# Fuel Saver (2)



## pelicanpete (Apr 28, 2007)

Magnetic witchcraft? --- Nah!

Here's the real thing: http://www.water4gas.com/2books.htm


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

WOW! So all I need to do is to send these people $97, and I too can be one of those satisfied customers - GM from Chipping Sodbury writes: ....

Mind you, I do seem to remember something about steam injection improving something or other with combustion. Not sure about some of the other claims, though :? 

Gerald


----------



## loddy (Feb 12, 2007)

Saab used to sell a water injection kit for their turbo models to enhance performance

Loddy


----------



## Dopeyngrumpy (May 13, 2005)

Well I also read somewhere that if I could round up 3 witches I could get a great MPG boost as well, not sure if I'm meant to burn them or provide them with non-taxable ingredients - not managed to do round them up yet; any volunteers to try it? ! 

David


----------



## CliveMott (Mar 10, 2008)

Don't forget mothballs in the petrol!


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

Adding steam or water mist to the air going into any ic engine will increase power by making the air denser. It works best in a gas turbine, so much so that you have to watch the engine gauges carefully when carrying out compressor washing lest you overheat components. 

However the claims made by that site are completely different, fraudulent and get a whole topic to themselves in snopes


----------



## asprn (Feb 10, 2006)

sallytrafic said:


> the claims made by that site are completely different, fraudulent


You're such a spoily-cat, Frank.  That's what wrong with the world - always pushing these fact-thingies. :roll:

Dougie.


----------



## pelicanpete (Apr 28, 2007)

Agree with you all...my better judgment tells me so. The first link I posted was to a quack-looking home made device made out of jam jars and some wire. However, this story (see link) has been published by one of the most respected TV channels in the US.
Whilst I remain sceptical, this report seems to lend some credibility and viability to the commercially built and available device, albeit with a $1200 (£600) price tag..

I remember, back in the '60s tales circulating of an inventor who developed a water-based fuel system but it was alleged that the big petroleum companies took him out for fear of losing their valuable profits....could this be deja vu?

http://www.wptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=74b15465-2ebb-49e0-acb1-939c4bb13a28


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

Hi,

just to spoil some more... :wink:

ALL claims to increase fuel efficiency by means of any kind of _magnetism_, are either pure superstition, or simply fraudulent. This is why:

Firstly, both petrol and diesel are diamagnetic fluids. This means they are not influenced in any way by magnetic fields.

The second reason lies in the way an internal combustion engine works: At first, heat is generated by burning, combusting the fuel. This process is ruled by the law of energy conversation, one of the hardest laws of physics to break. So all, really all losses in efficiency at this stage are due to incomplete combustion. Modern engines, however, have this combustion pretty well under control, so unless you drive permanently with floored throttle, more than 99% of the fuel will be combusted. The significant losses occur in the second step, when it comes to converting the heat into mechanical energy. And this is ruled by the second law of thermodynamics, also quite tough to break. However, at this stage the fuel is already completely burnt, so any influencing factor that has been "added" to the fuel has burnt away together with it.

Regarding the water injection: This does in fact not influence the combustion part at all. What it does is to cool down the air that is taken in (before combustion), and thus, as sallytraffic has correctly said, also slightly increases the air density. So, just before the piston compresses the air prior to fuel injection and combustion, the air in the cylinder is a little cooler and denser than without water. Higher density at same volume means: More air is present, and lower temperature means a larger temperature difference and therefore (according to 2nd law of thermodynamics) a slightly increased efficiency. I can imagine that especially with gas turbines this can have some effect, and probably also with suction engines, but with turbocharged diesel engines the effect should be no more than marginal.

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

Hi Boff wouldn't the water in the air turn to steam and increase the combustion pressure?

Olley


----------



## Spacerunner (Mar 18, 2006)

_Firstly, both petrol and diesel are diamagnetic fluids. This means they are not influenced in any way by magnetic fields._

So why do filling stations attract all my spare cash?? :x :lol: :lol:


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

olley said:


> Hi Boff wouldn't the water in the air turn to steam and increase the combustion pressure?


Yes it would, however:

In a petrol engine, such pressure increase is unwanted, as it would lead to engine knocking.

In a diesel engine this does not matter. However, turning the water into steam also costs energy, so there is nothing to gain from that.

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## 109613 (Jan 31, 2008)

If I quit smoking I could get about 26 liters more diesel a week..... and if I quit the Scotch, Pizzas, and donuts, I can squeeze another 20 liters out of that....but then I would have nothing to do when I stop at the rest places.


