Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

[MikDee]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Well, if gas saving is your goal, I've used synthetic blend oil in my vehicles for years, it's worked for me (any brand), I recently switched over to full synthetic, I find Mobil 1 to actually work the best so far, next I'm trying Amsoil. I'm just getting ready to try synthetic gear oil in the differential, and auto transmission, and of course a K&N air filter (but you've got to keep it clean, occasionally).

 

[Kenneth Brown]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

You are correct. It shouldn't make that much different one way or the other. Your device wasn't going to make very much difference either and I was hoping that the power made was far higher than the power expended to make it.


Success is measured in many different ways. The net outcome is where it makes a difference. After everything else is accounted for did you (would you) save any money? The woman on deal or no deal sold her 1 million dollar case for 497000. She lost 503000 by doing so. Did she really lose? No, shes still a winner, not as a big a winner but a winner none the less. Your experiment has opened many eyes to different things. It has taught you (and multiple others myself included) a few things. I call it a winner.

 

[SgtMaj]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Success is measured in many different ways. The net outcome is where it makes a difference. After everything else is accounted for did you (would you) save any money? The woman on deal or no deal sold her 1 million dollar case for 497000. She lost 503000 by doing so. Did she really lose? No, shes still a winner, not as a big a winner but a winner none the less. Your experiment has opened many eyes to different things. It has taught you (and multiple others myself included) a few things. I call it a winner.

Me too, because now if I ever need copper hydroxide, I'll know how to make it. I'm sure it's good for something anyway.

 

[SpinnerBait_Nut]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

The only way to save gas and improve gas mileage is to let my lil buddies transport you around.

 

[QC]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Cool Sarge. To elaborate a little on the headlight thing, I actually think that would be easily measurable, but you'd have to test in the same temp air, same fuel, same route etc. Which brings me to the fog. Yes fog may make the engine run better , but it is harder to push the car through the air . . . With really bulky loads, sometimes they are most fuel efficient in a hot an dry condition, but again that's more about the wind resistance. EVERYthing matters . . .

Yes your alternator can put out more at slow speeds with a heavy load and less at high speeds with a light load. Nothing linear here. The electrical current load causes a stronger magnetic field and the alternator is harder to turn. You've got to think of this stuff as the opposite of an electric motor which it kinda is. If you need more power from a motor, it requires more electricity, if you want more electricity from an alternator, you need more power to it . . .

BTW, I never laughed at you. I was just disappointed that you decided to throw out some good info that would've helped with your thought process. Yes, some very good ideas get no attention, but most of this chemical/mechanical/electrical stuff can be easily calculated and there is a ton of data out there to refer to.

Finally . . . Spinner is probably right . . .

 

[flystrong]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

You should relax with the knowledge that here in England we are paying ?1.02 per liter (roughly $8 per US gallon) and the price is due to go up again in April!

 

[QC]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

And you should be able to relax knowing that the only difference is tax

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

What the heck does England DO with all that tax money? There roads are small and terrible.

 

[QC]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Have you seen the Queen's stuff?

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

No, but I'm certain it's not very attractive any more.

 

[SuperNova]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Me too, because now if I ever need copper hydroxide, I'll know how to make it. I'm sure it's good for something anyway.

It's a very good algae killer. Works in pools and ponds.
--
Stan

 

[flystrong]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

And you should be able to relax knowing that the only difference is tax

Quite right about 70 percent of the cost is tax.

 

[v1_0]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Does anyone have any experience with using different wheel bearings? Say teflon, ceramic, etc.

Seems to me that there are a few different ways to reduce fuel consumption: make the engine more efficient (lots of work, I assume), reduce mass, improve aerodynamics, reduce friction... I'm thinking the lowest hanging fruit is the friction at the wheel bearings. The next option on the list would be something like reprogramming the computer in your car (fuel injected models) - to adjust the settings of power -vs- economy more to the economy side. That probably wouldnt require modification to the car, but would require some additional equipment.

