I'm a new member and was browsing the forums and was quite surprised to see a scientific forum here. I noticed, however, that there are no posts about HHO or hydrogen electrolysis. I was wondering if anyone else on these forums has heard of or tried to experiment with such devices as the Stanley Meyer hydroxy generator? What about the more simplified, but less efficient David Lawton cell?
For those of you that have no clue what I'm refering to, let me explain. Hydrogen electrolysis is the process, first discovered by a man named Faraday and later improved by several others, of introducing an electric current into water to cause the seperation of the hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Many people have made small HHO (a short name given to the combination of gasses) generators to help assist in the burning of gasoline in regular cars. Some people, such as Stan Meyer, have made generators capable of powering a car with no additional fuel.
I have made my own design based on Dave Lawton's work as well as a man that posts videos on YouTube that goes by the name of ZeroFossilFuel. Once I meet my posting requirements I will upload schematics for everyone to see. In the mean time, if you want more information search for "HHO" on Google and YouTube. Also, alt-nrg.org is the site ran by ZeroFossilFuel and has a lot of useful information.
I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on this.
Stanley Meyer was a con-man (he died in 1998).
He claimed to have produced a 'fuel-cell' which extracted Hydrogen and Oxygen with less energy than you could obtain by burning the resultant gasses. In scientific parlance we call that an 'over unity' machine (or a 'perpetual motion' device). It was, and is, bollox.
(I believe the US courts found his claims fraudulent in 1996).
Seriously, trying to pass-off this guff in a science forum is not recommended - there are many people here who know crap when they see it, and are not taken-in by voodoo-science.
Don't waste your time (and the time of others) pursuing this nonsense. You cannot beat the laws of thermodynamics by pulsing a current and pretending it uses less energy that it actually does.
From what I understand Lawton's machine works on the same flawed principle.
The 'theory' is that by sending a pulsating current through water you force the molecules to shake apart into hydrogen and oxygen. Here's the news - IT DOESN'T WORK. The machine works by conventional electrolysis - nothing magic - and it requires more energy than you can obtain by burning the resultant gasses.
The internet is filled with shysters offering to build Mayer machines - it is a con. Better to spend your time getting an education in basic physics - then you might be able to build something that actually works.
Getting hydrogen from water is no big deal. You could, for example, just drop some Lithium into plain water. The resultant reaction will give you plenty of hydrogen without any need for electricity at all. Magic? No of course not - the Lithium takes more energy to produce than you would obtain from the hydrogen released...
PS Faraday was not the first to discover electrolysis. His contribution was much more important - he systematised it and came up with the laws governing the process.
Hydrogen Generators are not a gimmick! I have expermented with two (home-made), and they have both produced results.
I do not recommend buying the pre-made ones you can buy online, but if you have a good deal of mechanichal experience, it is rewarding to make one and install it yourself. I have installed one on my Chevy Lumina Van and my wife's Chevy Malibu. The van has gotten 4 MPG better and the car has gotten 7 MPG better.
Considering my investment of time and money, I will not have come out ahead for a long time, but if I keep tweaking it, I hope to reach 20-30 MPG better. That would make it well worth it.
The installation includes installing the generator, a relay, an EIFI to bypass the 02 sensor, and running a hose into the air intake. There is a wealth of information about this at www.hydrogengarage.com. Included in the website is a more detailed explanation about how it all works. One man even found a way to run a car on nothing but water!
I was skeptical at first, but if youi do the research, it all makes sense. I see this as the future in energy. Car manufacturers have already started to market cars that run on hydrogen fuel cells!!
Bikerman: you shouldn't declare something wrong until you're sure! Yes, a hydrogen generator runs off simple electrolosys, but the energy released is greater than the energy used. BASIC PHYSICS. Not only have I made it work in my vehicles, more and more truck drivers are using them to improve gas mileage also. This product is only a couple of years away from going mainstream!!
And, yes, I AM sure. Electrolysis is about 60-70%* efficient under most circumstances. I have seen claims for 80% and it is theoretically possible to achieve about 92-94%* in ideal circumstances (although I don't believe this has ever been done). In ALL circumstances the energy you put in is greater than the energy you get out.
*note that this does NOT include the energy lost during generation of the electricity used to perform the electrolysis.
Bikerman: you come off as someome that knows what they are talking about. If that is the case, than read this page: http://waterpoweredcar.com/archieblue.html. Included in this page is a link to a PDF called "Electrolytic Gas." In it, explanation for where the energy comes from is broken down IN DETAIL by science. This is not opinion, it is fact. It is not my opinion that this works. I have PROOF. It works in two of my cars, and it is proven by science.
Yes, elecyrolisys can only be 95% efficient at best, but you fail to take into account the entire system. When viewing the entire system, it makes perfect sense that you would end up with more energy than you started with.
