Hydrogen Injection?

[DZinger]

I have a guy up north who makes "hydrogen generators" for vehicles. He claims a 10mpg increase on his Toyota Camry. He also makes them for diesel applications. Does anyone have any experience with this? Any adverse results? Trouble codes? Programmer issues?

 

[Little Bill]

Look here.
https://www.turbodieselregister.com/forums/alternative-fuels/

 

[TMax]

Oh man you had to ask!!!!

 

[wild4stangs]

I was @ Mass Diesel a couple of weeks back having a LOF done, and there was a white 04 from NJ in there that was running twins, and lots of other go fast stuff. Interesting thing is that the truck was in there to have an HHO generator installed...

 

[rbattelle]

The first law of thermodynamics can't be circumvented. It requires more power to liberate hydrogen from water than is provided by burning the hydrogen.

If this weren't the case, every power plant on Earth would be running on hydrogen generated from water.

Ryan

 

[JBonpua]

The first law of thermodynamics can't be circumvented. It requires more power to liberate hydrogen from water than is provided by burning the hydrogen.



If this weren't the case, every power plant on Earth would be running on hydrogen generated from water.



Ryan

Amen to that!

 

[Vaughn MacKenzie]

I was @ Mass Diesel a couple of weeks back having a LOF done, and there was a white 04 from NJ in there that was running twins, and lots of other go fast stuff. Interesting thing is that the truck was in there to have an HHO generator installed...

Interesting. . . Scotty's installing HHO generators??

 

[amsoilman]

I have a friend who made one of these HHO generators for his 2002 Cummins/Ram, and his mileage increased from 17. 0 MPG to 26 MPG as long as he dosent go over 2K on the engine.

 

[brods]

I have a friend who made one of these HHO generators for his 2002 Cummins/Ram, and his mileage increased from 17. 0 MPG to 26 MPG as long as he dosent go over 2K on the engine.

Wayne, that is a pretty dramatic change, can you get more details on that? From this part: "as long as he doesn't go over 2K on the engine" it sounds like he may have changed his driving habits. Has he driven the truck staying under 2k without the generator as a baseline for mpg?

 

[brods]

The first law of thermodynamics can't be circumvented. It requires more power to liberate hydrogen from water than is provided by burning the hydrogen.



If this weren't the case, every power plant on Earth would be running on hydrogen generated from water.



Ryan

To have a reasonable discussion, we need to separate the rather dubious idea of “water as free fuel” from the idea of hydrogen as a combustion enhancer. Most of us agree that you cannot simple split water, burn it in an ICE and need no other source of power.



So, as an enhancer, can anyone tell us if hydrogen will speed up the combustion process and/or help the diesel fuel to burn more completely? If so, what mechanism or mechanisms account for an increase in combustion efficiency when adding small amounts of hydrogen? How much hydrogen is necessary to accomplish this? If one cannot answer these questions then they cannot condemn the device to failure!



Seeing the reactions in these threads, I can’t help but imagine the initial reaction to the guy who developed the turbo. When he spoke of his plans to restrict the exhaust to increase the velocity, then put a pinwheel in the flow and connect it to another pinwheel to push more air into the engine, people must have been all over him saying it would not work because you cannot get more energy out than you put in!



Will hydrogen as an combustion enhancement work? Who knows? Certainly it cannot work when considered strictly in terms of BTU input required to produce the hydrogen vs the BTU output when it is burned by itself. Thankfully the turbo guy looked at the engine as an entire system and decided the loss in energy making boost would pay off in greater efficiency of the entire system.

 

[TMax]

"IF" and I repeat "IF" hydrogen does enhance the burn efficiency of diesel why not make a water splitter at home and then fill up a hydrogen tank at night and then use the stored hydrogen during the daily driving cycle like the guys use the propane kits? I have also heard that natural gas enhances the combustion of the diesel as well. Any truth to that? Anybody know? This is just a question and NOT an invitation to a brow beating like some have received on this forum.

 

[Little Bill]

I can’t help but imagine the initial reaction to the guy who developed the turbo. When he spoke of his plans to restrict the exhaust to increase the velocity, then put a pinwheel in the flow and connect it to another pinwheel to push more air into the engine, people must have been all over him saying it would not work because you cannot get more energy out than you put in!

Actually, the technology was already proven with blowers by the time the Swiss guy built and patented the first turbo over 100 years ago. The addition of the turbo alone didn't improve efficiency, it simply permitted higher fueling (or higher altitudes in the case of airplanes). Not much to argue about there.



