vipernicus42

iTrader: (4)

This is a long thread, and I'm lazy so my 2c has probably been covered but:

Go look up the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

The amount of energy it takes to break water into Hydrogen and Oxygen is the same amount of energy produced by burning Hydrogen. (Burning basically is the oxidation of Hydrogen, turning it into water).

The energy needed to break the water apart is produced by your alternator. Any electricity your alternator generates puts a little more load on the engine. So the basic effect is that you put a tiny amount of load on your engine to produce the hydrogen.

Then when you feed the Hydrogen back into the intake, you gain back some of that energy lost. I say "some" because it's not a perfectly 100% efficient system, so there will be some loss.

So in total there will be a net *loss* of energy, not a net gain.

You're better off storing the oxygen and using it to "Oxygen Boost" on demand, which is like nitrous but a hell of a lot more dangerous. You'd get extra power that way, but of course risk blowing your engine, or having the stored oxygen combust when you don't want it to. And it won't save you any gas... so it's probably not worth doing.

Just thought I'd throw some science at the problem. This same application of science is what you can use the next time someone tells you that somebody has created a "water powered car" and claims that it's "being silenced by the big oil companies". It's BS.

Have fun though, it's always good to try new things. Sometimes I pick up useless projects for no reason other than to do them, though mine are more like "build a tesla coil for no reason" or "brew beer at home, despite the local availability of more cheap quality worldwide imported beer than I can shake a stick at"

Jon

vipernicus42

iTrader: (4)

The only way I could see this working is if somehow the added hydrogen was used in the combustion of the gasoline to produce a resultant set of chemicals with an even lower enthalpy than usual. Basically, instead of burning the Hydrogen back into water, it gets burnt into the Hydrocarbons that are usually coming out of your exhaust anyway. This is possible, and so it's possible that you're somehow adding some more efficiency to your combustion of gasoline with the hydrogen, but again you can't create or destroy energy so I doubt you are really getting more out of it than you're putting in.

Jon

blackdeath647

iTrader: (2)

i'm still not exactly sure how this hydrogen thing works, i get the basics but i don't feel like re-reading everything lol. so to have simpler easier to read terms, the way i see it is that you're not gonna have any mpg gains if you're still having to use the same amount of gas. sounds vague as hell but think about it, yes hydrogen has a better expansion rate and all that good stuff, but the same ammount of gas is still going into the engine, that is, unless you've brought down the psi from the gas pump it's not gonna matter. now with that said, i have scanned through the thread here and there the only thing i could gather, that even if it's burning smoother, it's still using the same amount of gas, the only other thing is just give your car a bit more go....which, in turn burns more gas......idk, i give up.

ray green

iTrader: (14)

The hydrogen acts as a catalyst to make the hydrocarbon fuel burn more efficiently, thus extracting more energy from the hydrocarbons (gas) with less emissions, or so they say.

An intriguing idea. Why isn't there any data, especially for the 12A?

swbtm

iTrader: (2)

has anyone been able to collect real data on this setup yet?

I'm chugging along at 16-18 mpg... and my eyes water if I stand behind the car

anything would probably help out

ChaosAura

/endthread.

DivinDriver

iTrader: (15)

Catalyst
Noun
Chemistry. A substance, usually used in small amounts relative to the reactants, that modifies and increases the rate of a reaction without being consumed in the process.

Sounds like they be makin' things up, to me.

BlackWorksInc

We touched up on this at a CTI Class I had last month. Some of these Kits (key word being SOME as in VERY FEW ) actually work rather well. Perhaps not like the Hydrogen powered RX8, but they actually work and increase MPG by a negligible amount.

HOWEVER..

The larger majority of these kits are "ticking time bombs" ready to go off. You should be okay with the kit you have under your hood since it does not actually store the hydrogen. But some of these kits are using PVC pipe plugged at both ends to contain hydrogen gas.

Small Science lesson kids: Hydrogen + Oxidation (or fire to most people :P) = One big *** fire ball.

As for the actual gains of such a device? If you ever used electrolysis to produce hydrogen in your high school science class; then you already know that it take much more energy to split the bonds effectively between Hydrogen and Oxygen to separate the molecules from their H20 Form. Which is one of the main reasons why hydrogen fueled vehicles are not yet in wide spread production.