Electrolysis is NOT 95% efficient - it is NOWHERE NEAR that figure. 92-94% is a THEORETICAL ideal which can never be achieved in reality.
The page does not work. There are many cranks on the internet claiming free energy - you sound like just one more in a long line. It is NOT proven by science and any claim to the contrary is simply a lie. When you can point to a peer-reviewed article in a science journal that shows your claims are verified then I will take them seriously.
Yes, I do understand basic physics - that is all you need to understand that this is woo-woo.
PS - I got the page to work by removing the period at the end. I might read it for amusement later.
the link didn't work because it included my abbreviation. try again. http://waterpoweredcar.com/archieblue.html
If you want a quick debunking (I haven't got the time at the moment to do a thorough number on the article referenced) then try;
In short, any benefit you gain is by running the engine lean. Running an engine lean effectively reduces its lifespan (because lean engines run hotter). There is also the little matter of the laws of thermodynamics which clearly show that any hydrogen and oxygen produced will be at the expense of a greater load on the alternator which will more than swamp any benefit from increased combustion efficiency.
As Bruce Simpson at Aardvark correctly notes
What you SEE is greater MPG. What you GET however, is nothing of the sort.
You're all about science, so consider these facts: My wife and I drive the same places day-to-day. For my experiment, we filled our tanks full and topped them off after a week, then checked gas mileage. We did this for two consecutive weeks, then I installed my generators. We noticed a significant inrease in gas mileage every week after. If the generators didn't improve gas mileage, what did?
I stand nothing to gain by saying it works. I'm not telling anyone to buy anything. I 'm telling people to MAKE them. It's more fun for me than anything, and I like to stick it to the MAN. The less gas I used the less the EXON fat cats get to make. I'm searching for real solutions to better gas milage, and I found one. If you're so smart, what's YOUR SOLUTION?
Yes, I am running my engine leaner, and it runs cooler, and it will have longer life. It runs leaner because it's burning hydrogen instead of gasoline, and it will have a longer life because by doing this, it helps to reduce carbon deposits. I know my engine runs cooler because I installed a temperature guage to make sure the generator is doing what it's supposed to. By the way, for knowing so much about this, have YOU ever put a generator on YOUR car? If not, I don't think you have a bunch of room to speak.
Yes, I am all about science. Anecdotes don't cut any ice in science. I would want to see a proper test under controlled conditions. Such tests have been done and, guess what they show? It DOESN'T WORK.
What you are probably doing, as I said previously, is running your engine lean (ie less fuel in the fuel-air mix). That will, of course, give you more MPG. It will also run your engine hotter and reduce it's lifespan. It will probably also increase the amount of particulate emissions.
My solution? Simple - leave your engine alone. The manufacturer has spend a great deal of money designing and setting it up for maximum fuel efficiency, low emissions and a long lifespan.
Furthorme, did you even READ the source I sited? You may actually LEARN something instead of just telling everyone they are full of it!
I have skimmed the source you cited - it is full of the normal contradictory nonsense. I will read it in more detail when I have the time. Why don't you read the site I quoted (Aardvark) and discover why it CANNOT work. Meyer was given amply opportunity to demonstrate the claims he made for his system in the 1996 fraud case. He couldn't, and he was convicted for conning investors out of money to subsidise his fantasy.
I haven't built any perpetual motion machines, but I can say with certainty that they don't work without the need to* - the laws of physics tell us what can and cannot be achieved. Do you have to dive from a 50ft building to be sure it will kill you?
Do some simple sums.
1 horsepower = 746 watts. Assuming that your electrolysis is 100% efficient (which it certainly is not) then that is 746/12 = 62.16 amps per horsepower. The average alternator can deliver about 80 amps of current. That means, even if we grant 100% electrolysis efficiency and we ignore mechanical inefficiencies in the alternator, your car can deliver just under 1.3 horsepower of extra power from your electrolysis kit. This, of course, assumes that your engine is 100% efficient at converting petrol into current (in fact it is probably around 30% efficient). Also remember that the alternator does not give 'free' energy - the more power you draw, the harder it is to turn and, therefore, the more petrol/diesel you use to turn it.
Bruce gives a couple of valid ways to prove to yourself whether this 'technology' works or not (presuming you have an on-off switch for the electrolysis unit).
1) Without the unit running start the car. Turn the unit on. Does the idle increase?
2) Without the unit running cruise at a steady 50mph. Keep your foot at the same throttle level and turn the unit on. Does the car accelerate?
3) Alternatively cruise at a steady 50 and turn the unit off. Does the car suddenly decelerate?
As I said, there is every chance that you CAN get greater MPG but it is a result of running the engine lean. Your electrolysis kit cannot possibly produce sufficient hydrogen (or h/o mix) to be significant, as the above figures show. There is no such thing as free energy..
