[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/diy/ - Do It Yourself


View post   

File: 55 KB, 500x375, HHO car test.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1215823 No.1215823 [Reply] [Original]

Download from Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B6i93UqPunh4Z2QzVVA0QmpMc3M?usp=sharing

Or Download from Media Fire: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/2nvd76h996vdr/HHO_Superpack

I paid about $25 AUD for a download of these plans from: http://hhosuperpack.com/

Another collection of blueprints (For about $60 AUD) can be bought at: https://www.freefromfuel.com/manual/

These are designs of the DryCELL generator by Peter Salocher, which is a safer electrolysis machine that has less build-up of Oxy-Hydrogen (HHO).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkEX5cToTaw (Skip to 4:55)

Note: Modifying your car to increase mileage using the same amount of petrol, may void any insurance you have for that vehicle.

>> No.1215837

>>1215823
>I paid about $25 AUD for a download of these plans
hahahahahaha

>> No.1215845
File: 58 KB, 520x345, generosity-cookie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1215845

>>1215837
And now I'm posting them here, so you don't have to pay for them.....

>> No.1215859
File: 22 KB, 421x536, 1411511426610.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1215859

>>1215837
>>1215845
He's laughing because you paid money for something retarded. Your motives are good, but you've fallen for a scam, and you're publicly admitting that fact.

>> No.1215894
File: 47 KB, 620x349, mercedes_engine_34.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1215894

>>1215859
Did you not see the video, or look into it yourself?
The reason for using the cars alternator to generate the Oxygen + Hydrogen is to burn fuel more efficiently then the surrounding air, which has a lower concentration of these two elements.

Is there anything you can show me that proves it doesn't work and not worth the effort?

There are turbo chargers that use some of the cars electrical energy (Mercedes-Benz PU106B Hybrid ← See picture) to assist in the compression of air to increase the air-to-fuel ratio.
https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/what-is-a-turbocharger-36401
http://jalopnik.com/this-is-the-difference-between-an-electric-turbocharger-1795017793

Does the idea of a HHO generator doing the same really seem that absurd? Especially when instead of needing a 48V supercapacitor to compress air, you can use the regular 12V to change the concentrations of H+O for a more complete burn per ignition?

>> No.1215912

>>1215894
>There are turbo chargers that use some of the cars electrical energy (Mercedes-Benz PU106B Hybrid ← See picture) to assist in the compression of air to increase the air-to-fuel ratio.


...no, a turbocharger/supercharger is there to increase the volume of fuel-air mixture in the cylinder, essentially inflating the capacity of each cylinder to produce more power. If you downsize the engine, this can allow you to get the same power as a larger one, but with the natural fuel economy increase that comes with using a smaller engine.

Boosting the engine isn't getting the car better economy, it's just getting usable power out of a smaller engine (which DOES get better economy). You could theoretically save more fuel by _removing_ the turbo/super, but then you're stuck with a car that does 0-60 in 20 seconds.


The idea behind HHO, however is...uh...actually, no, nobody makes that exactly clear. They all just go with the vague "increases burn efficiency" or some shit, without actually explaining, in detail, how it does this.

>> No.1215919

>>1215912
(con't.)

There are only three possibilities for how HHO *might* do this.

1.) You inject the HHO straight in.

This is a complete waste. In order to do this, you incur energy conversion losses as follows:

Chemical potential of the gasoline into mechanical work on the piston.
Mechanical work of the piston to mechanical work of the alternator.
Mechanical work of the alternator to electric current.
Electric current into chemical potential of the HHO.
Chemical potential of the HHO into mechanical work on the piston.

All of these stages, added up, mean you get a small fraction of the chemical potential of the gasoline into the actual work done by the HHO. Even if they were all 100% efficient conversions, all it would do is break even, which STILL would incur a slight penalty to economy due to the extra weight the additions represent. Worthless.

2.) You inject only the oxygen.

In theory, this could work slightly (and only slightly) better than gasoline/air. However, not only would it still be a net loss (the more complete combustion could never make up for the energy required to split the water molecules) but, at best, the ECU is going to fuck with the fuel-air ratio after detecting the lean detection, and, at worst, you're going to trash your engine from pre-ignition and detonation on almost every power stroke

3.) You inject only the hydrogen.

The hydrogen will not react with the burning gasoline. It's just going to eat up oxygen that could have been used to burn fuel, instead. And, since you're already at a net loss of energy through simply producing the hydrogen, all it does is worsen fuel economy.


