Foo - Hydroxy (Hydrogen/Oxygen) Booster

What do you scientist engineering types think of this?

http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt10.html

The science behind it seems legit. I mean your adding more fuel to the system so it should burn less gas right? Once your car engine is on then it's alternator is charging the battery anyway right? So while there is no free energy of course you are simply borrowing a bit of voltage to produce the combustive hydroxy. I wonder if any of you foosters has been exposed to this or even better tried it yourself?

I actually was going to try it myself; then priorities became straight and I realized I had to focus my energy on school.

Google "hyro assist fuel cell"

Interestingly enough, this guy is pursuing the Stan Meyer system; controversial to say the least. I actually began construction of one of these in the fall. Maybe I'll pick it up over the summer.

I was pretty sure this is what you were working on PC2, but not being sure, I did not want to post.

Interestingly enough, this guy is pursuing the Stan Meyer system; controversial to say the least. I actually began construction of one of these in the fall. Maybe I'll pick it up over the summer.

Unfortunately I think the Stan Myers thing was adopted by conspiracy nuts and gave the whole thing a whack science reputation. Run a car on water? I doubt it but the fuel assist seems like real science and I wanna try it after some more research and hopefully some testimonials.

What do you scientist engineering types think of this?

http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt10.html

The science behind it seems legit. I mean your adding more fuel to the system so it should burn less gas right? Once your car engine is on then it's alternator is charging the battery anyway right? So while there is no free energy of course you are simply borrowing a bit of voltage to produce the combustive hydroxy. I wonder if any of you foosters has been exposed to this or even better tried it yourself?

It will burn. And hydrogen can speed the combustion of gasoline, so if you reprogram your cars computer, you could have slightly better fuel economy, assuming you have the electrolyzer plugged into a wall socket rather than your car's battery. The alternator/battery->electrolyzer effienciency will eliminate any gains you should otherwise have, and you will suffer worse fuel economy.

This is exactly it. One of my uncles is a physics teacher at a boarding school nearby, I plan to ask him what his opinion is about this system when I see him next...during thanksgiving.

FYI the reason this thing is controversial is because it appears to be over 100% efficient --- relative to what Faraday believed the maximum energy you could get out of water is. This thing is not typical electrolysis, almost no heat is generated. The reason there are multiple oscillators in the circuit is because it seeks perfect resonance in an LC circuit: the tubes inside of each other are capacitors, and you need an external inductor. This resonating LC circuit generates many thousands of volts. My understanding is that people have measured voltages in excess of 20kv.
The belief is that the extreme negative and positive potential of the capacitor has enough attractive force that it overcomes the force of attraction holding together the water molecule.

Electrolysis is simply forcing current through water, bombarding electrons. Electrolysis generates mass amounts of heat, and so is very inefficient. This system here relies solely on the voltage -- not current -- to do the work. Since heat is a result of inefficiency, and this heat is caused by flowing current, and the Meyer system does not require voltage to successfully separate the water molecule, it appears to be more efficient.

If you want to read a 200+ document written by Meyer himself, happy reading:

www.aero2012.com/en/documents/Stan_Meyer_Full_Data.pdf

It will burn. And hydrogen can speed the combustion of gasoline, so if you reprogram your cars computer, you could have slightly better fuel economy, assuming you have the electrolyzer plugged into a wall socket rather than your car's battery. The alternator/battery->electrolyzer effienciency will eliminate any gains you should otherwise have, and you will suffer worse fuel economy.
I don't think this is necessarily true. The purpose of this electrolyzer is not to generate enough hydrogen to replace the gasoline, it's purpose is only to allow the existing gasoline to burn more efficiently.

I thought this thread was going to be about the REAL performance enhancing substance...

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdunwiddie/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/hydrox.jpg

Unfortunately I think the Stan Myers thing was adopted by conspiracy nuts and gave the whole thing a whack science reputation. Run a car on water? I doubt it but the fuel assist seems like real science and I wanna try it after some more research and hopefully some testimonials.

I agree that the meyer system is dubious. I still would like to try it for my own knowledge, because hte only way to validate is to replicate. I also agree that the fuel assist has hope. Look around, there are multiple vendors. The most advanced by far is the Hydro Assist Fuel Cell. Some say this thing is all a scam, but I don't think so. THis one includes a circuit which actually intercepts the oxygen sensor output to make the ECU inject less fuel.

