Time to fire up my old Hydrogen generators
 

Already made a couple of these, with zero results to an idling engine on my more inefficient (but far more gas output) design.

My first one is a 17 (or thereabouts) plate, single cell design, with the plates alternating positive to negative. Depending on electroyte concentration I can draw 70+ amps with this thing (I have no issues going higher but a: a single alternator would have issues with any higher AND running the car, and b: my wires melt above this level), and I can get a very small continous flame from it.

My second design is a six-cell design (I actually used an old car battery for the housing) with 9 plates in each cell, also alternating positive to negative. Full battery voltage is only fed to the cells on the end, so effectively I have 6 cells like my first design, in series. Putting a multimeter on the cells revealed ~2v each. This design draws far less current but also makes under half the gas. It's more efficient, but less effective.

So I guess now that we have a tuned up car that can't correct itself (an old carbied mazda B2000) I might have another shot at this thing.

I make zero claims to the effectiveness of my devices, this is about seeing if they work, not saying "Look at my ∞-billion mpg half water powered drag car".

now look at that someone forgot to lock the gates on the corral.

I dunno, that's why I'm trying it. Not claiming to make 'browns gas', just hydrogen and oxygen. I know my two generators both consume large amounts of current and make way more gas than most others do (especially the ones with a coil of wire and baking soda), and I know the gas is flammable. And now I have a tuned up vehicle to try it on.

Unlike most, I am actually trying this, not just theorising. Feel free to move the thread tho, if it makes you feel better

Do you have pictures or directions on how to put it together? I have some solar cells on the roof, and I wouldn't mind trying to generate some hydrogen. My first hydrogen generation attempt was with 1" x 12" graphite rods in salt water. The dang water broke out and dumped all over the floor of a fellow high school teacher's classroom/office. The whole place stunk of a weird chlorine smell. She was so mad. Gallons and gallons all over the place. hahaha.

And do you know what rate the hydrogen is generated? I appreciate your willingness to test it.

Chlorine smell? Something to do with salt being made of chlorine and sodium?

No I currently have no pictures on my computer, but making it was simple.

17 1mm stainless plates (maybe 10cmx5cm) were clamped together and I used a cutoff wheel to notch one corner (the right width for female spade terminals to push on to) of each plate.

Turn every other plate around (helps to identify them for wiring), and space them apart with rubber washers (I used the ones found on roofing screws). Then clamp the whole lot together. I used nylon zip ties, but apparently you can get plastic bolts that would be better (as then the rubber washers would have something to positively locate them).

Make the power feed wires by joining 10 wires together and crimp 9 spade terminals onto the bundle (other wire goes outside the unit). Repeat, but with 9 wires and 8 terminals. Join the 9-terminal plug to the outer plates and every other plate. Join the 8 terminal plug to the others. You want the plates to alternate positive to negative, so both sides of all the middle plates are active.

Now get a container with a sealable, removable lid (I used PVC piping and fittings). Drill three holes in the lid, two of them are for the power wires, hydrogen and oxygen come out the other. Use silicone (or similar) to seal any holes and fittings, and make sure that your lid has a good seal (another bonus with PVC, screw on lids have o-rings).

Fill the container with a distilled water and electrolyte mixture (I used something you know as dran-o, and it doesn't leave deposits on true stainless plates, but my electrical terminals show *bad* signs of corrosion). Now if you left long enough wires you can attach the cell to power with the lid off and see the hydrogen/steam mixure coming off (don't fool yourself, at 12v across this cell, a lot of energy goes to heating water and not making hydrogen).

To be safe you want to feed this mixture through a bubbler to a) stop explosions from reaching the cell and b) stop electrolyte from entering whatever device you have.

As with all electrolysis, this generator makes hydrogen and oxygen in a perfect stochiometric ratio (chemically correct ratio for complete combustion). Hydrogen and oxygen is one of the most powerful explosives (by mass) you can easily make, so for God's sake, be careful. At best being near an exploding hydrogen generator will cover you in shrapnel and an acid-like solution.

*edit: The multi-cell design uses 6 similar (but smaller) multiple plate assemblies in series in the 6 separate cells of an old battery with a fabricated lid (the old lid was damaged in dissassemby, and unsuitable anyway)

Can you get a vid of the hho gas burning?

I shall try. I remember the first time I put flame to this thing, the lid on the bubbler (intentionally left un-glued as a fuse, I wasn't sure of the strength of the pvc) ended up in my driveway. Which is interesting because the only ballistic trajectory available was over the roof of the two story house... Replicating that feat woud be easy. Continuous flame would involve me making another torch.

