anyone tinkering with hydrogen for car?

Jimmy G · Post by **Jimmy G** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:16 am

"Basically: The universe hates everyone. No free lunch!"

Yes.....we need Mr Rudd to repeal the Laws of Thermodynamics first

An interesting local debate on this here :

http://forum.australia4wd.com/lofiversi ... 10929.html

fredsub · Post by **fredsub** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:21 am

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.

ok ok, HHO is simply a term thats been bandied about since the internet.....

Browns Gas is really 2x H2 + O2, or more scientifically called OxyHydrogen.

Happy now?;)

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.

You still don't get the argument

It is about changing the nature of the combustion, giving an overall efficiency gain. Just to re-iterate, the combustion efficiency in a standard ICE is a whopping << 30%, so were talking about a mere few % improvement.
No where am I suggesting 100%+ improvement, but always someone comes along with the perpetual energy/motion argument to blur and debase the discussion.

YouTube · Post by **El_Freddo** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:33 pm

fredsub wrote:It is about changing the nature of the combustion, giving an overall efficiency gain. Just to re-iterate, the combustion efficiency in a standard ICE is a whopping << 30%, so were talking about a mere few % improvement.
No where am I suggesting 100%+ improvement, but always someone comes along with the perpetual energy/motion argument to blur and debase the discussion.

Agreed with this. Hydrogen is not necessarily used to increase power - it is used to increase the rate of burn in the cylinder; the ICE still burns fuel as its being pushed down the exhaust pipe, the hydrogen is a catalyst for a quicker burn, thus producing a small amount of power through the burning of more petrol in the cylinder where it makes a mechanical difference.

I was enthusiastic about this and still have some plans to give his a go - When I tried to discuss the same topic here there was at least one person that was being all scientific about it (that's you in this case Jimmy G) - all I wanted to know was if someone had given it a go and to find out for myself if it would work... I've never got around to it as of yet.

Cheers

Bennie

Jimmy G · Post by **Jimmy G** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:07 pm

I was enthusiastic about this and still have some plans to give his a go - When I tried to discuss the same topic here there was at least one person that was being all scientific about it (that's you in this case Jimmy G)

Ok....in future I will drink more & become less rational

Storm · Post by **Storm** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:10 pm

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

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.

In response to JimmyG's comment.

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

fredsub wrote:In any case combustion in a ICE is about Hydrogen bonds, if you supply more Hydrogen you will get more combustion.

Wow, I m surprised at this. I hope you are all reading this over again as you are posting, because all of you except for JimmyG are contradicting each other to back each other up.

The issue isn't really if it will work or not, the issue is how much power are you using to make a gain? To make enough usable Hydrogen you would need a bath tube of water and to convert that much water into usable hydrogen you need to be running you engine harder and longer than you normally would. More engine usage is going to use more fuel to produce more power. 1 litre of water is 1 kilo in weight, more weight in your car more fuel is used to move your car along.

I would like to know what the conditions were when the dyno test was done on the F truck. Were corrections used to account for atmospheric conditions such as air temp and air pressure? apart from the addition of the "hydrogen device" was the engine kept the exact same in both tests?

If hydrogen is just an energy medium and not a fuel then it will have NO effect at all unless more fuel is added. This is the exact same as CO2. You add more "energy medium" you have to add more fuel to get more power. Anyway thats just something to think about cause hydrogen is indeed a fuel and it burns rather effectively when combined with oxygen and ignites at approximately 560 degrees Celcius. The space shuttle uses such a mixture to power its main take off engine.

Now that we ALL know and understand Hydrogen is a fuel, and that it burns really well, we need to know and understand that to get ore energy from a fuel you need more oxygen put in with it. If we only use the oxygen that comes from the separation process then to gain more power we need to find more oxygen and add it. If you don't add the oxygen to be the catalyst then you aren't going to get an effective burn and most certainly wont get any more power.

Just thought I'd throw that spanner in cause its obvious most of you don't know much about or understand the most prolific and oldest element on the planet, actually in the universe.

Wilbur · Post by **Wilbur** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:57 pm

Please, other than typing on in internet forum provide some actual testing evidence yourself by fitting and testing a unit. I'm not here to have an argument, just stating what I've found whilst using a unit.
As for the F truck on the dyno, all that changed was the unit was off, then the unit was on, the the unit was off. Back to back runs, same dyno same day. Appart from making the place into a sealed scientific chamber of secrets with a cone of silence I have no idea how to be more to the point of posting what I and my mates have found.

Storm · Post by **Storm** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:05 am

I won't be fitting a unit myself purely because I need the room on the back of my troopy for my tools and camping equipment, not a bath tub of water which is how much you need to produce enough Hydrogen to have any effect.

I'm not here to argue either Rex, i fact I don't want to argue, but most of what I have read in this debate is complete baloney, so I am stating fact and the same facts can be found if you google them.

I'm sure you know yourself unless corrections are made, which you now state they haven't, even back to back dyno runs can provide different results. What you have stated you saw wasn't a valid comparison based solely on that.

