Hydrogen Generator Experiment

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Organizing MPG competitions happens all the time ... over and over again around the U.S. .... that part of the Ecomodder side is easy ... I suspect you will find it much much harder to get the HHO aficionados out there to compete head to head... or the money shot ... let other people run the test HHO vehicle on that same closed loop controlled course both with and without the HHO system enabled.

I'd be all in favor of the concept of the event quantification ... but I have my doubts about how successful you will be at getting it all organized ... but ... best of luck to you ... Be sure to post up a thread of the details of when and where and such , once you've managed to pull it together.

But, the main goal is to get these HHO proponents out in the sunlight where their systems can be proofed by a capable second party. HHO supporters need to get out of their cloisters and meet the challenge, or simply quit bringing the topic up.

If it ends up being me and only me driving up to have UFO test my vehicle(s), then so be it.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Meet on the 4th of July, at high noon in your neck of the woods.

Let's have an Ecomodder meet where HHO aficionados as well as other Modders meet for a weekend where they are tested and timed over a closed loop. GPS distance and fuel is measured via weight. Our own mini Xprize get-together if you will. And we can run it in an orderly fashion.

I'd suggest not to have the meeting out in the woods, nor on the open road, but on a calibrated dyno, repeatedly doing preset runs.

Heck, I'll fly over if you can prove a meaningful positive effect of on-board hydrogen generation !

Can't miss such a memorable day.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I understand Thermochemistry and Chemical Thermodynamics. I understand that by manipulating various reaction parameters I can add a small quantity of hydrogen to preempt the branch reactions and start combustion with a fuel mixture that differs from the starting fuel/oxidizer. I do not need to break the laws of thermodynamics.

But you missed the part about hydrogen generation from water being only 30% efficient, and you need it to be over 100% to get a net energy gain.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by euromodder

I'd suggest not to have the meeting out in the woods, nor on the open road, but on a calibrated dyno, repeatedly doing preset runs.

Heck, I'll fly over if you can prove a meaningful positive effect of on-board hydrogen generation !

Can't miss such a memorable day.

You either have your A-B-A testing protocol applied to everyone or apply it to no one. If I am forced to pay for an all day dyno session at the local dyno shop to prove my equipment, I insist that all the aero mods shown on this forum be proved on a rolling road wind tunnel.

The rules set forth in the Unicorn Corral were a good set of A-B-A tests. I will adhere to that. If you want dyno tests, you have to agree to the bet: If there are positive gains on the dyno tests, YOU pay for it. If there are none, I pay for it.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by UFO

But you missed the part about hydrogen generation from water being only 30% efficient, and you need it to be over 100% to get a net energy gain.

Simple adjustments make electrolysis 60% efficient and over. And we are talking about reactant levels of hydrogen and not fuel replacement levels. 30% electrolysis efficiency would do fine. The current needed to run a good stereo system is all that is needed to produce the required hydrogen to effect a passenger car engine. 140 watts is a fractional load on the engine even after electromechanical losses. If other physical parameters are juggled correctly, the existing fuel stream in concert with the hydrogen results in a measurable increase in cylinder pressure over the effective crank angles - hence, an increase in BMEP.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Simple adjustments make electrolysis 60% efficient and over. And we are talking about reactant levels of hydrogen and not fuel replacement levels. 30% electrolysis efficiency would do fine. The current needed to run a good stereo system is all that is needed to produce the required hydrogen to effect a passenger car engine. 140 watts is a fractional load on the engine even after electromechanical losses. If other physical parameters are juggled correctly, the existing fuel stream in concert with the hydrogen results in a measurable increase in cylinder pressure over the effective crank angles - hence, an increase in BMEP.

The Nasa study demonstrated an efficiency gain of 3% with bottled H2 and a flow rate substantially higher than a little bubble bottle. You cannot make the argument for a 30% efficiency for on-board hydrogen generation that will produce a mileage improvement. You need over-unity to balance the energy inputs. Sorry, all your suppositions about only a 140 watt input, cylinder pressure increase and crank angles is just gibberish.

