Advanced Engineering Tech - Hydrogen powered car guide..pros n cons

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-3aZV5Fjb4

Looks nice, but whats the real effect of burning hydrogen thru a gazoline engine instead of gaz?

I will test it for real...
http://www.hybridwaterpower.com/?hop=830903

Some kits on Ebay. Looks neat with the map sensor; http://cgi.ebay.com/Juicers-Hydrogen-Generator-Kit-RUN-YOUR-CAR-WATER-/320694421049?pt=Small_Kitchen_Appliances_US&hash=item4aaae08639#ht_5849wt_901 BUT I'm saying to myself this should be tuned on a dyno to monitor A/F ratio to be sure its safe for the engine. Plus I'm wondering if we should adjust timing and replace spark plugs too..

dyno sheet 5th image:
http://cgi.ebay.com/1-Hydrogen-Generator-complete-kit-New-Improved-/290326299537?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4398cbc391#ht_12053wt_1135



Another thing is I dont think it would work with a Carburator, unless running a stand alone with a 'switch' mode between the Hydrogen and gaz.

Anyway, sounds too good to be true, must be a scam..

Didn't watch the video but I'm assuming they are using electrolysis to convert H2O to HHO and burn it? The energy you need to do this conversion is greater than the amount of energy you get from burning HHO. Pointless waste of money.

^Might be true, but is the hydrogen creating a better explosing than just gasoline?^ If its the case, it might be ok to produce the right amount with the right voltage to have the best mixture for a more efficient explosion. I'm pretty sure Hydrogen and gasoline doesnt burn the same way. So it might end up in more hp/tq..

I wish some hardcore LS1tech guys tested this already!!

^Might be true, but is the hydrogen creating a better explosing than just gasoline?^ If its the case, it might be ok to produce the right amount with the right voltage to have the best mixture for a more efficient explosion. I'm pretty sure Hydrogen and gasoline doesnt burn the same way. So it might end up in more hp/tq..

I wish some hardcore LS1tech guys tested this already!!

Uses more power than you gain.. no matter what, end or story lol. Doesn't matter how you mix it, the simple fact is that converting it to usable energy requires more initial investment than you receive in gains.

;14900205']Uses more power than you gain.. no matter what, end or story lol. Doesn't matter how you mix it, the simple fact is that converting it to usable energy requires more initial investment than you receive in gains.

From first hand experience, it does work. 14 to 16 mpg on 84 2.8l v6 blazer 200k miles.

From first hand experience, it does work. 14 to 16 mpg on 84 2.8l v6 blazer 200k miles.

I don't believe you for one second.

I go from 14 to 16MPG at random. Try again.

If you burn hydrogen slow enough you get negative cylinder
pressure. It likes high speed and high compression.

Modifying the combustion dynamics of the gasoline burn is a
whole different matter. Even stuff like swirl and spark intensity
have effect. But you're not running on swirl. And your HHO
setups are not "running on hydrogen".

here are some good links to read. this does work but it needs alot of tweeking to get max mpg out of it. a dyno would be the best test for sure.
1.new energy ideas website. http://peswiki.com/index.php/News.
2.breakdown. http://pesn.com/2011/05/25/9501834_Wiseman_Documents_Browns_Gas_Fuel_Efficien cy_Evidence/.
3.proof. http://www.eagle-research.com/erpdf/fs/HyZor/HyZorProofs/HyZorProofs110316.pdf.
4.fred wells research. http://pesn.com/2011/05/08/9501829_Fred_Wells_Version_VII_Hydroxy_Generator_C oncept_Truck/.

ethan we need to keep an open mind on all alternative forms of energy if you close your mind then you accept their rules and play their game. it sounds to me that your a little to quick to take the BLUE PILL. but i did notice you have exellent taste in cars though.

ethan we need to keep an open mind on all alternative forms of energy if you close your mind then you accept their rules and play their game. it sounds to me that your a little to quick to take the BLUE PILL. but i did notice you have exellent taste in cars though.

Yeah keep an open mind to things that work. Just because something sounds good on paper doesn't mean it's bullet proof.. Perpetual motion machines sound amazing but there is this little thing called physics.. it has these laws, that can't be broken by you or me. Those are "bullet proof" concepts..

Also, the laws of thermodynamics stop this from holding true.. Your link that claims it doesn't is complete bullshit. Actually, half the shit on those links is either irrelevant or retarded.. Claiming that "combustion is a chemical process not a thermo on so the laws of thermodynamics don't apply" is completely wrong and not even something that should be disputed with this concept. Maybe you should learn something about physics before trying to defend a concept like this. A grasp on some knowledge of Stoichiometry might do you some good too. It really shouldn't be this hard for normal people to understand.. you CAN NOT get more energy out of an equation than you initially invest.. end of story.

man what was i thinking slimmy,swammy,swanny oh here it is... samsonite..man i was way off..glad you set me straight on that. i have no idea what 14.7:1 is but you might. and i highly doubt you read all that info and watched all the videos that claim that it works. i guess they are all liers and i must be very gullible to think that it would work.oh and i know alot about physics i can bench 405lbs. and i know that that is extremely physical. ever heard of cold fusion 300watts in 2.6kilowatts out. http://www.naturalnews.com/032455_cold_fusion_E-Cat.html. but i guess they are liars to. man im such a sucker.

