Hydrogen Peroxide Injection Systems for Engines

I am not aware of any actual studies or tests that prove or disprove it as a good idea. Someone here may know of a link to a study or such.

I would ask the local guy where he got his proof, that may help you decide on whether or not to try it. Bear in mind that it will be rather difficult to prove yourself that engine emissions are better and just as hard to prove engine millage increases due to too many variables outside of a controlled lab test.

The test results came from the Swedish manufacturer of the equipment. However, a Google browse also brought up a number of relevant hits from independent sources that indicate hydrogen peroxide can in fact result in cleaner exhaust plus some net gains in fuel economy.

From having looked at various products and processes aimed at improving fuel milage over the past 30 years, I get the impression that nearly all such attempts are met with vigorous opposition and massive efforts at discrediting any and all attempts to improve upon what Detroit offers in their automobiles.

Even one Detroit based automotive builder was defeated in their eforts. Chrysler long ago tried to introduce a "lean-burn" technology rather than opt for the fuel wasting catalytic converter approach.

Then they tried to introduce an air injection process in the little sub compacts imports from Japan and sold under the Dodge label. It was called jet stream or some such.

I think one can be forgiven for concluding there is a massive effort by vested interests in retaining the status quo as far as car fuel and fuel economy goes.

One of the internet listings I did find for peroxide injection dealt with the experiments by Bill Crower a big name in performance cars who makes and sells racing engine cams.

One of the obstacles to acceptance or even credence is exactly what you have just done. Namely to ask for accredited and certifiable documentation of test results. Bill Crower himself indicated he has yet to be able to afford to provide such unimpeachable documenrtation and lab test results. Although he has donsiderable resources at his disposal it is no match for any sort of ad campaign to discredit his findings if they were to threaten the status quo of massive petroleum consumption.

Hydrogen peroxide is supposed to be effective because it can easily be stripped of the extra hydrogen molecule.

A recent effort to promote using water electrolyzed into oxugen and hydrogen has been getting adverse comments with the argument that the energy used to produce the hydrogen by electrolysis exceeds the net energy gain as hydrogen is subsequently burned.

And yet plain water injection has been demonstrated as being effective since WW2. Why is it being discouraged?

So what about a process of generating hydrogen by other means that released much more hydrogen with much less expenditure of energy?

I am not a chemist and thus not familiar with how hydrogen peroxide is produced. However I'm told there is a production facility right here locally. Perhaps someone more familiar with the process can shed light on the subject.

An excellent post! Well said. The one factor that the original question ignored is the concentration of hydrogen peroxide to be used. One would likely "assume" the hydrogen peroxide of use would be the OTC 3 % water solution. Industrial H2O2 is typically 30 % aqueous solution, and that starts to become hazzardous. The boiling point of pure H2O2 is usually calculated, because high concentrations of H2O2 explode when heated, or mishandled. The containers have to be specially selected, as many metals cause catalytic decomposition of high concentrations of the peroxide, which can be spectacular. We used to use high concentrations of H2O2 in the V-2 rockets, fired at White Sands P.G., where the H2O2 was drizzled over potassium permanganate in a wire cage to generate high temp steam, which was used to pressurize the fuel and oxidizer tanks. I like your comments re possibly cleaning up the exhaust of 2-stroke engines. Typical lawn mowers also are quite the pollution generators!

from the link provided by bubba i see the reaction has water as by product.also the next ans. says the h2o2 is not pure but aqueous soln.how would any improvement not be countered not considering effects on engine by water.??

do i have my basics all wrong?i just thought h2o had no place in my cylinder.

In one of these posts, Elnav says he thinks 3% concentration is used. In that concentration, I can't imagine getting enough oxygen to make the deal worthwhile. In small quantities, water injection has no really adverse effects, and under certain conditions and in certain engines, it can be beneficial (to permit high takeoff power in hot conditions, or to reduce detonation). But inject enough, and you have a fire extinguisher.

Even without water injection, your cylinder ends up with a lot of water vapor in it as a product of combustion, but no, I don't think you have your basics all wrong: a lot of additional water means less power, generally.

One by product of combustion is water. I am not sure how much is product ed burning but LPG you will get one gallon for ever gallon burned. I read somewhere it was about the same for gasoline.

Finally someone knows what he/she is talking about.

There is a thing known as the 6-stroke cycle, which uses the evaporation of water into steam within the engine to produce an additional power stroke after combustion has taken place in the cylinder. The stroke sequence is "suck-squeeze-bang-blow-squirt-chuff". The water turning into steam in squirt and chuff cools the engine, meaning the external cooling circuit is reduced in size towards unnecessary, and the additional push by the steam as it expands during chuff adds to the engine's output.

The cycle is not suitable for use in sub-zero ambient temperatures.

The test results came from the Swedish manufacturer of the equipment. However, a Google browse also brought up a number of relevant hits from independent sources that indicate hydrogen peroxide can in fact result in cleaner exhaust plus some net gains in fuel economy.

Cannot fault that. Key point to always remember is - is it better than what I have already got.

From having looked at various products and processes aimed at improving fuel mileage over the past 30 years, I get the impression that nearly all such attempts are met with vigorous opposition and massive efforts at discrediting any and all attempts to improve upon what Detroit offers in their automobiles.

That depends, most seem to be relating to hopeless ideas that don't work, scams or devices that would make the overall system worse. Many that do work do get incorporated into cars (engine management, fuel additives or chemical alterations, etc). You also need to remember that it is very difficult to break into the auto industry with a new idea that the will take up. This doesn't stop the aftermarket vehicle add-on industry.

I think one can be forgiven for concluding there is a massive effort by vested interests in retaining the status quo as far as car fuel and fuel economy goes.

