Hydrogen Generator Experiment

[blackjackel]

Originally Posted by Indianapolis500

I work at a mcdonalds I take it running off of burger and oil fat for cars is way lot cleaner then then running off of pure hydrogen (or did we forget about the lindenburgh accident) ??????

In keeping with the spirit of the forum, I will try and tone down my response. That statement was preposterous! The Hindenburg had hundred of thousands of gallons of hydrogen in it, and it was coated with a paint similar in composition to thermite (Which burns at 2000 degrees). Furthermore, the Hindenburg was completely enclosed while a car engine has plenty of ventilation from all sides. Not to mention the required spark to ignite the hydrogen needed to be there which can't possibly happen around an automobile engine.

This HHO system does not store hydrogen but pumps it into the air intake as soon as it is produced. There simply can be NO comparison between the Hindenburg and these HHO systems in cars.

[justpassntime]

Originally Posted by Indianapolis500

I work at a mcdonalds I take it running off of burger and oil fat for cars is way lot cleaner then then running off of pure hydrogen (or did we forget about the lindenburgh accident) ??????

Lindenburgh accident? You mean Lindbergh or Hindenburg? Lucky Lindy had several but never one he couldn't walk away from.

McDonalds huh....

[azraelswrd]

I remember the History channel special on the Hindenburgh... yeah, the material they used to cover it was VERY VOLATILE. Even in the film footage of the airship coming down it isn't exploding into a "Michael Bay extravaganza" as most people seem to think but the skin is literally burning away and the fire is being fueled by the hydrogen cells within.

Remember that quite a few of the passengers did walk away from the collapsing airship. Most deaths occured from people JUMPING out of the vessel when it was still in the air.

Just another example of "doomed by design". We'll probably never know for sure what was the exact cause (because there are so many things to blame from static charge, sabotage and lightning to hydrogen leakage...) but yeah, not exactly the same thing as jackal said.

There were more deaths in a helium-filled airship (USS Akron) than in the Hindy.

USS Akron (ZRS-4) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[whitevette]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Back to another point someone mentioned earlier: I think that heating the gasoline before injecting it would have a strong benefit. This is how a lot of efficiency is gained with oil fired furnaces, and vaporizing the gasoline (as opposed to having droplets) is key to gaining efficiency.

As a part of a research project years ago...liquid gasoline was heated prior to being introduced to the float bowl of a dyno test engine; the results were "interesting" ( to say the least); when the hotter gasoline reached the main jet area, the engine suddenly stumbled...lost RPM, and ultimately died. The reason? The gasoline did indeed vaporize more...and, as such, created an overly-rich A/F ratio. With no lamda sensor / ECU to alter timing and fuel flow, this carbed basic engine could not sustain a normal cycle of events.
Would a modern emission engine perform differently? It would seem so...even though the ranges of the sensors might be overwhelmed. Interesting question.... But, you are correct in assuming partial vaporization of the gasoline charge is the reason for incomplete combustion. Some say the efficiency of gasoline combustion is ~98%. I do not believe this.

[whitevette]

Originally Posted by elepski

Hardware will determine the success of the system. You will want a high amp alternator that will produce a surplus over the amp draw the HHO device requirements.

There is question of whether or not the power draw of the alternator will counteract the addition of the HHO gas...

... and maybe even wind energy from the cars motion to supplement the system and help provide a positive influx of energy into the system.

The Law of Conservation of Energy tells us ... Energy In = Energy Out PLUS losses. There are always losses...sometimes large losses (inefficient processes). This says the energy out of any process (electrolysis, whatever) is gonna be less than the energy one puts in (started out with).
"Wind energy"? What causes this wind? The pushing of the car through the air causes the wind. Burning the gas gives the power to push the car...through the air. The hanging of any device ( prop, turbine, etc. to supplement power) out in this wind is going to be "felt" as (parasitic) drag by the engine...which requires more throttle ( more gas) just to maintain the speed ( the wind velocity) and spin this prop / turbine.. It's very difficult to make something out of nothing (unless one is a politician!).
A comment on alternators : The maximum power (watts) an alternator can produce is regulated by the (built-in) voltage regulator. If a system is installed in the car's circuit which requires more current ... amps ... than the alternator is capable of making, it just ends up being an "under-powered" system. The diodes won't tolerate such demand for long....