I also seem to recall something about attaching a volt meter to the O2 sensor - monitoring the voltage is a diagnostic tool for something, perhaps how efficiently you are driving? Not sure.

-V

 

[studlymandingo]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Just had to throw my .02 in on this one. Kudos to SgtMaj for experimenting; your main problem was with your setup. It is possible to extract Brown's gas from water quite easily through electrolysis. Lots of the guys here are right on target with facts; however, it is possible to get enough Brown's gas to have an effect on fuel economy, it is after all in and of itself a fuel that can be burned in an internal combustion engine.

First off, you need a much more efficient electrolyser, as you found out, copper does not work... period. A more effective setup is through the use of stainless steel, 304 stainless I have found works best. The setup I have now uses 4 tubes of 304 stainless cut to 8" lengths; each tube is progressively smaller in size so they will fit one into another, each is then seperated by 3 polyester rods to keep them equally apart. The inside tube is connected to the negative terminal, the outside is connected to the positive, this setup is then placed inside a 4" PVC canister and partially filled with water. Currently I am running the voltage through a coil setup to exponentially increase the voltage output; this is fed through a simple pulse wave generator. It seems that the pulses increase the gas production; I think a variable wave generator would be effective in fine tuning the system, but unfortunately I don't have one. The Brown's gas that results from this process is without doubt flammable; generating enough to singly power a combustion engine would be a monumental task to say the least.

As to supplementing an internal combustion engine; it can indeed decrease the amount of fuel needed to power the motor. It works quite well for my lawnmower; not so well for my car, the reason being is the O2 sensor. By injecting (through the vacuum port on the intake) the Brown's gas into the motor, the O2 sensor is sensing the extra oxygen telling the computer to dump in more fuel. On my lawnmower, I have been able to significantly lean out the mixture without decreasing power. The exhaust and motor itself seems to be cooler which would seem to mean the fuel is burning more efficiently (less energy lost to waste heat). I have heard of devices which "trick" the O2 sensor into leaning out the mixture, but I am not quite ready to do this to my '07 Silverado quite yet until I do more testing.

I have run this off of a seperate battery for testing, and the coil/wave setup definitely puts off more gas than just straight 12v. Hydrogen is more explosive than liquid gasoline (vaporized gas is a more efficient use) so I don't know if it would produce more (hydrogen) energy than it expends in gasoline energy. It seems that there is potential there though.

I have a few experiments going currently; I am a contractor so many revolve around saving energy at home. I built a heat exchanger that uses water from my well in place of my A/C condensing unit, the whole setup cost me less than 100 dollars to build and now a 1.5 ton compressor is more than enough to cool my 1800 sq.ft. home in Florida! Several people said such a simple setup wouldn't work; my electric bill has been consistently running more than 30% less than last year when running a 3.5 ton air-to-air condensing unit, the house temp is the same, you tell me. I am building an addition on my house that has a black concrete roof that contains several hundred feet of PEX tubing; the concrete is stamped to look like a slate roof, it is beautiful, and it heats my water for free!

Fuel ain't getting cheaper fellas; keep on experimenting, people everyday are coming up with ideas to use less energy to acheive the lifestyles we are accustomed to. It has to be done; I for one can't afford fuel to get much more expensive.

Lots of pioneers were at first thought to be foolish at best; keep experimenting!!!!!​

 

[muskyone]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth Brown
Success is measured in many different ways. The net outcome is where it makes a difference. After everything else is accounted for did you (would you) save any money? The woman on deal or no deal sold her 1 million dollar case for 497000. She lost 503000 by doing so. Did she really lose? No, shes still a winner, not as a big a winner but a winner none the less. Your experiment has opened many eyes to different things. It has taught you (and multiple others myself included) a few things. I call it a winner.


well if she paid off a 250,000 mortgage she saved 300,000 in intrest so that makes her a even bigger winner dont it

and sarge tell the neighbors your not cooking meth so leave ya alone and buy it from the guy on the corner like there kids do and make that thing work

 

[SgtMaj]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

No, but I'm certain it's not very attractive any more.

