hydrogen fuel

[scruffy]

Hi All, talking to a guy the other day with a BIG yank tank and the conv got around to fuel economy. He said that the official fuel figures are 14mpg and he is getting 21/22mpg after 3000ks using a hydrogen fuel setup. Two rods [of some sort of metal] connected to the battery in a small bottle of water, and a 3mtr hose attached to the bottom of the carby. Does anyone know of this setup and would it be beneficial on an injected veh [V8] Would be a cheap alternative fuel for us V8 owners.
Bob

[Mick_Marsh]

There's one born every minute.
If you want to use hydrogen, go for the fuel cell and electric motor.
Other things to consider, where are you going to fill up with hydrogen? If you think you are going to get enough from two rods, a bottle of water and a battery, think again.
For further research, look up the word "entropy" and also find out how much energy is required to split H2O into H2 and O2 and how much energy you get from combining H2 and O2 into H2O.

[101RRS]

I agree with Mick.

Hydrogen is the fuel of the future but not just yet - when it can be made in an economic and pollution free way it will be great.

Yes with a 12v system bubbles will be produced but no where near enough to produce enough to make any difference in a car.

Garry

[sschmez]

Hey Mick and Garry

I think you've both missed the point.

It's not about using hydrogen as the primary fuel source, it's about using the small quantities of hydrogen produced to burn the existing fuel better.

Think Dieselgas.

There have already been colourful discussions on here with all the naysayers who missed the point.

I'm still interested.
Stevo

[101RRS]

Hey Mick and Garry

I think you've both missed the point.




Sorry - have not missed the point at all - very much appreciate it is not about making the car run on hydrogen but adding a little to fuel. Sorry the jury has make up its mind already - snake oil as constructed.

By all means set up a tank of hydrogen and feed it in like the diesel/lpg process and there is a difference but not a few bubbles generated by the car. The power required from the engine to generate the 12v to turn water into hydrogen is far greater than the energy given back to the engine by burning a minuscule amount of extra hydrogen in the engine.

This has been well proven by many organisations.

Garry

[sschmez]

Thanx for your reply

tells me nothing:( except your opinion.

please elaborate on how that opinion was formed.
Your qualifications in this field if any.
Links to scientific research.
Who is the "jury"?
What "organisations".

I don't know if this works or not and my searches have shown as many that say it does as those that say it doesn't.
I haven't as yet been convinced either way.
I haven't tried it.

as stated above "I'm interested" in this idea and since dieselgas has gone from snakeoil to accepted technology and it seems to be a similar theory, I'd like to know more.

My understanding of Dieselgas is that by introducing small quantities of gas the existing fuel is burnt more completely and the additional energy is from this more complete burn (less unburnt fuel down the exhaust) rather than the energy introduced/added from the gas.

Stevo

[isuzurover]

My understanding of Dieselgas is that by introducing small quantities of gas the existing fuel is burnt more completely and the additional energy is from this more complete burn (less unburnt fuel down the exhaust) rather than the energy introduced/added from the gas.


This is incorrect. As I posted in one of the previous threads.



The supporters of these systems claim that the presence of hydrogen changes the combustion process to make it more efficient. However I cannopt find any scientific research which supports this. There are papers which show significant changes in combustion processes by adding H2, however only once you get to 15-20% H2 in the fuel.

And for anyone drawing parallels between these systems and the "diesel gas" type systems, they use a ratio of around 25L of LPG to every 100L of diesel.

The systems you are talking about make about 0.5% H2.

But - why not build one and prove us all wrong???

[Mick_Marsh]

I was going to launch into a big speel but sometimes, well, ..................
I will say, working in the petrochem industry, it is in my interests if you all use more fuel.

Good luck. I look forward to reading about your experimental trials and empirically derived, independently verifiable results.

Oh, and could you please post up the qualifications of and scientific research done by the owner of the big yank tank you spoke to. I assume you asked him for those as well. I'm sure you wouldn't have accepted his opinion.

[bee utey]

Mythbusters built one. Fitted it to a yank tank. It didn't work.

If you go ahead and build one yourself, don't forget to do a tune-up while you fit the hydrogen to get the best out of it, it is bound to improve the results claimed...

[101RRS]

Thanx for your reply

tells me nothing:( except your opinion.

please elaborate on how that opinion was formed.
Your qualifications in this field if any.
Links to scientific research.
Who is the "jury"?
What "organisations".

I don't know if this works or not and my searches have shown as many that say it does as those that say it doesn't.
I haven't as yet been convinced either way.
I haven't tried it.

as stated above "I'm interested" in this idea and since dieselgas has gone from snakeoil to accepted technology and it seems to be a similar theory, I'd like to know more.

My understanding of Dieselgas is that by introducing small quantities of gas the existing fuel is burnt more completely and the additional energy is from this more complete burn (less unburnt fuel down the exhaust) rather than the energy introduced/added from the gas.

Stevo

Not qualified

I read a lot and have a scientific aptitude

I looked at the scientific reports not testimonials

I am not going to do your work for you and waste my time to go an pull the SCIENTIFIC information - you can google it yourself

I know hydrogen will work at a similar ratio to fuel mix as a diesel/lpg mix but the levels are so low to not make a difference when generated in the car as you mentioned - as I said the energy required to generate the hydrogen is greater than the energy it gives in burning. Same applied in industrial processes - that is why hydrogen is not generally available in tanks to run your car on.

Look for the scientific testing not testimonials.

Garry

[isuzurover]

Look for the scientific testing not testimonials.

Garry

This is probably the most important point. Any company/product that is worth the money does not use testimonials to sell products IME.

in other words - if the company needs to use testimonials, keep walking. It is very easy to (a) pick the few "good" testimonials from the bad ones, or (b) get your mates to write testimonials (or write them yourself).

Also - the placebo effect should never be underestimated.

[miky]

If you are going to use the engine that the Hydrogen is going to be used in and you have a gain then isn't this called perpetual motion?

If you get a tank of Hydrogen made elsewhere then fair enough.
Making comparisons to gas injected system is a furphy since the engine using the gas is not producing the power to make it.

Seems common sense to me, or am I missing something? Perhaps snake oil is used as an additive?


.

[sschmez]

Thanx Garry, for your opinion.
Yes, I've searched and as I stated earlier
I have found as much either way.

Ben's answer at least has a bit more substance.....
Some time ago I read that the percentages of hydrogen required compared to LPG in the diesel scenario were different due to the speed and temperature of combustion of hydrogen.

I'm not planning to build a system at this stage, I am however interested and remain open minded until I see enough science to sway me either way. Was hoping that Garry may have helped in this regard since such a strong opinion must have some basis. (I thought)

Miky, you are missing something ... read the thread

[Blknight.aus]

Technically diesel gas using hydrogen instead of LPG works. been there tried it using bottled hydrogen for all intents and purposes its the same as LPG fumigation BUT the gas is a bucket load dearer.

getting the engine thats burning the hydrogen to improve the power out of the already injected fuel to provide the power to split water to make the hydrogen... no, thats the stumbling block.

even with a paltry flow rate of 1l/m the best reliable electrolyser that Ive seen thats portable enough to hit that flow rate just makes it unfeasable as youd burn more fuel carrying it around and then you have the power loss from the crank trying to power the thing up.

most of the individual pieces of technology to make it all work are there but ATM the entropic loss of making the hydrogen on the vehicle is still to high.

[101RRS]

Thanx Garry, for your opinion.
Yes, I've searched and as I stated earlier
I have found as much either way.

Ben's answer at least has a bit more substance.....
Some time ago I read that the percentages of hydrogen required compared to LPG in the diesel scenario were different due to the speed and temperature of combustion of hydrogen.

I'm not planning to build a system at this stage, I am however interested and remain open minded until I see enough science to sway me either way. Was hoping that Garry may have helped in this regard since such a strong opinion must have some basis. (I thought)

Miky, you are missing something ... read the thread

Everyone on the is thread is telling you it does not work and you seem to want to ignore this - build one and make your car run on it - oh and don't forget to fit a hyclone so that you do so you will not have to use much petrol at all.

Better still just show us one piece of scientific evidence that this works.

Endat

[Mick_Marsh]

entropic
There's that word, or the adjective of the noun I used earlier.

As a side issue, I stumbled across some early drawings of what looks to me like a fuelless power generation system. I can complete the design the power generation side. I just need someone to construct the pilot plant.
I'm offering a 50/50 split to the right person. I estimate we could make billions.
29939

[sschmez]

Everyone on the is thread is telling you it does not work and you seem to want to ignore this - build one and make your car run on it - oh and don't forget to fit a hyclone so that you do so you will not have to use much petrol at all.

Better still just show us one piece of scientific evidence that this works.

Endat

Sorry Garry, you've missed the point again.............