There is nothing stopping any of you from tinkering and posting your findings, just try not to make it look like science.

last celtic warrior · Post by **last celtic warrior** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:49 am

Why pump hydrogen into your engine to try and make things work better, when you can let it suck carbon monoxide to its heart's content and not use any petrol at all?

steptoe · Post by **steptoe** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:12 am

WOW ! just thought I'd ask !!

Stanley Meyer is the one whose work kicked off McGuyvers motorvation. According to the internet Meyers has been dead for some ten years - google the conspiracy around his death !

The inspiration regarding Meyers work is the claim that adding a frequency or vibration or some sort to the process [which appears to have been a secret that went to the grave with him] allowed H production at one tenth the electricity currently known to be required by science

Jimmy G · Post by **Jimmy G** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:25 am

Stan Meyer - like previous conmen (such as Joe Newmann, Dennis Lee) Stan Meyer defrauded millions of dollars, mainly from scientifically illiterate Christians (Meyer claimed is "invention" was a gift to him from God) with his "invention" of hydrolising water then burning the hydrogen & oxygen in an internal combusion engine

It is a complete fraud (he was found guilty of fraud in court and had to pay back investors he defrauded)

Meyer died of a cerebral aneurysm according the coroner, but that does not stop conspiracy theorists claiming he was murdered by big oil, the CIA/FBI, or even reptilians.

I commented on Meyer before - it is scientifically idiotic to expect to be able to use water as a fuel in a motor vehicle

Jimmy G · Post by **Jimmy G** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:40 am

Google "Skeptoid" and listen to episode 87 from 12/2/08 - its on water as fuel frauds & very good.
If Stan Meyer were alive today he would be the perfect research director for Firepower (except that it is plausible, but highly impracticle, to do a pill to improve combustion - such as platinum nanoparticles)

Storm · Post by **Storm** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:10 am

steptoe wrote:WOW ! just thought I'd ask !!

Aint no law against that.

steptoe wrote:Stanley Meyer is the one whose work kicked off McGuyvers motorvation. According to the internet Meyers has been dead for some ten years - google the conspiracy around his death !

The inspiration regarding Meyers work is the claim that adding a frequency or vibration or some sort to the process [which appears to have been a secret that went to the grave with him] allowed H production at one tenth the electricity currently known to be required by science

I liked McGyver, Richard Dean Anderson is a good actor

.

Jimmy G wrote:Stan Meyer - like previous conmen (such as Joe Newmann, Dennis Lee) Stan Meyer defrauded millions of dollars, mainly from scientifically illiterate Christians (Meyer claimed is "invention" was a gift to him from God) with his "invention" of hydrolising water then burning the hydrogen & oxygen in an internal combusion engine

It is a complete fraud (he was found guilty of fraud in court and had to pay back investors he defrauded)

Meyer died of a cerebral aneurysm according the coroner, but that does not stop conspiracy theorists claiming he was murdered by big oil, the CIA/FBI, or even reptilians.

I commented on Meyer before - it is scientifically idiotic to expect to be able to use water as a fuel in a motor vehicle

"or even reptilians". Are we in an episode of the X-Files or what? What was that show in the 80's? Ah thats right it was called "V", reptilian aliens were killing people.

The people who usually make the initial conspiracy theory claim have a vested interest in making such claims.

Xtreme_RX · Post by **Xtreme_RX** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:59 pm

I totally agree with White_Lightning_Rex. These systems DO work.
Full dyno proof. On paper proof. Total undeniable evidence.

The Browns gas systems work better on diesels than petrol motors.
These systems are not made out to be that they put more power out than the consume.
They do use a lot more power than they put out.

The idea is to increase combustion efficiency.

To burn ALL of the air/fuel mix - to yield the maximum potential power from the given fuel.

I have had a unit fitted to a carbed 'MY' wagon for some time now.

The 'MY' is now delivering around 10% better fuel economy.

Storm · Post by **Storm** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:11 pm

Xtreme_RX wrote:I totally agree with White_Lightning_Rex. These systems DO work.
Full dyno proof. On paper proof. Total undeniable evidence..

Well there are plenty of people saying otherwise. The full dyno proof given here has been shown to be flawed simply because it cannot be shown to have had correction factors made for the second test. The on paper proof has yet to be seen by the majority of the people on this planet that actually do care about improvements in combustion efficiency. Considering the stat of the world the auto manufacturers would be out of their minds not to back something as "efficient and beneficial" as this is supposed to be. Auto sales around the world are plummeting, a few manufacturers have gone bust already in the last 6 months. You'd think with such a heavy price to pay because of fossil fuels they would be behind anything that would help keep the industry from virtual collapse.

Xtreme_RX wrote:The Browns gas systems work better on diesels than petrol motors.
These systems are not made out to be that they put more power out than the consume.
They do use a lot more power than they put out.

LPG works brilliantly with diesels as a true duel fuel system as well and you dont need a bathtub to use it.

