Posted on 07/31/2008 11:54:15 AM PDT by Red Badger
The hydrogen gas systems being used by several mid-valley drivers cannot deliver any kind of efficiency, says Bob Paasch, the Boeing professor of mechanical design at Oregon State University.
“The process is a scam,” he said. “It’s wishful thinking. If it were true, every power company and auto company in the world would be using it.”
Paasch said the systems — which use water and baking soda to create hydrogen via an electrical charge from the battery and alternator — violate the second law of thermodynamics and can’t work.
“People who buy into this are wasting their money,” he said.
Paasch has conducted tests on a similar device in the past and found it did not live up to any of the claims made by the inventor, who said it would deliver 50 percent more horsepower and double the gas mileage.
The systems being used are electrolysis, according to Paasch. Hydrogen and water can be burned through this process but more energy is required to drive the cell than can be extracted from it.
Ray Warren of Millersburg and Elden Huntling of Lebanon have the systems installed in their respective gas- and diesel-powered trucks and say they have seen a significant increase in gas mileage.
“These types of systems have been proven to be frauds,” Paasch said. “It’s impossible for the process to produce more energy than it consumes.”
Nonetheless, Huntling and Warren stand by their mileage claims. Warren admitted his mileage dropped significantly after several fill-ups but says he expected it and that a simple adjustment to his computer will correct the problem.
“I stand by the system,” he said.
Huntling has seen no decreases. “All I can say is that I’ve increased the mileage on my diesel truck by 64 percent,” he said. “It runs off excess power from the alternator.”
Paasch says this can’t be.
“The alternator doesn’t produce excess power. The alternator requires more mechanical energy than the hydrogen process can produce.”
Paasch also says the system is potentially unsafe.
“You have a highly flammable gas and the possibility of electric sparks in an enclosed space,” he said. “It’s a very dangerous situation.”
Your probably right mate...I am not a bit technical on this subject and I bow to the wisdom of others. All I do know is that I saw it happen with my own eyes and it seemed a damn good idea even back then.. when gas was about 10c a gallon.
Irrelevant, because it has to be compressed to about 3% of its volume to even equal gasoline in an engine, and that cannot be done. As fuels go, only diesel/kerosine exceed gasoline for available energy.
Nuclear reactors convert heat energy into mechanical energy. The loss of efficiency occurs in that step-down process. They are nothing more than an elaborate boiler/steam system.
“Nothing can work at 100% efficiency except a nuclear reaction.”
If you say that a nuclear reaction is “100% efficent” then you must also state that a hydrogen explosion is 100% efficient. Apples to apples. It’s an engineering thing.
Your the smart guy. You can’t think of any such device on your car?
Because they are not bombs. They have to operate under stable control.
You’re the smart guy. You can’t think of any such device on your car?
“says Bob Paasch, the Boeing professor of mechanical design at Oregon State University”
Here’s one expert.
You've changed the subject; go back and read the post that I replied to.
Did he take a look at the device and go through the steps I mentioned just above?
“You’re the smart guy. You can’t think of any such device on your car?”
I can think of lot’s of things on the car that “utilize” the wind. I thought you wanted to discuss a certain one. Please elaborate on the system that you are referring to.
You are comparing an “explosion” to nuclear fission as apples to apples.
You obviously need to go back to class and study this subject a bit further.
By the same token though, there are people who say adding two ounces of acetone to your tank can increase mileage.
Some folks swear by it.
“Because they are not bombs. They have to operate under stable control.”
It is the same reaction. It is either 100% efficent or it is not.
If you can think of lots of things on your car that utilize the wind in a manner that you set up the parameters for, then perhaps you should list them.
Then you need more coffee! ;o)
Ummm no... not under the conditions we’re discussing.
At NORMAL air pressure, in an uncompressed state, and in a gaseous form what you said is untrue. Gasoline in the same condition has much more explosive power than hydrogen in the same form (a 1 atmosphere, and at normal room temp, and in a gaseous form).
And we are talking about ‘normal pressures’, the gas (hydrogen) NOT being under extreme pressure, or reduced in temperature, etc.
So... oh well, though, you’re right in that “hydrogen” has more potential energy. Did some calculations and hydrogen CAN produce more energy under certain circumstances.... But NOT under the conditions you will find in a car.
Sorry, that’s just plain wrong and this is my whole point here.
The author isn’t taking into account ALL of the facts.
The READERS are not taking into account all the facts.
The “inventor” of these items doesn’t know his science.
Some of the readers here (including me) sometimes leave out a lot of information in trying for brevity thus confusing others.
So... while you’re RIGHT in your statements, I’m right too. We’re comparing different circumstances.
A nuclear bomb is from a statistical point of view 100% efficient. Nothing else comes close.
Capiche?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.