Everyone on this thread saying it doesn't work or does work is not the point.

I WANT TO KNOW WHY IT WORKS OR DOESN'T WORK.

I've already said I don't know and I'm interested in the science, I'm not building anything at this point and I've got nothing to prove to you, myself or anyone else. I thought it was just a simple question and that since you have such a strong opinion you may have had some basis for it.

I also read alot and have a scientific aptitude so just 'cos Garry or anyone else says so doesn't mean it is so. (flat earth theory) .... thankfully Blacknight who says he's actually played with the stuff has shared his experiences and added something of some value to this thread.

[Blknight.aus]

heres the original thread...

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/102077-browns-gas-please-read-before-shooting.html

[Mick_Marsh]

I WANT TO KNOW WHY IT WORKS OR DOESN'T WORK.


"entropy" ... find out how much energy is required to split H2O into H2 and O2 and how much energy you get from combining H2 and O2 into H2O.
More energy is used to get hydrogen from water than you get burning hydrogen

The power required from the engine to generate the 12v to turn water into hydrogen is far greater than the energy given back to the engine by burning a minuscule amount of extra hydrogen in the engine.

This has been well proven by many organisations.
So very well put. If you don't believe Gary now, ask CSIRO (I have a contact there), NASA (read up about the Gemini missions), JPL at CalTech, MIT or even your local high school's chemistry department.

getting the engine thats burning the hydrogen to improve the power out of the already injected fuel to provide the power to split water to make the hydrogen... no, thats the stumbling block.
......
the entropic loss of making the hydrogen on the vehicle is still to high.
Can you see the pattern developing here?

Further to the evidence

Mythbusters built one. Fitted it to a yank tank. It didn't work.
Empirically tested. Results in the public domain.

Finally

Oh, and could you please post up the qualifications of and scientific research done by the owner of the big yank tank you spoke to. I assume you asked him for those as well. I'm sure you wouldn't have accepted his opinion.
I can get you further information on why it does not work but "quid pro quo"
Give me the published (in a reputable journal), peer reviewed proof from the fellow in the yank tank you met. Also, as previously requested, his qualifications and scientific research.

[sschmez]

Thanx for the link Dave, I think thats one of the ones I refered to earlier.

Ohhhh mick !!!!

read the thread and don't just quote it

I don't know anyone with a yank tank.

[Mick_Marsh]

Ohhhh mick !!!!

read the thread and don't just quote it

I don't know anyone with a yank tank.
Oh Nooooo!!!!
Please accept my apology.
A case of mistaken identity.

But, do you understand about entropy now?
Come to one of the "Wombat" camps (further info in trip reports). We'll get DT-P38 along (he enjoys these discussions) and discuss this in greater depth around the campfire with a bottle or two of port.

[pfillery]

As far as fuel saving devices go, don't underestimate the value of water/vapour injection. I installed a system which was so simple onto a small 4 cylinder engined manual car and noticed a significant improvement in fuel economy. Using the same fuel type, running everything the same, no adjustments made or additional devices fitted. Now I did no actual technical testing of the mpg or anything like that, just a simple calculation of how many kms the car would run on a tank of fuel driving under the same conditions (aproximately 60% highway and 40% city traffic).

Before fitting the vapour device I was getting an average of 620 - 640 km from a full tank of fuel (45 litres) and this was consistent over 6 months. With a simple water vapour injection device fitted (not strictly injection as the engine vacum sucks the vapour in) and running under the same conditions, I managed to pull 750 - 780km to a tank. For a 16 year old barina that is pretty impressive. To me the proof of the pudding was that after removing the device, the fuel consumption went back to around the same as it originally was. I'm convinced and will be building a similar device when I get my series 3 registered. For $10 - $20 worth of materials and a couple of hours work it is certainly an improvement that pays for itself.

I've looked at a lot of these hydrogen and hydroxy gas systems and the theory is sound but the costs to put one together is a lot to risk on a whim. I think at the very least you would need a beefier alternator and possibly some better batteries to provide the sort of power to convert the water to a gas. They are normally a pulse type device so not a straight voltage in, this makes them slightly more efficient. I have seen a simple generator that runs from a 12v battery and fills a balloon which a small 4 stroke motor uses as a reserve tank to run totally on hydrogen, but when the battery runs low the system loses efficiency.

I'm sure its doable, but the fuel companies don't want you to know about it.

[Mick_Marsh]

From my miniscule knowledge of water injection, I thought all that did was increase the compression ratio (as the injected water takes up volume in the combustion chamber and does not compress). You might as well shave your head(s) (to increase the compression ratio). Better still, you could fit a nitrous oxide system. Now that would be good. A Landy on nitrous. Go rev heads.

A little bit of trivia: If you look at the chemical reaction of the burn of a petrol internal combustion engine, a greater volume of water is produced than hydrocarbon fuel measured at standard temperature and pressure. I mention this so people will understand water vapour is part of the process anyway.

[vnx205]

I thought that the water/alcohol injection didn't cause an increase in compression. Rather that it allowed higher compression to be run without the risk of detonation. There is some cooling of the air/ fuel mixture which allows for the possibility of more power.

I believe it was used on some WWII fighters to reduce detonation on take-off. The engines had fairly high compression to try to get useful power at altitude and this caused detonation problems at sea level.

So the water/alcohol allowed rather than created higher compression.

[bee utey]

I thought that the water/alcohol injection didn't cause an increase in compression. Rather that it allowed higher compression to be run without the risk of detonation. There is some cooling of the air/ fuel mixture which allows for the possibility of more power.

I believe it was used on some WWII fighters to reduce detonation on take-off. The engines had fairly high compression to try to get useful power at altitude and this caused detonation problems at sea level.

So the water/alcohol allowed rather than created higher compression.
I have used water injection to prevent detonation on engines with too much compression. It allowed me to run a reasonable advance curve for cooler conditions without needing to retard the timing in hot weather. I did not get extra power or economy, the amount of water needed to stop detonation cooled the combustion enough to reduce power a little. I think these days a knock sensor and electronic timing is far better at managing detonation.

[101RRS]

The last couple of posts relate to water injection not water/alcohol injection which is something different.

As you mentioned water/alcohol injection (and the two need to go together) is used in the aircraft. The power of a gas turbine (turbo prop) engine is very much related to the density of the fuel air mix going into engine. On hot days where density height is raised power in these engines power can be reduced on takeoff due lower density of the air fuel mix - water/alcohol injection on hot days at higher altitudes substantially increases power for takeoff.

I guess that in theory water injection in a car engine is trying increase the density of the fuel charge like a intercooler does on a turbo but I would have though that as the air molecules cuddle up to each other the extra space would have just been taken up by no combustible water - maybe this just damps the "detonation" allowing an engine to run at extreme timing configurations.

Garry

[Mick_Marsh]

Could be unrelated but I have a cold air intake on the Commodore. I thought this increased the density of the air/fuel mixture. According to things I have read (No. Not Penthouse or Playboy.) this adds an extra three kilowatts.

[101RRS]

My first car was a Morris 1300 auto and had a top speed (indicated) of 78mph on a dead flat road. On cold foggy nights it would get up to 83mph over the same roads - but only when the air was dense.

[bee utey]

My first car was a Morris 1300 auto and had a top speed (indicated) of 78mph on a dead flat road. On cold foggy nights it would get up to 83mph over the same roads - but only when the air was dense.
Well known fact amongst the lads. Cars go faster at 3 am.:p

[Blknight.aus]

maybe this just damps the "detonation" allowing an engine to run at extreme timing configurations.

Garry


give this man the chockie biscut of correctness

roughishly it absorbs some of the heat and quenches detonation.

[rod baker]

if people always quit when told not possible we would have nothing new, by understanding why everything that has gone before did not work as advertised
is beneficial to making something that works
some of the greatest inventions were made by people whom did not hold much in the way of tertiary qualifications of any kind though for the life of me i cant quote any .

but i do see the the problem with this venture .
possibly insurmountable

having read all this with great interest with water injection would the combustion process itself provide enough heat and force to cause humble old h20 to break down into its component form in doing so cooling the charge and adding a fuel and an accelerant to the mix IE hydrogen and oxygen and would adding alcohol would alter the air fuel mixture of the process to make it fully beneficial.

dam my head hurts now
rod

[85 county]

IT WORKS brilliantly in a diesel and to a lesser effect in petrol

All fuels are hydrocarbons, hydrogen is just the purest form of normal fuel.
If used like Dgas or diesel fumigation it’s brilliant. But since LPG has a few other atoms stuck to the H it makes the H denser ( taking up less space) as a result you will be using a lot more H and LPG ( given similar storage) ( as it is with every other hydrocarbon)

There are 2 ways to make H
Electrolysis, commonly called Browns Gas ( which its not) sucks a lot of electricity to produce little. it is out of the range of usefulness in a normal car. to run similar to my LPG fumigation in a 3.9 110 i would need to produce about 400 watts.
Browns Gas uses a different electrolyte this brings electricity consumption down to about 240 watts, still a bit to much. besides it implodes and not explodes, IE when it burns it gets smaller, the resulting heat then has to turn the water into steam etc, thus lowering its efficacy in a mechanical motor.

chemically produced hydrogen, easy to do but hard to control.

