Have anyones using "run your car w/water"? Options

[z28tt]

The systems disassociate water into Brown's gas?

Wikipedia to the rescue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown%27s_gas#Brown.27s_gas

When ignited, the gas mixture converts to water vapor and releases energy, which sustains the reaction: 241.8 kJ (235 BTU) of energy (LHV) for every mole of H2 burned.

The idea is to split water (2*H2O = 2 H2 + 02, about 80-90% efficient according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_...ter#Efficiency) through electrolysis and then recombine it again?!! How can that possibly generate energy, when nothing is ever 100% efficient.

If a gallon of gas has 112,000 BTU, and your fuel rate at cruise is 15mpg @ 60 mph, that's 4 gallons per hour, or 448 kBTU's. To increase the mileage by 10%, you need to generate 45 kBTU's of h2 per hour, or 192 moles (or grams, if a mole equals a gram) per hour. Adding 96 moles of 02 at 32 grams/mole, gives you 3072 grams of 02.
192+3072=3264 kg (3.264 Liters) of water/hr needed to electolyze to make enough h2 needed to supplement 10% of the gasoline

If you need 4 electrons to split a water atom into 2 h2's and one o2, need 96 moles of water/hr, then you need 384 moles of electrons/hr, or 2.3E26 electrons. Since it's 1.6E-19 electrons per coulomb, you need 3.68E7 coulombs/hr.

An Amp-Hour is 3600 coulombs, so you'll need 10,214 AH to feed the electrolysis reaction.

A volt is 1 joule per coulomb. With a 12.6 volt battery, you'll need 3.68E7 coulombs/hr * 12.6 Joules/coulomb = 4.63E8 Joules/hr
Since a watt is 1 joule/sec, that works out to be 128,700 Watts.

That's a pretty damn big power draw on the alternator!

Much better to just accept the 35% loss in burning gasoline, than add another 2 steps with their inefficiencies

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

I supposed I could have saved a bit of time calc'ing formulas if I just converted the 45,000 BTU's needed for a 10% gain in mileage * 1055 into Joules and divided by 3600 into Watt/hr (which is 13,129 Watts/hr, so I'm off by a factor of ten with the crazy calcs above, which may either be a mistake, or somehow show the inefficiency if it's correct). (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Regardless, 13,000 Watts is a pretty big load too...

Maybe if you used solar cells to charge a battery for the water electrolysis! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by z28tt: Jun 11 2008, 04:31 PM

[JustinID]

Thank you Mike and Andris for adding some sanity to this. It all boils down to conservation of energy (an irrefutable law of physics). It's the idea that nothing comes for free. If you're adding energy to a system, that energy has to come from somewhere. That can be from solar power (directly or indirectly), biological processes (like creating methane from waste), mechanical storage (winding up a spring), electro-chemical conversions (such as using electricity to create hydrogen from water). To get a certain amount of power from a source, at least that much power has to have been placed into that source to begin with. Andris showed this with his calculations: To get a gain from electrically produced hydrogen, you have to put that power into the system first. In this case, that power comes from the alternator. The alternator has to work at least as hard as the engine would work (and in actuality much harder) to make that energy available through the hydrogen.

This scam is similar to that jackass that is selling his "plans" that will inject plasma into your engine, creating the plasma with his 500% efficient generator. Think about that... think about what a plasma torch does to metal. Now think about a 500% efficient device. That means you could plug it into your wall, it would take 100 watts of power and turn it into 500 watts of power... magically. The problem is that they use just enough scientific jargon to confuse the average layperson, but don't actually show anything scientific. It use to be that people could sell "snake oil" out of the back of a covered wagon because people were very ignorant. Now people are more educated, but the scam is exactly the same, you just have to have a more sophisticated sales pitch.

This post has been edited by JustinID: Jun 11 2008, 05:49 PM

[Alien]

But the media would NEVER lie!

http://www.wptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?...03-b0dd76f2cebc

Channel 5, open mouth, insert foot.

