Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

[SuperNova]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Now that you are hopefully listening a little better sgtmjr, let me esplains sumting to you. If you disconnect an alternator from the electrical system completely and then spin it...you'll get.....NOTHING. No matter how fast you spin it.....NOTHING. It needs electrical input to excite the field coils to produce output. We control how much output by controlling the input current and voltage. As we increase the load on the alternator, we increase the energy required to spin it. An alternator is capable of increased output at higher RPM...but this is only POTENTIAL capability...it does NOT mean that it just puts out more electricity the faster you spin it. There is an easy test for this.....go to a local garage and have them do a CARBON PILE load test of the charging system...when they load the system...you WILL hear the engine drag down. YOU WILL USE MORE GASOLINE TO GENERATE THE HYDROGEN/OXYGEN THAN YOU WILL SAVE BY BURNING THE HYDROGEN/OXYGEN. THIS IS THE BIG HOLDUP OF HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS. It take more power to get the hydrogen than can be recovered by burning it.

And yes, an alternator is basically an electric motor with the input and output reversed. And a few electrical components added to rectify the AC current they generate into DC current your car can use. Alternator= Alternating Current. We used to have DC generators, but they produced a very dirty sine wave that f'd up fine electronics. But if you removeed those extra rectifying electronics and put power and ground to the contacts you'd get an electric motor.
--
Stan

 

[v1_0]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

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.

SgtMaj,

What you are missing is that when you draw current from the alternator, you increase the electromagnetic resistance inside the alternator. It's like the difference of running up a hill with an M16 and an M60. You run up the hill, but it's easier with the 16.

If you want to see the resistance in action, get a cylinder shaped (super) magnet and drop it in a slightly larger diameter copper pipe. Take a steel (non-magnet) cylinder of the same weight and drop it down the same pipe. The magnet will always take longer to fall through the pipe.

What is happening is that the magnet moving 'past' (in) the copper is generating electrical current. The electric current (in the copper) is generating a magnetic field. The magnetic field of the (real) magnet and the generated magnetic field (by the current in the copper pipe) are opposing each other. Now, if the maget stops moving - no electric field is created, and then there is no generated magnetic field. So, things get to an equilibrium where the magnet moves at a speed that produces a smaller generated magnetic field than can stop the magnet...

Something similar is occuring in the alternator. The more load you draw, the more current the alternator needs to create - and the larger the generated magnetic field (by the current moving in the copper wires). This magnetic field opposes the 'fixed' magnet and the resistance increases....

The other way of demonstrating this is to get a hand-cranked generator and varying the load on it. You can actually feel that it gets harder to crank with a bigger load.

Hope that helps.

-V

 

[QC]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Yeah ^^^ what he said. Also, since it appears that you were thinking speed is all that matters, be aware that generators driven by an engine are almost always at a fixed speed. They MUST stay at a fixed speed or bad things happen . . . This has to do with Hz, 50 or 60, and basically the RPM has to stay fixed in a multiple of either depending again on the required Hz. Oh, and RPM is always the same between engine and generator as there is no transmission. Direct coupled, very simple.

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

They MUST stay at a fixed speed or bad things happen . . . This has to do with Hz, 50 or 60, and basically the RPM has to stay fixed in a multiple of either depending again on the required Hz.

This remotely touches on what happened in Fla. A substation tripped and evidently the load was close to max. When it tripped, the load went to the remaining generators on the grid. This exceeded their capacity and whenever that happens the Hz gets off and the generators will tear themselves apart. Thus the generators tripped in cascade fashion until the load balances the capacity. Unfortunately that didn't happen until a large part of the state was dark.

 

[lakelivin]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

... 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'm probably showing my ignorance here, but besides the obvious (well water instead of a dedicated passive ground loop; presumably used for cooling only), isn't that just a type of geothermal heat pump?

How could anyone reasonably doubt it's effectiveness?

What are your thoughts on the implications of using well water vs. a dedicated ground loop? I.e., electricity cost to run your well pump much more than you would otherwise, long term wear & tear on your well & equipment, etc. Obviously in the short term you're saving $$$, just wondered if you think your short term savings might be mitigated somewhat in the long term by those other costs/ factors (as compared to a dedicated ground loop system). And no, i don't expect them to be 'mitigated' to the point of costing more than retro installation of a dedicated ground loop : ).

For the life of me, I don't know why we can't (don't) utilize geothermal systems to a much greater extent than we do. I know that dropping circulating loops for a geothermal system is expensive, but I've gotta believe costs would come down significantly if we did it a lot more (as contractors became familiar with it and the technology improved)... Your thoughts?

 

[angus63]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

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



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...