I fell out of my chair laughing so hard.

I like New York's idea on the gas tax, they only tax the first $2 so there's no incentive for the government to let gas prices climb above that. Unfortuneately that only applies to the state taxes in New York so far, and not to the federal gas taxes. But it's a start anyway.

In my state, right now we're paying roughly $0.76/gallon in total taxes. It would be nice if that was cut a bit. Granted, the New York law limiting taxes only cuts a couple pennies off that since the base price is actually only about $2.33/gallon pre-tax, and they would still tax all but the last $0.33 of that, and the federal tax would still apply to it. But any help is still some help.

 

[SgtMaj]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Just had to throw my .02 in on this one. Kudos to SgtMaj for experimenting; your main problem was with your setup. It is possible to extract Brown's gas from water quite easily through electrolysis. Lots of the guys here are right on target with facts; however, it is possible to get enough Brown's gas to have an effect on fuel economy, it is after all in and of itself a fuel that can be burned in an internal combustion engine.

First off, you need a much more efficient electrolyser, as you found out, copper does not work... period. A more effective setup is through the use of stainless steel, 304 stainless I have found works best. The setup I have now uses 4 tubes of 304 stainless cut to 8" lengths; each tube is progressively smaller in size so they will fit one into another, each is then seperated by 3 polyester rods to keep them equally apart. The inside tube is connected to the negative terminal, the outside is connected to the positive, this setup is then placed inside a 4" PVC canister and partially filled with water. Currently I am running the voltage through a coil setup to exponentially increase the voltage output; this is fed through a simple pulse wave generator. It seems that the pulses increase the gas production; I think a variable wave generator would be effective in fine tuning the system, but unfortunately I don't have one. The Brown's gas that results from this process is without doubt flammable; generating enough to singly power a combustion engine would be a monumental task to say the least.​

I saw that from many of the research sites I visited. Unfortuneately for me, none of them mentioned anything about not using copper due to the improper reaction taking place. The only mention was that it would corrode, which I didn't much care about since I only needed it to operate for a short time to run the expiriment. But it looks like I need a refresher course for that honors chem class I had way back in Jr. High...

As far is being able to singly power a combustion engine from it, well you'd need at least 10 times the energy going into creating the gas as what you would get from the engine I think. Plus you would have to modify the entire engine to work off of it alone, plus you'd have the problem of storage, and since it's super explosive, storing enough of it would be a massive hazard.

As to supplementing an internal combustion engine; it can indeed decrease the amount of fuel needed to power the motor. It works quite well for my lawnmower; not so well for my car, the reason being is the O2 sensor. By injecting (through the vacuum port on the intake) the Brown's gas into the motor, the O2 sensor is sensing the extra oxygen telling the computer to dump in more fuel. On my lawnmower, I have been able to significantly lean out the mixture without decreasing power. The exhaust and motor itself seems to be cooler which would seem to mean the fuel is burning more efficiently (less energy lost to waste heat). I have heard of devices which "trick" the O2 sensor into leaning out the mixture, but I am not quite ready to do this to my '07 Silverado quite yet until I do more testing.

Leaning out the mixture can be done via the OBD II (computer), but as you lean it out, compression dramatically increases as does engine temp (though if you're running a cooler burning fuel, that is less a concern, such as if you're burning ethanol, however it's still important to avoid blowing out the rings or worse from the compression being too high).

I have run this off of a seperate battery for testing, and the coil/wave setup definitely puts off more gas than just straight 12v. Hydrogen is more explosive than liquid gasoline (vaporized gas is a more efficient use) so I don't know if it would produce more (hydrogen) energy than it expends in gasoline energy. It seems that there is potential there though.

I have a few experiments going currently; I am a contractor so many revolve around saving energy at home. I built a heat exchanger that uses water from my well in place of my A/C condensing unit, the whole setup cost me less than 100 dollars to build and now a 1.5 ton compressor is more than enough to cool my 1800 sq.ft. home in Florida! Several people said such a simple setup wouldn't work; my electric bill has been consistently running more than 30% less than last year when running a 3.5 ton air-to-air condensing unit, the house temp is the same, you tell me.