If you do your research you will find that the amount of H2 required (not hho) to create a lean burn is quite high. It's not a mystery, it has been well documented.

 

[Little Bill]

TMax, with a good supply of H2 you can displace some diesel. If you seriously want to consider bottling up some then forget about the home made generators. You need an electrolyzer with either diaphragms or ion exchange membranes to separate the H2 from the O2. You don't want to compress those mixed gases. Here is a link to several manufacturers of electrolyzers that have the ability to directly compress the separate gases.

Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Investor

Add solar and/or wind turbine to power the unit and you'll be as close to free energy as you can get.

 

[brods]

Actually, the technology was already proven with blowers by the time the Swiss guy built and patented the first turbo over 100 years ago. The addition of the turbo alone didn't improve efficiency, it simply permitted higher fueling (or higher altitudes in the case of airplanes). Not much to argue about there. LOL, does that matter? I bet there were still plenty who would say it would not work!

If you do your research you will find that the amount of H2 required (not hho) to create a lean burn is quite high. It's not a mystery, it has been well documented.

Research where? Everything that looks promising now cost $$ to see on the net. Do you have any links to any open information? And our diesels burn way lean all the time, so what do you mean by "lean burn"?



So what is your contention? That H2 can work as a combustion enhancer but it requires more H2 than is practical to produce on the fly or that the hydrogen does not enhance the combustion at all?

 

[rbattelle]

Seeing the reactions in these threads, I can't help but imagine the initial reaction to the guy who developed the turbo. When he spoke of his plans to restrict the exhaust to increase the velocity, then put a pinwheel in the flow and connect it to another pinwheel to push more air into the engine, people must have been all over him saying it would not work because you cannot get more energy out than you put in!

This argument is lost on me. A turbo does not produce any energy at all. A turbo merely extracts some additional energy that would otherwise have been exhausted and uses it to produce work. The laws of thermodynamics are obeyed.

What do you mean when you discuss "enhancing combustion"? By making a more complete burn? I'm no chemist, but I don't see how adding a fuel is going to cause more diesel to combust, unless combustion temperatures increase which may (or may not) encourage better vaporization and (possibly) result in more fuel being combusted. [Of course, higher temperatures are going to generate more oxides of nitrogen]. But then, you must account for the fact that the hydrogen you've provided is going to consume some of the available oxygen.

But in the end, there's really no point in arguing about this. In general, most people decide their opinions about how things work, and no amount of arguing really ever changes anyone's mind. Same thing with fuel economy - if someone decides he's getting 26mpg, no amount of proof will convince him otherwise.

My neighbor is convinced he gains 3mpg in his Kia Sportage if he adds a tiny bit of acetone to the tank. He probably does, because he probably drives in a way that confirms his belief.

There are many thousands out there getting up to 40% better mileage with fuel line magnets!

If these things work so well, why aren't they standard equipment, given the need to meet CAFE and the fact that, in today's economy, fuel economy sells. I know, I know, the car companies are in cahoots with the oil companies. Of course, that doesn't explain why Honda offers a CNG civic and has just released a fuel-cell powered Accord.

I'll tell you one thing, though, it is fun to argue about this stuff!

Ryan

 

[Little Bill]

LOL, does that matter? I bet there were still plenty who would say it would not work!

That's funny right there. I'll take that bet!



As far as free information, it's out there. Try searching university white papers, patents, water electrolysis, etc. Don't search on hho, oxyhydrogen, Brown's gas or water-for-gas. All you'll get is hucksters trying to hustle you. The scientific community neither recognizes nor engages in work around hho or Brown's gas because it's BS hype. You need to look into the true H2 research.

So what is your contention? That H2 can work as a combustion enhancer but it requires more H2 than is practical to produce on the fly or that the hydrogen does not enhance the combustion at all?

H2 is an alternate fuel. It can displace other fuels. It has a fast combustion rate under the right conditions but it is not a catalyst. It does not increase the combustion of diesel, it just adds more BTUs on top of it. If you want to 'enhance' combustion, add more oxygen and displace some nitrogen.



And, no, you can not produce enough 'magic gas' on the fly to make a difference unless you hookup to a trailer load of solar panels and batteries to power the jelly jars.



The more practical approach is through Rock Technology. Put a 3 inch rock under the go pedal. This is good for a 10-20% gain. If you want more, take an eight inch rock and pound the crap out of your right foot. You'll see 20-40% gains. Send me $2. 00 and I'll email the detailed instructions. Just kidding.