Sarge, you are trying to equivocate power and speed. I have a 1/16 hp burr remover that turns at 5000rpm. I was on a tug boat with a 8000 hp slow speed diesel that maxed out at 120 rpm. Think of electrical load as the friction brake on a bike. At 10 mph and no load (brake), it's requires little effort (HP) from the rider. Now if you apply some load (brake), it requires the rider to exert alot of effort (HP) to maintain 10 mph. All the time the bikes wheels are turning the same speed (rpm), but the effort (HP) increases with braking applied (load). Hope this helps!!​

 

[v1_0]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

What are your thoughts on the implications of using well water vs. a dedicated ground loop?

Just one question: Do you really want to be pumping out your drinking water?

In a closed loop system, the water (mixture) just recirculates around - so losses are minimal. With the well water... depends on the setup, I guess.

One other difference is what is being run through the pipes - in the case of the well, it would be water. In closed loop systems, I think it is some sort of mixture.

By the way, this sort of setup is good for heating and cooling. Water, coolant, etc. from the distance below the surface we are talking about here should be something like 54 degrees. This is actually a much better temperature than the air is most of the time - for heating or cooling.

For the life of me, I don't know why we can't (don't) utilize geothermal systems to a much greater extent than we do.

I looked into doing something similar a couple of years back. The problem (right now, in this area) is that there is a lack of expertise in this sort of thing. So, I went with a normal heat pump setup this time - maybe in 10 years or so I'll replace it.

You are right about the costs too... It looks like you need to drill a series of wells, run pipe down them, fill them in. (If you go vertical). OR you can dig a pit, snake pipe in it, and cover it up - it needs to be at least a foot or so deep (probably more). If you are lucky enough to have a pond near your house, I've read that you can lay the pipe on the bottom of the pond.

For new houses, I suppose that you could snake pipe then pour your slab over the top of it. (Just a thought). Of course, if you sprung a leak it would be a very bad thing to fix.

I really do expect to see more of this technology - especially up North where heatpumps aren't really so efficient in the winter due to cold air temps...

-V

 

[lakelivin]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Just one question: Do you really want to be pumping out your drinking water? ....

-V

Not ideally. But SMD (studlymandingo) did it that way retrospectively, so I was wondering about any potential negative aspects and how he weights them.

I'm fairly familiar with the concepts behind geo-thermal systems, just wanted more info on SMD's retro setup using his well. . .

 

[SgtMaj]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

QC, V1_0 and the rest...

I've always been one to admit when I'm wrong, so here goes... you are right. It took me a while, but I finally realized you were right about the increased torque required to spin the alternator when under higher load. I finally got it when I was thinking about those power outages and how when one or more generators go down, the other generators on the grid can seize up from the extra load. So TashasDaddy and the rest of you down in Florida, rest assured, your power outage served to help me learn something I should have already known. Don't you feel better about being in the dark now?

Anyway, that being the case, the original gas saving scheme never stood a chance as the increased hp from the gas wouldn't quite be enough to offset the loss of hp required to produce it. However, the idea of using home electricity to make the gas, then just pressurizing the hydrogen and using that, is still maybe feasable. Sure it would still take more energy, but at 8 cents per kilowatt hour, home electric may be cheaper than $3.50/gallon gasoline. I have no idea how many kilowatt hours it would take to replace 1 gallon of gasoline though.

 

[v1_0]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Anyway, that being the case, the original gas saving scheme never stood a chance as the increased hp from the gas wouldn't quite be enough to offset the loss of hp required to produce it. However, the idea of using home electricity to make the gas, then just pressurizing the hydrogen and using that, is still maybe feasable. Sure it would still take more energy, but at 8 cents per kilowatt hour, home electric may be cheaper than $3.50/gallon gasoline. I have no idea how many kilowatt hours it would take to replace 1 gallon of gasoline though.

If I've understood the things that I've read - the feasibility of the scheme (in the car) depends on using some sort of (chemical) catalyst to reduce the 'energy cost' of breaking down the water. In addition to that, I've also read that heat reduces the 'energy cost' as well. That said, I think that using engine heat to heat the water, and adding a catalyst might reduce the power requirements to where you get a net gain. Your first experiment sounds like it was good for gaining experience, didn't seem like you were interested in making it feasable just yet.

The idea of bottling Hydrogen sounds like it might get you in more trouble than just getting you labeled as the niegborhood "mad chemist". As in, getting you labeled as the guy that blew up your house (or car, or maybe the nieborhood depending on how much you make).

-V

PS: What about the bearing question/idea in one of my previous posts?

 

[Lakester]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

As an engineer, I can answer some of the questions.


It is extremely doubtful that this will work.


