If he did, would you understand it?

Why don't you prove it wrong?





Points that have yet to answered ANYWHERE:

How does this affect the combustion process? You can throw #'s on efficiency and chemical composition equations around all day long, but all the naysayers have yet to show/study/prove how it DOESN'T affect combustion process.

If this is really such a croc, please show me threads from people that have tried it and it DIDN'T work. And that's people that set it up correctly. I know if I spent $50, $100, $500, or $1000 on a hydrogen setup and it didn't work, I'd sure as heck be all over every board I could with the results showing it doesn't work. Hmmm... but you don't see that. Just people spouting off it doesn't work, when they haven't tried it.

 

How about a 3rd party study that will prove or disprove this supposed technology. I have yet to see one reputable published study done with these things, other than claims of of it working. I have yet to see a reputable university or orginizations like Consumer reports do a test on these. The only one I have seen is Mythbusters a few years ago and they literally laughed as they tried to make it work. Not a very scientific test though either.

Its up to you to prove it works, not us. I'm not buying into it until I see some actual and factual results.

 

Tsk Tsk...

far easier to demonstrate a positive rather than disprove a negative; the burden of proof is correctly on the claimant.

When empirical "results" are difficult to prove up with theory, it's usually a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

Why should I waste my time proving a negative? He states a hypothesis but offers no proof. He shirts the common scientific protocol of proving your claim by offering BS antidotal evidence. Yes I understand the stoichiometry behind the chemical reaction (do you.....get off your lazy butt and open up a chemistry book). A&M presented me with a Minor in chemistry for my studies. I'm tired of people presenting BS to the masses and claiming impossible success. This urban legend has been around for 40 years that I know of... .......it's still BS.

 

annabelle, in your studies at A&M, did they ever subject you to combustion modeling programs? If so they must have demonstrated to you that there is far more involved in a combustion process than just the molecules going into the combustion chamber. There are many more parameters that must be analyzed to theoretically prove something like addding hydrogen for better milage (air velocity, piston cut, fuel velocity, fuel spray pattern are the VERY basic ones). I've seen a MATLAB combustion modeling program that takes 12 hours to model one combustion event, but it is accurate to within 5%. Needless to say this is expensive to come up with the program, quite expensive for an even a side-job scientist to come up with.

What am I getting at with all of this? The hydrogen adds a whole new set of parameters to the combustion equation, and who knows just exactly how it affects the flame front inside the cylinder. It takes far more than just "getting off your lazy but and opening up a chemistry book." You simply cannot look at stoichiometeric equations and enthalpies of combustion... there's much more to it than that. Think of water injection... you are adding water. Basic thermodynamic analysis says you carry water through the combustion as a "side event"... it contributes nothing to the combustion, and the only energy change is from the conversion of liquid to steam.

However people constantly gain a few horesepower with water injection... why is this? Because there is more going on inside the combustion chamber as that water cooles the air charge coming in as it evaporates.

The point of all of this... don't knock it 'til you try it or you can provide REAL evidence or science that disproves it. I know I don't have the dough to dish out and buy or create a combustion modeling program, nor do I have any education past advanced thermodynamic and fluid analysis, so this is where I leave it.

 

Yes, simple stoichiometric equations do disprove the claimed reaction. There is even a One Million dollar challenge if you can prove this load of hog wash. You are trying to insinuate that there is something magical about this reaction. There is not. Water injection has and can be proven to be synergistic.....hydrogen hasn't.

 

You seem to have missed my idea, in that simple stoichiometric equations do not disprove the reaction, because they lack the detail necessary for real simulation. There is nothing magical about this reaction, but there is something very complex. It is a matter of taking advantage of the available energy within the combustion components, a search for efficiency if you will.

Just for my own reference and education, can you point me to sources that prove water injection to be synergistic? I would be curious in reading on the disproving of hydrogen as synergistic as well. Thanks.

My only request on this board is that people should not comment on things that they either have A: no experience with (ie, they have not tried it for themselves), or B: Fully concrete scientific evidence that the rest of the board can learn from. Speculations are a dime per dozen.

 

The answer to this is that the water is taking a waste product of the combustion event (ie heat) and transforming the water in the combustion event from liquid to gas. This event increases pressure in the cylinder increasing HP and cools the exhaust at the same time.

Thus the reason for water injection, plus pre combustion it cools the air intake and allows for more mass to be pushed in the cylinder, which also increase efficiency.

 

Then why are you posting??

 

Yes they do disprove the claim of the reaction......plain and simple. My first assignment in Qualitative Analysis was to either prove or disprove this claim. As we were all poor student we hoped to prove the claim, and build the reactor. However, after 2 units built and a lot of working the equations, we had to admit that the process was bogus. Just what our professor knew all along. Pressure, temp and all factors can be calculated.....by the way this reaction has been explained and debunked many times over. But you go right ahead and expend your time and money.

 

The reason I am posing is because I have tried an inefficient version Smack's booster (.5 LPM of gas output on average) on my truck for the last 3 tanks and achieved a curious increase of .5MPG for each tank, from the same station, traveling basically the same routes. I'm not sold on it yet, but I'm not saying it's hogwash either.

Can you see my reason for not calling it a scam yet?

I don't have enough time or money to research much further than what I already have, but it's always fun to get the nay-sayers all warmed up by asking for real science or personal experience

 

Amazing what a light right foot will do......because the hydrogen sure ain't.

 

You see, this increase is just enough to keep me curious... and 75% of my driving is on cruise control lately. I'm a very skeptical person, myself, and it took a lot of convincing from my friend to get me to try this, and there is just enough of an increase to make me step back and think... and the only thing I have changed is the hydro booster.

But hey, one of us thinks they have all the answers and one of us has the ability to admit they don't know everything, but at least has the curiousity to explore. And we'll both live with the glory of knowing that we are smarter than the other in cyber space Good Luck.

 

I , and many of my friends and family, are sure, beyond a doubt...... that : if I were to plumb an intake line under my drivers seat, I would not only get better mpg and put the hydrogen system to shame... but on the right day, after the right meal, be able to get in the 8's in the quarter mile ! unless this stuff turly had an enzymatic / catalytic type reaction, its a dead horse, quit beatin it.

 

Your money......I don't think I'm smarter than anyone......I just am confident in the chemistry. Follow the money in the worse case.......don't you think that the massive amounts of money standing to be gained would encourage the big fleets to use hydrogen if it worked......you are only fooling your self if you think you are trying something that hasn't been tested before and that you have the courage to think out side the box. You tilt wind mills all you want.