Hydrogen Generator Experiment

[johnmyster]

I thought we were talking about HHO? Now we're talking about Acetone instead?

Those lab tests prove that Hydrogen uptake can be used to change the stoichiometry of combustion. They do so with significant quantities of hydrogen. But wait, then you acknowledge that the testing and use of Hydrogen and HHO have nothing in common, and that these reports that support your fish oil scams have nothing to do with the subject. Which is it? Do you actually have a story?

Brief implosions that preceed the explosion? Are you kidding me? Implosions? Implosions? This is the best story that the HHO advertising camp can come up with? Implosions? I suppose there's a black hole at the center of the brown's gas molecule that quantizes the space time continuum, spitting out extra energy and thus requiring you to adjust your ignition timing.

How much gas are you able to create with a bubbler? What kind of stoichiometry does that lead to? How much of the gas is actually hydrogen and not water vapor? Not much my friend. Not much. Read these lab tests that supposedly support your claims and see the quantities that they were using. And of course. Of course they could run leaner. They were adding additional fuel. Add hydrogen, remove gasoline. Perfect. We've once again forsaken the "quality of combustion" and the "timing of combustion" arguements and gone straight back to the perpetual motion "creating hydrogen as fuel" supposition. Which is it? Is it that you're creating your own fuel? Is it that the quality of combustion is improved, or is it that you've altered combustion speed? Pick one and stick with it. You can't keep switching back and forth.

And what do manifold temperatures have to do with anything? My engine combusts in the cylinder, NOT in the manifolds. And if I'm not mistaken, my motor is a heat engine. It runs on heat. The heat from combustion causes the expansion of gasses and drives the piston. Why would I want to lower this anyway?

How many of these people that are using HHO systems are going the extra step to actually lean up their mixtures? Very few. They see some bubles, run it through a hose, and BAM, extra mileage because they drive more gingerly. How many of them go as far as to test their leaning mods with their water vapor generators turned off? None. Yup, if I reprogrammed my ECU tables to work with less fuel, I'll bet I could get a bit of extra mileage out of the thing.

Bottom line is there is a guy on the S10 forum with a stack of HHO generators in his bed, and a setup to modify his O2 readings and run lean. Still, I get better mileage in a heavier truck with lower gearing. All that PVC and plastic hose in his bed doesn't seem to get him very far, but he's convinced it does, just as you are. I don't need to try it out. I'm trying out mods that do work.

People have been touting that you could run your car on water since the 1970's and the story is still the same. It still hasn't gained acceptance. Only now, with the ease of propogating false information and false "research" on the internet can everybody with a google toolbar convince themselves of the automotive and petroleum conspiracy to squash this "innovative new technology."

[ConnClark]

johnmyster its good to see someone else with their head on straight.

Just remember that if you thrash the shyster's arguments too harshly they will whine and the thread will get locked. ( I was hoping to do that on monday )

[johnmyster]

And when it does, there'll be another thread talking about some other made up reason that it works.

Well, before it gets locked...

Enough already with water-4-gas, hydro-assist and PICC... - Topic Powered by eve community

Schadewald, Robert J. (2008), Worlds of Their Own - A Brief History of Misguided Ideas: Creationism, Flat-Earthism, Energy Scams, and the Velikovsky Affair, Xlibris, ISBN 978-1-4636-0435-1

[carfreak]

Originally Posted by cfg83

88CRX -



110% agreement here. For HHO to work, the car must be reconfigured for lean burn. That's one of the reasons it's a PITA to make work. A diesel engine likes to "go-lean" by design, so it is a better ICE for the job.

I have an HHO generator from Hydrogen Boost Brown’s Gas Joe Cell HHO Water Car Save fuel mpg</. just like Daox says, I haven't had any results. However, I have not been willing to implement all the mods required for "the system" to work. This includes MAP and 02 sensor spoofs, and a fuel heater (using waste heat from engine coolant).

If I had to do it all over again, I would seriously *consider* this gizmo :

HydranOx - $400
Hydrogen Fuel System Portal Page :: Sigma Automotive

The reason I am curious about it is that it *claims* to separate the H2 from the 02. If the gizmo is only sending H2 into the air intake, this would remove the need to modify the 02 sensor, which I like, . But, I wouldn't pump the 02 into the cabin of the car, that's for sure.