Xtreme_RX wrote:The idea is to increase combustion efficiency.

To burn ALL of the air/fuel mix - to yield the maximum potential power from the given fuel.

Of course it is but it cannot possibly work with the ratios being discussed here. You simply cannot carry enough water to produce the amount of Hydrogen needed to make any effective difference.

Xtreme_RX wrote:I have had a unit fitted to a carbed 'MY' wagon for some time now.

The 'MY' is now delivering around 10% better fuel economy.

How can it? you are using 2 fuels to do the job of one. You have already stated the system would use more power to produce than it supplies so fuel consumption wouldn't go down and horsepower figures wouldn't go up.

Energy Polarisor anyone?

Ben · Post by **Ben** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:42 pm

Dr Karl says it don't work and is a fraud, and he is way smarter about stuff than anyone I know...

steptoe · Post by **steptoe** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:44 pm

and Dr Karl Sven Kruszelnicki will admit if he is wrong....wonder if he has tried it himself??

I do recall someone saying on Karls show that water is chemically a waste product of energy, or to that effect, so it can no longer produce more enegy

Xtreme RX - would love to hear more of your MY set-up, photos, weight of unit, water consumption, how you top it up, cell temperatures or how you keep it cooled, got safety switches on it ? like LPG cut out switch ie tachometric relay

fredsub · Post by **fredsub** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:49 pm

why can't people read the first post and stay on topic

steptoe wrote: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

If raving on or about "water for fuel" rocks your boat, go do it elsewhere.
Theres plenty of sites where you can amuse yourself on that topic.

Water Injection also changes the nature of combustion, and in a sense could also be claimed as a fuel saving concept, because under certain conditions you use water for combustion cooling, instead of overfuelling petrol - thus saving fuel.

[quote=""Storm"]
I won't be fitting a unit myself purely because I need the room on the back of my troopy for my tools and camping equipment, not a bath tub of water which is how much you need to produce enough Hydrogen to have any effect.[/quote]

you obviously show you have no idea of what your saying.

some science......
take natural water = 18.0152g/mol

now a mol is based on number of units, molecules here, H20
Avogadroes Number 6.02214179x10^23 molecules/mol
we'll give this number the name NA

1litre water = 1kg = 1000g
mols = 1000/18.0152 = 55.5086mols

H2 = 55.5086NA

----
Gasoline, just using the form on wikipedia - C8H18

740kf/m^3 = 0.75kg/litre
C8H18 = 114.2293g/mol
mols in 0.74kg = 0.74*1000/114.2293 = 6.478mols
H2 = 9 * 6.478 *NA
= 58.302NA

so 1litre of gasoline has only 5% more H2 than water.

which is otherwise obvious, because Oxygen weighs more than Carbon.

However water is not fuel, because the Oxygen which is a most vigorous element, is quite happy in the state that it is in, so energy is needed to release the fuel - H2.

The topic is about adding just a tiny % of H2 to the Petrol fuel mixture and the combustion will perform differently.
Sure its a question whether this small %H2 is enough to produce a greater percentage improvement in the combustion. This is in no conceivable way suggesting over-unity and all that crap, or even breaking any thermodynamic laws.
This is what the units Rex is talking about do,
just to spell it out again, the petrol tank still has petrol in it.

This calculation above also shows, if only we could get rid of the baggage:mrgreen: Oxygen or Carbon, but somehow I don't think we'll ever be allowed to use rocket fuel for mass transport:(

Xtreme_RX · Post by **Xtreme_RX** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:27 pm

I don't think you all understand how these systems work.
You don't need a 'bath tub' of water.
Its not trying to completely replace petrol/diesel as a fuel.
You are simply adding to it.

1L of water lasts about a week (500Kms)
The system I use is a Acrylic tube with a stainless steel woven core.
Gives of a bit of gas but draws 15 odd amps at full tilt....

Gannon · Post by **Gannon** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:57 pm

fredsub wrote:Water Injection also changes the nature of combustion, and in a sense could also be claimed as a fuel saving concept, because under certain conditions you use water for combustion cooling, instead of overfuelling petrol - thus saving fuel.

Thats kinda what i was getting at

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

I have actually thought of hooking up a spare fuel injector, and driving it in parallel with the factory injectors, (but from its own fet driver of course)

A 10L drum of water should last about as long as a 40L tank of fuel. It would allow me to run more ignition timing and thus create more power, which in turn will save fuel.

YouTube · Post by **El_Freddo** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:49 pm

Jimmy G wrote:I was enthusiastic about this and still have some plans to give his a go - When I tried to discuss the same topic here there was at least one person that was being all scientific about it (that's you in this case Jimmy G)

Ok....in future I will drink more & become less rational

Well, you kinda picked that out of what I said and left the rest. No one's trying to scientifically prove anything here, yes on paper it works in vehicles fitted with the device, what's scientific about that?

Have a good weekend, I'm off for now.

Cheers

Bennie