Hydrogen Generator Experiment

[UFO]

Originally Posted by oldbeaver

The critics of HHO are based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, right?

No, the first law, and basic physics. Entropy or sleight of hand with closed/open systems has nothing to do with it. You can't split water, then re-combine it and have a net gain. Very simple.

[smokey442]

I did a hydrogen experiment a few months back. 200 cu ft. tank. Used an adjustable regulator. Used an electric fuel shutoff solenoid to control introduction into airstream before the throttle valve. Without hydrogen assist 36mpg. At 5psi setting about 70 cu ft. per hr. 40mpg. 10psi setting about 100 cu ft. per hr. 45 mpg. There have been a number of papers published on hydrogen enhanced combustion. Their conclussions seem to be in line with the results I was able to obtain. Using brute force electrolysis to generate hydrogen on the fly to get you further down the road on a given amount of fuel seems to not work. I suspect there is something to be gained by using pulse width modulation to increase the yield for electrical energy input. With all the Stan Meyer disciples out there I still haven't seen anything of substance suface. Conclusion hydrogen has some desirable combustion characteristics. Downside cost is high per energy density.

[Frank Lee]

riiiiight.

[user removed]

You also have to believe that the electrical energy from your alternator can be increased without an energy cost, which seems to be where the ignorance of the HHO advocates becomes glaringly obvious. Adding a load to the charging system is the same as climbing a grade with the vehicle. You can try but there is no way you can get free energy. The energy you get cost you at least 3 times more than the usable energy you recover from your HHO system.

The most efficient energy storage device of which I am aware is a hydraulic accumulator, which under ideal circumstances can approach 99%.

regards
Mech

[wmjinman]

I'll state right up front for the record I'm no expert in this. But I've been interested in the idea of using hydrogen as a motor fuel for a long time (since the late 70's), and have read-up on it a bit. I even experimented with a home made electrolysis unit a little bit at one time.

I would believe the only way to improve mileage or power in a car with hydrogen is to have the hydrogen supplied WITHOUT using the car's engine's power in any way, unless it's truly from an otherwise "wasted byproduct" (like if it's generated by a sterling engine running off the heat in the car's exhaust, or something like that). The molecular bond that holds water together is very strong. Which means "splitting water" takes a LOT of energy (and re-combining it RELEASES a lot of energy - the Space Shuttles' main engines ran off combining hydrogen & oxygen). But there are always losses in these steps, so in a closed system (everything on-board the car), there would be a net loss.

Now, with another energy source - like solar cells on the roof - to power the hydrogen generator, you might get a net gain, but it would be small. Probably a lot better to just use the solar cells to boost the car's existing electrical system and take a bit of the load off the alternator.

To use hydrogen, and actually benefit from it, I think the water needs to be "split" elsewhere and then "loaded" onto the car as fuel. There are even difficulties with this, because hydrogen has such a low density, you can't really store a lot of it without heavy pressure tanks, heavy hydride tanks, or exotic cryogenic liquid tanks. And there's a bit of a danger element when fooling around with hydrogen, too.

Really, when you think about it, gasoline is almost a "miracle product". Just look at how cheap, lightweight, and easy to carry a gallon of gas is - and how far your car will go on it!!! Even a non-modded car. It's a tough act to follow.

So hydrogen - - - a really neat idea, but really hard to implement - unfortunately.

[elhigh]

Somebody asked the bosses at Coca Cola, after they'd pulled New Coke and reintroduced Coke Classic, if it wasn't all a plot, a conspiracy to generate buzz, interest and sales. The executive said, "We're neither that smart nor that stupid."

If this cockamamie idea worked, the motor companies would be all over it, and not to try to subdue it, no way. The first one to patent a working, provable process would own it and could deliver cars that got crazy mileage running on water. Even if the damned car looked like a piece of half-rotten plywood, sales would be crazy high all the time. Running on water? Just take a whiz into the tank and drive away! Pour a rain bucket into the tank!

