Anyone have experience with Hydrogen generators?

[David_in_TX]

The fact is that more energy is required to drive the electrolysis cell than can be extracted from the resulting hydrogen-oxygen mixture. This is the basic reason why this cannot work. The chemical equation is the proof and you cannot change the laws of chemistry. The device uses more energy than it produces. I do not care what people are claiming to see as MPG increases. They are playing with the numbers, the engines do see a MPG increase during a period of time, but then it needs to be recharged. The alternator will use up more energy recharging the battery than the hydrogen gave. The net is a loss of efficiency due to the fact that electrolysis producing hydrogen is an energy loss. An article in a news web site about a company trying to make a profit and attract investors hardly has the credibility to dispute science. It doesn't matter how official those companies names sound, this is scientific fact.

 

[spencyg]

OKOKOKOK....

As a preface to this leap into the realm of science fiction, let me first say that at one point about 5 years ago ALL I DID was research the production of HHO (Brown's Gas), and its implementation in a modern Fuel Injected vehicle. I don't consider myself any more than an interested enthusiast, but I am an informed enthusiast.

That being said, here is my $0.02 on this topic.

It is 50% hoax. It is 50% truth.

The hoax: You can't release more energy in hydrogen than it requires to release it from water. Period. There are a number of folks in one camp of thought out there who preach the words of a man named Boyce about some mystical concoction of interlaced pulsed DC current at various frequencies, special mixtures of lye, etc. They are willing to tell you what kind of amazing results they're getting, but don't actually come out and say anything. Most of reasoning is the standard conspiracy theory stuff, yada yada yada.

The other camp follows the work of Stanley Meyer....a guy who supposedly made a car run on water and drove it across the country in the 70's (look up news reports on youtube). He holds (or held in this case) many patents on his work, all of which I have, and all of which are all missing just enough information to make the whole thing questionable. He claims that if you stress a hydrogen/oxygen bond with high potential , and then split it with low potential (i.e. expose the cathode and electrode to 10k volts, then give the cathode 5V more). He also pulses this circuit like Boyce. Many people have tried to replicate his results, and just as many have failed. There is a guy, Kevin West, who has been diligently trying for years and really has gotten further than anybody else, but even he is starting to lose wind. His research is all open source and can be see at waterforfuel.com. Now, it would be nice to just ask Stanley Meyer or Bob Boyce more directly how they did this. Unfortunately, Boyce has locked himself away in some mountain top refuge in Montana somewhere, fearing the government. Meyer is dead, supposedly due to a foreign government deal gone wrong involving his work. Who knows.

At the end of the day, it is very important to remember this: Hydrogen is NOT a fuel source. Hydrogen is a fuel storage medium. You must insert energy into the equation to get energy out (by splitting water). I look at hydrogen as another type of battery...a very inefficient battery. There is of course two types of hydrogen being discussed. Pure hydrogen (which is what you get with those electrolysis cells with two separate tubes housing the cathode and electrode separately), and HHO, which is made when the cathode and electrode are taking up the same amount of space in a common vessel. HHO aka Browns Gas SUPPOSEDLY has some very unique properties (again...youtube Browns Gas) where its combustion heat actually changes with the medium it is burning. I don't know about any of this stuff....it seems questionable. All of my experimentation has been in Browns Gas...and it is frickin dangerous.

My experimentation:

I have constructed 3 separate generators over the last 5 years, all but the last ending in a fairly catastrophic explosion. None of my cells were pulsed and all used sodium hydroxide (lye) in the water to aid in electrolytic breakdown. I did not use any hydrogen generation to aid in vehicle efficiency during these tests, but had all the equipment necessary to do so at one point. The second to last cell successfully ran a small 49cc engine purely on hydrogen....that is, until the cell, and the engine, exploded. Luckily I was unharmed, but it was a real eye-opener to the power of hydrogen. This is not kid stuff...it is far more volatile than gasoline vapor.

Thus getting to the 50% truth.

First, a 100% truth: A standard internal combustion with modern controls is around 20% ( The WiKi ) efficient. Even bringing it up to 30% efficient would net a 50% savings in fuel.

Back to the 50% truth:

This stuff is flammable...and by flammable, I mean the flame kernel speed of propagation of HHO is 10X faster than the kernel speed of stoichometric gasoline vapor. WHEN SMALL AMOUNTS OF HYDROGEN ARE INSERTED INTO A GASOLINE ENGINE SYSTEM WITH THE PROPER CONTROLS, GOOD THINGS HAPPEN!

Think of it like this: The flame propagation of the mixture will be as fast as its fastest burning component. If this hydrogen is added to the combustion chamber (and we're not talking about alot...certainly a quantity which is reasonable for on-board generation...1 LPM typ).