Some of you guys trying to dispute the claims forget about the entire equation. For one, as most of you know, the efficiency of the combustion is far from 100%. Consider how much electricity is wasted from the alternater spinning while in idle and not charging the battery or even on hard acceleration or long highway usages? Well that extra power could be used to make more hydrogen for combustion. So what I'm trying to say is instead of thinking of it making extra power out of nothing, think of it as capturing wasted energy back.

Pros: It's really explosive.

Cons: It's really explosive.

Some of you guys trying to dispute the claims forget about the entire equation. For one, as most of you know, the efficiency of the combustion is far from 100%. Consider how much electricity is wasted from the alternater spinning while in idle and not charging the battery or even on hard acceleration or long highway usages? Well that extra power could be used to make more hydrogen for combustion. So what I'm trying to say is instead of thinking of it making extra power out of nothing, think of it as capturing wasted energy back.


You are not "capturing wasted energy". You're taking prime shaft power
(after inefficiency) and using it to run a very energy inefficient process
(electrolysis) in the hope of getting better than breakeven. But you can't.
And you won't.


Your alternator doesn't waste much shaft power, and when you draw
current your shaft load is what supplies it. Ain't nothing free. And conversely
your parasitic drag can't turn into power just because you hook a cell to it.

Call it the Barnumtron.

man what was i thinking slimmy,swammy,swanny oh here it is... samsonite..man i was way off..glad you set me straight on that. i have no idea what 14.7:1 is but you might.

Lol.. you do realize there is more to Stoichiometry than gasolines ideal ratio to air for perfect combustion right? Oh wait, no you don't.. that's why you didn't get my reference.

ever heard of cold fusion 300watts in 2.6kilowatts out. http://www.naturalnews.com/032455_cold_fusion_E-Cat.html. but i guess they are liars to. man im such a sucker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
&
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Explanations

if you read any of this, you will realize why you are retarded for mentioning cold fusion.. Just because you read one website that claims something is possible, or true in any aspect, that doesn't magically make the ones that say it isn't possible disappear..

You are not "capturing wasted energy". You're taking prime shaft power
(after inefficiency) and using it to run a very energy inefficient process
(electrolysis) in the hope of getting better than breakeven. But you can't.
And you won't.


Your alternator doesn't waste much shaft power, and when you draw
current your shaft load is what supplies it. Ain't nothing free. And conversely
your parasitic drag can't turn into power just because you hook a cell to it.

Call it the Barnumtron.


What if you had those recharging brakes like the prius or whatever and instead of having a huge expensive and heavy batter and electric motor, it just made hydrogen to use as a fuel?

Edit: also not to mention making oxygen "H2O" Wonder if this would help an N/A motor more so in high altitude areas?

What if you had those recharging brakes like the prius or whatever and instead of having a huge expensive and heavy batter and electric motor, it just made hydrogen to use as a fuel?

Edit: also not to mention making oxygen "H2O" Wonder if this would help an N/A motor more so in high altitude areas?

I can see where you would think that this would work, and it would help but the energy you gain from burning Hydrogen is no where near enough to compensate for the loss of energy it takes to convert during electrolysis.

i think this is the way to go.nasa uses it but frozen, i once thought e-85 was the route until i read more into it and now that i see ethanol at the station ,its as much as pumped gas.im going to make a kit and also make it efficient so it does not waste alot of battery life and needs alot of electricity.

i think this is the way to go.nasa uses it but frozen, i once thought e-85 was the route until i read more into it and now that i see ethanol at the station ,its as much as pumped gas.im going to make a kit and also make it efficient so it does not waste alot of battery life and needs alot of electricity.

You can't just make a kit that uses less energy than is needed for the equation lol. Even at 100% efficiency (which you will never reach), you will never make it worth it.

You can't talk sense into everyone, and apparently very few passed any highschool math classes, let alone have any physics knowledge, or the motivation to research on their own.
I still laugh at the morons calling it HHO.

Can we move this thread to grade school tech, it has no place in here

Don't you understand that only ignorance of the limits
can free your inner genius?

Great inventors are often mocked as fools.

Thing is, every fool then likes to believe they are just
in a "period prior to greatness".

So tell your inner genius to put on a bathrobe. Or
something.

yeah.. the limits.. like the LAWS of PHYSICS lol. Laws that cannot be broken within the Limits of our universe.. that's why they're the laws.

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam.shtml
read away boys
the laws of physics will not be broken do some research the only possible
i did actually try this on a buddy's car and by LEANING his afrs to about 16:1 he got better fuel economy with or with out the "hho" got 2 mpgs better not 40% better, the only way this would work is if it cooled down the cylinders enough to run very lean, so why not just try to run meth inj. set up and lean out your afrs, but running a motor on this "hho" is impossible with out 300000 watts just to meet 400hp of a bolt on ls1. so like maybe with 300v battery running 1000 amps.
but then all you have is heavy ass hybrid that would not be cost effective

As a physics major I feel like I need to read this thread trash can in hand to pick up all the garbage I read.

First law of thermodynamics: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

That means you are at best getting back the same amount of energy you put into a system (In a perfect world). Realistically this is not going to happen and you are going to get back less energy then you put into the system.

Ethan hit the nail over the head.

Since you guys seem to understand how electrolysis and thermodynamics work then what if you had the HHO water tank in a vacuum, would this be easier to create gas from this in the way water boils much faster with less heat in higher altitudes? Not sure if a significant amount can be made to have constant vacuum from say the engine intake if its making a gas and expanding inside but umm just a thought. Also what about using the engine to heat up the HHO water tank to make it near boiling point, it should be easier for electrolysis to work which according to some research like this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_electrolysis yea I know its from Wiki but whatever lol.

