 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / September 2005H2 Combustion-Booster Claimed
Here's one I just read: http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=cfe... Some fellow is claiming he has a small device that will boost combustion efficiency and save drivers lots of money, while reducing emissions. Obviously, plenty of claims have been made before, so I'm asking -- does this sound on the level? It sounds reasonable that injecting H2 into your fuel stream can improve the combustion. I assume that combusting the H2 in your cylinders along with the regular fuel will boost temperature to give a cleaner burn. Would the higher temperature harm your engine life at all? Since this device supposedly only holds a limited supply of distilled H2O, KOH, etc which get periodically replaced, can I assume that it's catalytically cracking some hydrogen from the hydrocarbon fuel stream itself, so that hydrogen can improve the combustion of the remaining fuel at the cylinder? Is this somehow akin to a sort of turbocharger, but which uses hydrogen instead of pressurized oxygen? Can it work for other things like aircraft engines, in order to boost their operating ceiling? Hmm, I dunno, I feel a little puzzled or suspicious of how he's achieving a net energy gain here. Can anyone debunk any obvious fallacies here? Suddenly it's 1980 all over again, and the get-rich-quick crackpots with their magical mystical "sounds reasonable" fuel saving devices are once again crawling out of the sewers like the rats they are... > Here's one I just read: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > achieving a net energy gain here. Can anyone debunk any obvious > fallacies here? > Here's one I just read: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > achieving a net energy gain here. Can anyone debunk any obvious > fallacies here? This is that old fallacy that the fuel does not burn efficiently. In fact it is hard to combine fuel and oxygen and not have it create the desired energy output. That is not the reason for the limited efficiency of present engines. It is the same argument as in the other efficiency thread still current. > Hmm, I dunno, I feel a little puzzled or suspicious of how he's > achieving a net energy gain here. Can anyone debunk any obvious > fallacies here? If someone develops a bullshit powered engine, there will be fuel forever. > Here's one I just read: http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=cfe... > Some fellow is claiming he has a small device that will boost > combustion efficiency and save drivers lots of money, while reducing [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > achieving a net energy gain here. Can anyone debunk any obvious > fallacies here? Yep, it is plain old water injection. One more crock of crap gimmick item. The article in Popular Mechanics tested a unit like this. NO difference found. > Yep, it is plain old water injection. One more crock of crap gimmick > item. The article in Popular Mechanics tested a unit like this. NO > difference found. While water injection produces no increase in efficiency as an add-on, it would, if engine designed for it, allow a boost in CR that would lead to an increase in efficiency. Supercharged WW2 aircraft engines used it to allow a higher boost pressure. Engines would detonate on high boost, and water injection acts as an octane booster. But engine has to be designed from start to have the higher boost or CR to take advantage of this. BTW, hydrogen does not act same as water. Hydrogen has very low octane, so injecting it is not the same as water injection, which gives same effect as higher octane. H20 and H2 are quite different this way. . > > Yep, it is plain old water injection. One more crock of crap gimmick > > item. The article in Popular Mechanics tested a unit like this. NO [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > so injecting it is not the same as water injection, which gives same > effect as higher octane. H20 and H2 are quite different this way. All true and the key item is "if engine designed for it" It does allow you some gains in non computer controlled vehicles. I have used it a few times to allow higher timing advance and the use of lower octane fuel in some engines that were designed for high octane fuel. The problem is that in a modern computer controlled vehicle it isn't going to do much. It might remove some carbon build up in the cylinders but that's about it. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.