You could, I suppose, only inject some ratio of oxygen/hydrogen, but since the hydrogen's just a straight-up waste of space in the cylinder and the oxygen doesn't affect burn efficiency enough to make it worth producing, there's no "sweet spot" for this that makes it worthwhile.

>> No.1215921

>>1215919

It's SO FUCKING EASY to test if this stuff works.

Stick an engine, any engine, on a dynamometer, put a flowmeter on the fuel line, and rev the thing up.

It will be immediately and provably obvious whether or not it works. But no, AT BEST, all the salesman want to show you are cherry-picked readings from an actual car, subject to any number of variables that aren't accounted for. Or just outright faked results.

If this actually worked, it would be used. But the ONLY possible way it actually could is with the additional oxygen, and, at that point, you should be using an oxygen concentrator to simply pull additional oxygen from the air. You'd still need an engine designed for it, and I seriously doubt it would work as intended, even with a concentrator that worked as efficiently as is theoretically possible (which is not 100%, by the way).

>> No.1215985

>>1215921
Yes it is.
They did this test at my uni. Used the same motor that the technical group experimented with.
No measurable change at all.
If I can find my copy of the results I'll post em. But don't hold your breath. If I still have them they are in the attic somewhere.

They got better results from simple alcohol/water injection. Misting it into the intake to cool the charge. Cooler charge = higher density = more power and a bit more efficient burn. Marginally better economy but quite a bit of improvement when the intake air was >90F.

>> No.1216302

Since you might find it difficult to understand actual research, let this bloke explain how stupid the concept is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2t11GR6jFc

>> No.1216306

>>1215985
>alcohol/water injection
Now there's an actually good, proven idea

>> No.1216337
File: 17 KB, 480x360, Stanley Meyer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1216337

>>1215912
> (Me): The Mercedes-Benz Hybrid uses electricity to assist the turbo charger to compress air to increase the air-to-fuel ratio.

> (You): no, a turbocharger/supercharger is there to increase the volume of fuel-air mixture in the cylinder, essentially inflating the capacity of each cylinder to produce more power.

Are you saying that none of that extra air burns fuel more completely per ignition, even though the combustion is under higher pressure?

> They all just go with the vague "increases burn efficiency"

It could be that the HHO generator is displacing the Carbon Dioxide because of the higher concentration of Hydrogen + Oxygen, leading to a more complete combustion.

Whatever the case may be, it would appear that a higher concentration of Hydrogen + Oxygen will increase the Km per Litre, as shown in the videos below.

This may have something to do with the 'Hydrino' (Hydrogen with electron orbits below what was thought possible). Something to do with 'Dark Energy'. >>>/sci/9032087

Based on evidence, the text-books need to be changed.

>>1215921
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6stqKSPjZY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c1m0B9j1Xw (Skip to 3:36)

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7b338

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkrQojFCUAs ← The reason why I don't watch television.

You literally only needed to type 'HHO proof' in the YouTube search-bar.

>>1215985
Could it be that the reason why you didn't see any change in the mileage is because you didn't modify the O2 Sensor? Cars are equipped with an "Electronic Control Unit" (ECU) that uses a sensor to regulate the cars air/fuel ratio.

To "adjust" the signals coming from the O2 sensor to the ECU, you'll need an "Electronic Fuel Injection Enhancer" ('EFIE'), one for each O2 sensor in the exhaust pipe.

The guide I provided shows you how to build one and attach it between the sensor and the ECU.

I've provided these plans for free, so test it out for me.

>> No.1216347 [DELETED] 

>youtube
>proof
pick one

>> No.1216348

>>1216337
>amateur youtube videos
>proof
pick one

>> No.1216352

>>1216337
Dude it's a scam for crazy people. The end.

>> No.1216360

>>1216337
>>This may have something to do with the 'Hydrino' (Hydrogen with electron orbits below what was thought possible). Something to do with 'Dark Energy'

That's where you lost my respect and now I believe you are either an elite level troll or completely retarded and damage controlling your poor investment.

>> No.1216389

When you build one, don't forget to add a shot of black to the water, that way it'll know you're a real pro and it will allow you to decompress the hydrogen orbitals to release the orgone energy inherent in the masking process that has hidden these lower energy deep Dirac levels.

