alordofchaos

I was hoping this thread would have died
I hate to argue semantics, but that is not true. A battery stores energy, nothing makes energy. You can convert and store, not create. You can launch a rocket to the moon with a battery, only if you put enough energy into the battery to launch the rocket.I understand what you are trying to say; there is an ineffeciency (wasted energy in the form of electricity generated by the alternator) that could be captured and used to increase the overall efficiency of the system.

But let's look at how this thing actually is suposed to work. You split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The following possibilities exist:
1) you feed the hydrogen and oxygen into the air intake
2) there is some method (not shown) to seperate the H and the O, and:
2a) vent the H, feed the O into the air system
2b) vent the O, feed the H into the air system

Now, how do any of the above reduce the amount of fuel that an engine needs to burn?
Whoah, dood, you just gave us a closed system that operates on the potential energy of water. You don't think there are a ton of batteries in there? I didn't bother looking at the video, because I can levitate myself in a video.

"No, it's just some frost"

Jfrahm

As long as you think you can plug something into your cigarette lighter and run it for free, there is no point in talking to you. Until you understand that power to run whatever you plug in there comes from your engine and is fueled by your wallet, you won't get it.

If you have ever heard an idling engine strain when jump-starting a dead car, you are hearing the engine working harder to make extra juice, and that takes fuel.

-Joel.

Legoland951

Jfrahm, I don't think he has a clue what you are talking about which is the very basic principle of the electrical system of a car. I can't believe the UC system physics department turns out someone who knows this little about how an alternator works. I am sorry but 944j are beginning to **** me off with the insults as if you know more than everyone else. First of all, give a formal definition of a "system" which was NEVER given. Second, energy within any system is never created or destroyed, therefore it has to come from some other form (converted energy whether mechanical to electrical, electrical to heat, etc and ALL HAS TO EQUAL IN THE END UNLESS YOU CAN ACCELERATE MATTER TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT per E=MC2). Where is this extra energy to separate the hydrogen from? Did it appear out of nowhere? You can go argue with Einstein's theory if you disagree. I give up.

AR10, lets not bring politics into this. I rather vote for Obama 10x over an idiot like Bush.

Rip It

This is not new technology, was used on aircraft during the war #2. A friends friend installed same type thing for about $300 in a 2005 chevy pickup. It increased his mileage by 120 miles per tank.
I have been kicking the idea around myself.

Legoland951

Water injection into the intake of WWII planes to reduce detonation and increasing compression ratio is completely different than hydrogen gas injection into the intake. The simple question is this, how much energy does it take to separate the H2 gas from H20 versus how much output increased per input. The alternator puts a LOAD on the engine to provide the electricity in order to generate hydrogen gas. That's how I see it from the diagram. My problem with this whole thing is, converting mechanical energy of the engine to the alternator (electrical) has a high loss rate and then using that electrical energy to perform electrolysis to get the hydrogen gas for combustion cannot possible produce more energy output than required input.

halik

Yeah my dad's uncle's sister's cousin's cat's neighbor installed 10 of them on his hummer and the thing doesn't use gas anymore!

moorepower

Come on now, let's not bring science into this.

Besides, aren't Einstein's theories like ninety years old or something. Heck, they didn't even have 944's back then, so how would he know!

tifosiman

Nice to know that not much at Rennlist has changed during my absence.

Legoland951

I know its SSDD and probably will never change.

944J

not at all, we arent talking about greater than 100% efficiency, we are talking about maybe 30.5% instead of 30% efficient.

944J

such a closed mind... it looks like the japanese company uses some kind of metal catalyst to split the water in combination with some kind of electrolysis... i dont read japanese however.

the site is http://www.genepax.co.jp/en/

details

944J

care to provide some evidence?

944J

does the alternator stop using mechanical energy from the engine just because the battery is charged fully? i don't think it does... it still sucks it out... now if some of this energy its sucking out can be put back into the combustion chamber in the form of hydrogen then you just may increase efficiency, and if the alternator charges the batter faster than the hydrolosis uses energy then you can provide energy to the car... the keys here are time factors and the amount of energy needed to split the water...

its also how you define your system... if you include all the energy needed to drill the oil, transport the oil, refine the oil, transport the gas, etc... then the sytem is even less efficient.

how BIG do you want your system to be?

tifosiman

Ahhhhhhhh...........much better.

944J

another example might help you out here... just imagine the energy that the alternator uses filling the inside of the car... it fills it even if you use it or not, so what you do is find a way to tap into the energy inside your car after some period of TIME and then you have a reservoir of energy...

if you drove your car long enough you'd have enough energy to send the space shuttle to mars and back.