The current method of producing enough hydrogen gas to support what very small of a hydrogen infrastructure there is in America is done by converting natural gas into hydrogen gas. Which in the long run ends up using more energy collectively than it saves. A second issue revolves around storing the hydrogen, since most hydrogen powered vehicles are storing their hydrogen at extremely high PSI. (Think in the thousands, like a scuba tank) Currently they are looking into using other methods to transport and contain the hydrogen gas to make the vehicles much more effective.

Figured I'd throw in my limited knowledge on the subject, and yes I doubt it would work well.

Oh by the way, thermo dynamics gets fucked over by quantum theoretics... but then again I doubt even auto makers are looking at how to harness quantum particles and anomalies to apply to a vehicle.

ray green

iTrader: (14)

I stand corrected DivinDiver, the hydrogen gas does not act strictly as a catalyst, since it is consumed during the combustion.

A more appropriate term for the hydrogen added by the on board hydrogen generator might be "accelerant", since in principle the hydrogen gas causes the regular hydrocarbon fuel to burn more efficiently, thus extracting more power from the gasoline that is powering the car.

Still, the energy provided by the hydrogen itself cannot be greater than the energy that was put into the system to generate the hydrogen gas in the first place.

Therefore these hydrogen generators do not produce a "hydrogen powered vehicle" in any sense of the word and the label of "water powered" is fraudulent.

Question is, does the hydrogen genertor improve combustion efficiency in a 12A, with consequent gains in horse power and gas mileage?

dj55b

iTrader: (2)

I've been thinking about doing this mod for a while too and might just give it a try. But my standlone is doing a pretty good job as saving me gas itself. I averaged about 30mpg on the highway with calculating it at 4 different gas stations. Truthfullly if you get a standalone like the megasquirt which is cheap enough to build and lean out the fuel even by about .5 - 1 points AFR wise. That should make quite a bit of fuel saving alone. It might take a while to get things right and will probably waste a bit of gas and time when first starting to set thing up, but should be rewarding in the end. I've been running at AFR of about 14-17 in the city.

Hyper4mance2k

iTrader: (40)

LOL Why won't this thread just die. Anyone else get the new Sport Cmpact Car in the mail yet? The October 08 has an article on this very subject. the article basically says that unless these kits are somehow breaking all laws of physics they DO NOT work.

phalerider

I love how everybody laffs, until the crazy guy doesnt have to buy gas anymore..... cant wait to read the rest of the thread

puna rotary

hmm looks good .....u should put a few more on there.........and make a pulsing circuit for it .it uses less amps and makes more

we have 3 huge generators on out diesel shop generator which make a huge difference in fuel millage . when the diesel generator runs we usually have a excess of power so we use the power to make fuel and it seems to help out allot ..

pluss it runs cleaner and runs at a cooler operating temperature.

DivinDriver

iTrader: (15)

Hard numbers or it never happened. This is science, people, not magic.

Energy density of Hydrogen gas at STP: 0.01079 MegaJoules/Liter:
Energy density of Gasoline at STP: 34.6 MJ/L

Gasoline has 3,200+ times greater energy density than does hydrogen, at equivalent pressure.

Total energy derived from burning a given mass of hydrogen is greater than that given by burning an equivalent mass of gasoline.

BUT

An equivalent mass of hydrogen consumes a much greater volume of space than does the gasoline (gasoline is far denser) at the same temperature and pressure.

In fact, hydrogen gas has the lowest specific gravity of any known substance.

Specific gravity (referenced to sea-level air) of hydrogen: 0.0696
Specific gravity of gasoline (vapor): at STP Ranged between 3.0 and 4.0

Therefore, unless the hydrogen is entering the fuel mixture at high pressure (or as a cryogenic liquid), every CC taken up by hydrogen produces less energy than an equivalent CC occupied by fuel vapor.

There's a reason why the first stage of the Saturn V moon rocket, the most powerful engine ever built, did NOT run on (or mix in) Hydrogen.

It ran on RP1 (basically purified Kerosene.)

If kerosene is more powerful than liquid hydrogen, and liquid hydrogen is more powerful than gaseous hydrogen... then kerosene is more powerful than gaseous hydrogen.

And gasoline is more a powerful fuel per unit volume than kerosene.

QED. It's rocket science!

BlackWorksInc

It depends on how the hydrogen is applied, as you proved for a directly combustion related process much more wasteful.. how about fuel cell tho? :P

DivinDriver

iTrader: (15)

Fuel cell is a completely different proposition, chemistry used to produce electricity directly, not thermal energy.

Internal combustion engines are thermomechanical heat engines, and even their theoretical perfection has very limited conversion efficiency.