[Rob Hood]

I have a friend who has installed this contraption on his 2005 (I think) Dodge four-door 2WD pickup with the 4.7 V8 which is stock save for this system. He has so far seen a huge increase in highway mpg, from 14 to 20. I too have been very skeptical of this setup, but am now considering installing it on my HD. (I am only CONSIDERING it right now). My friend currently is using one water jar, but is increasing to a six-pack soon.

One of the first things he noticed after getting the system installed and working with the engine was how much quieter and smoother the engine was. I mention that because he's not a motorhead by hobby but is an electrician by trade. I couldn't tell the difference in sound, but it's his truck and I've never driven it. There is a box that allows you to switch the timing from "city" and "highway," which allows more timing when in the city mode. The city mode does give you more low-end power to help acceleration, but is not needed when on the highway.

I'm waiting on his more long-term results, just to see how the truck holds up overall. He does not tow with his truck but does haul gear and people fairly regularly, with work sites ranging from Ft Huachuca to Yuma (lots of highway driving). And all this has been going on during summer, with temps easily in the 100s and sometimes the 110s.

[SLICK1851]

People use water injection for turbo setups, doesnt to far fetched to me

[CMC#5]

Guys, guys...you're looking at this all wrong! The reality is if this actually worked, the oil companies would've buried the inventors under fifty feet of concrete and collected and burned all of the documentation! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[bsim]

Or, they'd be drilling for water by now.

[Rob Hood]

Environmentalists won't let them drill offshore...

[Mojave]

People use water injection for turbo setups, doesnt to far fetched to me

Whoa there. Turbo guys inject straight water into the intake stream to reduce heat. It takes a lot of energy to make steam from water, and that is heat coming out of the intake air. There is no electrolysis to break the water apart.

The setup talked about here is completely different, and most importantly, does not follow the law of conservation of energy.

YMMV.

[z28tt]

The more heat you take out of the burn, the lower your cylinder pressure, and the less power you make*.

(*if you're not mojorly timing limited)

A.

[ReEntryRacer]

The more heat you take out of the burn, the lower your cylinder pressure, and the less power you make*.

(*if you're not mojorly timing limited)

A.

As a matter of fact, piston engines do not make power directly from heat. They make torque from the pressure of expanding gases in the combustion chamber pushing on the crown of the pistons. Injecting water into that combustion process in the correct volume causes a tremendously more efficient increase in that pressure, resulting in as much as 30% more torque. This is done while using less fuel (de-richen from 12.5:1 best power A/F to 14.7:1 best heat A/F) during maximum power production. The temperature is less (of course) but as I said, heat doesn't have any real relationship to torque. The engine runs smoother, cooler, cleaner, and gets at least 25% more power. All this with a bottle of pure water, and a simple low pressure injection pump. Mine was a Nissan windshield washer pump. A 1-ton dually 350 SBC with a 10 ft. camper towing a boat up the 10-mile steep grade into the interior of British Columbia on Highway 5 proved the concept. Drilled two holes in the air cleaner lid for small jets (drilled .050" holes in 3/16ths bolts) positioned over the secondary barrels. A momentary contact switch under the gas pedal, and an arming switch to get it all working. Just don't forget to add a little alcohol to the bottle in the winter.

The idea is not at all new. I just copied the basic system used in the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 CB16 18 cylinder aircraft engine used in the DC-6 four-engined airliners of the late '40s. They got an EXTRA 500 BHP for take-off on each engine (that's a total of 2000 BHP, equal to a 5th engine!) when using water injection. The tanks and pumps were quite small, with 6 gallons providing enough for about 40 minutes of extra power. They used 25% LESS fuel during the take-off and climb than when running "dry".
Jets also used the concept to lower turbine inlet temperatures while conserving fuel and increasing power. Both piston and turbine helicopters used it too, for extreme high altitude hover rescues, etc.

Nothing is really new. We just forget. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[SLICK1851]

The more heat you take out of the burn, the lower your cylinder pressure, and the less power you make*.

(*if you're not mojorly timing limited)

A.