There is the south African developed generator that uses aluminum wire being fed against a cathode at 12V 110 Amps in a bath of water, this seems to work and is compact. But I notice the Guys who were using this equipment have reverted to bottles for there balloons, don’t know why.

Snake oil? it is not. Usable it is not.

But it’s a hell of a lot of fun playing around with the stuff.

All the plans on the internet are rubbish, just some ones way of making money out of you

[85 county]

having read all this with great interest with water injection would the combustion process itself provide enough heat and force to cause humble old h20 to break down into its component form in doing so cooling the charge

NO




and adding a fuel and an accelerant to the mix IE hydrogen and oxygen and would adding alcohol would alter the air fuel mixture of the process to make it fully beneficial.

Alcohol is added to stop the water from freezing in the tanks of aircraft. water or methanol injection is of great benifit in a turbine with a comprestion ratio of about 38:1



dam my head hurts now
rod

[101RRS]

There are 2 ways to make H
Electrolysis, commonly called Browns Gas

chemically produced hydrogen, easy to do but hard to control.

There is the south African developed generator that uses aluminum wire being fed against a cathode at 12V 110 Amps in a bath of water, this seems to work and is compact. But I notice the Guys who were using this equipment have reverted to bottles for there balloons, don’t know why.



Of course there is the way that Hydrogen was first generated when it was identified in the late 1700s.

Heat a ferrous pipe over hot fire until it is red hot with one end higher than the other - leave the higher end open and connect a small pipe to the other end. Slowly pour in water at the through the open end and if done at the right rate - hydrogen comes out the small pipe. It works by the iron in the hot metal rusting using up the oxygen in the water - the hydrogen that is left comes out the other end.

This is how Henry Cavandish did it when he discovered hydrogen.

Garry

[85 county]

Of course there is the way that Hydrogen was first generated when it was identified in the late 1700s.

Heat a ferrous pipe over hot fire until it is red hot with one end higher than the other - leave the higher end open and connect a small pipe to the other end. Slowly pour in water at the through the open end and if done at the right rate - hydrogen comes out the small pipe. It works by the iron in the hot metal rusting using up the oxygen in the water - the hydrogen that is left comes out the other end.

This is how Henry Cavandish did it when he discovered hydrogen.

Garry

correct BUT, the ferrous oxide created is in powder form and get carried out with the steam witch is also produced. separating the hydrogen from the ferrous oxide and water vapor is the trick.

aluminum just returns to is natural state holding the oxygen atoms that way

[JohnF]

I knew a guy who ran his car on only 20% peterol, rest Hydrogen for three months. He removed his unit after a backfire realising he could blow up the whole town where he lived if it hackfired into his Hydrogen tank. Internal combustion motors that run on Hydrogen have been made.

[101RRS]

correct BUT, the ferrous oxide created is in powder form and get carried out with the steam witch is also produced. separating the hydrogen from the ferrous oxide and water vapor is the trick.

aluminum just returns to is natural state holding the oxygen atoms that way

Cavandish just bubbled the gas through water which takes up the water vapour and steam and any other crude - the hydrogen is already free from the other components and just bubbles out of the cooling water.

I am not saying this is a good way to make hydrogen but it another way in addition the two you mentioned.

Garry

[JDNSW]

Hydrogen is fairly easy to make using a variety of methods, and in many respects is an ideal fuel for an internal combustion engine - the problem using it for a vehicle fuel is that it is very difficult to store and handle, and the amount of energy required to produce it is roughly four times the amount of mechanical energy you get from burning it in a typical internal combustion engine, even ignoring the efficiency of the method used for producing it.

John

[Casper]

I think it was posted once before but it's all in the maths.

How much power does it take to produce 1 ltr of H2, the "short" answer would be 286 kj.

Meaning 1 ltr of pure hydrogen would take 333 minutes or 5.56 hours and require 5.56 watthours of energy.

To just equal the power output of just 1ltr of standard ULP it would take 297.97l of hydrogen.

If you were then to work that out to a 15% ratio over 1 Disco tank of 80ltrs your talking about 3576ltrs of hydrogen meaning that at that rate it would take 2.28 years to fill the H2 tank for 1 fill of the petrol tank, meaning by my laymans calculations would need 1.022736Mj of energy.

Some how I don't think the standard alternator will do the job, it may need an upgrade :D

It's nothing to do with personal feelings, opinions or attitudes why the home made, run off the engine systems referred too don't work, it is the physical science and maths which make it impractical.

If you want some link to verify my calculations, I found this on a Google search, came up first link when I punched in "How much power does it take to make 1 litre of Hydrogen gas".

How much electric power you need to produce 1 litre of hydrogen from water? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101017124022AANICYK)

My answer is not just based on that, it's also based on my Mechanical experience (22 years qualified motor mechanic) and my electronics background (just a couple of certs and a Diploma, nothing much).

If anyone smarter than me checks my numbers and I'm wrong please point it out as I'm not a mathematician or an engineer.

Cheers Casper.

[awabbit6]

I think it was posted once before but it's all in the maths.

How much power does it take to produce 1 ltr of H2, the "short" answer would be 286 kj.

Meaning 1 ltr of pure hydrogen would take 333 minutes or 5.56 hours and require 5.56 watthours of energy.

To just equal the power output of just 1ltr of standard ULP it would take 297.97l of hydrogen.

If you were then to work that out to a 15% ratio over 1 Disco tank of 80ltrs your talking about 3576ltrs of hydrogen meaning that at that rate it would take 2.28 years to fill the H2 tank for 1 fill of the petrol tank, meaning by my laymans calculations would need 1.022736Mj of energy.

Some how I don't think the standard alternator will do the job, it may need an upgrade :D

It's nothing to do with personal feelings, opinions or attitudes why the home made, run off the engine systems referred too don't work, it is the physical science and maths which make it impractical.

If you want some link to verify my calculations, I found this on a Google search, came up first link when I punched in "How much power does it take to make 1 litre of Hydrogen gas".

How much electric power you need to produce 1 litre of hydrogen from water? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101017124022AANICYK)

My answer is not just based on that, it's also based on my Mechanical experience (22 years qualified motor mechanic) and my electronics background (just a couple of certs and a Diploma, nothing much).

If anyone smarter than me checks my numbers and I'm wrong please point it out as I'm not a mathematician or an engineer.

Cheers Casper.


There are quite a few errors and assumptions in these calculations but the intent is OK.

For example, 286kJ is the heat of combustion of hydrogen per mole not per litre. Considering that there are 24.5L of hydrogen in a mole at 25C, this equates to 11.7kJ per litre of hydrogen.
Also, 1L of unleaded produces around 34kJ of energy which is equivalent to the energy produced from 3L of hydrogen.

If I can find time, I'll redo the rest ... but ultimately, producing hydrogen "on-board" is just a waste of time due to energy losses at each stage. It is far more sensible to put the electrical energy into an electric motor which is far more efficient than an internal combustion engine. Hence the existence of hybrid vehicles ...

[navigation2000]

There are quite a few errors and assumptions in these calculations but the intent is OK.

For the studious types...

A quick glance at the figures provided, suggests H2 is the "species" of hydrogen being discussed here.

So, why are people continually stooged into looking at H2?

Just a hunch of course, but could the following scenario fit the bill?


If you go back a ways, back to when the H2 "myth" appears to have surfaced, you'll find that it seems to have manifested sometime after 1912.

Now, there was an impressive hydrogen discovery made in 1912 (though most people are wholly unaware of it), but this discovery was made with H1 hydrogen, not H2.

So, is it possible that this H1 "discovery" was in turn misinterpreted, and thus led to H2 being wrongly labelled as the spotty dog for impressive thermal energy yields?

Of course it's just my opinion, but I reckon that the work of Dr Irving Langmuir (1912), has simply been misunderstood, and continues to be.

Is that possible?

Now, if the above scenario is considered plausible, and you then do the math on H1 instead (now that you know it actually exists), wouldn't those results be considered far more appealing?

[navigation2000]

Ok, just to save a little bit of time for the intrepid few:

http://www.gifnet.org/articles/Langmuir%20&%20Atomic%20Hydrogen.pdf

While I can't vouch for the accuracy of the entire document, it happens that in all the research I did on the matter (H1), I can't really find any glowing inconsistencies contained therein either.

