Hydrogen systems- has anyone had success? - Page 9 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

rcounts · #**121** 05-15-2008, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

.

I ran into this energy loss idea when reading about the expansion of the
universe.

Current theory suggests that the universe will not continue to expand
nor will it contract.

The idea is that everything will slowly wind down.
There will be less and less movement. (energy,matter).

I guess the more proper term would be universe entropy ??

..

What you have said would be a dam good argument against that theory.
That the reverse should be possible, ie.. getting energy from nowhere.

..

I guess if they figure out where the energy is going they might figure
out how to get some back.

Thinking about it this way leads me to think it is a mathematical error
they have not caught yet.

Thanks
Have Fun
RichC
.

Got any references to this THEY you refer to - i.e. an article that others could read to get to the source of your ideas?

rcounts · #**122** 05-15-2008, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Johnson

Human instrumentation is principally digital. There's a lot more to talk about but that is a simple point to reference.

However you want to slice it, that imposes the structure of the rational numbers on what we perceive. That's Aleph null or the countably infinite. Yet we know clearly that the universe has a cardinality of at least Aleph one -- that would be the real numbers, including transcendentals like e and Pi.

Et voila.

Yup.

You could say that's a teensy mathematical error they haven't caught yet.

It gets worse, though, as our warrantable reasoning ability with even the countably infinite is limited.

Touchy subject. It's something that we are probably not ready to deal with.

Dude, are you a MENSA candidate - or do you just impersonate one on the internet.

Cervan · #**123** 05-15-2008, 07:36 AM

You could use gasoline instead of water to retreive the hydrogen, but then your defeating the purpose..

pmckechnie · #**124** 05-15-2008, 07:56 AM

Sorry Kevin, I missed that one. But it does make me think that it is possible.

RichC · #**125** 05-15-2008, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcounts

Got any references to this THEY you refer to - i.e. an article that others could read to get to the source of your ideas?

I will try to find it.
Spent a little time but couldent find it.

RichC · #**126** 05-15-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Johnson

Human instrumentation is principally digital. There's a lot more to talk about but that is a simple point to reference.

However you want to slice it, that imposes the structure of the rational numbers on what we perceive. That's Aleph null or the countably infinite. Yet we know clearly that the universe has a cardinality of at least Aleph one -- that would be the real numbers, including transcendentals like e and Pi.

Et voila.

Yup.

You could say that's a teensy mathematical error they haven't caught yet.

It gets worse, though, as our warrantable reasoning ability with even the countably infinite is limited.

Touchy subject. It's something that we are probably not ready to deal with.

So there being more real numbers than the cardinality of the natural numbers is a problem we have not solved yet.

And you think you might find someting in one of these tiny little holes ?

I think it is a problem with how we percieve things.
Not with the actual number of things that exist.

But I dont understand math that well.

And I have not had enough coffee yet.

RichC
.

RichC · #**127** 05-15-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcounts

Got any references to this THEY you refer to - i.e. an article that others could read to get to the source of your ideas?

.

I cannot seem to find it.

Maybe my messed up little brain got its wires crossed or something.

This is the closest writing to the idea that I could find.

But they talk about a loss of usable energy.
Not a strict loss of energy itself.

RichC

.

As a finite universe may be considered an isolated system, it may be subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so that its total entropy is constantly increasing. It has been speculated that the universe is fated to a heat death in which all the energy ends up as a homogeneous distribution of thermal energy, so that no more work can be extracted from any source.
If the universe can be considered to have generally increasing entropy, then - as Roger Penrose has pointed out - gravity plays an important role in the increase because gravity causes dispersed matter to accumulate into stars, which collapse eventually into black holes. Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking have shown that black holes have the maximum possible entropy of any object of equal size. This makes them likely end points of all entropy-increasing processes, if they are totally effective matter and energy traps. Hawking has, however, recently changed his stance on this aspect.

glider · #**128** 05-15-2008, 12:16 PM

"If man was meant to fly he'd have wings!!!!" "The world is definetly flat!!!" "There is no God!!!" Come...let us reason together! We are all spirits...living within bodies of matter and energy! like Pinocchio...we all desire to be so much more than puppets!

patbob · #**129** 05-15-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Johnson

Don't be so quick to judge. Errr.... looking this up on Google took me about 30 seconds. You just have to scan information/hits quickly and look for indices of serious research.

I spent a couple of evenings doing this once. You will find none. What you will find is the same 2(?) studies, and the same rehash repeated endlessly. Track down the two studies and only one is relevant, and not terribly well done science, if I recall.

Basically, all these places are feeding off each other's plagiarism of the rehash that someone did of some flawed studies that found a benefit. Reminds me of my philosophy of religion course back in college

.

I did further searching.. and found two studies done by reputable scientists from reputable organizations. Both were for pure H2 gas introduction, one on a gasoline engine, the other on a diesel. Both showed an increase in thermodynamic efficiency above diesel or gas alone. Neither added the load of generating the H2 gas onboard (they both used bottled H2 gas). The efficiency was up, but still less than a 10% gain, and, in the gas vehicle engine, power was down (so the car was less responsive when driven and couldn't go as fast). Amusingly, in the diesel, they found the limiting factor for the gains to be the replacement of atmospheric O2 in the intake charge (ie. the gains topped out when they started to starve the engine for Oxygen by substituting too much Hydrogen gas for air in the intake).

