Ethan[ws6]

iTrader: (13)

+1

99TransAmLS16Spd

iTrader: (8)

[QUOTE=89LS1RS;14996233]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...

Awake455

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.

Ethan[ws6]

iTrader: (13)

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

+1!

1SLwLS1

iTrader: (6)

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?

99TransAmLS16Spd

iTrader: (8)

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.

Ethan[ws6]

iTrader: (13)

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.

99TransAmLS16Spd

iTrader: (8)

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...ectrolysis.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.

99TransAmLS16Spd

iTrader: (8)

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.

boondiggys

iTrader: (165)

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

Ethan[ws6]

iTrader: (13)

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.

99TransAmLS16Spd

iTrader: (8)

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.

ZMX

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?

99TransAmLS16Spd

iTrader: (8)

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!)?

ZMX

Interesting that you say that. I took four semesters of 200 and 300 level Physics classes at Indiana University.

That'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.

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.


Why split water to get oxygen when you're surrounded by air? As for the more complete burn, fuel injection is good 97+%.

99TransAmLS16Spd

iTrader: (8)

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?

Metal Muscle

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.

99TransAmLS16Spd

iTrader: (8)

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.

ZMX

"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/...e-oil-industry

99TransAmLS16Spd

iTrader: (8)

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.