Unbelievable

[Greyg]

One of our techs here at work just ordered a "water for gas" kit. After I finished laughing at him and let him explain his thinking behind it and what he is going to try it made a some sense, but I'm still sceptical. He said he did his research on the different kits, and with a big enough hydrogen genrator and a big enough alternator (for the power to split the water to get the hydrogen) he says "if it can be done I'm going to do it". His neighbor (not a friend of a friend) claims he saw a 20% increase in FE on his diesel truck. He has his own small business, reconditioning and performance modifications on older cars, and I think he figured out a way to write off the kit so he's going to give it a try. I gave him a little more crap about it and his last defense was "I've thrown away $300 on dumber things before so I'm going to try". If anyone cares more about this I can keep you updated on what his conclusions are. The only reason I am giving him any credibility at all on this subject is because I've seen what this guy can do "just for fun". Like fitting a bored out Cadilac V-8 into a Saturn SL-1 body that he acquired. Major modifications of all kinds were required, and a lot of tweaking to overcome some overheating problems (imagine that) but he did it and the car is FAST! He's a little older now with 2 kids and I think he's going form more HP to more MPG. That would be awesome because he really knows his stuff and i can pick his brain for free.

[R.I.D.E.]

Sounds like the kind of person who would give a fair analysis, from a guy who sectioned and channeled a 49 Plymouth businessmans coupe and put it on an 83 Nissan piskup truck chassis, with a 240 Z engine and transmission.

regards
gary

[GasSavers_topher]

GreyG: Old school guys are very good at working with things because they come from the "Do it not say it" generation that got things done. Let us know of his results I have my reservations though

Originally Posted by R.I.D.E.

Sounds like the kind of person who would give a fair analysis, from a guy who sectioned and channeled a 49 Plymouth businessmans coupe and put it on an 83 Nissan piskup truck chassis, with a 240 Z engine and transmission.

regards
gary

Sounds good Gary. Props to you Send some pics sometime if you can.

[DracoFelis]

Originally Posted by Greyg

One of our techs here at work just ordered a "water for gas" kit. After I finished laughing at him and let him explain his thinking behind it and what he is going to try it made a some sense, but I'm still sceptical. He said he did his research on the different kits, and with a big enough hydrogen genrator and a big enough alternator (for the power to split the water to get the hydrogen) he says "if it can be done I'm going to do it".

Feel free to run whatever experiments you want, and be sure to report back here. However, FWIW hydrogen injection has been discussed a lot in this forum, just search for HHO for discussion of that topic. Bottom line:

1) It's well known that if the hydrogen was "free" (as in didn't take power from the engine to produce it from water), that you would gain some fuel economy from doing so (if for no other reason than the fact that hydrogen is a burnable fuel)!

2) BUT the laws of physics state that you will always be BEHIND in the energy equation, when you are using energy to make the hydrogen (vs say getting it in tanks of hydrogen gas you fill up from some other source). i.e. the laws of physics require that the energy used to make the hydrogen fuel (in the car, from the water) will ALWAYS BE GREATER than the energy you get from burning it.

2a) So if it was just a matter of "generating your fuel from water" (as some claim) than you will ALWAYS LOSE, as it take more fuel to generate the hydrogen than you get back from later burning it in the engine!

2b) This also means that simply having a big beefy alternator won't (by itself) lead to a "win", as the more electrical power you generate in the car (i.e. the bigger alternator you use to generate the large amounts of electricity you are using), the more fuel you use/waste due to greater drag of the alternator on the engine! This would seem to indicate that hydrogen generation would always be a fuel economy loss (not gain), but see below:

3) However some designs for hydrogen generation apparently use (engine)"waste heat" (energy you might not otherwise use from the engine, that you are making anyway) to do some (or all) of the effort of generating the hydrogen (vs doing all the work via electricity generated by the alternator). In theory using "free energy" (electricity in the car isn't "free", as you have to increase fuel use to generate it, but the "waste heat" may be "free" as you might otherwise just dissipate it via the radiator). So if your hydrogen generator makes use of heat that would otherwise be thrown away, in theory it might improve fuel economy (by using a source of energy that was otherwise being wasted in the car, i.e. the heat from the engine, and using it to make useful hydrogen fuel).