Fuel cell electrics are electrochemical generators coupled to electromagnetic motors. Much higher inherent efficiency than with IC engines.

vipergts_3

iTrader: (9)

i saw in motor trend a couple months back they were looking into hydrogen pellets... dont know how that will work but sounds interesting.
also i have seen a injector that essentially separates the hydrogen from oxygen and bada bing, you have air and fuel!!
this technology hasnt been allowed to grow enough to get any for sure details. but i wouldnt mind at all turning on the hose to fill the car as opposed to 3.50 or better a gallon gas.

PvillKnight7

iTrader: (16)

Cap the other tube and record you MPG without the system. Then hook it back up and record. I'll call it right now....any change will be very small and will most like be the result of a change in your driving habits and not as a result of the "hydrogen system"

If you want good MPG don't drive a rotary.

Ogre

^+1^ ---minus not driving the rotary part.

When I first got my rex I was amazed at the power it had and also at its fuel consumption. I also bitched about it greatly but still i drove it. I have a bone stock (K&N airfilter) at 172,XXX and she still runs very strong. Recently I've been playing with my MPG and seeing what it is. With me driving hard and having a little too much fun I'm getting between 16-18 MPG which sucks. . .hard. But if I can control my foot (my right foot) I've been getting 21MPG per tank. I drive 80miles a day at least. I've been recording this for some time now and I'm happy with 21MPG. Because I also have the ability to go really fast too. And I'm only loosing 3-4 MPG.

I mean really, we don't drive rex's to get good MPG. We drive them to go fast, hence the sports car background. I'm completely satisfied with 21MPG versus driving a 35MPG hyundai.

Its simple really, keep your foot out of it go farther and pay less. Foot engaged don't go as far and pay more but have alot more fun doing it. Thats why I choose to drive my rex instead of my 86 GTI which gets much better mileage.

Keep up the work though, not that I'd do it but I'd like to see the results if there are any. . .

puna rotary

yep same here........i dont mind the 14mpg.........just because its so fun to drive it

man i miss the days of 1.75 a gallon ...

i miss them so much ......i wish i could go back in time and drive the shi# out of my 7

SooperRex7

im lazy as the top poster is, and didnt read all four pages but the first and last. this might have been stated. But i think you have it wrong, its not the hydrogen that is giving you better fuel economy its the other thing called OXYGEN. water breaks up into hydrogen + oxygen, and with more oxygen you get cleaner combustion...
also theres no harm in trying it, but the laws of thermodynamics are correct in that you cant get more out than you put in. but he isnt trying to get more out. just refineing the combustion process and therefore, for little money, getting more mileage out of his petrol.

let us know how it goes mate

innertwist

iTrader: (3)

Everyone seems to be brushing this off without reading this little tidbit. Before I read this I had brushed the idea off as complete rubbish myself but now I'm reconsidering. The idea is to use the H2 as a fuel additive permitting leaner mixtures, not as a fuel substitute. It can't be a simple bolt-on. In order for there to be any gains the intake would have to be retuned lean, much more lean than would be otherwise possible, especially the idle. It's dangerous, could roast an engine if the hydrogen generator failed, but it definately sounds workable. If you can lean the mixture to half stoch like the article says without needing too much hydrogen, it'll definately make up for the draw on the engine.

DivinDriver

iTrader: (15)

Depends on what you consider "too much." Is hauling 100 gallons of water around with you "too much?"


The stoichiometric 14.7:1 air/fuel mix is by MASS. It's the mass ratio of fuel to air. Not volume, mass. That's why hydrogen's low mass per volume kills you when you try to use it as a gasoline additive, unless you carry it at obscenely high pressure.

The amount of hydrogen needed to replace half the gasoline by mass would be impractically huge, as would the amount of water you'd have to haul to make it.

Let's run the numbers:

Gasoline masses ~6.25 pounds per gallon.

Water masses ~8.34 pounds per gallon. But the majority of that mass, is oxygen.

The two hydrogen atoms in each molecule of water only account for 2/18ths of the mass of the molecule; the other 16/18ths of the mass is the oxygen atom. So, to get enough hydrogen to replace 50% of your fuel in your mix, you have to electrolyze 9 times as many pounds of water as you burn pounds of gasoline.

In other words, a 15-gallon tank of gasoline (~94 pounds of gasoline) would have to be mixed with 94 pounds (mass) of hydrogen to get a 50/50 mix of fuels.

To get 94 pounds of hydrogen, you have to electrolyze 94*9=846 pounds (mass) of water...which is about 101 gallons of water.