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

This is one of the funniest threads I've read in a long while :lol: 

Thanks, Gerhard, for the low-down. When I saw it, I couldn't imagine these magnets working. The 99% combustion does it for me.

Gerald


----------



## loddy (Feb 12, 2007)

I was reading a Jaguar tuning site last night and they are selling a water injection kit claiming 30-40 bhp on the V8 supercharged models

Loddy


----------



## ambegayo (Jan 7, 2007)

*Fuel saver*

Did DGS ever come clean :!: Or have I missed it?


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

*Re: Fuel saver*



ambegayo said:


> Did DGS ever come clean :!: Or have I missed it?


He said he was going to use his 5th free post to give all the details.

Unfortunately, he used his 5th free post to tell us he was going to use his 5th free post ...

I suspect it's unlikely he'll subscribe, merely to spread the word about this amazing device. So no, you didn't miss it :roll:

Gerald


----------



## Telbell (May 1, 2005)

The Road Haulage Association has just been on radio complaining about the hike in diesel, and as to be expected, warning that cost of delivery (and therefore pretty much everything :roll: ) will be going up as well.

Well- I have a suggestion for the RHA as to how they could save fuel and therefore help all consumers. Quite simply tell their drivers to drive more economically.

No-one will convince me that the vast majority of HGV drivers don't hit the floor with their throttle and keep it there permanently on a Motorway trip.

Surely you've all witnessed the scenario?;

On the "level" in your 'van you're happy to trundle along at 55/58mph (same in the car now!). Slight downhill stretch and the HGV's whizz by, often cutting in quite sharply so they don't hog the middle lane. A little further on at a steady uphill they slow down to forty-ish-you overtake them cos you're still happy to do 55-ish.....and so the scenario continues all along the motorway. Just happened this afternoon on a 20 mile stretch of the M5/m6-and we were in the car!

Now I wouldn't do that in the Motorhome (foot to the floor) so surely this can't be very economical driving?

And in case anyone comes back & says they have a deadline to keep then (a) I'm not convinced they're any better off time-wise and (b) I'd be happy to get my goods that little bit later (let the retailers plan more) and pay that bit less.

So-my view is that RHA could do us all a service by advising drivers to "ease off" on the throttle a bit....just like we're all doing aren't we :wink: 

(and yes I did have a rant about HGV drivers a while ago but feel I've got more ammunition now :lol: )


----------



## trevorf (May 16, 2005)

Has any previous poster actually read the link ?

It has nothing to do with injecting water or using magnets. The system uses a high frequency square wave generator to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen. 

This gas is then injected into the air intake to boost combustion.

Trevor


----------



## 112506 (May 22, 2008)

*Re: Fuel saver*



geraldandannie said:


> ambegayo said:
> 
> 
> > Did DGS ever come clean :!: Or have I missed it?
> ...


----------



## pelicanpete (Apr 28, 2007)

trevorf said:


> Has any previous poster actually read the link ?
> 
> It has nothing to do with injecting water or using magnets. The system uses a high frequency square wave generator to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen.
> 
> ...


Trevor. Quite right!
Thanks for trying to re-focus the thread.


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

Hi All

Sorry to disappoint all you folk hoping for a revelation may be interested that LarryB is posting from the same IP address as a certain member known as DGS :lol: :lol: :lol:

Of course this doesn't prove that they're one and the same person, it may of course just be a strange coincidence.

Members should note that anyone creating multiple accounts to get more free posts are making a gain at the subscribers expense so it's not only fuel costs where this member lkes to save money is it?


----------



## CliveMott (Mar 10, 2008)

You can split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas by passing a current through it, not by pulsing it magnetically. But the amount of energy gained by burning the gasses generated can never be more than the electrical energy expended in generating the gas in the first place. As IC engines are circa 10% efficient then its a non starter.
However anybody who rises to such stupid claims ... er !!!#
Yes, well OK then!.


----------



## 112506 (May 22, 2008)

Wash your mouth out Gaspode I am terribly hurt by that statement. DSG is a very good friend and college for many years. 

To link the savings through lifestyle change with the freedom of choice in becoming a minority subscriber or staying with the majority of none subscribing members is a low blow. 
Rising fuel costs are a big factor in people's ability to continue with what is a fantastic way of life. 
I have now had to waste this last post defending what is a genuine offer of help.
The last Post
LarryB


----------



## gaspode (May 9, 2005)

LarryB said:


> Wash your mouth out Gaspode I am terribly hurt by that statement. DSG is a very good friend and college for many years.
> The last Post
> LarryB


 :wink:


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

LarryB said:


> I have now had to waste this last post defending what is a genuine offer of help.


Ah well. I only wish I understood what you'd said.

