Originally Posted by delatbabel
I've read the paper and I now think that there's some (although limited) merit in it.
I still wish that the people selling these kits referred to the actual scientific paper and used proper scientific / engineering terms for what they are selling, rather than pseudo-science.
The paper was written in 2010 whereas the "pseudoscience" has been around since the 1970s. Sometimes you need to invent new terms and concepts to describe anomalous behaviour.
The main concerns that I have now are as follows:
From the paper, it appears that you need to inject somewhere between 3% and 10% of the total diesel fuel volume (allowing for experimental error and combustion chamber inefficiencies) of H2 and O2 into the fuel stream to gain this efficiency. That means, say, around 5% of total liquid volume. When you separate water into H2 and O2 the gas takes up many many more times the total liquid volume, so you have to be careful to base these calculations on liquid volume not gas to liquid volume.
That means, if you're carrying, say, a 100 litre diesel fuel tank you also need to carry a 25 litre water tank, and top up the water each time you top up the diesel.
The paper talks of "diesel equivalent" and states an optimum of 6%. Since the calorific value of hydrogen is 131,000 kJ/kg vs diesel's 44,000 and since 44% of the water converts into H2 the extra water needed to supplement 100L of diesel is less than 8L.
You also need to generate enough electricity to separate that 25 litres of water, in its entirety, into the gaseous components H2 and O2. That's a non trivial amount of energy, however the exact amount of electrical energy required will vary quite markedly depending on the H2O solution that you're using -- separating "pure" liquid water into H2 and O2 is a very inefficient process and takes much more energy than just the electrolysis process would indicate, but the efficiency increases and the amount of total energy required decreases as you add electrolytes to the solution. However it's never 100% efficient and still requires a large amount of electricity.
I refer you to page two of the paper, which states: "The power needed to produce the H2/O2 mixture is included as an input energy to the engine." In other words, they allowed for that in the charts.
The Epoch EP-500 converter used is not what I'd call the latest technology. I assume it's running brute force DC and getting less than Faraday figures (N.B. I've queried the author of the paper to get actual conversion efficiency, without which it seems the paper is meaningless. So much for "real science").
Homemade converters using pulses along the lines of Meyer's work easily achieve 3X that figure, and I can refer you to a Japanese paper that shows 80X Faraday using plasmas.
Just for shits and giggles, here's a video of Eric Kreig, probably the most vocal opponent of alternative fuels and especially HHO, which until recently he considered "just another scam". One of the manufacturers of these devices took up his challenge and proved to him that it works. His car went from 22MPG to 37MPG.