I am not saying that the above gizmo is not a scam, I am just saying that it claims to solve an existing deficiency with HHO designs.

CarloSW2

Well, the bad part is that it only generates 2 liters per hour. And that was measuring the hydrogen and the oxygen. Were not replacing the fuel with hydrogen, but that's not enought to do anything as far as I am concerned. The unit I have is from Main Hydrogen Page and gets 65 LPH which is much higher and pretty low amps considering the difference (17 amps) Hope that helps ya some.

[ConnClark]

maybe you should read this post in this thread

Hydrogen Generator Experiment

The only way these things save any fuel is by making your wallet lighter.

[carfreak]

Originally Posted by ConnClark

maybe you should read this post in this thread

Hydrogen Generator Experiment

The only way these things save any fuel is by making your wallet lighter.

appreciate the thread, but everything that was said has nothing to do with the way it works. Were not replacing the fuel with hydrogen (never will happen this way)...it's just burning more efficiently. Instead of losing 15-20% out your tail pipe, you lose about 5-7%...I can talk for an hour about the other benefits, but probably a waste of time since most people have their minds closed off to the notion that it's already working.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by carfreak

it's just burning more efficiently. Instead of losing 15-20% out your tail pipe, you lose about 5-7%.

Unless hydrogen magically converts the Otto cycle to a Carnot or ideal Diesel cycle that is not possible.

Perhaps you could enlighten everyone how it does just this small portion of its magic.

[Blister]

Originally Posted by Formula413

........... because, in theory, it would supply a perfect 2/1 mix of hydrogen and oxygen into the intake stream, which would enter the exhaust stream as water vapor which would be ignored by the O2s.

This isn't exactly true. The only water vapor that would enter the the exhaust stream would be from inefficient hydrogen burn. Burnt hydrogen is helium and is not a component in water so an inefficient burn will be the only cause of water coming out of the exhaust. The unspent (inefficiently burnt) hydrogen will automatically recombine with any surrounding oxygen making the water vapor.

That's the basis of the hydrogen fuel cell. Reverse electrolysis (recombination of hydrogen and oxygen) creates a charge naturally and is used to power an electric motor, the only emission is water. So, insufficient combustion of hydrogen within the cylinder is the only reason that water would come out of the exhaust ports in an HHO system.

This is mainly what turned me away from digging further into hydrogen/hydroxy systems. Permanent magnet alternators can be introduced into the engine bay, running off of the same belts without regulators for higher production but the bottom line is that I would be using up the basic components of water while the planet currently seems to be having issues surrounding water. Anyway, I'm not what one would consider "green" but I do like efficiency. The more efficient these systems become and the burn becomes, it's stands to reason that the more water problems we will have.

It is amazing to me that sites like treehugger and other green sites endorse HHO for internal combustion. On a side note, I'm all for the home enthusiast building a system like this and building it well but mass production and legislation requiring this scares me a bit.

[Formula413]

Originally Posted by Blister

This isn't exactly true. The only water vapor that would enter the the exhaust stream would be from inefficient hydrogen burn. Burnt hydrogen is helium and is not a component in water so an inefficient burn will be the only cause of water coming out of the exhaust. The unspent (inefficiently burnt) hydrogen will automatically recombine with any surrounding oxygen making the water vapor.

So when hydrogen is burned it doesn't combine with oxygen to form H2O? I thought that was how it worked.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by Blister

This isn't exactly true. The only water vapor that would enter the the exhaust stream would be from inefficient hydrogen burn. Burnt hydrogen is helium and is not a component in water so an inefficient burn will be the only cause of water coming out of the exhaust.

This couldn't be further from the truth.

Combining two hydrogen nuclei to form helium is called nuclear fusion.

Fusion power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hydrogen combustion always results in the production of water.

[Blister]

Originally Posted by ConnClark

This couldn't be further from the truth.

Combining two hydrogen nuclei to form helium is called nuclear fusion.

Fusion power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hydrogen combustion always results in the production of water.

So, you're saying you rip water in half with an electrical current, burn up half or all of the parts... and you get more water? Doesn't that break some law somewhere in the physical realms? Just endless energy, continually reclaimable from the same source?

What if the hydrogen is always burnt incorrectly and we are just too ignorant to know it? Just because you get water from normal hydrogen combustion doesn't disprove what I've said at all and matter doesn't disappear or even reappear.

