Advertisement
I was watching Mythbusters last night on Discovery. One of the episodes they had on last night (may be a repeat, don't know) was about free/cheap/alternative ways to power a car.
They had five ideas gleaned from the internet, including plans for a hydrolizer, magnets to magically realign the fuel moledules, a high-efficiency carburetor, an acetone/gasoline mixture, and.... WVO.
Needless to say, the magnets did squat. The acetone mixture actually reduced the car's fuel economy, and so did the replacement carb. The hydrolizer couldn't produce enough hydrogen to even turn the car over, although, just to confirm the feasibility, they did demonstrate that the engine would, in fact, operate on bottled hydrogen.
The acetone and magnet tricks were then tried on a newer, fuel-injected car, with the same results. (Couldn't do the hydrogen easily, and couldn't do the carb at all as FI cars have no carb to replace).
Last, but not least, they got out a diesel car, and ran one liter of dinofuel through it, getting 33 MPG. They then ran one liter of filtered WVO through it and got 30MPG, before pointing out that the fuel economy is actually kind of moot because the fuel is available for the asking.
Interestingly enough, they did nothing in the way of heating the fuel tank. Apparently the Mercedes they used for the experiment was perfectly happy running on room-temperature fryer grease. I suspect that the local climate where Mythbusters is filmed (so-cal) may have had something to do with this.
Bottom line, hydroliser, magnets, special carbs and special fuel blends were busted, but WVO feasibility was confirmed.
Just thought you would all like to hear that.
They had five ideas gleaned from the internet, including plans for a hydrolizer, magnets to magically realign the fuel moledules, a high-efficiency carburetor, an acetone/gasoline mixture, and.... WVO.
Needless to say, the magnets did squat. The acetone mixture actually reduced the car's fuel economy, and so did the replacement carb. The hydrolizer couldn't produce enough hydrogen to even turn the car over, although, just to confirm the feasibility, they did demonstrate that the engine would, in fact, operate on bottled hydrogen.
The acetone and magnet tricks were then tried on a newer, fuel-injected car, with the same results. (Couldn't do the hydrogen easily, and couldn't do the carb at all as FI cars have no carb to replace).
Last, but not least, they got out a diesel car, and ran one liter of dinofuel through it, getting 33 MPG. They then ran one liter of filtered WVO through it and got 30MPG, before pointing out that the fuel economy is actually kind of moot because the fuel is available for the asking.
Interestingly enough, they did nothing in the way of heating the fuel tank. Apparently the Mercedes they used for the experiment was perfectly happy running on room-temperature fryer grease. I suspect that the local climate where Mythbusters is filmed (so-cal) may have had something to do with this.
Bottom line, hydroliser, magnets, special carbs and special fuel blends were busted, but WVO feasibility was confirmed.
Just thought you would all like to hear that.
posted by:
|
New York
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Sun, September 10, 2006 - 10:14 AMthey filmed that at the alemeda naval air base, on the old run way out by area 51. mybe they should have combined the hydrogen and the vegi? -
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Mon, September 11, 2006 - 3:55 AM"mybe they should have combined the hydrogen and the vegi?"
That could have been intersting, indeed. However, the hydrolizer they built barely produced anything, although they could use bottled hydrogen, like they did to demonstrate that a gasoline engine can run on it. -
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Mon, September 18, 2006 - 11:34 AMthey should have made a producer gas generator instead of mucking about with a "hydrolizer" -
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Tue, September 19, 2006 - 4:16 AM"they should have made a producer gas generator instead of mucking about with a "hydrolizer""
Perhaps so, but the goal was to test the efficacy of things being sold/offered that are easily found on the internet. Granted, your current piece of advice is, indeed, on the internet, but the likelihood is low that it would appear on the first couple of pages of a Google search. -
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Wed, September 20, 2006 - 1:04 PMTrue, producergas is not as sexy to most people and not as attractive to fabricating a scam around. Thus it is less searchable.
It would be more interesting to see alternatives actually work on TV. Perhaps educate some people on some possibilities they would not have known about rather than give the impression that there are no alternatives except fryer oil for diesels, which most people don't own anyway. Testing the usual suspects doesn't really say anything that hasn't been said over and over again, except perhaps quiet a few of the water engine evangelists.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Wed, September 20, 2006 - 1:36 PMI'm curious did they use plans for a hydrolizer that is installed in a car, or a home based one? I havent seen the show, although I am a avid Mythbusters fan. I'll keep an eye out.
I've heard alot of chatter about folks adding a hydrolzer to the intake of their vehicle and getting gains in fuel economy of up to 10%. Which is an incredible claim. However I havent found anything, other then websites selling these things (with their all to believable testimonials) that are claiming these numbers.
