HHO/Hydroxy/Hydrogen Fuel Systems


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Cafe SETI : HHO/Hydroxy/Hydrogen Fuel Systems

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 9 · Next
Author Message
Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 780723 - Posted: 8 Jul 2008, 14:16:53 UTC - in response to Message 780678.

Tesla claims 2 to 3 cents per mile.


Which agrees with William's calculations, except for the decimal point being one place to far to the right for William.

____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24785
Credit: 524,053
RAC: 86
United States
Message 780678 - Posted: 8 Jul 2008, 11:32:41 UTC - in response to Message 780528.

The tesla battery and all control electronics weigh in at 1000 lbs. They will get better after new polymer and manufacturing technology comes on line.

The Tesla roadster weighs around 2690 lbs and is based on the Lotus Elise body

The car can travel 220 mi (350 km)[2] on a single charge of its lithium-ion battery pack and accelerate from 0-60 mph (97 km/h) in 3.9 seconds with the development transmission. The Roadster's efficiency is reported as 133 W·h/km (4.7 mi/kW·h), equivalent to 135 mpg–U.S. (1.74 L/100 km / 162.1 mpg–imp).

Their figures I may check them later.

4.5 KWH per mile 20-30 cents at current electrical rates

OK. Just call me confused. But is that 20-30 cents per mile for driving this battery powered buggy? If so, my Petrol powered vehicle at 25 MPG is cheaper even with todays prices at roughly 16 cents per mile. (All US scales...)



That what I was thinking. Would have to rig some kind of solar power charging system to it to make it worth while.

Tesla claims 2 to 3 cents per mile.
____________


BOINC WIKI

Profile UliProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 00
Posts: 10009
Credit: 5,470,266
RAC: 192
Germany
Message 780528 - Posted: 8 Jul 2008, 2:08:00 UTC - in response to Message 780516.

The tesla battery and all control electronics weigh in at 1000 lbs. They will get better after new polymer and manufacturing technology comes on line.

The Tesla roadster weighs around 2690 lbs and is based on the Lotus Elise body

The car can travel 220 mi (350 km)[2] on a single charge of its lithium-ion battery pack and accelerate from 0-60 mph (97 km/h) in 3.9 seconds with the development transmission. The Roadster's efficiency is reported as 133 W·h/km (4.7 mi/kW·h), equivalent to 135 mpg–U.S. (1.74 L/100 km / 162.1 mpg–imp).

Their figures I may check them later.

4.5 KWH per mile 20-30 cents at current electrical rates

OK. Just call me confused. But is that 20-30 cents per mile for driving this battery powered buggy? If so, my Petrol powered vehicle at 25 MPG is cheaper even with todays prices at roughly 16 cents per mile. (All US scales...)



That what I was thinking. Would have to rig some kind of solar power charging system to it to make it worth while.

____________
Pluto will always be a planet to me.
Order your 15th Seti Anniversary Shirt today. Just PM me for details.
Cash Donation Specialist

Seti Ambassador

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24785
Credit: 524,053
RAC: 86
United States
Message 780525 - Posted: 8 Jul 2008, 2:02:00 UTC - in response to Message 780516.

The tesla battery and all control electronics weigh in at 1000 lbs. They will get better after new polymer and manufacturing technology comes on line.

The Tesla roadster weighs around 2690 lbs and is based on the Lotus Elise body

The car can travel 220 mi (350 km)[2] on a single charge of its lithium-ion battery pack and accelerate from 0-60 mph (97 km/h) in 3.9 seconds with the development transmission. The Roadster's efficiency is reported as 133 W·h/km (4.7 mi/kW·h), equivalent to 135 mpg–U.S. (1.74 L/100 km / 162.1 mpg–imp).

Their figures I may check them later.

4.5 KWH per mile 20-30 cents at current electrical rates

OK. Just call me confused. But is that 20-30 cents per mile for driving this battery powered buggy? If so, my Petrol powered vehicle at 25 MPG is cheaper even with todays prices at roughly 16 cents per mile. (All US scales...)


I think that someone dropped a decimal place or so.

If I recall the estimates (without looking them up again) it was about $5 / full battery charge. I know that I spend in excess of $50 for 300 miles or about $40 for the 200 mile range estimate of the Tesla. That should be a savings of about $17 / 100 miles.
____________


BOINC WIKI

Profile Mumps [MM]
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Feb 08
Posts: 4454
Credit: 8,585,780
RAC: 1,565
United States
Message 780516 - Posted: 8 Jul 2008, 1:54:54 UTC - in response to Message 780367.