I have always felt that some external power supply is the only way a system like this would work. It is proven that the systems do in fact generate a burnable gas, but most would agree that powering it off of the very engine that you are trying to feed simply doesn't work. Solar would be a great option for the power source, but with current tech may not generate enough power to be noticeable. Maybe foot pedals for passengers:D, or an external battery recharged like a plug in hybrid?

He is acually calling it Hydrogen and Oxygen, which is correct.

He also isn't making any claims but is wanting to test it.


A couple of notes for you to consider though

1. You might want to put some kind of control preferably a pwm to control the output to match throttle.

2. Hydrogen burns much faster than gas, so you will want to retard your timing for best results.

3. The best results I have found in actual scientific documentation was a 5% improvement. I'm pretty sure they were using a tank of H2 and correcting for the energy content of the Hydrogen. Most only see a 0-2% improvement.

Your system would either be running off of the alternator or battery. Using the alternator would probably be the best for you to be able to record any improvement because using a battery and charging it from an outside source is imputing energy that is probably not being accounted for which would invalidate your results.

A link of some sort would be helpful there.

I can't seem to find it, but

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...e-16860-5.html

I think it is referenced in one of the papers I linked in a previous thread. I didn't have access to the paper so I couldn't get the specifics.

I don't think that it would be feasible to add a function that can reduce the current draw at idle, as the small amount of hydrogen being generated (relative to engine airflow anyway) may not be enough to affect things except at idle.

As for ignition timing, we will see. I'll wait until I have everything going again to see. If it shows promise on the B2000 I'll hook it up to my own far more modern car

My own car has a few modern niceties like sequntial injection, a knock sensor, EDIS, and a very forgiving (doesn't throw a hissy fit with a disconnected o2 sensor) EEC-V management system. If I get any results on the B2000, it's onto the dyno for an hour when I can afford it with my this one (which also has a 120 amp alternator as factory)...

Of course you don't need to affect things at idle, since you shouldn't idle that much anyway.


Better check the alternator fuse, since it's likely only 60-80 Amps, if that.

As much as I think you'll find no improvement by doing this, it's nice to see somebody who is actually going to test it, rather than spout loads of BS about how it works and not have any actual evidence. Obviously this requires you to show actual evidence, even if there is no improvement, or a negative effect. I do think it will help slightly in the absolute sense (that the hydrogen helps regardless of other factors), but I'm 99% sure that the extra fuel used due to the high alternator load will more than cancel out any improvement.

I'm glad you are willing to test it too, but am skeptical about anyones ability to be swayed at this point.

I will say for my own part that I will have a lot more questions if you do show a gain, as such a gain still needs to be satisfactorily explained so that it can be repeatable, but in the end I will always defer to empirical evidence over theories.

I'm sure you may face numerous questions from other parties if it doesn't work, asking to introduce more variables without controls and any failure to comply will be sufficient to not change their perspective. But there needs to be a way to compensate for any tuning beyond hooking up an hho device (i.e. ignition changes), you cannot assume your pre-hho had the benefit of such efficiency tuning and any gains might not be the result of the hho in that case, presumably you know this however.

I plan to run the test at idle like this:

Hook up the unit so that there is airflow through the bubbler tank going into the engine at all times (hooking the bubber up to vacuum and introducing a small leak would work well). When the engine is hot, turn on the cell (this will introduce H2 and O2 into the already flowing airstream). If the idle changes AT ALL, turn the unit off and see if the idle returns to normal. This will test for changes to combustion.

If there is no change, turn the unit off, and tune the motor (ignition timing and fuel mixture screw) for the leanest possible mixture. Then turn the unit on and see if I can make it run leaner again. This will test for lean burn limits.

If either test is promising, the unit will be installed on my far more modern vehicle, and to the dyno i go...

Sounds like a perfect plan! I can't wait to hear how it goes. Well, I can't wait to read how it goes.

Just thinking out loud here. If you inject it upstream of the throttle it will probably "mix" better, and not interfere with idle speed as much, but will need more time to stabilize.

hmm, if there is enough of the h and o added upstream of the throttle, that h is extra volumous for the energy content and might displace too much energy for the given throttle setting, causing it to drop rpm.

If you inject it downstream of the throttle, it is basically stoic and extra energy bypassing the throttle plate, and should up the RPM.

ok, so, back up a little bit. If you do not change the idle throttle position, but you increase the load on the alternator (so you can make hydrogen/o2 to inject downstream of the throttle), you should probably still see a drop in rpm.

I would probably get it running then disconnect the battery and then turn on the hho so you know you are not borrowing any battery power.