That way, your engine will easily have enough power for both your car and to be able to tow your container based small house, even when it's full of imitation crab meat ready for the underground container bunker.

But in any case, you are helping to keep at least one nutcase out of a mental asylum, and we thank you for your easing of the general taxpayer burden involved in supporting those with hard to treat mental illness.

>> No.1216390

>>1216389
>When you build one, don't forget to add a shot of black to the water, that way it'll know you're a real pro

What does that mean? Google is coming up blank.

>> No.1216397

>>1216390
It is our newest super funny may-may.
The original "shot of black" referred to painter's white.

>> No.1216398

>>1216390
The best black to use is carbon black, which is carefully made by pocket-protected scientists crashing a diamond car made of 400 miles per hour into a wall, because diamonds are the hardest metal known to the man.

This explanation is on par with the explanation of hydrino energy.

>> No.1216406
File: 9 KB, 377x192, img_hho-atoms.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1216406

>>1216348
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1GpYupbq6A Is this another 'amateur' YouTube video?

Or this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp0i3RbtWsc

Are the videos I selected so low in quality, that you were unable to see the evidence they provided? Aren't they what No.1215921 requested?
>>1215921

Everyone here seems absolutely sure that HHO is a scam, despite not trying it out for themselves and ignoring the number of posts on forums from people who have tried it, or not bothering to look at them.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/gift-hho-skeptics-22462.html

https://www.landcruiserclub.net/community/threads/hho-kit-now-fitted-and-working.128983/

http://www.hhoforums.com/showthread.php?183-Testimonials!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---
http://hho4free.com/documents/nasa_hho_proof.pdf

"the apparent flame speed was 61 percent faster with hydrogen enrichment."
(Page 13)

"Total energy consumption is significantly, lower at equivalence ratios below 0.70 for both hydrogen-gasoline mixtures at the same flow rate." (Page 17)

---
It simply comes down to whether or not the extra fuel needed by the Alternator to run the HHO generator will increase in efficiency to where the amount of fuel burned per Km is less then without it.

>> No.1216819

>It simply comes down to whether or not the extra fuel needed by the Alternator to run the HHO generator will increase in efficiency to where the amount of fuel burned per Km is less then without it.

286 kj/mole from burning hho.
Takes 237.13 kj/mole for electrolysis.

You're not defeating any law it's just two different processes.

However getting a car, especially a modern one to run on hho is a different game anon.

>> No.1216837

>Everyone here seems absolutely sure that HHO is a scam, despite not trying it out for themselves and ignoring the number of posts on forums from people who have tried it, or not bothering to look at them

Yeah, and even worse im not going to even read this thread

>HHOs work by making your engine run lean with gas vapors
>acting like you dont have o2 sensors and an ECU to compensate for it

Unless you think im driving an old car with a carbed engine

>> No.1216856

>>1216837
This, thank you.

If you have a fuel injector, you could accomplish anything an HHO generator does with a 'chip' reprogram.

>> No.1216860

>>1215859
25 bucks is nothing dude, especially in AUD and shared for other diy-ers to experiment with. Get a better job

>> No.1216867

Babby's first perpetual motion device

>> No.1216869

>>1215823
google "HHO scam"
more solid info than what you're pitching.

>> No.1216877

>>1215894
Your car is already tuned to use the appropriate amount of gasoline at a stoichiometric ratio to react fully with the air in the cylinder. It's also under a closed-loop control system that measures the amount of unburned fuel through the exhaust and adjusts accordingly to account for variations in barometric pressure due to elevation and so-forth.

Effectively, all HHO does (at best) is take the energy you put into making O2 in a tank, and burns it with gasoline, recovering a small amount of the energy spent. Making Brown's gas is incredibly inefficient, so the combined inefficiency is ridiculous. You should know all this if you had any idea what you were talking about. It's hokum.

Turbochargers work by recovering some of the engine's wasted energy and recycling it back into the combustion cycle.

>>1216337
Youtube is not a valid source for any research paper I ever wrote...

>> No.1216932

>>1216877
No, turbochargers effectively increase volume of the engine, giving you more power, with the same losses a small engine would have (bigger engine = bigger surface area that is in contact = more friction).
If it happens to be powered by exhaust gasses (a turbocharger is not necessarily the one kind powered by a gas turbine from the exhaust, it can be driven from the crankshaft), it's more efficient then any other charger powered from the crank (via a belt).

