Huh?!? You're claiming an internal combustion engine does not burn all the fuel that enters the cylinder?

Chemistry 101:
Air has about 20% oxygen, this is what we breathe and this also what lets you burn petrol. Now, if you add an amount of petrol to air and ignite it, it will burn. The amount of petrol you add determines what you will be left with. If you put too much petrol you will end up with no oxygen, some carbon monoxide and, depending on how much excess petrol there was, some or a lot of unburned hydrocarbons. Go the other way around and you'll have carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides and leftover oxygen.

Now with that out of the way, it turns out the ideal amount of petrol is about 1 part in 14.7. With that amount of petrol there's just enough oxygen to burn all the hydrocarbons from the petrol. That's what the carburetor or FI system is for, it introduces just enough petrol for the amount of air that enters the cylinder. Thus when these things are tuned properly, you will never have too much or too less petrol in the cylinder.

The efficiency figure you are quoting isn't because of not burning fuel, it's because of heat loss, mechanical friction, pumping losses etc. There is a limitation on how much work you can extract from a heat engine. See also: Thermodynamic cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So lets examine the hydrogen theory, you're adding a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. This mixture is generated by passing electricity through acidified water. This generates a mixture of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. (Water = H2O) Now what happens when you burn this? It simply recombines to water. There's no extra oxygen to burn petrol with, since you added it as the most ideal proportions of O2 and H2 already. So no gain there. It may burn a little hotter, but that doesn't help with getting a higher efficiency. On top of that you spent more energy generating this H2 and O2, then what it will release when burned. Electrolysis is much less than 100% efficient.

Adding it all up:
* The fact is that a thermodynamic engine has a limited efficiency. Even when all the fuel burns.
* Ideal air/petrol mixture is approx.14.7:1
* 99%+ of all the fuel is burned in a properly tuned engine.
* Adding a hydrogen/oxygen mixture does not raise the amount of available oxygen for burning petrol.
* Even if there was more oxygen. You would have to add more petrol to use it. And thus get less mileage.
* Your oxygen/hydrogen mixture is generated by using electricity from the engine alternator.
* This means whatever energy required to generate hydrogen and oxygen was first extracted from petrol to begin with.
* Running one inefficient process with energy from another inefficient process does not make the sum of the processes more efficient.

hmm, Impressive facts.

though I am not a techie but this still makes sense to me, I agree with Andante on this, but am not simply ruling out the other possibilities.

I would be glad to see a more efficient engine, a cleaner Engine.... a powerful engine.... Keep up the spirits.

Theory cannot be practical......
The evry first thing I wish to say is that, no Engines in the world is 100% efficient...

I still say that 100 % of the fuel taht is injected is not fully burnt....If we open the bikes carburrator and the engine, we could see carbon settled around the walls.... have seen this when a guy from HOnda opened my Engine at the workshop... When I asked him what is that material, he said that it is carbon...That is partially burned petrol, together with other impurities in petrol.....

Most of the petrol bunks add impurities like kerosene, in petrol..These reduces the mileage and power, also...
-----------------------------------------------------------------

When water is splitted giving two parts of hydrogen and one part of oxygen, u said that it will recombine to form water...never........I don't know why...

------------------------------------------------------------------

If Hydrogen couldnot improve the mileage and power of the engine,then Prof. C.N.R. Rao, National Research Professor and Honorary President and Linus Pauling Research Professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research in Bangalore , wouldn't have urged the students of the Foundation for capacity building sciences, to start designing engines that use hydrogen as main/substitutional fuel....

Note, I don't claim fuel burns 100%, more like 99.5% or more. The carbon deposits you see are from many many kilometers of riding. Also any fuel system can never be completely right as far as adding fuel goes. But the ratio of unburnt fuel is so little that you can't get any kind of improvement by trying to burn it. Does your bike have a PUC? It shows the unburnt hydrocarbons measurement, check it out. Especially the unit it is in. (Something like PPM most likely, parts per million.)

1 part oxygen and 2 parts hydrogen when burned will combine to form water. I'll eat my chemistry degree if it doesn't. Even if you add air and petrol in a near ideal ratio, the chemical equations are such that this fact doesn't change.

Engines running on hydrogen is a different game than adding an oxygen/hydrogen mixture to a petrol engine. You're saying it yourself, running on hydrogen as main/alternate fuel.