I was going to power the system with a separate battery, the only part of the system on the car will be the hose going from my bubbler into the intake manifold.

But that is adding an outside source of energy, and will skew your results.

Yes, but it will provide information on whether or not the small amount of hydrogen that can be made with a cars electrical system makes a difference. If I cannot make a difference with a separate power source, I certainly cannot when the car is being loaded by the alternator. And tbh, an external power source is easier and safer for an idle test than risking overloading the alternator (the current draw of one of my designs is limited by the feed wires and nothing else. Granted a lot of it is steam and not H2/O2 though...).

If it shows promise while idling, I'll set the electrolyte concentration (and so current) low enough for the alternator to reliably handle and see if it has any effect with the system properly installed and driving. It's not the test to end all tests, it's just a backyard hack job to test for ANY effect. I'll leave the detailed, lean burn cruise, programmable management stuff for later.

8.345 lb/gal @ 60ºF = water
6.073 lb/gal @ 60ºF = gasoline

...does HHO offset the 37.4% weight-penalty of water vs. gasoline?

Well lets see. The project car weighs about 1100kg (incredibly light by modern standards). The hyrogen system weighs 10kg all up, absolute max (this is bubbler and electrolyser, both full of water. No automatic filling system. Wiring weight is negligible). This is around 1% of the mass of the car. Assuming zero energy recovery (through longer coast distances) it would take 1% more energy to accelerate the car, and nothing to keep in moving (1% change in mass would be undectible when it comes to rolling resistance). Under a worst case scenario (such as continous accelleration, or uphilll) the system will use 1% more fuel through mass alone.

If it makes 1% difference in economy. Even if I carried around an extra 20L of water (standard jerry can size) the MAXIMUM weight induced penalty would be 3%.

I would say that if the system changes combustion at all it will be worth the weight penalty.

That said, you all have to wait (until after I have converted my prelude loom from OBD1 to OBD2b plugs so I can use the (not so) plug in link that's in the shed) for results

Lets not lose sight of 3 basic principles here. 1) We aren't making that much gas really. 2) It takes a lot of energy to make the extra fuel. 3) It defies the laws of physics if it were to even be a break-even system, much less one that improves mileage.

Once again I remind all of us here that the amount of actual fuel produced here is very small, it takes hours to make a quart of water into its gas constituent parts of hydrogen & oxygen, and since gasoline is primarily hydrogen fuel, and a gallon of gasoline makes a gallon of water, you'd be lucky to add 2% of fuel to the engines fuel demand. And the hydrogen created isn't some sorta miracle fuel, it's just hydrogen.

Drawing even 35 amps to make hydrogen requires 1/2 horse power to create, and with a 25% efficient engine, and 80% efficient alternator, you’re talking needing 2.5 horsepower to make the 1/2. Rough numbers, but you get the idea. 2.5 HP or 10% of the engine power to make 2% more fuel.

It just adds up to not gonna help. There is no "maybe it will help a little", cause if it even broke even, it would be the definition of a perpetual motion machine. I think we're all a little too smart to believe in perpetual motion aren't we? Maybe just tiny bit too smart? That’s all it takes.

Just Say No! to perpetual motion notions.

The side of the fence I currently sit on (until after my tests anyway) is that if the engine is 25% efficient (if not less in most cruise situations), 75% of the engergy must be wasted.

We know that energy is at least partially recoverable, because raising the geometric compression ratio (really the expansion ratio is the important bit) results in more full load power, and economy in cruise situations, without a similar (percentage-wise) increase in air and fuel flow. We also know that unless the timing is at MBT, we can extract more power from a given charge simply altering ignition timing (knock limited of course, but water injection can soon solve that, without adding any extra fuel). Again, we also know that improving vaporisation (on systems like carbies that don't do such a good job of it) can improve economy, power, and emissions with zero change in airflow.

I'm just trying to release that energy chemically rather than mechancally.

That said, I completely agree with points 1 & 2. And it has become time for me to put my theories to the test, and gain some insight (and credibility) by accurately reporting on my test for #3, whatever the outcome may be.

Personally I have my hopes, doubts, and theories about it all, and I have nothing riding on whether it works or not. It's a scientific curiousity in me that says 'you have the parts, the knowledge, the time, and the inclination to try this, why not do it?'.

There's also a great many people with theories as to why/whether it will or will not work, a few people scamming, and very few people who are willing to go through their tests objectively.

If it works at all I'll eventually be putting this on a modern car, on a dyno with all relevant information recorded (air-fuel ratio, ignition timing, injector duty cycle, 4-gas analyser if they have one) for a test and tune session. Whether I get to that point is doubtful, but I have to try.