>> No.1217030

>>1216837
This.

Also you know what happens when you run too lean? You fry the jugs.

Carbed or injected makes no difference.

>> No.1217088
File: 26 KB, 250x240, Tesla-quote-power-everywhere-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1217088

>>1216877

If there's anything I learned while planing out my Aeroponics system, is that what you have on paper isn't necessarily how it really is. There may be factors that you may not have included (Unknown element).

If I were to build one of these myself and it does increase Km/h per Liter, what evidence would you require from me that wasn't already shown in this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c1m0B9j1Xw (Skip to 3:36)

>> No.1217123

>>1217088
>this video?

Beyond the fact that it's suss as fuck because he has a financial interest in selling the things, it is, once again, nothing resembling a proper, scientific test.

For all we know, he's just letting off the gas on a downhill stretch of road (I think he even says something about going downhill when I flicked through it). My car has a mileage monitor, too, and it will go from as low as ~16mpg in city, all the way up to nearly 30mpg on the highway, and a ridiculous 60mpg+ when nearly coasting down a long mountain road.

Some numbers on a dashboard from a guy trying to sell those numbers doesn't mean jack shit.


I don't think you understand what you're asking here. Internal combustion engines are one of, if not THE most, highly engineered pieces of equipment humanity has ever developed. There are no actual, verifiable, TESTABLE explanations of how exactly this crap is supposed to work. To imply that there is some "unknown" factor that it's tapping into is to imply that there is something fundamentally wrong with our understanding of our own engine designs or with our understanding of relatively basic chemistry. As the saying goes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and, with many, many billion dollars tied up in their design and manufacture, either of those claims is definitely an extraordinary one. But some poorly-produced youtube videos and questionable methodology

The one, actual, credible piece of work posted here was that NASA note. However, not only are they using hydrogen only (not hydrogen and oxygen), but they're using it from a bottle and methanol reformer. This is a huge difference than an electrolysis rig, because they both are basically additional gas tanks. You don't need to spend additional on-board fuel to produce the hydrogen.

>> No.1217127

>>1217123
(con't.)

The most important chart in that paper is Figure 11, where it shows the thermal efficiency of the engine as a function of fuel-air equivalence ratio. Straight gasoline peaks at 30%. Hydrogen from a bottle peaks at 32%. That would translate to a real-world difference of under 7%, and under ideal conditions only.

And that's, again, without having to spend any energy to produce the hydrogen. There's no way anyone is _doubling_ the efficiency of an engine by adding HHO.

As one more nail, the engine they were using was made in 1969, meaning it would have been designed even earlier. It's a FIFTY-YEAR-OLD engine at this point. I sincerely doubt you could even get that same experimental 7% out of a typical modern turbo engine.

>> No.1217131

>>1217123
>But some poorly-produced youtube videos and questionable methodology
...is decidedly not "extraordinary evidence".


Don't know how that got cut off.

>> No.1217233
File: 549 KB, 2288x1712, Auto - engin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1217233

>>1216306
Yep.
Now another good trick for turbocharged diesels is to inject propane. Gives you a good kick, but got to watch the temps or you melt the engine.
(melted engine for reference)

>> No.1217653
File: 1.99 MB, 200x350, Origami Door.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1217653

>>1217123
I don't wrong there's anything wrong about our understanding of engine designs, but the chemistry may not have entirely been what we were lead to believe.

Car manufactures have been known to purposefully exclude technology from the general public.
The electric car conspiracy is one such example. In 1994, the 'General Motors Company' GM bought control of the NiMH batteries. They had 77 working (Gen-II) NiMH EV1 cars, which could have been sold for $25,000 each, but GM refused to sell. GM sold the patent to Texaco which was acquired by Chevron about a week later.

Toyota set up a production line in 1997 for the Toyota RAV4-EV, which used the perfected “large-format” EV-95 batteries. Chevron then sued Toyota.

http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?p=690
http://www.winonarenewableenergy.com/blog/ev-batteries-are-being-held-hostage
http://www.ev1.org/

Getting back to the main topic, in order to prove to myself as to whether or not a HHO improves the fuel efficiency of a car, the road will need to be mostly flat. Take about 5 video recordings of the Dynamometer (1 per 10 min) while at the same speed, first with the cars original O2 sensor and then again with the EFIE, all without the HHO unit installed.

