anyone tinkering with hydrogen for car?

steptoe · Post by **steptoe** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:19 am

Just wondering if anyone has made their own hydrogen fuel cell with intention for hooking up to their car to compliment the petrol burning. A mate has had waning enthusiasm and inspired another to make an even better little jigger. Info has come from the 'net. The most impressive was constructed out of PVC drain pipe, stainless steel plates n bits and a little caustic soda in the water. Whack on the car battery and you have hydrogen. The more potent one was hooked up to an alfa that had a crook idle since ULP was all that was available giving it a sweet idle. There seem to be claims of much better petrol consumption when H is combined with the intake air.

Curious to see what others have done

stinky · Post by **stinky** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:59 am

One of the guys on here has messed around with a HHO unit. grytvikken I think it was. I saw it briefly and it looked pretty cool.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:55 pm

I have a unit in my ute now. Have for a couple of months. I thought it would be a load of crap but I can tell the difference when it's turned on and off. Seems to run smoother and be a little more torquey.
Two other mates have units in their vehicles too (F100 and GU ute) The F truck has been dyno'd with it on and off and got a 3rwhp increase with it only feeding into half the cyclinders. Hope that helps

Jimmy G · Post by **Jimmy G** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:41 pm

Just keep in mind they use more fuel than they produce (thermodynamically this is obvious) - a lot of conmen peddle these hydrogen generalors on the internet (stan meyer, dennis lee, joe newman have been embezzling investors for decades & have stolen millions of investors dollars) - it is often dressed up with some pseudoscientific term such as "Browns Gas" but is just hydrogen & oxygen produced by electrolysis

If you can come up with some efficient way to produce the electricity from sunlight & some way to store it efficiently (neither of which is currently practical) the situation may change - but producing hydrogen from the cars electrical system is a waste of energy

stinky · Post by **stinky** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:57 pm

My understanding of them is that they use excess power from the car that would be wasted otherwise and turns it into usable fuel.

No they're not a magical physics avoiding machine, but they can help your overall efficiency.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:00 pm

So you're saying that using electrolysis to produce the gas only when the car is running, cannot net more hp and or torque ?

Jimmy G · Post by **Jimmy G** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:08 pm

"So you're saying that using electrolysis to produce the gas only when the car is running, cannot net more hp and or torque ?"

Ultimately - you are burning fossil fuel to drive the alternator to produce electricity to do the electolysis to produce hydrogen - so you end up with a net energy loss

You may get increased power - but at expense of greater fuel consumption

The energy used to break the O-H bonds in water (to produce the hydrogen) is produced with many inefficiencies - you use far more energy to break the bonds than you liberate when they reform (i.e. burn in the engine producing water)

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:14 pm

Hmm right. So that'd explain why I've not seen any difference in my fuel consumption, nor have the other users I know of.
Clearly you understand the principals of it, but what I'm actually seeing contradicts what the science would suggest.

Jimmy G · Post by **Jimmy G** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:20 pm

It comes down to this - if you can break an O-H bond in water using less energy than is liberated when it is reformed, a Nobel Prize awaits you & a total rewriting of the laws of physics and thermodynamics will be the consequence.

You cant get energy for nothing and doing this type of electrolysis (from burning fossil fuels in an internal combustion engine which drives an alternator to produce the electricity) is grossly energy inefficient.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:32 pm

Inefficient or not, it works on the 3 vehicles I know of that have the system.
Maybe it can be put down to the alternators capability to produce more power than is actually drawn by the vehicles electrical system. After all it's really only like having one halogen headlight running.

Jimmy G · Post by **Jimmy G** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:46 pm

"After all it's really only like having one halogen headlight running."

If that the case , it will give you some idea of the additional power produced - if the device is consuming 100 watt what additional power do you think can be delivered.

Its hard to assess something youself if you dont do it blind and under controlled conditions (e.g. set throttle openings on a dyno done independently) - sadly, we all see what we want to see (thats why drugs are tested as double blind cinical trials)

I was asked a few years ago to give technical advice on Firepower to a journalist - I said (after reading for 5 minutes the BS that Firepower used to promote their dodgy product) that it is an obvious and total fraud. But many people using it thought it increased power, increased economy & were very happy with it.

Storm · Post by **Storm** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 6:42 pm

JimmyG, You write with such eloquence. You are also totally correct.

nncoolg · Post by **nncoolg** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 7:58 pm

maybe if it was on an activation switch that turned the unit on at closed throttle, above 10km/h (i.e. deccel, when engine energy is wasted) that would solve the wasted power problem,

but the main problem is the internal corrosion, I tried this on an EJ22, pulled it down and found valve seats rusty & intake manifold powdery inside.

save your time, its not worth it, it's a bit fat placebo like a hiclone or earthing leads.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:48 pm

As I said in my first post the F truck has been dyno'd. Peak hp was up with the unit on. It's more like 50 watt power draw on the electrical system. And if you'd actually understood what I wrote, you'd find I was expecting it to do nothing as the science suggests.

I fail to see that an actual reading from a real dyno with a real unit on a real car is a placebo.

Anyway, I've got one, I don't sell them nor do I make them. I was expecting it wouldn't work but seat of the pants suggests otherwise, as do the dyno runs on my friends car. If the thing eats my engine, blows up, turns into a watermellon with legs opens my bonnet and runs off into the scrub or changes my fuel economy I'd be surprised. I will post if I find anything that contradicts what I've otherwise said.

