75ZT Community

carlpenn wrote:

SpongeBob wrote:

carlpenn wrote:How about something like this:

I do hope no one considers this seriously. I had to laugh very hard at their claims. However, as much as it would be funny to rip apart some of the statements on their website we best not detract from the original posters question.

So rather than belittle an honest (if not naive) attempt at helping a member, perhaps you would like to enlighten us with your considerable wisdom, failing that, move back to the other forum where your smugness will be more appreciated.

I don't think anybody would have read Simons post as belittling your offer of information, it seemed obvious to me it was aimed simply at the claims made for it by the sellers.
If you can be bothered have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXb-Wiy4 ... er&list=UL there's a fair bit of preamble but the last 4 minutes of the vid shows his current working prototype of what may one day be a useful piece of kit. This is no. 245 in a series, starting with a similar setup to that being sold by the website you posted. Some of the vids show earlier cells directly fuelling a Briggs and Stratton engine. Very interesting stuff.

Mick wrote: Some of the vids show earlier cells directly fuelling a Briggs and Stratton engine. Very interesting stuff.

Yes but the question remains, where does the energy come from to produce the electrolysis.And does it take more or less energy than is produced when the mixture is burned in the engine. (No need to answer).

Alternatively if you consider the chemical reaction version, how much of the chemicals do you have to have to produce the same energy as other fuels like petrol? How much would that cost, and what effect is there on the environment?

No-one is doubting that if you manage to produce a hydrogen / oxygen mix and feed it into an engine, it will run, just whether it produces anything useful.

Exactly Duncan on all counts, technology in it's infancy. One day perhaps.

I can see this HHO working to a point but only for enriching a diesel engine.
From my own experience with introducing LPG (Liquified Petroleum Gas) as an addition into diesel engines, only a little LPG produces a significant power increase. This is put down to the propane causing the residue from the incomplete combustion to be burned. Therefore we manage to extract more useful work from the original amount of diesel fuel.
I suppose that it might apply to a petrol engine too as there is a lot of fuel burned in the cat. but I have no experience of this.

I can see the Brown's gas generator doing something similar as only a small flow would be required. The gain in energy is because of the maximum extraction of power from the original fuel and could well more than account for the extra energy required from the alternator.

As far as I knew, the only fuel burned in the cat is stuff that would have been wasted if the cat wasn't there. Yes it's converted to prevent unburnt HCs at the tailpipe, but it's not actually required to make that cat do it's other jobs of CO to CO2 and Nox reduction. But I am well prepared to be corrected as I've not studied the chemistry, just working on the fact that I was told the aim is to get the mixture such that all the fuel is burned in the engine. Cat's do affect efficiency, but again, my understanding is that this is because of an increase in back pressure, and the fact that a slightly lean mix is supposedly more efficient.

Duncan wrote:As far as I knew, the only fuel burned in the cat is stuff that would have been wasted if the cat wasn't there. Yes it's converted to prevent unburnt HCs at the tailpipe, but it's not actually required to make that cat do it's other jobs of CO to CO2 and Nox reduction. But I am well prepared to be corrected as I've not studied the chemistry, just working on the fact that I was told the aim is to get the mixture such that all the fuel is burned in the engine. Cat's do affect efficiency, but again, my understanding is that this is because of an increase in back pressure, and the fact that a slightly lean mix is supposedly more efficient.

I think you've summed it up in the last statement. The mix is deliberately held richer than the most economical ratio to provide fuel to keep the cat hot. Some engine management systems cycle between rich and lean intervals as a strategy, or so I was told on a course some time back.

This is why there's not much economy gained by just removing the cat on a petrol car unless it is remapped to suit.
Seeing as the whole world seems obsessed by CO2, it's a wonder that cats haven't been jumped on.

Bernard wrote: Some engine management systems cycle between rich and lean intervals as a strategy, or so I was told on a course some time back.

Some do this for a short burst to prove that the lambda probe is working correctly. The change in mix should be seen as a change in the feedback. There may be other reasons I guess.

This is why there's not much economy gained by just removing the cat on a petrol car unless it is remapped to suit.
Seeing as the whole world seems obsessed by CO2, it's a wonder that cats haven't been jumped on.

Yes, this is the stupidity behind ill informed legislation. Cats were designed to reduce smog in Los Angeles, not to reduce greenhouse gases.