And before you go creating another account, it's against the rules :: see here ::, and you will be in danger of getting your IP address blocked.

Gerald


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

LarryB said:


> DSG is a very good friend and college for many years.


Not so much a friend, more an institution :wink:

Gerald


----------



## pelicanpete (Apr 28, 2007)

CliveMott said:


> You can split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas by passing a current through it, not by pulsing it magnetically. But the amount of energy gained by burning the gasses generated As IC engines are circa 10% efficient then its a non starter.
> However anybody who rises to such stupid claims ... er !!!#
> Yes, well OK then!.


Now, when it comes to scientific debate, I can write what I know on the back of a postage stamp. Notwithstanding that, could not the electrical energy required be produced by solar/wind/wave??

"...can never be more than the electrical energy expended in generating the gas in the first place."


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

hi PP i played around with some figures the other week, and I reckoned if I had 1kw of solar panels on the roof after about a week I would have enough gas to get me about 1 mile down the road.  

Olley


----------



## pelicanpete (Apr 28, 2007)

Olley,

Okay. I wouldn't know where to start doing such a calculation so am happy to take your word for it.


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

Olley, I did the same calculations and reckoned with removal of solar panel and replacing it with sprouts I could go a mile too.


----------



## trevorf (May 16, 2005)

> "...can never be more than the electrical energy expended in generating the gas in the first place."


Absolutely agree, but whilst an engine is running there is spare electrical energy available from the alternator. I very much doubt that there will ever be an engine that runs purely on hydrogen generated from water. The original link describes a conventional petrol or diesel engine that is made more efficient by adding a little hydrogen generated from water.

It does work. My brother has it fitted to his car. I built the electronics for him.
When he first built the kit he wanted to prove the bubbles coming from the water were in fact hydrogen. As he is a little mad, he used a lighted match on the end of a long pole. Almost blew the roof off his shed and his mate who lives about a mile away heard the bang 8O 8O 8O 8O

Trevor


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

trevorf said:


> Has any previous poster actually read the link ?


Nope, sorry, must have missed it.



trevorf said:


> The system uses a high frequency square wave generator to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen.


OK, thanks for saving my life! :wink: 
Would have laughed myself to death otherwise...

Fact is that this is an even bigger breach of physics laws than any magnetism stuff. Because:



trevorf said:


> Absolutely agree, but whilst an engine is running there is spare electrical energy available from the alternator.


No, it is not! All the energy that the alternator delivers, I repeat: ALL of it, has to be produced by the engine. So, using energy produced under losses by the engine, to break down water (again under considerable losses), just to feed it back into the engine where it is converted again under considerable losses into kinetic energy, is a perfect way of wasting fuel, not saving it.

Perpetual motion machines just don't work.

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

pelicanpete said:


> Olley,
> 
> Okay. I wouldn't know where to start doing such a calculation so am happy to take your word for it.


Hi Pete, risky my maths is crap. :lol:

Here's how I did it. I assumed 10kw per day in the south of France, I know that's wrong but it makes the calc. easier. Which over a 5 days gives me 50kw. Liquid hydrogen has an energy density of 2.6kw so that gives about 19litres assuming a 100% conversion which again you won't get.

H2 has about a third of the energy density of propane so I need 3 times as much to cover the same distance, so about 6 litres at 1.25 to the mile 7.5 miles. :lol:

If you calculated it all properly including the power needed by the compressor to compress the H2 to about 3,000psi, I suspect that figure would be halved at least.

Now I just need one of the techy's to tell me my figures are a load of old crap. :lol: :lol:

Olley


----------



## pelicanpete (Apr 28, 2007)

olley said:


> Hi Pete, risky my maths is crap. :lol:
> 
> Here's how I did it. I assumed 10kw per day in the south of France, I know that's wrong but it makes the calc. easier. Which over a 5 days gives me 50kw. Liquid hydrogen has an energy density of 2.6kw so that gives about 19litres assuming a 100% conversion which again you won't get.
> 
> ...


Respect!!! :?


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

olley said:


> Now I just need one of the techy's to tell me my figures are a load of old crap. :lol: :lol:


OK, here I am: :lol:

First, the statement "10 kw per day" is meaningless, it must be something with "kwh". So, if you have 1 kW (peak) solar panels on your van's roof (is a rather big van, isn't it? :wink: ), you would under optimal conditions perhaps get some 8-9 kW*h* out of it.

Run your electrolysis with this, let's say your device has an efficiency of 50% which would be excellent, that means you have 4.5 kWh of energy stored as hydrogen.