Terry

this was my thot, too. i might have been more confirmed in my opinion...

however, a neighbor did order the info kit and with his own engineering did install a system on his mid 80's gas hog suburban 305. i saw it working... making the H bubbles.

i can only go by what he says, however he claims once installed... he went 225 on 6.3 gallons of gasoline. he was averaging 13-15 mpg before.

i am now interested enuff to keep up with his progress.

regards
lakester

 

[jasbur1]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

I was really hoping to see how this worked out. I once put bananas in the oven as a kid to get "energy" but that didn't work.

I haven't done any looking but are they making gas/electric boats yet? I saw this car on CNN that get 300mpg. Thought I'd get one when they are legal in all 50 states. http://www.aptera.com

 

[SgtMaj]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Digging up bones here...

I was reminded of this thread from an article on FARK about a mechanic who had done this or something similar and was claiming to get great mileage from it... I couldn't help but chuckle, but then I had another idea that might just make this idea work...

Ok, so we all know hooking the electrolysis up to the alternator doesn't work because it increases the resistance to run the alternator, thus eating up more gas... but what if instead of hooking it up to the car alternator, you hooked it up to a separate steam powered alternator that was being driven by the waste heat produced by the engine? Surely then it would work.

Ok, so I'm not even going to try that, just thought I'd throw that out there... There's no way it's worth the conversion since the experiment I did do, showed that very little gas is even created in the first place... maybe enough for a 1% increase in mileage if done this way... but not enough to make a real dent in what you pay at the pump.

 

[CJY]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Hey Sgt, there are cars on the road as we speak that operate the way you describe in the original post. Watch the video, this guy is working on vehicles for the government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU

(Sorry if the direct link is a violation of rules, but I don't know how to post it any other way) With help, I will change it.

Much negativity thrown your way in regards to your thoughts. My personal belief, it can work and there are a few cars on the road that operate this way.

This may or may not have been stated already, I did not read every post. Anyway, electricity separates water into H2 and O. This is necessary because when combined, it's not flammable(someone could not figure out why the two elements need to be separated). H2 is the fuel burned in the engine. And no, the two will not recombine prior to ignition. It takes a whole lot more energy to bond H2 and O than it does to separate them.
I am not entirely sure of how it works, but it will work. Essentially though, an add on sensor is needed. This sensor "senses" the amount of H2 passing into the carb, it relays this info to the car computer which then adjust the fuel/Oxygen mixture going into the carb. From what I have learned, you can buy everything you need from your local hardware store for about $60. The only other item you need is the sensor which can also be purchased on-line for a few bucks, no major money needed.

I wonder if all the nay-sayers realize vehicles have been operating on LP gas for quite some time now.

The key to how much gasoline you save is based on how quickly you can separate H2O. More electricity = faster separation. That is the reason, as you stated, the more units attached to the car, the better the fuel mileage.

You can actually make a mini-system of what you are talking about.

Take a 9v battery and attach a separate copper wire to each terminal. Bare about 1/2 inch of both copper ends opposite the terminals. Then simply place the exposed tips in a single jar of water and observe. Use tap water and not distilled water. I don't remember which is which, but from one tip you will get oxygen bubbles and from the other you will get hydrogen bubbles. You can capture both by placing the wire tips into inverted test tubes or something similar.

BTW, I heard of a couple crazy brothers in Dayton, Ohio that are trying to build some contraption that will allow them to fly with the birds...idiots..... rocket to the moon, breaking the sound barrier, polio/mumps etc vaccines, light bulbs, home pc's, the very complicated wheel, and on and on and on. All of these, much like running a car on H2, simply rediculous. I need to go plow the north 40 now, I hope those darn horses are ready to roll. I sure am glad someone invented the horse drawn plow. Hey wait, that can never happen either.

 

[bucky7680]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

CJY: Energy is released when H2 and Oxygen are combined. That's what produces movement.
***
***
I guess some people were sleeping in thier High School physics class and missed the part about. "Energy can not be created or distroyed. It can only be converted to another form of energy"
***
***

When H2 and O combine The energy stored in the atoms is coverted into thermal energy.
****
****
The key to increased mpg on an internal combustion engine is to make the conversion of energy to motion more efficient. Most of the energy is waisted as heat energt.

 

[cheburashka]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

I think there's going to be even more of an appetite for this kind of gimmic as gas prices go up. Vornados, fuel line magnets, etc. Good news for the hucksters and snake oil salesmen, but probably not much good for you and me.

I watched the Youtube video about "HHO" gas. It really bugs me that they're saying that car "runs on water." It doesn't. It runs on electricity. What he has there is a form of fuel cell. It's cool, but it's not extracting energy from water.

