DIY Hydrogen Generators ?

Putting water in your tank and asking the car to make it into fuel is the equivalent of putting exhaust in your tank and asking it to make gasoline.

Its perpetual motion, plain and simple.

Let's just tell these people that they're going about this all wrong.

They're adding too many steps to the process.

Just tell them to pour the water straight into the gas tank. See, if they drive enough they will agitate the fuel/water mix and keep it from settling out.

The engine will then draw in the water AND fuel. It will burn the fuel and the water will displace some of the fuel volume, saving gas.

The water will also boil in the cylinder during combustion and give added power. After all, steam is one of the most powerful things out there.

The steam will also clean the insides of the engine really well, thereby making it more efficient.

See, it's just that simple, I've thought of everything.

If you believe the above message, PM me and I will tell you how to port and polish your head and manifolds by pouring blasting media down the intake while the engine is running. It's like extrude honing only CHEAPER!!

Shawn

Stuc wrote: Soo... one thing I haven't heard anyone mention here is the details with the electrolysis. Has anyone else heard how the electrical energy requirements to separate the hydrogen is greatly reduced because of some some frequency applied to the signal?

I've heard that claim, but you don't need too many details to do an energy calculation. However it works, the process must need at least the same amount of chemical energy available in the hydrogen and probably more. A frequency change might very well improve the efficiency but couldn't possibly raise it over 100%.

Jensenman wrote:

MadScientistMatt wrote:

ProDarwin wrote: A guy who will soon be selling kits for this had us laser some parts out for him. He gave us a demonstration, where the highlight was that he could use a lighter to ignite the hydrogen, which made a "pop" noise. He didn't seem to realize that had nothing to do with his gas mileage, nor was I overly impressed with his knowledge of an internal combustion engine.

If he'd built one that was actually large enough to do any good, I'd dive under a desk as soon as he pulled out a lighter. Then send in a Darwin Award nomination for him as soon as my hearing came back.

Y'all might want to have him Google 'Hindenburg'.

While funny, that's not even hardly accurate.

curtis73 wrote: Putting water in your tank and asking the car to make it into fuel is the equivalent of putting exhaust in your tank and asking it to make gasoline. Its perpetual motion, plain and simple.

No?

First off, the concept doesn't include any water in the gas tank. 2nd... the mechanism that turns it into fuel is what you add to the car, nothing the car came with is assigned to that task.

I don't see how those things are at all equivalent... unless the exhaust was water, and the tank was the car.

Also, it would only be perpetual motion if the water didn't get broken down and used

Things are referred to as "perpetual motion" when they violate those pesky laws of thermodynamics. If you take 20KWH of energy and break the H2 off of H20, the best you could theoretically get is 20KWH of energy by converting it back from H2 to H2O. If you get 21KWH out of it, or even 20.00000000001KWH, that's "perpetual motion."

There are plenty of other fringe things out there. Some may work by means we don't understand. I've "heard" of a gravity based hydrogen splitter tower thingie. As long as you factor in gravity, you're OK.

Another interesting one was bubble fusion. That used ultrasound to generate bubbles which colapsed on themselves.

Then there was cold fusion, which did and does work. Never heard of it again. I remember reading an article in the newspaper back then written by one of our finest journalism majors that concluded with "and what good is it anyway if all it does is make hot water?" Obviously, there was no place to plug the TV in so it was useless.

Stuc wrote: Also, it would only be perpetual motion if the water didn't get broken down and used

The water does not get broken down and used.

H20 is split into 2H2 and 02. You take this mixture and insert it into a combustion chamber (or you just take the H2, and get the 02 from the atmosphere). An electrical spark serves as a catalyst for an exothermic reaction. Energy is released by the electron bonds in the H2 and 02. Those ions then recombine back into H20, which is expelled as exhaust. So, the exhaust is water.

You start with H20, you end with H20.

This is the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, "Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed; they can only change forms."

For that matter, you don't break down and use octane. You mix octane (which I don't know the composition of off the top of my head, it's a chain of hydrocarbons, H, C, and O) with 02. An electrical spark serves as a catalyst for an exothermic reaction. The atoms then recombine into CO2 and H20.

This is also a cyclical reaction, because those hydrocarbons came from animals, that ate other animals, that ate plants, that used photosynthesis to turn CO2 and H20 into sugar (a hydrocarbon). This system only added energy because the plants were able to store the solar energy of our sun in the chemical bonds of those hydrocarbons.

In the "water powered" system, we're storing energy in the bond between H ions. But the energy we're using to form those ions is probably coming from electrical energy generated at the local power plant.

Here's why I don't think Hydrogen power is going to turn out to be a good energy storage system:

Natural process is a great model for efficient systems we should try to replicate. All energy used by organisms is gathered from the sun, and stored as hydrocarbons. If Hydrogen were a better energy storage medium, that is what plants would store their energy as.

Gasoline is a hydrocarbon. So is alcohol.