Now any (petrol) engine, slightly tuned, could run on hydrogen, that's not the problem. The problem is that any petrol engine's efficiency is limited to about 25%. From the 4.5 kWh hydrogen energy therefore only about 1.1 kWh actually arrive at the crankshaft.

I would then guess that for constant speed driving of 90 kph under ideal conditions your van's engine has to bring up about 40hp. The 1.1 kWh correspond to about 1.5 "horsepower-hours", so your van would run on them for about 99 seconds, driving about 2.48 kilometres so not more than about 1.54 miles. :?

But, in theory at least, there is actually a way to make solar panels contribute to fuel efficiency! And this could be applied to every van, without any hassle with hydrogen or anything like that: In every MH there are some consumers of electric energy that are active while driving, e.g. the fridge. Now just make sure that these devices are, while driving, powered (as much as possible at least) by the solar panels and not by the alternator. This will reduce the load on the alternator, and thus the fuel consumption. The effects in practice are however, so I am afraid, not measurable. 

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

You're all wrong.

electrolysis is what wimmin have for hair removal.



any fuel know that.


fuel, savings, thread title,......... :roll: 

I'll get me coat...taxi....


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

Hi Gerhard multiply your figures by 5days, thats what I was baseing mine on =7.7 miles now if you look at my last post that is very close to what I said. (7.5) :lol: :lol: 

However at a shade under 9tons and the aerodynamics of a brick I think I would need a little more than 40hp at 90kph. :lol: 

Olley


----------



## 108401 (Nov 22, 2007)

Boff said:


> No, it is not! All the energy that the alternator delivers, I repeat: ALL of it, has to be produced by the engine. So, using energy produced under losses by the engine, to break down water (again under considerable losses), just to feed it back into the engine where it is converted again under considerable losses into kinetic energy, is a perfect way of wasting fuel, not saving it.
> 
> Perpetual motion machines just don't work.
> 
> ...


Well it does kind of work, and it's not perpetual motion - it's sort of what the Prius does some of the time - 'spare' energy from the petrol engine is converted via what is effectively a big alternator into electrical energy (rather than stored as hydrogen). This is then later fed back into the transmission via an electrical motor to assist the petrol engine.

So very similar to using spare power to store as hydrogen which is then later used as fuel, but without the inefficiences of converting the electricity to hydrogen and back.

However, I agree that I can't see that sort of thing being easily retrofittable to an existing car - aside from all the inefficiencies, you'd need to make sure you only used "spare" power from the engine to produce hydrogen and not just simply present a constant load.


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

mrtrilby said:


> ...it's sort of what the Prius does some of the time - 'spare' energy from the petrol engine is converted via what is effectively a big alternator into electrical energy (rather than stored as hydrogen).


Well, not really.

I have thought about that, and the hybride technology is very well known to me, because my Prius is due to be delivered in two weeks from now. 

However: The Prius does not store 'spare' energy into the battery - as I said there is no such thing as spare energy - but energy that would otherwise be wasted in the brakes. So, when going downhill or slowing down in a Prius, and you push the brake pedal, the onboard computer decides not to apply the conventional disc brakes but run one or both of the two motor/generator units in generator mode instead. And feed the energy into the battery, from where it can be re-used. Only just before stopping, when the electric braking 'fades', or for an emergency stop, the disc brakes are used. The alternator of an ordinary engine is neither designed to do that, nor does it have the 'muscle': Standard alternators are rated between 1 and 2 kW, that is not even close to any significant braking effect.

So my verdict still stands: "Hydrogen based energy recycling" is a waste of effort, and fuel.

The second most important reason for the Prius being so efficient is that because the electric motors can act as 'boosters', so work together with the petrol engine when accelerating, the engine can be made much smaller than in a normal car. Therefore, if it runs then it runs almost any time at optimum efficiency, while a normal car carries a big engine of which hardly ever more than about 20-40% of the capacity is used.

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## 108401 (Nov 22, 2007)

We've had our Prius for about 25k miles now. It actually gets surprisingly little energy from the brake regeneration - it's measured in watt hours, not kilowatt hours - take a look at the display on yours when it arrives. 

The bulk of the charge going to the battery comes from the engine. The ECU tries to keep the engine loaded at peak efficiency, which sometimes means there is spare power kicking about, that goes to the battery. At other times, it is forced to run the engine unnecessarily - such as when you're moving at low speed or stopped, but the A/C is trying to heat the car up whilst the engine is still cold - and there's a bundle of spare energy then. 

At other times, the ECU loads the engine below the level needed to move the car forwards, so it uses the battery to fill in the power demand.


