roberto wrote:Just an upgrade:
Many pages of this thread just to say:
1) The principle is right and it works as is on carburettor engines
Depends on which principle you're talkin' about. If you're talkin' hydrogen either as a fuel or as a fuel additive, sure, that works.
If you're talkin' one of the many commercial available "HHO" kits no, they don't work. The volume of hydrogen they generate is insignificant and the energy input is ridiculous in relation to hydrogen output.
In short it's a massive scam. $250 per bogus unit x 1000 units = $250k. The actual scale of the deception is much larger.
roberto wrote:2) Needs some improvements to do its best on every condition, expecially with fuel injection engines
The first necessary improvement is to make the numbers work. Hydrogen production needs to be dramatically increased while the cost of production needs to be dramatically decreased. That's the same challenge that faces "fuel cell" technology.
Anyone can buy a tank of hydrogen and say, "See! Look, it will run the engine!" The challenge is to find a
lot of
really inexpensive hydrogen.
roberto wrote:3) Many people speculate on this
Sure. And in between the nonsense there are very few credible claims. There's a quick way to identify a credible claim:
A credible claim will list substantial hydrogen production by weight not volume. A kilo of hydrogen at atmospheric pressue is
enormous by volume. Take a look at NASA's 1977 study, they used a
lot of hydrogen. No mention is made of cost effectiveness.
I'm genuinely sorry that document is in English, it must be a chore to wade through with English as a second language. I'm not kidding.
Some of the most impressive looking units make no mention of either volume or weight of production.
In practice the production volume is so low it's like sayin' you can catch a buzz by sittin' next to a drunk.
Come to think of it, that works... if you're drinkin, too!
A simple tell is to look at the weight of feedstock (in this case water or electrolyte) in relation to generator output by
weight. "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." If we're converting water into a substantial amount of hydrogen we want to see the water go away (it's converted). Yet vendors of most commercially available units state, "The unit is practically maintenance free. Just clean the red grunge out every six months and add a little more water." Substantial hydrogen production means substantial feedstock consumption.
Near as I can tell "many people specluate" whether consumers are gullible enough to pay $49.00 for an information packet that's readily available for
free, or whether they're gullible enough to spend $250.00, $350.00 or as high as $1500.00 for a product that's untested and unproven. There are a
lot of people in this but virtually
none with good science to back up their claims.
roberto wrote:4) Casey is boring
You flatter me, sir!
The proof to the contrary is that we have a pages long exchange and we've merely reviewed a few interesting if largely unsubstantiated claims.