Also you're ignoring the fact that the energy used to generate the hydrogen/oxygen mixture, was supplied by burning petrol in the first place. Placing a load on the alternator causes it to put more drag on the engine. Electricity doesn't come for free.

Again, I am not here to stop you from attempting this. I'm just trying to make sure there are no undue expectations. Please do build this and please do compare the results with an unmodified bike under the same conditions.

1 part oxygen and 2 parts hydrogen when burned will combine to form water. I'll eat my chemistry degree if it doesn't. Even if you add air and petrol in a near ideal ratio, the chemical equations are such that this fact doesn't change.
Here are some ideal form equations, and I am fully aware that petrol is not ideal. However it'll help get the point.
Burning octane with oxygen:
2 C8H18 + 25 O2 -> 8 CO2 + 9 H2O
Burning hydrogen with oxygen:
2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O
Combined:
2 C8H18 + 2 H2 + 26 O2 -> 8 CO2 + 11 H2O
These are idealized, however it's going to be close enough.

I dont know whether my bike has a PUC..I have a Honda Unicorn of septemmber 2007 model...Where is it fitted...Please let me know..
PUC is Pollution Under Control, it is a govt certificate you can get at many places. It tests your exhaust fumes for CO, hydrocarbons and some other things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many enthusiasts like me around the world is trying to develop a hydrogen booster,and many have succeeded in that...
Great, are there test results from independent test institutes that show improved fuel economy when compared under controlled conditions to the vehicle without the device?
I know there are many sites that claim to get great improvement, now also see how many of those sites are actually selling this miracle device. Are those claims motivated by real savings or simply being able to get money out of gullible people?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I myself produced hydrogen on the first day i started with the project....
I took two steel tumler, drilled holes and assembel at a small distance of around 1cm .I will post the photo wen, i get my mobile camera fixed.. I will do it today evening........I added one spoon of naoh ina container, and place the steel electrodes in it. I connected my bike's battery to the electrode, and it start developing hydrogen......so i am happy with that, and one more thing.If someone sats that my project is a waste, I wont stop working on the project..Instead i will devote more on it....

Great inventions were born, when the people harrasses the developers ,when they tried developing it..

I'm not trying to harass you. However, ignoring facts will simply lead to disappointment. Understand what you are doing and you'll have a better chance of success.
Oh and to improve the generation of H2 and O2, use dilute sulfuric acid instead of NaOH. But beware, it's quite a bit more dangerous than NaOH.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

One more thing, hydrogen vanishes away into the atmosphere, immediately after it is produced......It doesnot wait for the oxygen to mix to generate water....

If your setup leaks enough to loose the hydrogen, you will also loose the oxygen produced at the same time.
Please don't think chemical reactions happen automatically, many of these reactions need a push before they will start. See: Activation energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As you are a Chemistry graduate,let me ask you one question.... If i take one part of oxygen and two parts of hydrogen ina tumbler, and mix it, will water will be formed.. For water to be formed from hydrogen and oxygen, certain reactions should occur, I dont know deep about reverse electrolisys...

The mixture obviously will not combine to form water automatically, since you need to provide a push to get the reaction started. This push can come in the form of a spark or flame. Once started the reaction between H2 and O2 will be so fast you will experience it as a blast.

* Adding a hydrogen/oxygen mixture does not raise the amount of available oxygen for burning petrol.

It does!

* Even if there was more oxygen. You would have to add more petrol to use it. And thus get less mileage.

The engine will now be work harder and develop more power. So, if we want the same power, we can decrease the rpm. Lower the rpm, lower is the frictional losses. So, atleast same or better efficiency.

* Your oxygen/hydrogen mixture is generated by using electricity from the engine alternator.
* This means whatever energy required to generate hydrogen and oxygen was first extracted from petrol to begin with.
* Running one inefficient process with energy from another inefficient process does not make the sum of the processes more efficient.

Exactly what I have been thinking about. Is this feasible? One area of recovering losses is frictional losses. If that loss is more than the loss due to powering the booster set up, there will be a benefit. But this is doubtful.

My thoughts in bold!

Huh?!? You're claiming an internal combustion engine does not burn all the fuel that enters the cylinder?