If you want independent confirmation, then by all means:
Finally, if you are really convinced that your device works then why not claim Bruce's $1,000,000 prize for ANYONE who can demonstrate a 25% efficiency gain (most systems claim 25-40%).
* If, by some miracle, someone discovers a way to make an over-unity device, then you can be sure that the science world will start buzzing. Nobody has.
Wow, for once I agree with Bikerman...
Yes, hydrogen generators work.
Yes, they can help you get better mileage out of your car.
They only do so by making it run more efficiently though, not by adding extra energy.
There is NO way you can electrolyze water, then use the gases produced to generate more energy than you used in the first place.
Accusing Bikerman of not knowing his stuff or checking sources is very wrong, he's one of the best there are here in that regard.
I was reading an article about hydrogen generators just last week in the Trucker's News. The article was about a new commercial unit designed for diesel engines being released to the market, and how it improves fuel mileage. (I wish I still had the issue on hand so I could give the manufacturer's name, but my hubby tossed it.)
Anyway, according to the article, it works by allowing the diesel to burn more completely. In a combustion engine, not all of the fuel is used, and the unburnt portion, a tiny amount on each cycle, is expelled along with the waste gases. Adding extra hydrogen allows for a more complete burn. It's not getting more energy for nothing, it's simply letting the engine use the available fuel more efficiently. No laws of physics broken, but there is still an improvement.
I don't know how much extra wear and tear you'd be adding to the engine, or if, in the long run, you'd simply be increasing your maintenance and repair costs by adding it to an engine that wasn't originally designed for the higher temperatures.
There are many such products on the market. They make all sorts of claims about more efficient combustion and massive increases in MPG. I've tried to find a proper scientific paper on this but haven't managed to do so. This is, perhaps, not too surprising because any scientist looking at the claims would dismiss them out of hand without needing to test them.
The claim that adding hydrogen increases combustion efficiency is actually based on sound science. In fact there HAVE been tests done where hydrogen and oxygen (called Brown's Gas) is fed into a petrol engine and results indicate that you can increase combustion efficiency by up to 15%. This is nothing new, of course, as any speed-freak knows. Adding Nitrous Oxide to an engine increases burn efficiency massively - over 100% if done correctly. I once rode a bike with a nitrous kit and - blimey - once you hit the button you have trouble keeping hold of the bars.
The issues are, however:
a) how much hydrogen and oxygen can be produced by a standard vehicle electrical system? The answer is not a lot - certainly not enough to be effective
b) what is the fuel cost of producing this gas? The gas is produced by using the alternator to drive an electrolysis 'kit'. When you draw power from an alternator it is harder to turn - this requires more petrol/diesel to drive. Think about it - if it were possible to get more power from the electrolysis than you put in (by driving the alternator) then you would have a perpetual motion machine - once the car was running it could run forever on water. This is obviously nonsense - no closed process can put out more energy than goes in. Whenever you convert energy from one form to another some of the energy is lost - this is measured by the 'efficiency' rating. Electrolysis is typically 60% efficient - in other words only 60% of the extra energy you produce by turning the alternator is actually converted into usable gas, the other 40% is wasted as heat. Then figure that the alternator is itself driven by fuel and a typical engine is probably about 30% efficient. That means your total efficiency is, in total, no more than 20%, probably less.
Now, if you actually turn the petrol mixture down (by introducing less petrol to the engine mix) then, of course, you do more MPG. You also run the engine hotter and mess with the emissions. The first is dangerous for the engine, and the second, in many countries, is illegal and will almost certainly screw any warranty. This is what many of these kits do.
Meyer, and others, made/make the claim that their method of electrolysis produces a huge amount of gas for very little power-input. Once again this is essentially claiming that they have made 'over-unity' machines (you get more out than you put in). It is pure snake-oil, woo-woo, pseudo-science, in short - bollox. When this is pointed out, the conspiracy theorists immediately call foul and accuse people of being in the pay of the big oil companies (an accusation made against myself on more than one occasion). The truth is rather the reverse - these HHO kits are big money earners and it is in the interests of those selling them to rubbish anyone claiming they don't work. If you think about it - Ford, GM, Honda etc are desperate to sell cars. An attractive feature of any car is the headline MPG figure (especially with petrol/diesel prices the way they are). Don't you think that they would be fitting this kit as standard if they could boost MPG by the 25-60% claimed? I do. The reality is that such companies are pumping BILLIONS into hydrogen fuel-cell technology (not HHO 'add-ons'). Most of the big manufacturers have hydrogen vehicles either in prototype or actually in production - hardly a conspiracy with 'big oil'..
There is no free lunch in physics (that is what physicists call the laws of thermodynamics).
From what I've heard, it actually reduces the amount of emissions, since most of the regulated emissions are due to unburned gas, and the system reduces the amount of unburned gas.