Should you be courageous (or foolish) enough to scout yet further, you'll find those figures are considered to be scientifically "correct".

I should add too, that I'm not providing this info in order to begin any sort of debate as to this or that, I'm just making this info available so that anyone with an interest in this type of thing, can thus advance their knowledge base enough to afford them the privilege of knowing "what" they're talking about.

There's a coloured diagram down toward the bottom of that document, which I believe is the focal point of where the H2 "myth" began.

[isuzurover]

Please do us all a favour and go read "voodoo science" by Bob Park...

Or better yet, produce a working device using the drivel you have linked to???

Lots of crackpots out there who can sell you engineering drawings for free energy or ZPE generators, but what are their homes and vehcles powered by ;)

[isuzurover]

Science is not about belief or disbelief, it is about evidence. There is no evidence that ZPE / Free Energy devices can exist. In fact there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

Here is a link about hydrogen dissociation which is based on experiments and sound theory.
Dissociation and ionization of warm dense hydrogen (http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jsu/Thesis/node31.html)

[Mick_Marsh]

In what form does H1 exist. Wouldn't it be wanting to bond immediately with another atom? i.e. If you put a whole lot of H1's in a glass jar, wouldn't it immediately react to become half as many H2's (hydrogen gas)?
It's been so long since I did chemistry.

[isuzurover]

In what form does H1 exist. Wouldn't it be wanting to bond immediately with another atom? i.e. If you put a whole lot of H1's in a glass jar, wouldn't it immediately react to become half as many H2's (hydrogen gas)?
It's been so long since I did chemistry.

In short, yes. However if you heat H2 up, you can get it to dissociate. You can also do the same using electrodes.

The link that navigation2000 posted is claiming you can use electrical energy to dissociate H2 (or H-H) into H + H, then when you allow it to recombine you get back out more heat energy than the electrical energy you put in in the first place.

Complete bunkum, which like all free energy devices:
(a) have never been turned into a working model
(b) circumvent the (thoroughly tested and proven) laws of thermodynamics.

[Casper]

For the studious types...

A quick glance at the figures provided, suggests H2 is the "species" of hydrogen being discussed here.

So, why are people continually stooged into looking at H2?

Just a hunch of course, but could the following scenario fit the bill?


If you go back a ways, back to when the H2 "myth" appears to have surfaced, you'll find that it seems to have manifested sometime after 1912.

Now, there was an impressive hydrogen discovery made in 1912 (though most people are wholly unaware of it), but this discovery was made with H1 hydrogen, not H2.

So, is it possible that this H1 "discovery" was in turn misinterpreted, and thus led to H2 being wrongly labelled as the spotty dog for impressive thermal energy yields?

Of course it's just my opinion, but I reckon that the work of Dr Irving Langmuir (1912), has simply been misunderstood, and continues to be.

Is that possible?

Now, if the above scenario is considered plausible, and you then do the math on H1 instead (now that you know it actually exists), wouldn't those results be considered far more appealing?


Ok, just to save a little bit of time for the intrepid few:

http://www.gifnet.org/articles/Langmuir%20&%20Atomic%20Hydrogen.pdf

While I can't vouch for the accuracy of the entire document, it happens that in all the research I did on the matter (H1), I can't really find any glowing inconsistencies contained therein either.

Should you be courageous (or foolish) enough to scout yet further, you'll find those figures are considered to be scientifically "correct".

I should add too, that I'm not providing this info in order to begin any sort of debate as to this or that, I'm just making this info available so that anyone with an interest in this type of thing, can thus advance their knowledge base enough to afford them the privilege of knowing "what" they're talking about.

There's a coloured diagram down toward the bottom of that document, which I believe is the focal point of where the H2 "myth" began.


No I don't think that anyone would confuse H1 and H2 when labeling it in a scientific finding as that would certainly defeat the purpose of the finding as they are 2 related but different atomic structures from my understanding.

I think you may want to look at a bit more of the information which debunks these theories as well as those which supports them as with knowledge of both it soon becomes evident which is based on real science and which is not.

There are some great science fiction stories from the past which have become reality such as aeroplanes carrying hundreds of people all around the world and harnessing electricity to light homes and also computers that sit in the palm of your hand but they were all proven to be possible, tested and developed and now in the main stream but the tech your talking about is based on dodgey science, there have been no real scientific testing by real scientific authorities and there are no real working prototypes to prove the so called theory.

There are plenty of people who say they can do it but I have not seen anyone personally or in any science book, show or otherwise who has been able to convince me it is feasible to do so.

Yes to running a car on H2, no to running a car on H1 as described above, no to making the H2 in the car your going to power it with, and no to perpetual motion.

No really my place to say anything but I really don't think there is much call for violence over this though.

It's just a difference of opinion and the best thing you both could do would be to just stay away from each other to avoid any more nastiness.

Cheers Casper

[101RRS]

I hope to be driving a hydrogen fueled fuel cell car in the future (not too distant I hope).

If the original energy source for the fuel cell comes from Hydro or Nuclear or Wind or Wave energy then I will be with you BUT it will most likely come from coal fired energy which is not a good thing due to the amount of energy required.

Maybe we should dam every river in Tasmania and use the electricity generated to run the country. :wasntme:and run fuel cells.

Garry

[Casper]

If the original energy source for the fuel cell comes from Hydro or Nuclear or Wind or Wave energy then I will be with you BUT it will most likely come from coal fired energy which is not a good thing due to the amount of energy required.

Maybe we should dam every river in Tasmania and use the electricity generated to run the country. :wasntme:and run fuel cells.

Garry

Yeah I'd be happy to convert the Disco to Electric and run a cell if the H2 was made from clean energy but for now I think I will get back to working out my Bio Diesel plant.

As for the Tasweigian electric company, they always say that 2 heads is better than 1 so they should be able to work it out :D

Sorry to all the Tassy's out there :(

Cheers Casper

[Mick_Marsh]

If the original energy source for the fuel cell comes from Hydro or Nuclear or Wind or Wave energy then I will be with you BUT it will most likely come from coal fired energy which is not a good thing due to the amount of energy required.

Maybe we should dam every river in Tasmania and use the electricity generated to run the country. :wasntme:and run fuel cells.

Garry
I'm with you there.
It is possible to get it from algae. Problem is scaling it up to produce hydrogen in industrial volumes.
Was at the Melbourne motor show. Nissan had their zero emission (battery) car on display. I had a go at them telling them they're just passing their emissions on to Hazelwood. Told them they weren't very green.

[navigation2000]

No I don't think that anyone would confuse H1 and H2 when labeling it in a scientific finding as that would certainly defeat the purpose of the finding as they are 2 related but different atomic structures from my understanding.

Ok, I think you've missed my point, so picture this, if you will.

Langmuir did what he did...with H1.

So, a layman then tries to report what he thinks he saw, to other laymen, remembering that the physics aspects were new discoveries and as such, would be unknown.

It has to also be remembered that the schooling of the day would have had nothing to compare it to, being so newly discovered.

So, the explanation loosely suggested by the layman goes something along the lines of: "hey, there's a bloke making awesome energy from water".

The listener then asks his science savvy teacher, or professor, or whatever, if this is possible, and is told that yes, hydrogen (H2) is a remarkable energy vessel, and that it can be acquired fairly easily by using the most basic of means.

So that person runs off and tells another..and another, and so on.

At no point will you find any evidence where people from about 1915 onwards discussing H1, rather, they only seem to talk about H2.

Ok, so again, given the above scenario, and keeping the lack of knowledge at the time in the fore, if nobody knew it was H1 that Langmuir was using, then can it be safely assumed that the masses have been "stooged" into pinning all their hopes on H2?

You know about H1, judging by your comment above, but I think if you ask around, you'll find that not many others actually know of its existence, and so to those people, hydrogen is just hydrogen and that's all there is to it, for them at least.

You may even note the way people are using different names for different alleged species, like Browns Gas etc, with the argument being put forward that seeing as that particular gas "behaves" a bit different to another, it should in turn be named as another species.

I think you may want to look at a bit more of the information which debunks these theories as well as those which supports them as with knowledge of both it soon becomes evident which is based on real science and which is not.

Ok, so if we look at H1 and its application within the atomic arc welding process as the example, we cannot say it doesn't work because it does.
While the "why" is still not fully explained, the lack of an explanation doesn't cancel out the fact that it's doing some pretty interesting stuff nonetheless.

There are some great science fiction stories from the past which have become reality such as aeroplanes carrying hundreds of people all around the world and harnessing electricity to light homes and also computers that sit in the palm of your hand but they were all proven to be possible, tested and developed and now in the main stream but the tech your talking about is based on dodgey science, there have been no real scientific testing by real scientific authorities and there are no real working prototypes to prove the so called theory.

The tech I'm talking about? What tech? I've not mentioned any tech.

