Hydrogen Generator Experiment

[Christ]

Originally Posted by dcb

I meant "nope" as in "I don't see a problem with your figuring".



I think "mass" was a typo here.

And the math is painfully simple if you know the 22.4 l/mole gas law.

It sort of was... I was looking for a synonym for "total product"... Mass worked in my head for the brief second I was typing, so it ended up there.

Mass, in this case, was meant to portray "the mass" or "the object as a whole", rather than the form of measure.

[noeryan]

I wish there was a "chalk board" that we could post information that everyone agrees to so we could get somewhere with these forums. Kind of like an Ecomodder wikipedia. I believe it would help a lot of modders who weed through a bunch of rubbish to get answers!

[Istas]

I hate doing this, but after about 200 posts I just stopped reading, instead skimming. The majority of words in this thread seem to have been back-and-forth "you're wrong" "no you're wrong", supplemented with some very obvious talking-out-of-the-rear-end, and that's hard to read through.

I think there may be potential in supplementing gasoline with on-board-electrolyzed oxygen and hydrogen. I think this because it makes some logical sense to me, and I don't have the knowledge and data to automatically know it does or doesn't. I also think the effectiveness would probably vary by make and model, and even probably vary by identical cars that were owned by different people or driven in different areas. So I'm still waiting for a thorough, standardized test of an actual, whole car, working as a total system, with analyzed component wear and exhaust gas.


There's something I haven't seen stated though, regarding why car companies don't use this, and it seems to be either "it's bogus" or "oil company supression" option. While I don't deny the possibility of either of these, I think there is another option:

These systems listed here require adding water (possibly distilled), the electrodes presumably get crudded up over time and would either need to be cleaned or replaced, and the electrolyte content might even need to be monitored.

Given that car companies don't produce vehicles like the boxfish car simply because (they state) they're too ugly and nobody would buy them, why would they think a car that would require more regular maintenance would fly? We're talking about a culture that (at least in my area) has introduced pull-tabs on soup cans because apparently a can opener was too much of a hassle. I imagine that even adding water would be a burden in many people's minds.


Would I try the hydrogen(-and-possibly-oxygen)-into-engine thing? I sure would, if it were proven with hard numbers to improve fuel economy (enough to more than offset maintenance costs) while not harming, or even improving, the emissions, and also while not increasing wear on the engine. I would be willing to put up with the extra bit of hassle, because I find it interesting and I also crave efficiency. But I don't think it's out of the question that car companies think there's not enough general demand for such maintenance to put it into a production car, and that's assuming it works.

[tjts1]

I think its been pretty firmly establishes that this whole hydrogen thing is BS and it doesn't work. If it worked, everybody would be using it by now, especially on this forum. Some people have tried it once or twice and they got mixed results at best. Certainly nothing to justify the effort of building the whole contraption in the first place. In most cases any FE benefit is a combination the driver unconsciously changing his driving habits and a whole lots of fudging of the numbers here and there. No matter what your method, will always consume more energy splitting the hydrogen and oxygen than you can get back. End of story.

[stevey_frac]

Originally Posted by tjts1

I think its been pretty firmly establishes that this whole hydrogen thing is BS and it doesn't work. If it worked, everybody would be using it by now, especially on this forum. Some people have tried it once or twice and they got mixed results at best. Certainly nothing to justify the effort of building the whole contraption in the first place. In most cases any FE benefit is a combination the driver uncontentious changing his driving habits and a whole lots of fudging of the numbers here and there. No matter what your method, will always consume more energy splitting the hydrogen and oxygen than you can can get back. You can't cheat the laws of physics.

Well... That's not quite true. Extensive research was done, and it was shown that hydrogen can extend the lean burn limit of a gasoline powered internal combustion engine...

Sure the kits don't work, but the kits don't alter the A/F ratio of your car.

If you could find a way to trick your car into running lean with a good hydrogen generator, you would see small gains. You'd have to map the A/F ratio against load though. It'd be hard but doable.

FOr some reason, the wikipedia page on it isn't showing for me. However, IIRC correctly, hydrogen fuel enhancement can allow a gas engine to run as lean as 25:1 at low loads.

[Istas]

Originally Posted by tjts1

I think its been pretty firmly establishes that this whole hydrogen thing is BS and it doesn't work.

I don't think that's the case at all. In fact, what stevey_frac said.

No matter what your method, will always consume more energy splitting the hydrogen and oxygen than you can get back. End of story.

As has been discussed ad nauseam in this post, of course it won't work if the energy from combining the hydrogen and oxygen is what is used to split more hydrogen and oxygen. But once again, that is not the concept in question here. The concept is the hydrogen (and oxygen in some versions but not others) altering the characteristics of the reaction in such a way that it improves the efficiency of the combustion, as a whole, enough to offset the (relatively) small amount of energy needed to split the small amount of water into its component elements.

[Istas]

stevey_frac: Interesting side-note, the Honda Insight goes as low as 25.8:1 lean fuel burn, all by itself, although the acceleration conditions have to be met for a fairly long time for it to happen and not kick immediately out of it. The harmful byproducts of such a low ratio are stored while it is lean burning, and the engine temporarily goes into a richer mixture to "burn" the stored harmful emissions off periodically.

[Istas]

Found the article I read that 25.8:1 from.

Giving the Insight a Good Driver

The article also covers smoothing out the acceleration signals a tiny bit, to make it much easier to stay in that lean-burn mode, while still not sacrificing driveability. Good read.

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by stevey_frac

Well... That's not quite true. Extensive research was done, and it was shown that hydrogen can extend the lean burn limit of a gasoline powered internal combustion engine...

Sure the kits don't work, but the kits don't alter the A/F ratio of your car.

If you could find a way to trick your car into running lean with a good hydrogen generator, you would see small gains. You'd have to map the A/F ratio against load though. It'd be hard but doable.

FOr some reason, the wikipedia page on it isn't showing for me. However, IIRC correctly, hydrogen fuel enhancement can allow a gas engine to run as lean as 25:1 at low loads.

If you goal is to trick the car into lean burn, just get wide band oxygen sensor and controller. The prices have come down a lot in the last couple of years. You can have the whole contraption up and running For $120.
14Point7.com NAW_OEM
Bosch Wideband O2 sensor 5 wire LSU 4.2 - New 3737:eBay Motors (item 320391356675 end time Jul-09-09 07:56:33 PDT)
Why mess with a hydrogen generator when you know they don't work?

Originally Posted by Istas

As has been discussed ad nauseam in this post, of course it won't work if the energy from combining the hydrogen and oxygen is what is used to split more hydrogen and oxygen. But once again, that is not the concept in question here. The concept is the hydrogen (and oxygen in some versions but not others) altering the characteristics of the reaction in such a way that it improves the efficiency of the combustion, as a whole, enough to offset the (relatively) small amount of energy needed to split the small amount of water into its component elements.

Pseudo science at its best. You have no idea how it works, you can't replicated the results but somewhere deep down you're convinced there is something to it because you read it on the internet.

[Istas]

Originally Posted by tjts1

Pseudo science at its best. You have no idea how it works, you can't replicated the results but somewhere deep down you're convinced there is something to it because you read it on the internet.

I'm not going to get into a drawn-out argument with someone who uses cheap-shot insults like that. That's not what this message board is supposed to be about.

It's supposed to be about thinking of alternative ways of doing things, of thinking about possible improvements, and then testing them. You're suggesting that we should toss the idea out without testing it just because you don't think it's valid, and you're flinging insults as well. Constructive thoughts are welcome, but please leave the unnecessary discouraging, condescending tones out of it.