Hydrogen Generator for trucks

[brods]

Joe, after your excellent reply to the gentleman with the biodiesel questions, your referencing of the hydrogen/compressed natural gas study in this thread is a disappointment. Please explain how the study you referenced has absolutely anything to do with the issue in this thread and in what way that study implies any performance results for the kit Eric is planning to install. Unless Eric is planning to convert his truck to CNG before installing the hydrogen generator and then compare mpg running straight CNG vs mpg running a CNG/hydrogen mix, its totally apples to oranges and has nothing to do with this thread.



Remember it was not that long age that scientists could not figure out how bumble bees could fly. On paper it was not possible, yet they flew! It was not by magic or by breaking any laws of nature, it was just a bit more complicated that the scientists originally thought.



The same might apply to anything today that is not thoroughly understood. Before arguing if something will work or not you must understand how it works.



Most of us agree that you cannot split water with electricity, burn it and get more out of it than you put in. Supposedly that is not the process at work here. If you have a perfectly tuned engine, optimized for maximum efficiency without regard for emissions, there would not be much room for improvement. That is not how our engines are tuned!



Don't know who “owns” this site, still the information seems logical: Directory:Fuel Efficiency Hydrogen Injection - PESWiki



Popular Mechanics dismissing the claims of wild mpg improvements for gasoline powered cars and stating a general skepticism for any mpg improvements: How to Run Your Car on Water - Truth About Water-Powered Car, Water Fuel - Popular Mechanics



Note how he speculates that the most benefit would come from lean burn and where the engine does not readjust fueling based on the exhaust (O2 sensor). Sounds like how our engines operate, yes?



Questions:



1. Are our engines tuned in such a way that adding minimal amounts of hydrogen will have a significant positive effect?



2. Can the onboard hydrogen generator make enough to matter?



3. Will the positive effects far exceed the energy required to drive the alternator to run the hydrogen generator?



4. If the answers to the first three questions are all yes, then it becomes a question of how much of a net positive effect there is and if it more than offsets all the costs from buying, operating and maintaining the generator.



I have no irons in this fire and will believe whatever results Eric supplies us after he's done his tests.

 

[JoeBioDiesel]

Invention before skeptics is one thing... .

Violating the laws of physics is another.



The world is full of stories about skepticism over great inventions. Some of them are even true, but nobody has EVER invented something that violated the laws of physics.

I'd love for this to be true, but someone is going to have to explain to me how it's possible to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen (a reaction that is at best 70% efficient due to ohmic losses in the water alone), using an alternator that is at best 75% efficient, and recombine it in an engine that is as best 40% efficient, and gain energy... because according to Sir Joshua Reynolds I'm too lazy to think of it. (Heheh. . sorry... couldn't resist. )



If Hydrogen and Oxygen in tiny quantities was a catalyst (Think Nitrous Oxide), it might work. But it is not.



Joe

 

[JoeBioDiesel]

I have no irons in this fire and will believe whatever results Eric supplies us after he’s done his tests.

I like this, and even though I probably come across as rabid as the Hydrogen Supporters, it is not that personal to me. I hope that my flurry of posts doesn't discourage Eric from posting his results. It is not my intent to discourage anyone from trying it of they already bought a kit, or can easily afford one. But I hope that anyone thinking of getting one holds off until some credible 3rd part results are in.



As far as NRELs results. They ran everything from gassers to Diesel engines. The CNG Busses were Cummins B Series using CNG instead of Diesel. If this technology works with gas and Diesel, why not CNG?

The most interesting point in the study for me was that they used an on-board storage tank of Hydrogen and still got less mileage. They didn't have to expend energy producing it, which would result in even lower mileage.



Joe

 

[Bob V]

I put 5 Alka-selzers in my tank and got 4,437mpg. I said it it HAS to be true

 

[DCreed]

Now if they could just find a way to harness all the HOT AIR coming out of congress... :-laf

 

[Bob V]

I give up!!!!!! All I can do is shake my head. the laws of physics are LAWS, not just some idea someone made up.

 

[BlitzkriegSSII]

Hay i just found this post, and i have been working on my own kit for my truck. Here is a pic in cad, let me know what yall think. Ill get some more when i have a chance to make the parts.

 

[brods]

Everyone needs to keep in mind this thread was started by a person who has already purchased a kit and is willing to share his results, both good or bad. To post in this thread ridiculing the idea is quite rude and not productive at all. The TDR should be a safe place to discuss ideas.



It would be much more productive if anyone can post up specific detailed descriptions of which laws of physics are supposedly being broken and/or disprove the theory that the hydrogen enhances combustion efficiency and/or provide detailed calculations showing that it would not be practical to generate enough hydrogen to matter, etc. etc.