4) And there has been some discussion/theory that some levels of hydrogen can combine with normal car gasoline synergistically, and burn better than the sum of the burn properties from both the gas and the hydrogen alone. If this is the case (and the jury appears to still be out about this possibility), then (in theory at least) using the "right amount" of hydrogen may be able to give a fuel economy boost (to the gasoline) beyond the energy cost of producing the hydrogen in the first place.

NOTE: Points 3 and 4 in theory could be combined. i.e. if there is a special ratio of gas to hydrogen that really does burn synergistically, than (at least in theory) you could use that burn ratio while also using "waste energy" source of power (at least in part) to make the hydrogen in the first place.

However, since point 2 is clearly valid (i.e. you spend more energy making the hydrogen from water, than you get back by burning it), the only possible way that this could be a "win" is if (and only if) points 3 and/or 4 are not only valid, but actually larger factors than the loss of energy mentioned in point 2. And the jury still seems to be out as to if that is the case.

[Fr3AkAzOiD]

"3) However some designs for hydrogen generation apparently use (engine)"waste heat" (energy you might not otherwise use from the engine, that you are making anyway) to do some (or all) of the effort of generating the hydrogen (vs doing all the work via electricity generated by the alternator). In theory using "free energy" (electricity in the car isn't "free", as you have to increase fuel use to generate it, but the "waste heat" may be "free" as you might otherwise just dissipate it via the radiator). So if your hydrogen generator makes use of heat that would otherwise be thrown away, in theory it might improve fuel economy (by using a source of energy that was otherwise being wasted in the car, i.e. the heat from the engine, and using it to make useful hydrogen fuel)."


Using something like this exhaust gas alternator idea?

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005..._exhaust_.html

But even then it's not free cause then you would need a belt alternator and exhaust alternator to make enough juice for the car and hydrogen plant when if an exhaust alternator idea works you could just ditch the belt drive alternator and get a good deal of extra mpg due to not having the belt friction losses.

[GasSavers_SD26]

Originally Posted by DracoFelis

2) BUT the laws of physics state that you will always be BEHIND in the energy equation, when you are using energy to make the hydrogen (vs say getting it in tanks of hydrogen gas you fill up from some other source). i.e. the laws of physics require that the energy used to make the hydrogen fuel (in the car, from the water) will ALWAYS BE GREATER than the energy you get from burning it.

I'm a big skeptic on all this too, and I'll jump in for a couple reasons. One, to get in on the thread.

Next, I have to also think about how the combination of two things might have different results than what they would independently.

Example: Diesel fuel burns pretty darn efficiently, but not perfectly. When propane is injected into a diesel, it can increase that efficiency.

Now, I can't say much about the hydrogen thing right now, but I'm willing to listen to some of this based on that idea.

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

Originally Posted by DracoFelis

2) BUT the laws of physics state that you will always be BEHIND in the energy equation, when you are using energy to make the hydrogen (vs say getting it in tanks of hydrogen gas you fill up from some other source). i.e. the laws of physics require that the energy used to make the hydrogen fuel (in the car, from the water) will ALWAYS BE GREATER than the energy you get from burning it.

That's true, but what you've gotta look at is where it comes from and where it goes. For instance at standard temperature and pressure, 20% or so of the energy required to separate O from H2 comes from environmental heat. Stick it in a warm engine bay and you could be up to only needing 60% in electrical power for the energy the H2 is worth. Then where does the energy go when you burn it? When burning gasoline, in an efficient engine only around 30% goes to developing cylinder pressure, the rest goes out in heat through the tailpipe and radiator. When you burn pure H2 in an IC motor, that maximum is somewhere around 50% going to cylinder pressure, with a theoretical maximum much higher than that, the efficiency there is basically restricted by the mass of the pistons and the reciprocating nature of the engine. If you burn a portion of H2 in a gasoline mixture it's possible that H2 comes much nearer it's theoretical efficiency, with the gasoline mixture kind of acting as a buffer, so it's probable that a given BTU quantity of H2 is "worth" twice to several times the equivalent BTU in gasoline... then there's synergistic efficiencies possible in the H2 which has a very low ignition concentration limit, increasing the efficiency of the gasoline burn through speeding the flame front and allowing less heat to escape, and more pressure to be generated.

Now this still doesn't seem right, because if you burn 33,000 BTU of gas to get 10,000 BTU of mechanical energy, you get 6,000 BTU of electrical energy out of the alternator, which is about what you get if you convert it to hydrogen, you typically get a minimum 20% extra free from thermal inputs, so it makes the actual 80% electrolysis conversion efficiency look like 100% (or more if your engine bay/cell gets toasty) So it takes 5.6 BTU worth of gasoline to make 1 BTU of HHO... if all your trying to do is make HHO

However, we're not running a motor to make HHO, we're running a motor to move us down the road....