However, that's all for H2 gas, not H2 and O2 gasses combined in the stoichiometric mix. YMMV

If I had the time, I'd do the experiment with one of these systems just so we can prove once and for all that they really don't provide any benefit (or.. heck, maybe they'll suprise us and they do provide a measurable benefit). The $100 isn't the limit for me, its the time. If anyone wantes to work with me on this this summer, let me know.

Bstef · #**130** 05-15-2008, 04:33 PM

I've been toying with the idea of building a HHO gen,
but simply to make a torch out of it.

Burning thru rocks with water is a turn on for me.

Secondly, I want to play the idea of using a HHO gen to create a torch to heat a steam engine model,
and then hook the steam engine to a dynamo, and see if I can power the generator with it. Very little gas= very hot flame.

I don't see why it would not work, sept for the high possibility of burning right thru the model steam engine tank.

....

ozzy · #**131** 05-25-2008, 08:12 AM

Hopefully I can help you out as I have built and also promote the “water4gas” system,
A little background, just over a year ago as gas prices were going through the roof a guy on a tv show I was watching was demonstrating this thing called a “HHO” generator, bubbling away under his hood and he was claiming around 30% to 40% increase in gas economy.
I was like yeah whatever! But the more I looked into it and spent many hours on the net I started to get very interested to build one and find out myself, I found plenty of sites with plans on how to build them ranging from about $50 to $300, at first I didn’t want to buy any plans and continued researching, after a few months and endless experimenting in my garage I made my first “HHO” generator, a little crude but it did manage to make gas! Got very excited and couldn’t wait to hook it up to my car. Well it ran well for about 3 weeks and slowly died, the plates started to corrode and as far as fuel economy goes it seemed a little better but as I found out it was slowly deteriorating it never had a chance to give any long term results, but it did get me excited.
About 6 months ago I bit the bullet and thought what the hell, I’ll buy the plans from water4gas and give it ago, well all I can say is, it is definitely worth the money as I found out it’s the small detail that makes this thing work, I’ve now had it running in my car now for a little over 4 months and have not touched it, just clean it out and refill it every tank full, I’m not getting a massive increase in fuel economy, depending on my driving I’m seeing an increase of 10% to 20%, doesn’t sound like a lot but it’s a start, there are other things I need to do yet that I haven’t had the time to do, due to work commitments.
A couple of tips I can give you if you decide to build one,
1) Use high grade stainless, I used marine grade, (don’t use the cheap stuff you buy from the hardware store).
2) Use high quality electrical fittings and high amp cable, such as the stuff professional audio system installer’s use. Mine draws around 14 amps.
Anyway good luck, I’m not trying to sell you, just do your research and go for it.
Oh and the other thing I have noticed is how smooth the engine is now running, I checked the spark plugs the other day and they all look clean as, they’re usually a bit sooty.

#**132** 05-25-2008, 08:27 AM

I thought we finally let this HHO scam die!

diametricalbenz · #**133** 05-25-2008, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Johnson

See post 140. The answer is yes.

Um, clearly someone's notepad is plenty of repeated stringent scientific testing.

Now I can sell 1991 Toyota Celicas on ebay for $25,000

#**134** 05-25-2008, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Johnson

I thought debate was flattened when I showed that serious research on this is being done around the world. That took me two minutes time.

"Serious research" is pointless, especially by individuals with an agenda to sell/promote a specific product.

Show me some serious applications where it is sold on new vehicles. There isn't one. If it really boosted MPG by that much then car makers would be selling them on every car they make to have a major selling point advantage over other manufacturers. Don't you think that if they had cars making 40mpg for only a few hundred $ more than the same cars making 30mpg they would be advertising/selling them all over the place?

tompaah7503 · #**135** 05-25-2008, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Johnson

I thought debate was flattened when I showed that serious research on this is being done around the world. That took me two minutes time.

You forgot to add "onboard" as a search term since three of the papers you mention does not deal with on-board generation of H2.

The other two papers that actually deal with onboard generation of H2 from hydrocarbons which by no means is the same thing as running your car on water. (That 1981 study could be interesting to read since it's using waste heat as generating energy, but since it's purposed results are not used today, the abstract ends with "show a potential" AND the site charges $14 for a lousy e-mail, it really isn't worth the effort)

If you by "serious research" mean research generally, let me show some other, actual, research that has been done on various topics. Seriously.

"Sword Swallowing and Its Side Effects"
"Why woodpeckers don't get headaches"
"Ultrasonic Velocity in Cheddar Cheese as Affected by Temperature"
(You'll find lot more here: http://improbable.com/ig/winners/ )

My point being that just because there's research being done, it doesn't mean it's serious, true, viable, working or whatever else. Don't forget there's been a lot of research done through the years gone by, which by todays standards is considered either totally non-scientific, complete junk or highly unethical.