Oh and just so you know, I realize you cant have more than 100% efficiency here, thats not the arguement, my arguement is that we can recapture some of the wasted energy from heat for example or through braking etc. What do you guys think?

i know you cant make it 100 percent.but you can make it more effecient.

well, i just want to say it doesnt make sense to say you cant get more energy out than you put in. in theory yes, but only if you know the energy of everything involved.
that is the whole point.
using the energy in plain water, to become hydrogen, and produce power.
its like stored energy, gasoline is the same. do you need to put more energy into gasoline to get it back out? no

i hope that makes sense, and i am in no way saying i think this works at the moment.

well, i just want to say it doesnt make sense to say you cant get more energy out than you put in. in theory yes, but only if you know the energy of everything involved.
that is the whole point.
using the energy in plain water, to become hydrogen, and produce power.
its like stored energy, gasoline is the same. do you need to put more energy into gasoline to get it back out? no

i hope that makes sense, and i am in no way saying i think this works at the moment.

Not in theory lol.. you cannot get more energy out of something than is put in. You can't just look at gas and so "oh look i spent like .000005% of my bodies total energy to light this gas and it gave me an explosion!".. You have to look at the energy it took to convert the energy that was all ready in the gasoline to mechanical energy. Everything has energy of its own, but converting that to usable energy is key. It's all about efficiency. You can have 2 engines making the same horsepower but one may use more fuel than the other. that's because one engine is much more efficient at burning the gas and converting its energy to mechanical energy that can actually be used.

That being said the energy required to obtain noticeable changes in fuel economy or whatever people try to shoot for via electrolysis is much higher than the amount of energy you get from they amount of "HHO" that is produced.

[QUOTE='Ethan[ws6];14995711']Not in theory lol.. you cannot get more energy out of something than is put in. QUOTE]

obviously we all should know about conservation of energy.
so its just semantics and how you want to word it.
does nuclear power give you more energy than it took to put in? yes.
does gasoline give you more energy than it took to ignite it? yes.
could hydrogen do the same thing? yes.

You aren't understanding at all.. everything has energy in it.. and it took energy to create it. When you ignite gasoline you only get a percentage of the energy it is capable of unleashing. Some lost in heat. When using an explosive force in the combustion chamber to move the piston (conversion to mechanical energy) you lose even more. anytime there is heat that is energy that was "wasted" in an equation.

Lighting a match and holding it to gasoline is only part of the equation and is in no way comparable to electrolysis. and no, nuclear power does not give you more energy than is initially invested.. it would help your cause if you put a little research into your arguments before posting them here.

Pros: It's really explosive.

Cons: It's really explosive.

I like this^^

;14996909']You aren't understanding at all.. everything has energy in it.. and it took energy to create it. When you ignite gasoline you only get a percentage of the energy it is capable of unleashing. Some lost in heat. When using an explosive force in the combustion chamber to move the piston (conversion to mechanical energy) you lose even more. anytime there is heat that is energy that was "wasted" in an equation.

Lighting a match and holding it to gasoline is only part of the equation and is in no way comparable to electrolysis. and no, nuclear power does not give you more energy than is initially invested.. it would help your cause if you put a little research into your arguments before posting them here.

maybe you should do the same.
most energy sources you can think of are positive net producer of energy, except solar. harnessing solar is limited to technological advancements, and currently the price of equipment only equals the amount of electricity absorbed over its expected life. zero net producer. as manufacturing improves and the price comes down, it will become a positive producer.
the energies that these substances contain, were not put there by us.
as long as you get more energy out of it than it took to mine it or collect it, it is producing positive net energy.

if it took more energy to obtain and use natural gas, than you get out of it, we would not use it.
if nuclear power produced less electricity than it took to create it, it would not be viable, and we would not have nuclear power plants.

i dont think you understand the theory, or like i said, its semsntics and how you choose to view the words and what they mean

you need to change you statement to ELECTROLISIS is not a viable way to produce hydrogen.
dont hate on the hydrogen itself.
as technology permits, more effiecient ways to produce or distribute hydrogen become available, it could be a good source.
does that make sense?

maybe you should do the same.
most energy sources you can think of are positive net producer of energy, except solar. harnessing solar is limited to technological advancements, and currently the price of equipment only equals the amount of electricity absorbed over its expected life. zero net producer. as manufacturing improves and the price comes down, it will become a positive producer.
the energies that these substances contain, were not put there by us.
as long as you get more energy out of it than it took to mine it or collect it, it is producing positive net energy.

if it took more energy to obtain and use natural gas, than you get out of it, we would not use it.
if nuclear power produced less electricity than it took to create it, it would not be viable, and we would not have nuclear power plants.

i dont think you understand the theory, or like i said, its semsntics and how you choose to view the words and what they mean

you need to change you statement to ELECTROLISIS is not a viable way to produce hydrogen.
dont hate on the hydrogen itself.
as technology permits, more effiecient ways to produce or distribute hydrogen become available, it could be a good source.
does that make sense?

Hydrogen does give you power.. my argument this whole time was against electrolysis.. Also, you have to look at more than just what it takes to harvest energy to determine whether or not there are gains from it. You know why we use nuclear power? Not because we gain extra energy out of no where for free by using it, it's because it's the best way we have to convert it's energy into electricity that is usable in our homes.