This thread is a better venue for those opinions: https://www.turbodieselregister.com...n-discussions/203181-double-fuel-mileage.html or if someone feels its necessary to just make fun of the idea try this one: https://www.turbodieselregister.com...50-oh-boy-hydrogen-generator-our-diesels.html



Joe, CNG is a gas and it is doubtful that the dynamics in a combustion chamber are identical to that of a liquid fuel. Apples to oranges.



Eric, I apologize for any of my posts that were off topic or helped to sidetrack this thread and going forward I will not post anymore off topic comments. Best of luck with the generator and hopefully it will perform to your satisfaction. Please do post up your results when you get them.

 

[DPellegrin]

Gentlemen-

I guess I am the guy that started to apply the laws of physics to this particular post. I am in somewhat of agreement with brods. We should be careful not to offend one another. On the other hand it is the responsibility of the poster to provide a professional analysis that proves the claims that are presented. They can then be critically evaluated. I do not think it should be my job to disprove the unsubstantiated claims and anecdotal testimonials.



ABOVE ALL, WE SHOULD BE RESPECFUL OF EACH OTHERS POSITION AND VALUES!!



Regards

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Like several other "contestants" here - one last post, then I'll wait for Eric's report - or perhaps others as well who are directly involved.



Fact is, there's NO "law" that says water doesn't possess sufficient energy to be a useful fuel - the basic components 0f Hydrogen and Oxygen BOTH support and enhance what an internal combustion engine does, generate heat and expand gasses to provide force to move a piston or turbine assembly. In the regard of the basic composition of water, it not only forms a perfectly "legal" source of energy - but in use for vehicle power is both clean and renewable.



The issue is NOT about whether or not water contains the potential power to do what we are looking for - but rather HOW to release that power efficiently and effectively! A simple 12 volt system probably is NOT that "best way" - but it IS a step in that direction - and even if only a percentage of energy is produced that will provide a small but significant MPG gain - as new enough users are generated - that may well spur on continued work in that direction that eventually leads to a far better solution.



Just as Edison and other light bulb developers moved from use of simple horsehair and fabric filaments, to tungsten - the basic principle was there - it only needed more experimentation and development towards a final solution. Was there a "law" of physics that declared the running electricity thru a horsehair to generate light and heat was impossible? Perhaps in the minds of many critics of that time - but the "law" was based upon facts and methods not yet in evidence - those facts being the composition of the filament, and the way it was changed, then supported in a vacuum so it would "burn", but not be destroyed or consumed.



It may well be we are seeing the same thing in early development of common water for energy - the power and basics are there - it might only remain to develop the METHOD of releasing it effectively - and guys like Eric are involved in taking that small. simple early step in that direction.



Let's watch, and wait!

 

[Bob V]

The burning of conventional fuels such as petrol (gasoline), wood, and coal converts the fuel into substances with less energy (see enthalpy of combustion). Energy is released. In the case of most fossil fuels, combustion can be represented with the following chemical equation:



CnHm + (n + m/4) O2 → n CO2 + m/2 H2O

Water is a waste product.



Spontaneous chemical processes do not create energy, they release it by converting unstable bonds into more stable bonds and/or by increasing entropy. Water is such an abundant chemical compound in part because it has very stable bonds that resist most reactions. In order for water to participate in a reaction that produces energy, high energy compounds must be added. For example, it is possible to generate the combustible fuel acetylene by adding calcium carbide to water. However, the calcium carbide, a high energy material, is the 'fuel,' not water.



It is theoretically possible to extract energy from water by nuclear fusion, but fusion power plants of any scale remain impractical, and no allegedly water-fuelled cars are claimed to be powered by fusion.



Read more here (again)

Water-fuelled car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bob V]

IF you understod BASIC phyisics, you would understand, you can't get something for nothing.

 

[JoeBioDiesel]

Gary,

These systems do not just burn hydrogen and oxygen. They split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then recombine them to form water again, and claim a net energy gain. That is what most of us have a problem with. You simply can't gain energy that way.

Joe

 

[SOLER]

So many of you are missing the point. Perhaps, and I'm not saying I'm convinced, it takes more energy to split water into HHO to produce enough to power a vehicle without any other source. Perhaps. But that isn't what we're talking about. What we are talking about is producing a small amount to COMBINE with gas or diesel.



When folks put Propane on their truck and reported better mileage, they were getting more mileage out of a tank of diesel, but were burning almost as much propane as what they saved on diesel. The only savings was the fact that propane was cheaper than diesel back a few years ago. Not so much anymore.