As has already been said by myself and others with far more knowledge of the auto industry, the existing internal combustion engine technology is about as good as it's going to get. You cannot expect to get large boosts in fuel efficiency or power, only small ones. If you end up wasting more energy building a device than you gain with a small increase in fuel economy then you are wasting your time (a classic example of this "it seemed like a good idea at the time" would be the peltier device converting waste exhaust heat into electrical current to recharge the car battery).

Claims of fuel efficiency and millage increases of 300% or even 100% are just totally impossible, and when you have a close look at the science behind the claims it becomes very obvious. The HAFC is a good recent example.

Although he has donsiderable resources at his disposal it is no match for any sort of ad campaign to discredit his findings if they were to threaten the status quo of massive petroleum consumption.

Forget ad campaigns. Proper testing and providing poof that it works is the first step. With all the scam and hopelessly wrong products out there, any new fringe development is going to get lost in this crowd. Proper validation and proof is mandatory to be taken seriously. The next best thing is a few verifiable testimonials from reliable people who have tried the product (this can be a little hit and miss).

In this case, no claims of extraordinary milage improvements are being made. The intent of this particular product is reduction in obnoxious exhaust emissions. The original test engine was a 2 cycle ROTAX. The product is marketed as an anti pollution product. Its almost coincidental that a 10 - 30% improvement in milage has been noted and the process also works in 4 cycle engines. The quantity of hydrogen peroxide used is so little that the additional cost is nowhere near the savings in fuel burned.

As an example the brother-in-law is contemplating a summer vacation trip. If he realized a 10% improvement in milage, the product would result in savings equal to the purchase privce of the peroxide injection equipment. If more improvement is achieved that would then be a savings compared to not installing the device.

We used water injection in race cars back in the sixties but it proved impractical in northern winters with -20F or -30F temperatures. But it did mean an improvement during warmer weather. Buick had water injection in some early turbo charged models. That was abandoned because ordinary consumers woudl not accept any extra work involved in refilling the water tank are frequent intervals.

That depends, most seem to be relating to hopeless ideas that don't work, scams or devices that would make the overall system worse. Many that do work do get incorporated into cars (engine management, fuel additives or chemical alterations, etc). You also need to remember that it is very difficult to break into the auto industry with a new idea that the will take up. This doesn't stop the aftermarket vehicle add-on industry.

REPLY: A clean burning engine is usually the result of optimum adjustment of all the parameters such as ignition, fuel mix, volumetric flow etc etc. Why is it then, that many of today's modern engines seem to deliver no better or sometimes worse milage than what we had 30 years ago. I can't count how many of my acquanitances are complaining that their newer engines (pick-up trucks in particular) get much worse milage than their old engines. I am talking about half the milage they used to get.

Back in 1964 I routinely got 25 miles to the imperial gallon in a 3500 pound vehicle. Today that is somewhat difficult to achieve, despite computerized fuel injection and so called other improvements. I used to make the same drive week after week for a couple of years. Filled the tank to the same mark each time and refilled again at the end. It alwayss came out within one mile per gallon. Now can you explain why Detroit cannot make some significant improvement on that with 30 more years of engineering design and refinements, plus techniques we had never even thought of back then.

In college I outlined a design for a variable cam timing system but the professor shot it down saying it was likely impossible and certainly impractical. Told me to quit wasting my time.

I wonder how many other ideas were sidelined like that.

In 1958 Canada built a supersonic jet fighter (AVRO Arrow) which was then scrapped for political reasons. It took the competition over a decade to match that performance.And even longer to exceed it. Just another example of how good ideas sometimes do not survive opposition from those with a status quo agenda.

Why is it then, that many of today's modern engines seem to deliver no better or sometimes worse mileage than what we had 30 years ago.

I don't know, it doesn't seem to be happening down here (well not that I have noticed). One of the main things that is bringing down the fuel economy in vehicles down here is the greatly increased need for more current from the alternator to power all our new and power hungry toys (air conditioning, car stereos, power steering and windows, heated seats, etc). All that increased load really adds up to reduce your fuel economy. Turbo and superchargers to increase engine performance, along with increased vehicle speeds obtainable have certainly not helped todays fuel economy.

Mentions made of free energy devices, scams, bad science products and products that work relate to specific examples. Currently I do not classify Hydrogen Peroxide injection as a free energy or scam product.

I wonder how many other ideas were sidelined like that.

Rocket propulsion in space, the airplane (as a few examples, the list is very long). Again, people changed their way of thinking once proof and understanding of why it works came along. The key point to always remember with developments like these is that no laws were ever broken, mearly a different way of thinking was found.

It's very late, but I will make what I believe is a related Quote in the AM

TMF

Lee Taylor tried to break the law [speed record] at lake Tahoe in 1980, in a H2O2 rocket powered boat. Ken Warby held the record, taken from Taylor. I was there! The boat (about 40 ft long) was launched at Cave Rock Marina. On a previous day testing, the boat hit a rough spot in the water and tweaked the hull just a little. Taylor being the person he was, determined to attempt the record any way. On the second pass through the timing devices the boat came apart. A few parts of the boat and Taylors helment were recovered. The center of the boat was found 200 + ft. deep. Taylors wife decided to leave the body on the bottom in the remains of this boat. The Nevada Tahoe Regional Planning Agency informed the wife that Taylors body must be recovered and the wreck removed from the lake. About six weeks later deep water divers attached cables to the wreck and it was hauled. Taylor's body was strapped in the cockpit. THIS BOAT WAS POWERED BY HYDROGEN PEROXIDE. If I remember correctly, the Nike Ajax Missal was also powered by H2O2 and mounted on a solid fuel booster rocket.

Oxy-hydrogen may still be our solution to the present fuel crisis, but I don't see hydrogen peroxide getting much play as an automobile fuel gas. It is too dangerous for general public use.

TMF

Tomuchfun wrote: Oxy-hydrogen may still be our solution to the present fuel crisis, but I don't see hydrogen peroxide getting much play as an automobile fuel gas. It is too dangerous for general public use.