 

[Mark42]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

I saw this really neat device that doubles or triples fuel economy. One end of the device is attached to your car, the other end is attached to any unsuspecting parked vehicle. Then it magically doubles or triples the amount of gas in your tank.

I think it works best when done late at night and you have to drive away really fast.

 

[CJY]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Bucky,


Are you serious? Are you clueless regarding internal combustion engines?

First off, where did I say anything about "destroying" energy? What do they call that, readers liberty? Secondly, did you really need physics class to learn energy cannot be created or destroyed.? I did not.

Thirdly, had you done your homework, you would have realized I am not talking about a "fuel cell", as you are. Fuel cells operate similarly as you have described.

Bucky, you said:

"Energy is released when H2 and Oxygen are combined. That's what produces movement."


One simple question for you Bucky, what do you believe bonds the two elements back as water? Try this since you appear to not understand, ignition or more simply put, heat. BTW, the recombining is not what produces the movement. Movement is caused by, as you describe "wasted heat" energy being transformed to mechanical energy. I will explain this later. Isn't this what you told me I slept through?

I am not sure what you are thinking, but heat is vital to the bonding process. It is not "wasted" as you have described. Perhaps, just perhaps, had you not slept through your chemistry class you would have picked this up along the way. Furthermore, the heat you describe as "waste," is exactly the mechanism that drives the piston through some more simple physical properties of all matter. I can explain this if needed. Alright, I will. Heat causes the atoms of matter to vibrate faster and consequently spread further from one another, thus, taking up more space. This causes compression within the combustion chamber, thus driving the piston downward. Did you get that in your physics class?


Bucky, you also said:

The key to increased mpg on an internal combustion engine is to make the conversion of energy to motion more efficient.



Good one! I am with you on this one. But my question, how is this different from any other internal combustion engine on the road? BTW, you do realize "motion," is a form of energy....right?

Let me clear up your confusion. As I stated, the heat in the combustion chamber is vital. Without it, no boom, no expansion/compression, and no movement. You are confusing this with the fact that friction in the drive trane causes heat, which does in fact rob your vehicle of energy and horsepower. You probably learned this on the quaker state commercial with the golden horses running around. THe "bad heat" would be caused by things like pistons rubbing on cylinder walls, bad bearings, all the way down to wheel bearings and such that also work against the engine. All of this friction does in fact produce, "wasted heat."


If you would have actually read and retained what I have said, you would have realized I am talking about separating the two elements and using the combustible nature of the hydrogen as fuel. You know, it explodes just above the piston creating heat and of course, the needed compression to drive the internal combustion engine. I explained this to you above.


Average gasoline looks like this, C8H18. When gas is reacted with oxygen(through ignition), you end up with CO2 and H2...ideally. Because nature is not always ideal, you also get compounds including carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, and sulfur-containing compounds.

Now, what you need to do is remove the C8H18 from the above equation and replace it with H2. When the H2 is ignited with the proper proportion of Oxygen, the result is back to water, and of course the boom, expansion/compression and consequent movement. Were you able to keep up Bucky?

Now, we can talk physics and chemistry all you would like, but at least be prepared before you begin speaking from a position of authority. Kind of like when you said the following;

"I guess some people were sleeping in thier High School physics class and missed the part about."


Rest assured, I have never "slept" through any class.
If I were the type of person you appear to be, I would respond with something along the line of, "had you not slept through your spelling/english class"......well, I think you get the picture. If not, say so and I will SPELL it out for you. Shoot, just look at the complete sentence I quoted just above this paragragh. Bucky, I love a good discussion. I would suggest thinking twice before you decide to speak down to another person.

 

[cheburashka]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

CYJ, I understand exactly what Bucky is talking about. What's going on in the video you linked to is an inefficient process which uses electricity to create hydrogen, and then recombines the hydrogen with oxygen to create energy. How is that creating energy? It's simply transferring it. You need energy to separate the oxygen from the hydrogen. You seem to have the idea that it takes less energy to separate the two gases than is produced when they recombine. This is incorrect. Basically, the principle you're talking about is about the same as powering a wind-up car by running a drive off of the wheel that re-winds the key.

You can't make a car that is powered by water. You can separate the water into its component gases, but to do so you need an external source of energy. What's your external source of energy?

 

[nismo]

Re: Crazy gas saving scheme, will it work?

Ok I know i'm really new here, and on top of it aint the brightest bulb in the pack, but if i remember (and i probably don't) correctly from science class h2 + o= water, now i think i understand that what they are doing is actually harnessing the energy created from this, but what happens to the water? does it simply evaporate from the heat? or is it run through the motor and then disposed of threw exhaust? Either way isnt that going to create a whole new problem? such as rust?