What folks are doing with Brown's Gas is similar. It's a supplement, and water is cheaper than fuel, and it doesn't take much to notice gains in MPG. So, It's not really something for nothing. Water is being added, and it isn't free. It's just cheaper. And as far as the energy to split the water, how much horsepower is required to produce 100 amps? Not very much. Most vehicles, regardless of engine size, have the same size alternator. Anywhere from 70 to 120 amps. So would a 1. 8L engine have a difficulty running lights, radio and a 100 watt amp, A/C and fan, electric cooling fans, and all the computer and ignition electrics? It doesn't really take all that much, and the car isn't going to lose a lot of power just to keep the battery all charged up when all that is running. So, if I run an HHO generator, and I'm only using 10-20 amps, big deal. That's like turning on my headlights. The alternator can handle it. And on our trucks, you won't notice a real change in RPMs, nor will you notice a change in MPG. Do you get better MPG during the day than you do at night?



And as far as something for nothing... doesn't it take energy to burn gas or diesel. Does it take more energy to burn it than it produces? If it did, my truck wouldn't move. But then you might say the energy is expended when you refine crude oil into gas or diesel. Well, water is refined, too. But it already is. Think about all the energy in making rain. The good thing is it's already done for us. All we have to do is simply split it back to it's original form. Which takes me back to above, we aren't trying to make our trucks run on HHO exclusively, yet. Only to supplement what we have right now.



And lastly, the hydrogen doesn't just act as another fuel, it also bonds to the molecules in the gasoline to create a more complete burn of the gas (or diesel), so that alone will increase your MPG at least a little. Remember, our engines are only about 30-35% efficient on a good day. So, if I can get a more complete burn, won't I notice better MPG?



Eric, let us know how it goes. Naysayers, wait and see. The Laws of Physics are the Laws of Physics. But do we completely understand them all? And I mean COMPLETELY understand them all? I think not. There is a lot more left to discover in this great world of ours. People with closed minds are either left behind, or incredibly humbled. Just look at history to see what I mean. I'ave got a cell phone with a processor in it bigger than the computer sending things into space. Not too long ago that was "impossible. " It defies the laws of physics. For crying out loud, I grew up thinking that we had 9 planets, now we have 8. I guess we learned something, eh? What about my sunshade in my truck. I have the kind that you twist and fold into a small flat circle. Who'd a thunk it a few years ago?



SOLER

 

[BLarkman]

new guy

I will try to keep this real short. Last week there was article in the Albany democrat Herald 7/23/08 regarding local person who converted his Ford Gas to this system and now getting around 30mpg, they also mentioned another person who had diesel conversion done back in February. So i went out and talked to Eldon regarding his conversion. . He has two boxes one in engine compartment and one in tool box. He says he has gone from 18 to 27mpg. I was curious about how long did a "charge"(producing gas )last. He has not added any baking soda since install in Feb. The other thing was, would it freeze up, he suggested some type of antifreeze. The diesel install is easier then gas. I became real interested as we drive 1200 miles to Yuma each winter. I put a post on Montana Owner club.com and seem to have same results as this one. Got 5 positive and 4 negitive and around 450 had read. But nobody could say they had done this and IT DID NOT WORK as stated. So I got the brain wave to look at this site and joined TDR to see what you have to say. Seems like the same thing and still nobody has tried it and not worked and said so. If I do this install what have I lost if it does not work, maybe $200. How many times have I wasted that much, do not want to go there, like casino!!! They even told Wilbur it will never fly!! I did suggest to Eldon he have paper do milage check, like top off tank, put locking cap on and drive to Salem and back and refill this might prove it. I do have his phone number and he lives in Lebanon Oregon

bob

 

[SOLER]

I'm going to build a real basic one this weekend, hopefully. I'll let you know what happens. Enough of this crap, I'm going to try it.



SOLER

 

[DCreed]

Thats the spirit!!

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

I'm going to build a real basic one this weekend, hopefully. I'll let you know what happens. Enough of this crap, I'm going to try it.



SOLER

Don't think these things are nothing more than a pair of wires submerged into a jug of water on one end, and a battery on the other - if you do, you will likely FAIL, and toss it all in the trash!



Even at this current level of relavively crude design of the better made models, these things require a degree of engineering and design - as well as a few specialized components, for even the limited efficiency they provide.



The more cheaply made "toys" popping up on the market are nothing more than opportunist ripoffs, trying to profit from those interested, but not enough to really check out what's needed in a more efficient model...

 

[Jefff929]

I will try to keep this real short. Last week there was article in the Albany democrat Herald 7/23/08 regarding local person who converted his Ford Gas to this system and now getting around 30mpg, they also mentioned another person who had diesel conversion done back in February. ***

Hey Bob, did you see the follow up story from reporter Steve Lathrop interviewing an OSU professor?



I give these guys props for trying... I just don't think we are going to over come the losses. Another thing is we need to break free of our paradigm of what a car or truck needs to be, do, look like, run on...

 

[BLarkman]

Yes I did read the followup, but I nowhere did anyone say you would get 50% more power as well as 50% more milage. There are a couple of other point I disagree on. Time will tell