In the first place no one has ever suggested replacing gasoline with hydrogen peroxide. It is being promoted as an additive much liek th ecurrent crop of cetane boosters, carb and injector cleaner and so forth. If you tried to run your engine on pure carb cleaner it would not do too well.

A question on Lake Tahoe. I'm working on a boat that was previously oeperated on Take Tahoe. Its a 4 cylinder Volvo with dual carbs. It appears to run rich yet was recently tuned up at Lake Tahoe. I suspect it may be due to change in elevation. We are at elevation 2500 feet above sea level. What is the elevation of Lake Tahoe. I thought Tahoe was up in th emountains but now I wonder. As with most older 1970's marine engines this one does not have vacuum advance on the distributor nor does it have altitude compensation like cars do.

Would peroxide injection help or hinder such an engine?

I am a pretty fair mechanic, so I may be able to provide some help with your problems. The lake surface at Tahoe is 6200 ft above sea level. That is a huge from where you live. Your carb. may have been re-jetted to smaller sizes. If not they have certainly had the adjusting screws moved inward to reduce the flow of fuel. If one of these two things have not been done you would be running a very rich fuel delivery system. Regarding your distributor, It doesn't require a vacuum advance. You likely have weights restrained by springs inside that will allow the internals to advance as the shaft inside speeds up and retard as it slows. Not all engines, even of the same make will run at peak performance by adjusting it to Mfg. specs. Engines are like a living and breathing thing. Each needs it own special attention to perform at it's best. AS for the hydrogen peroxide, hydrogen can be damaging enough without the oxygen. Oxy-hydrogen only adds one of atom of oxygen to the mix, and that is certainly more than needed for hydrogen to combust. Adding the second atom of oxygen simply adds to the possibility that you will increase oxidation on the internal parts, thus shortening the life of the engine. If all you want is increased performance, add performance increasing parts, like cam shafts, or carbs. that will work better at your altitude. This is more reliable. Add-on parts that inject solution that doesn't vaporise, actually increase the compression in the cylinders. In this case you are spraying water particles into the intake system that remain as small droplets that do not compress. Hydrogen peroxide used as rocket fuel is highly explosive. 3% isn't very promising as a performance increaser. The 97% of water isn't going to burn. I recognize that many responders don't have any faith in the oxy-hydrogen possibility, but it is delivered as a vapor, and is explosive in that state. I cannot suggest that you buy anything I have seen though there may possibly be one or two that could help increase performance, at the expense of some electrical energy. More on the subject if you are interested.

TMF

GA

Exactly what I said, but you know what the idiots say with only a big mouth and no understanding or knowledge!!! phindrup being one of those for example......he must be either in his thirties or less or he would not have answered from such a weak standpoint!!!

I would argue that HP has gone up while fuel economy has stayed the same. It will shift the other way as prices increase. I had an F150 with a 4.9L straight 6 that got 15 mpg - 200 HP. Then I got one with the 5.4 V8. It also got 15 mpg, but 260HP. Today's Toyota Tundra, with 5.7 L has ~381 HP and guess what, gets ~15 MPG.

Gee that's terrible!! My condolences. My F-150 Flareside ges 22 - 24 miles per gallon consistently. Maximum rated HP is just so much marketing BS. A given weight of vehicle at a fixed speed wil require a certain amount of horsepower. But not anywhere the maximum rated output. At normal highway speed my F-150 engine is turning 1550 RPM. My F-250 diesel (1984) turns 1250 for the same road speed. It gets slightly better milage. About 2 mpg. It also has larger diameter tires and a different gear ratio.

My point about engine development was that I had expected Detroit with their multi million dollar R&D facilities to be able to do much better than a teen-ager back yard mechanic as far as getting milage out of a nengine. Doesn't seem to be the case.

30 years of R&D hasn't made much difference in the milage I get. If anything it has gotten worse. Sometimes much worse.

In the old days even the worst running pick-up truck would get 16 - 18 MPG. My uncle is getting 12 MPG from his brand new Diesel truck.

You must be onto something. If you could document (and prove; minor detail) to the millions of F150 owners how you get 20+mpg (without driving 40mph with a tailwind downhill) you would be rich, and you wouldn't have to pose these questions on CR4. I know 20 guys who would pay you $1000 bucks for your secret.

Why I thought everybody new the answer to this issue. HE GET 20 MILES TO THE GALLON BECAUSE HE ONLY DRIVES DOWN HILL. The rest of the story is someone else drives the truck up hill and gets 5 MPG.

TMF

Aren't you guys forgetting the obvious?? I'm in BC of Canada. We use imperial measures not US. Way different!

I wasn't saying I get extraordinary milage. Just average. BUT!! the point I was making is that despite 30 years of engineering development, the same size engine with the same driver doesn't get any better milage. We didn't have fuel injection or computer control, tuned intake and exhaust manifolds or better designed cylinder heads back then. I probably spent a week porting and polishing the heads on my corvette. Cost me a week's wage to get special headers and high flow exhaust system. Nowadays this is standard on many models. Even so, its nearly impossible to get better milage. And in many cases the newer engine designs are worse than the older models in the same trucks. As for emissions, its hard to say. Back then we didn't have such measurements. But a properly tuned engine burning cleanly and not loaded excessively doesn't produce a lot. NOX might be the one exception. As I understand it, that gas is produced when the engine is under heavy load.

Elnav, One of the problem with mileage is the fuel:air mix ratio, Gasoline burns most efficiently at a 49:1 ratio (49 parts air to 1 part fuel) however even the most efficient ICE today uses a ratio of 22:1. The remainder of the fuel is used as a secondary lubricant.

Another is the fact that efficient gasoline combustion generates a temperature of 1750⁰ F and most materials used in ICE's cannot withstand that thermal stress without deformation and damage to integrity.

Cordially Dragon

Strange figures. The stoichiometric ratio (by weight) is between 14.1 and 14.7 for gas, depending upon the formulation. Gasoline is about 600 times as dense as air, so by volume, the ratio is about 8640:1.