As a physics major I feel like I need to read this thread trash can in hand to pick up all the garbage I read.

First law of thermodynamics: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

That means you are at best getting back the same amount of energy you put into a system (In a perfect world). Realistically this is not going to happen and you are going to get back less energy then you put into the system.

Ethan hit the nail over the head.

Does a supercharger not give you more power than it takes to turn it?

There's a combustion efficiency improvement aspect of it just like spending a little extra crank hp to turn a supercharger means big gains in volumetric efficiency and net gains again at the crank Do I think HHO kits for cars work? No. But thinking that it stops at energy in/energy out is not correct.

A supercharger is only one component of the engine.if it takes x horsepower to turn the supercharger over and you can y horsepower, yes you end up with y>x but you have to look at the extra fuel used as well and the increased combustion efficiency due to higher cylinder pressures and the fact that you did extra tuning. I understand what you are trying to say but the fact is that there are more factors than just the supercharger at play.

I think (if anyone cares enough) that everyone should read this to get a better understanding on the laws of thermodynamics and why a lot of arguments here go against them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Worked "really well" on the Hindenburg.....

I have actually built one of these electrolysis units almost identical to the one shown in the video and even tested it on my 06 RAM didn't really see any gain or loss (Cost about 25 bucks and another 10 for a 4 pin relay and wire capable of handling the current). The amount of H2 and O2 produced can be increased by adding some form of ionic impurity to water. it decreases the waters resistance and allows more current flow that is why tap water looked to work better. con: the chloride ions in tap water corrode the hell out of the cell that was all the trash he was talking about. I used pure deionized water then added NaOH also known as lye to increase the output, still really didn't see an advantage or loss. Given the proper conditions any gasoline engine will run with it problem is there is no such thing as an ideal engine the extra load on the alternator gets rid of any gains you could possibly see from it.

The only way I can see it working is if you had some way to store it safely in some sort of pressurized vessel then released it into the intake air stream with something similar to a nitrous solenoid and jets. It would have to have some sort of independent power supply like a solar cell which would work perfect considering they produce DC voltage and in theory it would refill/re-pressurize the storage container during the day and then could later be used while running the car. That is the only way I see being able to get any real gains from this. Keep in mind that it would take a ridiculous amount of H2/O2 to run even the smallest of engines but it could be used to offset some of the demand for gasoline decreasing the amount of gas a vehicle consumes.

PRO: It can work with the right amount of engineering. Hooking it up to your 12V system wont cut it.

CON: H2 is very explosive and a pressurized tank full of it is just asking for trouble the smallest spark would be a very bad day. Keep in mind that this equipment is literally only feet away from a combustion engine and requires electricity which will spark its a** off if there is a short.

CON: Solar cells are pretty expensive and one that can put out a steady 15 to 20 amps at 12V is going to be about easily 4 or 5 square feet (Thats a lot of real estate on a car or even a truck). They are also pretty fragile.

Just my two cents

;14996909'], nuclear power does not give you more energy than is initially invested.. it would help your cause if you put a little research into your arguments before posting them here.

I agree with everything you say except the above as a nuclear power plant operator (what I do for a living) You get a whole lot more power out of a nuclear power plant than it consumes the only power consumed is what is required to run cooling pumps and oil pumps for turbines depending on the plant design usually that is 5 to 10 percent of what the total power output is in fact if you look at efficiency it is one the most efficient forms of energy we have, once again depending on design can be anywhere from 25 to 30 percent vs combustion (gasoline, coal, natural gas, ect) which is a weak 10 to 15 percent.

I agree with everything you say except the above as a nuclear power plant operator (what I do for a living) You get a whole lot more power out of a nuclear power plant than it consumes the only power consumed is what is required to run cooling pumps and oil pumps for turbines depending on the plant design usually that is 5 to 10 percent of what the total power output is in fact if you look at efficiency it is one the most efficient forms of energy we have, once again depending on design can be anywhere from 25 to 30 percent vs combustion (gasoline, coal, natural gas, ect) which is a weak 10 to 15 percent.

factor in the fuel source ;)

People's largest mistake with "buying" alternative energy is their misunderstanding of the system. In the real world, energy in is ALWAYS greater than energy out. To realize this, you must look at the entire system. I'm not saying alternative energy is a scam, what I am saying is that a majority of people will overlook the energy they are putting into the system, i.e. electricity from the alternator, and think they are getting more energy out. As long as you know that energy in will be greater than energy out, you're ok and the key to making that work would be something like what was quoted above with the solar panels. The problem is finding cheap, efficient input energy and as stated, solar panels are not it.

factor in the fuel source ;)

people's largest mistake with "buying" alternative energy is their misunderstanding of the system. In the real world, energy in is always greater than energy out. To realize this, you must look at the entire system. I'm not saying alternative energy is a scam, what i am saying is that a majority of people will overlook the energy they are putting into the system, i.e. Electricity from the alternator, and think they are getting more energy out. As long as you know that energy in will be greater than energy out

+1 ;)

[QUOTE='Ethan[ws6];14995711']Not in theory lol.. you cannot get more energy out of something than is put in. QUOTE]

obviously we all should know about conservation of energy.
so its just semantics and how you want to word it.
does nuclear power give you more energy than it took to put in? yes.
does gasoline give you more energy than it took to ignite it? yes.
could hydrogen do the same thing? yes.
This guy is dead on. I always laugh at people who argue otherwise.