As a matter of fact, piston engines do not make power directly from heat. They make torque from the pressure of expanding gases in the combustion chamber pushing on the crown of the pistons. Injecting water into that combustion process in the correct volume causes a tremendously more efficient increase in that pressure, resulting in as much as 30% more torque. This is done while using less fuel (de-richen from 12.5:1 best power A/F to 14.7:1 best heat A/F) during maximum power production. The temperature is less (of course) but as I said, heat doesn't have any real relationship to torque. The engine runs smoother, cooler, cleaner, and gets at least 25% more power. All this with a bottle of pure water, and a simple low pressure injection pump. Mine was a Nissan windshield washer pump. A 1-ton dually 350 SBC with a 10 ft. camper towing a boat up the 10-mile steep grade into the interior of British Columbia on Highway 5 proved the concept. Drilled two holes in the air cleaner lid for small jets (drilled .050" holes in 3/16ths bolts) positioned over the secondary barrels. A momentary contact switch under the gas pedal, and an arming switch to get it all working. Just don't forget to add a little alcohol to the bottle in the winter.

The idea is not at all new. I just copied the basic system used in the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 CB16 18 cylinder aircraft engine used in the DC-6 four-engined airliners of the late '40s. They got an EXTRA 500 BHP for take-off on each engine (that's a total of 2000 BHP, equal to a 5th engine!) when using water injection. The tanks and pumps were quite small, with 6 gallons providing enough for about 40 minutes of extra power. They used 25% LESS fuel during the take-off and climb than when running "dry".
Jets also used the concept to lower turbine inlet temperatures while conserving fuel and increasing power. Both piston and turbine helicopters used it too, for extreme high altitude hover rescues, etc.

Nothing is really new. We just forget. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Does this thing work then? Or the idea of it?

[Mojave]

The more heat you take out of the burn, the lower your cylinder pressure, and the less power you make*.

(*if you're not mojorly timing limited)

A.

As a matter of fact, piston engines do not make power directly from heat. They make torque from the pressure of expanding gases in the combustion chamber pushing on the crown of the pistons. Injecting water into that combustion process in the correct volume causes a tremendously more efficient increase in that pressure, resulting in as much as 30% more torque. This is done while using less fuel (de-richen from 12.5:1 best power A/F to 14.7:1 best heat A/F) during maximum power production. The temperature is less (of course) but as I said, heat doesn't have any real relationship to torque. The engine runs smoother, cooler, cleaner, and gets at least 25% more power. All this with a bottle of pure water, and a simple low pressure injection pump. Mine was a Nissan windshield washer pump. A 1-ton dually 350 SBC with a 10 ft. camper towing a boat up the 10-mile steep grade into the interior of British Columbia on Highway 5 proved the concept. Drilled two holes in the air cleaner lid for small jets (drilled .050" holes in 3/16ths bolts) positioned over the secondary barrels. A momentary contact switch under the gas pedal, and an arming switch to get it all working. Just don't forget to add a little alcohol to the bottle in the winter.

The idea is not at all new. I just copied the basic system used in the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 CB16 18 cylinder aircraft engine used in the DC-6 four-engined airliners of the late '40s. They got an EXTRA 500 BHP for take-off on each engine (that's a total of 2000 BHP, equal to a 5th engine!) when using water injection. The tanks and pumps were quite small, with 6 gallons providing enough for about 40 minutes of extra power. They used 25% LESS fuel during the take-off and climb than when running "dry".
Jets also used the concept to lower turbine inlet temperatures while conserving fuel and increasing power. Both piston and turbine helicopters used it too, for extreme high altitude hover rescues, etc.

Nothing is really new. We just forget. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Does this thing work then? Or the idea of it?

What we are discussing here (straight water injection) and what they are selling (electrolysis to get pure hydrogen to inject) are two different things. Yes, adding hydrogen to the intake charge helps. No, you can't get nearly enough from a small bottle of water, and it takes MORE power to make the hydrogen than you gain from burning it.