Excess fuel (although there is never anything remotely close to a 2:1 excess) washes lubricants off the cylinder walls. The lead in fuel use to serve as a lubricant for the valve seats, but not elsewhere.

Ken, I suspect the reference to fuel as lubricant refers to the old 2-cycle engines. I did say the peroxide system was originally intended to clean up 2 cycle exhaust. I also agree that these ratios seem strange. I was always taught the correct ratio was in the region of 14:1 or slightly richer.

Whatever happened to adiabatic engine research? Did it die because suitable materials simply could not be found or from lack of public interst or something else?

I suspect the reference to fuel as lubricant refers to the old 2-cycle engines.

I thought perhaps he was thinking along those lines too, although in older two strokes the fuel/oil mix is the primary (only) source of lubrication.

I really haven't followed adiabatic engine research much recently. There seems to be little activity now, and I really don't know why. I'd guess that part of the reason is the same as the reason Americans find it necessary to drive 6000 lb of vehicle to move a 170 lb person*: gas has been cheap, most people really don't care about the environment much if doing something is inconvenient, etc, etc. Here, we can measure how much we care about such things easily by looking around us on the roads: you can't pretend to care about the environment and energy usage if you drive like the average American. We are remarkably short-sighted, and have amazingly poor memories. If gas levels-out for a while at even $5.00/gallon, I would not be too surprised to see SUV's come back.

Consider that the only meaningful hybrids made by GM are the new Tahoes. Perish the thought that they would look at making a vehicle smaller. The idea is that you should feel good about getting mileage that most Europeans would be horrified to get.

So I think, but am not sure, that such research dries up for lack of interest and for lack of trendiness -- for quite a while, it as all about the "hydrogen economy". We've been fat, dumb, and happy, and might be back to the same-old-same-old soon. There are, of course, the huge materials and lubricant issues too...

* if you look at this process, moving 170 lb 10 miles, for example, and consider the huge inefficiencies already there in moving the huge vehicle, the total efficiency of moving the person is far below one percent. For commuting purposes, you can say that more than 99% of the energy used is entirely wasted.

I don't think it really matters whether you refer to USA gallons or imperial gallons, or short gallons or even face gallons.

. When the price is Too expensive, Too many folks cannot afford it, and the investors are driving the selling price Too high, Too continue survival, at our TOO comfortable life style. And our Too large Government is just collecting Too much more money in taxes for our economy Too sustain it self TOOOOOOO!

" I think that'un was gooder'n snuff and not near as dusty " Please take a little well intended advice. Unless you are using a rocket engine in your car, or have an engine that can tolerate the corossive effects of even a little hydrogen peroxide, leave it for the medical staff, ladies/beauttitishions and rocket refuelers.

TMF

No secret. Just plain common sense. I drive sensibly and NOT like an American. No drag racing starts, anticipate traffic lights and ease off on the throttle before you get there, then you hit the stop line after the light has turned green again. This also reduces use of brakes. Leave a 3 second or longer interval between vehicles. In the military I learnt it as defensive driving.

Mind you it helps that BC has special lights that show you if the light is going to turn red befoer you get there. In other words the special lights are located 700 feet ahead of the light. When that flashing amber turn on, you know that at the posted speed limit you will hit a red light. Of course the lights are usually visible half a mile or further away so if it is already flashing you know you are heading up to red light, even when its over the hill. Ease off and by the time you get there, the light has cycled through to green. It helps if you know the timing cycle it runs on. I also avoid stop and go driving. The posted speed is 100km and I rarely exceed that, but I also rarely drop below 80km except when wildlife is on the road. A moose will definitely total the truck and even a deer can pretty well mangle the whole front end. Mind you its one way to go hunting out of season or without a deer tag. <Grin> That is what the big steel bar grilles are for.

Other than that I just make sure the engine is always tuned up.

I used to race short track stock cars. You Know the 37 chevys and 38 fords on clay with 327 cu. in. engines. I found that a 340 hp vett engine right out of the crate provided all the power you could you could possibly hook up to the track. Back then the cost was about $1250.00 complete less alternator and exhaust manifold. Most of the competition were using engines from wrecks and working them over very seriously, and didn't run any better than my stock out of the crate monster. I could run in sportsman class on gas by changing the carb. and adjusting the timing or run unlimited on methanol by switching back to holly with bigger jets and reseting the distributor. If you want to make horse power you are going to burn fuel! No mater what kind or what blend, More fuel makes more HP!

Today's engines run under greater constant loads with all of the emission control stuff and advanced timing and pressurized cooling systems and AC and so on. That they are not improving on fuel mileage is caused by these parasites.

THE FOLLOWING COMMENT DRIFTS A LITTLE OFF TOPIC BUT I BELIEVE IT WILL BE APPRECIATED BY ALL.

Here is where I stick the Naysayers and Skeptoids. We could save about $600 if we eliminated the catalitic converter, and could save much more if we could get rid of the fancy EEFI whether rack injection or throttle body and get the fuel pumps back out of the fuel tank, and delete both of them, and eliminate the fuel control module if we perfected the Single duct fuel gas delivery system. I don't believe that it cannot be done. In fact given the power released by the exploding oxy-hydrogen fuel gas, even smaller engines might be designed that would out power today's guzzlers. Just how much will it take get the engineers to look for results instead of excuses, LIKE THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS, AND IMPOSSIBLE PERPETUAL MOTION. With todays electronic technology, micro prosessors, and other mini electronics I believe that there is a way. Frankly I believe that adding a random generator controlling high voltage pulses that are already known to de-stabilize the water molecule could open their eyes. OPEN SEZ ME! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, WHILE YOU CAN STILL AFFORD A CUP!

TMF

More fuel makes more HP!