The tesla battery and all control electronics weigh in at 1000 lbs. They will get better after new polymer and manufacturing technology comes on line.

The Tesla roadster weighs around 2690 lbs and is based on the Lotus Elise body

The car can travel 220 mi (350 km)[2] on a single charge of its lithium-ion battery pack and accelerate from 0-60 mph (97 km/h) in 3.9 seconds with the development transmission. The Roadster's efficiency is reported as 133 W·h/km (4.7 mi/kW·h), equivalent to 135 mpg–U.S. (1.74 L/100 km / 162.1 mpg–imp).

Their figures I may check them later.

4.5 KWH per mile 20-30 cents at current electrical rates

OK. Just call me confused. But is that 20-30 cents per mile for driving this battery powered buggy? If so, my Petrol powered vehicle at 25 MPG is cheaper even with todays prices at roughly 16 cents per mile. (All US scales...)

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24785
Credit: 524,053
RAC: 86
United States
Message 780502 - Posted: 8 Jul 2008, 1:14:42 UTC - in response to Message 780367.

The tesla battery and all control electronics weigh in at 1000 lbs. They will get better after new polymer and manufacturing technology comes on line.

The Tesla roadster weighs around 2690 lbs and is based on the Lotus Elise body

The car can travel 220 mi (350 km)[2] on a single charge of its lithium-ion battery pack and accelerate from 0-60 mph (97 km/h) in 3.9 seconds with the development transmission. The Roadster's efficiency is reported as 133 W·h/km (4.7 mi/kW·h), equivalent to 135 mpg–U.S. (1.74 L/100 km / 162.1 mpg–imp).

Their figures I may check them later.

4.5 KWH per mile 20-30 cents at current electrical rates

By taking a test drive I suppose :)
____________


BOINC WIKI

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2619
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 12
United States
Message 780367 - Posted: 7 Jul 2008, 21:05:39 UTC

The tesla battery and all control electronics weigh in at 1000 lbs. They will get better after new polymer and manufacturing technology comes on line.

The Tesla roadster weighs around 2690 lbs and is based on the Lotus Elise body

The car can travel 220 mi (350 km)[2] on a single charge of its lithium-ion battery pack and accelerate from 0-60 mph (97 km/h) in 3.9 seconds with the development transmission. The Roadster's efficiency is reported as 133 W·h/km (4.7 mi/kW·h), equivalent to 135 mpg–U.S. (1.74 L/100 km / 162.1 mpg–imp).

Their figures I may check them later.

4.5 KWH per mile 20-30 cents at current electrical rates

Sniper
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 99
Posts: 310
Credit: 2,831,142
RAC: 4
United States
Message 780192 - Posted: 7 Jul 2008, 12:18:21 UTC - in response to Message 780185.

Mark

Your questions may have an answer here at Tesla Motors web site.

I am not sure, but I believe the Tesla 2 seater will sport 2 pancake motors in the hubs of the 2 rear wheels which together produce about 250 BHP (electrical equivalent), and not far off the figure you quote.

May I ask how the workshop development of your trial HHO unit is proceeding?


Interesting. That little 2 seater must FLY!

I have been too busy to work on it at all, between work and the farm. It is haying season at home (over a month late this year). It was a cold, wet spring, which did not allow the alfalfa to grow. We used to always cut the 1st cutting of hay on May 20th, this year we still have hay to cut, and it is the end of the 1st week of July.

Must be global warming..... Like the -40 degree temps this past winter.... LOL

Mark



Priorities always take precedent, especially in weather dependent sectors like farming. earning a living is the name of the game.


Exactly. I was off work for about a week, and got an average of 2 to 3 hours sleep per day, due to farm work. I have to come back to work to get any real rest. I ended up baling something like 150 tons of hay while I was home.

No rest for the wicked, and all work and no play makes Mark a boring boy.

Mark

____________

Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 780185 - Posted: 7 Jul 2008, 11:52:33 UTC - in response to Message 780183.

Mark

Your questions may have an answer here at Tesla Motors web site.

I am not sure, but I believe the Tesla 2 seater will sport 2 pancake motors in the hubs of the 2 rear wheels which together produce about 250 BHP (electrical equivalent), and not far off the figure you quote.

May I ask how the workshop development of your trial HHO unit is proceeding?


Interesting. That little 2 seater must FLY!

