HHO on TDI - anyone tried it or looked into it?
- Thread starter MarkWales
- Start date
TARNTROOPER: See my earlier comments, more design/experimentation needs to be done on the ECU interface and pulse generator so that more HHO gas is produced for less electrical input, which is the down side. Some big trucks are now using Propane has a an additive to diesel due to the cost and the benifit of increase power and lower emissions etc.
tarntrooper
Guest
as i understand thay hav solved the ecu comunication problem with a divice called a EFIE just type it in a search and you will find loads of this device's to fit even engin chips to solve the exses oxygen reading are now out ther. as i gather becos the car is not useing all the alternater power this is wher a hho system on a car is not counter prdutive . it may just turn out to be a load of bull but i am convinsed it will work if it is set up right .
Snake oil It takes more power to electrolyse water into H2 and O2 than you can get from recombining the gases by burning. Simple thermodynamics:
1) You can't win, you can only break even
2) You can only break even at Absolute Zero
3) You can't get to Absolute Zero
1) You can't win, you can only break even
2) You can only break even at Absolute Zero
3) You can't get to Absolute Zero
tarntrooper
Guest
am not sure haw kers works . and to muttley yes the rules of thermodynamics duz say all that you cant get more out than you put in but am not one for hard n fast rules and ther is more people vast more people saying thay get brill results out of the system then people saying it will not work . do you now it is posibal to telly port one item from one place to another its only becos the computing power is simply not quick inuf to make it afishent my point is all the rules and laws wer riten a long time ago and before we had the tec we have now. a take it you will never try the system lol ?
tarntrooper wrote
I'm going to split up your stream-of-consciousness rambling into sentence-like sections so I can understand it.
You don't know how kers works but you are sure that a perpetual motion machine can be made?
You don't say? But it isn't a "rule" you can choose whether to obey or not, it's a fundamental principal. This is how the world works, it's been proven beyond any doubt and is made use of every day. When you start your car you get energy from a chemical reaction in the battery to turn it over. This energy is then replaced by current from the alternator which reverses the chemical reaction. Losses in the system show up as heat and degradation of the battery structure and mean you always have to put more current back in than you got out.
Credible cites, please. For water as a fuel, not water injection as a charge coolant, or LNG or other gas injection to decrease emissions.
Ah. Wishing does not make it so, captain. It is possible to describe a method of teleportation (the "destroy here and rebuild over there" variety) which reads the position and state of every atom in the target, transmits this to the receiver and rebuilds it. The amount of information involved would take millions of years to send over the highest speed telecoms links we can conceive of. Millions of years. Not something that can be cured by speeding up your laptop.
It doesn't matter how long ago the "rules and laws wer riten" if they describe the universe correctly. Truth does not have a sell-by date.
Let's put it another way. If you can make this device work, you have solved the energy crisis, we need no more oil imports, we can just generate power by splitting water into its component gases and recombining them. You will be loved by millions and your name will go down in history.
Why haven't the manufacturers of this magic free fuel device already done this?
am not sure haw kers works .
I'm going to split up your stream-of-consciousness rambling into sentence-like sections so I can understand it.
You don't know how kers works but you are sure that a perpetual motion machine can be made?
and to muttley yes the rules of thermodynamics duz say all that you cant get more out than you put in but am not one for hard n fast rules
You don't say? But it isn't a "rule" you can choose whether to obey or not, it's a fundamental principal. This is how the world works, it's been proven beyond any doubt and is made use of every day. When you start your car you get energy from a chemical reaction in the battery to turn it over. This energy is then replaced by current from the alternator which reverses the chemical reaction. Losses in the system show up as heat and degradation of the battery structure and mean you always have to put more current back in than you got out.
and ther is more people vast more people saying thay get brill results out of the system then people saying it will not work .
Credible cites, please. For water as a fuel, not water injection as a charge coolant, or LNG or other gas injection to decrease emissions.
do you now it is posibal to telly port one item from one place to another its only becos the computing power is simply not quick inuf to make it afishent
Ah. Wishing does not make it so, captain. It is possible to describe a method of teleportation (the "destroy here and rebuild over there" variety) which reads the position and state of every atom in the target, transmits this to the receiver and rebuilds it. The amount of information involved would take millions of years to send over the highest speed telecoms links we can conceive of. Millions of years. Not something that can be cured by speeding up your laptop.
my point is all the rules and laws wer riten a long time ago and before we had the tec we have now. a take it you will never try the system lol ?
It doesn't matter how long ago the "rules and laws wer riten" if they describe the universe correctly. Truth does not have a sell-by date.
Let's put it another way. If you can make this device work, you have solved the energy crisis, we need no more oil imports, we can just generate power by splitting water into its component gases and recombining them. You will be loved by millions and your name will go down in history.