Ultimately, I think we'll discover that the best way of storing stable, transportable, chemical energy will be by developing a process that turns common elements (probably organic waste matter) and converts it to a liquid-state hydrocarbon.

Salanis wrote: Ultimately, I think we'll discover that the best way of storing stable, transportable, chemical energy will be by developing a process that turns common elements (probably organic waste matter) and converts it to a liquid-state hydrocarbon.

What ever happened to the guys who were turning turkey and chicken guts into gasoline? There was a big flap a few years ago, then it just sorta died out.

EDIT: that's called thermal depolymerization. Looks like it's still undergoing development, but it does work. Here's the guy begging for development money: http://www.thermaldepolymerization.org/

I don't think the claims are to burn water. I think the claims are to separate Hydrogen from the water, and burn it blended with gasoline.

I understand this may take more energy than it's worth. But what if the energy used to convert (electricity) was excess energy already generated on board the vehicle?

I think the idea is basically whacked, but there may be a little merit to it.

SVreX wrote: I don't think the claims are to burn water. I think the claims are to separate Hydrogen from the water, and burn it blended with gasoline. I understand this may take more energy than it's worth. But what if the energy used to convert (electricity) was excess energy already generated on board the vehicle? I think the idea is basically whacked, but there may be a little merit to it.

Most people I've heard talking about this, and all the stupid adds I've seen, are talking about "burning water".

As discussed, energy can be stored in hydrogen bonds of H2.

You could theoretically gather wasted energy from other sources to store in H2 bonds. But how will you gather it, and how will you convert it?

The two big areas where energy is wasted are engine heat, and braking. To the best of my knowledge, no one has figured out how to harness waste heat. We do have regenerative breaking systems as used in hybrids.

Regenerative braking can convert some of you kinetic energy into electrical energy. All you need is a giant electromagnet to serve as a generator. Which would also be an electric motor if you just run a current through it.

At that point, it makes more sense to store your electrical energy in electro-chemical form (batteries) and use them to run your generators as electric motors. Using that electrical energy to split water, and combust the water in a less efficient engine would be wasteful. Basically, what you have now is a contemporary hybrid. The best way to make this system more efficient would be to improve battery technology and/or develop affordable super-capacitors.

What would make the most sense is to use solar or wind power at home to split water, and store the H2 in fuel cells. But I still think it would make more sense to just store that energy in batteries... or just run your house off of it and sell the rest back to the power grid.

The whole "hydrogen generator" concept is a bit misleading.

Energy is not being generated. Energy is being stored for later use.

Salanis wrote: To the best of my knowledge, no one has figured out how to harness waste heat.

BMW had a steam turbine hybrid, and Crower was working on 6 stroke steam injection. Both are excellent ways of recovering waste heat energy.

Salanis wrote: To the best of my knowledge, no one has figured out how to harness waste heat.

Turbocharger anyone?

While it doesn't exaclty -use- heat to do it's job, hot gasses help a turbo more than cold gasses.

Shawn

Salanis wrote: The whole "hydrogen generator" concept is a bit misleading. Energy is not being generated. Energy is being stored for later use.

I'm not sure that is right either.

The details I've seen don't store it at all, but burn it as it is "generated".

SVreX wrote:

Salanis wrote: Energy is not being generated. Energy is being stored for later use.

I'm not sure that is right either. The details I've seen don't store it at all, but burn it as it is "generated".

You're going to have to provide links to details of these systems.

In any case. No energy is being generated. Energy can't be made, it can only change forms. A car engine "makes" energy by releasing stored chemical energy from hydrocarbons.

Water has no usable energy for us to release. It's inert. H2 has usable energy, but to gather the H2, you need to use up more energy splitting H20.

Even if these systems burn H2 "as it is generated" that's still just storing the electrical energy used to split the water. "Later" just happens to be the amount of time it takes to get the H2 to your combustion chamber.

Salanis:

We agree:

-No energy is being generated. -Water is not burned. -The words "generate", "store", "produces", "creates", and "burn water" are misleading, but I'll use them anyway. I'm a carpenter, not an electrical or chemical engineer.

In layman's terms, here's the concept as described to me.

The "generator" involves a charged electrode circuit with two electrodes that form a basic capacitor, with water acting as its dielectric, and an inductive coil circuit. Through electrolysis, the water is "divided" into it's components.

A variable high frequency square wave signal from 8 KHz to 260 KHz charges the electrodes, creating orthohydrogen and oxygen, while a variable low frequency from 16 Hz to 25 Hz creates an inductive field in the coil, creating parahydrogen and oxygen.

None of these are "stored", they are tied to the throttle and burned as they are "generated".

The orthohydrogen is mixed with gasoline for combustion, and the parahydrogen is used as an octane booster to prevent engine pre-combustion.

You guys who are smarter than me are welcome to correct this, or shoot it down entirely as "snake oil". I'm just relaying the concepts as I understand them.

curtis73 wrote: Putting water in your tank and asking the car to make it into fuel is the equivalent of putting exhaust in your tank and asking it to make gasoline. Its perpetual motion, plain and simple.