Gannon · Post by **Gannon** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:01 pm

Just wondering, what if the browns gas is actually cooling the intake charge, and allowing the ECU to run more ignition timing?

Thalass · Post by **Thalass** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:35 pm

I don't know about mixing hydrogen and petrol in an ICE, but as far as the production of hydrogen goes you'd be much better off ripping out the ICE and putting an electric motor in, then filling every available space with batteries. Hydrogen is only an energy storage medium, after all, not a fuel.

Basically you take water, run electricity through it (which itself has to be generated), store the hydrogen with great difficulty, and then burn it in a rather inefficient internal combustion engine. You might as well skip half that, take the electricity and stick it in a bunch of batteries, and then run an electric motor or two with that.

No idea on the figures for hydrogen internal combustion, but a good AC electric car (using induction motors) can be up towards 80% efficient from the plug to the wheels. An internal combustion engine running petrol is lucky to get 30%. I think diesels are slightly better.

Hydrogen fuel cells, now those are another story. They can be quite efficient, and the expensive ones can generate enough electricity to drive electric motors. But they're very fragile, so puting them in a car is tricky, and once again you have to story at least some hydrogen on board - even if you can use solar panels on the car to generate the electricity to free the hydrogen. And solar panels wouldn't be able to generate enough electricity to keep up with it.

So while it's an awesome concept - getting fuel from water, and while it's pretty easy to do... It's still fiddly and involves more steps and more fiddling than the alternative, which is battery-electric.

That's not to say people shouldn't try it out, if they're so inclined. :P

Jimmy G · Post by **Jimmy G** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:51 am

"Hydrogen is only an energy storage medium, after all, not a fuel. "

This is the crux of this whole discussion. Plus - you cant get out more energy than you put in.

fredsub · Post by **fredsub** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:03 am

Jimmy G wrote:"Hydrogen is only an energy storage medium, after all, not a fuel. "

This is the crux of this whole discussion. Plus - you cant get out more energy than you put in.

So what ?
It is combined with oxygen (which is everywhere) to get the energy.

...it is often dressed up with some pseudoscientific term such as "Browns Gas" but is just hydrogen & oxygen produced by electrolysis

whats pseudoscientific about it? It is just a name popularized by Yull Brown for HHO. If you try it yourself you will discover you need less current/voltage to generate HHO than separate H2 and O. However you still need some alkali, but less also.
Further the current requirements could be further reduced by superheating the water (haven't tried that, need to build something special to do that, but i'm just saying it, because there is plenty waste heat in ICE.)

However using it in a car, well no, i'd be worried about the alkali salts wrecking the engine........
My interest in HHO is about something else.....

In any case combustion in a ICE is about Hydrogen bonds, if you supply more Hydrogen you will get more combustion.
That is what the unit White_Lightning_Rex is talking about is simply doing,
the alternator already has frictional losses rotating, using a constant 50watts isn't going to tax it.
There is a possibliity that free H2 in the combustion mix performs differently, afterall the ICE is << 30% efficient, plenty of scope to change efficiency even by just 1-2% to make a difference from the combustion mix.

so just consider before mouthing off what crap this may be..........

http://www.waterfuelconverters.com/

The concept of fuel enhancement has been around for decades.NASA What design methods are capable of increasing the efficiency of internal and external combustion engines?SAE There are many design parameters that contribute to overall efficiency,SAE with hydrogen addition facilitating a variety of engine modifications. The US DOT says hydrogen addition increases gas mileage using lean burn conditions,DOT while also mitigating pollution emissions without the use of a catalytic converter.SAE
NASA says hydrogen addition increases flame velocity, which provides more useful pressure prior to the critical crank angle; thus allowing for greater compression ratios and advanced timing.NASA To assist in the dissemination of these concepts this website has been extensively expanded, providing an excellent source of original and third party research.

Jimmy G · Post by **Jimmy G** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:35 am

"It is just a name popularized by Yull Brown for HHO"

There is no such thing as HHO. Electrolysis of water to produce oxygen and hydrogen (in volumentric ratios 1:2; in mass ratios 32:4) has been around for 200 years ; Brown decided to call it Browns Gas (a term well loved by pseudoscientists) and invented a mythical "formula" HHO. There aint no such animal!

"If you try it yourself you will discover you need less current/voltage to generate HHO than separate H2 and O"

There is no such thing as HHO - you cannot produce "O" (i.e. monoatomic oxygen) this way - it produces two volumes H2 and one volume O2.

"Hydrogen bonds" are something totally different they are typically the weak bonds between H and O on separate water molecules.

If you read the references in the "Waterconvertors" quote, i.e. NASA etc , they are referring to a totally different process - nothing to do with what this discussion is about (i.e. producing hydrogen in situ for a supposed energy output gain).

Really - if you can supply an electric current that you use for electrolysis where the net energy output is greater energy than the net energy input, you can use this to power the world for free - no need to bother selling dodgy inventions advertised on YouTube etc; no need to fool around with trying to run it on inefficient internal combustion engines.
The truth is : there is no free energy. You may observe an increase in power but at the expense of increased input energy

Thalass · Post by **Thalass** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:47 am

Basically: The universe hates everyone. No free lunch!