Sort of. Really, more air makes more hp. Getting more fuel through an engine is easy as pie. Getting more air through is not. If you simply add H2 injection to a gasoline engine, power drops, because the h2 displaces air, and there is insufficient air to 1. burn the H2, and 2. burn the original dose of gasoline, because you push the air aside with the H2. This holds in real world tests just as it does in theory. Back when I was racing, loads of two-stroke road racers would seize from running right at stoichiometric,which didn't provide quite enough cooling effect. So to avoid seizures, you'd jet rich, and loose a tiny bit of power.

More obviously, if you take out the correct 200 jet in a four stroke, and replace it with a 230, the engine will burble and smoke and put out substantially less power than when correctly jetted. I'm sure your aware of this -- it's like running gas through your methanol carb.

But I think what you are saying is that doubling hp will require twice the fuel, which is essentially true. (But it also requires twice the air.)

You've posted a lot of good answers here and in the houseboat thread...

... then it seems that something snaps, and you go ALL CAPS, AND START TALKING ABOUT REPEALING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. But obviously you are passionate with the oxyhydrogen thing, so I wish you luck. You're right... modern engines are absurdly complex, and a lot of it is one band-aid laid on top of another.

Although I liked the days of carburetors, I'd have to say these modern engines are incredible -- motorcycles come out of the box outperforming the stuff we'd build essentially from scratch, titanium rods and all. And they idle smoothly, start instantly, are phenomenally reliable, etc. Just doesn't seem as if there as much fun tho...

Ken, I've got to break and feed some hungry livestock, but I 'll get back to you with a reasonable proposal a little later this evening.

TMF

With most things, to double the power, you need to input 4 x the energy.....should this not also be true for engines?

Power is the rate of doing work, which (through work-energy equivalence) is the rate of using energy. So to double power you must double the energy consumed per unit if time. In an engine, if you double speed but leave torque constant, you double the horsepower. (In many engines when you double speed, torque doesn't remain constant, but in a lot of recent turbocharged engines, the torque curve is perfectly flat from 1500 - 5000 rpm.) In a DC electric motor, if you double current and leave voltage the same, torque will double, speed will remain unchanged, and power will double.

More here.

Ken,

double Hp requires more fuel and more oxy. Not necessarily doubled, but a more efficient blend for the particular engine. I could run the fuel through a garden hose and the additional air from a leaf blower and improve nothing, because the cylinder can only accommodate a maximum volume of these. However you are basically correct with that.

I don't especially wish to REPEAL the laws of physics! However If I can prod those who are more knowledgeable about the possibilities of making adjustments to the law to accommodate modern electronic technology, Even tho it make turn some theories topsy tervy in the eyes of the die hards, I may succeed In some little way, to aid the Future of society in dealing with the fuel energy crisis.

I look at all of the real costs of providing gasoline as a fuel from the in ground or under sea deposits, all the way to the pumps that we use to fill our tanks. Then I look at all of the other products that result from the cracking and distillation process and I realize that if we only got gasoline and diesel fuels and the other stuff was waste, We would have long ago moved away from these two fuels. No one, not even the Government could afford such an outrageous expense.

Modern electronics has clearly changed the world for the better. It has made possible many discoveries that other wise would have remained no more than potential theory. AS we have improved the generating systems for automotive electronics so much today, and I realize the explosive energy in just a couple of cubic inches of the oxy-hydrogen fuel blend, I believe, And the 'OUR GANG" folks that I have been working with for more than a year from Denver Colo. also believes that we can make a worth while contribution to resolving the impending crisis. I can tell you that we have members who are air craft mechanics, auto mechanics, fabricators, general electrical personal, radio electronics specialists, an electronics company in N.J. that recently contacted us and is now involved and "little ole me" the Idea and research guy.

Thanks for your good wishes regarding my passionate interest. May I now suggest that you try to find one of the Sachs rotary engines from an 80's era bike and or snowmobiles (Bombardaire) similar years. These would make great candidates for utilizing the emerging technology. The only cost for the fuel is 69 cents per gallon for distilled water, and borrowing a 1/2 cup of white distilled (5% white lighting) vinegar from they wife's pantry. Who really cares if the rotaries' were not exactly fuel thrifty, when the fuel is that inexpensive. I'll share my design for an explosion resistant, high performance HHO generator with you, No charge, completely free, if you are interested in giving this "EMERGING NEW, 100+ YR. OLD, TECHNOLOGY" a try."

Cheers TMF

I guess the canadians in ontario havent read your memo,they all drive like theyre nuts,and i see little desire to slow down or buy more economical vehicles.If your not driving 20km over the speed limit your in the way.its that way here in arizona also,must be some kind of american virus spreading!

I find it extremely easy to criticize Detroit, and especially GM. But I think their argument that "we sell em what they want" is not too far off. Clearly they react slowly, so they are selling SUVs when people want Priuses (etc.) but they continually produce bigger more powerful cars, and most people buy them. (This is true of all the manufacturers, not just Detroit. Why does a BMW sedan need 450 hp? )

The amount of development in engines has been really impressive over the last 20 years. In this post from another thread, I mention a quote from Motor Trend which puts things into perspective: ordinary family sedans of today accelerate faster than a 1988 Ferrari Testarossa (and most other fast cars of that era).

Powerful engines lightly loaded are inefficient. So it is remarkable that today's sedans not only outperform yesteryear's fastest cars, but also get much better mileage (and a fraction of the emissions) in the process. If the manufacturers were focused on economy over performance, we'd have better mileage yet, because we'd have far smaller more highly-loaded engines.

When my Accord wears out, I won't replace it with another Accord, which, this year, is so big that it rates as full-sized. I'll buy a Civic (still much bigger and heavier than my first (1976) Accord).

Guess what, I think all three truck weigh the same. It takes the same amount of work to move the trucks regardless of HP so fuel economy should be about the same.

I see your point there. With the same weight and frontal surface area, the energy used would be equivalent, regardless of the top capability. I felt a mild "duh".

