HHO Fuel Cells
Discussion
I stumbled across this term recently.
The science seems a bit iffy to me, it seems too good to be true and it's been completed ignored by mainstream media.
http://www.palefuelsystems.co.uk
Real thing, or snake oil?
The science seems a bit iffy to me, it seems too good to be true and it's been completed ignored by mainstream media.
http://www.palefuelsystems.co.uk
Real thing, or snake oil?
Edited by P-Jay on Thursday 3rd May 10:01
http://www.palefuelsystems.co.uk/products.html "holes drilled by automated robot drilling machine"
As to the 'Science' page, where do we start?
And then, how do they arrive at the conclusion that making the engine run cooler makes it more efficient? That's bogus science, right there, you can't just make a blanket statement like that.
How does the introduction of HHO gas (surely not? Hydrogen, in elemental form exists in H2 form, as does Oxygen?) somehow 'enhance' combustion? Why not go the whole hog, and do away with the hydrocarbon fuel in the first place and just run the car through electrolysis? (Thermodynamics laws notwithstanding
)
ETA: Wikipedia's link has a little heading titled "Fringe Science and Fraud" which sums it up nicely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen
In a nutshell though, it takes more energy to create the 'HHO' gas than is recouped by burning it.
As to the 'Science' page, where do we start?
Article said:
Finally, as the bi-product of burning HHO is water (more specifically steam) this will cool the engine, making it run cooler, therefore more efficient,
How does the creation of 'steam', or water in gaseous form 'cool' the engine? Steam is hot, and can be very, very hot, once it's dry.And then, how do they arrive at the conclusion that making the engine run cooler makes it more efficient? That's bogus science, right there, you can't just make a blanket statement like that.
How does the introduction of HHO gas (surely not? Hydrogen, in elemental form exists in H2 form, as does Oxygen?) somehow 'enhance' combustion? Why not go the whole hog, and do away with the hydrocarbon fuel in the first place and just run the car through electrolysis? (Thermodynamics laws notwithstanding
)ETA: Wikipedia's link has a little heading titled "Fringe Science and Fraud" which sums it up nicely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen
In a nutshell though, it takes more energy to create the 'HHO' gas than is recouped by burning it.
Edited by Super Slo Mo on Thursday 3rd May 14:42
Hmm, thought I replied to this but PH is a bit funny today.
Water injection is a different thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28en...
Mr Smartpants is proposing using energy from the car to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then combine them together again. You don't need an O-level to tell you that's not going to add anything; indeed merely lose energy from efficiency losses.
Water injection is a different thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28en...
Mr Smartpants is proposing using energy from the car to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then combine them together again. You don't need an O-level to tell you that's not going to add anything; indeed merely lose energy from efficiency losses.
Simpo Two said:
Hmm, thought I replied to this but PH is a bit funny today.
Water injection is a different thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28en...
Mr Smartpants is proposing using energy from the car to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then combine them together again. You don't need an O-level to tell you that's not going to add anything; indeed merely lose energy from efficiency losses.
I know its different but it would achieve the same outcome would it not? Water injection is a different thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28en...
Mr Smartpants is proposing using energy from the car to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then combine them together again. You don't need an O-level to tell you that's not going to add anything; indeed merely lose energy from efficiency losses.
The water would cool the cylinder allowing higher compression ratios to be used and better detonation so less carbon at the end of it? success yes? or
?How would adding the so-called HHO gas cause cooler running? If the end result from the burning of the same is water (steam), it is most definitely not 'cool', it'll be at whatever the temperature inside the combustion chamber is.
Actually, regarding water injection, if you inject it directly into the combustion chamber at the point of combustion, rather than beforehand, it has another useful property: At constant pressure water, when it undergoes the change from liquid to gaseous state expands by around 1,700 times it's own volume (alternatively the pressure increases if the volume doesn't, or, more likely, a combination of the two). This will add to the downwards force on the piston and give you more power.
Of course, you only want to be doing this in very tiny amounts, and it requires a re-engineering of the cylinder head to add injectors. Doing it in the intake, as per a normal system, won't have so much effect, as all the conversion to gas will be over before the combustion process starts.
Injecting water in either fashion will assist, as mentioned, in reducing combustion temperatures.
Actually, regarding water injection, if you inject it directly into the combustion chamber at the point of combustion, rather than beforehand, it has another useful property: At constant pressure water, when it undergoes the change from liquid to gaseous state expands by around 1,700 times it's own volume (alternatively the pressure increases if the volume doesn't, or, more likely, a combination of the two). This will add to the downwards force on the piston and give you more power.