Doing some basic calculations, their is no way to crack water by electrolysis fast enough to produce enough hydrogen and oxygen to even run a lawnmower engine. The amount of energy alone to do that on a large scale would be inpracticle for a passenger vehicle.
That is not even taking into account the efficiency of the process. Which is low and probably one of the singlemost contributing factor to why hydrogen is at best an experimental technology. The hydrogen fuel cell is a fantasy. I really doubt we will see folks running around with platinum laced engines running on hydrogen.
Now I'm going for a drive in my yttrium laced engine powered by cold fusion.
-
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Thu, September 21, 2006 - 5:19 AM"I'm curious did they use plans for a hydrolizer that is installed in a car, or a home based one? I havent seen the show, although I am a avid Mythbusters fan. I'll keep an eye out. "
It was small enough that it could have been installed in a car, but they didn't bother, since they were just running dyno tests for the most part, so they just put it up to one side like they were giving the car an IV drip.
Later, when they used the bottled hydrogen, Jamie overfed the engine (Jamie was under the hood, Adam was behind the wheel) and started a fire. I think Jamie actually showed some emotion for a moment.
"I've heard alot of chatter about folks adding a hydrolzer to the intake of their vehicle and getting gains in fuel economy of up to 10%. Which is an incredible claim."
Yeah, that would be not so much as a result of the energy produced by the burning hydrogen as it would be resulting from improved combustion, i.e. using the hydrogen as a sort of gaseous kindling. It is, indeed, an incredible claim.
Basically, hydrogen has become the latest magic bullet technology, akin to snake oil.
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Wed, November 29, 2006 - 4:24 PMFuel cells are not fantasy. Nor are they particularly new. Allis-Chalmers built and demonstrated a fuel cell powered tractor in 1959. The problem isn't the fuel cell, the problem is - where are you gonna get all that hydrogen? It doesn't exactly hang around too long in elemental form and takes quite a bit more energy to release it from bonds than it's worth.
The answer to that would be sustainable (which, unfortunately, too many proponents think is the same thing as "free" and "unlimited") energy, as in wind and solar. But, on the other hand I can think of more efficient uses for energy no matter how sustainable it is. Like storing it in batteries...
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Mon, October 1, 2007 - 8:56 AMyou are right about the fact that to break the water molecule into oxigen and hydrogen consumes more energy than what the hydrogen can produce as a fuel later on. But, there are a lot of facts that support a hydrogen era, including the most known -prices of crude oil- which is making other alternatives, once very expensive, very feasible. The latest research is aimed at producing hydrogen using electricity generated at a renewable energy producing facility. The whole point of hydrogen is that it is a lot more efficient -as an energy accumulation medium-, than conventional car batteries. Besides, as Mythbusters demonstrated, regular internal combustion engines CAN be run on pure hydrogen. What better than a fuel you can even produce at your house? Another point in favor of hydrogen, as opposed to cold fusion as you mentioned: hydrogen tecnologies are completely available TODAY. Cold fusion isn´t. The world is rapidly looking for a solution RIGHT NOW. Most economists agree that the oil era is soon to be over forever, since the cheapest type of oil -Sweet Light Crude- is already falling behind the demmand, reflecting this in the price. By the way, BMW has a hydrogen car, Mazda has one, Ford has one, and some other brands, that are ALREADY for sale... right now. Pretty expensive though, but they are on the market. -
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Tue, October 2, 2007 - 3:24 AMHydrogen probably does have a better shelf life than the charge in a battery; I'll give you that. Does making hydrogen, then re-oxidizing it, lose less energy in transition than storing a charge in a battery short-term? I think the jury is still out here.
As for using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine.... yes, you can, but why? An electric motor is a far more efficient converter of energy to torsion, especially at low RPM, which is why a 200HP electric car can whip a 500HP gasoline car's ass on a drag strip :-)
-
-
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Thu, September 21, 2006 - 6:07 AMI am surpised that they did not point out just how little free WVO there is around compared to the actual demand for diesel. The entire output of one restaurant for a week is not enough to provide fuel even for 1/6 of the staff that works there, let alone the people that drive to and from the place. -
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Fri, September 22, 2006 - 2:10 PMAre you talking about Mcdonalds or a good chinese resturant that uses lots of oil in cooking and changes the fryer oil more often? I have heard of resturants that change fryer oil daily and others like mcdonalds that change oil every week or every other week! -
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Wed, September 27, 2006 - 1:44 AMI have heard a lot of claims and seen an installed hydrolizer in a diesel car running on biodiesel. The owner claimed to see a 10-15% increase in fuel economy. A professor student I know claims to be getting the same results in a gasoline car.
It is certainly impossible to produce hydrogen fast enough to fuel th car. The systems I have seen produce a small quantity of hydrogen and feed it into the air injector like mentioned before to cleane up the combustion. There is some merit to that possibility I wish they had myth busted that instead. I don't think they read the directions on their hydrolizer. -
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Wed, September 27, 2006 - 5:40 AMWell, seeing as they BUILT the hydroliser, I would think they would have had to have read the directions, how else would they have built it?