As for how much it can produce, one of my teachers built one (pulse modulated) that he said produced about a liter a second of HHO gas, and a little bit of that stuff goes a long way. (Of course, that much energy fried some of his electronics, and last I heard, he was working on making the pulse frequency inversely controlled by temperature...) Adding that much constant power drain might be bad for the alternator...
Hmm...I would be amazed if it was possible to produce 1l per second with anything approaching car levels of current/voltage.**
The fact remains, however, that you can't beat the laws of thermodynamics.
1hp = 746 watts. Assuming you electrolyse with 100% efficiency and the resultant gas burns with 100% efficiency then your car can produce less than 2hp of usable power via electrolysis. That comes at the cost of increased fuel burn to turn the alternator. The physics can't lie.
(If anyone doubts this it is easily proven - simply compare the MPG you get with no electrics on, with the MPG you get with the lights, heater/air-con and other sundry electrics turned on. You should see a difference of several MPGs).
The emissions thing is not as simple as unburned gas. Modern engines are designed for a certain fuel burn and the catalytic converter is also designed accordingly. There are many combustion products of petrol/diesel (apart from the unburned bits) - soot, co2, etc...
Finally, bear in mind that hydrogen gas has an energy density* of 142 MJoules per kg. Petrol comes in around 46 MJoules per kg. In other words hydrogen is about 3 times more energy dense per unit mass. 1kg of petrol is not much to carry - 1/3rd kg of hydrogen is an ENORMOUS amount.**
Either way - that kite doesn't fly...
If you really want to save on fuel bills then change your driving habits (drive defensively and with as little braking as possible) and buy an energy efficient vehicle (or buy a bicycle).
*the energy density is a measure of how much energy you would get from complete combustion.
** Another way of looking at this - measure energy density per litre. Petrol comes in at around 34.6 MJoules per litre. Gaseous hydrogen comes in about 0.01 MJoules per litre - 3460 times less energy per litre.
Wow, I'm amazed by the amount of traffic my little thread has produced. I really wasn't expecting so many posts so soon. Suppose I should add my ideas, even though it's past 5 AM and I just got off from a shift that was supposed to end at midnight.
First off, Bikerman... After a discussion with an engineer buddy of mine, I'm inclined to believe your claim that HHO cannot be capable of running a car by itself. Meyer says he did it, but there is very little way of knowing for sure if he was ligitimate in his claims. His brother has been trying to revive and improve his work since and maybe even before his death. I'm not certain of his name, but I believe it's Micheal Meyer. I've not looked into his research, so I can't give you any info on it.
I do believe that it is possible to greatly increase the MPG of a vehicle using HHO. The simple fact is, HHO ignites much faster than gasoline. And because of this it will allow the gasoline to ignite faster and burn more completely. Granted modern cars have ECUs that rely on the O2 sensor readings to try to get the fuel mixture correct, and if left un-modified they will simply dump extra fuel to try to come up with what the ECU determines as the correct mixture. But most of the research done with HHO systems has been done on older cars which use a carburator (I know I didn't spell that right.... it's 5 AM). In those older cars the carb adjusts itself to run a correct mixture.
My mistake on thinking Faraday discovered electrolysis. You say he set up the laws governing it though? Yes... In a sense. Using a consistant current to electrolysize, Faraday's laws hold up perfectly. Using a pulsed dynamic current, many people have ran Faraday's numbers into the ground. I'd have to look at my papers when I have more energy, but I believe one commercial system called Xogen has produced 130+% Faraday output.
And as far as breaking the laws of science (Faraday, thermodynamics, and such), science has proven itself wrong countless times throughout history. Would you also like to call Tesla's theory of alternating current a fruad? Not very likely as you are using it even as you are reading this. The scientific community makes and changes laws to fit what it believes to be true all the time.
And please don't refer to the theories posted here or the others posting on this thread in such a condesending way. People are more likely to listen to you if you bring your information to the table in a calm, helpful way rather than bashing their ideas with words such as "voodoo magic", "crap", "guff", "fraud", and "scam". I'm not against you disagreeing with the ideas of myself and others, but I will not stand for your current tone. Please address the people and ideas here as if you were talking in a professional environment. And this goes for everyone, not just Bikerman. No matter what side of the arguement you are on, don't turn this into a thread that looks as if it were written by a bunch of kids in junior high.
PS: There is a water powered car that was made in Japan last year and covered by several international news agencies. Not sure of the name, again such things will have to wait until I'm more rested. It's made by a private company and the last I heard they were trying to sell the plans to one of the major manufacturers... I think it was Toyota, but it might have been Nissan.
Now, on to bluecreekremodeling...