It takes the same amount of work to move the trucks regardless of HP...

... Although there is a little more to the story.

Over the years, pickup trucks, like cars, have gotten heavier and bigger. (Look at the specs in this article. Early Ford pickups had GVWRs as low as 4000lb -- a fully loaded weight just a couple hundred pounds more than the weight of my empty Honda Accord.) If you have "issues" and need a really big pickup to compensate, then get todays F350, with a GVWR almost 3 times that of the early Fords.

So new pickups generally require more energy to go down the road than older ones. What should be the killer is that the ratio between max HP and cruise HP has a very strong effect on BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption). In round numbers, you can use .5lb/h/bph (pounds of fuel per hour per hp) for many gasoline engines. But that figure is typically valid at the "continuous" rating of the engine, roughly 75% of maximum hp. (Car engines are not generally rated this way, but industrial engines are... but the theory applies). That figure actually improves a little as you approach the torque peak and run the engine a little slower than you would for max continuous hp. In gross and simplified terms, if you take the torque curve of an engine, and flip it over, you have the full throttle bsfc curve*. That curve is lowest at the torque peak, because the torque peak is where the engine runs most efficiently (per hp produced). On an average engine, bsfc at the torque peak might be .45.

The typical car or truck engine is run, while cruising, at a small percentage of the fully loaded torque peak hp. Get far enough away from fully loaded and at the torque peak, and you can easily have double the fuel consumption per hp (or, of course, go all the way to idle with no load, and then the bsfc gets extremely high, because you are producing no usable hp).

So... if the road hp is constant (25 hp being typical for a pickup on a flat road) for three trucks, one with a 100 hp engine, one with a 200 hp engine, and one with a 300 hp engine, then the 100 hp truck is running at a much better bsfc, so should get noticeably better fuel efficiency. This is born out by actual figures for 6 cylinder trucks vs 8 cylinder. Work the engine really hard though (towing a heavy boat through the mountains) then the small engine will be close to its HP peak, and over its torque peak, and the 300 hp truck starts to look better, because under that condition, it is running nearer its torque peak, where it produces more hp per pound of fuel.

So today's trucks, if all else were the same, would get significantly worse mileage than yesteryears, because they are bigger, heavier, and have bigger, less highly loaded engines (under the test condition...EPA dyno tests, for example ). (They also do things like automatically turn on the AC every time you use the defroster, light bigger, brighter tailights, run more powerful stereos, etc) But actual test mileage figures are the same or only slightly worse. That is because there have been dramatic improvements in bsfc, and especially in flattening the bsfc curve. Things like variable valve timing, shutting down some cylinders under light load, etc can make a big engine run more like a small engine.

The secret of hybrid fuel efficiency is that it allows the engine to run near its torque peak more of the time. Taken to extremes, as in my MC2 (avatar pic), the engine runs only at its torque peak, and is shut down entirely when it can not do that, with drive to the wheels taken over by electric motors, which are much happier running at various speeds while maintaining high efficiency -- and obviously, when they are stopped at a traffic light, they are using no energy at all, and are recovering energy during braking.

GM, with its Volt, will try to convince you that this is all brilliant new tech. When you go to the dealer to look at a Volt, take along a picture of this 1903 Porsche (and a copy of this article), which was a plug-in series hybrid (with wheel motors -- considered bleeding edge today -- no less!).

* In fact this curve is not used other than for talking about engines in gross terms, because engines don't run at full throttle all the time (but typically do so on dyno runs that result in the curves you see published for engines). The useful bsfc chart is actually a map which shows bsfc at different engine speeds and throttle settings, and which looks like a topo map.

Many Many years ago, I had a college professor that tried to beat into the heads of engineering students some of the same ideas and concepts.

Basically get the right size vehicle and engine for the work needed, and do not oversize.

He also stated automotive engineering ran in a 20 year cycle. His theory was if you did not change technology to catch up with the latest trend, every 20 years you would have a brief period where you were 6 months ahead of the trend!

Thanks for your detailed explanations!

Excellent points Ken. a question. Back in my hot rod days, we always used a 0.25lb per bhp/ hour value for fuel burn.

For diesels I was told to use 0.34lb/BHP/ hour and that seems to still be valid when doing fuel consumption estimated for gensets. Which is what I am now more involved with.

Regarding old and new trucks. Your points are equally true. However I happen to be comparing what is essentially similar trucks and the nearly identical engine blocks. In 1965 my step dad bought a new Ford truck pickup with a 300 CID in-line six.

I presently drive a 1995 Ford pickup also equipped with an inline six. I have disabled the air con, do not have super bright lights nor use any other electrical power robbing devices. Vehicle weights are fairly close. The drivign is still all highway driving and the up/down hilly sections prety much cancel out.

Very similar results were also noted when comparing the old 327 Small block chevy and the 1998 350 CID chevy block but fitted with electronic fuel injectio, computers etc. Odly enough th e4.3L V6 chevy engine did not do any better in term of fuel consumption. Probably due to the fact it was in an Astrovan with higher air drag coefficient and greaker gross vehicle weight.

I am quite familiar with the concept you are using in your electric car. I have been looking at similar propulsion systems for boats. The senior naval architect and I have discussed it many times. There is a water taxi service in Ft Lauderdale that uses the exact same principle. Unfortunately they cannot make use of dynamic (regenerative) braking. Even so they realized a 20% improvement in fuel economy compared to their other boats in the fleet running the same route. The other boats were same size / capacity running the same speeds ( all in restricted speed zones in canals) and carrying rougnly the same number of passengers. The consumption figures we spread out over a whole year so unique events that causes spikes would be minimized.

The new boat design was intended to produce less emissions than the conventional Cat 3208 engines. The lower fuel consumption was a surprise bonus.

Yep. The world of science is scattered with rejected ideas because of NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here).

See the Walther submarine propulsion system introduced by the Germans in WW2.