But that hasn't happened. It isn't going to happen because anecdotal evidence notwithstanding, "research" from assorted "satisfied customers" notwithstanding, it doesn't work. It takes more energy to dissociate water into HHO than the HHO releases when recombining back into water.

The other idea about capturing more of the heat otherwise wasted in the IC cycle is way smarter. Stirling engine/generators instead of radiators, or Seebeck devices on the exhaust pipe, will deliver more and better benefits than wasting part of the engine's output electrolyzing water, only to get a small portion of that energy back when the HHO is recombined in the cylinders.

I'm desubscribing this thread. I only joined to see what kind of silliness came up, I honestly hoped it would get nothing but catcalls.

[UFO]

Most engines are already hydrogen powered, no need to supplement with carbonless, gaseous H2.

[RustyLugNut]

misapplied science on the other.

Claims of running purely on water and exaggerated mileage gains are countered by the usual thermodynamic laws and "can't get more power than all the losses" in electrolysis generation.

Look deeper and there are possibilities. Small ones - but possibilities that can be exploited.

[suspectnumber961]

Having built and tested (more or less) my own hydrogen generator design I do think there can be some mpg gains. But to see consistent gains you need high efficiency and this takes a good bit of serious engineering to accomplish. Plus in colder areas there is the freezing issue.

On a cost/return basis there is a big hill to climb.

People who do a blanket dismissal should be ignored?

I've been away from the whole hydrogen issue for a good while.

Here is an available design...

http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Smack.pdf

* note he no longer makes these due to issues around potential hex chrome poisoning from the ss plates.

SEARCH "smack booster" for lots of info


TRY the test below with propane or welding gas????

Originally Posted by smokey442

I did a hydrogen experiment a few months back. 200 cu ft. tank. Used an adjustable regulator. Used an electric fuel shutoff solenoid to control introduction into airstream before the throttle valve. Without hydrogen assist 36mpg. At 5psi setting about 70 cu ft. per hr. 40mpg. 10psi setting about 100 cu ft. per hr. 45 mpg. There have been a number of papers published on hydrogen enhanced combustion. Their conclussions seem to be in line with the results I was able to obtain. Using brute force electrolysis to generate hydrogen on the fly to get you further down the road on a given amount of fuel seems to not work. I suspect there is something to be gained by using pulse width modulation to increase the yield for electrical energy input. With all the Stan Meyer disciples out there I still haven't seen anything of substance suface. Conclusion hydrogen has some desirable combustion characteristics. Downside cost is high per energy density.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

Having built and tested (more or less) my own hydrogen generator design I do think there can be some mpg gains. But to see consistent gains you need high efficiency and this takes a good bit of serious engineering to accomplish. Plus in colder areas there is the freezing issue.

On a cost/return basis there is a big hill to climb.

Cost/return is true for ANY of the mods performed on this enthusiast site. The problem is the lack of returns. Or more specifically, consistent, verifiable returns. The problem is not producing the HHO in small quantities efficiently, the problem is understanding how to use the relatively miniscule amount of HHO effectively.

People who do a blanket dismissal should be ignored?

I've been away from the whole hydrogen issue for a good while.

Here is an available design...

http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Smack.pdf

* note he no longer makes these due to issues around potential hex chrome poisoning from the ss plates.

SEARCH "smack booster" for lots of info


TRY the test below with propane or welding gas????

I will not remark on Smack. A simple Google search will be a revelation.

The same with chromium poisoning. Scare tactics to sell products.

The bottom line is HOW a relatively small amount of HHO ( a fraction of the volume needed to reach the Lower Flammability Limit ) effects combustion. Once this is understood, the rest is straight forward engineering.

I fooled with propane augmentation of gasoline engines back in the 70's and it does show a principle that is related more with vapor carburetors and fuel processors than with HHO augmentation.