So being fuel economy enthusiasts all our cars have 25HP motors that run at 55mph on the highway when your foot is pressed flat to the floorboards right? Fully open throttle, minimal pumping loss, thrashing along at peak efficiency using gas by the teaspoon.....

Ummm no actually, we have horrendously oversized motors that are considered "small" or barely adequate by your typical adrenalin fried motor journalist at 100HP outputs. So, barely cracked throttle, huge pumping loss, purring along at minimal efficiency using gallons.

So you put your 33,000 BTU worth of gas through the first motor and it takes you 5 miles, you put your 33,000 BTU through the second and you're delighted when you do half that. What gives? Well #1 put 23,000 BTU in to heating the atmosphere going down the road and #2 used about 28,000 of it doing that.

So all I need to do is go WOT and drive faster? Um no. If air resistance increased linearly with speed, this would indeed be an (unsafe) option.

So I can install really tall gears and slog along at 1000 RPM with the throttle wide open? Wellll you could.. you've reduced pumping loss, but the efficiency of the motor is both a function of RPM and load, you'd heat the atmosphere with 27,000 BTUs instead.

So can I load the motor in a way such that I gain efficiency? Yes make HHO.

But you just said it takes 5.6 BTU of gas to make 1 BTU of HHO??? Yep at peak efficiency it does.

WHAT? It takes MORE than 5.6 BTU to make 1BTU at low output???
Sure does.

So how in any way shape or form can that be more efficient???
Because you're using 33,000 BTU to do 5,000 BTUs worth of actual useful work in moving the car. (Overcoming drag) and because we're going to load the motor more and increase efficiency by doing so.

That will just burn through my 33,000 BTU quicker!
It might, but what say we save some of it.

Save it?
Sort of, we'll make HHO with it.

Aaaargh there you go again with the HHO.
Calm down, so, if we increase load by 5%
You mean you're just wasting 5% of my BTUs.
Gah, okay, we're "wasting" 5% BUT efficiency has gone up to 18% you now do 5940 BTU worth of work in moving the car..
Less the wasted 5%
5643
WHA??? That's MORE. Why can't I just go faster again?
Because the energy to overcome drag increases exponentially, you'll not get a proportional increase in ground covered, you'll just heat more air.
Ah.
Yup. NOW do you wanna see what happens to the other 297 BTUs
Hum, I guess.
Okay so we take 297 BTUs of mechanical output, put it through the alternator and get 178 BTU of electricity, which gives us about 178 BTU worth of HHO
Big deal.
Yes but we expect to burn them in the motor at 50% efficiency, since gasoline is only at 18% efficiency at the moment, that makes that 178 worth 2.77X it's BTUage in gas... or about 500 BTU. So we put that in the motor...
And now I'm getting 6143 worth of BTUs worth of moving the car out of 33,000?
That's right, that's actually a 22% gain over what you were getting without claiming unsettlingly large efficiencies for burning hydrogen, or taking into account combustion enhancing aspects.
Right, but I'm still burning 33,000 BTU to get less than a fifth back in moving me, so even though I've gone from 30mpg to 36 mpg it still sucks.
That's right, TANSTAAFL and this isn't it, it's using more of what you already paid for instead of heating the atmosphere.
So tell me about the Arvin-Merritor and MIT research that says that hydrogen can reduce the lean burn limit to 26:1, so I can crack the throttle wider and get closer to using 30-40% of the go in my dino juice.
Next time young Padouin, the basics learn you must.

[Greyg]

I don't think it's possible, but it will be intersting to hear about it. I will keep you updated on progress as it happens.

[Greyg]

No updates yet, still waiting for the kit. It's not even on my car but I'm somewhat excited to see what he can do with it. I'm having a hard time believing it can be done. If it could be done you would think someone a lot smarter would have done it a long time ago and it would be getting better press than spam.

[GasSavers_BEEF]

someone on here has actually suggested putting a second battery in the car to power the generator separately. deep cycle of course. then charge the battery at night or when the vehicle is parked.

though I have my doubts about the HHO thing, this option actually makes some sense. grid power is so much cheaper than alternator power and more efficient (I guess that goes into cheaper too). if it doesn't work out on the alternator, it may be an option.