Chemistry 101:
Air has about 20% oxygen, this is what we breathe and this also what lets you burn petrol. Now, if you add an amount of petrol to air and ignite it, it will burn. The amount of petrol you add determines what you will be left with. If you put too much petrol you will end up with no oxygen, some carbon monoxide and, depending on how much excess petrol there was, some or a lot of unburned hydrocarbons. Go the other way around and you'll have carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides and leftover oxygen.

Now with that out of the way, it turns out the ideal amount of petrol is about 1 part in 14.7. With that amount of petrol there's just enough oxygen to burn all the hydrocarbons from the petrol. That's what the carburetor or FI system is for, it introduces just enough petrol for the amount of air that enters the cylinder. Thus when these things are tuned properly, you will never have too much or too less petrol in the cylinder.

The efficiency figure you are quoting isn't because of not burning fuel, it's because of heat loss, mechanical friction, pumping losses etc. There is a limitation on how much work you can extract from a heat engine. See also: Thermodynamic cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So lets examine the hydrogen theory, you're adding a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. This mixture is generated by passing electricity through acidified water. This generates a mixture of 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. (Water = H2O) Now what happens when you burn this? It simply recombines to water. There's no extra oxygen to burn petrol with, since you added it as the most ideal proportions of O2 and H2 already. So no gain there. It may burn a little hotter, but that doesn't help with getting a higher efficiency. On top of that you spent more energy generating this H2 and O2, then what it will release when burned. Electrolysis is much less than 100% efficient.

Adding it all up:
* The fact is that a thermodynamic engine has a limited efficiency. Even when all the fuel burns.
* Ideal air/petrol mixture is approx.14.7:1
* 99%+ of all the fuel is burned in a properly tuned engine.
* Adding a hydrogen/oxygen mixture does not raise the amount of available oxygen for burning petrol.
* Even if there was more oxygen. You would have to add more petrol to use it. And thus get less mileage.
* Your oxygen/hydrogen mixture is generated by using electricity from the engine alternator.
* This means whatever energy required to generate hydrogen and oxygen was first extracted from petrol to begin with.
* Running one inefficient process with energy from another inefficient process does not make the sum of the processes more efficient.

Answers in bold.

Adding it all up:
* The fact is that a thermodynamic engine has a limited efficiency. Even when all the fuel burns.
* Ideal air/petrol mixture is approx.14.7:1
* 99%+ of all the fuel is burned in a properly tuned engine.
* Adding a hydrogen/oxygen mixture does not raise the amount of available oxygen for burning petrol.
* Even if there was more oxygen. You would have to add more petrol to use it. And thus get less mileage.
* Your oxygen/hydrogen mixture is generated by using electricity from the engine alternator.
* This means whatever energy required to generate hydrogen and oxygen was first extracted from petrol to begin with.
* Running one inefficient process with energy from another inefficient process does not make the sum of the processes more efficient.

my two cents - isnt a hydrogen combustion reaction explosive? compared to the linearity experienced with petrol and other fuels??? ( explosive with regards to the rate of combustion)

My reply is for the bold one....

Why should u add more petrol if we give more oxygen to the engine....There is no such need to add more petrol if u give more oxygen...


When we fit K&N filter or similar filters, what the workshop walas normally does they just fit the K&N ...By doing this, more air enters the enngine, so power increases slightly, and mileage does not reduce...

But instead ,if they also do the modification to the fuel jet, that is rejetting, then power increases heavily, and mileage goes down....

The theory :--- suppose that, a normal engine has 1 petrol : 1 oxygen , after fitting K&N, without rejetting, what happens is 1 petrol : 2 Oxygen...thereby increase i mielage....

Instead, if you also modify the jet to allow 2 petrol, that is now, the mixture is 2 petrol : 2 oxygen, then power increases high, Mileage will decrease sharply by 50 %......

Dude, if K&N increases mileage, why use extra O2? Can you explain this? What exactly will this extra O2 do without any extra fuel to burn? You even know what reactions happen inside an engine? Do you think that you can keep on adding petrol, oxygen, hydrogen etc etc in any ratio you like?

Please learn your theory first. Trying to build something without theory is like building a house without foundation. I am not saying you should not continue your project, but please learn the underlying principles first. And then tell us, what exactly your hydrogen booster will achieve and how.

Please do not take it in the wrong spirit.