In any event, experimenting with "water fuel cells" is potentially extremely hazardous, both to the experimenter in the short term (fire/explosion hazard), and the engine over the long (or even short) term. Dramatically increasing the speed of the flame front by introducing a stochiometric hydrogen/oxygen mix will hammer the dickens out of pistons & rings, cylinders and rod/main bearings, likely leading to premature failures - even if the ignition timing is significantly retarded.

The schematics that I'm using make use of a dual electrolysis method using a coil and an electrode. The one produces a much slower burning gas that should be easier on the pistons.

Point of clarification, if you please... Are you claiming our cars spit unburned fuel out the tailpipe? If so, please document. If not, please clarify.

Its not that much totally unburnt fuel comes out of the exhaust, but there are alot of intermediate molecules that aren't totally burnt. If you think about the chemistry of an internal combustion engine, under ideal conditions, the only end products should be CO2 and H2O. As such, there are always a vast number of other carbon compounds excreted from the engine due to the inefficiency of the process.

 

There is something like magic here. You state -

The schematics that I'm using make use of a dual electrolysis method using a coil and an electrode. The one produces a much slower burning gas that should be easier on the pistons.

- which leads to questions.

Electrolysis of water can only produce hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. That's all. How (and what) is it that your "dual electrolysis" is able to produce something that burns slower? Are you claiming to be making something other than H2 & O2?

 

All the energy is stored in the water which is totally non-combustible,

Zero energy is stored in water - otherwise it would be combustible. We have to put energy into the water in order to break the hydrogen out.

 

If you think about the chemistry of an internal combustion engine, under ideal conditions, the only end products should be CO2 and H2O. As such, there are always a vast number of other carbon compounds excreted from the engine due to the inefficiency of the process.

This is why government places emissions controls on modern engines. Note well: removing those feedback hoses improves mileage. So I ask again for documentation of how hydrogen makes gasoline more efficient. Please provide said documentation.

 

Electrolysis of water can only produce hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. That's all. How (and what) is it that your "dual electrolysis" is able to produce something that burns slower? Are you claiming to be making something other than H2 & O2?

Hydrogen has various spin isomers some of which burn slower than others. I don't want to go into the complex chemistry of it, but what I'm experimenting on is the possibility that this "dual electrolysis" method may produce sufficient quantities of the slow burning type so as to slow the overall combustion.

Zero energy is stored in water - otherwise it would be combustible. We have to put energy into the water in order to break the hydrogen out.

Of course. I simply used that term loosely. I can't say for certain whether I will be able to increase the engine efficiency enough to justify the use of water, but the point I wanted to make was that storing water in your car is a lot less dangerous than storing tanks of Hydrogen.

This is why government places emissions controls on modern engines. Note well: removing those feedback hoses improves mileage. So I ask again for documentation of how hydrogen makes gasoline more efficient. Please provide said documentation.

Fair enough. Its not a very well documented subject but there have been papers written. HERE is one which found that introducing Hydrogen or natural gas to an internal combustion engine decreased the emissions of HC, CO2, CO, ash and clinker. I would assume that by decreasing these emissions one allows the engine to burn more efficiently, producing more energy to drive the pistons.

 

There are only two states for hydrogen atoms to assume - ortho and para, having to do with the orientation of electron spin. The ortho and para spin states of hydrogen have significance only when the gas is liquified. The para state flips over to the ortho with the release of a small but significant amount of energy. When the gaseous state atoms combine with oxygen, no extra energy is released when the hydrogen atom is in either state.

This is classic scam misinformation. There is absolutely no way for the average person to check on things like spin state, so it can seem very impressive when a device appears with the "ability" to produce excess para (or ortho, who knows?) hydrogen with more energy than the ortho.

Let me put it to you: If chemists are and have been aware of these spin states in hydrogen, don't you think they might have noticed the differences the scam artists are claiming? Hydrogen has been the most important propellant in rocketry for many years, after all. Any even slightly significant difference in combustion would have been not only noticed but taken advantage of.

 

HERE is one which found that introducing Hydrogen or natural gas to an internal combustion engine decreased the emissions of HC, CO2, CO, ash and clinker.

That's not a paper. That's an ad for the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.

Note also: reduced emissions do not equate to better mileage.

 

If chemists are and have been aware of these spin states in hydrogen, don't you think they might have noticed the differences the scam artists are claiming? Hydrogen has been the most important propellant in rocketry for many years, after all. Any even slightly significant difference in combustion would have been not only noticed but taken advantage of.

like I said, I'm just an experimenter, not a chemist. I do this kinda stuff as a hobby. It might not work, but at least its fun. And if it does work then its a bonus. After all, looking back into history, you see alot of inventions that were scorned at by the current academics, but later turned out to be legitimate. Especially in the field of energy, I find many people to be incredibly closed-minded.

That's not a paper. That's an ad for the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.

Note also: reduced emissions do not equate to better mileage.

erm... I do believe that is a journal article.

Reduced emissions don't equate to better mileage when the intermediate molecules are disposed of after combustion in the cylinder...

 

Try water injection for improving internal combustion efficiency.

 

Really, you are chasing a wild goose here. It is interesting to produce hydrogen. There are more efficient ways to produce it, yes, but efficiency can't go further than 100%. I know. It is just impossible!

Your method will certainly release heat in some way, and you are already loosing energy. By burning all the generated hydrogen (thus generating water again), you will never recover all the energy that was spent producing it from water.

 

This ran its course two years ago. No further enlightenment is going to come for restating things an eighth time.