[Indianapolis500]

Originally Posted by justpassntime

Lindenburgh accident? You mean Lindbergh or Hindenburg? Lucky Lindy had several but never one he couldn't walk away from.

McDonalds huh....

So your telling me this new Hydrogen fuel cell runs off air or water?? Which one is it plz do tell.... And until we see Trains, planes, and ships running on hydrogen which I dout... There really is no purpose.... Yep... Mcdonalds... Its actually fun seeing how much fat america runs off of but like the other poster said ill tone it down for you

[Indianapolis500]

Hydrogen is the most abundant of the chemical elements, constituting roughly 75% of the universe's elemental mass.[2] Stars in the main sequence are mainly composed of hydrogen in its plasma state. Elemental hydrogen is relatively rare on Earth, and is industrially produced from hydrocarbons such as methane, after which most elemental hydrogen is used "captively" (meaning locally at the production site), with the largest markets about equally divided between fossil fuel upgrading (e.g., hydrocracking) and ammonia production (mostly for the fertilizer market). Hydrogen may be produced from water using the process of electrolysis, but this process is presently significantly more expensive commercially than hydrogen production from natural gas.[3]

or wait does this mean anything to you and the other posters?

[whitevette]

It means something to me....;I'm not sure of its relevance, though.

[cfg83]

azraelswrd -

Originally Posted by azraelswrd

I remember the History channel special on the Hindenburgh... yeah, the material they used to cover it was VERY VOLATILE. Even in the film footage of the airship coming down it isn't exploding into a "Michael Bay extravaganza" as most people seem to think but the skin is literally burning away and the fire is being fueled by the hydrogen cells within.

Remember that quite a few of the passengers did walk away from the collapsing airship. Most deaths occured from people JUMPING out of the vessel when it was still in the air.

Just another example of "doomed by design". We'll probably never know for sure what was the exact cause (because there are so many things to blame from static charge, sabotage and lightning to hydrogen leakage...) but yeah, not exactly the same thing as jackal said.

There were more deaths in a helium-filled airship (USS Akron) than in the Hindy.

USS Akron (ZRS-4) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, I don't think of the Hindenburg disaster as representative of the "danger of hydrogen" :

LZ 129 Hindenburg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Use of Hydrogen instead of Helium

Helium was initially selected as the lift gas as it was the most commonly used gas in airships. However, a United States military embargo against Germany forced the re-engineering of the Hindenburg to use hydrogen for lift. The United States is the world's largest producer of helium and Germany was left unable to procure the huge quantity of helium necessary. Although the danger of using hydrogen, which unlike helium is flammable, was obvious, there were no alternative gases that could be produced in sufficient quantities that would provide sufficient lift.

CarloSW2

[whitevette]

Originally Posted by Bigs

I have been researching on this a lot.

Water vapours, will it screw up your engine and exhaust system? I'm sending this guy an email concerning this to see his replies. I'll keep you posted!

Hi, "Bigs"!
I just caught your question about whether water vapor are messing up your engine / exhaust systems....Altho' I'm not the guy you sent the email to...I'd just like to say : Most water injection systems don't do squat; ie, produce much vapor. This is exactly the reason I went to the trouble / expense of developing a "new and novel" water vapor generating system.

Long story short : I finally was issued two US Patents on my concept ... and can tell you : No, the addition of more water vapor to the intake air will not affect your engine / exhaust system. The IC engine (ICE) already generates huge amounts of water vapor in the combustion of gasoline...so there is no problem. I was able to generate so much water vapor, the spark plugs shorted ( no spark) and the dyno engine just stopped running ( like the key had been turned off!). This was about 1:1 liquid gasoline to liquid water ( by volume). This is damp!! A true supersaturization of water vapor in the air.
Comments? -whitevette
[ chembustion at yahoo dot com ]
USA