I have been too busy to work on it at all, between work and the farm. It is haying season at home (over a month late this year). It was a cold, wet spring, which did not allow the alfalfa to grow. We used to always cut the 1st cutting of hay on May 20th, this year we still have hay to cut, and it is the end of the 1st week of July.

Must be global warming..... Like the -40 degree temps this past winter.... LOL

Mark



Priorities always take precedent, especially in weather dependent sectors like farming. earning a living is the name of the game.
____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



Sniper
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 99
Posts: 310
Credit: 2,831,142
RAC: 4
United States
Message 780183 - Posted: 7 Jul 2008, 11:47:00 UTC - in response to Message 780178.

Mark

Your questions may have an answer here at Tesla Motors web site.

I am not sure, but I believe the Tesla 2 seater will sport 2 pancake motors in the hubs of the 2 rear wheels which together produce about 250 BHP (electrical equivalent), and not far off the figure you quote.

May I ask how the workshop development of your trial HHO unit is proceeding?


Interesting. That little 2 seater must FLY!

I have been too busy to work on it at all, between work and the farm. It is haying season at home (over a month late this year). It was a cold, wet spring, which did not allow the alfalfa to grow. We used to always cut the 1st cutting of hay on May 20th, this year we still have hay to cut, and it is the end of the 1st week of July.

Must be global warming..... Like the -40 degree temps this past winter.... LOL

Mark
____________

Profile John Clark
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 99
Posts: 16515
Credit: 4,418,829
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 780178 - Posted: 7 Jul 2008, 11:30:36 UTC

Mark

Your questions may have an answer here at Tesla Motors web site.

I am not sure, but I believe the Tesla 2 seater will sport 2 pancake motors in the hubs of the 2 rear wheels which together produce about 250 BHP (electrical equivalent), and not far off the figure you quote.

May I ask how the workshop development of your trial HHO unit is proceeding?
____________
It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues



Sniper
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 99
Posts: 310
Credit: 2,831,142
RAC: 4
United States
Message 780132 - Posted: 7 Jul 2008, 9:44:18 UTC - in response to Message 780122.

Comments on recent posts:

Don't know about auto factory economics but the general rule when I worked briefly at a production facility as an industrial engineer:

Direct part cost time's five.
Direct Labor cost times 4

That would use a "Bill of Materials" and arrive at the selling price. We bought all of our parts (metals) we would use raw stock for machining into assembly sub components. We didn't try to make our own wire or work with ore to produce metal stock. We bought copper, brass and steel stock.

That would mean your $30,000 dollar car might actually have maybe $4000 dollars worth of raw parts cost. The rest is overhead labor, direct assembly labor labor , benefits, Building, utilities, engineering, transportation, machinery, tool and dies, energy, maintenance, billing. purchasing , personnel, etc.

There is no conspiracy
There is no fish carburetor that gets 100 miles per gallon in a big american V-8 powered auto that weighed 4000 lbs.

There is no magnetic insert into the fuel stream that gains combustion efficiency
There is no cheap "Turbolator" that is self powered that atomizes the fuel for more efficient combustion.

You cannot "run" a car on water you need a massive amount of external energy to break down the water. There will always be a huge energy loss if you try to do this all on a vehicle,

Hydrogen produced externally may be a solution but it is probably safer, easier, and cheaper to run the car directly on the stored electricity. We will need better and cheaper batteries and an efficient small engine when the battery runs out on extended trips. This is what I would bet on will evolve in the not too distant future.


How big will the batteries have to be to run a 300 HP electric motor for 200 miles?

How large will the vehicle have to be to carry both the 300 HP electric motor, and the batteries to power it?

Mark
____________

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2619
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 12
United States
Message 780122 - Posted: 7 Jul 2008, 8:48:00 UTC
Last modified: 7 Jul 2008, 8:56:47 UTC

Comments on recent posts:

Don't know about auto factory economics but the general rule when I worked briefly at a production facility as an industrial engineer:

Direct part cost time's five.
Direct Labor cost times 4

That would use a "Bill of Materials" and arrive at the selling price. We bought all of our parts (metals) we would use raw stock for machining into assembly sub components. We didn't try to make our own wire or work with ore to produce metal stock. We bought copper, brass and steel stock.

That would mean your $30,000 dollar car might actually have maybe $4000 dollars worth of raw parts cost. The rest is overhead labor, direct assembly labor labor , benefits, Building, utilities, engineering, transportation, machinery, tool and dies, energy, maintenance, billing. purchasing , personnel, etc.