Pretty big mason jar.

Worked the other way, if you assume that the gizmo built by the OP holds a quart of water, that's just over 2 pounds mass of water. Electrolyzing 2 pounds of water will only yield 2/9ths of a pound (mass) of hydrogen.

Equivalent in mass to 0.22/6.25=0.0325 gallons of gas. One-thirtieth (1/30) of a gallon, each time the jar is filled.

Whoohoo! 13 cents worth of gasoline (just comparing mass) for each jarful of water. You'd have to refill the jar 307 times to break even on the cost of the kit, at today's gas prices. Not counting the cost of the baking soda.

The parasitic load on the alternator needed to generate the electricity to perform the electrolysis consumes more energy than the hydrogen can produce, anyway (thermodynamics sez so); but even if you got the hydrogen for "free" (no energy cost to make it - - as if it just comes out of the water by magic), the mechanical load of hauling the water & mechanism around would also probably burn more fuel than you get from the water.

BigBadWolf

OK, I've read the thread, and a lot of other info on the subject. I'm no rocket scientist, but I am a thinker.
First off, adding DLIDFIS increased my gas mileage slightly. Presumably this is impossible, as I've added another igniter and coil to my system, therefore increasing the required output from my alternator.
Second, I replaced my alternator from the stock 35 amp to a 75 amp with no change in mileage, while significantly changing the power output.
Third, I've replaced the entire stereo system with much higher speaker RMS, and a 500w amp, again with no change to mileage.
Finally, while I doubt there would be much improvement in efficiency, the HHO system has peaked my curiosity enough to give it a try. What seems to be missing from the discussion is that the HHO is not substituting for petrol, but some of the air. Looking at it from that perspective, even a sceptic like me can see some potential in this. If we can get the combustion more complete, than in theory, should it not create more power from the same amount of fuel. Wouldn't that mean that at cruising speed the pedal would be pressed less to result in the same amount of forward momentum? And since combustion engines don't use anywhere near 100% of the potential energy of the fuel they receive, it stands to reason that the suplimental HHO could increase output more than the energy used to create it.
G_d help me, I need a beer!

DivinDriver

iTrader: (15)

Not necessarily;

First, the increased load is small relative to total draw.

Secondly, if the DLIDFIS is providing for more efficient burn, then it makes up for it's parasitic electrical load in improved engine output... in other words, it "pays for itself, plus."

This would only result in additional load on the engine if you were infact using more than 35 amps out of the alternator.

Alternators are rated based on max possible output, but they are not "producing" xx amps constantly. An alternator with no electrical load on it 'produces' zero amps of current, because current has to flow in order to measure it.

Mechanical load of an alternator on the engine increases proportionally as the electrical load drawn from it increases, not based on the alternator's maximum capacity.

The power rating of a stereo system is based on maximum deliverable power. It doesn't draw that much power all the time. Rarely will one be called on to draw more than a few percent of it's rated power.

Speaker RMS power is a rating of the maximum power it can handle without damage. It doesn't determine the load the speaker consumes, the amp does that.

An audio amplifier's maximum power rating is based on total output of all channels at maximum amplification, usually using a pink noise test source. Real music is not nearly as frequency-saturated as pink noise, and so even at max drive it utilizes less power over time playing music than it does with a test source.

Unless you've got your system volume maxed constantly and are playing a signal that fires all channels at max saturation all the time, you're not drawing anything like a constant 500 watts of power from your alternator.

Fuel consumption directly related to kilowatt-hours (or horsepower), not just kilowatts. It's a function of power over time. Sum total of load over time.


If you are replacing air with fuel (gasoline or hydrogen, still fuel), you are riching your mixture, and providing less-complete combustion. Decreasing the amount of oxygen available to complete combustion, when combustion was already incomplete, is not going to help help efficiency, unless it was running too lean previously.

But first, you've got to be able to add enough hydrogen to the fuel mix to even matter... and based on this devices's size and the amount of water it holds, it just doesn't seem able to make enough hydrogen to matter. The math on that is pertty clear.

If you want to do a controlled real-world before/after test, that would be great; experimentation always trumps theory!

But to get good results, it needs to be a controlled test. Considering the difficulty in reproducing the same mileage for the same car with the same driver over the same route without mods just day to day, it's very hard to do & get "clean"data.

Add the possiblity of changed driver behavior due to an EXPECTATION of changed result by adding this device (in statistics, this is called the "Hawthorne effect"), and getting good data from a single-vehicle sample becomes almost impossible.