I'm surprised at how low your improved MPG is. Based on the research I've done and what I know about those particular cars I would figure you'd get nearly twice that on the van and about half more on the car. Just to be sure I'm not getting anything mixed up, here's what's running through my head:
Chevy Lumina Van (assuming mid-90s V6 engine) 18 MPG pre-HHO, estimated post-HHO would be 25 MPG... +7
Chevy Malibu (assuming mid-90s I4 engine) 25 MPG pre-HHO, est. post-HHO 35 MPG... +10
Let me know if I'm wrong about any of my assumptions or the pre-HHO mileage. If not, I'd like to talk a bit more with you to see what type setup you have... and see if I can't help you get better mileage (if you wouldn't mind the extra tweaking work). My numbers for the post-HHO are based on Lawton's work, which from what I've seen is the most common setup people make for themselves.
And finally, to everyone...
I've been a bit busy since I applied for my web space, but tomorrow I should have ample time to put up at the very least a crude page to link to all the various bits of research I have come across.
Hopefully I will also be able to also put up my own HHO generator plans. Although I don't know what the production of the unit is, since I've not completed building it (just moved and money's a bit of an issue until I get a better job). If anyone wants to beat me to the punch, you're welcome to it. It's basicly a severely modified Meyer cell, using the latest ZeroFossilFuel variant of the Lawton PWM and EFIE. You'll see what I mean when I put the diagram up.
The paper shows a 15% increase in power for a small single-cylinder diesel engine, running at 1500rpm, with HHO added at a rate of 240l/h. *
The HHO is added by a separate generator which produces much more gas than can be done from a car-driven system, and does not rely on the car electrical system for power. In other words it relies on ADDITIONAL electrical power to produce the gas. This is not included in the paper details but we can estimate that it would require about 1KW - or about 1.3hp - to generate the required 4l/min. Here, for example, is a video showing an electrolysis kit running at 40 Amps - 0.48KW - and producing 2 litres per min (120l/h) of HHO.
*(Of course you would have to scale this up to supply a normal road vehicle with 4 or more cylinders, which tends to indicate that you can't generate sufficient gas to make much difference, even if you did 'magic' it into existence).
The engine in the test is producing 6.5hp at 1500rpm. 15% of that is 0.975hp.
So we get an increased output of just under 1hp for an input of about 1.3hp.
That seems like a net loss of around 30% to me. Note that the emissions are shown to INCREASE.
Note also that we have assumed that the alternator could generate this electricity at 100% efficiency. In reality it is more like 60%, which would make the loss even greater.
b) What research is this you refer to? Claims by firms selling the kit do not count as research. Independently funded proper scientific papers count as research. To date you have provided nothing of the sort, preferring to simply repeat bogus claims by fraudsters such as Meyer.
Faraday's laws can be summarised as:
(m is the mass of the substance altered at an electrode, Q is the total electric charge passed through the substance, F = 96485 C mol-1 [the Faraday constant], M is the molar mass of the substance, z is the valence number of ions of the substance - ie electrons transferred per ion)
If you are saying that greater values of m have been produced than this formula allows for (which means that the Faraday constant is wrong), then show me the evidence - I have seen no such evidence and the science community would be very interested. This is exactly the claim that Meyer made and which he was unable to demonstrate.
What Meyer proposed was over-unity, a direct contravention of thermodynamic laws. He was a fraud and was convicted by the courts of such fraud. It is not a matter of opinion - it is historical fact.
If you want to be treated in a professional manner then produce evidence in a professional manner rather than making unsubstantiated claims, and talking nonsense about thermodynamics.
I don't really care what you will 'stand for' - the last time I checked you were not running these forums.
Up to now I have seen nothing but anecdote, unsubstantiated claims and bad science. That is what I call woo-woo. Is it a scam? Of course it is. People are making money by making unscientific and untested claims, to sell devices which do not live up to those claims, because those claims contradict basic laws of physics. That is what I call a scam.
Ah, but [I hear people say] there are thousands of websites for HHO systems so there must be something in it mustn't there? No - ad-populum fallacy. There are thousands of sites for all sorts of pseudo-science.
But surely [they continue] many of these sites have testimonials from users who have found these systems work? Yes indeed. How many are genuine? Don't know. How many have been properly tested to rule out variables? Don't know. How many are from people who desperately want to believe that they have not just wasted $100? Don't know. How many are from people who have subconsciously altered their driving habits by being more conscious of fuel usage? Don't know.
How many cite genuine scientific research to support their claims? None that I have seen.
I'm a bit upset right now. I just spent the last hour typing a reply and upon clicking submit, it lost all my text and sent me to a 400 error page. I will work on retyping that post later. Right now I'm busy uploading the documents that I have based my research on.
Bikerman, soon you will have the information you've been wanting to see.
I sympathise with loosing a long reply - it has happened to me several times, which is the reason I now use Wordpad (or any similar app) to prepare any reply in advance when I know it is going to be a biggie....recommended.
I really must learn to read instructions before uploading files. I just uploaded 16 PDFs to a non-public directory. Well, since Bikerman is online at the moment, I'll give you one little snippet of information. This is a copy of forum posts by Dave Lawton regarding the Xogen patent and the results of his replication of it.