----------



## DABurleigh (May 9, 2005)

I kept to the KISS philosophy when recently changing cars. On my 38 mile commute I now average a consistent 74 miles per gallon.

Fiat 500

Crisis? What fuel crisis? 

Dave


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

According to a report here: http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/used_car_reviews/article3552994.ece

It did less to the gallon over 460 miles than a 520D beemer.

They only way is to increase your MPG apart from driving better is to use something that at the moment goes to waste, one of these is the heat from the engine and exhaust.

I believe most modern petrol engines are in the region of 32% efficient, the rest is wasted in heat and friction, and as friction its self causes heat, the engine must have a usable amount of heat going to waste. Why not using a heat exchanger run a small steam engine powering a generator?

Old technology steam might be, but that doesn't mean you can't use it.

Olley


----------



## 108401 (Nov 22, 2007)

Yeah, I saw that report from the Times too. A rather strange comparison really - useful if you're trying to decide which car to drive to Monaco and back I guess.

FWIW our Prius has averaged 49MPG over the winter (25k miles), and appears to have settled to 53MPG now that the warmer weather is here (not enough data yet to know for sure). That's mostly A road, dual carriageway and motorway driving - very little sub 40MPH driving which is where the Prius really excels. 

That doesn't strike me as too bad for an automatic family hatchback.


----------



## pelicanpete (Apr 28, 2007)

This talk of wasted or unused energy is truly interesting.

Firstly, I can think of a few scenarios where my car(s) presently waste a lot of energy; when I am waiting at traffic lights, waiting at junctions, crawling stop/start in t/jams (M25 comes to mind!), coasting down hills in gear but foot off throttle. So - why can't this energy, instead of being 'lost' be routed into an accumulator of some kind and used to supplement forward propulsion?

Secondly, I have driven internal combustion golf-carts where when you press the accelerator pedal and the engine starts. When you take your foot off the throttle and stop the cart, so does the engine, completely. When ready to take off, no starter button is pressed. You just press the accelerator, engine bursts into life and away you go. Zero pollution (when stationary) and no wasted petrol. Whatever technology they employ, they should do the same for cars...or do they?


----------



## 108401 (Nov 22, 2007)

PelicanPete - a hybrid works as you describe, and there are plenty of other cars that have now implemented the automatic stop-start for the engine (although you have to shift to neutral and release the clutch to trigger it).

Interestingly, BMW have also been dabbling with using steam produced by waste heat from the engine to power a generator - just like Olley suggests.


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

Hi!



mrtrilby said:


> The ECU tries to keep the engine loaded at peak efficiency, which sometimes means there is spare power kicking about, that goes to the battery.


Yes, that is true for a Prius. The ECU in a Prius has the advantage that the power delivered by the engine can be freely distributed between the wheels and the generator. So, in certain situations the engine will produce more energy than needed for propelling the vehicle, and store it in the battery. This is however always sub-optimal as the charge/discharge process comes with considerable losses.

So even with a Prius there is no "spare" energy available. Here a certain inefficiency is deliberately taken into account to keep the battery in good condition. This clearly shows that the hybride technology can only mitigate some, but not all the disadvantages of a combustion engine. Ideally the battery would only be charged when decelerating or going downhill, but in practical operation this is not enough, there you are right.

However, here we are talking about motorhomes. And, in lack of any hybride motorhomes, we have to look at conventional combustion engines with a bog-standard gearbox.



pelicanpete said:


> Firstly, I can think of a few scenarios where my car(s) presently waste a lot of energy; when I am waiting at traffic lights, waiting at junctions, crawling stop/start in t/jams (M25 comes to mind!), coasting down hills in gear but foot off throttle. So - why can't this energy, instead of being 'lost' be routed into an accumulator of some kind and used to supplement forward propulsion?


Because it is more efficient to not store the wasted energy, but to avoid the waste in the first place. Simply by turning off the engine in such situations. This is what all hybride and other "green" cars do.



olley said:


> Why not using a heat exchanger run a small steam engine powering a generator?


Again, it is better to avoid the production of waste heat energy in the first place, than trying to re-use it.

So, at the bottom line, the only possibilities to significantly reduce fuel consumption of an existing motorhome with a conventional engine - no matter whether petrol or diesel - are:

Reduce speed!
Reduce speed even more.
Always select the highest possible gear, even if it means pushing down the pedal a bit more.
Switch off engine whenever it is not needed (red traffic lights, railway crossings, traffic jams etc.). Once the engine has reached normal operating temperature, switching off breaks even after just about 15-20 seconds waiting time.
Try to reduce air drag by removing rooftop boxes etc.
Reduce weight by taking out as much stuff as possible.

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------