Now, some low-level physics.

1:The maximum torque potential of a crankshaft occurs when the moment arm is perpendicular to the axis of force.

2:Gas expanding in a chamber will impose a force on the walls of that chamber.

Now, for those of you who are privy to old-school hot rod tuning tricks, advancing the ignition timing of your engine (back when that involved a screwdriver and a 1/2" wrench), would net you noticeable power gains. The reason for this is that, but advancing the ignition BEFORE the piston reached TDC (top dead center...the top of the stroke), the chamber pressure could be maximized by allowing that slow gasoline flame to fully consume the charge before the piston was half way back down the cylinder bore (remember physics law #1?). This allowed the maximum pressure to be exerted on that lever arm, producing more torque (and thus more HP, as HP is a direct function of torque and RPM). There is one flaw in this arguement. That pressure STARTS building BEFORE the piston reaches TDC. This creates internal forces wanting to slow down the motor just before it reaches TDC, and it also creates intense heat and possible intense pressure which could lead to detonation or knock....engine destroying stuff. The point is, the theory of maximizing that cylinder pressure is old news...proven.

Now, enter hydrogen injection. That flame propagation speed is what the hubbub is all about. If we insert hydrogen into the engine in small amounts, the flame propagation of the mixture increases by a factor of 10. You know what this means? This means we can wait to set off the charge until later in the stroke, building pressure just after TDC instead of 15-20 degrees before. AND, we can do this with an increase in efficiency because those internal losses due to pre-ignition of the charge. This reduces heat in the cycle and increases torque because of the rate at which the cylinder pressure is achieved and the point at which it is achieved. This is not smoke in mirrors. This is not phony physics. This is real stuff.

"Why doesn't my car get improved efficiency when I bolt on this hydrogen kit I got on ebay?"

Modern engine controls are smart. Too smart. Remember that HHO designation? Two hydrogen atoms. One Oxygen Atom. The two hydrogen atoms get burned, and actually there is oxygen left over (this is where me being an enthusiast instead of a scientist gets me in trouble...I hated chemistry). This is a truth, I just don't have the chemistry background to back myself up here. Regardless, there is extra oxygen in the system after the hydrogen/gasoline/oxygen combustion event, and guess what..?? The O2 sensors catch on. They see extra oxygen, and think..."uh oh...too much oxygen means we need to turn up the fuel". So the mixture richens due to the ECU program built into every fuel injected vehicle on the road and guess what....the efficiency goes back down. Often times, worse than not having the hydrogen generator at all. Then the hydrogen generator gets a bad reputation, people start threads about the injustice of the world and of swindlers on ebay, etc etc. Aside from all of the oxygen sensor problems, to truly release the potential of hydrogen injection you need to adjust the timing. This too is computer controlled, and unless you have a stand alone fuel injection system and know how to tune it, you're SOL (Somethin' out of luck). Without control of the timing, you're not going to see any real gains, even if the O2 sensor wasn't working against you. A third factor which I personally don't have any experience with is that adding hydrogen to the mixture reduces the exhaust gas temps significantly. I looked into this a bit, and it seems that the mixture could be leaned out significantly....to the tune of possibly 20:1 instead of the more standard 12-13:1. (FYI, stoich is 14.7:1).

So, in summary: Hydrogen generation technology is questionable but the use of hydrogen as a supplimental fuel in a gasoline engine is solid science. Engine controls need to be significantly altered to take real advantage of any potential gains. Just hooking up a hydrogen generator to an engine and expecting it to get 50% better gas mileage is unrealistic and highly improbable.

I did watch the mythbusters on hydrogen generators, and with most tests that Mythbusters performs, it was full of misinformation, partial information and half-correct procedures. The show is intended to entertain, not necessarily PROVE anything. Regardless, the above info is based on fact...this is all I know.

Thus ends the longest post I have ever created...and ever want to create again.

 

[David_in_TX]

Spencyg, that is great, but there is one law that cannot be broken and thus makes the increase in efficiency impossible. The law of conservation of energy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

"Energy cannot be created nor destroyed"

It is because of this, that Hydrogen produced by electrolysis will never be an energy source. It is always an energy loss situation. Now there are such things as hydrogen fuel cells, but nobody has created one of those in their workshops, yet. That's a whole different story...

 

[spencyg]

Read what I posted again....I'm not suggesting the creation or destruction of anything. When you have a system that operates at 20% efficiency, just bumping it to 40% efficiency is a relative 100% gain, yet you are just REDUCING losses. That's all the hydrogen does. Reduce losses. Yes, making on-board hydrogen would consume energy in the form of electrons, but in this case the conservation of energy doesn't really apply, as we're not creating energy from thin air, just liberating it from otherwise being turned into heat (exhaust and radiator). Nothing magical here...

