A couple of things here...
“The alternator doesn’t produce excess power. The alternator requires more mechanical energy than the hydrogen process can produce.”
This isn’t exactly true. In fact the alternator DOES produce “excess power”. It produces MORE energy that is used in MOST vehicles to 1) power lights, radios and so forth and 2) keep the battery charged completely. (Not all cars have high duty alternators).
Point here is there IS excess energy being produced from the alternator. Now, whether that equates to the amount of energy used to mechcanically drive the engine from internal combustion, I’m not sure - BUT, a car can produce a LOT of electricity for charging several batteries at once.
I think what the designer of this system is trying to say is just that... he’s getting extra power from the alternator that isn’t being used for ANYTHING ELSE (so he is calling it ‘excess’.
The other thing that bugged me about the article was where the professor called it “dangerous”.
Ummm.. gasoline has, pound for pound MUCH MORE explosive energy than hydrogen.
True. That's why a voltage regulator is required.
No, the engineer is correct - this is an unsafe contraption. These things have a very thin veneer of credibility based on the fact that they *do* create flammable fumes or gases. Not fast enough or in sufficient quantities to replace even 1% of the car's liquid fuel needs, but enough to turn its own container into bomb fragments.
I once experienced a battery explosion. A new (few months old) Sears Die-Hard with a defective internal connection arced just below the top of the case, where the positive terminal connects to the end plate. When I twisted the key to "Start", it went *BOOOOM!* and bent the corner of the hood up. Sears paid for the repair, after several threats from my attorney.
Good luck getting satisfaction from one of these scam artists if someone loses an eye or your car catches fire.
The alternator works no harder than the load imposed on it and can supply no energy until a greater load is imposed on it; the electrolysis device may impose a load of from 10 to 150 amps depending on design and volume of water being worked on.
This extra wattage must come from the engine working harder which burns more fuel; when the device is turned off the alternator goes back to the base load and does only that much work and the engine burns less fuel again.
At no time is there free work being spun off into the air.
First all there is a difference between mileage and maximum operating effieciency. Sometimes running more fuel saves you money. That equation is still not out of balance in my estimation, but more on that later. First:
Your not overestimating the amount of energy an alternator can convert from mechanical energy.
You are underestimating how much energy the resulting Hydrogen adds to the system.
Any extra load on the alternator requires more energy/fuel to service, voltage regulator or not.
If that tiny load to produce hydrogen overrides the tiny amount of energy contained in the hydrogen you are in the red. That is the point here.
Besides I thought we were all told the advantage of this sytem was in Catalyst reactions resulting in better burning? Or was it a chemically bound supply of Oxygen? Or any other BS this scam uses to propigate.
Truth is all it does is punch a hole in your intake, fouling the sensors, causing your highly computerised diesel truck to run lean, which it can because the modern computer controlled ignition system is smart enough to adjust to keep it running. That eventually will result in a repair bill far in excess of the fuel savings.
However this eventual repair bill is anticipated by modern computers that will eventually notice the trend and start running your good ol 7.2 richer again to compensate. Good Bye mileage gains, hello maximum operating efficiency.
Want to test it? Build one for your lawn mower or string trimmer and tell me how you make out...
— lates
— jrawk
When you draw current from it, the flow of current induces a torque on shaft which requires more fuel to keep the engine turning at the same speed. The change in (torque x rotation rate) = the change in (RMS Voltage x RMS Current).
Try an experiment. Sit in an old (1964) Volkswagen with the engine at a low idle and turn on headlights. You can audibly hear the pitch of the engine change.
And where does that energy come from? Could it perhaps be from the mechanical energy being put into it from the engine?
If the alternator really were capable of putting out more energy than is being put into it, one could connect the alternator's output to an electric motor and have the electric moter drive the alternator. Voila, instant perpetual motion!
This isn’t exactly true. In fact the alternator DOES produce “excess power”. It produces MORE energy that is used in MOST vehicles to 1) power lights, radios and so forth and 2) keep the battery charged completely. (Not all cars have high duty alternators).
Point here is there IS excess energy being produced from the alternator.
********************************************************
The vast majority of cars have alternators that are computer controlled/on demand types that do not run continuously as the first generation ones in the 1960’s and 1970’s did ... They have very short duty cycles and high output.
If you want to save fuel ...
1.) reduce your miles driven if possible
2.) reduce friction losses , windows closed if at more than 40 mph , tires inflated properly , light engine oil ..
3.) lean out your mixture ,, most cars are about 20% richer than they should be for max mpg (rich for emissions) ,, retune using an exhaust gas temp guage and adjusting mixture by manipulating the O2 sensors signal.
My understanding of alternators is that they produce what is demanded of them. If there is no load on the alternator, nothing connected, then the only mechanical demand from it to the engine is to overcome the friction of spinning it. Any additional mechanical demand is the direct result of the output current demanded of it, with consideration for output efficiency.
An alternator can produce more than is typically demanded; there is excess capacity. But that's not the same as excess production or output.
So any increase in electrical demand on the alternator will just result in extra mechanical demand, and it takes more mechanical power going in than electrical power going out because alternators are not 100% efficient. That, plus the fact that electrolysis is not 100% efficient, that is, you won't get the same hydrogen energy out of the process as the electrical energy you put into it, means that the Mechanical (engine) --> ( < 100% efficient) --> Electrical (alternator) --> ( < 100% efficient) --> Chemical (Hydrogen electrolysis) chain cannot result in a net gain.
I believe the author is correct.