You're saying burning hydrogen makes hydrogen and/or hydroxy because that's the only way you're going to get water out of anything is with hydrogen and oxygen and I have to disagree. You cannot use up the energy of something in one form and reclaim it in the same form.

Anyway, I'm not armed with a wikipedia entry so I'll just bow out of the discussion but when your gettin' 300mpg and using it to look for water, don't come lookin' to blame me. lol.

Hydrogen is great but you'll never get hydrogen from really burning hydrogen.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by Blister

So, you're saying you rip water in half with an electrical current, burn up half or all of the parts... and you get more water?

no you get the exact same amount of water.

Doesn't that break some law somewhere in the physical realms? Just endless energy, continually reclaimable from the same source?

No it doesn't beak any rules. You expend some amount of energy to pull apart the water molecules. You then burn the hydrogen and get less energy back than you used to split the the water molecules. No rules of physics or thermal dynamics are violated as you end up with a net loss.

This is why these systems are a scam

Hydrogen is great but you'll never get hydrogen from really burning hydrogen.

Fusion of hydrogen into helium requires several things. First you can't use the hydrogen you get from ordinary water. You need deuterium which is in one form of heavy water. Secondly you need to smash the nuclei together with tremendous force. This can be done by using a particle accelerator or heating it to the temperature of the sun. Neither of these conditions exist in an automobile engine.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by Blister

What if the hydrogen is always burnt incorrectly and we are just too ignorant to know it? Just because you get water from normal hydrogen combustion doesn't disprove what I've said at all and matter doesn't disappear or even reappear.

Combustion is a chemical process - the nominal outputs are predictable based on the empirical science that is chemistry. Combustion is, in a crude sense, a change in chemical bonds -- nuclei are (at least proton count of the constituent atoms) are left alone.

When you change the proton count (going from hydrogen to helium) - that's an atomic process. You're changing atoms, not chemicals. You can disagree if you want, but you're not disagreeing with anyone in particular - you're disagreeing with the ambiguous entity that is chemistry.


Additionally "What if the hydrogen always..." is not an argument - this isn't a "what if" situation. This is a reaction, a well documented, observed and explainable reaction.

2H2 + O2 → 2H2O(g) + heat

Nice an balanced.... All atoms are accounted for on each side...

Chemical Equation - please read about balancing reactions. Then, please provide the chemical equation for how hydrogen and oxygen turn into helium. This isn't an unreasonable request if you're going to make that claim.


Now if you're just joshing us Have a beer on me for a well played and humorous post

[KitCarlsonEMS]

I see many good posts provided by those working the fields of science. While some consider them closed minded, I think not.
It is the educated that provide the equations, and the quantitative information. I do not think that education stifles creativity, it mere provides tools help sort out workable ideas. The numbers can be run to easily prove that an electric car is vastly superior to a hydrogen car using an internal combustion engine. The whole H2O craze is a rip off. Not far behind is solar, wind power, and even ethanol.

I hate to see tax dollars spent on crazy technologies. I get the impression there are few scientists/engineers in Washington.
Nuclear power (with breeder reactors) and advanced battery technologies seem to me as the most viable solution to our energy situation. I think we still have enough fossil fuels to make the transition. It is matter of setting a mission.

[Blister]

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

Combustion is a chemical process - the nominal outputs are predictable based on the empirical science that is chemistry. Combustion is, in a crude sense, a change in chemical bonds -- nuclei are (at least proton count of the constituent atoms) are left alone.

When you change the proton count (going from hydrogen to helium) - that's an atomic process. You're changing atoms, not chemicals. You can disagree if you want, but you're not disagreeing with anyone in particular - you're disagreeing with the ambiguous entity that is chemistry.


Additionally "What if the hydrogen always..." is not an argument - this isn't a "what if" situation. This is a reaction, a well documented, observed and explainable reaction.

2H2 + O2 → 2H2O(g) + heat

Nice an balanced.... All atoms are accounted for on each side...

Chemical Equation - please read about balancing reactions. Then, please provide the chemical equation for how hydrogen and oxygen turn into helium. This isn't an unreasonable request if you're going to make that claim.


Now if you're just joshing us Have a beer on me for a well played and humorous post

Actually, that's a VERY unreasonable request since nowhere in this thread or any other thread did I ever say that. Hydrogen and oxygen are ALWAYS going to recombine into water... ALWAYS, which is PROOF of an inefficient burn if water vapor is a product. Reading posts is tricky sometimes. We mostly just want to see what we want to see and don't absorb the true content of what we read.

