SaabCentral Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Has anybody tried a water fuel cell in their Saab? I want to hear all about it. Since the new cars use fuel injection, the EFIE (elec. fuel injection enhancer, running between O2 sensor and ECU) is necessary. Plus, since you're electrolyzing water to create a 2:1 mixture of hydrogen to oxygen gas (and running it into your intake air), will this damage the turbo or engine in any way? These gases explode in the presence of a BIT of gasoline (you have to trick the computer to ween out gas in the injectors entering the cylinders) to create water vapor again, which I suppose the turbo is running right back into the cylinders. Is this an area for concern (I've heard you can't do HHo or hydrogen with turbocharged vehicles).

My 2nd question/idea: The catalytic converter is too hot and next to the oil sump/oil pan obviously. What if you had computer adhesive/heat-resistant glue and glued a bunch of aluminum heat sinks from computers and other devices (whatever you can find - they're cheap, too) to the catalytic converter? Would this solve the problem of it getting too hot? Seems like a pretty logical fix to me.

Thanks, guys!

Also - how hard is it to change the engine air cleaner? How do I get to it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,196 Posts
You are joking correct?

The whole idea of electrolizing hydrogen onboard then burning it in the vehicle's engine is bunk. It violates the first law of thermodynamics - "energy can be converted but cannot be created or destroyed" - and represents a type of perpetual motion machine -another impossibility.

In this internet scam pipe dream, the energy necessary to electrolize the water into hydrogen and oxygen is provided by the vehicle's alternator, which is powered by the engine, which is powered (in part) by the hydrogen. This same energy is in excess of that normally required to propel the vehicle, therefore; assuming 100% efficiency in energy conversion, the hydrogen can provide no more energy to the vehicle than what energy is required for the electrolizing to produce the hydrogen. A zero net gain.

In reality the energy conversion efficiency is much less than 100% and electrolizing hydrogen on board the vehicle will result in reduced MPG as more power is required to generate the hydrogen than what it provides back to the engine.

When hearing things that sound too good to be true, remember the famous quote of David Hannum (usually attributed in error to P T Barnum) and don't become one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,140 Posts
Brown's Gas web scams are all over the place...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Water Electrolysis Works. This is how.

Please read this entire post, as it contains scientific proof that you made a grave error in assuming this technology does not work. I apologize if any of the following makes you ill at ease, but this is something I feel very passionate about.

The second law, true, can never be violated. But that doesn't change the fact that O2 and H2 gas mixture burns - it's proven science (have you ever had chemistry? You'll need it in the coming paragraphs).

A garage near my home uses all hydrogen boosters/electrolyzers on their company trucks. Where have you been the last two years? Do you think Stan Meyer was assassinated for no good reason?

I've built an electrolyzer as a test, two tubes (not touching) + and - connected to a 9V battery. I used soapy water and produced a ton of bubbles immediately when I connected the battery - and made the mistake of igniting them. It sounded louder than a shotgun. Imagine this inside your engine. By the way, the water does NOT HEAT UP when you do this with a properly pulsed DC signal at the right frequency (555 timers and MOSFET transistor circuits designed by Meyer have done this quite well - it is called a pulse width modulator circuit and applications beyond resonant electrolysis)

I refer you to these documents (if you are even genuine enough to look them up):

1 through 41. Stan Meyer's patents, of which there are 41, I believe. The patent office would have known if it was "bunk" as you say, and not granted him the patents. This did not happen because the technology worked.

42. and 43. Dublin Institute of Technology (14 Upper Mount Street, Dublin 2), Industrial Liaison Office, "Simple Explanation of Meyer Fuel Cell Technology." by Rea O'Neill, and "Report on Visit to Stan Meyer." by same.

If you knew anything about electrical resonance, the key to efficient circuit design (as well not killing a circuits voltage potential, or dipolarity aka broken symmetry, before powering its load) you'd know this is possible using pulsed DC signals at the resonant frequency of water. The metal tube (+ and - electrode set) act as a capacitor with water as the dielectric. I cannot abide you naysaying without any previous knowledge of science or without explanation (neither of which you provided so I am forced to make these assumptions - you asked for it). Forget the 2nd law - everyone knows it can't broken - and it's not being broken in this technology either. Yet the fact remains - it works. We just don't know everything about physics yet, so the energy is still coming from somewhere without being "created" or "destroyed."

Besides, this has nothing to do with electricity, essentially. There is a concept in chemistry called "ionic dissociation." Water is continually dissociating into ions (protons aka hydrogen cations and hydroxyl anions) and no energy is required for this (does this break the 2nd law of thermo, too?). You're just boosting this effect with pulsed signals in the presence of an electric field. In theory the process can be made energy efficient without a breach of any of the laws of thermodynamics.

When we apply the ionic dissociation to water, the requirement to produce 1.008 grams of hydrogen is that 1 Faraday of electricity flows (that equals 96,494 coulombs) between the special electrodes. Let's assume we need 2 amps of current for 96,494 seconds at 1/2 volt, making the necessary energy 96,494 joules or 96.494 kilojoules of energy. This same mole of H2 is capable of releasing 285 kilojoules of energy upon combustion with oxygen. LOOK IT UP BEFORE YOU REPOST WITH NONSENSE!

