Hydrogen Generator Experiment

[Nerys]

I WATCHED a regular (though carburated) gasoline engine car run on PURE HYDROGEN GAS. On national television.

they shoved the hose into the carb and it started and RAN on hydrogen gas from a tank.

your car will burn hydrogen just as happily as gasoline.

Hydrogen working or not is not up for discussion. its simple physics and chemistry.

you put Hydrogen into an engine cylinder and light it and its GOING to behave just like gasoline and move that cylinder.

the ONLY thing up for negotiation or discussion as far as I am concerned is whether or not an end user can practically generate enough of it to be worth the hassle.

[Frank Lee]

Well be sure to keep us apprised of the development and testing results.

[chuckm]

Copying from my post on another thread:

Until God repeals the laws of thermodynamics, I won't buy an on-board hydrogen generator system.
Let me offer this again: I'll help someone design a safe and effective way to meter in H2 from a bottle free of charge. If practical, I'll help you test the results. If it shows a net power output that is equal to more than the fuel value of the hydrogen (ie, hydrogen injected alongside gasoline), then I'd say you had something worthwhile. I'll even assign all rights to the design over to you.

But if you insist on generating HHO onboard, then I wish you luck, but tjts1 is correct.

[pdxmonkeyboy]

It would be nice if some kind of final decision about how well the hydrogen generator works. You have all these websites that claim so many benefits but I saw science channel study that installed a generator and it basically did nothing

[Nerys]

chuckm your still asking the WRONG question demanding the WRONG result.

"If it shows a net power output that is equal to more than the fuel value of the hydrogen"

According to the best of mankinds knowledge this is a VIOLATION of the laws of the universe as we know it.

you can NEVER EVER get more energy out than you put in. PERIOD. why do people keep saying this? the OBVIOUS and very SCARY implication of this line of thinking is that you somehow THINK very very incorrectly that GASOLINE gives you more than it took to make it.

that also is impossible.

I have one and only one concern. DOLLARS IN versus DOLLARS OUT. does it save me MONEY even if it uses 10 times the energy. DOES IT SAVE ME MONEY.

pdxmonkeyboy I want to test this and I even know how to. Alas I can not afford it. The test is simple. Hydrogen filled gas bottle (quite cheap actually $18 worth of hydrogen the last time I checked) and regulator.

alas the BOTTLE requires a deposit equal in value to the full purchase price to rent. I have no credit car with $400 available balance ($356 IIRC)

and a regulator is about $100-$120 used PLUS the adapter to convert for hydrogen fill another $30-$40.

Fill it with hydrogen for $18 plug it into your car with a FLOW METER and "see what happens"

find the LOWEST feed level you can that increases your MPG (if it increases it at all) calculate how much HYDROGEN that is then figure out how much battery power you would need to generate that much in real time.

Calculate the amortized cost of the batteries over 2-3 years plus the cost of the E to charge them. is this Dollar amount smaller than the savings in gasoline?

alas I can not afford to run this test.

A generator installed onboard and powered BY THE ICE is not likely to show any gains because while hydrogen should in theory increase mpg (your replacing gasoline with hydrogen to a small extent ie you should need less THROTTLE for X speed.

BUT now your engine has to work harder to turn the alternator to generator the VERY SIGNIFICANT power draw of the Hydrogen Generator.

if alternators were VERY efficient this might actually see a small gain but they are not they are VERY inefficient. its VERY likely (butt check 99% certain) to NOT give you a gain in fact it might COST you mpg.

now if you generate the H2 at home you will DEFINATELY see a gain but none of us could possibly afford the pumps and tanks to COMPRESS and STORE Hydrogen effectively.

NOW if you put batteries in the car and your driving is mostly highway so the mpg hit of the extra mass is minimized you should see a gain. How much for how long. thats the question. if its a 1-3mpg gain its likely to not be worth the hassle even if it does have a positive ROI in its lifespan.

8-10+mpg now its starting to get interesting. I have my doubts but the math seems to work out. The trick is DOING it :-)

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by Nerys

you can NEVER EVER get more energy out than you put in. PERIOD.

...ah, but unlike Love, "....perpetual motion..." is forever!

[atfab]

Please excuse a newcomer for jumping in,

I gave spent a long time experimenting with HHO. Time and money prevent me from finishing my latest generator. Please remember I am only looking for an increase in MPGs, Not as the sole energy source.

The big problem is the ECU/Computer in modern cars. The main problem with HHO is the O2 sensor. HHO causes the ECU to see way too much O2 and enrichens the mixture. The current trend is to separate the Hg and O2 and only send the Hg to the intake. This requires carefull design, but even then the newer the car the harder it is to find the right balance of Hg with out reprograming the ECU

Too many of the easily found websites are actually for selling crappy designs that don't perform well and may actually be dangerous to use.

If you have an old, pre-computer car, with a carb, HHO can actually make a large difference. The timing would need to be retarded due to the faster burn rate. Care needs to be in the cell's design to prevent a backfire getting into the cell (Think, LARGE BOOM) and keeping the electrical load under 15 to 20 amps.

I understand that the Japanese are testing an actual water car, we can only hope they will force a change in our global reliance on oil

[Christ]

Originally Posted by atfab

Please excuse a newcomer for jumping in,

I gave spent a long time experimenting with HHO. Time and money prevent me from finishing my latest generator. Please remember I am only looking for an increase in MPGs, Not as the sole energy source.

The big problem is the ECU/Computer in modern cars. The main problem with HHO is the O2 sensor. HHO causes the ECU to see way too much O2 and enrichens the mixture. The current trend is to separate the Hg and O2 and only send the Hg to the intake. This requires carefull design, but even then the newer the car the harder it is to find the right balance of Hg with out reprograming the ECU

Too many of the easily found websites are actually for selling crappy designs that don't perform well and may actually be dangerous to use.

If you have an old, pre-computer car, with a carb, HHO can actually make a large difference. The timing would need to be retarded due to the faster burn rate. Care needs to be in the cell's design to prevent a backfire getting into the cell (Think, LARGE BOOM) and keeping the electrical load under 15 to 20 amps.

I understand that the Japanese are testing an actual water car, we can only hope they will force a change in our global reliance on oil

Specifically the part highlited, I don't believe for a second.

If you're splitting water into H, H, and O, and you're heating it sufficiently to cause chemical combustion and recomposition, the end result (if not harmful emissions) should be WATER. It came from water, it should return as water. There should never be an excess of O2 in the exhaust stream, unless you've introduced more O2 than H2. It just doesn't jive.

Since I don't believe that part, I don't well believe that you need to spoof the O2 sensor, either. If anything, spoofing the O2 sensor into running the car lean is the sole reason for the increase in mileage.

Without seeing a dynamometer tested emissions sheet, I'd never for a second believe that there was excess O2 in the exhaust. Not for a single solitary second. It's BS until proven otherwise.

[Nerys]

this has always confused me as well. the O2 from the mix is NILL compared to the O2 the engine is already capable of sucking in. Do cars READ the amount of O2 entering or just adjust based on the exhaust?

I could maybe see this being an issue if you were injecting after this "measurement" but I don't think cars measuring incoming O2 (just volume if anything right?)

[Christ]

airflow volume based on a standard measurement of O2 on average. They don't actually measure O2 except as a comparison of intake volume to exhaust content, to help determine whether or not the engine is running efficiently.

The other option is a formula which determines approx airflow based on pressure behind the throttle body and known volumetric efficiency of the engine.

The former is MAF, the latter is MAP.

The O2 sensor has far less control over the fuel curve than most people give it credit for.