Its not like taking hydro power to turn a generator to light a bulb. Its more like eating. Looking at a piece of pizza does your body nothing. So you eat it, from start to finish your body may use 50 calories to chew it, digest it, and dump it. But you still have 250 calories remaining to fuel your body.

In the case of hydrogen power, you are using electricity to release stored energy (i.e. breaking h2o down into usable form). The law of energy transfer does not apply here.
Now with that said, the hydrogen still has to contain a good amount more energy than it took to create the electrical supply for electrolysis for it to benefit economy.

The biggest obstacle in getting a system to work is the vehicle's pcm and sensors. Factory o2s are meant to read stioch, 14.7:1 in closed loop. If you introduce a fuel source that wants to run at 16:1, it creates issues you have to try to get around. Further complicate that idea with a variety of a/f ratios under different throttle positions. You would think it would be as easy as changing your o2 switch points and closed loop mode values, but factory o2 sensor inaccuracies beyond stioch would be the issue. This is key, if not dialed in, you could actually see decreased fuel economy.

BTW whichever member posted you need more power in than you receive from nuclear power needs to be banned for life...

It's not the law of energy transfer, it's the law of conservation of energy. The total amount of energy in a system remains constant, never created or destroyed, but transformed from one state to another. If one assumes free pizza or free hydrogen with no costs in energy to get them both cases there work well.

The pizza example assumes the pizza is ready to eat, ignoring the energy and costs involved in creating it in the first place. It takes quite a few ingredients, some labor, and some heat to make that pizza. If you have an endless supply of free pizza that example works. If you have to buy the pizza you have done work to get that energy for your body.

In the same vein, it takes a great deal of energy to break the molecular bonds holding two Hydrogen atoms to an Oxygen atom. This energy is not free, nor is it something you can ignore. It must be created by a much large electrical device than the oem alternator as the alternator can't put out the current needed to make sufficient amounts of Hydrogen to run the engine. It will take power to spin this alternator.

It's not the law of energy transfer, it's the law of conservation of energy. The total amount of energy in a system remains constant, never created or destroyed, but transformed from one state to another. If one assumes free pizza or free hydrogen with no costs in energy to get them both cases there work well.

The pizza example assumes the pizza is ready to eat, ignoring the energy and costs involved in creating it in the first place. It takes quite a few ingredients, some labor, and some heat to make that pizza. If you have an endless supply of free pizza that example works. If you have to buy the pizza you have done work to get that energy for your body.

In the same vein, it takes a great deal of energy to break the molecular bonds holding two Hydrogen atoms to an Oxygen atom. This energy is not free, nor is it something you can ignore. It must be created by a much large electrical device than the oem alternator as the alternator can't put out the current needed to make sufficient amounts of Hydrogen to run the engine. It will take power to spin this alternator.


Finally, people with common sense! This gets a "+1" from me as well :P

+1!

This guy is dead on. I always laugh at people who argue otherwise.

Its not like taking hydro power to turn a generator to light a bulb. Its more like eating. Looking at a piece of pizza does your body nothing. So you eat it, from start to finish your body may use 50 calories to chew it, digest it, and dump it. But you still have 250 calories remaining to fuel your body.

In the case of hydrogen power, you are using electricity to release stored energy (i.e. breaking h2o down into usable form). The law of energy transfer does not apply here.
Now with that said, the hydrogen still has to contain a good amount more energy than it took to create the electrical supply for electrolysis for it to benefit economy.

The biggest obstacle in getting a system to work is the vehicle's pcm and sensors. Factory o2s are meant to read stioch, 14.7:1 in closed loop. If you introduce a fuel source that wants to run at 16:1, it creates issues you have to try to get around. Further complicate that idea with a variety of a/f ratios under different throttle positions. You would think it would be as easy as changing your o2 switch points and closed loop mode values, but factory o2 sensor inaccuracies beyond stioch would be the issue. This is key, if not dialed in, you could actually see decreased fuel economy.

BTW whichever member posted you need more power in than you receive from nuclear power needs to be banned for life...

LOL, Google or Wikipedia "Specific Energy". We're not comparing the energy output from nuclear fuel with the energy involved in forming usable energy, that's silly. We're talking about the entire energy of the system which includes the potential energy of the nuclear fuel.

Although nuclear power plants may be the most efficient, they still require more energy input into the system than the energy output from the ENTIRE system. Where most people get confused is the energy input. Now, to calculate this properly, consider the amount of energy involved in transforming the nuclear fuel into usable energy, as you have already done. Now, add to that the potential energy or specific energy or energy density of that nuclear fuel. With both of those added together, you have a rough idea of the energy input into the system. The energy output from the system will be less than the sum of the energy used to transform the nuclear fuel and the specific energy of the nuclear fuel. Does that make more sense?

It's not the law of energy transfer, it's the law of conservation of energy. The total amount of energy in a system remains constant, never created or destroyed, but transformed from one state to another. If one assumes free pizza or free hydrogen with no costs in energy to get them both cases there work well.

The pizza example assumes the pizza is ready to eat, ignoring the energy and costs involved in creating it in the first place. It takes quite a few ingredients, some labor, and some heat to make that pizza. If you have an endless supply of free pizza that example works. If you have to buy the pizza you have done work to get that energy for your body.

In the same vein, it takes a great deal of energy to break the molecular bonds holding two Hydrogen atoms to an Oxygen atom. This energy is not free, nor is it something you can ignore. It must be created by a much large electrical device than the oem alternator as the alternator can't put out the current needed to make sufficient amounts of Hydrogen to run the engine. It will take power to spin this alternator.