There is no conspiracy
There is no fish carburetor that gets 100 miles per gallon in a big american V-8 powered auto that weighed 4000 lbs.

There is no magnetic insert into the fuel stream that gains combustion efficiency
There is no cheap "Turbolator" that is self powered that atomizes the fuel for more efficient combustion.

You cannot "run" a car on water you need a massive amount of external energy to break down the water. There will always be a huge energy loss if you try to do this all on a vehicle,

Hydrogen produced externally may be a solution but it is probably safer, easier, and cheaper to run the car directly on the stored electricity. We will need better and cheaper batteries and an efficient small engine when the battery runs out on extended trips. This is what I would bet on will evolve in the not too distant future.

1mp0£173
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 779973 - Posted: 6 Jul 2008, 22:08:40 UTC - in response to Message 779756.


Sorry Ned.
But you have no idea.

You have around 5000 parts in one car.Lets say.
I´m selling steering wheels.
The price is calculated by the price of each part plus a charge of 50%.
Lets say my wheel costs in 2000 $200.
Now it costs maybe $30 but the car isn´t any cheaper.
So they are rising the profits every year.
Each company of the world with every parts.
We had to set 800 workers free in 2005 to pay the costs of the manufaturers.

Believe it or not.

Again, what does this have to do with Mercedes wanting to take care of the oil companies? Does Mercedes really care if a refinery goes broke just because they're selling cars that don't run on Gasoline?
____________

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24785
Credit: 524,053
RAC: 86
United States
Message 779778 - Posted: 6 Jul 2008, 17:08:08 UTC - in response to Message 779769.


No John this part is working.
The problem is thermal.
I´ve seen a working model.


You have seen what someone claims is a working model. There are also salesmen that can sell sand to Saudia Arabia. I am claiming that any such demonstration is draining a battery someplace in the system, or mis-measuring inputs and outputs somehow.

Can you split water into hydrogen and oxygen? Yes. Onboard a car? Yes. Is it possible to get better mileage based on splitting the water into hydrogen and oxygen and then re-combining them without supplying any outside power? No. Effeciency prevents you from creating from nothing. This a classic perpetual motion scheme, and it cannot work.

Using water as a fuel that you put into your fuel tank in the car is a scam, and cannot work.

This is completely different from splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen outside of the car. This is using hydrogen as an energy storage system, and will work - it may or may not be better for the environment than burning fossil fuels because it is only an energy storage system, not an energy source. The energy has to come from someplace else - burning coal, burning natural gas, solar, geothermal, wind, and nuclear are all options.
____________


BOINC WIKI

Profile MikeProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 01
Posts: 24865
Credit: 34,402,924
RAC: 13,497
Germany
Message 779769 - Posted: 6 Jul 2008, 16:41:11 UTC


No John this part is working.
The problem is thermal.
I´ve seen a working model.


____________

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 99
Posts: 24785
Credit: 524,053
RAC: 86
United States
Message 779764 - Posted: 6 Jul 2008, 16:36:38 UTC - in response to Message 779755.


But its all about money.

How could the market make money if you could fill your car in the garden just with water.

The car companies don't care about "the market" in general. They're in the business of selling cars.

High fuel prices are an opportunity to sell fuel efficient cars. Low fuel prices are an opportunity to sell bigger, less efficient cars.

Respond to (or predict) the market correctly, and your car company will do well.

If that means filling your car from the garden hose, great!

The problem is that water does not burn. You have to do something to make "fuel" out of water and that takes energy -- which you end up buying somewhere.


Wrong Ned sorry.
I´m working in that buisness.
They do care.
Back in the 80s a german mechanic produed a small part to reduce the emission of every car back to zero.
The price was just $15.
So what has happend ?
Mercedes buyed the patent and destroyed it.

So, they have this along with the patented 100-mile-per-gallon carburetor?

Sorry, Mike. Your story just doesn't make sense.

Besides, Mercedes is in the business of selling cars. If they could use a $15 part in place of the rather expensive emission controls they need now, they'd do it in a heartbeat. If they could license the part to every other manufacturer (because they owned the rights) and cash in, they'd price those rights a bit below the expensive emissions systems used now, and make a killing.


Oh it doesn´t make sense?
Because you aren´t in that buisness.
Now they using parts wich they earn €100 per piece.
No sense to you?

My original statement is that the car companies don't care about the oil companies, just about selling cars.

