Water4gas India

Dear Anjeel Babbar,

I have quatoed my experiance you can go trou it. Today onle i got report from Wai freind he also experiance the same as me on Indica Veta. On lpg full tank he use to get 340 kms & with milage buster it has incerse to 415 kms.

Mr. krishna will not belive this but one should exprince this. One again Mr. Praveen Varma kit is highly sucessful. Person is using it on 50 lacks excavator is not fool.

Regards.

Rajan

Post edited to separate it from quoted text.

Dear Rajan,

Thanks for your testimony for Praveen's kit. But it will not help in the subject matter here. We are not  here to conclude whether that person is fool or not to install it on a 50 lakh machine. We are talking technology here. We will appreciate if you let Praveen or Girish put facts forward, answer questions being asked.

To add…

Further participations should STRICTLY be in conformity with the Rules & Guidelines (please read through meticulously).  Failing which, the posts will be deleted straightway even if those otherwise contain meaningful info.

1. Adding small amounts of hydrogen to gasoline produces efficient lean operation by increasing the apparent flame speed and reducing ignition lag.  All those who have done this test have observed this that the engine kind of runs smoother though we have not been able to measure the increase in power due to non avaialability of a Dynamometer yet.

2. TEST DONE ON "BEAR SPA" DIAGNOSTICS:  The actual minimum energy consumption is the same for gasoline and hydroxy-gasoline, although the minimum-energy-consumption equivalence ratio decreases from 0.79 to 0.67. 

3. TEST DONE ON "HORIBA" 4 GAS ANALYSER:  Oxides-of-nitrogen emission levels at the minimum-energy-consumption equivalence ratios are appreciably lower for hydroxy-gasoline than for gasoline alone. At the same equivalence ratio, in the range of practical interest, NOx emissions were higher for hydroxy-gasoline than for gasoline because of hydrogen's higher peak combustion temperatures. Gasoline with hydrogen however gives the highest NOx emission levels. The high inlet temperature can cause higher peak combustion temperatures and, therefore, higher NOx emission levels. This in turn can result into Burnt Valves, valve seats or in a few cases damanged head.  Be careful...

4. For large engines, the hydrocarbon emission levels (HC) of hydroxy-gasoline did not follow the trends reported from lower-compression-ratio engines (Small engines like wagonR), in that hydrocarbon emission levels were lower with hydrogen enrichment at equivalence ratios above 0.80. Hydrocarbon emission levels were somewhat higher for larger engines at minimum-energy consumption equivalence ratios.

Anjeel, the study you have quoted is NASA Technical Note TN-D 8487 "Emissions and total energy consumption of a multicylinder piston engine running on gasoline and hydrogen-gasoline mixture" by John F. Cassidy of Lewis Research Center, Cleveland Ohio. The document is available on the net.

There are several points about this study, that are discussed in the public domain.

* This piece of study is done in 1977. It is only quoted in chosen parts and exploited after that. There are no data of any other generator and its road / dyno testing.

* The size of the engine used is enormous - 7400 cc. Point 4 of your post says the results of a larger engine are not valid for smaller engines. Curiously the engine was operated at very low brake horse power - 36 bhp, which is equivalent to Nano, which has an engine less than tenth the volume of the one used in the study.

* The hydrogen used for the test is BOTTLED. The hydrogen recovered from the exhaust through condensing methanol from the exhaust is recycled only as a side benefit, and is not central to the experiment.

* The hydrogen flow rate is very high - 0.64 kg/hr. The 3 lpm figure Praveen wanted you to run on your WagonR would be equivalent to this being replaced by 0.0001 kg/hr (this is scaled up for the size difference in your engine and the test engine described here). At 3 lpm he was worried you were using too much of hydrogen. There is absolutely no comparison.

* The equivalence ratios are very high, so that production of H2 at the rates required is not practical, especially for a small car.

There is a good reason why mfrs do not resort to these methods to gain a bit of extra benefit. The benefit is too small (if at all) when compared to the risk of totaling your engine because of the effects of lean burn.

I am still looking for some close loop energy analysis of the hydroxy operation.

I quite agree on this, but even at 3 Lpm the results were not too appreciating let alone 1 Lpm been tested by Praveen. What I want to state here is the so called, if it were to be true, the results obtained on 1 Lpm or 3 Lpm do not show a significant difference and the reason I stepped up the Hydroxy production was exactly on the calculations you showed above.  Hat's off, you hit the nail on the head. But I cannot see anyway how I can further increase this production.  I tried producing 5 LPM by stepping up the volts to 150 but I was not sure if this was safe.  The overall improvement remains at not more than 20% “in the longer run” as regards my tests are concerned, and that is exactly my doubt, is it the hydroxyl that is working or it is the manual tweaking of sensors that we are doing to lower down the fuel consumption?

In light of this, I wanted to discuss the design aspect of the Praveen’s kit and compare with my parameters, He is using much smaller fuel cell and running at 1 Lpm and claiming much higher effeciency than my experiment. In theory, my way of thought would be, to enrich the Gasoline mixture by adding Hydroxy and thus improving the flame rate which in turn would improve upon the burning efficiency of the Gasoline-Hydroxy mixture and may be this might work? This is what is been stated in the NASA report. Not to debate on if this Hydrogen is coming from a bottle or otherwise?  But the question remains.  How much of Hydroxy is good? 1 LPM or 10LPM?  How much is good and how much will work, no one has the true answer.

What we are tyring to do is to produce this mixture "on demand" and not storing it in any way. Also do not forget to read on the NOX combustion and overheating aspects mentioned and also confirmed in my Test done on the Horiba 4 gas analyzer. This report has some material which may be considered worth reading.

If at all there are more people who have experimented this device and if they can share their results it might help otherwise, as I see it, it is just leading to an endless debate.

Dear All,

Do not forget Hydrogen is also a green house gas, which is mightier than other green house gases if freed in the enviornment as only H.

it is stable as H2O, but very unstable as H.

Befor going for any system which is producing hydrogen

go search on google find the details and then proceed with caution.

Shailendra.

OK guys, i think for this thread , there are two kinds of people.

1.People having full knowledge of scientific stuff including terms,properties of gases,fuels,apparatus etc.

2.People who have very little or no knowledge of the same. And they would like to know it in the simplest of forms, or at-least explained that way.

I of-course belong to the 2nd group, and on behalf of them, i ask all members of group 1--

This thread is now 224 posts old (including mine ), and continuously we have been going round and round.

Are we reaching to any solution in lay-mans terms ?

Is This Water for GAS technology coming to Our doorstep ?If yes when is it expected ?

And "Water for Gas "technology lovers please don't say "this wont come to Our doorstep, we will have to walk towards it " ,please don't give us 2nd group people this statement, because IF technology is ready to be used, it flies to Our doorstep. And if its not coming to Us as of now,(because i see no ads,no articles,no light on it in everyday life,until now!) It certainly means its not meant for us as of now.

cheers

You can run the car on Hydrogen or Hydroxy even as on date but to generate it on demand from water and get any effeciency out of it, in my opinion may be your great grand child will see the first completely sucessfull test

Okay !So my fellow Group 2 members ,(group classification done in post #228) .

So like my friend Anjeel points out there no reason to be happy very soon, since it is possible, but the process is too tedious, and simplification will require time, ideas, more ideas, more ideas and many more ideas !!

So for the time being, be happy with whatever we have.

And group 1 members ,

Sorry to have interrupted you like that , you guys can carry on with your discussions now. We, group 2 members like this thread , even though its Greek to us, simply because we want to know "When" it will happen first, and "How" and the "know how" maybe later

Cheers