Spence

 

[ntsqd]

Look at it this way, every energy conversion operates at a loss. Every one, no exceptions.

A "Brown's Gas" system needs electrical power to make it work. The process is basically reversing what a combustion process did. So if the two conversions were absolutely perfect you'd be going in circles nether gaining or losing energy. Since heat is generated and we don't live in a vacuum there is some heat lost to the atmosphere. That makes the whole circular process a net loss. (BTW physicists refer to this as the "Heat Death of the Universe.")

Now add in that the engine and the alternator convert chemical energy into mechanical energy and from there into electrical energy. Each one of those energy conversions happens at a loss, and the transmission of the mechanical energy from the engine to the alternator has friction so it too operates at a loss.

Every step along the way in going from a liquid fuel to "Brown's Gas" happens at a loss. Since we added energy to the H2O to get it to split apart we could expect to get, at best, exactly that amount of energy back from burning the hydrogen in the engine. Except that internal combustion engines are nowhere close to 100% efficient. So we'll never get the energy out of combusting the hydrogen that we put into the water to get the hydrogen in the first place.

Where the numbers look good is if you take a snap-shot of isolated portions of the system and ignore the whole picture.

I see where adding H to a combustion process will speed up the flame front speed (SpenceG's explosions), but I question that the gain can offset the sizeable losses incurred in getting the H in the first place. Hydrogen fueled engines have had large sums of money expended on making them work. It comes down to H being too unstable to work with using current technology. I don't know that it will ever be workable or not.

 

[David_in_TX]

I read your post.

To quote you, it is exactly at this point: "on-board hydrogen would consume energy in the form of electrons" where the efficiency goes negative. The horsepower (work) that goes into turning the alternator to produce electricity required to do the electrolysis when the hydrogen is depleted creates a net loss in the whole picture. The law of conservation of energy DOES apply, you cannot edit it out like that.

You don't even need to know how any of these inventions work to understand this. All you need to understand is that electrolysis is a chemical reaction that produces hydrogen from water molecules, and you need more energy to break the bonds in a water molecule than you get in the resulting hydrogen gas. Because of this, you cannot rationalise that you are reducing losses. That is not logical, math doesn't work this way.

Read what I posted again....I'm not suggesting the creation or destruction of anything. When you have a system that operates at 20% efficiency, just bumping it to 40% efficiency is a relative 100% gain, yet you are just REDUCING losses. That's all the hydrogen does. Reduce losses. Yes, making on-board hydrogen would consume energy in the form of electrons, but in this case the conservation of energy doesn't really apply, as we're not creating energy from thin air, just liberating it from otherwise being turned into heat (exhaust and radiator). Nothing magical here...

Spence

 

[David_in_TX]

If you were able to carry a tank of hydrogen gas on your vehicle, (as opposed to a tank of water in which you used electrolysis to break the bonds and generate hydrogen gas) even then there would be a net loss in efficiency because at some point that hydrogen gas had to be created. Present technology used to create hydrogen is a net loss of energy. There are research projects (with an emphasis on research) that are trying to make hydrogen a viable energy source. Hydrogen fuel cells are an example of this. I think we are 20 years away from this becoming reality. Google "Hydrogen fuel cells" and tell me what you think.

Why cant we just take naturally occurring pure hydrogen gas and use that?

From Wikipedia:
"Naturally occurring elemental hydrogen is relatively rare on Earth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen

Even though it is is the most abundant chemical element in the universe, it almost never exists outside a molecule (water). And it is breaking these atomic bonds that makes it hard. Sorry, this has been a challenge to mankind ever since hydrogen gas was discovered back in year 1766.

 

[David_in_TX]

Another good article from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

Quoted from this article:

"Critics of a hydrogen economy point at the following facts :

hydrogen is not freely available

hydrogen is a gas at most temperatures, and particularly difficult to handle

hydrogen is more dangerous than most substances ; equipment owned by
consumers would have to be checked periodically

hydrogen production requires resources, and ultimately leads to energy loss.

Hydrogen has been called the least efficient and most expensive possible replacement for gasoline (petrol) in terms of reducing greenhouse gases.[2][3] A comprehensive study of hydrogen in transportation applications has found that "there are major hurdles on the path to achieving the vision of the hydrogen economy; the path will not be simple or straightforward".[1] The Ford Motor Company has dropped its plans to develop hydrogen cars, stating that "The next major step in Ford’s plan is to increase over time the volume of electrified vehicles".[4]"

 

[spencyg]

Once again surrounded by intellectual superiors. Oh well.