 

[TMax]

TMax, with a good supply of H2 you can displace some diesel. If you seriously want to consider bottling up some then forget about the home made generators. You need an electrolyzer with either diaphragms or ion exchange membranes to separate the H2 from the O2. You don't want to compress those mixed gases. Here is a link to several manufacturers of electrolyzers that have the ability to directly compress the separate gases.



Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Investor



Add solar and/or wind turbine to power the unit and you'll be as close to free energy as you can get.

Little Bill,

I guess I'm halfway there since I will be installing a grid-tied photovoltaic system on my roof next month. I think I'll be selling power back to the utility company 6 months out of the year. Now if I could only get that for free!:-laf

 

[Little Bill]

This is where you have to do the economics. Can you get a better payback from investing in H2 based on your surplus or just take the power companies check and buy fuel.

 

[brods]

This argument is lost on me. A turbo does not produce any energy at all. A turbo merely extracts some additional energy that would otherwise have been exhausted and uses it to produce work. The laws of thermodynamics are obeyed. The turbo restricts the exhaust robbing power, just like a restrictive muffler does. The turbo is not free energy, though its positive benefits far outweigh the small energy cost to operate it.



What do you mean when you discuss "enhancing combustion"? By making a more complete burn? I'm no chemist, but I don't see how adding a fuel is going to cause more diesel to combust, unless combustion temperatures increase which may (or may not) encourage better vaporization and (possibly) result in more fuel being combusted. [Of course, higher temperatures are going to generate more oxides of nitrogen]. But then, you must account for the fact that the hydrogen you've provided is going to consume some of the available oxygen. If you do a search on propane and CNG they say both act as an combustion enhancer too. I really don't know either, but I can see where any combustable gas will mix with air to make a more homogeneous mixture as compared to vaporizing droplets of diesel. Our diesels are always (or almost always) running lean so there is always sufficient O2 available. It might be that the O2 does not mix well with the vaporizing diesel in the short time of the combustion event so there are in essence local shortages of O2??



But in the end, there's really no point in arguing about this. In general, most people decide their opinions about how things work, and no amount of arguing really ever changes anyone's mind. Same thing with fuel economy - if someone decides he's getting 26mpg, no amount of proof will convince him otherwise.



My neighbor is convinced he gains 3mpg in his Kia Sportage if he adds a tiny bit of acetone to the tank. He probably does, because he probably drives in a way that confirms his belief. I've heard that it reduces surface tension allowing better fuel atomization. Who knows? Maybe I'll try it in my beater and let you know, lol.



There are many thousands out there getting up to 40% better mileage with fuel line magnets! Um... yeah!



If these things work so well, why aren't they standard equipment, given the need to meet CAFE and the fact that, in today's economy, fuel economy sells. I know, I know, the car companies are in cahoots with the oil companies. Of course, that doesn't explain why Honda offers a CNG civic and has just released a fuel-cell powered Accord. Thats the old standby argument. The reality is: The only thing that can be inferred by the manufacturers not using a technology is that they feel it would not be profitable for them. Thats all. Period.



I'll tell you one thing, though, it is fun to argue about this stuff! Yes it is as long as everyone keeps it good natured!

Ryan

To expand on the "why don't the car makers use it" argument and not just for this technology, but whenever that argument is used:



There are many good reasons the manufacturers may not adopt a certain technology.



First is regulations. My neighbor was a engineer at Ford and said they knew in the 70's that water injection knocked pollution way down on gasoline motors. Unfortunately, the EPA does not allow pollution equipment that people can “forget” to refill, so water injection is a no go for the manufacturers. Some of these devices have the potential to effect emissions and would therefore be regulated by the EPA making it much more difficult to implement.



Second, the manufacturers have to warranty whatever they sell. They have to decide if the projected extra sales because of a feature is worth the production costs and warranty and liability risks associated with it. Any device would have to be idiot proof under all conditions and be trouble free for at least 36K miles or much more if it is considered a piece of emission control system.



Third, there are there are few people willing to add more than fuel to their vehicles. If a device is too much “work” for the end user it will not have mass appeal and can only exist as an aftermarket novelty.



So, given all the constraints the manufacturers have, they could very well decide not to use a technology that works. Again, the only thing that can be inferred by the manufacturers not using a technology is that they feel it would not be profitable for them.





Hopefully some of the members post up their results (good or bad) so this can be put to bed, lol.

 

[brods]

Little Bill,

I guess I'm halfway there since I will be installing a grid-tied photovoltaic system on my roof next month. I think I'll be selling power back to the utility company 6 months out of the year. Now if I could only get that for free!:-laf

Sweet. Please make a thread on it when you get it done.