Was the Pogue carburetor "bunk" too? It got 100+ mpg because of adding water vapor to the process before combustion in presence of a catalyst.

Here's another cool tip: filter your gasoline with activated charcoal before fueling. If you take out the lead (yes, they still use a form of lead in gas to inhibit cracking and extra mileage) and anti-pyrosis agents (which put a burden on combustion), you'll get much better gas mileage and less gunk in the oil.

Sorry to be harsh, but it sounds like you were a little brash in your responses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,140 Posts
Perhaps you might be better served by trying to improve your gas mileage by actually opening up the hood -- not in theory, but in reality -- cleaning your air filter. :cool:


"All of these device/schemes seem to promote adding hydrogen to improve the combustion process. There is no way it can improve fuel economy by 50%, or even 5%," said Dr. Robert Sawyer, Professor of Energy Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley .
Dr. Sawyer said that he has been reviewing gas-saving devices since he first joined the faculty at UC-Berkeley, more than 40 years ago, and to see a change in MPG comes as no surprise.
"One would expect to see a small increase or decrease (a few percent) in fuel economy from all of these devices, purely the result of test variability. However, people will put a device on their car and automatically change the way they drive. This in itself will improve fuel economy simply because a person is driving slower, etc.," Sawyer said.

Read more: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/07/water4gas.html#ixzz0Sdn73vUZ

"The Web sites I saw used a little bit of truth mixed in with a lot of false statements," said Dr. John Kramlich, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Washington College of Engineering. "People need to forget about all the 'testimonials' they see because the only way to know if a device helps at all is to use a dynamometer. You not only need to test the MPG, but also what is happening to the combustion process of the engine, and the test has to be done numerous times."
When we showed the instructions and claims to Dr. Andrew A. Frank, he had difficulty holding back the laughter.
"It shows the desperation people feel!" said Frank, Professor of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering at the University of California, Davis.
"This has been around for years, but it didn't work back then and it won't work now," Dr. Frank said. "It's such a very small amount of hydrogen-oxygen gas that it is impossible to have any real effect on combustion."

and on, and on, and on....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,196 Posts
You misunderstood my point

I never said electrolysis doesn't work (disassociating oxygen and hydrogen for combustion with a match is 100+ year old parlor trick) it just doesn't result in reduced fuel consumption IF the electrolysis is performed with energy generated by the same engine that is consuming the hydrogen created via electrolysis.

Most of the hydrogen consumed by the small fleets of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in testing use today is generated via electrolysis. Some hydrogen is extracted from Natural Gas, and a minute amount of hydrogen is generated via sunlight (it only takes two weeks of strong sunlight and a 20ft x 20ft solar array to fill the tank of one fuel cell vehicle). But it can not be generated onboard the vehicle with power produced by the vehicle's engine (well, it can be generated but only at a net energy loss).

A patent award only signifies that you are the first person to apply for a patent associated with a specific idea or concept. It does not guarantee or certify the applicant's idea works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
He wasn't using engine power for the electrolysis. Stan Meyer added a marine alternator to drive the electrical pulses (so I guess AC). Other than that, you can use power from the battery, or even install an extra 12V battery onboard. Plus, you can add a trickle charge (desulfator) circuit to your battery, which puts battery solids back in solution, rendering it as right as rain.

Bob Boyce and Stan Meyer did not supplement gasoline engines with electrolytic hydrogen - they ran them exclusively on water (or rather it's composite gases). I don't care if it is not efficient - it is possible to use water as fuel. That is the point! If those professors would only realize that it is not about gasoline fuel economy but about not using gasoline at all, they'd be in a much better position to speak. Academics have a way of being sightless beyond their own research - if they don't fake that.

You don't need a dynamometer to tell you that you can run an engine on water. Most likely these educators (and I stress that these are not practicing engineers in the industry) reviewed the most cheesy-looking sites they could find based on who their benefactors funding their research told them.

None of them reviewed Meyer's original documents, that much is obvious. Half the people building these systems use mason jars, for chrissakes, which these educators are pigeonholing.

I urge you to look at the Pogue carburetor, too - very fascinating. Gasoline should be much more efficient that it is presently due to additives.

So it goes - most of the citizenry remains hooked to TV and old ideas... so be it. No more technological revolutions. We've reached the height of civilization :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
No sh**, MI-Roger - 255K - not....tooooo shabby!

I've always had crap cars before I bought the used 00' 9-5 wagon. I'm just looking at options for better performance and have been researching the hydrogen thing for years myself. I honestly believe it works when done correctly (which requires beyond-mechanical knowledge).

