sausagesoap
Banned
well, we might do well to have a car what runs on water for when global warming melts all the ice caps!!!
Running cars on water?
- Thread starter ailbek
- Start date
I can understand the improved burn argument alright. If you take the supercharger used on some engines, this takes energy fmom the engine and uses it to compress more oxygen in the form of air into the air intake to get more energy output from the engine. The extra oxygen improves the burn in the combustion chamber thus producing more power. Even though the supercharger is using power from the engine the overall result is more power is produced than is used to generate it in the first place. Is the hho method not similar to this as in it causes a more efficient burn and the extra power is got from the more efficient burning of the existing fuel and not so much from energy in the h2o.
beady
Inactive User
You're confusing power with efficiency. They're not the same thing at all. A V8 engine in a mustang is a hell of a lot more powerful than a little 1 litre engine in a punto, but the punto's engine is more efficient. If your example was accurate, all little efficient city runabout cars would have superchargers and turbos, which they clearly don't.
Surely power efficiency and economy are all interconnected: If an engine is made more efficient then it will use less fuel to produce the same amount of power as before. This power may be sacarficed for economy by reducing the amount of fuel going into the engine. Or if you take it further a smaller engine could be used to produce the same amount of power as a bigger engine if the fuel is combusted more efficiently.
If I remember correctly Diahatsu did have a 1 liter turbo diesel engine at one stage.
If I remember correctly Diahatsu did have a 1 liter turbo diesel engine at one stage.
beady
Inactive User
Not necessarily. The efficiency isn't to do with the power output, it's to do with the total energy you can extract from a given volume/mass of fuel. For instance, you get better fuel economy if you consistently drive around 50mph. You'll get much further than if you drive flat out for as long as you can, which uses fuel faster but less efficiently.
Power is energy produced per unit time, whereas the efficiency is the ratio of total energy input to energy output.
Obviously it would be nice if there was an engine that was both efficient and powerful, but superchargers and the like just aren't the way to do it.
On one of the websites there was also other gadgets for improving fuel economy: one of them was a fuel heater which consisted of a metal piece of piping. This was attatched to the radiator of the car and the fuel was passed through it. This had the result of heating the fuel with heat that would normally be wasted any way. They claim that fuel heated in this way before being injected had a better combustion and improved efficiency. Has anyone ever proved this?
ailbek
ailbek
stevemac40
Inactive User
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2008
- Messages
- 918
- Reaction score
- 20
Power stations often preheat their fuel as it makes the burn more efficient. So i'm guessing it might work, though would you want to be messing around re-routing your fuel pipe in your car near the radiator, I think self preservation outweighs a bit of extar economy.
beady
Inactive User
This is the problem with scams like this. They're based in facts which seem reasonable, and end up making outlandish claims. Sure, pre-heating the fuel might result in more efficient burning, but that doesn't mean it works in this case. Just consider that if it were so easy to do, don't you think the car manufacturers would be doing it already? In a powerstation, maybe it's feasible to preheat the fuel, but the economics just don't work out for a car. If, for $150 ish you could significantly increase your mpg, it'd already be done.
Plus, powerstations and cars have completely different engine systems. A powerstation's 'engine' is more akin to a steam train than a car's internal combustion engine. Powerstations want maximum heat/unit fuel, while cars basically want maximum explosive force/unit fuel (the heat is for the most part an unfortunate by-product for a car's engine).
If after all this you still want to go ahead and invest in such systems be my guest, after all it's a free country, but in my opinion you're wasting your money.
Plus, powerstations and cars have completely different engine systems. A powerstation's 'engine' is more akin to a steam train than a car's internal combustion engine. Powerstations want maximum heat/unit fuel, while cars basically want maximum explosive force/unit fuel (the heat is for the most part an unfortunate by-product for a car's engine).
If after all this you still want to go ahead and invest in such systems be my guest, after all it's a free country, but in my opinion you're wasting your money.
stevemac40
Inactive User
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2008
- Messages
- 918
- Reaction score
- 20
I was really commenting regarding Gas Turbines (very similar to jet engines) rather than coal (steam engine), but much of what you said still holds true.
I personally wouldn't be putting some bolt on as described previously on my car, would have thought it would be likely to do more harm than good.
I personally wouldn't be putting some bolt on as described previously on my car, would have thought it would be likely to do more harm than good.
If you think back to the days of carburettors, or am I the only one old enough!, I remember some used to have a line form the cooling system run through part of the body of the carb. This if I remember right would heat the air fuel mixture as opposed to the fuel alone. This practice of heating the fuel seems to have been dropped with fuel injection.
You say running the fuel near the radiator could be dangerous, the max temp the rad is going to be is 100 degrees or there abouts, whould this be a dangerous temp to heat petrol?
You say running the fuel near the radiator could be dangerous, the max temp the rad is going to be is 100 degrees or there abouts, whould this be a dangerous temp to heat petrol?
Do you really want to re-route your fuel line to being within the crumple zone of your car for a slight increase in fuel economy...
I think thats a fantastic idea - far too many cars (and hence drivers) on the road - allow the more reckless and terminally dim to cull themselves , demand for fuel drops so the price comes down - everyones happy!!!
ok i managed to get hold of the so called books they sell on ebay for free
check it out
plus u can make up ur own mind...lol
i might be giving this a tru by building my own and testing without modifying the o2 sensors .etc
check it out
plus u can make up ur own mind...lol
i might be giving this a tru by building my own and testing without modifying the o2 sensors .etc
Thanks again fes_786. There is enough info there to make one and try it out which is what I am going to do. Let me know how you get on with yours. All the materials seem easy enough to source except for the stainless steel wire for the electrode. Do you know of any diy store that might stock such a thing?
I have a vauxhall zafira which is returning about 35 miles to the gallon, it costs me about €60 per week in petrol. I think it might be an ideal contender for this expiriment.
Like yourself I am not going to do anything to the o2 sensor but I am considering the fuel heater system.
I have a vauxhall zafira which is returning about 35 miles to the gallon, it costs me about €60 per week in petrol. I think it might be an ideal contender for this expiriment.
Like yourself I am not going to do anything to the o2 sensor but I am considering the fuel heater system.
personally i wouldnt do the fuel heater just yet
the wire u can buy of ebay just search 4 hydrogen generator