Did I mentioned I sold all that stuff and haven't looked back in 2 years? Even if it did work, I had way more money into it by the time I lost interest than I ever would have saved in gas money. Funny how that works.

Spence

 

[David_in_TX]

Well I wouldn't say that.

I am really a laid back person, that doesn't come across online. It's just that there are a few topics in which I have very strong feelings, this topic and how engineers calculate GVWR are a couple of them. I truly don't enjoy debating topics with people I don't know on an online public forum.

I also recognise that if you could run a car on water, it would be fantastic. People want to believe you can, and unfortunately there are a lot of shady people trying to convince people it can be done. It was done back in the OPEC gas shortages of 1979 and now that gas is around $3/gallon it has come back.

Once again surrounded by intellectual superiors. Oh well.

Did I mentioned I sold all that stuff and haven't looked back in 2 years? Even if it did work, I had way more money into it by the time I lost interest than I ever would have saved in gas money. Funny how that works.

Spence

 

[SunTzuNephew]

watch that one... because for diesels water injection is a huge performance increaser

For gas engines too - the big radial engines used in bombers and airliners post WWII used water injection to reduce predetonation and allow much higher compression ratios.

Of course, the engines were massively large, and had poor fuel consumption (of 115/145 octane avgas, which isn't available any more).

The early jets like early B52's and KC-135A's, and some fighters (F105) also used water injection to increase air flow mass through the engine. More air through the turbine=more power out the exhaust cone.

But in a car engine? Not happening.

 

[ntsqd]

How do they calc GVWR? No debate since I know nothing about such things, but am curious.

FWIW, Trying something that everyone says won't/can't work, but can't/won't say why isn't bad. Edison had how many failed light bulbs before one worked? Curiosity is a good thing. It is something that U.S. Society seems to be lacking in the last couple of decades. Partly we've become too concerned with the bottom line. We want results for every nickle spent. Large results. Ten cents worth.
Or maybe my soon to be gone job is coloring my vision.

 

[Mogwin]

Cant we all just get along?

So I love the topics that make people come out of the woodwork, snake oil always is a good one, but my question is this:

Given these as accepted points(I MAY TAKE SOME LICENSE AND OVERSIMPLIFY BUT TRY TO GET THE POINT)

1-hydrogen as a primary fuel is at this time simply too difficult to manufacture and store to use.
2-gas and diesel engines are though inefficient, the best we have at this time.

1+2= is there a threshhold past which the production cost of hydrogen becomes negligible for the benefit of the addition to a combustible fuel source.
I.E. if you are not looking to run your car on entirely tap water but maybe a 3-5-10mpg increase is there a system that can be built that wont require toting along a nuclear reactor to generate the gas?
Cheers

 

[milo12]

Those are realistic goals for mileage improvement and can easily be done without resorting to any smoke and mirrors or getting ripped off.

Do some reading on the hypermiling forums. Ecomodder.com is very active and has tons of real proven improvements you can do yourself to increase mileage.

You can achieve the gains you are looking for just by improving your driving technique. I know everyone thinks they drive better than everyone else but they are usually not correct. With a feedback device like a Scanguage and some new habits you can easily improve mileage a few mpg's.

 

[David_in_TX]

The GVWR and GCWR are calculated by taking the rating for the weakest link in the load path (usually tires). Engineers use the term load path to account for the path the load takes through the components. In the case of a typical truck it would be: Frame > Springs > Axle > Wheel > Tire > Ground. This is simplified for my illustration. Then you would take the weakest component, deduct a safety factor and set the weight rating.

The thing that gets me worked up is that some people (especially RV owners) look at the GVWR and GCWR as "suggested guidelines". They overload their trucks and rationalise that the manufacturers arbitrarily make the numbers up when in fact things can and do break when overloaded. Lives are lost when this happens and I don't like to read people's posts with this misinformation in online forums (Example: RV.net) so others learn to do something dangerous. I get labeled a "weight police" or worse, but it's worth it if I can educate just one person. The safety margin is there to protect, it is not to be used as additional load capacity. This safety margin is used because nothing is perfect, all materials and manufacturing processes have defects. We call these tolerances. There is also something known as crash loads, when there is a crash the components are designed to withstand extremely high loads to protect lives. When a vehicle is overloaded, the safety margin for crash loads is gone. It is important to know if you go over these safety margins, there will be failures. Statistics can show this. If you choose to ignore the statistics and go over the GVWR of the weakest link, you are basically rolling the dice with your safety (and others). I know the people on this forum are smart enough to respect the weight ratings, but there are others that don't.

How do they calc GVWR? No debate since I know nothing about such things, but am curious.