Why haven't the manufacturers of this magic free fuel device already done this?
allh2k wrote
KERS makes use of energy that conventional braking systems throw away as heat. The amounts of power involved are small, and impose a substantial penalty in terms of the weight of batteries, generators and electric motors. It won't make any difference to the enormous power requirements needed to fulfil the dream of powering a car by gases generated by the electrolysis of water.
The principal is fine, the devil is in the details. To make it work you need very efficient electrolysis cells, a massive increase in the output of your alternator and a battery that can store much more charge than present-day ones, all without a significant weight penalty.
A breakthrough in battery technology is still needed before electrical power from KERS or any other source can seriously challenge the internal combustion engine for personal transportation applications.
Regenerative braking has been used with success on electric trains and tramway systems, where the energy is fed back into the fixed electrical power system, avoiding the weight penalty ( and of course the motors are already electrical).
What if some elecy came from kers ???
KERS makes use of energy that conventional braking systems throw away as heat. The amounts of power involved are small, and impose a substantial penalty in terms of the weight of batteries, generators and electric motors. It won't make any difference to the enormous power requirements needed to fulfil the dream of powering a car by gases generated by the electrolysis of water.
The principal is fine, the devil is in the details. To make it work you need very efficient electrolysis cells, a massive increase in the output of your alternator and a battery that can store much more charge than present-day ones, all without a significant weight penalty.
A breakthrough in battery technology is still needed before electrical power from KERS or any other source can seriously challenge the internal combustion engine for personal transportation applications.
Regenerative braking has been used with success on electric trains and tramway systems, where the energy is fed back into the fixed electrical power system, avoiding the weight penalty ( and of course the motors are already electrical).
tarntrooper
Guest
ok this is geting us no wer . i am going to fit a hho system on my car but at ever stage of the fit i will test it manly becos of the efie device that needs fitting and am not sure if it is the efie device that make the difrens or of it a comb of all the system together for what ever resen the people using the hho systems are getting good results . can you exsplain haw and wy people are getting the 20% to 50% claimed improvments in mpg . i am skepticall of the geny powering the hho system and the hho gas from said system piped in to the geny to run it and still having power to spair but i like to keep a open mind on all subjects and test the things that may or may not work . i will doth my cap to you if i do not get at least 20% improvment in mpg . i am buildind the dry cell my self so i exspect teathing problems . pls excuse my gramer and spelling gents i have dislecsia
OK make sure you take lots of Pictures for us - also What car are you going to use ?
tan159753
Guest
I don't know why people are so ignorant. Nobody has said they are going to run there car entirely on HHO or "gas" for the simpletons.
What is trying to be achieved is to produce a LITTLE gas from water - then using that as an additive together with his original fuel, be it petrol or diesel to get an increase in economy. Its not rocket science. If the objective was to completely run his car on hho gas then that would be impossible.
Remember, using HHO as an additive like Nitrox fuel boost. Not as a replacement fuel. You woudnt use Nitrox or redex instead of petrol/diesel would you?
tan159753
Guest
At the moment the vw diesel engines are about 45% efficient at best. LOTS of room for improvement. Even if the HHo gets you a 50% increase in economy, you are still sitting at an engine that is 78% efficient. Even then there is still room for improvement.
I believe the car manufacturers are not doing enough. IN the 1930's Shell ran an annual economy contest where cars were tinkered with then measured on fuel economy. Year upon year the contesting cars became more and more efficient that Shell even made the statement that in 30 years time, everyday cars should easily reach 80mpg.
Well we are passed 2 sets of 30 years and still nowhere near 80mpg. In fact were only doing double that what it was 60 years ago. Not progress in my books.
tan159753 wrote
You're just pulling figures out of the air, hoping for something magic to happen. There are limits to the efficiency of a heat engine, and modern car engines are as close as they can get. There isn't much room for improvement without running into emission problems that will not be affected by the fuel used.
Designers are able to get one or two percent improvements over several years. Fifty percent cannot be realised with existing engines, you'd have to come up with something new, not internal combustion at all.
But in any case, you cannot get an improvement in efficiency by taking power from the engine to split water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burning it in the cylinders. It will always take more power to split the water in the first place (and water is a very stable compound) than you could ever get by burning it again, mainly because of the limits iherent in an internal combustion engine. Any way you care to spin it, you will end up losing power and efficiency - more dead weight to carry around and two sets of inefficiencies to tot up (splitting and combustion).
Cars in the 30's were primitive by todays standards. Modern engines using ecu-controlled fuel injection allow much better performance. Since the 30's we have had much legislation applied to motor transport that increases the weight of the vehicle (crashworthiness etc) and limits engine efficiencies (emission controls).
At the moment the vw diesel engines are about 45% efficient at best. LOTS of room for improvement. Even if the HHo gets you a 50% increase in economy, you are still sitting at an engine that is 78% efficient. Even then there is still room for improvement.