Wrong, at least partially. The water, like the pizza, is readily available. Your argument states that building pizza takes energy. This is correct, but for it to go hand and hand with my example you need to assume this energy the formation of the elements hydrogen and oxygen. And that has already been done for us by much greater powers. One more example would be oil itself. It took millions of years to form, and a great deal of energy(in some form or another). Yet we can use a pump powered by oil to drill supplies resulting in 1000x the amount it takes to power that pump. Same idea works here. We are "drilling", i.e. electrolysis, for the elements for greater yields in real time. In real time being the key point here, holding true to the law of energy conservation.

You are right, it takes energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen. That does not mean it requires more energy than the hydrogen has stored, and the power it creates when burned. Think of it like this - it takes energy to spark the combustion process, correct? You have an ignition and fuel source. In hydrogen power electrolysis is the ignition, your fuel being the hydrogen.

One other thing to keep in mind is that pretty much anything, in a gaseous form, will burn significantly more efficiently. If we could burn gasoline in our engines this way, your gas mileage would increase by over 400%. Take this idea with the gaseous hydrogen, add the fact that it has a "fast" burn time, and relatively high octane content. All positives in gas mileage. Kind of a side note to the whole debate but worth mentioning.

So it all comes done to: how much energy is required for electrolysis vs the net power achieved from the hydrogen/oxygen. I don't know. But for someone to sway me either way I need to know these numbers. This will be impossible to determine as there are hundreds of engine varieties out there, each with varying efficiencies.

So it all comes done to: how much energy is required for electrolysis vs the net power achieved from the hydrogen/oxygen. I don't know. But for someone to sway me either way I need to know these numbers. This will be impossible to determine as there are hundreds of engine varieties out there, each with varying efficiencies.

Engine efficiency does change how much maximum power Hydrogen is capable of producing. The fact of the matter is that electrolysis itself requires more energy than the hydrogen you are able to produce and use creates. If you were to run a car purely on hydrogen and use electrolysis as its only source of the hydrogen the car simply wouldn't run.. Why do you think that people still run gasoline on engines with the electrolysis machines. If you gained more energy than used during the process, there would be no need for gasoline at that point.

;15125001']Engine efficiency does change how much maximum power Hydrogen is capable of producing. The fact of the matter is that electrolysis itself requires more energy than the hydrogen you are able to produce and use creates. If you were to run a car purely on hydrogen and use electrolysis as its only source of the hydrogen the car simply wouldn't run.. Why do you think that people still run gasoline on engines with the electrolysis machines. If you gained more energy than used during the process, there would be no need for gasoline at that point.
Engine efficiency directly relates to how much gasoline (or other fuel) is required to turn your alternator to create X amps.
The main idea in using hydrogen in a combustion engine is not to power the vehicle. It is to act as a catalyst for the gasoline. Gasoline burns very inefficiently especially in liquid form. Hydrogen or H2 in gas form is a catalyst, helping to burn more of the gasoline, increasing efficiency.
Read this:

http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/7_12/electrolysis/electrolysis.htm

Also, electrolysis of h2o does not require the massive amounts of energy you are claiming... In fact I will go out on a limb and say it's less than the average aftermarket stereo will consume at decent volume.

So in its most basic form, for a hydrogen system to be effective on a combustion engine vehicle,

Alternator power consumption (ft/lbs) < the net power gain(ft/lbs) hydrogen + increased burn efficiency of gasoline.

hydrogen to run motors?---we have to stop the greenhouse gas effect---close unregulated factories ect stop purchasing from walmart-ect---chinese suppliers ect---get manufacturing back to the usa---WATER IS THE NEXT OIL

Also, electrolysis of h2o does not require the massive amounts of energy you are claiming... In fact I will go out on a limb and say it's less than the average aftermarket stereo will consume at decent volume.

First things first, we are talking about the full "potential power" of the hydrogen, not how much you actually get. So engine efficiency does not matter on that topic..

You can go out on whatever limb you want, unless that limb defies the laws of physics then the laws of thermodynamics still apply. The fact of the matter is, the energy required to convert ENOUGH HYDROGEN TO BURN FOR POWER IN THE ENGINE, it takes more energy, OVER TIME, than is gained by burning said amount of Hydrogen. Sure, you can perform electrolysis while driving around all day, store the Hydrogen produced, and burn it all at once and see 50mpg, but the amount of energy used to convert the H2O into H2 while driving will have effectively lowered your gas mileage more than you will have gained from burning the stored Hydrogen in that very small amount of time in which you would actually be able to.

That is what you are not understanding. Your points are not valid. And you are not listening. YOU ARE WAY OFF.

By your simple way of thinking, how would an engine ever run? Hydrogen is not about converting energy! How could man have ever refined oil to the point of gasoline to burn in your engine? How do I get this through you head!?!? It is about releasing energy and efficiency, not converting! I have used example after example, if you do not get it after this then it is your loss. I do suggest you search a little, go to the library pick up a book, search online whatever you like. Because phrases like "it requires a massive amount of energy to convert" tell me you know nothing about what you are arguing.

Last and final example: A normal engine burns about 25% efficient (i.e. read fuel burn). If hydrogen + the catalyst effect brings the efficiency up to even say 30%. Next lets say, 20 amps are required for the electrolysis, and massively over shoot and say that 20 amps is costing you an mpg. Using simple numbers on a 1:1 ; vehicle was getting 25mph, now get 29mpg due the increased efficiency minus a mpg lost thru the alternator.