Here's an equation for you though:

H2 + FIRE (will never, ever, not in a million years) = H2.

That's FREE ENERGY and doesn't exist SO, if we say H2 + O + fire = H2O(water)... well, it's obviously BUNK and that's what some are saying.

Once again, I am stating *clearly*, whether the by product is helium or not, an efficient burn of H2, WILL NEVER PRODUCE H2 and since that's 2/3rds of the contents of water, you wont get water either.

Anyway, this should be common sense but it's doesn't seem to click with some. I'm officially outta here. ("here"= this thread), another neat equation.

[trikkonceptz]

Now Hydrogen is the basis for Helium, however, there is no way that I believe, that an HHO generator can replicate Fusion.

The intense pressure, gravity, centrifugal force and heat necessary, ala the Sun, is not possible in a $300 HHO generator.

Wanted to chime in with that gem ...

[Formula413]

Originally Posted by Blister

Actually, that's a VERY unreasonable request since nowhere in this thread or any other thread did I ever say that. Hydrogen and oxygen are ALWAYS going to recombine into water... ALWAYS, which is PROOF of an inefficient burn if water vapor is a product. Reading posts is tricky sometimes. We mostly just want to see what we want to see and don't absorb the true content of what we read.

Here's an equation for you though:

H2 + FIRE (will never, ever, not in a million years) = H2.

That's FREE ENERGY and doesn't exist SO, if we say H2 + O + fire = H2O(water)... well, it's obviously BUNK and that's what some are saying.

Once again, I am stating *clearly*, whether or not the by product is helium or not, an efficient burn of H2 WILL never produce H2 and since that's 2/3rds of the contents of water, you wont get water either.

Anyway, this should be common sense but it's doesn't seem to click with some. I'm officially outta here. ("here"= this thread), another neat equation.

I am lost. When hydrogen is burned it combines with oxygen, just like gasoline combines with oxygen inside an engine and burns, forming water vapor and carbon dioxide (mostly). When you mix hydrogen and oxygen and add heat they will combine to form H2O. What is incorrect in that statement?

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by Blister

Actually, that's a VERY unreasonable request since nowhere in this thread or any other thread did I ever say that. Hydrogen and oxygen are ALWAYS going to recombine into water... ALWAYS, which is PROOF of an inefficient burn if water vapor is a product. Reading posts is tricky sometimes. We mostly just want to see what we want to see and don't absorb the true content of what we read.

Here's an equation for you though:

H2 + FIRE (will never, ever, not in a million years) = H2.

That's FREE ENERGY and doesn't exist SO, if we say H2 + O + fire = H2O(water)... well, it's obviously BUNK and that's what some are saying.

Once again, I am stating *clearly*, whether the by product is helium or not, an efficient burn of H2, WILL NEVER PRODUCE H2 and since that's 2/3rds of the contents of water, you wont get water either.

Anyway, this should be common sense but it's doesn't seem to click with some. I'm officially outta here. ("here"= this thread), another neat equation.

Common Sense! Holy crap - we've found the problem (and you're clearly demonstrating my point). The concepts you are attempting to describe are not common sense - the reason you're coming off as a crackpot: you're trying to apply common sense.

You, as far as I can see, are the only one that has said anything about H2 making H2 If that's incorrect, someone please point that out... But that still doesn't make the helium argument correct nor the argument that an "efficient" burn does not result in water nor the claim that hydrogen and oxygen automatically combine (starter energy is required).

I mean your earlier post stated

The unspent (inefficiently burnt) hydrogen will automatically recombine with any surrounding oxygen making the water vapor.

Your explanations aren't even consistent either. You're above post just said something about fire (which is not an element by itself).

Once again, I am stating *clearly*, whether the by product is helium or not, an efficient burn of H2, WILL NEVER PRODUCE H2 and since that's 2/3rds of the contents of water, you wont get water either.

You're [very] sadly mistaken. 2H2 + O2 --> 2H2O - please read the link about balancing chemical equations. You DO NOT get additional hydrogen. The sum of H on the right of the equation is the same as the hydrogen on the left. Here's More chemistry concepts to read. This isn't common sense, so please stop trying to apply common sense to it.

