Running Solaras on ethanol (e85) works!

[RDKamikaze]

And speaking of myths, I'm sure glad nobody's thrown the "But MythBusters proved it wrong!" card. They did such a half-!#% job at HHO, because they tried to prove that a car could run on HHO ALONE, not be incorporated with gas. So MythBusters did it wrong if they wanted to run their car WITH HHO, along with a bit of other myths. Just a little snipit.

How is the use of HHO trying to defy the laws of physics? The only real debate I've seen about it is the whole "but it defies thermodynamics!" Nobody cares to explain that, however, they just mention it and others listening agree. Is this some unwritten code that everyone knows about but me?

And you all have to remember, I'm just a kid. I don't know all this super fancy scientific blah blah, that's why I'm in college. Someone has to sit me down and explain it to me, or at least why it applies to what I'm doing, or else researching it will be very tough. Thanks!

[Somedude]

You didn't explain how you are getting 70mpg when you travelled 426 miles on a tank with that HHO and gasoline, that doesn't make sense at all.

If your car traveled 70mpg, then you would have travelled 1000-1200 miles per tank, is that even remotely possible with the Solara? I don't think so.
-----------------------------

How is the use of HHO trying to defy the laws of physics? The only real debate I've seen about it is the whole "but it defies thermodynamics!" Nobody cares to explain that

If you read carefully, both of your threads (the ethanol one and the HHO one), some members did explain the physics.
---------------------------------------------------------[/quote]

[gnegroni]

Fair enough, didn't mean to be rude.

However: there are certainly subjects where everyone's opinion has equal value, and must be considered: "Do you like chocolate or vanilla?"

There are other questions where the answer is subjective, but some people have more extensive grounding on the subject.
For example: I've reviewed and critiqued perhaps 10,000 divorce cases before retirement, so I'm pretty strong here (by the way - an FAQ I wrote for the Supreme Court is still up: http://www.victorylibrary.com/divorce/faq.htm )
On the other hand, electrons are a strange and frightening topic to me, so I try not to guess unless it's really simple.

The whole hydrogen thing is not really an engineering or scientific discussion, but an attempt to violate the laws of physics. There can be no difference of opinion on this, you either know it's impossible or you don't.
For a historical analogy: we're in Pisa, it's 1620. Aristotle stated 1900 years prior that the speed of a falling object is proportionate to its weight. Galileo proves this is not true, reversing and translating the prediction from (incorrect) opinion to fact. As of that date, the matter is no longer subjective.

Your first comment shows what a real gentlemen you are...greatly appreciated! (also bookmarked your FAQ )

In a way, I share your though on this not being something so simple. Even if it appears to be rolling all over laws of physics and thermodynamics, I don't think the answer is just laying there.

I can appreciate hard facts and applied science. I will usually rally around data before I will myths fed by hope and wishful thinking, but there's still a part of me that likes to think that there are still some crazy notions, ideas and undiscovered theories out there that might just impact us in a great way as well.

on that and the making know-it-all comment!

[panic]

We're probably all stumbling over some factors we don't see or understand.
However, for this to be valid hydrogen is either:
1. adding power, so less gas is needed
2. changing the way the engine uses gas
3. combination of 1. & 2.

I think we can rule out 1. simply because the amount of electrical power required to produce 5 hp worth of hydrogen from water (even with no losses) is far beyond the capacity of any alternator. The electric superchargers (not the $59.95 bilge pumps, the ones that actually work) rely on huge ganged battery packs in the trunk, since such a large draw would kill the ignition instantly if switched on. It's just math: the alternator does not, cannot produce 263 amps. 5 hp from your home outlet still requires 3,730 watts, but at 115 volts it's only 32 amps - slightly above a single service line, and only 17 amps at 220 volts - fairly normal for an electric compressor.

2. is, as far as I can tell, valid in that the combustion process is altered. In what way, and to what degree is the remaining question.
Remember that the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine is not entirely contained in the burning process - about 2/3 of the energy produced is lost as heat after combustion through the radiator and exhaust, or transferred at high loss to the transmission (parasitic loads, bearings, pumping loss). Hydrogen cannot change these. The mileage claims vastly exceed anything I've ever read on BTU per gallon of gas.

[gnegroni]

We're probably all stumbling over some factors we don't see or understand.
However, for this to be valid hydrogen is either:
1. adding power, so less gas is needed
2. changing the way the engine uses gas
3. combination of 1. & 2.

I think we can rule out 1. simply because the amount of electrical power required to produce 5 hp worth of hydrogen from water (even with no losses) is far beyond the capacity of any alternator. The electric superchargers (not the $59.95 bilge pumps, the ones that actually work) rely on huge ganged battery packs in the trunk, since such a large draw would kill the ignition instantly if switched on. It's just math: the alternator does not, cannot produce 263 amps. 5 hp from your home outlet still requires 3,730 watts, but at 115 volts it's only 32 amps - slightly above a single service line, and only 17 amps at 220 volts - fairly normal for an electric compressor.

2. is, as far as I can tell, valid in that the combustion process is altered. In what way, and to what degree is the remaining question.
Remember that the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine is not entirely contained in the burning process - about 2/3 of the energy produced is lost as heat after combustion through the radiator and exhaust, or transferred at high loss to the transmission (parasitic loads, bearings, pumping loss). Hydrogen cannot change these. The mileage claims vastly exceed anything I've ever read on BTU per gallon of gas.

I think we are almost on the same page.

[boaclub923]

seriously, i think it's all a myth.
if it's that easy to make and cheap to produce,
why don't car manufactures mention anything about it?
even start making cars fully operate on HHO?
cause i'm sure it can boost up their car sales by alot~