Also , there where many WW2 aircraft power boost systems used such as the water injection system mentioned in the thread .

These systems worked great but the engines would tolerate only short emergency use in combat situations .

As usuall, if an engine is force fed a much more highly volitile addition to its normal fuel it will stress to breaking point . I would assume that a very complicated type of metering system would have to be included in your local guys idea to ensure the engine is not overstressed. Two strokes run both balls hard at the best of times !

In my opinion , you should steer clear of this stuff as it is all B/S.

See this post for water vapor system

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Do-It-Yourself/1979-11-01/Ron-Novaks-Do-It-Yourself-Water-Injection-System.aspx

1979 Mother Earth News article. Seems to indicate a 5-10% boostin fuel economy.

The trouble with hydrogen peroxide is it will lose the extra O atom and revert to H2O unless kept under pressure, and used when fresh.

On the plus side, the extra O would lean the mixture, and water vapor will cool the combustion process.

Way back when I was an apprentice — early 50's — peroxide was trickled into the carburetor while the motor was running to remove carbon build up.
It worked, but often enough created problems like loss of compression and other related problems.
That said, motors then were very, very different!
Water injection was quite prevalent, and we believed that this kept motors free of carbon build up. Not sure about fuel economy, but then at that time nobody cared!
While I have always been sceptical of additives and after market add-ons for use in motors some actually work — or worked at the time and development stage.

I have heard that peroxide and copper alloys don't get on well together. Apparently they produce a lot of heat. Can anyone confirm that for me.

BAB.

well it is one of the theories of the Kursk sinking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Kursk_explosion

Dangerous stuff Hydrogen Peroxide. I would not have it in any vehicle I was driving.

Petrol and diesel are themselves bad enough without adding an oxidizer like that!!!

Safety requirements alone would make a proper viable unit very expensive!

You would know if any Guy had this stuff in his car and had an accident, the scene would look like a small atom bomb had exploded!!! The cleanup would just be a "sweep up" afterwards.....No Bloody Thanks!!

See also:-

HMS Sidon

Interesting stuff peroxide! It is in every reactive catalyst that I can think of, and off the top of my head I can only think of one self igniting/explosive -- which features glycerine --- where it doesn't feature.

That said, I don't think that it warrants Andy's reaction.

You are entitled to your opinion, but please read around the world before replying to this post. I think you are shooting from the hip and not from the brain!!!

Now if you need a brain.......

If you play with this stuff and kill yourself with it, you will be a LONG way down the list of deaths time wise!!!

Now if you want to be "higher" on the list, you will have to think up a new scheme of things.....this stuff is really deadly!!!

Hi Andy.

Yes, Hydrogen Peroxide is indeed a very dangerous stuff. The last muslim terrorists act here in the UK had mixed consentated Hydrogen Peroxide with Chapati flour, one of the bombs was found unexploded in a front garden in London. When the bomb squad got hold of it they detonated it while they filmed the results, this was shown on the TV, and the devastation was enormous!

Spencer.

I worked in a paper mill where they used Hydrogen Peroxide to bleach the pulp. I believe it was about 25% - 30% concentration. A tank was overfilled and a few hundred gallons went in the sewer. Lets just say that our sewer pipes had a 30 year accumulation of gunk and debris, mostly organic, disappear in a few seconds. It blew out very heavy manhole covers about 20 feet into the air for quite a length of pipe.

Thanks.

I have the feel that many replying to this blog have no idea what this stuff can do.....

This (sadly) does not stop the idiots in replying that I am off base or similar!!!!

Scapolie, the old saying is "What you don't understand can still kill you!"

Thanks for your kindly and intelligent support! I welcome it.

Hi Andy.

Just to let you and the others know.

During this weekends bank holiday (3 day's) I have experimented with H2O2 injection on my 1976 Honda 500 Four.

Here are the results, with a 3% solution, engine misfired frequently.

With a 5% solution, the same but lots of smoke.

With a 10% solution, More smoke and less power.

with a 20% solution, lots of smoke/vapour and the same power.

I refused to try a stronger solution as H2O2 above 20% is highly dangerous when in the prescence of oil or any other form of fuel.

Spencer.

A good test. How did you get it into the engine in the first place? Fotos?

Which is why of course that it is next to impossible for normal folks, even to buy a 20% or higher percentage solution......thank God!!

Hi Andy.

Simple really, I used a controlled rate of flow to the the petrol line to the carbs. The rate of H2O2/petrol started at 10/90% all the way to 80/20%, at he highest rate of H2O2 the engine stalled, and there was no way that I could start the engine again with that mixture.

I don't own a camera at the moment as my last camera packed it in last february, it was a Voightlander Vito B, I am thinking of going over to a digital camera in the future. Please don't ask how I got hold of high concentrated H2O2!

Spencer.

Thanks for the info and I agree it is better nobody knows how you obtained that stuff!!

Scapolie, for what it's worth, my information is that H2O2 is supposed to be injected as a vapor into th eincoming air stream NOT through the carburetor. As for the ratio. The peroxide vqapor is drawn in with a mild vaccum of 2 inches of water column.

One liter should last 2000 kilometer on a 400 CC engine and approximately 1000 plus kilometers on an 800 cc engine. your mix is way too rich!

That makes the injection rate / volume much less than for example nitrous oxide or even propane. Both of which have been used for at least a decade around these parts. Nox and propane started with the drag racing crowd but soon migrated to street vehicles. In the old days it was moonshine delivery in the Ozark hills but these days its more likey to be bud runners; but I digress.

In any event I have decided to forget about cleaning up my emissions. At least until I win a lottery and can afford to buy a vehicle that is less than 20 yeas old. Even a Prius cost the eequivalent of two years income. The car payments would be more than the rent is.

