Hydrogen Generator Experiment

[cfg83]

Christ -

Originally Posted by Christ

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.

Ay, there's the rub.

I pretty much agree with atfab's statement, but I also agree that there's no way I can prove that the 02 spoofer doesn't account for *all* of the MPG improvement (in a non-diesel), just as you are stating. I don't have the smarts to do it. You can make the argument that the scammers sell you the 02 spoofer for cheap in order to sell you the hydrogen generator for the big bucks.

But I also think there's two ways to look at this. There are tons of scammers, but there are also a lot of DIY kits and forums devoted to this stuff. You can make your own for under $50 and then smack your head against the walls of physics all day long. You aren't required to give any money to the scammer in order to "roll your own".

I do think there's a kernel of truth in all this. It works in the lab, but no one can get it to work reliably for all drivetrains in the real world.

CarloSW2

[Frank Lee]

I think in order to "put this one to bed" we need data on the quantity of gas these things put out, the energy it takes to do it, the volume of gas required by the engine to sustain ultra lean burn, and knowledge of the engine management system to facilitate all that.

I have seen NOTHING of the sort outside the lab. NOTHING.

[Christ]

I feel that there's some truth to it as well, honestly. I just don't believe that chemical reactions are going to stop happening according to the laws of physics because someone found a way to introduce water into their engine as basic components.

The fact remains that if you put H, H, and O into a combustion environment, the end result is Water. The remaining O molecule (becuase in the absence of any other molecule, it will bond to another O) will still be part of the same count that originally was there.

In other words, if we count 30,000 molecules of H2O, 20,000 are H, and 10,000 are O.

What you end up with while they're isolated is 10,000 H2's, and 5,000 O2's. Still the same 30,000 basic molecules, right?

Ok, now lets oxidize 5,000H2's in the combustion chamber with 2,500 O2's... so we've still got 15,000 Base molecules that aren't combined... and 15,000 that just were.

The math just doesn't allow for the presence of excess oxygen, unless it would have been there from the start.

What happens when you burn a hydrocarbon? The hydrogen oxidizes, making water. The carbon oxidizes, making carbonic oxides. (CO and CO2) and the Nitrogen oxidizes, making NOx and N2O. Of course there are other particulates, but everything that already existed in the air took another form already, and used all the available oxygen to do so. If anything, the end result should look rich already, due to unburned fuel from oxygen starvation.

That's how I'm seeing the process. Feel free, anyone, to show me "the light".

[Christ]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I think in order to "put this one to bed" we need data on the quantity of gas these things put out, the energy it takes to do it, the volume of gas required by the engine to sustain ultra lean burn, and knowledge of the engine management system to facilitate all that.

I have seen NOTHING of the sort outside the lab. NOTHING.

We also need concrete data values on the computation of chemical reaction that hydrogen provides to gasoline during combustion. They do have a reaction to each other, but I've never seen any indication as to what degree of reaction they have, given the circumstances.

[Nerys]

agreed. bad o2 whacked my fuel econ in the jeep and the van but only by 3mpg in both.

[pgfpro]

Heres a good read. With some of the info you guys are asking about.

Hydrogen as a Fuel for Automobiles and Other Vehicles

[Christ]

Originally Posted by Winfield1990

I personally dont think hydrogen is a good choice for vehicles , blah blah blah.. if you do happen to get more energy out than in if your storing it as a gas.

You have to keep compression high , and the only way I can think of keeping pressure of the gas high enough to use it because when the tanks pressure drops you still have a bit of hydrogen left but your screwed with being able to use it.

tank with a solenoid piston on the inside to compress the gas when the pressure drops allowing you to get the most out of the tank.

about making the gas onhand when you need it and not storing it .... I have no input on that goodluck hopefully it works. I wasnt going to go through 30 something pages right now before saying my input.

goodluck

Ok, this is even starting to drive me nuts. I'm going to throw a shoe right now.







Ok. Maybe if I type it, someone will actually read it and understand - OVERUNITY IS NOT POSSIBLE. You will never get more out of anything than what you've put into it, which means that the fuel value of stored electrolyzed hydrogen is not going to be more than the value of energy put into the electrolysis process.

The whole point of this discussion, in Nerys' point of view, is whether or not hydrogen itself will make a worthwhile (in dollar amount) addition to his combustion process. Period.

Can we stop thinking about whether or not there is a possibility of overunity now, please?

I think, for all intents and purposes, nobody who has posted here has or is able to do the proper math to determine under all circumstances whether or not H2 will aide in the combustion process sufficient to actually do anything. I guess it's time to stop talking about it, and just TRY IT OUT.

Have a nice day,
Christ

[Christ]

I'm sorry, with all due respect, I think it would be in your best interests to do some research regarding terminology, and possibly the laws of physics. I don't think you're fully addressing the topic being discussed.

The electric company doesn't "lose" excess energy, they don't even produce it. The efficiency of the generators goes up or down with the load applied to them. They can only produce as much energy as is demanded from them, but use more or less fuel per KWh depending on the load which they face.

If the electric company could produce excess electricity and store it (like in batteries in your house, at night), electricity prices would probably level out (not likely, actually, due to economy and greed), and demand for power wouldn't have a peak and a ebb stage.

The point is, nothing is ever just "lost". Energy can not be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. The truth of physics is that all things are Information. The Information of the Universe is truly Universal, it cannot be created, destroyed, or likewise altered. It can take any form available in the Universe, and be converted to any other form in the Universe. The term "loss" regarding conversions is a bit of a misnomer. There is never actually a "loss" during conversion, there is only another form of energy converted, other than that which you intended to convert.

For instance, when you make fire for heat, you only want heat. Light is a by-product. You want as little light as possible for the best heat extraction from a fire, so there is a trade off there. There was never an excess of energy, nor was there ever a loss of energy.

Once again, we're already aware that it takes more energy to make the H2 than you get out of burning it or converting it via other means. The exercise in question here isn't whether or not we can create overunity with electrolysis, it's whether or not the hydrogen aides the efficiency of hydrocarbon combustion enough to make it's onboard generation worthwhile, by means of grid-charged batteries (which are, obviously, more weight and energy expended during acceleration and cruise, more significantly during acceleration).

I'm afraid you've still missed the question of the topic at hand.

[Nerys]

Your wrong on both accounts. Hydrogen stored DOES self discharge. in fact NO CONTAINER known to man can 100% contain hydrogen. Not one. Its one of the core problems with hydrogen and its DANGER when left in storage.

Batteries on the other hand ALSO self discharge but at a rate SO SLOW it might as well be ZERO self discharge compared to Hydrogen :-)

ie if you charged up a NIMH powered electric car after a 6 MONTHS of sitting you "might" lose 3 or 4 % of your charge. IE nothing in the bigger picture. a solar roof would take care of the very minor self discharge.

[Nerys]

NIMH's do not lose 30% sorry man. where did you get that data? even my AA nimhs which REALLY DO self discharge pretty fast do not discharge that quickly (15% a month or so)

the newer nimh tech only loses 15% in 6 months its soo slow that they can finally make and sell PRE CHARGED nimhs (impossible before with the self discharge). I was under the impression this figure was under 5% for the large format nimhs though I could be wrong its hard to find that kind of data.