A university study is construed evidence, and a prototype car with a working motor both showing improvement in efficiency, soon to go into production. I'm sorry I don't think you are looking for proof, your looking for an argument. Just because your college experiment didn't work doesn't mean you were right does it. There are more college experiments showing it works but obviously you won't believe any proof.

 

So it takes energy to get H2 through the following reaction:

H2O = H2 + O2

Then the H2 is burned in the engine in a combustion reaction as follows:

H2 + O2 = H2O

In theory, you wouldn't gain anything from such a system due to inefficiency. However, energy is being wasted from your engine in different ways the entire time it's running. So if there were a way to harness some of this wasted energy and create hydrogen gas from it, you would see an increase in fuel mileage. Similar to how a turbo charger works. One problem is the amount of H2 needed to notice any significant gain in mileage. If auto manufacturers designed a car that included HHO generators, it may help mpgs. As for the rest of us. HHO generators (especially ones made at home) are still in their primitive stages and are being retrofitted to cars that were never designed for them. So this may or may not work. I have never tried this myself so I can't say it won't work.

 

Tree - Not looking for an argument but the following quote sure made me laugh.

"The scooter’s unique, timeless design makes it the “Rolls Royce” of scooters"

Funny stuff.

A 50 cc engine has a much better chance to have success as the flow rates from an HHO system may actually reach replacement level for the gasoline. Since it would take 118 of those vespa engines to reach the volume of our 5.9 cummins engine I don't see the same chance of sucess.

Now for the article on the car. A hydrogen mixture of 30 to 40% will be well into the replacement levels for the gasoline and not at the additive level you have suggested. That said that is HHO production at a massive level. The other links in the article deal with 100% hydrogen internal combustion which is also something different then what you have been suggesting and not something you will get from a HHO system. Then there is the sales site it is also linked to with claims of 50% increase in MPG and 90% deduction in emissions. Just more hype.

This is all good stuff, very entertaining.

 

Nice of you to state your opinion about the scooter.
I've seen these documents refered to many times. If NASA and the DOT say it works then I find it hard to believe you know what your talking about.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-resea...Vs-Nov2007.pdf

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2...le-technology/

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1977016170.pdf

 

Well Tree DR, I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change mine. Take care and good luck.

 

Thanks Happy trails.

 

Tree did you understand the NASA study? How do you think the Methanol reformer compares to your HHO system?

The DOT document had nothing to do with performance of hydrogen but dealt with the safety aspect of its use. Again what does that have to do with performance of an HHO system?

Again you post documents that describe Oranges when the first 600 posts were about Apples.

BTW - have you had any success figuring out your HHO flow rates? It may actually make enough gas to work on your quad cab vespa.

 

[QUOTE=CamperAndy;2681784]Tree did you understand the NASA study? How do you think the Methanol reformer compares to your HHO system?

What did you not read it was being made onboard, you said that was impossible. A 10% energy enrichment, not possible accourding to you right. Better watch out your laws of your opinion are getting changed.
So you agree that hydrogen added does increase efficiency by changeing how the gas/diesel burns right. No of course not NASA doesn't have a chance against your opinion science.

The DOT document.
Nothing like opinion research. What you didn't read sec. 1.2.3 again doing exacty what I'm doing with limited test time showed a 4% improvement. Again you said that was impossible acording to your opinion science, do I need to quote you or are you man enought to say ok that's what I said and they proved me wrong.

As I have shown on the documents from previous post they are doing what you said was imposssible. NASA showed the improvements with an onboard reform system. The DOT showed a 4% efficiency improvement with an onboard hydrogen injection system like this thread is about.
I think your opinion is orange and I've been talking apples to apples. Maybe you should write/call NASA and the DOT and tell them they don't know what they are talking about or you can keep on stateing your opinion science here.

You don't think hydrogen injection will work on our trucks even if it does on a vespa. Read the above things again. Oh I forgot you can only read your opinion science articles.

 

Tree your starting to ramble.

Build a methanol reformer (you do know it is not an HHO system right) and let us know how it goes. What is the cost of the methanol required by the reformer compared to the cost of the diesel fuel? Then again since the NASA report was from 1977 on a 8 year old caddy. Sounds like a perfect test platform.

The DOT document proved nothing as it was just anecdotal on the improvements.

Read all my posts. Hydrogen as a REPLACEMENT fuel can work and does have benefits, I have never said it would not work. What I have said and will continue to say is that the HHO systems out there will not produce enough gas to make a difference in any way, shape or form as any benefit is eaten up by the production losses. Ten percent fuel replacement is about 2 liters of hydrogen (don't count the O2 portion of the production) a second on you 5.9 but only needs .016 liters a second on your vespa. You see the difference in production capability requirements, you may actually have a chance? Not much of one but at least it is getting closer.

Anyway, you keep on believing and try to post up your test data just so we can see what you are actually doing.

 

Hydrogen as a replacement fuel back to oranges, onboard reformation of methanol worked. Apples What I'm doing is onboard reforming water and that was proven to work also by the DOT. I forgot the DOT data doesn't count, because your opinion is more factual. But you are starting to give a little in previous posts you said it wouldn't work,to HHO systems out there will not produce enough, to you may actually have a chance. Glad to hear your starting to believe the research facts.

 

Okay Tree if you want to see victory here then your rose colored glasses are working just fine.

BTW - A reformer convert a hydrocarbon based liquid or gas to its base elements using steam and a catalyst, nothing to do with electrolysis of water. Back to those oranges.

 

Got me on that one.

 

I have never seen anyone post BSFC figures. That alone will kill or prove this.

 

I see that this thread has been around awhile. I just found this maybe instead of water/meth. Maybe the 12 cell unit. thoughts??

http://www.hydrofuelgenerator.com/product.php

 

Did you ever try it?