, your post #65 gives a good calculation illustrating why the device can't improve performance at all, much less improve it by the 40% often claimed: replacing 1% of the gas with hydrogen to produce a 9% improvement in thermodynamic efficiency saves you almost enough energy to generate the hydrogen you need.
Yes, according to the data presented, the device does not work when a 1% mass fraction of hydrogen relative to gasoline is used in the analysis. However, you completely misrepresented the essential point to take home from this post.

The 1% mass fraction line on the plot was the smallest one that I could use in my analysis, so I offered some important ideas that readers should consider. First, it is impossible for standard 80 amp alternators to produce a 1% mass fraction, so ideally, this should not even have been used in the analysis. Second, based on the behavior of all of the mass fraction plots, if one assumes that mass fraction ratios lower than 1% mass fraction follow similar behavior, we would find that we have a net increase in energy. Yes, it is not significant, but it does prove that the device can work, if you take the assumption regarding the plots to be true. This is the important point that shatters the simplistic and absolute argument of energy conservation or thermodynamic law. Do note that this study was from 1989, and that it would be very unlikely that all cars would yield the same exact results, so the data from this study should not be used to make the assumption that 30% inefficiency increases are ludicrous. However, a 100-200% increase is ludicrous.

Note that the graph from this post shows plots for lean engine conditions. This is the key to making the device work properly, since a lean engine is proven to yield MPG increases. The effects of hydrogen addition apply here as well. Another small effect would be a more complete combustion of the gasoline due to the extra air. I believe that I already explained in a previous post on this thread why hydrogen permits a vehicle to run under lean conditions. Many marketers of these electrolyzers do suggest that you modify your car to run lean. Now, some people have claimed to obtain positive results without these modifications, such as I, but this line of argument is a lot tougher to argue--I've stated a hypothesis in a previous post in this thread.

Here is something else quite interesting. The National Hydrogen Association has as one of its members a Canadian company that markets and installs these water electrolyzers. The notables among the Board of Directors would not approve such garbage would they? Here is a description of the company article:
http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/n...101_canada.asp
NHA members which includes the Canadian business:
http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/a...ers.asp?sort=2
membership application which states that applicants must be approved by the board:
http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/j...pplication.pdf
NHA Board of Directors:
http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/about/board.asp

It is important to think outside the box, rather than being hopelessly lost among the stars.