I merely pointed out that document as having contained the most complete roundup of H1 info. Perhaps I never worded that part clearly enough, if so, I apologise.

I thought I added in another sentence that I don't support all of the contents of that document too.

Aside from that bit, I do agree with you on the rest.

There are plenty of people who say they can do it but I have not seen anyone personally or in any science book, show or otherwise who has been able to convince me it is feasible to do so.

While I've been at the coalface with some of this stuff, I'm also in the same position as you, for I have never a complete working "engine" either, but having said that, I have been involved at first hand, and have the scientifically certified documents in hand, which do prove that certain "aspects" of it are indeed "real". But again, no, no "complete" package.

Yes to running a car on H2, no to running a car on H1 as described above, no to making the H2 in the car your going to power it with, and no to perpetual motion.

Ok, I have to see it first, then I'll believe it, sorry.
I agree, H1 cannot be used in an internal combustion engine as the primary fuel.(it cannot be contained of compressed due to it being atom sized)
Again, while it's apparently being done, again, I have to physically see it before I can believe it.
I also have to agree with you on the last too.

Cheers Casper

....

[navigation2000]

In what form does H1 exist. Wouldn't it be wanting to bond immediately with another atom? i.e. If you put a whole lot of H1's in a glass jar, wouldn't it immediately react to become half as many H2's (hydrogen gas)?
It's been so long since I did chemistry.

It's been a while since I was involved with it too, but I think you'll find that H1 can't exist for more than a few brief moments beyond inception in open air, and the reasons for that are pretty much explained in the latter part of your comment.

[Outlaw]

So Hydrogen in a landy :)

[bee utey]

It's been a while since I was involved with it too, but I think you'll find that H1 can't exist for more than a few brief moments beyond inception in open air, and the reasons for that are pretty much explained in the latter part of your comment.

I carefully read all of the PDF you linked to early in the piece and it certainly shows Dr Irving Langmuir's work on hydrogen welding was sound and doesn't violate the Law of conservation of energy. That is, the energy delivered to the metal is derived from the arc. However, the PDF author then veers off into cosmic speculation about zero point energy and dreaming up fancy machines to extract some of this free energy. I rate it as typical dope-fuelled dreams of free lunches forever. No reflection on you but I rate this article as typical bunk, or voodoo science.

PS wikipedia have an entry on the good doctor's hydrogen trick too.

Cheers and happy dreams of solving the earth's energy problems in one go.:):):)

[navigation2000]

I carefully read all of the PDF you linked to early in the piece and it certainly shows Dr Irving Langmuir's work on hydrogen welding was sound and doesn't violate the Law of conservation of energy.

Thank you, so you also agree that the math is "considered" sound. This is telling of your intellect actually and kind of sets you apart from the sheep. If you did have cause to delve deeper, as I said in the earlier post, you will only find more supporting evidence as per the math being correct.

That is, the energy delivered to the metal is derived from the arc.

While I'm glad you can see it, I'm not sure how you would go explaining it, for it seems to baffle pretty much everyone else, including me.

However, the PDF author then veers off into cosmic speculation about zero point energy and dreaming up fancy machines to extract some of this free energy. I rate it as typical dope-fuelled dreams of free lunches forever. No reflection on you but I rate this article as typical bunk, or voodoo science.

Thanks, and if you review what I wrote at the outset, you'll note that I said I never agreed with the "thrust" of the article, but was merely using it because the math was "considered" correct.

PS wikipedia have an entry on the good doctor's hydrogen trick too.

Probably, as do a lot of other places, if care is taken to look.

Cheers and happy dreams of solving the earth's energy problems in one go.:):):)

I beg your pardon?
Are you suggesting that you're dreaming of solving the "energy" dilemma?
It seems you've fallen off your pony mate....:p

Ok cool, so there's at least one other person here with the intelligence to recognise that the math contained in the link is "considered" correct, and that is the very reason I posted the link.

Of course it's possible to link to a plethora of scientific journals which add weight to the topic (H2 Vs H1), but that would be exhaustive. To simplify the exercise, I figured it was far easier to just add that one link, though in hindsight, I'm sorry I bothered.

Not sure why everybody keeps skipping off down the rampantly hysterical skeptic road, but I suppose if that's their bent, then so be it.

I've never said anything about solving anything, nor have I mentioned applying any of these principals, so for people to automatically jump to those conclusions, well, rather than it reflect on me, it reflects on them I'm afraid.

If you look at what I wrote at the outset, you'll see where I stated that I do not agree with the "thrust" of the link, but that I did support the math contained therein. Now you've hopped onto the band wagon and also seem to support the math, so does this mean you will now become targeted here?

"Get him Marshall, he's also saying the world ain't flat, therefore he's a heretic too!" :D

Now, having said all that, I note that the general "tone" of all the responses have been slanted heavily toward the skeptical side, and it's also apparent that there's no possibility of anyone being able to "discuss" anything related to this topic on this forum, lest they be targeted and duly kangaroo courted, as was the case earlier.

Therefore, no further discussion about the topic (H2 Vs H1) can be undertaken here and I'm forced by the kangaroo court rules to refrain from participating further.

The only reason I bothered to get involved in this thread at all, was because I saw a few punters trying to fathom the hydrogen (H2) myth, and I thought I'd throw up a reason as to why people may be continually drawn into wrongly believing in H2.

Ok, so while I'm forced to part company, I shall leave just a couple more bits of information, just in case those with a few smarts are still interested with the pursuing the more "valid" scientific avenues in their quest to "understand" the physics and methodologies of hydrogen application.

1. H2 is a dud, always was and always will be.

2. H1 is far better, but again it cannot be used (alone) within the confines of an internal combustion engine. Bore hatch and piston rings are not suited to this type of "fuel". Besides, as Mick Marsh alluded, the recombination of the atoms soon after release, cause the formation of H2O. Picture if you can, what will happen within the engine crank case when H2O forms en mass, from all the reassembled hydrogen that slipped past the rings.

3. If you can get H1 to bond with another atom to create "something else" of value, you may just be able to make something worthwhile out of the exercise. The problem here is, not many other atoms "like" to bond with atomic hydrogen, it's just a simple case of polarities etc. They need to be opposites to attract per se. Also, which molecules can be worthwhile anyway?

Now, let's say you do your homework and arrive at the conclusion that there's really only 1x other molecule of appeal, that being the nitrogen. Problem is, the nitrogen is an opposite(polarity) to the atomic hydrogen, so it cannot bond unless it too is made to be atomic. So there again, you have another problem to contend with.

Let's say you beat that one too, and now you have atomic hydrogen and atomic nitrogen in the same "area", and they've bonded.

What does that "electrochemical reaction" present you with?
Hint, I've been told there are a bunch of buses running around Brisbane using "tanked" fuel of this kind.

Now, while you may have just succeeded in forming a usable "fuel", the burn rate of the said "fuel", will certainly not be up where the it was when you were looking at the atomic hydrogen, but will be reduced downward to being similar in flash/flame speed to that of diesel or petrol/LPG.

Ok, still do-able you may say, but what happens when you "ignite" that stuff by way of a regular ignition process? Which nasty is now apparent in that NOx?

Oh dear, so are those buses pumping out that particular NOx?

Can you eliminate that NOx?

Ok, so what if rather than "ignite" that fuel, you "vaporised" it instead?

Bit of a side step, and for example only:
In 2010, a newly built (standard specification) Holden engine was trialled at NSW RTA/EPA testing facility in Botany NSW.

Fuel was regular petrol, along with a parallel series of tests using LPG.

Ignition was a standard Bosch electronic distributor, which in turn acted as the trigger for a 4.7uF(microfarad) and then a 1x Joule plasma ignition burst.

When appraising the officials at Botany as per the reasoning behind the tests, they immediately dismissed the tests as pointless, and explained that the NOx always reacts in a "see-saw" fashion, thus if you remove from 1x NOx column, you always increase it on another.

This is of course quite correct if you're "igniting" the fuel, but this is not the case when you "vaporise" the said fuel. Straight up fact. To attempt to argue against this, is to question the practice of plasma gasification, and if you have a quick look at that process, you'll see "why" it does what regular ignition can't. Anyway, the tests went ahead and the results were duly certified as "Valid".

Plasma doesn't "burn" the fuel, it vaporises it, and thus once vaporised, it really does cease to exist as matter, and so if you're really keen and wish to look down that rabbit hole, you'll see that it's been long proven to work in getting rid of toxic waste and even nuclear waste.

So, will somebody ever pull off the big one and "solve" the big puzzle?

Buggered if I know, but it'd be a bit hard to solve it if you hadn't a clue as per the physics and chemical tables from the outset.

Anyway, enough from me. I can be BANNED now Mr moderator.