Many moons ago in the 50's a friend of mine worked for a company that would come up with a gimic and stock them then the owner would go around the US selling them by putting large ads in the paper and having a local business or 2 as seller. Made a fortune. One of his gimmics was water injection for cars/trucks. It was simple a ceramic bowl assembly replaced the air filter. As the air went into the engine it passed thru the ceramic bowl drawing water with it. the faster the car went the more water was "Injected" part of ad. It had a water tank and hose to the ceramic unit to extend the time before adding water. With all his auto gimmics it included a tune up which probably added most of the improvement.

I would get me one of the hydrogen generators. You can read about and order from

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

They have generators but no storage tanks. They believe that is why Stan Meyers was posioned because he builts a dune buggy that actually ran off of water. We will never know since the dune buggy and his electrical device was stolen quickly after his death.

That dog won't hunt around here. See the thread "Saving MPG with Brown Gas Generator" on this site for the gory details.

Well I figured since he was not going to do a valve job or rebuild the engine to clean up his emission then maybe he would benifit from a little boost. He would have to install a 100 am alternator to get a 30 am line run to the hydrogen generator. A little is all you get.

See posts 10 and 11. Water vapor injection seems to be able to do the same thing for a lot less.

I think what ried means is that you are in the wrong discussion forum. The free energy forum is "Keelynet".

Please feel free to look thru CR4 at the previous posts on water powered cars for explanations on why these scams and hopelessly wrong ideas do not really work in the real world. I and others have spent enough time writing them to help inform and educate people who don't really understand the fundamentals and science behind the "it seemed like a good idea at the time" ideas.

I thought alcohol, with its usual cargo of dissolved water, would provide all the "water injection" an automobile engine could handle.

Are not 2 stroke engines banned in most states by now because they are so polluting? If this is a trend, then an improvement to a 2 stroke engine would be akin to an improvement in buggy whip design.

There are a few two strokes around in scooters and motorcycles "grandfathered" in from the 1970s and such but 99.9% of vehicles that can be registered for the road are using a 4-cycle engine of some sort in some application.

The efforts I've seen to try to bring two strokes back have always failed due to pollution considerations.

I was referring to gasoline based 2 strokes. I understand the diesel 2 stroke engines are still being produced in great numbers...being one of the most efficient and best engine s for long haul trucking.

GA

The campaign to outlaw all two strokes in the states met a brick wall when the senator proposing the bill was informed that 90% of his voters owned two stroke engine in their boats and such.

Besides, this peroxide injection product is being marketed in Northern BC not some southern metropolis. There are thousands of two cycle engines stil in use here. Banning them all would be about as realistic as banning private vehicles and insisting everyone use public transit, several hundred miles from the nearest town with public transit.

Are not 2 stroke engines banned in most states by now because they are so polluting?

Most two strokes (and all of the typical pre year 2000 ones) cannot meet EPA or CARB requirements. However there are still loads of 2 stroke personal watercraft (Jet Skis, etc) on the water, millions of 2 stroke outboards, some two stroke scooters through model year 2006, and just a few older motorcycles left. So the idea, I suppose is to clean up older engines -- but you would have to be doing this out of the goodness of your heart, at least in the US, where old engines are allowed to continue to run.

When I wrote, above, that an improvement seems possible, I was assuming a fairly high concentration of H2O2. But in 3% strength, which Elnav is thinking is the strength used, I can't imagine that you could get anything close enough to make a meaningful difference before the water quantity acts like a fire extinguisher. Even in high concentrations, an improvement to an old engine to bring it up to anything close to the requirements for new marine engines seems extremely unlikely. Direct injection (used on modern marine two strokes which meet current standards) makes a huge difference in emissions (well over an order of magnitude improvement) because you eliminate the fundamental problem of old style two strokes, in which the transfer ports and exhaust ports are open at the same time, while fresh mixture is coming out of the transfer ports (and right out the exhaust port). With direction injection, only air comes out of the transfer port, and injection doesn't occur until after the exhaust port has closed. With the right injection quantity, all the fuel can be burned just before the exhaust port opens. Voila -- a clean two stroke. (And not something you'd want to muck around with by injection H2O2.)

As I said before, I wouldn't want it around an engine.

in my eternal search for knowledge regarding all things on wheels every once in a while i come across something that makes my testes retract into my body.

i would relly just use a supercharger,tubo or such and be over with.building an engine to use jet fuel seems safer and better.

http://www.detroitdiesel.com/engines/mbe900/

Regards.

Bill

I personally do not agree with basically anything in this post.

This appears to come from the Campaign for Radical and Analytical Problems, well known as C.R.A.P.

It is not based on testing, it is based on opinion, that is a very weak standpoint to have.

Sorry, but true!!! Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but none of us must agree!!!

I had respected you because of your good answer percentage. I didn't realize you could vote for yourself. Looks like Ford might be onto hijacking your bandwagon with the something for nothing improvements. I'm biting. I like Ford.

http://ford.digitalsnippets.com/2008/04/02/ecoboost-lowers-annual-fuel-costs/

Yusef1, I must have misunderstood something, but what did this link have to do with this blog, please be so kind as to explain. Thanks in advance for a full and interesting explanation.....

Nice engine in spite of the misunderstanding!!

All H2O2 does is make the engine to run lean. Anyone with enough knowledge with engine will know a lean engine is cleaner. They will also know they don't need to add anything to the fuel to get the engine to run lean. Any engine/fuel tuning device will get the same or better result.

H2O2 is highly unstable. It'll release O2 even under sunlight. How could one store it inside a moving temp varying vehicle and keep it stable and safe is beyond my knowledge. Unless people using it doesn't know it had became pure water.

Hydrogen peroxide will be a mix of H2O2, an (oxidizer), and water.

You will get a boost in BMEP, but will you save $ or energy overall?

H2O2 is expensive in both money and energy.

The consensus is that Hydrogen Peroxide cannot deliver the goods - however - Nitrous Oxide can really get you moving!

That wimpy little extra oxygen molecule just can't cut the mustard any more.