OSU engineer: Hydrogen system in autos a scam (!)

www.gazettetimes.com ^ | 7-31-2008 | By Steve Lathrop

[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.”

[Realism]

How can adding a miniscule amount of hydrogen to a reaction that already has hundreds of times more hydrogen, that is statistically irrelevant to the process, have promise?

Yeah air, hydrogen its all the same.....Ok.

[editor-surveyor]

"It reveals that folks like you are trashing this device without having ever seen it, without ever placing monitors on the vehicle, and without doing any substantive testing."

Not all ideas merit testing. Testing costs money, and established practical knowledge can be applied to judge whether a product merits the expense. This is what engineering is all about.

Paasch has correctly assessed that the product is not of sufficient apparent merit to justify testing by anyone but its inventor.

If you are looking for something that will improve your mileage, there is proven, tried and true technology out there that has been used on fleet vehicles for millions of miles. Its water injection (or water and alcohol).

To take advantage of it you will need to increase your compression ratio. That can be done by removing the head gaskets, and lapping the mating surfaces of the cylinder heads to the engine block, so that they will seal without the gaskets. Unless you do it yourself, that would cost money, and would have a calculable "return period" that would need to be figured into your savings calculation. Unless you will be keeping the car for a long time, it would be a waste. That is the problem with most of the devices out there, including George Watson's Browns Gas system.

[editor-surveyor]

"Obviously, you have made several statement based not on fact but opinion."

Nonsense. - If you had any authority to cite that differed, you would have posted it.

You must be comic relief.

[djf]

A simple way to prove the whole design would be to have a bottle of the gas installed that could be switched on by design.

Then run without it on, and with it on, and compare the results.

If there is no positive results from running with the bottle turned on, then no amount of gas generated by using the alt could do any good at all.

But as was pointed out upthread, there have been tests of internal combustion engines that have shown a positive change in energy output, a cleaner burn, and a cooler running system using small amounts of HHO gas to supplement the normal fuel.

Whether those gains are large enough to put a bit of extra load on the alt is the real question.

[Realism]

See post #107

[ColdWater]

If you are operating under the false impression that only ‘experts’ in a given field can come up with innovations, you’re really outing yourself in an unflattering manner.

If you are operating under the false impression that an ex-plumber can outwit hundreds of scientific teams spending billions of dollars, you're really outing yourself in an unflattering manner.

Think about this claim by the ex-plumber: 'the hydrogen works to increase the speed of the flame propagation thus delivering more power at the proper time to the piston.'

[ColdWater]

http://www.tech-faq.com/nuclear-bomb.shtml

[thackney]

It reveals that folks like you are trashing this device without having ever seen it, without ever placing monitors on the vehicle, and without doing any substantive testing.

Throughout history, hundreds of patents have been issued for perpetual motion machines. Would you believe they all should have substantive testing? Or should people understanding science be able to call it a scam and move on.

[editor-surveyor]

Yes, but in this case, we are talking about a substance that is already present in abundance in the chamber. Not a catalyst.

If this were a gasoline engine we could use a single port throttle body injection system, and place a silver and platinum wire screen under the throttle body, that would totally atomize the fuel, and see tremendous improvement. I used to do that on my gas dragsters a long time ago, and it worked well.

[djf]

There is no free hydrogen inside the chamber of a gas powered vehicle.

(actually, a slightly technically incorrect statement because there is an incredibly small, almost immeasurable amount of free hydrogen it the air around us. Mostly resulting from the breakdown of water molecules by ultraviolet light. This happens in the far upper atmosphere far more than down here.)

[editor-surveyor]

"post #107"

Yes, but that is not the same as what these guys are talking about. Diesel vs. Gasoline - two different worlds.

[editor-surveyor]

"There is no free hydrogen inside the chamber of a gas powered vehicle."

Not anymore anyway. When compression ratios were up to 13:1, some plasma was created, but not at 8.5:1.

[jrd]

were making the engine run more efficiently...you have a fuel mixture of gasoline, Hydrogen, air and water vapor

[DoughtyOne]

No, I don’t believe every device that has been patented does what it was represented to do. On the other hand, I’m not convinced that every device that was denied a patent fails to do what it was represented to do.

Rather than bicker back and forth with you, let me ask you this. Is there an agency that has been set up with engineers or physicists that provides a verification process for devices and claims like this?

There is an Underwriter’s Laboratory that evaluates electrical devices to verify if they are safe. It seems there could be a need out there to have an agency something similar to this, where an inventor could bring his device and have it tested for a fee.

Every inventor that comes up with a new device obviously thinks it works (or is an obvious shyster). This would allow an independent group to verify or deny the claims. And who cares if it was a device that had been tested hundreds or thousands of times before. If the guy paid the fee, it would be evaluated.

I know you folks have reasons behind your conclusions on these devices. I certainly do not claim you are wrong. I would like to see devices tested before I sign on to that same conclusion.

[thackney]

Rather than bicker back and forth with you, let me ask you this. Is there an agency that has been set up with engineers or physicists that provides a verification process for devices and claims like this?

Gas Saving and Emission Reduction Devices Evaluation
http://www.epa.gov/oms/consumer/reports.htm

[DoughtyOne]

<>A simple way to prove the whole design would be to have a bottle of the gas installed that could be switched on by design.  Then run without it on, and with it on, and compare the results.  If there is no positive results from running with the bottle turned on, then no amount of gas generated by using the alt could do any good at all.

Being a guy who would like to see a real world test of the actual device, I would differ with you.  I think your suggestion is reasoned.  It does make an assumption that I am not comfortable with.  And that assumption is that the inventor and dectractors fully understand what the contraption is achieving, or the effect it is producing.  For that reason I would rather see a test run with the device, and then a test run without it.  Hook as many monitors as possible up to the vehicle and provide an equal serious of exercises both with and without the device.  Then take a look at the data.

<>But as was pointed out upthread, there have been tests of internal combustion engines that have shown a positive change in energy output, a cleaner burn, and a cooler running system using small amounts of HHO gas to supplement the normal fuel.  Whether those gains are large enough to put a bit of extra load on the alt is the real question.

Yes, in addition to others, I think that is a valid question.

[editor-surveyor]

"Is there an agency that has been set up with engineers or physicists that provides a verification process for devices and claims like this?"

Obviously not. - Who would fund it?

If congress tried to stick us with the bill, I'd scream bloody murder!

[ColdWater]

“using small amounts of HHO gas”

I have seen water injection systems but never a HHO gas injection system.

[DoughtyOne]

I appreciate the link. I’m not sure too many folks are going to fork over $27,000.00 out of pocket. I also find it unrealistic that folks would be able to provide two identical vehicles or fork over heaven knows how much additional fees. (perhaps that was stated and I missed it.)

I’m thinking more along the lines of three or four thousand dollars to test one vehicle with and without a device.

If the testing individual made $30 an hour, his salary and benefits would probably run around $2 grand per week. You should be able to get the testing done in three days, four days max.

[DoughtyOne]

All very nice except one thing. You have not seen or tested the device. We’re right back where you stared.