Of course, you only want to be doing this in very tiny amounts, and it requires a re-engineering of the cylinder head to add injectors. Doing it in the intake, as per a normal system, won't have so much effect, as all the conversion to gas will be over before the combustion process starts.
Injecting water in either fashion will assist, as mentioned, in reducing combustion temperatures.
Super Slo Mo said:
How would adding the so-called HHO gas cause cooler running? If the end result from the burning of the same is water (steam), it is most definitely not 'cool', it'll be at whatever the temperature inside the combustion chamber is.
Actually, regarding water injection, if you inject it directly into the combustion chamber at the point of combustion, rather than beforehand, it has another useful property: At constant pressure water, when it undergoes the change from liquid to gaseous state expands by around 1,700 times it's own volume (alternatively the pressure increases if the volume doesn't, or, more likely, a combination of the two). This will add to the downwards force on the piston and give you more power.
Of course, you only want to be doing this in very tiny amounts, and it requires a re-engineering of the cylinder head to add injectors. Doing it in the intake, as per a normal system, won't have so much effect, as all the conversion to gas will be over before the combustion process starts.
Injecting water in either fashion will assist, as mentioned, in reducing combustion temperatures.
It wouldn't i was talking about the water injection cooling the cylinders. The article claims the gas will when it obviously won't. Actually, regarding water injection, if you inject it directly into the combustion chamber at the point of combustion, rather than beforehand, it has another useful property: At constant pressure water, when it undergoes the change from liquid to gaseous state expands by around 1,700 times it's own volume (alternatively the pressure increases if the volume doesn't, or, more likely, a combination of the two). This will add to the downwards force on the piston and give you more power.
Of course, you only want to be doing this in very tiny amounts, and it requires a re-engineering of the cylinder head to add injectors. Doing it in the intake, as per a normal system, won't have so much effect, as all the conversion to gas will be over before the combustion process starts.
Injecting water in either fashion will assist, as mentioned, in reducing combustion temperatures.
And you could just use the petrol injectors but give them two nozzles each instead of one and a separate pipe for the water. Petrol injected from one hole and the water from the other at a different time. ECU could manage that right? if so you heard it here first and cheques are accepted
R300will said:
It wouldn't i was talking about the water injection cooling the cylinders. The article claims the gas will when it obviously won't.
And you could just use the petrol injectors but give them two nozzles each instead of one and a separate pipe for the water. Petrol injected from one hole and the water from the other at a different time. ECU could manage that right? if so you heard it here first and cheques are accepted
I guessed as much, but was just checking.And you could just use the petrol injectors but give them two nozzles each instead of one and a separate pipe for the water. Petrol injected from one hole and the water from the other at a different time. ECU could manage that right? if so you heard it here first and cheques are accepted
On a directly injected petrol possibly (probably, in fact), on a conventionally injected petrol, no. I suspect though that there may be issues with lubrication of the injection system given that water has no helpful properties in that respect at all, but maybe not.
There must be other reasons why it's not commonplace though. I've been tempted for years to experiment on an old engine to see what happens. One day.....
R300will said:
I know its different but it would achieve the same outcome would it not?
The water would cool the cylinder allowing higher compression ratios to be used and better detonation so less carbon at the end of it? success yes? or?
When you burn petrol it makes CO2 and water. X amount of petrol makes X amount of CO2, it can't help itself. You may thinking of CO (carbon MONoxide, which is a product of incomplete combustion and not an issue here). The water would cool the cylinder allowing higher compression ratios to be used and better detonation so less carbon at the end of it? success yes? or
?Maybe copying the principle of water injection would achieve something but you probably have to be wringing the nuts from the engine first before any benefit is noticeable.
Simpo Two said:
R300will said:
I know its different but it would achieve the same outcome would it not?
The water would cool the cylinder allowing higher compression ratios to be used and better detonation so less carbon at the end of it? success yes? or?
When you burn petrol it makes CO2 and water. X amount of petrol makes X amount of CO2, it can't help itself. You may thinking of CO (carbon MONoxide, which is a product of incomplete combustion and not an issue here). The water would cool the cylinder allowing higher compression ratios to be used and better detonation so less carbon at the end of it? success yes? or
?Maybe copying the principle of water injection would achieve something but you probably have to be wringing the nuts from the engine first before any benefit is noticeable.
Incomplete combustion happens more often than you think. That black crud on your exhaust pipe? carbon.
R300will said:
why would i be thinking of CO? my point was on the similarities between the effects of this apparent 'miracle gas' and injecting water, in that it will cool the cylinders allowing higher compression and better combustion (gas won't cool cylinders though).