If hydrogen + the catalyst effect brings the efficiency up to even say 30%.

So, by using a trivial amount of power to make a trivial amount of hydrogen, engine efficiency as a whole magically goes up, making the gasoline have super powers and become more efficient?

So, by using a trivial amount of power to make a trivial amount of hydrogen, engine efficiency as a whole magically goes up, making the gasoline have super powers and become more efficient?

Go back to jr. high and take a science class.... There is nothing magic about it... I guess you don't believe in making more power using windshield washer fluid in boost applications either....but guess what people do it and it works. Does HHO act as a catalyst? Supposedly, but do I really know from real world experience? Hell no. But if I'd followed even just 10% of what people say on these forums, I would have a car that didn't run and have gone broke getting to that point.

I would honestly think the oxygen released from the electrolysis itself would be enough to help the combustion process, more oxygen, less non combustible gases, more complete burn.

People that believe are going to believe, people that don't believe aren't going to. Makes no difference to me, I do not run hh2. Ignorance doesn't even bother me. Being ignorant does. This subject is like politics, is the other side really listening to what the other has to say (myself included!)?

Go back to jr. high and take a science class....
Interesting that you say that. I took four semesters of 200 and 300 level Physics classes at Indiana University.

There is nothing magic about it... I guess you don't believe in making more power using windshield washer fluid in boost applications eitherThat's a crappy straw man argument fallacy and a poor attempt at a credibility statement. Regardless, the difference is your car doesn't make the window washer fluid. Factories that eat megawatts like candy do.

Does HHO act as a catalyst? SupposedlyDo you know what a catalyst is? A catalyst is something that causes a reaction. Hydrogen and oxygen sitting next to gasoline won't do anything. It also won't make gasoline release more energy than it has.

but do I really know from real world experience? Hell no. But if I'd followed even just 10% of what people say on these forums, I would have a car that didn't run and have gone broke getting to that point.Which means we should listen to you? What's your point here, that people can be wrong? Well HERPTY FUCKIN DERP!

I would honestly think the oxygen released from the electrolysis itself would be enough to help the combustion process, more oxygen, less non combustible gases, more complete burn.First of all, why the fuck would you split water to get oxygen when you're surrounded by air? THAT'S SERIOUSLY FUCKING RETARDED. And secondly, more complete burn? Do you know what percentage of fuel is completely burnt by a typical fuel injection engine? It's about 97%.

You think you're the only one with an education I take it? So does Obama, so do I...and you know what, it doesn't mean anything but crap.
If you are gonna try to rip me apart at least use fact to do it.

All of that education, I would think you would know that 78% of air is nitrogen. It is chemically unreactive and will not burn...

Hydrogen on the other hand is a highly combustible diatomic gas, and all of your 200 & 300 level classes will tell you combustion requires oxygen, fuel, and heat. That's why you would conceive splitting h2o...

So let me think here for a second. So perhaps if I lower the percent of the non combustible elements, and incorporate something that will increase the rate of and efficiency of burn, my overall efficiency will go up.... Hmmm, that doesn't sound like rocket science.

I never said anybody has to listen to me, I could really care less. And you can knock me all you want because I haven't tried using HHO. I've never tried steroids either - they also have a significant amount of negative press though there has been little to no actual research to indicate negative health side effects. All I argue is that the points of argument in this thread were way off and incorrect. That obviously makes you upset, which actually amuses me.

And by the way, fuel injected cars are nowhere near 97% Do more research buddy. Before you actually do the research, just think about it...If engines were burning 97% of fuel, what would we require catalytic converters for? What do you think they do? Why would we need them?

And by the way, fuel injected cars are nowhere near 97% Do more research buddy. Before you actually do the research, just think about it...If engines were burning 97% of fuel, what would we require catalytic converters for? What do you think they do? Why would we need them?
So that they can change the poisonous exhaust gases to more safe ones. They do stuff with unconsumed fuel too, but it's not the whole picture. There are actually multiple chemicals inside them, like platinum and rhodium, that all do their part to catalyze certain reactions.

Anyways, I would say that regenerative brakes are excellent ideas. Some that I've heard of create steam rather than electricity, which then power the engine. This is something that could be put in vehicles. But the idea of using regenerative brakes, off of a car run by gasoline, to run electrolysis, to run a hydrogen based engine, to move the car, is ridiculous. That is a lot of crap going on, and would be way too complex, aka expensive.

Now, if we all want to have solar panels at our house, constantly conducting electrolysis, which we then take the hydrogen from and use to power cars, awesome. That would mean it would also need to be sold at gas stations for those who can't have solar panels or who need to make long trips. But until gasoline prices go up to such a level that it allows an alternative energy to be an economic alternative as well, it would seem unlikely.

Also, to the supercharger thing, it does not give your engine more power. It enables your engine to make more power. The two are completely different.

You are right about cats doing more than just burning unburned fuel, which I understand - the point in case was that the percentage was way off.