Your "evidence" that I'm wrong is the existence of some $15 part that makes a car run cleaner -- it's nice, but it doesn't say anything about what kind of fuel the car uses.

there is still the thermodynamics problem with water as a fuel. Firts you have to break the water into oxygen and hydrogen. Then you have to combine them again. No step in this process is even 1005 efficient. Therefore, you are going to lose gasoline mileage, not gain gasoline mileage.
____________


BOINC WIKI

Profile MikeProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 01
Posts: 24865
Credit: 34,402,924
RAC: 13,497
Germany
Message 779758 - Posted: 6 Jul 2008, 16:31:29 UTC - in response to Message 779755.


But its all about money.

How could the market make money if you could fill your car in the garden just with water.

The car companies don't care about "the market" in general. They're in the business of selling cars.

High fuel prices are an opportunity to sell fuel efficient cars. Low fuel prices are an opportunity to sell bigger, less efficient cars.

Respond to (or predict) the market correctly, and your car company will do well.

If that means filling your car from the garden hose, great!

The problem is that water does not burn. You have to do something to make "fuel" out of water and that takes energy -- which you end up buying somewhere.


Wrong Ned sorry.
I´m working in that buisness.
They do care.
Back in the 80s a german mechanic produed a small part to reduce the emission of every car back to zero.
The price was just $15.
So what has happend ?
Mercedes buyed the patent and destroyed it.

So, they have this along with the patented 100-mile-per-gallon carburetor?

Sorry, Mike. Your story just doesn't make sense.

Besides, Mercedes is in the business of selling cars. If they could use a $15 part in place of the rather expensive emission controls they need now, they'd do it in a heartbeat. If they could license the part to every other manufacturer (because they owned the rights) and cash in, they'd price those rights a bit below the expensive emissions systems used now, and make a killing.


Oh it doesn´t make sense?
Because you aren´t in that buisness.
Now they using parts wich they earn €100 per piece.
No sense to you?

My original statement is that the car companies don't care about the oil companies, just about selling cars.

Your "evidence" that I'm wrong is the existence of some $15 part that makes a car run cleaner -- it's nice, but it doesn't say anything about what kind of fuel the car uses.


Thats correct, but just was an example.


____________

Profile MikeProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 01
Posts: 24865
Credit: 34,402,924
RAC: 13,497
Germany
Message 779756 - Posted: 6 Jul 2008, 16:30:15 UTC


Sorry Ned.
But you have no idea.

You have around 5000 parts in one car.Lets say.
I´m selling steering wheels.
The price is calculated by the price of each part plus a charge of 50%.
Lets say my wheel costs in 2000 $200.
Now it costs maybe $30 but the car isn´t any cheaper.
So they are rising the profits every year.
Each company of the world with every parts.
We had to set 800 workers free in 2005 to pay the costs of the manufaturers.

Believe it or not.

____________

1mp0£173
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 779755 - Posted: 6 Jul 2008, 16:25:46 UTC - in response to Message 779752.


But its all about money.

How could the market make money if you could fill your car in the garden just with water.

The car companies don't care about "the market" in general. They're in the business of selling cars.

High fuel prices are an opportunity to sell fuel efficient cars. Low fuel prices are an opportunity to sell bigger, less efficient cars.

Respond to (or predict) the market correctly, and your car company will do well.

If that means filling your car from the garden hose, great!

The problem is that water does not burn. You have to do something to make "fuel" out of water and that takes energy -- which you end up buying somewhere.


Wrong Ned sorry.
I´m working in that buisness.
They do care.
Back in the 80s a german mechanic produed a small part to reduce the emission of every car back to zero.
The price was just $15.
So what has happend ?
Mercedes buyed the patent and destroyed it.

So, they have this along with the patented 100-mile-per-gallon carburetor?

Sorry, Mike. Your story just doesn't make sense.

Besides, Mercedes is in the business of selling cars. If they could use a $15 part in place of the rather expensive emission controls they need now, they'd do it in a heartbeat. If they could license the part to every other manufacturer (because they owned the rights) and cash in, they'd price those rights a bit below the expensive emissions systems used now, and make a killing.


Oh it doesn´t make sense?
Because you aren´t in that buisness.
Now they using parts wich they earn €100 per piece.
No sense to you?

My original statement is that the car companies don't care about the oil companies, just about selling cars.

Your "evidence" that I'm wrong is the existence of some $15 part that makes a car run cleaner -- it's nice, but it doesn't say anything about what kind of fuel the car uses.
____________

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 9 · Next

Message boards : Cafe SETI : HHO/Hydroxy/Hydrogen Fuel Systems

Copyright © 2014 University of California