This is only a preview of the November 2008 issue of Silicon Chip. You can view 29 of the 96 pages in the full issue, including the advertisments. For full access, purchase the issue for $10.00 or subscribe for access to the latest issues. Items relevant to "12V Speed Controller/Lamp Dimmer":
Items relevant to "USB Clock With LCD Readout, Pt.2":
Items relevant to "Wideband Air-Fuel Mixture Display Unit":
Items relevant to "IrDA Interface Board For The DSP Musicolour":
Purchase a printed copy of this issue for $10.00. |
SILICON
CHIP
www.siliconchip.com.au
Publisher & Editor-in-Chief
Leo Simpson, B.Bus., FAICD
Production Manager
Greg Swain, B.Sc.(Hons.)
Technical Editor
John Clarke, B.E.(Elec.)
Technical Staff
Ross Tester
Jim Rowe, B.A., B.Sc, VK2ZLO
Mauro Grassi, B.Sc.(Hons.)
Photography
Ross Tester
Reader Services
Ann Morris
Advertising Enquiries
Glyn Smith
Phone (02) 9939 3295
Mobile 0431 792 293
glyn<at>siliconchip.com.au
Regular Contributors
Brendan Akhurst
Rodney Champness, VK3UG
Mike Sheriff, B.Sc, VK2YFK
Stan Swan
SILICON CHIP is published 12 times
a year by Silicon Chip Publications
Pty Ltd. ACN 003 205 490. ABN 49
003 205 490 All material copyright
©. No part of this publication may
be reproduced without the written
consent of the publisher.
Printing: Hannanprint, Noble Park,
Victoria.
Distribution: Network Distribution
Company.
Subscription rates: $89.50 per year
in Australia. For overseas rates, see
the subscription page in this issue.
Editorial office:
Unit 1, 234 Harbord Rd,
Brookvale, NSW 2100.
Postal address: PO Box 139,
Collaroy Beach, NSW 2097.
Phone (02) 9939 3295.
Fax (02) 9939 2648.
E-mail: silicon<at>siliconchip.com.au
ISSN 1030-2662
* Recommended and maximum price only.
2 Silicon Chip
Publisher’s Letter
Electrolysis of water in cars
is a fuel economy mirage
Two month’s ago, in the September 2008 issue, I
answered a question from a reader concerning the
supposed manufacture of Browns Gas. This is the
mixture of hydrogen and oxygen evolved from the
electrolysis of water. It is called Browns Gas in some
sort of canonisation of the ratbag engineer (Yull
Brown) who promoted the process in Australia some
30 years ago. This Browns gas is injected into the
engine’s inlet manifold to be burnt in the cylinders. Depending on the site
where you find this topic, this is claimed to give large gains in fuel economy.
Confronted with this nonsense, I gave a fairly detailed answer on the question in the hope that it might kill off the whole silly idea. But guess what?
Since then we seem to have had a rash of questions on the topic. Mostly these
questions are related to pulse width modulation circuits which could be used
to drive the electrolysis process and also control the current drawn, as it tends
to “run away”. None of the people who contact us on the topic have any idea
that it is just a silly idea. This is another consequence of a population who
have very little knowledge of science and technology.
Obviously my attempt to discredit the whole concept has so far been a complete failure. There seems to be an increasing interest in the process, possibly
driven by the production of hydrogen-powered prototype cars in the USA. It
should be obvious that this is a technological dead-end, but that is another
story, associated with the attempt to kill off the electric car in the USA some
years ago. So without repeating all of what I wrote in the September issue
(pages 89-90), let’s attempt to dispassionately review the topic of producing
hydrogen in a car so that it can be burnt in the engine.
First of all, the electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen is a simple
but energy intensive process, even when platinum electrodes are used as a
catalyst. The popular internet process using stainless steel electrodes is much
less inefficient. To generate any significant amount of hydrogen, you need large
amounts of energy. That energy has to come from the car’s electrical system
(ie, battery and alternator) driven by the engine and fed from the petrol tank.
It should also be obvious that you also need to carry substantial quantities
of water – which is even heavier than petrol or diesel.
So we attempt to run a very inefficient chemical process in order to get
some hydrogen and oxygen to be used in the car’s engine. The claimed result
of this process is an overall improvement in fuel economy – as much as 15%
according to some claims.
To me, this just beggars belief. If it was that easy to get such a major increase
in fuel economy, why hasn’t a single car manufacturer ever done it? Why have
the car manufactures resorted to ever increasing complexity in their engines
to eke out fuel economy improvements over the decades? Why have Toyota
and Honda developed even more complex hybrid cars such as the Prius,
Insight, Civic and others, to get better fuel economy? Confronted with these
questions, some people start to mutter about oil company conspiracies . . .
Just in case, people don’t get the message, this process does not improve
overall fuel economy in the slightest – it can only lead to a decrease.
On the positive side, I suppose it is good that so many people are thinking
about ways of improving fuel economy in cars. It is just a great pity that more
people cannot see the blindingly obvious approaches to saving fuel: (1) Drive
a light car with a small engine and (2) drive less.
Leo Simpson
siliconchip.com.au
|