People can go on believing in H2 if they choose, and I do sincerely wish them uber good luck with that.

Hooroo and happy trails.

[incisor]

and I'm forced by the kangaroo court rules to refrain from participating further.

shakes head,

were you not able to post this?

you wanted to take your bat and ball and not continue, no one told you to go,
they told you to treat others with a minimal degree of respect,

it boils down to, not what you said, but how you said it.

so either stay or go but if you stay feel free to lose the attitude...

[navigation2000]

shakes head,

Yep, shaking my head too...

were you not able to post this?

Well, if this message appears, it will be post #2, and will mean that there's something amiss with your demerit notification process then, for it gave me a pop up message telling me I was allowed only 1x more post, hence my acknowledgement of the rules and my subsequent oorroo...

you wanted to take your bat and ball and not continue, no one told you to go,

See my above comment. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding as per the processes here, but the lines are certainly not drawn clearly, re: the demerit process and attendant pop up windows.

they told you to treat others with a minimal degree of respect,

Not exactly how it was put, but yes, I can see that it's clearly a non reciprocal requirement, (one way street) I get that now.

it boils down to, not what you said, but how you said it.

Again, see my above post re: the one way street. Perhaps you should review the archive to see what was said and by whom, and when. Not meaning to tell you your business, but perhaps you might want to look at the edited post which carries no "edit" notification, and then see who edited that one. I was only aware of it as I had 2x windows opened up side by side at the same time and was therefore puzzled to see the original as well as the edited post(after I refreshed that page), though no mention of an edit. I then looked about and discovered that only a mod can do that.

so either stay or go but if you stay feel free to lose the attitude...

I did what I felt I had to do in post #1 thanks, and there's little chance I'll be changing my ways to allow people to speak to me in that tone, so rather than my continuing to comment on this thread or on others, my mouth will remain closed. I'll therefore bid you adieu, but I do thank you for the advice though.

[Ferret]

So, anyone got there Land Rover running on Nitrogen Hydroxide yet.

How to Make Nitrogen Hydroxide Water Fuel.pdf (http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/tutanka/howtomakenitrogenhydroxide.pdf)

This document has all the right buzz words, atomic hydrogen, atomic nitrogen, atomic oxygen, plasma ignition even makes use of magnetic fields and blue LEDs. Unfortunately it does mention "THIS DOCUMENT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION – IT IS INCOMPLETE. A FEW MISSING ITEMS ARE BEING CONTEMPLATED FOR A FULL WORKING MOTOR." Must be still working on the flux capacitor design I suppose.

The author links to some websites noting "You will see one of the sites goes back 10 years and the common understanding seems to be that none of them understand why it works, they say they just know that it does."

I wonder why no one understands why it works. Can some explain to me the difference between H2O, HHO and HOH. It seems to be a key to understanding all this stuff.

[bee utey]

H1 HHo H1 HHo its off to work I go...

I believe THIS is a H1:

http://www.kbluxurycars.com/pictures/Hummer-H1-1.jpg

And I'm sure it takes energy to run it.

[Freightdog]

I wonder why no one understands why it works. Can some explain to me the difference between H2O, HHO and HOH. It seems to be a key to understanding all this stuff.

I get this feeling that a lot of disinformation arrises because it is so difficult to
type H2O. Therefore all this other rubbish gets written.

H2O(H2O), HHO and HOH are all the same molecule, why? Because there is only one way they can be combined.

O
/ \ this is it
H H

H - O - H nope, the molecule must have an angle

H - H - O nope, H will not join to another H which is attached to an O.

Browns gas is supposed to be 2H2 O2 but gets written HHO because the people writting all this BS have no idea what they are talking about, and unfortunately the readers even less.

Anyway, thats all I have time for right now, I have some actual calculations I did in another forum which I will try and find, which further debunks all this BS.

[Ferret]

Thanks Freightdog. Actually I was just being sarcastic about wanting to know the difference between H2O, HHO and HOH. Sorry if you did not pick up on that. I am aware there are no difference.

However, please continue with what ever you have which further debunks this type of crap.

[Freightdog]

One of the arguments regarding the use of H2 is that it more than makes up for its production "cost" by enhancing the petrol/diesel burn.

Below are some calculations I did a while back whilst trying to explain the unreality of this line of thought.



To split 1 litre of water into oxygen and hydrogen requires 16,000 kilo Joules (kJ) of energy (0r 16,000,000 Joules).

The electricity required to do this is calculated by the formulae below

Time (seconds) = Joules/volts x amps

Now if our 12 volt car alternator is made to crank out a massive 100 amps we can work out how long it will take to convert our 1 litre of water to gas.

Time (sec) = 16,000,000/12 x 100
= 13,333 seconds
= 3 hours 42 min.

or 4.4 kWh of power.

There is no way around using this amount of energy. This energy is required to excite the electrons in the water molecule enough to raise them to the next quantum level. It is only by doing this that the Hydrogen and oxygen will split.
Any energy short cuts are pure fantasy.

So now that we have generated our "Browns Gas", what are we going to get for it in energy terms? The answer is 16,000 kJ, the same amount of energy it took us to create it.

However to get 16,000 kJ of work out of an internal combustion engine operating at 30% effeciency we will require 53,000 kJ of fuel.

So to convert our 1 litre of water to browns gas we are going to use 53,000 kJ but only get back 16,000 kJ for our troubles, ie we are going to have to burn 37,000 kJ of fuel for no advantage.

For interest, 1 litre of petrol contains about 34,000 kJ of energy.

Now this 1 litre of water (after we have pumped 4.4 kWh through it) will split into 110 grams of Hydrogen and 890 grams of oxygen with a combined gas volume at atmospheric pressure and 20 deg C of 2,000 litres, 2/3's of which is hydrogen.

So we are using a massive 100 amps from our alternator to deliver about 360 litres of hydrogen gas per hour or 30 grams of hydrogen per hour.

Lets assume our vehicle is burning a very economical 10 litres/100km at 100 km/hr.
So we need 10 litres of petrol or about 7 kg every hour.

So we are to believe that by adding 30 grams (4,400 kJ) of hydrogen to 7,000 grams (238,000 kJ) of petrol, we will get massive fuel savings.
Only 1.8% of our total fuel kJ value being burnt is hydrogen.
We add something like 25% LPG to get economy gains in a diesel.

This is an example of why this hydrogen generating stuff is not all its cracked up to be, and why commercial production of said devices has not commenced.


Now I believe that most of these H2 generators are based on a 10 amp cell. If you are using one of these cells then only 0.18% of your total fuel consumed is coming from the H2.

Please don't try and tell me it makes a difference.


Having said all that, I do actually believe that H2 can enhance fuel burn of petrol/diesel (having seen University experimental results), BUT the concentrations needed are similar to those using LPG, and as someone pointed out earlier - LPG is a hell of a lot cheaper.

Young people in universities (who love nothing more than to prove someone wrong), have not been able to make it work. Have a look at some of the work done by The University of Tasmania.

So why would I think some untrained nobody who knows how to set up a web page is more able than 100's of trained "smart arse" uni students.

Well I don't.

[101RRS]

I am a sceptic of the use of hydrogen generated by a car and used in the combustion process - the energy numbers just do not add up.

However in high school chemistry where in some reactions catalysts were used, this resulted in outputs seemed to exceed inputs (not actually the case - catalysts just enabled more processes in the reaction).

Now added Hydrogen is unlikely to act directly as a catalyst in a petrol burning environment but putting aside how the hydrogen is generated has anyone (a scientist not a AULRO person) tested whether the energy produced when burning petrol under pressure with hydrogen fumigation does actually produce more energy than expected (yes I know energy cannot be created or destroyed) - in other works does the hydrogen release energy creation processes over and above just burning petrol or hydrogen individually, ie does the hydrogen actually work something like a catalyst.

Cheers

Garry

[Mick_Marsh]

Gary, I think the question that should be asked is "Does the addition of Hydrogen in the burn increase the efficiency of the burn?"

[101RRS]

Gary, I think the question that should be asked is "Does the addition of Hydrogen in the burn increase the efficiency of the burn?"

Thats what I said ;).

[Mick_Marsh]

Thats what I said ;).
I thought so. I hoped I made it more succinct.

[Freightdog]

Hydrogen is not a catalyst, as a catalyst is not consumed in the reaction.

A catalyst basically reduces the amount of energy required to start a reaction, however no extra energy is emitted from that reaction.

Example, lets say that paper normally starts to burn at 500 C. If we used a catalyst we maybe able to start the paper burning at 400 C.

Does adding hydrogen increase the effeciency of the burn? The answer according to the scientific data I have read is yes, BUT the amount of hydrogen needed to make a difference is in the order of 30%, AND the timing of the engine must be advanced to take advantage of the faster burn.