To quote a hippy-chick I saw a few weeks ago, "It's time we banned the eternal combustion engine"

SVreX wrote: In layman's terms, here's the concept as described to me......

What he said. Look at the link- read the claims. Would this work or not. Isn't anything that would help gain mileage/performance better than nothing? If I'm reading this correctly, I'm looking at a few $ to make it and water is virtually free. What is water once the H2 is processed out? My head hurts.....

TransMaro wrote: Let's just tell these people that they're going about this all wrong. They're adding too many steps to the process. Just tell them to pour the water straight into the gas tank. See, if they drive enough they will agitate the fuel/water mix and keep it from settling out. The engine will then draw in the water AND fuel. It will burn the fuel and the water will displace some of the fuel volume, saving gas. The water will also boil in the cylinder during combustion and give added power. After all, steam is one of the most powerful things out there. The steam will also clean the insides of the engine really well, thereby making it more efficient. See, it's just that simple, I've thought of everything. If you believe the above message, PM me and I will tell you how to port and polish your head and manifolds by pouring blasting media down the intake while the engine is running. It's like extrude honing only CHEAPER!! Shawn

what about putting water into your brake fluid to help keep it cool

minimac wrote:

SVreX wrote: In layman's terms, here's the concept as described to me......

What he said. Look at the link- read the claims. Would this work or not. Isn't anything that would help gain mileage/performance better than nothing? If I'm reading this correctly, I'm looking at a few $ to make it and water is virtually free. What is water once the H2 is processed out? My head hurts.....

Water is H20. If you remove the H2, you get oxygen.

Yeah, that system is pretty much exactly what I understood the process to be. Again, this is junior-high science stuff. Water is split using hydrolysis and reformed through combustion.

Here's the big question: Where does the electricity come from that is being used to split the water?

Whether or not this system is practical depends on where the electrical energy being used to split the water comes from. The couple I've looked at sound like they're drawing off of the alternator. I guess this could add efficiency by using water to store excess current that the battery can't store.

However, I have no idea what adding the strait oxygen and hydrogen will do to the combustion chamber. I can see it running too hot and doing more damage in the long term. I don't know enough about the system though.

At best, this might be a crude way to compensate for the inefficiencies of the alternator and sitting idling. This is not a long-term energy solution though.

Hell, if you were creative, you could rig up a system to turn your alternator into a motor and add a couple horsepower. Or, easier still, a system that controlled the cranking amperage on your starter motor, and harness wasted electricity that way. That would be fewer stages of conversion to lose efficiency.

(Technically, I am correct using the term "energy storage" the hydrogen bonds are storing the converted electrical energy used to divide the water. They just don't store it for very long, since they're being combusted very soon after they're split.)

Hey-Soos on a Dinosaur, guys, ya'll need to go back to basic science class. An alternator as it is wired up in an automotive application doesn't put out excess current that the battery can't store. There is an exciter coil that is controlled by the voltage regulator. An alternator might be 66% efficient, so 1/3-ish is lost as heat to the bearings, windings, etc., so you just lost 1/3-ish of your energy right there. You split your H2 off, then burn it. You wind up with less energy than you put into it.

You know Mythbusters did a special on just these gimmics, right? They didn't get any H2 at all from them.

My knowledge of alternators is limited.

I was saying that, there is wasted energy that can be potentially stored (hybrids charge off of the idling engine), and it is theoretically possible to store that energy by splitting water. But at best that's a really crude and inefficient method that won't yield much.

More likely it will just put more drain on the engine than you'll get power back from split water.

minimac wrote:

SVreX wrote: In layman's terms, here's the concept as described to me......

What he said. Look at the link- read the claims. Would this work or not. Isn't anything that would help gain mileage/performance better than nothing? If I'm reading this correctly, I'm looking at a few $ to make it and water is virtually free. What is water once the H2 is processed out? My head hurts.....

Taking energy from the engine to make fuel to burn to make energy is a no-win situation. This would hurt gas mileage, not help it. If your engine had a brake specific fuel consumption of 0.40 lb/hp-hr (which is fairly efficient but reasonable) and your hydrogen generator was 100% efficient (which is not reasonable at all), you would burn 3.25 gallons of gas to make the hydrogen equivalent of 1 gallon. You can't win by using the hydrogen as a fuel.

The only way this could possibly work would be if the hydrogen somehow caused the engine to get more energy out of the gasoline that it burns. I'm not willing to rule that out in principle, but that is something that would be very easy to test on a dyno - and until I see a credible account of someone having tried this or another good, scientific, repeatable test, I am not going to spend my money on such a long shot. Particularly since if hydrogen did enhance the combustion efficiency, it would most likely take a considerable amount of tuning to take advantage of it correctly.

Wall-e wrote: To quote a hippy-chick I saw a few weeks ago, "It's time we banned the eternal combustion engine"

I hope you told her to write her Congresscritter and urge it to vote for the second law of thermodynamics.