So everyone's clear on balancing chemical reactions (so that someone doesn't visit this page 8 months from now and starts thinking Hydrogen might combust into Helium or that hydrogen and oxygen does not efficiently combust into water (stating clearly, it does).

2H2 + O2 --> 2H20

Checking for balance
Left side
2H2 = 4 hydrogen atoms
O2 = 2 oxygen atoms

Right side
2*H2 = 4 hydrogen atoms
2*O = 2 oxygen atoms

Apply basic algebra (we'll substitute letters for clarity)
4x+2y=2*(2x+y) --distribute the 2--> 4x+2y=4x+2y

No free energy, no extra hydrogen created, no common sense involved.


Both hydrogen and oxygen are diatomic (as are N2, F2, Cl2, Br2, and I2) which is why we don't (naturally) see a single hydrogen atom or a single oxygen atom when unbound (hence the 2H2 in the above equation) - that doesn't mean we can't see a single atom when bound

-----
For archival thuroughness (should the post be deleted resulting in misunderstanding of the root of this post)

This isn't exactly true. The only water vapor that would enter the the exhaust stream would be from inefficient hydrogen burn. Burnt hydrogen is helium and is not a component in water so an inefficient burn will be the only cause of water coming out of the exhaust. The unspent (inefficiently burnt) hydrogen will automatically recombine with any surrounding oxygen making the water vapor.

That's the basis of the hydrogen fuel cell. Reverse electrolysis (recombination of hydrogen and oxygen) creates a charge naturally and is used to power an electric motor, the only emission is water. So, insufficient combustion of hydrogen within the cylinder is the only reason that water would come out of the exhaust ports in an HHO system.

This is mainly what turned me away from digging further into hydrogen/hydroxy systems. Permanent magnet alternators can be introduced into the engine bay, running off of the same belts without regulators for higher production but the bottom line is that I would be using up the basic components of water while the planet currently seems to be having issues surrounding water. Anyway, I'm not what one would consider "green" but I do like efficiency. The more efficient these systems become and the burn becomes, it's stands to reason that the more water problems we will have.

It is amazing to me that sites like treehugger and other green sites endorse HHO for internal combustion. On a side note, I'm all for the home enthusiast building a system like this and building it well but mass production and legislation requiring this scares me a bit.

[Blister]

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

Common Sense! Holy crap -....

I agree, **** common sense. It's not popular anymore anyway.

For archival thuroughness (should the post be deleted resulting in misunderstanding of the root of this post)

You obviously mistake me for someone or something I am not. I wouldn't delete the posts in this thread if my life depended on it. It's kinda rude of you to assume I would.... and yeah, Ill deal with it somehow. rofl

Now, you go and do as you wish and I will do the same.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by Blister

I agree, **** common sense. It's not popular anymore anyway.



You obviously mistake me for someone or something I am not. I wouldn't delete the posts in this thread if my life depended on it. It's kinda rude of you to assume I would.... and yeah, Ill deal with it somehow. rofl

Now, you go and do as you wish and I will do the same.

It's not the common sense isn't popular (it isn't).... It's that reasoning based on factual information always trumps common sense (maybe that's the engineer in me combined with the slight fear of bodily injury due to a bad call based on sense/intuition rather than reasoning and calculation). This isn't a popularity contest anyway and I don't hold anything against you personally

And I'm not mistaking you for someone or something... I don't know you... I didn't take you for anything at all Find it to be rude, I couldn't care - you don't know me, what I've done, how I live (beyond personal information I share, of course). Similarly, I don't know you, what you've done, how you live, etc. - so I'm not judging you. Interpret at will, I sleep fine knowing I made my best attempt

But yes, I did include in the event it was deleted. Again, I don't know you - it's presumptuous to think I do (if you're in Orlando and want to get lunch one day, let me know and that'll change) . All I can go off is past experience of a post that makes no sense because the user followed the post, something clicked and decided it'd be better to delete the post (which, I don't have a problem with except for archive reasons).

That said,
I don't argue with people, I argue with statements. Make another post (anywhere) that uses factual reason to come to conclusions and I'll totally back it up. Make a fallacious post under any user name, and I'll speak up. Maybe it's my unusually high levels of serotonin or ENTJ personality typ - whatever the reason, I typically don't associate users to their posts (except special cases where the person did something great - like the aerocivic, forkenswift, and the research SVO has dug up).