I guess this makes the 0.2 - 2.0% H2, created by an on board hydrogen generator with no advanced timing, look pretty silly.

[101RRS]

Hydrogen is not a catalyst, as a catalyst is not consumed in the reaction.



I did not say hydrogen was a catalyst.

[Mick_Marsh]

I did not say hydrogen was a catalyst.
No you didn't but I think someone else did.

I just don't like the idea of using hydrogen in an internal combustion engine. If I had copious quantities of hydrogen, I would use it in a fuel cell and use electric motors. One motor in each hub ought to do it. PLC controlled. I imagine that would make an awesome machine and you could power your house with it when you get home.

[Freightdog]

Now added Hydrogen is unlikely to act directly as a catalyst


This infers you think it is possible the hydrogen is a catalyst.

ie does the hydrogen actually work something like a catalyst.


This is almost asking somebody to tell you it acts like a catalyst.

From those 2 statements and not being a mind reader, I thought I had better make it plain the hydrogen is not a catalyst.

I did not say you said it was a catalyst, I am going to a bit of effort to explain what is going on, and all I get is "I didn't say it was a catalyst" so stop being so sensitive, and grow up.

[101RRS]

OMG another one.

[Mick_Marsh]

Garry, Freightdog,

Certainly is an emotional topic. Don't let the emotions get away from us.
It's an interesting topic I wouldn't want locked.

[Sleepy]

Me neither! http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10172/thumb_smiley-face-popcorn.gif

[praxis]

At the risk of awakening a sleeping dragon...........I have been interested in hydrogen use in IC engines for some years now, and (contrary to the statement someone made earlier that no working examples have been made) was quite keen to install one of the commercially available units. see this link All About Hydrogen Oxygen Generating System (http://www.ndmtyreautos.com/template.asp?pagename=HOGS). I have seen them fitted and working by the way.

I had hoped that the unemotional and logical discussion within these revered threads would enlighten me on whether these things actually do improve volumetric efficiency (as per water injection) or not.

So, is there anyone who has actually fitted one and can tell me of the fuel consumption results from their own experience?
Dave

[praxis]

I have just had a chat with Neil from NDM who has been installing Hydrogen Oxygen Generating Systems into all manner of vehicles for 5 years now. He actually buys the generators from the US and manufactures all the other stuff that makes them work properly in a vehicle. I was interested if he was still as confident about the results as he used to be (especially in light of the comments in this thread) and he was more enthusiastic than ever.

He said that (in my series) I should get between 20% and 30% fuel savings, but that the benefits in carbon emission reduction, engine wear and oil change intervals would outweigh that financially. To fit a HOGS to my series will cost me $2500. I will have to do some number crunching and saving!

By my calculations so far (assuming a fuel consumption now of 20L/100km) by fitting a HOGS (30% saving) and an overdrive (25% saving) I should be achieving a fuel consumption that is less than a Disco TD5! Now wouldn't that be nice>:angel:

[isuzurover]

I have just had a chat with Neil from NDM who has been installing Hydrogen Oxygen Generating Systems into all manner of vehicles for 5 years now. He actually buys the generators from the US and manufactures all the other stuff that makes them work properly in a vehicle. I was interested if he was still as confident about the results as he used to be (especially in light of the comments in this thread) and he was more enthusiastic than ever.

He said that (in my series) I should get between 20% and 30% fuel savings, but that the benefits in carbon emission reduction, engine wear and oil change intervals would outweigh that financially. To fit a HOGS to my series will cost me $2500. I will have to do some number crunching and saving!

By my calculations so far (assuming a fuel consumption now of 20L/100km) by fitting a HOGS (30% saving) and an overdrive (25% saving) I should be achieving a fuel consumption that is less than a Disco TD5! Now wouldn't that be nice>:angel:

Please fit one and report back.

However, to ensure that your fuel consumption figures are not influenced by the placebo effect, it would be ideal if the system was fitted with an on-off switch that is hidden from view and unaccessable to you (e.g. padlocked in a box). Then, for each period between fuel consumption measurements, an impartial 3rd party flips the on off switch randomly to one position or the other.

Please also do oil analysis regularly before and after.

FWIW. My 109 with 2.25P averaged 17 L/100 (fitting an overdrive made no significant difference to fuel consumption IME). 20% less than that is 13.6 L/100, which I could easily achieve by having a light right foot.

[damo_s]

Pardon my ignorance, as I don't really know a whole lot about engines.. but wouldnt the water produced when the hydrogen reacts with oxygen have some kind of negative effect on the engine?

[bee utey]

.....and an overdrive (25% saving)....

Unlikely, as mentioned. Engine friction is a small part of the overall losses of a vehicle, especially a Land Rover. Therefore at best a 30% overdrive may possibly give you 10% off, more likely 5% as the engine advance and mixtures may change under higher load. Adding a 15% overdrive (Supra box) to a V8 sedan gave me a 5% saving on a regular long trip.

As for the hydrogen thingy, there's only one practical place to test it, and that's on a dyno. Anywhere else random errors will swamp the data. Build the gizmo, attatch to an engine, and dyno it for a coupla days, measuring consumption at every power level and setting. Should only cost you a few thousand and you may become famous as the first person to demonstrate without doubt that it works. Or not as it may happen.

[bee utey]

Pardon my ignorance, as I don't really know a whole lot about engines.. but wouldnt the water produced when the hydrogen reacts with oxygen have some kind of negative effect on the engine?

Yup, condensation will form at the tailpipe. Just a teeny bit more than by burning regular hydrocarbons.

[isuzurover]

Pardon my ignorance, as I don't really know a whole lot about engines.. but wouldnt the water produced when the hydrogen reacts with oxygen have some kind of negative effect on the engine?

The extra H2O vapour would be no different to water injection:
Water injection (engines) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_%28engines%29)

[Mick_Marsh]

Just a little bit I remember from the chemistry class in my high school days.
In the fuel burning process, one of the waste products is water vapour.
In the chemistry class, we did the calculalions of the formula of the chemical reaction of the burn process using octane as a fuel.
We were surprised to discover more water in volume was produced than fuel in volume used at standard temperature and pressure (which was 20 degrees celcius at one atmosphere I think).

Praxis, let us know when you have installed the kit.

[praxis]

Quote: "FWIW. My 109 with 2.25P averaged 17 L/100 (fitting an overdrive made no significant difference to fuel consumption IME). 20% less than that is 13.6 L/100, which I could easily achieve by having a light right foot."

Now you do surprise me... High on my wish list is an overdrive.......is there really no reason to install one of those either?

Is 13 L/100 really achievable with a 2 1/4 L?
Dave

[praxis]

Praxis, let us know when you have installed the kit.

I certainly shall, Mick....although it is not a kit as such - NDM install the whole lot and retune the engine to suit the lean burn, etc. Also, at the price, it may take a while!
Dave:(

[isuzurover]

Quote: "FWIW. My 109 with 2.25P averaged 17 L/100 (fitting an overdrive made no significant difference to fuel consumption IME). 20% less than that is 13.6 L/100, which I could easily achieve by having a light right foot."

Now you do surprise me... High on my wish list is an overdrive.......is there really no reason to install one of those either?

Is 13 L/100 really achievable with a 2 1/4 L?
Dave


As bee-utey said - 0-5% improvement is probably the right ballpark for an overdrive. This is probably usually offset by you sitting on a higher speed with the OD engaged.

13 L/100 is possible - (almost) unladen, driving like a granny at ~85km/h with a well tuned engine and good tyre pressure.


I certainly shall, Mick....although it is not a kit as such - NDM install the whole lot and retune the engine to suit the lean burn, etc. Also, at the price, it may take a while!
Dave:(

That sounds slightly worrying... Leaning the engine out will cut most emissions (except NOx), but will increase EGTs. The levels of H2 these systems add is less than a 1% of the fuel being used.

It would be interesting to see what he does if he fits one of these systems to an EFI diesel or petrol, which cannot be "tuned" by most mechanics.

[Freightdog]

There is a Mechanical Engineer (with a degree), whose hobby is to debunk fuel saving gadgets. A link to the hydrogen generators section of this site is below.

Fuel saving gadgets - a professional engineer's view (http://www.fuelsaving.info/hydrogen.htm)

Some interesting links on this page are below (watch the video) and explore the other links.

Real HHO information (http://www.hhoinfo.info/)

And if you want to punish your brain there is this

Real HHO information (http://www.hhoinfo.info/videolinks/vlink4.html)

Now the hydrogen cell HAS received a lot of attention from various parties, BUT nobody has been able to SCIENTIFICALLY demonstrate that it works!

I guess the need for a free lunch is so strong that it defies all logic.

[stealth]

Why is it that all these alternative fuel ideas seem to be fitted to big yank tanks? Why not fit one to a little car and run it for next to nothing. That would be a better market to aim for.....If it worked!