I'm currently setting up my own personal oil refinery - to take the additives OUT OF the gasoline I buy at the pump, since it is not an option for me to buy it straight from the refinery. Activated coconut charcoal is best, I believe, to treat it with. I will follow up posts in the future with results. I want to make sure I have full control over spills, storage, and safety while I do this, so i have to do it right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,140 Posts
Something tells me you're going to sell us a Water4Fuel kit in 3....2......1...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
You don't have to buy a "kit," just study the design of Stanley Meyers and make your own. Perhaps the kits are BS, but something you make yourself is something you can be proud of. I consider my install of the 7th or 8th or 107th (what are we up to?) PCV update a job well done - and I didn't even design it :cool:

I sure hope trash picking is not above you fine Saab owners because you wouldn't believe what people throw away. My friend does the paper early in the morning and trash picked a brand new set of fine crystal wine glasses. We are a wasteful society - so use what you can, given permission of course.

I bought a $20 home water fitler (acrylic) on sale at Menard's (Minnesota's Home Depot), and found the stainless steel tubes (304 or 316) and cutting bits (I used a dremel tool) and metal screw taps at a great hardware store called Hartville Hardware, and had a long conversation about hydrogen production there with a floor man. I trash picked some extra parts (without getting arrested - still have a 100% success rate so far :lol:) to use like hoses, brackets, some foam to use in the water bath/water filter to keep the tubes/electrodes from jostling around too much, and an old plastic grate I used the dremel to shape. This holds the tubes akin to a vertical wine rack.

If you think this mode of power production is not feasible, you've got to talk to people face to face. The sincerity of others is the best gauge, even in lieu of review by the academic scientific community (which is controlled by the NIH, AMA, and NSF, to name a few, and controlled also by funding and policy, which in turn are controlled by pharmaceutical, tobacco and oil lobbies) which refuses to acquiesce to the science behind the technology.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - they didn't assassinate Stanley Meyer for nothing. He threatened putting the richest folks on earth out of business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
241 Posts
The whole idea of electrolizing hydrogen onboard then burning it in the vehicle's engine is bunk. It violates the first law of thermodynamics - "energy can be converted but cannot be created or destroyed" - and represents a type of perpetual motion machine -another impossibility.

In this internet scam pipe dream, the energy necessary to electrolize the water into hydrogen and oxygen is provided by the vehicle's alternator, which is powered by the engine, which is powered (in part) by the hydrogen. This same energy is in excess of that normally required to propel the vehicle, therefore; assuming 100% efficiency in energy conversion, the hydrogen can provide no more energy to the vehicle than what energy is required for the electrolizing to produce the hydrogen. A zero net gain.

In reality the energy conversion efficiency is much less than 100% and electrolizing hydrogen on board the vehicle will result in reduced MPG as more power is required to generate the hydrogen than what it provides back to the engine.

When hearing things that sound too good to be true, remember the famous quote of David Hannum (usually attributed in error to P T Barnum) and don't become one.
hi, using a hydrogen generator , to mix in with the petrol , hydrogen going into inlet manifold to suppliment the petrol , will work , when done correctly as i have done it on a ford ute .

now , if you have ever had a engine with a mechanical fan , then switched on a electric thermo fan , notice how much the engine revs drop and how much power they suck , the hydrogen setup uses less power than a thermo fan.

mark k
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
The biggest argument in favor of using hydrogen from water as fuel is this:

First, you have to use photons to eject subatomic particles from water, or electrolyzed water, which is hydrogen and oxygen gases, aka intake gases. This coerces the molecules into unstable states, so that the formation of the water molecule again, upon combustion, is not as easily reached. The way Stan Meyer discovered to do this was to bombard intake gases and electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen gases (from the electrolyzing chamber) with photons using an array of LEDs and resonant-sized chambers BEFORE the air intake and combustible H2 and O2 gases enter the intake manifold. You use a pulse width modulation circuit to electrolyze water into combustible gases, then you use LEDs to eject subatomic particles from the resultant gases, inhibiting the formation of the water molecule upon combustion in the cylinder. This allows one to use sheer expansion of the combustion of gases in the cylinder to drive the engine, instead of combustion. The documents are out there. Google D19.pdf, D17.pdf, D9.pdf, D13.pdf (I think) and others.

The only reason people aren't using this regularly is that one has to build the devices for themselves, and as tinkerers and DIYers, we're ill-equipped to take on such demanding challenges. In other words, we're dumb and are content with fixing heater valves, window rollers, and crankcase ventilation hoses. We aren't seeking a real solution to the world energy crisis, and we are letting the heads of nations (which take their cars to garages and hire people to know about cars and engines for them) determine requirements for energy solutions (and they are ill-equipped more than all of us).

All it takes is a little research. We can't remain in the dark forever. We have to grow up someday. Look at September 11th, 2001. We can't all believe the official explanation forever, with all its inconsistencies and propaganda. Why did Tower 7 plop to the ground like a rotten used-up beaver? Why did rescue workers hear explosions inside the buildings just before they fell?

FREE ENERGY undermines establishmentarian thermodynamics, but not electrodynamics, so WAKE UP, and start digging out the story for yourselves. Stanley Meyer may have saved the human race, and still is not credited for it.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top