Then I do the same with the HHO generator connected and drawing 12 (13.5) Volts from the Battery, only switching it on immediately when the car starts.

Will this give me a definitive result?

Your lack of curiosity has kinda bummed me out though.

>> No.1217660
File: 56 KB, 640x360, man-pours-seven-different-molten.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1217660

>>1217233
That reminds me of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UYe8mxqKOM (Skip to 4:10)

>> No.1217675

>>1215985
>alcohol/water injection
WEP from the 2nd world war injected methanol because not only did it evaporate and remove heat, but it also burnt. But with the sociometric fuel injectors around today, it's probably worse than water because it has a lower heat of vaporisation.

>>1216819
The electrolysis of water in standard conditions requires a theoretical minimum of 237 kJ of electrical energy input to dissociate each mole of water, which is the standard Gibbs free energy of formation of water. It also requires energy to overcome the change in entropy of the reaction. Therefore, the process cannot proceed below 286 kJ per mol if no external heat/energy is added.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

If it did work, theoretically you'd be able to produce hydroxy gas, burn it into water, produce it again from the same water, and make a net profit of energy. Thermodynamics called.

>>1217653
>cars full of NiMH cells
If that isn't a fire risk I'm not sure what is. Personally I'd do the test with something like two identical chainsaws running at equal RPM, then equal torque, then equal power, one driving a generator that produces HHO and the other without. Then you'd do a bunch of tests with different-sized HHO loads/alternator current drains, different ratios of H2 to O2, and compare them all to the control. Problem is the wear on the engines could affect the results, so you'd need to buy a lot of new chainsaws.

>> No.1217764 [DELETED] 

>>1217653
>Car manufactures have been known to purposefully exclude technology from the general public.

Except this is completely different. Everyone KNEW this was a possibility and exactly how to make it work, but gas companies just abused the legal system to keep profits up. If HHO worked, the only viable way to keep it suppressed would be with similar legal roadblocking.

As an important distinction, the expense for the batteries and sheer labor required to convert a gas car to electric (not to mention the downsides of using the batteries developed before cell phones put a ridiculous amount of money into their R&D) meant that it just wasn't something the average joe could fuck with and test out for themselves. That's not the case with simple electrolysis cell, which is inexpensive, simple, and requires only minimal modification to the car.

Simply put, it's one of those things that, if it worked, it would already be everywhere.


>Will this give me a definitive result?

You don't even have to go through the hassle of repeated readings. After it's been warmed up, the conditions inside the cylinder don't change without the ECU saying so. With a flowmeter on the fuel line and a dynamometer attached to the engine, it will be immediately obvious whether there's a perceptible difference in performance.

>> No.1217769

>>1217653
>Car manufactures have been known to purposefully exclude technology from the general public.

Except this is completely different. Everyone KNEW an electric car was a possibility and exactly how to make it work, but gas companies just abused the legal system to keep profits up. If HHO worked, the only viable way to keep it suppressed would be with similar legal roadblocking.

As an important distinction, the expense for the batteries and sheer labor required to convert a gas car to electric (not to mention the downsides of using the batteries developed before cell phones put a ridiculous amount of money into their R&D) meant that it just wasn't something the average joe could fuck with and test out for themselves. That's not the case with simple electrolysis cell, which is inexpensive, simple, and requires only minimal modification to the car.

Simply put, it's one of those things that, if it worked, it would already be everywhere.


>Will this give me a definitive result?

You don't even have to go through the hassle of repeated readings. After it's been warmed up, the conditions inside the cylinder don't change without the ECU saying so. With a flowmeter on the fuel line and a dynamometer attached to the engine, it will be immediately obvious whether there's a perceptible difference in performance.

>> No.1217787

>>1216389
Shot of black will show them you're a pro.

>> No.1217922

>>1215845
>>1215894

Thank you for sharing this.
I really appreciate it.

>> No.1217936

>>>/x/

>> No.1218225
File: 244 KB, 800x800, Hydralyte.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1218225

>>1217769
So there needs to be a Flowmeter on fuel-line and a Dynamometer attached to the engine.
But if by some magic that this does offer a positive result, would it be enough to convince others, even though on paper, it says it shouldn't?
It could be the reason why it's not common, which is why its worth looking into (If you have the spare time and money).

>>1217922
Your welcome. But I wonder. What if, instead of soap, I used electrolyte supplements?