Incomplete combustion happens more often than you think. That black crud on your exhaust pipe? carbon.
Only because many people now say 'carbon' to mean CO2. My mistake; hope someone can answer your question.Incomplete combustion happens more often than you think. That black crud on your exhaust pipe? carbon.
I searched the whole of the Wiki article for 'carbon' and there's no mention of it reducing elemental carbon deposits.
Simpo Two said:
R300will said:
why would i be thinking of CO? my point was on the similarities between the effects of this apparent 'miracle gas' and injecting water, in that it will cool the cylinders allowing higher compression and better combustion (gas won't cool cylinders though).
Incomplete combustion happens more often than you think. That black crud on your exhaust pipe? carbon.
Only because many people now say 'carbon' to mean CO2. My mistake; hope someone can answer your question.Incomplete combustion happens more often than you think. That black crud on your exhaust pipe? carbon.
I searched the whole of the Wiki article for 'carbon' and there's no mention of it reducing elemental carbon deposits.
I was just following it through really, if you can use higher compression ratios then you will get better explosions and therefore less carbon etc. Does that sound right? Website said:
Q.THIS BREAKS THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT WORK?
A. A common fallacy is that it takes more energy to produce the HHO than the energy it releases. This is not true.
All the electricity coming from your car’s alternator is in fact, free energy. Much of it is unutilised. Now since you are taking free energy from your alternator, to produce HHO gas from water, and pump that HHO gas back into your air intake, you are getting free energy, from free energy. Even if it is only 50% efficient , it does not matter, because there was no extra power needed from the normal processes that operate the car, to obtain the HHO.
Physics fail. Electrolysis takes more energy than is available from burning the hydrogen released. This is a fact regardless of how clever you try to be, otherwise you could connect the output to the input and have a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. Energy from from an alternator is not free. As the alternator load goes up so does the power required to run the alternator. Again this is basic thermodynamics - it has to work like this otherwise you could connect the output to an electric motor to run the alternator and you'd have a perpetual motion machine again.A. A common fallacy is that it takes more energy to produce the HHO than the energy it releases. This is not true.
All the electricity coming from your car’s alternator is in fact, free energy. Much of it is unutilised. Now since you are taking free energy from your alternator, to produce HHO gas from water, and pump that HHO gas back into your air intake, you are getting free energy, from free energy. Even if it is only 50% efficient , it does not matter, because there was no extra power needed from the normal processes that operate the car, to obtain the HHO.
There has been real research into hydrogen injection to allow much leaner mixtures to be used, which works well in some applications. It's not as straightforward as plumbing a dinky little electrolysis cell into the intake though.
t baffles brains.Super Slo Mo said:
Actually, regarding water injection, if you inject it directly into the combustion chamber at the point of combustion, rather than beforehand, it has another useful property: At constant pressure water, when it undergoes the change from liquid to gaseous state expands by around 1,700 times it's own volume (alternatively the pressure increases if the volume doesn't, or, more likely, a combination of the two). This will add to the downwards force on the piston and give you more power.
Nice one!Pity it's not actually true......................
(Hint, where does the energy (heat) to vapourise (and state change) the water come from? Yup, thats right, it comes from the combustion event itself. If we assume an adiabatic process (reasonable given the short time period) the total energy exchange is zero. Steam is produced, heat is reduced, so energy is the same)
It reality, just injecting water will directly lead to a reduction in total combustion energy (because it displaces some intake charge volume, and tends to increase the heat rejection (lower thermal co-efficient) to the chamber walls. However, on a high boost forced induction engine, where the spark sensitivity is such that the cooler charge allows enough spark advance to be added, more power can be released (effectively a larger proportion is transmitted as useful work to the piston rather than lost as heat to the exhaust).
Max_Torque said:
Nice one!
Pity it's not actually true......................
(Hint, where does the energy (heat) to vapourise (and state change) the water come from? Yup, thats right, it comes from the combustion event itself. If we assume an adiabatic process (reasonable given the short time period) the total energy exchange is zero. Steam is produced, heat is reduced, so energy is the same)
It reality, just injecting water will directly lead to a reduction in total combustion energy (because it displaces some intake charge volume, and tends to increase the heat rejection (lower thermal co-efficient) to the chamber walls. However, on a high boost forced induction engine, where the spark sensitivity is such that the cooler charge allows enough spark advance to be added, more power can be released (effectively a larger proportion is transmitted as useful work to the piston rather than lost as heat to the exhaust).