[gus]

I am satisfied that with the limited testing I have done NO definitive conclusion can be assumed. Further, I am not in any way arguing the basic laws of one or the other as seems to be always taken as "proof positive" that it works / can't work.
My contention is.........there must be a way to value for example, the benefit of less pollution. Another more direct way to assess value would be for someone who can burn lower octane fuel. Assuming a cost saving of "X" and deducting the cost of the extra load on the alternator from that factual cost saving, the difference would still be more than even. (assuming of course that fuel refill would be the same on hi/lo octane)

My system cost $ Can. 900.00 and I will admit that I will NEVER recover the cost because of the limited amount of driving I do. I have detailed all my reasons for opting to go for the install. The procedure I followed to find out if there is a difference in fuel use is outlined in my post. The entire reason for posting anything on this forum or other was/is to throw my hat into the mix. There are people out there who are much farther along in the development of HHO uses. The Koreans operate carbon cleaning machines, set up to just allow engines to be cleaned, just as one example. I could tell you that I had my own cleaning set up built at a cost of $900.00. If as a result of this cleaning the exhaust leaving my vehicle does not contain anywhere near the amount of soot normally spewed out of a diesel, nor the usual diesel stink, satisfied that expenditure is not a suggestion that every driver out there should do the same. I think that the experimentations with HHO will remain just that until someone creates a system which will be operational with little (very little) maintenance.
Meanwhile we will continue to muck along
Cheers..........Gus

[user removed]

For those who think HHO is a practical alternative, why not just run your car on HHO? If it is an alternative to gasoline or diesel and you have a mileage increase just keep adding your HHO bubblers until you are running on pure HHO. Couldn't be more simple, right?

I did some checking a few years back and one liter of HHO has the BTU energy content of one and one half wooden kitchen matches. The only "fuel" is the hydrogen, which by atomic weight is only 1/8 th the mass of the mixture.

Lets say you need 2 ounces of gasoline to go 1 mile, thats 64 MPG, exceptional mileage. Now take your calculated number of liters of HHO your system produces per minute. If it was 50 liters a minute then you have 75 wooden matches worth of energy to move you car 1 mile.

Now lets say your car gets 64 MPG and uses 2 ounces of gasoline to move that same mile.

Take that two ounces of gasoline and run it through a fuel injector over an ignition source. Compare that flame to your pile of 75 wooden matches burned all at the same time.

You can rationalize the HHO theorey to the end of time, but most people with any common sense would know that 2 ounces of gas atomized through any decent fuel injector is going to produce a heck of a lot more flame and heat, compared to 75 wooden matches. The expansion of that heated air and fuel is what makes your car move.

The two ounces of atmoized fuel would give you an idea of the energy requred to get 64 MPG at 64 MPG. 75 burnt wooden matches is not even a fraction of the energy required and thats at a rate of production of 50 liters per minute. Double that number of matches, 100 liters per minute and you still would not come close to that two ounces of gasoline. Thats 6000 liters of HHO per hour, anyone got a generator that comes close to that?

regards
Mech

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

But, the main goal is to get these HHO proponents out in the sunlight where their systems can be proofed by a capable second party. HHO supporters need to get out of their cloisters and meet the challenge, or simply quit bringing the topic up.

If it ends up being me and only me driving up to have UFO test my vehicle(s), then so be it.

I understand the 'main goal' ... it is a good one ... especially if the testing is properly quantified.

I was just saying that I think historically getting the HHO vehicles out to show up will be the harder fight... especially for a 'to be proofed by a capable second party'.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by gus

My contention is.........there must be a way to value for example, the benefit of less pollution.

It can ... but you have to be much more specific ... how much less of what? ... did you somehow measure a reduced amount of CO? ... or NOx? ... or some other pollutant? ... and if so , reduced by how much?

For example ... if you do not reduce CO and NOx , etc ... and other smog emissions by more than a CAT does , than you only have less pollution vs a non-CAT ... thus such a HHO system would be worth less than a CAT, at least from a value of pollution point of view.

For example my car has a Lean Burn mode that is more energy efficient , resulting in better MPG ... but it is more smog polluting at the same time , because that Lean Burn Mode increases the NOx pollution produced ... to reduce the impact of some of this increased pollution out the tail pipe but not give up the higher efficiency Lean Burn , two CATs are used ... Those CATs are putting a price / value on the smog pollution they are reducing... With the cost of the 2 CATs I still can get a decently low smog pollution levels out my exhaust... but it costs me $ those 2 CATs.