I'm not sure if this will display... The first time I posted it, it showed as an empty post.
3rd time a charm? I just went through and replaced the slanted apsothropes with normal ones... They tend to cause problems on some forums.
4th time? I replaced all special symbols to make sure no uni-code symbols remain.
so what we have is a claim by Mr Lawton that he can produce 3 times the Faraday maximum for water electrolysis.
Now, call me cynical if you like, but I did a quick trawl of the science journals that I have access to. I found precisely nothing by Mr Lawton on this. I did find plenty of youtube videos but I don't really consider youtube to be a scientific journal of repute.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If Lawton is claiming over-unity, which he appears to be doing, then he is saying that the laws of thermodynamics don't work and that he has invented a perpetual motion technology. Since these laws are the cornerstone of much of modern science then I would like to see a bit of evidence before ditching them.
I will look into this a bit more but, at the moment, I would classify my reaction as deeply cynical and distrustful.
PS - while I check on Mr Lawton's claims, here is something to bear in mind.
His figures give 0.137 litres of HHO in 21 mins.
That is the energy equivalent of 0.137/3460 = 0.0000396 litres of petrol (0.04cc). That is probably enough to turn the engine over once.
PPS - I did a bit of checking (prompted by the fact that Lawton deliberately spells oxygen wrongly in an apparent attempt to plug xogen whose work he is claiming to replicate).
Xogen claimed these results in 2000. They then announced that the claims would be tested by the Alberta Research Council in Dec 2000.
Then they go very quiet. No report of their results is released.
In 2007 they reappear on the web on a new website but there is no mention of commercial hydrogen generation technology at all. They claim (bizarrely) to be now using their patented technology to treat waste-water.
Now, I'm thinking, what is the potential financial return for a universal HHO generator and why the hell would you restrict use of such technology to the waste-water treatment sector?
This is very smelly indeed - smellier than a really smelly thing wrapped in a ripe cheese.
Now, conspiracy theorists will probably say they have been nobbled by 'big oil' but me, being a cynical sort of guy, thinks maybe their 'technology' is smoke and mirrors and Mr Lawton is either a fool, a fraud, or simply mistaken.
Bear in mind that if his claims are true then the Xogen patent is worth billions (potentially trillions), and they are using for? Treating crap? Huh? Also bear in mind that this patent is registered and, therefore, available publicly. Would you not think that someone would like to perhaps market a perpetual motion machine if it actually works?
I'll need a lot more evidence than a few jpgs on Mr Lawton's site. Have you any references?
If HHO combustion took place at the same rate as gasoline combustion, you would be correct. Think of the ineffecient nature of the gasoline engine. Half the power that could be generated is wasted during the exhuast stroke.
HHO, which expands much more rapidly, would expell all or nearly all of its power during the power stroke. This leads to such minor problems as water in the combustion chamber, which is one of the main reasons why I do not think running on HHO alone would be feasible without a total redesign of the engine.
Here are some numbers I ran several months back showing the necessary flow rate required to run an engine like mine (Nissan KA24DE) on just HHO. Granted, as I said earlier, I would not do this because of the problems involved, but I'm just supplying this for the sake of the arguement. These are my own measurements; aside from the 20:1 HHO:air ratio, which I've found in several documents that I will list later. I'd do it now, but I have to be at work in 20 minutes.
If you don't mind, I'd like to see what you've came across that leads you to believe Lawton is plugging Xogen. The little bit I have on him is just PDF printouts from the forums he used to post on.
I had to step out to fix my sister's car, so my uploading was interupted... But I did manage to put up the Xogen patent as well as all the other documents I have regarding Xogen. Links are below. Sorry I didn't have the time to put up a proper page for them. I'll get on that tomorrow.
PS: In case you are wondering, no my sister's car does not have a HHO system in it. It had a bad distributor that caused all 4 spark plugs to die at once.
No - your figures are completely wrong. You've made a very simple error - you've assumed that HHO and petrol are producing the same amount of power per unit volume and adjusted fuel-air mix to match.* That doesn't work at all. What we are interested in is the energy produced by combustion and used to power the engine.
Firstly let's start with petrol and use your figures.
Let's agree 151cc per minute. The air mix is not salient - let's just look at the energy per minute.*
151cc/min of petrol is 5.2 MegaJoules/min of energy created to push the pistons and make you go.
Now, you say that is only 50% efficient - OK, let's not argue efficiency, let's simply go with that figure.
That means you are using about 2.6 MegaJoules/min to keep going.
Now let's look at how much HHO would be equivalent.
HHO produces 0.0107 MegaJoules per litre.
Now, even if you assume it delivers all its power instantaneously...
Well, by all means do the sums for yourself....but I make it 243 litres/min
(the Xogen unit would take about 26 days to give you 1 minute of running time).