Bugger!Pity it's not actually true......................
(Hint, where does the energy (heat) to vapourise (and state change) the water come from? Yup, thats right, it comes from the combustion event itself. If we assume an adiabatic process (reasonable given the short time period) the total energy exchange is zero. Steam is produced, heat is reduced, so energy is the same)
It reality, just injecting water will directly lead to a reduction in total combustion energy (because it displaces some intake charge volume, and tends to increase the heat rejection (lower thermal co-efficient) to the chamber walls. However, on a high boost forced induction engine, where the spark sensitivity is such that the cooler charge allows enough spark advance to be added, more power can be released (effectively a larger proportion is transmitted as useful work to the piston rather than lost as heat to the exhaust).
My A-Level physics teacher told me about the expansion bit, and went on to make the above assertion.
Shame I never bothered to think a bit harder about it, and having gone all the way to get a Mechanical Engineering Degree, that's a little embarrassing.
Super Slo Mo said:
Max_Torque said:
Nice one!
Pity it's not actually true......................
(Hint, where does the energy (heat) to vapourise (and state change) the water come from? Yup, thats right, it comes from the combustion event itself. If we assume an adiabatic process (reasonable given the short time period) the total energy exchange is zero. Steam is produced, heat is reduced, so energy is the same)
It reality, just injecting water will directly lead to a reduction in total combustion energy (because it displaces some intake charge volume, and tends to increase the heat rejection (lower thermal co-efficient) to the chamber walls. However, on a high boost forced induction engine, where the spark sensitivity is such that the cooler charge allows enough spark advance to be added, more power can be released (effectively a larger proportion is transmitted as useful work to the piston rather than lost as heat to the exhaust).
Bugger!Pity it's not actually true......................
(Hint, where does the energy (heat) to vapourise (and state change) the water come from? Yup, thats right, it comes from the combustion event itself. If we assume an adiabatic process (reasonable given the short time period) the total energy exchange is zero. Steam is produced, heat is reduced, so energy is the same)
It reality, just injecting water will directly lead to a reduction in total combustion energy (because it displaces some intake charge volume, and tends to increase the heat rejection (lower thermal co-efficient) to the chamber walls. However, on a high boost forced induction engine, where the spark sensitivity is such that the cooler charge allows enough spark advance to be added, more power can be released (effectively a larger proportion is transmitted as useful work to the piston rather than lost as heat to the exhaust).
My A-Level physics teacher told me about the expansion bit, and went on to make the above assertion.
Shame I never bothered to think a bit harder about it, and having gone all the way to get a Mechanical Engineering Degree, that's a little embarrassing.
R300will said:
Super Slo Mo said:
Max_Torque said:
Nice one!
Pity it's not actually true......................
(Hint, where does the energy (heat) to vapourise (and state change) the water come from? Yup, thats right, it comes from the combustion event itself. If we assume an adiabatic process (reasonable given the short time period) the total energy exchange is zero. Steam is produced, heat is reduced, so energy is the same)
It reality, just injecting water will directly lead to a reduction in total combustion energy (because it displaces some intake charge volume, and tends to increase the heat rejection (lower thermal co-efficient) to the chamber walls. However, on a high boost forced induction engine, where the spark sensitivity is such that the cooler charge allows enough spark advance to be added, more power can be released (effectively a larger proportion is transmitted as useful work to the piston rather than lost as heat to the exhaust).
Bugger!Pity it's not actually true......................
(Hint, where does the energy (heat) to vapourise (and state change) the water come from? Yup, thats right, it comes from the combustion event itself. If we assume an adiabatic process (reasonable given the short time period) the total energy exchange is zero. Steam is produced, heat is reduced, so energy is the same)
It reality, just injecting water will directly lead to a reduction in total combustion energy (because it displaces some intake charge volume, and tends to increase the heat rejection (lower thermal co-efficient) to the chamber walls. However, on a high boost forced induction engine, where the spark sensitivity is such that the cooler charge allows enough spark advance to be added, more power can be released (effectively a larger proportion is transmitted as useful work to the piston rather than lost as heat to the exhaust).
My A-Level physics teacher told me about the expansion bit, and went on to make the above assertion.
Shame I never bothered to think a bit harder about it, and having gone all the way to get a Mechanical Engineering Degree, that's a little embarrassing.
Thermal efficiency would be increased and thus fuel consumption reduced.
Complexity/cost increased of course, which is why manufacturers have not already done this.
But I suspect it won't be far off in the future, if they can overcome the scaling problems from using simple tap water.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff