So Sick of the Naysayers

[Jager]

As to the original topic........ when I show off my system to interested parties, I never claim they will get better gas mileage. What I do point out are the irrefutable benefits of HHO then let them come to their own conclusions. The idea is to defuse the argument before it gets started. The tact I use is better MPH is a logical result of the known benefits.

Some people just love to argue......

Jager

[AlexR]

I installed my system and have had it running for about one month. I have not made any modifications other than running the stock system. I have a 95 Jeep Wrangler and have noticed a jump from 15mpg to 22.5mpg.

Upon announcing my first set of results at work I was instantly bombarded with articles on how its not possible for the cells to work. One Coworker explained to me that based on the energy I am using to create Hydrogen I am wasting my time. It is very frustrating to combat these arguments.

The article they sent me is this one.http://green.autoblog.com/2008/08/04...your-mileage/6

I really would like some of your input as to how best shut these guys up.

I know it can be frustrating talking to people about this.

The main argument about "not getting out the energy you put in, so it doesn't work" is that they are incorrect in the effect Brown's Gas has on combustion.

Brown's Gas is a catalyst in the combustion process. It reduces the endothermic energy required for combustion. BG makes combustion more efficient. This allows more energy to be released from the same amount of fuel, so less fuel can be burned while still making the same amount of power, hence the mileage gain. The additional energy released is more than was required to make the BG.

The key here is the "catalyst" part. While, yes the BG is "burned" in the process and reverts to water, it doesn't directly help to push down the piston during combustion.


Here are more,
"If its so simple and inexpensive then why aren't more people doing it?"
A: Who cares about what other people do? YOU can do it NOW and get better mileage without having the expense of buying a new vehicle for better mileage.


"Why don't the car manufacturers apply this technology at the OEM level?"
A: Car manufactures have never really been interested in mileage, just look at the mileage averages over the years, the gain is minimal.

[Philldpapill]

AlexR, where are you getting the "catalyst" notion from? Do you have some research papers we can read? From everything I understand about chemistry, when a hydrocarbon "combusts" a few things happen.

First, when the molecules are hot enough, the hydrocarbon bonds disassociate into ions of C and H. These ions are now floating around, ready to recombine with any other ions which would take less than or equal to the amount of energy stored in the bonds. When a couple of the H+ ions bump into an Oxygen ion, they don't just bump, they SLAM together, producing H20 and a good bit of heat. The same is true for the CO2, but with far less energy.

The same is true for H2. I'm not sure about how much heat is required to disassociate the atoms, but the process is the same - H+ ions float around and find an O ion, and BAM - energy and H20.

So, I wouldn't say HHO is a catalyst, but I probably haven't read what you've read. From what I can tell, is when we add HHO, we are increasing the ratio of H+ ions and Carbon ions. I think a hydrocarbon chain with more Hydrogen atoms would produce the same result, but gasoline isn't that kind of chain.

What I'm saying is, my theory is that there is some sort of critical point of H to C ratios. Maybe by adding the extra H2 into the combustion, we are reaching that critical point. This might explain why some people aren't getting the gains they "should" be getting - their fuel mixture just hasn't reached the critical point value yet(or maybe went above it).

I'm a science nut and love research articles. So, please, post what you've found. I'd love to read it.


Also, to address your Q & A... Both of those are perfectly valid questions. A correct response to the first one is maybe something like "it's a little techy and complicated and the few people that DO know about this stuff, don't want to bother with a little extra effort. However, your response is just awful. It totally sidesteps their question and REALLY sounds like a car salesman(which usually raises a redflag for SCAM with people).

Your second question, again, is valid. However, again your response isn't the best. A better response is "Car companies ARE researching this. There are a few pure H2 cars out there, but the companies have found those to be too expensive, so they are thinking of doing hybrid gasoline/H2 cars." That response is true, and addresses their question. Car companies ARE interested in gas mileage - as long as it doesn't affect the reliability of the vehicle. I mean, think about it... if Ford came out with a care that got 50MPG, people would flock to it. Chevy would be losing business, so they would have to make a car to compete, and probably get 51 MPG. The truth is, with current understanding of thermodynamics, you just CAN'T increase combustion efficiency with gasoline alone. That's why all of us are on this forum, however.

[AlexR]

Phil,

I'll look for that info.

The catalyst part. When you mention "when the molecules are hot enough" that is where BG does its thing. The heat that is required for the reaction is reduced when BG is involved, but the heat released is the same, so there is a net gain in energy released.



I'd hardly say my answer is "awful" A long winded 5 minute answer tends to have peoples eyes gloss over. But also telling them its too techy for them is talking down to them, and people don't like that.

As to the 2nd question, Car companies have been buying fuel saving patents for yearts and shelving them. I've personally talked to two separate people who were involved a car company buying their patent.

[biggy boy]

AlexR, What I'm saying is, my theory is that there is some sort of critical point of H to C ratios. Maybe by adding the extra H2 into the combustion, we are reaching that critical point. This might explain why some people aren't getting the gains they "should" be getting - their fuel mixture just hasn't reached the critical point value yet(or maybe went above it).

I guess we do not know what this ratio is and therefore would need to
experiment to find it?
And I would guess it would be different from vehicle to vehicle?


Would make sense then to use a PWM and slowly bring up the HHO generators production (L/minute) to find that correct ratio that works for your given vehicle?
This method of testing would take some time but in the long run would be better would it not?
Produce
small quantities of gas, test mileage, raise
the gas output..... until the max efficiency is attained, instead of just jamming as much gas into the intake as possible.

Glen

[Philldpapill]

Agreed, Glen - 100%.

AlexR, no. What I was talking about has NOTHING to do with any catalysts. HHO is not a magical catalyst. H2, without any heat, does absolutely nothing. However, when you burn the H2 with the gasoline, then something happens. From that, you must conclude that the hydrogen must be disassociated to begin with. If that is that case, then the molecules have ALREADY been disassociated in the first place. If that's the case, then H2 does zilch for reducing the heat of reaction for gasoline. Besides, what you are talking about doesn't do anything for the end result. If you are still getting the same amount of energy OUT per unit of gasoline, then the amount of energy IN doesn't even matter... Are you saying that the hydrocarbons start to react at lower temperatures, with the addition of HHO? Again, if that is the case, then it just doesn't matter... There is zero energy stored in H20, and zero stored in CO2. Because there is no energy stored in the products of the reaction, ALL of the energy goes into heat... But you said there is the same amount of energy released. It's just contradictory.

As for the questions - You think "Who cares what other people are doing" isn't condecending??? Saying "most people find it too techy" is saying something about someone's actions... It's not talking down to them at all. If you can't spend 5 minutes to explain the subject, then why are you even talking to this person about the subject? If the person disagreed with you in the first place, I'm sure they'd like an explaination other than "it's just magic and saves you money!!!".

2nd Q - Yes, Auto companies have loads of patents. That's what you do... Contrary to what many people think, a patent doesn't do anything... It just says "I thought of it first". It doesn't mean what you thought of has any meaning or value(e.g. all the "super advanced" scribblings of Stan Meyers' patents). Car companies grab patents left and right, hoping that the next one will make it huge. You really think they discover an amazing thing, and just say "nah... I'll pass and just keep selling the same car, rather than gaining 20% more market share"... If you seriously believe car companies are conspiring against us all, rather than striving for market shar - what planet are you from?

[AlexR]

I guess we do not know what this ratio is and therefore would need to
experiment to find it?
And I would guess it would be different from vehicle to vehicle?


Would make sense then to use a PWM and slowly bring up the HHO generators production (L/minute) to find that correct ratio that works for your given vehicle?
This method of testing would take some time but in the long run would be better would it not?
Produce
small quantities of gas, test mileage, raise
the gas output..... until the max efficiency is attained, instead of just jamming as much gas into the intake as possible.

Glen

Glen,

yes, that would be a good way to find the ideal amount of gas for your application. In theory the same amount of gas would be used for engines of the same displacement.

[biggy boy]

There are several theories out there that car companies are being payed
off by large oil companies or oil barons, giving millions of dollars in pay offs.
Or the other one is the car companies have investments in the oil companies.

I'm not saying I believe this to be true, cuz I don't have the facts to make that decision or statement.

Anyway I personally think both of you have good points of merritt!
And that the topic is interesting.

I've also heard the "statement" several time, that the HHO acts as a catalyst, helping the gasoline to be more flammable/burn more completely. That less of the fuel is being wasted and sent out to be burnt in the catalytic converter.

Glen

[biggy boy]

Found this definition of a catalyst:
From here http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-catalyst.htm

For any process to occur, energy, known as activation energy is required . Without the help of a catalyst the amount of energy needed to spark a particular reaction is high. When the catalyst is present the activation energy is lowered making the reaction happen more efficiently. The catalyst generally works by either changing the structure of a molecule or by bonding to reactant molecules causing them to combine, react and release a product or energy. For example, a catalyst is required for oxygen and hydrogen gases to combine and form water.

Without the help of a catalyst, chemical reactions might never occur or take a significantly longer period of time to react. When the chemical reaction occurs, the catalyst itself is not changed and is not part of the end result. Most times the catalyst can be reused over and over in subsequent reactions.

Sometimes instead of accelerating a reaction, a catalyst works to slow a reaction that would normally not occur or occur very slowly. This type of substance is a negative catalyst which is also referred to as an inhibitor. Negative catalysts are important in medicine where inhibitors are critical in treating mental illnesses, high blood pressure, cancer and a myriad of other health problems.

A catalyst is used in two types of conditions, either chemical or biochemical. The most common catalyst in biochemical reactions are enzymes. Enzymes are highly specialized proteins which accelerate specific chemical reactions. These catalysts make life possible. For example an enzyme found in saliva breaks up food for digestion on contact. With out this catalyst it would take weeks for us to digest our food.

Catalysts are also important in the laboratory as well as in manufacturing and industry. One of the most famous catalysts is the catalytic converter which helps to prevent automobile emissions and make fuel consumption more efficient. Fertilizers are also catalysts which speed up plant growth.

[AlexR]

Philldpapill,

I just don't understand your response to my post. You immediately jump all over virtually every word I write while the Q and A part I wrote was based on MY opinion and what I would say. It's that - opinion - my viewpoint.

It seems like you are angry at me for posting a viewpoint that doesn't agree with yours.

I find it interesting that I post a concept of how Brown's Gas possibly works and you tell me I'm wrong.

You have a theory of your own with no hard facts to back it up. Hey - that's OK. I understand that research begins with a working theory - then you do experiments. The results will either prove or disprove your theory. But just because you have a theory doesn't make any other ideas/concepts/whatever wrong.