Here I thought you were talking about weight-loss products. :o

I don't think this is necessarily true. The purpose of this electrolyzer is not to generate enough hydrogen to replace the gasoline, it's purpose is only to allow the existing gasoline to burn more efficiently.
Which I don't get too much, being as some gasoline is injected for heat management (knowing that not all gas burns, and in turbo systems they inject more than needed), wouldn't complete burns cause overheating? Why do we get no reports of temperature increase when you should?


Also reading PESWiki, people are reporting that the measurements and numbers are all wrong from the schematics, which makes me a little suspicious.

I don't think this is necessarily true. The purpose of this electrolyzer is not to generate enough hydrogen to replace the gasoline, it's purpose is only to allow the existing gasoline to burn more efficiently.

I know the theory well. It is incorrect.

I thought this thread was going to be about the REAL performance enhancing substance...

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdunwiddie/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/hydrox.jpg

Alas, Hydrox cookies are no more http://www.spacefem.com/hydrox/

But on to the topic of discussion... It's nonsense. It'd take more energy to produce the hydrogen and oxygen than you'd get back by burning them. Otherwise, you'd have a perpetual motion machine, and be violating the laws of thermodynamics.

I prefer this form of those laws:


You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't drop out of the game.

Alas, Hydrox cookies are no more http://www.spacefem.com/hydrox/

But on to the topic of discussion... It's nonsense. It'd take more energy to produce the hydrogen and oxygen than you'd get back by burning them. Otherwise, you'd have a perpetual motion machine, and be violating the laws of thermodynamics.

I prefer this form of those laws:


You can't win.
You can't break even.
You can't drop out of the game.

As I understand the theory, it causes full fuel burn, which should be like running your car lean, which again should cause overheating, stress of parts, etc. So it isn't producing energy so much as making sure the cylinder has full combustion...

Which I think is total bull**** as for the reasons I listed above.

I understand the laws of thermodynamics and all that but no one here is talking about free energy or perpetual motion machines. What they are saying is that an internal combustion engine is very good at one thing, wasting energy. So if you could harvest some of the 'waste' energy to perform electrolysis then you are getting the benefits of creating hydrogen. It seems to me that if the alternator keeps the battery up to charge constantly then that is really a waste too. Why not just supply enough power to the electrical demand as needed. So IOW there is some voltage that could be used there without compromising the system. I could be wrong?

I really like the idea of using thermocouple's to get voltage from places like the catalytic converter or muffler. Or why not run a generator off the spinning wheels, sure it took gas to get those wheels up and spinning but while they are spinning you may as well use them. Or would running a generator negate through the resistance net energy anyway?

But the underlying principal as I understand it is that this system is simply taking advantage of the wastefulness of the engine in general. It's not magically creating energy it is simply using some of the wasted energy.

I understand the laws of thermodynamics and all that but no one here is talking about free energy or perpetual motion machines. What they are saying is that an internal combustion engine is very good at one thing, wasting energy. So if you could harvest some of the 'waste' energy to perform electrolysis then you are getting the benefits of creating hydrogen. It seems to me that if the alternator keeps the battery up to charge constantly then that is really a waste too. Why not just supply enough power to the electrical demand as needed. So IOW there is some voltage that could be used there without compromising the system. I could be wrong?

The alternator is wasteful, but only because it isn't a very good generator, not because it sends 'surplus' voltage to the battery.




I really like the idea of using thermocouple's to get voltage from places like the catalytic converter or muffler.

You need a hell of a lot of them. Research is ongoing, but it looks mildly promising; perhaps a gain of a couple of percent in fuel economy.


Or why not run a generator off the spinning wheels, sure it took gas to get those wheels up and spinning but while they are spinning you may as well use them.

No. Just no.

As I understand the theory, it causes full fuel burn, which should be like running your car lean, which again should cause overheating, stress of parts, etc. So it isn't producing energy so much as making sure the cylinder has full combustion...

Which I think is total bull**** as for the reasons I listed above.

The CORRECT theory is that it will cause gasoline to burn FASTER, not more completely. Engine-out THC emissions don't represent a huge area of energy.

The faster burn allows closer approximation to the ideal Otto cycle; basically, you're getting more pressure on the piston at TDC, which gives you more work.