You're just pulling figures out of the air, hoping for something magic to happen. There are limits to the efficiency of a heat engine, and modern car engines are as close as they can get. There isn't much room for improvement without running into emission problems that will not be affected by the fuel used.
Designers are able to get one or two percent improvements over several years. Fifty percent cannot be realised with existing engines, you'd have to come up with something new, not internal combustion at all.
But in any case, you cannot get an improvement in efficiency by taking power from the engine to split water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burning it in the cylinders. It will always take more power to split the water in the first place (and water is a very stable compound) than you could ever get by burning it again, mainly because of the limits iherent in an internal combustion engine. Any way you care to spin it, you will end up losing power and efficiency - more dead weight to carry around and two sets of inefficiencies to tot up (splitting and combustion).
I believe the car manufacturers are not doing enough. IN the 1930's Shell ran an annual economy contest where cars were tinkered with then measured on fuel economy. Year upon year the contesting cars became more and more efficient that Shell even made the statement that in 30 years time, everyday cars should easily reach 80mpg.
Well we are passed 2 sets of 30 years and still nowhere near 80mpg. In fact were only doing double that what it was 60 years ago. Not progress in my books.
Well we are passed 2 sets of 30 years and still nowhere near 80mpg. In fact were only doing double that what it was 60 years ago. Not progress in my books.
Cars in the 30's were primitive by todays standards. Modern engines using ecu-controlled fuel injection allow much better performance. Since the 30's we have had much legislation applied to motor transport that increases the weight of the vehicle (crashworthiness etc) and limits engine efficiencies (emission controls).
tan159753
Guest
Dont have any specs but cars were heavy in those days too. They used steel instead of aluminum. Also little plastics were used.
Dont have to look back to the 30's. Just look at any car today that is 30 years old and compare how solid they feel compared to todays motors.
That would be a late 70's car. Morris Marina, Ford Cortina, Mini's etc. Designed without regard to impact protection as the insurance companies had not forced this on manufacturers yet. All tinny little things.
Very few cars use aluminium in the bodyshell. If you're talking about engine components, most cars still use steel blocks, yet the Hillman Imp I had back then used an aluminium block with liners (and a depressing tendency to blow head gaskets). '30's cars would have used a steel chassis, but by the '60's nearly all cars were steel monocoque construction, lighter, but still steel.
Even in today's cars, plastics are confined to accessories and non-stressed cosmetic panels e.g. bumper covers. There is a big heavy steel girder under the rounded plastic. The rest of the body is steel, a stressed monocoque with heavy girders added for impact protection
It isn't about "how solid they feel compared to todays motors", it's about how heavy they are. But in any case I find today's cars feel a lot more solid than those I drove and rode in thirty years ago.
Back to the economy runs of the pre-war era: the fuelling of cars in those days was primitive by today's standards, carburettors were and still are largely a black art, great gains could be got from dedicated individual tuning but could not be applied on a production line. Engine efficiency improvements in modern cars have been choked off by emission control legislation which forces such obscenities as Exhaust Gas Recirculation on us. And nowadays we roll on much wider and stickier tyres than ever before, which add significantly to the drag on the vehicle.
Very few cars use aluminium in the bodyshell. If you're talking about engine components, most cars still use steel blocks, yet the Hillman Imp I had back then used an aluminium block with liners (and a depressing tendency to blow head gaskets). '30's cars would have used a steel chassis, but by the '60's nearly all cars were steel monocoque construction, lighter, but still steel.
Even in today's cars, plastics are confined to accessories and non-stressed cosmetic panels e.g. bumper covers. There is a big heavy steel girder under the rounded plastic. The rest of the body is steel, a stressed monocoque with heavy girders added for impact protection
It isn't about "how solid they feel compared to todays motors", it's about how heavy they are. But in any case I find today's cars feel a lot more solid than those I drove and rode in thirty years ago.
Back to the economy runs of the pre-war era: the fuelling of cars in those days was primitive by today's standards, carburettors were and still are largely a black art, great gains could be got from dedicated individual tuning but could not be applied on a production line. Engine efficiency improvements in modern cars have been choked off by emission control legislation which forces such obscenities as Exhaust Gas Recirculation on us. And nowadays we roll on much wider and stickier tyres than ever before, which add significantly to the drag on the vehicle.
Last edited:
Ive read this thread once again annoyed at people thinking they know it all and refusing to listen to people who have clearly researched and feel passionate about something. Perhaps this tarntroops grammer is poor because he isnt english! Muttley! This one of the unfriendliest vag forums on the net if it wasnt so useful id stop using it.
i think that aswel sometimes mate! everyone should be friendly and helpful but its like some people just like to prove people wrong or shoot them down! but then again you will get that anywhere!
Last edited:
Similar threads
