www.dynamicfuel.com

Question

www.dynamicfuel.com

HydroScope (Mechanical)

(OP)

27 Oct 03 05:03

I came across this website and find their product confusing. They claim that the electrolysis of 1.8L of water over 5000 miles can enhance the torque and power of a large desiel motor aka truck engine. This does not make sense to me since the electrolysis of 1.8L of water does not add to much hydrogen to start with and secondly they state the power for the electrolysis comes from the trucks alternator i.e engine. Anyone with a background in engineering should know that it will take more power in electrolysis of hydrogen/oxygen than you can ever get back due to burning that hydrogen in the motor? hence how the hell does it add torque/power?

Also I have heard of some research done in Munich using hydrogen as a fuel for a desiel engine and hydrogen was not used successfully as pre-detentation due to hot inlet tempertures always exsisted <--another issue they would need to solve.

Is this company a sham? how many people know of Genesis world energy lots of talk from reputable hydrogen authorities that they are a sham? kind Regards Mark

moltenmetal (Chemical) · Answer 1 · 2003-10-27 09:48:56

Yup. Smells like a scam to me. Relative to the amount of fuel a big diesel would consume over 5000 miles, that's precious little hydrogen or oxygen, produced in a most inefficient fashion. And you don't get anything else of value by electrolyzing water.

Not the first time, nor the last. Snake oil is still for sale out there, and we engineers have a responsibility to let people know when we smell it.

kenvlach (Materials) · Answer 2 · 2003-10-28 19:05:55

To first appearance, their claims appear contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.

Basis: 1.8 L Jetfuel^TM distilled water (100 moles H₂O).
Energy required: 12 Amps x 12 Volts x 90 hours = 13 KWH = 46.7 MJ
Heat generated by H₂O(g) formation: 100 moles x 240 kJ/mol = 24 MJ.

However, note that the improvement in efficiency is from the claimed complete combustion of the diesel fuel. We know that diesel engines are notorious emitters of unburned hydrocarbons, and in California, some engines are being retro-fitted with soot traps and catalytic converters. Might not a cleaner burning engine (also achieveable with 'cleaner' fuels) improve efficiency while alleviating the need for pollution control add-ons?

HydroScope (Mechanical) · Answer 3 · 2003-10-28 23:06:48

yes I had a feeling that this may be there claim (cleaner burn) but they don't claim that they are injecting the oxygen and hydrogen together, just hydrogen in very small amounts it's a matter of rates? will it really make a difference? and with the power being taken away not added then the engine must owrk harder to account for it (even if it is very small amount) hence more hydrocarbons needed to be burnt. If they added oxygen then maybe there is an argument there but adding hydrogen, which in mind will steal oxygen from the hydrocarbons combustion process, I doubt it would be helpfull, also as meantioned above there has been many studies useing hydrogen for piston charge engines and pre-dentention is a major problem. that coupled together with the most dodgie product saftey report! and "we won" claim . . . . what did they win?? . . . Quote from website "The Montreal Show “ExpoCam” has been a great success and that is due to Dynamic Team Work.

I would like to hear from someone who is familiar with this process and can explain any possible benifits. . .I'm all ears Kind Regards Mark

HydroScope (Mechanical) · Answer 4 · 2003-10-28 23:26:10

ohh my mistake just read there page again they do add hydrogen and oxygen together with the air intake. so how do they stop it from recombiningit? hence I'm back to the same arguement about predetention. don't get me wrong I would like to see hydrogen technologies work but this one I am very cautous about.
Kind Regards

kenvlach (Materials) · Answer 5 · 2003-10-29 01:22:24

Yes, they state “The Jetstar^TM is an aftermarket retrofit that provides combustion enhancement by mixing hydrogen and oxygen with the vehicle's intake air.”
After all, it would increase complexity and cost to separate them.

The H₂ is too dilute to cause pre-detonation; there is only ½ Liter (at 25^oC) + ¼ Liter of O₂ available per mile (based upon 5000 miles per 1.8 L of distilled water).

Another Automotive thread dealt primarily with water injection, but more than 6 months old so search didn’t find. I suggested that direct injection of liquid DI water into a combustion chamber (right after either diesel fuel injection or gasoline engine spark) would improve mileage (steam engine effect), cut emissions (water would catalyze some of the reactions, plus lower peak T so less NO_x) and possible longer valve life, etc. Some US fighter planes in WW II used direct water injection to boost horsepower.

Being a skeptic, I now wonder: Does the JetstarTM simply inject water vapor into the intake manifold?
As I posited above, it would improve combustion. Note that PJGD stated that combustion is no more than 95% complete in diesel engines in
Propane Injection + Water Injection Applications
Thread71-24712
Although I am skeptical also of this number, it does indicate potential greater efficiency.

The following thread may also be of interest:
Reducing NOX emissions in gasoline engines.
Thread71-44564

I should also like to hear from anyone with experience on this subject.
Ken

HydroScope (Mechanical) · Answer 6 · 2003-10-29 01:37:14

yes water injection is something I've been interested in I found this thread earlier.

liquid chemical supercharging
Thread71-75887.

Thanks Mark

Come Join Us!

Posting Guidelines

www.dynamicfuel.com