Unfortunately the truth of the matter is that the hydrogen added doesn't help the gasoline burnrates enough; it doesn't offset the energy required to produce hydrogen.

it doesn't offset the energy required to produce hydrogen.

Again, the energy used to produce the hydrogen is harvested from the waste energy from the engine.

It's better to use that waste heat to reduce/eliminate the alternator rather than produce hydrogen.

Again, the energy used to produce the hydrogen is harvested from the waste energy from the engine.That's not what I saw. It was using electricity from the alternator to do the job. That's not utilization of waste, that's load on the engine.

That's not what I saw. It was using electricity from the alternator to do the job. That's not utilization of waste, that's load on the engine.

Right but what I'm saying is does the alternator really need to be running all the time to keep that battery charged to 12 volts? I'm not sure but I'm guessing it doesn't. So that's wasted energy there as well.

The alternator's load on the engine varies with the amount of charging it is putting out to keep the electrical system at full voltage - something like 13.5-14 volts.

Bottom line is that the amount of work transferred into the alternator by the engine is not constant; which is what I think you're thinking.

Yeah it was what I was thinking... Hmmmmm...

The CORRECT theory is that it will cause gasoline to burn FASTER, not more completely. Engine-out THC emissions don't represent a huge area of energy.

The faster burn allows closer approximation to the ideal Otto cycle; basically, you're getting more pressure on the piston at TDC, which gives you more work.

Unfortunately the truth of the matter is that the hydrogen added doesn't help the gasoline burnrates enough; it doesn't offset the energy required to produce hydrogen.

How much better fuel burn can you get than the electronic fuel injection under such a system? I figure those were programmed for optimal efficiency at burning in the first place.

Yeah, this kinda looks like a bunch of hooey.

How much better

*Much* better. You can burn pure hydrogen very, very efficiently in the appropriate engine/combustion chamber.

Unfortunately adding hydrogen to gasoline, after admittedly not incredible amounts of research, doesn't show to be promising.

*Much* better. You can burn pure hydrogen very, very efficiently in the appropriate engine/combustion chamber.

Unfortunately adding hydrogen to gasoline, after admittedly not incredible amounts of research, doesn't show to be promising.The major problem is that in order to extract this extra energy out of the air-fuel, you have to put that energy INTO the system first. So if your engine puts out an additional 100w, you have to put in at least 100w to begin with. This is the energy that's used to split the H2O to begin with. The extra load on the alternator will require that you depress the gas-pedal more, thus burning the extra fuel that's used to generate the hydrogen.

The reason we can extract energy from fossil fuels that the energy put INTO the fuel is done by chemical-processes by organisms living millions of years ago. This energy was delivered by the sun and used to grow lifeforms. The energy to transform their bodies into oil was supplied by the earth's mass in crushing and heating the oil-fields for millions of years. We are simply releasing this stored energy when we burn fossil fuels.

We can also create fossil fuels from scratch as well, but it's not anywhere close to being as energy-efficient as taking advantage of the Earth's processes. You'll end up spending more energy to create gasoline from raw carbon, hydrogen and oxygen materials than what you get by burning it in the end.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/081803_hydrogen_answers.html

The key to making hydrogen abundant has to come from some new process using a catalyst of some sort to lower the activation-energy level. Organic processes seem to hold some promise.
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_1-12-2006-11-4-23?newsid=3016

The extra load on the alternator will require that you depress the gas-pedal more, thus burning the extra fuel that's used to generate the hydrogen.

Echo? (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=6624065#post6624065)

The key to making hydrogen abundant has to come from some new process using a catalyst of some sort to lower the activation-energy level. Organic processes seem to hold some promise.
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_1-12-2006-11-4-23?newsid=3016

There's algae, nuclear waste (or geothermal) heat, high temp electrolysis (off-peak wind production or some other means), etc...

Hell, I just burn the stuff, I don't *make* it. That's what Air Products is for.

*Much* better. You can burn pure hydrogen very, very efficiently in the appropriate engine/combustion chamber.

Unfortunately adding hydrogen to gasoline, after admittedly not incredible amounts of research, doesn't show to be promising.

Well thats just the hydrogen, which mind you according to tests of this device, is at a pretty low rate of input into the engine. How much faster does it actually burn the fuel itself?

Not enough to make up the delta from the alternator.

I so want one of these. As soon as there's a liquid hydrogen station somewhere near home... :)

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/