Now I'm assuming here that only 50% of petrol energy is 'useful' (ie used during the power stroke of the engine) and I'm granting that 100% of HHO energy is useful. I think that is a pretty generous concession, but even if petrol was much less efficient than assumed, the volumes of gas needed are still huge. No matter how you stack the figures, you simply can't produce anything like enough gas even to get the engine to tick-over. I trust that you now see why this idea of an HHO car is a non-starter? (ouch)
All designs for hydrogen power run into this basic problem - hydrogen at ambient temperatures is very low in energy (low energy density). You need to compress/cool it in order to get it to liquefy - then you have a usable energy source. That compression/cooling is energy intensive, which is why, at present, you need to expend more energy making the hydrogen for fuel-cells than you actually save (the technical term is a 'lower well to wheel efficiency' than gasoline). This is why companies are spending huge sums in research - they want to increase the efficiency of production and storage of hydrogen : burning it is the easy bit.
The reason I say that Lawton appeared to be pushing Xogen is that he spelled 'oxygen' as 'Oxogen' in his posting twice. I could be wrong and he might just be really bad at spelling...
As for the Xogen references - they don't really say anything, apart from one very interesting and prescient comment in the second referenced source.
The question you need to ask is - why are they now pushing their system to clean up water rather than something more profitable (like selling it to Ford or BMW for a few squillion quid)? There are two possible answers that I can think of:
Meyer's design did indeed produce Brown's gas. It produced it in exactly the quantities one would expect from normal electrolysis at about 60% efficiency. The problem was that he (deliberately?) under-measured the amount of current he was supplying to the device, which gave the impression that it produced over-unity. I suspect that is exactly what is going on with Xogen and with Lawton's results.
I'm not going to waste time building his circuit because I don't think there is anything to prove. If Mr Lawton really thinks it works then all he has to do is take it to his local University and have them conduct bench tests on it. I'm sure there would be undergrad physics students very willing to do this for him as an assignment. Then, if his claims are indeed true, he could write this up in one of the physics journals and become very rich indeed. As an added bonus he could sign-up for a physics course at the same time.
The same, of course, applies to Xogen. Since they have a patent then all they need to do is submit their device to independent testing, publish the results, and watch people fall over themselves to throw money at them. Many people seem to assume that having a patent means it must work. This is a complete fallacy. You can patent any amount of nonsensical devices (check patents on-line for many examples). The Patent Office do not test the device to see if it works - they simply check to see if it is original.
* This idea of 20:1 air mix with HHO is off the wall. Why would you mix HHO with air? The mixture is already explosive, you don't NEED any air. Petrol is mixed with air because it needs oxygen to form an explosive mix. HHO is already explosive.
Bikerman, I must say, your avidness toward trying to convince me that HHO cannot work is really pushing me to research it further. This is exactly what I meant when I said you can be helpful by being critical.
Anyway, on to my most recent finding... You're going to love it. http://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/46592/1/rpcjpnv15fp117.pdf This PDF appears to be a photocopy of a "legitimate scientific paper" published in 1941. It's heavily laden with footnotes, so I'm sure you could check all the sources should you desire to do so.
A great deal of this PDF confuses me, but I'm fairly certain that it says oxyhydrogen (HHO) releases more energy when it is put under greater pressure. So an engine, such as my own, which gives a 11:1 compression ratio would release a great deal of energy. I know desiel engines run at even higher compression ratios, so this may explain why truckers are using these systems to the extent that I've heard about.
Not being an engineer, I can't work out the numbers presented in this document. I have no idea what "cm Hg" is refering to in terms of units I know such as PSI or kg/cm^2. Do you know what Hg means? Hectograms perhaps?
The reason for the 20:1 mixture is due to the HHO being fed into a normal gasoline combustion engine. Especially when using it to assist the gasoline. In order for the gasoline to function correctly it needs the air to draw it into the combustion chamber as well as to have it available for its combustion.
The passage you included from Lawton doesn't seem like a plug to me. It does seem like the rammblings of a conspiracy theorist though. Although it could just be that he had noticed other companies try to sell similar equipment and fail. But regardless of whether he was a conspiracy nut or just had a keen eye for market trends, it doesn't seem like a plug to me. After all, he did predict that they would go bankrupt. And who wants to buy from a company that's going under? Doesn't that usually (but not always) mean there's something wrong with the product?
It's becoming very clear that the only way to know for sure if this works is for me to actually assemble my unit. We could talk about it for months and I don't think we'd be any closer to agreeing one way or the other. Even after I complete my unit I still imagine you would have your doubts. I don't blame you. I would probably be the same if I were in your position. Hopefully it won't cost much to make and I might be able to construct a 2nd unit to send off to different people so they can verify how and how well it works. Assuming that it does, of course.