On 12V, it produced a meek handful of tiny bubbles. I suspect the design wasn't that good. Regardless, the design was suppoed to violate the laws of thermodynamics by using electricity from the battery to produce fuel for the car. It was guaranteed to fail before they began.
On using hydrogen to clean up the combustion of an otherwise-fueled engine, I'd like to have seen that one, too. I think it is an interesting idea, and I would like to see, conclusively, if it is worth all of the hoopla.
-
-
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Wed, November 29, 2006 - 4:39 PMWell, that's true, but irrelevant. For one thing, I think you are underestimating the amount of fry oil a restaurant can use. I worked at a a restaurant where we went through about about 50 gallons a week and that was only changing it twice a week (and not a big or busy restaurant, either). That is about 2500 miles per week and I'm absolutely positive that this would have supplied all the transportation needs of the restaurant staff. But you're right, it would not have supplied all the diesel needs of the whole town. I guess that means we should just throw it away instead, right?
By that argument, we really shouldn't bother with Biodiesel either, since we know that we do not have the agricultural capacity to supply the world's liquid fuel needs - let alone being able to eat, too. Well, scratch that idea. I guess if we can't provide a slam-dunk 100% solution we may just as well throw up our hands and perish.
On the other hand, I don't really care about the diesel needs of everyone else. The vast majority of people aren't driving cars that can burn WVO anyway. If you own an old Mercedes diesel and have the means to do the conversion work, this is worth doing - you can find a restaurant that will supply all your transportation needs and a lot more. You can also quite easily convert your WVO to biodiesel at home and avoid converting your car. Then you can sell all your excess fuel to your buddies, too.
We will need lots of solutions for the coming energy crisis and WVO recycling will certainly be one of them. It's certainly a lot better diposal option than cosmetics.
-
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Sun, November 19, 2006 - 7:02 PMNot sure if this is the same thing (hydrolizater) but I met aguy 20 yr's ago working on such a item and it was suppose to help complete the combustion process, ie act as a catalist something like water injection. Also if you ran it off an unregulated alt. it would produce alot more gasas opposed to running of the 12V. albet you would have to add an extra alt. or you could split the output of one if your were talanted enough to figure it out. -
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Tue, November 21, 2006 - 10:41 PMThe downside of Mythbusters is that quiet often, the tests are unscientific, and they will often run an experiment over and over with varying degrees until they get the results they want. That being said, I love the show regardless.
Case in point regarding the carburetor. I did not see that particular episode, but one thing I do know about carburetors is that picking the right one has EVERYTHING to do with your cars fuel economy and performance. I own a 1957 Chevy Bel Air, all original, with the original carb that was running quite well. Well before I rebuilt the engine, I replaced the original carburetor with a high performance carburetor that managed to score higher horsepower AND fuel efficiency, putting the car above the MPG efficiency of most full size SUVs. -
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Wed, November 22, 2006 - 4:07 AMThat's pretty cool. I kind of realised that this was true about carbs, but didn't realise it could go to the extent you describe. I have generally assumed that there is something similar going for fuel injection.
Further realising, yes, Mythbusters is just a show. Just entertainment. Entertainment for geeks, yes, but still entertainment.
I think the reason this episode was noteworthy is because they actually did get it to work (regardless how many tries they took to get there) which, at least, says it is doable.
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Wed, November 22, 2006 - 9:33 AMthe show is science based. Similar to mister wizard except with more emphasis on fire and explosions.
The original premise of the show was not science it was entertainment, i.e. The main folks involved with the show work are special effects wizards not university geeks.
The science part of it was to cater towards their growing geek base of fans something that was often missing in earlier episodes of the show (christ you should read the message board sometime)....sooo the idea of the show is to recreate or reproduce results that are part of popular myth lore, not to totally debunk the myths with science. Although more often then not they do a good job of that as well. For special effects guys they do a great job entertaining, but dont confuse them with University level scientist running experiments in the most controlled and reliable fashion. -
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Wed, November 22, 2006 - 3:32 PMExactly my point. While unscientific, the show is damn fun to watch. Plus the red head girl is really cute. -
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Wed, November 22, 2006 - 3:45 PMYuu mean Kari Byron
biodiesel.tribe.net/photos/6...61faa9107
Yes, this is what biodiesel is all about
-
Re: WVO on Mythbusters
Fri, November 24, 2006 - 9:48 AM"Plus the red head girl is really cute."
Kari Byron. Yes she is.
I can't read the text in this link, but I don't need to:
forum2.mokkels.nl/cgi-bin/topics.pl
But then, I'm biased. I love redheads, and I married a redhead.
-
-
-
-