>> No.1218239
File: 6 KB, 236x236, b4c96e1af2e783e44599c77f54c7033a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1218239

>>1215823
These plans will also allow you to build the generator part of an Oxy-Hydrogen torch (2,800 °C) which can be powered by a cars battery (Be sure to have the car on).

The average Alternator cherns out about 50 amps at 14.4 Volts to recharge the battery. The generator can be made larger since its external from the car, connected by alligator clamps. But it mustn't draw more amps than what your car can provide.

>> No.1218298

>>1217675
Wow now your just trolling really hard.

Electrolysis is not combustion.

And your concept of trying to "test" hho in a 2 stroke is laughable. You've obviously never left the classroom.

>run it at equal rpm and equal torque

Oh god my sides you don't even know what that means and it's so laughably obvious.

>> No.1218301

>>1218225
>But if by some magic that this does offer a positive result, would it be enough to convince others, even though on paper, it says it shouldn't?

Unlikely, because you aren't a trusted authority. You'd have to get the nod from someone who is, or (the smart option) add units on to other peoples cars (for free, if necessary). Turn that into a business. Patent troll a bit with some stupid little detail that makes your system "unique", even though it totally doesn't. Word gets out (and it WILL get out, fast), you make mad money.


Easy. Which is kind of even more evidence against it. Anyone could do this, and there are more than a few actively trying. Yet they never take off (indicating it doesn't work) and nobody with a vested interest in selling gasoline tries to shut them down or otherwise hinder their growth (indicating they don't care, because they know it doesn't work).

>> No.1218302
File: 10 KB, 408x286, 1498849545387.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1218302

>>1218298
>>run it at equal rpm and equal torque
>and
>>1217769
>something like two identical chainsaws running at equal RPM, then equal torque, then equal power
>then
It looks like that anon was suggesting testing fuel consumption under different sets of matching parameters to try to account for the confounding variable of adding the HHO generator to one test engine. Then it looks like you forgot basic reading comprehension.

>> No.1218305

Also

>>1218298
>Electrolysis is not combustion.
Both combustion and electrolysis are thermodynamically reversible reactions. Getting them to proceed in one direction or the other requires that that direction be favorable taking into account ALL the factors involved, including entropy. But to be sure, are you indeed claiming that burning HHO gas (state 1) to water (state 2) produces more energy than it takes to split water into HHO gas? Because that would let you set up a generator that cycles between states 1 and 2 while spitting out free energy. Can you see how, if such a generator won't work, the process won't help car engine efficiency? Alternately, if you think that such a generator would work, just produce a working model and claim your Nobel prize.

>> No.1218306

>>1217233
I thought that was valve interference damage

>> No.1218329

>>1217675
"WEP" is a power setting. You are confusing it with "ADI"/Anti-Detonant Injection" . The alcohol was a component to prevent the water freezing.
Other additives could and were substituted for the alcohol where freezing is not an issue.

>> No.1218556

>>1218298
I'd say something, but there really isn't anything that hasn't been said already.

>>1218329
While the methanol-water was almost exclusively used with the WEP-style power setting, the methanol-water injection itself does increase the power output, which is probably the source of my confusion.

>> No.1218582

>>1218556
>While the methanol-water was almost exclusively used with the WEP-style power setting..

No, ADI was not as common as one would think. The most common was the MW 50 used by the Germans, mostly because of their low octane aviation fuel's tendency to ping like mad at high boost settings.

The majority of "WEP" settings merely boosted supercharging pressure (upper deck pressure) beyond an agreed upon "max", offering a placard usually reading something like "10 minutes max operation", coupled with a red warning bug on the manifold gauge.


The main "byproduct" of ADI was the cooling and slight increase in density of the combustion air. If you were running proper intercooling and high octane fuels of reasonable quality, ADI offered little additional advantage.

>> No.1218585

>>1216932
I thought a crankshaft driven charger was a supercharger?

Also the efficiency isn't quite right, because the turbine on a turbocharger imparts a back pressure on the exhaust stroke.

>> No.1218588

>>1218585
Both turbochargers (correctly, "Turbo-superchargers") and direct driven Superchargers increase performance by maximizing an engine's volumetric efficency.

The resultant backpressure of a turbosupercharger's turbine is more than offset by it's effect on performance. To the point that many aircraft engines made use of turbines in the exhaust stream to deliver additional power to the propellor via shafts and fluid couplings. (Turbo-Compounding).