[vnx205]

Why is it that all these alternative fuel ideas seem to be fitted to big yank tanks? Why not fit one to a little car and run it for next to nothing. That would be a better market to aim for.....If it worked!

Let's just imagine that one of them actually worked and produced a 10% reduction in fuel consumption.

On a big Yank tank using 20 litres/100km, that would save around 20 litres of fuel on a trip from Brisbane to Sydney.

On an economical car using 5 litres/100km, it would save around 5 litres on the same trip.

It takes a lot longer to pay for itself (if it works) in a economical vehicle. It pays for itself a lot quicker in a gas guzzler.

[John W]

A question for the experts; am I correct in thinking that an internal combustion engine will be most efficient when exhaust gas temperature is lower, ie fuel energy has been used to move the pistons not just create hot exhaust? In this manner of thinking I wonder if water injection (if it does help at all) would work by taking combustion heat energy and turning the injected water into steam that in turn increases the pressure on the top of the piston and you get movement and a cooler exhaust? Feel free to point out any deficiencies in this logic as it is something I have wondered about for some time.

[isuzurover]

A question for the experts; am I correct in thinking that an internal combustion engine will be most efficient when exhaust gas temperature is lower, ie fuel energy has been used to move the pistons not just create hot exhaust? In this manner of thinking I wonder if water injection (if it does help at all) would work by taking combustion heat energy and turning the injected water into steam that in turn increases the pressure on the top of the piston and you get movement and a cooler exhaust? Feel free to point out any deficiencies in this logic as it is something I have wondered about for some time.

It depends if you are talking petrol or diesel... Since petrol engines are the ones which can readily combust hydrogen:

Optimum efficiency actually occurs leaner than stoichiometric. This actually means the EGTs will be higher. However, if you lean an engine out too much the EGTs can be harmful/damaging, plus you will get very high NOx levels (but low CO and unburnt HC levels).

Water/steam injection can potentially reduce EGTs, therefore minimising NOX and also preserving the engine. Hopwever there are other flame speed/detonation issues to consider.

The holden Ecotec V6 engines (if you remember those?) were set up to burn leaner than the previous V6, thereby saving fuel.

[JDNSW]

A question for the experts; am I correct in thinking that an internal combustion engine will be most efficient when exhaust gas temperature is lower, ....

Not exactly. The answer is yes, provided nothing else is changed, but of course, to get the lower exhaust temperature, something else has changed! Exhaust temperature is to some extent a symptom of efficiency, but is also a symptom of other factors.

The major factors that affect engine efficiency are:-

1. Combustion efficiency. This is the one that hydrogen fuel is claimed to improve. But in any modern engine, it is already very close to 100%, so any possible improvement is very, very small.

2. Thermal efficiency. (using this in a restricted sense, and is the largest loss of efficiency). This depends on the loss of heat through the cylinder walls (mainly depends on engine geometry and running temperature, both supposed to be fixed), compression ratio (fixed - this has the largest impact on exhaust temperature, and is why diesels have cooler exhaust), and combustion timing.Water injection can allow this to be advanced, and is the major area where hydrogen can improve efficiency - but the effect for the amount usually provided will not be measurable.

3. Mechanical efficiency. This comprises strictly mechanical losses (fixed), and losses due to gas flow (depends on geometry and valve timing, both usually fixed). Overall also dependent on rpm, lubrication, and operating temperature, all of which depend mainly on the driver/owner.

And of course, the major effect on fuel consumption that is not fixed by vehicle design is what we can call driving efficiency. This can be measured by the energy lost in heat from air turbulence, heat build up in tyres, and heat dissipated by brakes. This heat loss can be reduced by (respectively) lower speed to reduce loss to the air, higher tyre pressures and more suitable tyres to reduce tyre loss, and driving so as to avoid braking (look ahead and reduce speed by easing off on the throttle early, avoid slowing where this is safe). And then of course, before opening the driver's door, think for a moment - is this trip necessary?

John

[Freightdog]

am I correct in thinking that an internal combustion engine will be most efficient when exhaust gas temperature is lower

Lower exhaust gas temperatures can be a result from a more effecient engine, however the act of lowering exhaust gas temperatures will not necessarily make a more effecient engine.

As a mixture is leaned, power and EGT increase up to a point and then decrease.
Max power is approx 50C below and richer than peak EGT
Max economy is approx 25C below and leaner than peak EGT

So low exhaust temps can also be created by a less effecient rich mixture

Lean mixtures and high power settings lead to detonation
Advancing the timing and high octane fuels will conteract detonation

[John W]

It depends if you are talking petrol or diesel... Since petrol engines are the ones which can readily combust hydrogen:

Optimum efficiency actually occurs leaner than stoichiometric. This actually means the EGTs will be higher. However, if you lean an engine out too much the EGTs can be harmful/damaging, plus you will get very high NOx levels (but low CO and unburnt HC levels).

Water/steam injection can potentially reduce EGTs, therefore minimising NOX and also preserving the engine. Hopwever there are other flame speed/detonation issues to consider.

The holden Ecotec V6 engines (if you remember those?) were set up to burn leaner than the previous V6, thereby saving fuel.

Yes I did have petrol in mind. My question is in regard to how water injection may scavenge waste combustion heat and turn it in steam to push the pistons perhaps or not???

[Casper]

Hey folks, I don't know if this one has been on here before but it's a doozy.

HHO DRY CELL Gen-10.2 HYDROGEN GENERATOR 4 CARS n TRUCK | eBay (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/HHO-DRY-CELL-Gen-10-2-HYDROGEN-GENERATOR-4-CARS-n-TRUCK-/251009813717?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3a7159ccd5#ht_7722wt_1139)

It even has science behind it apparently.

Dr Isuzu Rover, would you like to decipher and tell us your thoughts and maybe contact some of his references as they are in WA apparently.

I was directed to it via another forum.

By all accounts, If I didn't know better you would think it was real.

Cheers casper

[bee utey]

Hey folks, I don't know if this one has been on here before but it's a doozy.

HHO DRY CELL Gen-10.2 HYDROGEN GENERATOR 4 CARS n TRUCK | eBay (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/HHO-DRY-CELL-Gen-10-2-HYDROGEN-GENERATOR-4-CARS-n-TRUCK-/251009813717?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3a7159ccd5#ht_7722wt_1139)

It even has science behind it apparently.

Dr Isuzu Rover, would you like to decipher and tell us your thoughts and maybe contact some of his references as they are in WA apparently.

I was directed to it via another forum.

By all accounts, If I didn't know better you would think it was real.

Cheers casper

Surely you do know better...


9. There is also a risk of Spontaneous Combustion!

[isuzurover]

Hey folks, I don't know if this one has been on here before but it's a doozy.

HHO DRY CELL Gen-10.2 HYDROGEN GENERATOR 4 CARS n TRUCK | eBay (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/HHO-DRY-CELL-Gen-10-2-HYDROGEN-GENERATOR-4-CARS-n-TRUCK-/251009813717?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3a7159ccd5#ht_7722wt_1139)

It even has science behind it apparently.

Dr Isuzu Rover, would you like to decipher and tell us your thoughts and maybe contact some of his references as they are in WA apparently.

I was directed to it via another forum.

By all accounts, If I didn't know better you would think it was real.

Cheers casper

How do you suggest I contact "Kelvin Rees, Perth WA"?

How do we know they aren't friends/family?

How do we know they haven't been confounded by the placebo effect?

The guy claims to have patented his "invention". If someone wants to contact him and ask for the patent numbers, I am happy to pull up the patent documents...

However, having a patent is nothing special. A Patent lawyer in Australia managed to patent the wheel.
Wheel patented in Australia - 03 July 2001 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html)

[Casper]

Surely you do know better...


How do you suggest I contact "Kelvin Rees, Perth WA"?

How do we know they aren't friends/family?

How do we know they haven't been confounded by the placebo effect?

The guy claims to have patented his "invention". If someone wants to contact him and ask for the patent numbers, I am happy to pull up the patent documents...

However, having a patent is nothing special. A Patent lawyer in Australia managed to patent the wheel.
Wheel patented in Australia - 03 July 2001 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html)

Hahaha, yes I know better just saw it and thought I would show you guys.

No probs Ben, I will give him a bell and act interested lol.

The reason I said for you to contact them was only because I couldn't find out how to and that you are in WA lol

Cheers

[jakeslouw]

Thanks, guys, I've just read through 10 pages of hoo-ha for nothing.

Heck, here I was thinking I could finally connect some gadget to my V8 110 and get 10km/L!!!

I finally worked out that there IS a gadget that costs $2500, that will drop my fuel consumption...........


it's called an ISUZU TURBO DIESEL ENGINE! :)