That's actually quite brilliant. I had never thought about that before, but my parents did something similar when they built their house, with a geo-thermal heat exchanger, and while even that is more efficient than using a standard heat pump/exchange, it's got to be far less efficient than using it to also start the heating of your hot water... That is just stinkin' brilliant! I love that idea, and when I have to replace my hot water heater (and heat exchanger) in the next few years, which I'll have to do anyway, as both are wearing out quickly, though the water heater will definately go first, as hard as our water is) I will definately look into doing something like that.

I am building an addition on my house that has a black concrete roof that contains several hundred feet of PEX tubing; the concrete is stamped to look like a slate roof, it is beautiful, and it heats my water for free!

I've thought for a while about putting in a solar water heater, but the cost of re-running the pipes properly would offset any energy benefits for many many years. Still it's something that has intrigued me.

Fuel ain't getting cheaper fellas; keep on experimenting, people everyday are coming up with ideas to use less energy to acheive the lifestyles we are accustomed to. It has to be done; I for one can't afford fuel to get much more expensive.

Lots of pioneers were at first thought to be foolish at best; keep experimenting!!!!!

No worries there, I've always loved messing around with stuff.

 

[SgtMaj]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Cool Sarge. To elaborate a little on the headlight thing, I actually think that would be easily measurable, but you'd have to test in the same temp air, same fuel, same route etc. Which brings me to the fog. Yes fog may make the engine run better , but it is harder to push the car through the air . . . With really bulky loads, sometimes they are most fuel efficient in a hot an dry condition, but again that's more about the wind resistance. EVERYthing matters . . .

Yes your alternator can put out more at slow speeds with a heavy load and less at high speeds with a light load. Nothing linear here. The electrical current load causes a stronger magnetic field and the alternator is harder to turn. You've got to think of this stuff as the opposite of an electric motor which it kinda is. If you need more power from a motor, it requires more electricity, if you want more electricity from an alternator, you need more power to it . . .

BTW, I never laughed at you. I was just disappointed that you decided to throw out some good info that would've helped with your thought process. Yes, some very good ideas get no attention, but most of this chemical/mechanical/electrical stuff can be easily calculated and there is a ton of data out there to refer to.

Finally . . . Spinner is probably right . . .

I still can't wrap my head around that because that would mean that you could simply apply current to the alternator to make it spin, which you can't beacause the coils themselved don't generate the electromagnet, it's the magnetic core that simply passes over the coils in order to get the electrons in the copper wire to move. I guess I just don't get it... maybe my next experiment needs to be finding a way to measure this.

 

[QC]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

maybe my next experiment needs to be finding a way to measure this.

Isn't that simply electrical load? Do we get into Ohms law here? That Watt dude too? All easily added up. Dude, like wow, when you go to Costco, and you see the pretty little generators, the ones with da most watts cost da most money, because they require da most horsepower to drive them. They have pretty similar load if nothing is plugged into 'em, but grab yourself about five blow dryers and you can do some serious damage to the ones under 5 KW (5000 watts, about 7 - 8 horsepower) . . . uh, like, five 1000 watt blow dryers. . .

 

[SgtMaj]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Isn't that simply electrical load? Do we get into Ohms law here? That Watt dude too? All easily added up.

No I mean measure the torque required to spin the magnetic core of the alternator under load vs. not under load.

Dude, like wow, when you go to Costco, and you see the pretty little generators, the ones with da most watts cost da most money, because they require da most horsepower to drive them. They have pretty similar load if nothing is plugged into 'em, but grab yourself about five blow dryers and you can do some serious damage to the ones under 5 KW (5000 watts, about 7 - 8 horsepower) . . . uh, like, five 1000 watt blow dryers. . .

That makes sense, but I was under the impression that the extra horsepower was used for the higher "gear ratio" used to spin the alternator faster...