Cats do a few things. One of the key jobs is to reduce carbon monoxide. Taken from Wikipedia, for what its worth, "Air is approximately 21% oxygen. If there is not enough oxygen for proper combustion, the fuel will not burn completely and will produce less energy. An excessively rich air fuel ratio will increase pollutants from the engine. The fuel burns in three stages. First, the hydrogen burns to form water vapour. Second, the carbon burns to carbon monoxide. Finally, the carbon monoxide burns to carbon dioxide. This last stage produces most of the power of the engine. If all of the oxygen is consumed before this stage because there is too much fuel, engine's power is reduced." This is one reason why, in theory, HHO could be beneficial - more oxygen can yield a more complete burn. (Devil's advocate will also say that running lean will increase pollutants - which is also true)
This enables your car to make more power as well, but you would not see it from an HHO system, electrolysis to slow for a wot situation.

I've often wondered this - it is said that on average, a gasoline engine is only 20% efficient. By that, I mean 80% of the thermo energy is lost through exhaust heat, friction, etc. Why not try to utilize that energy in some form on an n/a engine? Well, other than heat in the winter. Probably to expensive, maintenance intensive, or far fetched i suppose.

Not really sure where the regenerative brakes for HHO comes into play, but it seems like most systems operate between 8 to 20 amps. It doesn't seem overly complicated from that aspect as you could run it off of most factory alternators.

I will say it again though - all my argument is based on the theory of whether or not it could work. It really does seem like A LOT of fine tuning and tweaking would need to be done to the ECU if you were going to benefit from it if possible. And to me, it is not worth my time and effort, nor am I willing to use my vehicle as a lab rat for it either.

I'm busy right now, so you'll just have to use this quote to revel in your idiocy.

"According to John Heywood, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT and an authority on internal-combustion engines, incomplete burning of fuel is insignificant in modern cars. Fuel combustion today typically exceeds 97 percent."

Source? The original Mythbuster. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/712/has-a-200-mpg-carburetor-been-suppressed-by-the-oil-industry

ZMX, you are clearly the nicest guy on earth. Anyways the link you posted is good stuff. Probably the first valid information in this thread for the "no it won't work" camp. He is correct. And this is where my interpretation was skewed. Modern fuel injected engines to burn 97% (or better) of the fuel entering the cylinders.
However, there is much wasted fuel in the burn process. Wasted fuel being items such as protecting catalytic converters and in protecting against NOx emissions. Add more fuel, the amount of air is displaced, reducing NOx, EPA =happy. Go into HP Tuners or EFI Live and turn of the Cat protect and over temp flags for a couple of days and check your mileage.
So why could you not displace some of the nitrogen with hydrogen and oxygen? Would this not also lead to lower NOx levels, allowing for a leaner mix resulting in better mileage?

And nobody has mentioned the increased burn rate, why? This, if anything regarding hydrogen is proven.

Allgeier, T., Klenk, M., Landenfeld, T., Conte, E., Boulouchos, K., Czerwinski, J., “Advanced Emission and Fuel Economy Concept Using Combined Injection of Gasoline and Hydrogen in SI Engines,” Publication #2004-01-1270, March, 2004, Society of Automotive Engineers, Troy, MI.

Shinagawa, T., Okumura, T., Furuno, S., Kim, K., “Effects of Hydrogen Addition to SI Engine on Knock Behavior,” Publication #2004-01-1851, June, 2004, Society of Automotive Engineers, Troy, MI.

Conte, E., Boulouchos, K., “Influence of Hydrogen-Rich-Gas Addition on Combustion, Pollutant Formation and Efficiency of an IC-SI Engine,” Publication #2004-01-0972, March, 2004, Society of Automotive Engineers, Troy, MI.

And a dated, but interesting NASA study http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf

Again, not trying to prove anything here except that if somebody really does have questions, these are good places to get them from from credible sources. Not TMX with his 4 semesters of physics, not me with my "measly" 2 semesters of engineering physics.

I admit 99TransAm6Speed that you have presented some interesting studies. Let me just say, however that these supposed gains are minor compared to the enormous amount wasted by electrolysis. Electrolysis is less than 50% efficient using standard equipment. Converting mechanical energy to electricity is 70% efficient with the best of alternators. Multiply is up and you get 35% efficiency for producing and then burning hydrogen. The NASA study used hydrogen supplied onboard and saw a 3% efficiency gain, but consumed an enormous amount of hydrogen. Producing this hydrogen wastes an enormous amount of electricity. If NASA or the SAE thought this was feasible to really do, they would have done a real world implementation rather than pumping in hydrogen on a dyno.

Now if NASA can't make it work in the real world, only on paper, why would you ever think a couple guys in their garage with shit they bought from a snake oil salesman could see gains. With all the money invested in hybrid and electric technology, Toyota would put this on a prius if they could. The fact is, however, that no one has actually made it work. The products sold online are from scammers and designed for people who want to run their cars on hemp because its natural man, but get frustrated when the pot leaves clog their injectors.

Let me just clarify for everyone reading that true hydrogen vehicles work because the hydrogen is produced outside the car. Sure more power is put in than you get out, but the power comes from the power grid, and electricity is dirt cheap compared to gasoline.

Now, can we stop talking about talking about perpetual motion machines in the advanced tech forum. The admins really need to start locking these threads. This thread is a rarity in that some real science turned up in support of the idea, but excepting a few intelligent posts, it is four pages of bull about whether or not energy is conserved, something that people got tired debating about a thousand years ago when the realized you can't magically make energy. If I see one more thread about hooking an electric motor to a generator, I might lose it.

Now, can we stop talking about talking about perpetual motion machines in the advanced tech forum.

Electrolysis =/= perpetual motion

Also, we had stopped talking. Last post was > 1.5 months ago.