Keep in mind my ultimate goal is not to run a car on HHO alone. I don't think that is within my reach, and I'm as sceptic of its possiblity as you are. I only intend to use it to assist the gasoline and cut back on fuel costs. I'm hoping for a 40-50% increase in gasoline economy, but I'll take whatever results I get. At $3.50+ a gallon (mind you that's a very dilluted gasoline/ethanol mix) if it allows me an extra 70 miles per tank (20%), I'll be happy.
Okay, the links to all my references are up. They can be found at: http://jaylay.frih.org/hho/others/filelist.htm
I will be working on the page(s) for my plans now. Perhaps I will have them done tomorrow or the next day. The page for my references took longer than I thought, so this may take a while also... Just hope the internet doesn't go down for half the state again like it did last night...
The amount of energy I quoted for HHO assumes MAXIMUM combustion. The pressure could possibly reduce the amount of energy given but it could never increase it.
Regarding that quote about Xogen going bankrupt, I had misread your post and thought you had said that Lawton had said that. I have no idea who it was that said it.
In regards to the point of introduction of the HHO, the plans I am using (and all the ones I have seen) add the HHO to the intake manifold at whichever vacuum intake has the most consistantly highest vacuum.
Wow, that is a very generious wager. If I were to take you up on this offer, what type of engine would you test it on? After all, even a slightly different engine may have a different benefit.
If my results show a significant (20+%) increase, any 4 cylinder engine should suffice. But if my results are less, the type of engine may need to be a 4 cylinder, dual cam engine of a similar size (2.2-2.5L) to produce similar results.
The engine I will be doing all my testing on is a Nissan KA24DE. It is a 16-valve, dual cam, 4 cylinder engine. As I said before it has a compression ratio of 11:1. And it's rated size is 2.4L, though I know that Nissan doesn't build their engines to exact spec, so figure in a +/- 25cc margin of error... though I'm fairly certain it's within 15cc of it's rated size. Also, my car has no catalytic converter to ristrict the exhuast. (I suggest you do testing without one as well, as I've heard platnium and hydrogen make toxic vapors.) It also has a cone type filter located outside of the engine compartment, but not exposed to wind. Doing the testing in a garage, the engine temperature should not affect the intake temperature.
Anyway, it will take me some time to construct the cell and all the required electronics. Possibly more than a month. If your offer still stands then, we will talk.
Well, I can test it on a number of vehicles. I have:
a small Citroen (ax) 1.2 litre petrol 4 cylinder
a turbo diesel 2.8 litre 4 cylinder (Iveco TurboDaily)
a Yamaha 1 litre petrol 4 cylinder motorcycle (fzr1000)
a Yamaha 1.2 litre petrol 4 cylinder motorcycle (fj1200)
a Honda 500cc petrol single cylinder 2 stroke motocross bike
If you require a similar engine size and arrangement to your Nissan then I'm sure I will be able to borrow such a vehicle from Merv (the guy with the dyno/garage).
I suppose the Citroen would be a good test platform. I could find a way to scale back the production to half, since it is half the size of my Nissan engine. Is it a single or dual cam engine? If it's a single cam, I'm fairly sure that will affect the results negatively.
And would you be comfortable with temporarily removing the catalytic converter for both series of dyno tests? I run mine without one now and will with the HHO system when I have it ready to install. Considering it never got very hot before I removed it, I doubt it was doing much anyway. But I've heard various warnings of toxic vapors being emitted when platinum is exposed to hydrogen.
And just curious, (it shouldn't make any performance difference) is it fuel injected or carburated? I'm not very familiar with Citroens as they aren't sold here in the US... A shame since I'm sure you get great mileage out of them.
I think it would be best to test the thing on one of my bikes. They are both dual overhead cam. Neither has a cat. Both are high performance engines (both put out around 120 bhp).
You choose - I can either use a 1.2l bike or I can easily borrow a 2.0l dual-cam car...
The Citroen, still sounds like the best test subject. With a carb it will automatically adjust and you won't get the impression that the O2 sensor modification is causing the difference in mileage. Scaling back the production shouldn't be a difficult problem.
I'm a bit leary of the bikes. For one, they are high performance engines. Secondly, the fact that they are bikes. I'm trying to prove results on everyday cars, not on race bikes. Plus, scaling back that far might be a problem that can't be solved without creating a different, smaller cell.
Well, I'm not planning to use the on-board equipment to measure MPG in any case - that will be done by proper methods. The bike is actually the same size engine as the citroen so I don't see the problem, but never mind - as I say I can test this on any engine type you specify (within reason).
If you want a 2 litre DOHC petrol engine then that's what I'll use. Don't bother scaling back the production - simply let me know what engine you require.
Anyway I'll wait for you to construct and test your unit, and when you are ready then give me a shout.
PS - before you go too far you might like to consider the fact that what you are in fact doing is a very convoluted version of water-injection.