Wanting info on Hydrogen engine conversion

[fivebob]

The thing is so rediculiously easy to build.

Why not try it and see rather then discuss theory.

Because theory says it's got zero chance of working, and I don't have the time to waste on something that's never going to work.

Also cambell live neither disproved or concluded that this worked. The Thermodynamics professor on the show said that a fuel savings of 30 - 40% was rediculious, but he stated he saw no reason why you wouldnt get some fuel savings from the device, just not as high as everyone is claiming.

How did you get that out of what he was saying, He never said it would get any savings at all, in fact quite the opposite.

That would have been one of the worst exmples of tabloid journalism I've seen in a long time, the fact that he even gave any credence to someone who reckoned they'd saved $3.00 on a trip to to Huntly without any scientific evidence to back it up and their other example hadn't even run a tank through yet doesn't say a lot for the quality of the program

You could save $3.00 just by adjusting your right foot, and surely after all the years people have been promoting this they could've found someone with real hard data as to it's effectiveness. The fact that there is no hard scientific evidence to justify the claims strongly indicates that it's a fraud, but you're welcome to waste your time on it if you wish, might be more profitable to chase rainbows though

[RomanV]

Or argue on the internet?

P.S. Hydrogen powered car seems to fall under the 'perpetual motion device' category of err... enthusiasts.

"But look! The magnets keep on spinning! HOW CAN THAT NOT BE PERPETUAL MOTION"

"But look! hydrogen goes into the engine, and gets burnt! instead of the fuel!!! HOW CAN THAT NOT BE SAVING GAS"

[XS1V]

You're welcome to waste your time on it if you wish, might be more profitable to chase rainbows though

Best thing i have read all day Evidence is key, without it you are just clutching at straws as so often happens on here

Brad

[fivebob]

Ok let's try and make this work.

Best estimates I've seen say that you need about 30kw for an average vehicle to maintain 100km/h on the open road, in order to get a 20% saving on fuel, 20% of that power must come from the hydrogen conversion.

So that's 6kw required, Let's be generous and say it's only 5kw needed. given that you can't break the first law of thermdynamics that means at minimum you must put in 5kw to split the water, 5kw @ say 15v (again being generous about the alternator output) means you need to draw 333amps

Assumming you can find a alternator with that sort of output and it takes no extra power from the engine to run it (which of course it does) then would you want a 333amp circuit in your car???

Ok maybe if we disregard the first law of thermodynamics and say you can get 10 times the energy out that you put in, then it comes down to a more realistic 33 amps.

Of course anybody with a brain would realise that you can't get 10 times the energy out that you put in, if that was the case what would we need petrol for in the first place, and as for those rip off power companies, well they can take a hike too

Oh to live in such a Nirvana... Pity we live in the real world where such things are not possible

[MAGN1T]

You probably use the same logic to proove that water injection (straight water) can't and doesn't increase the power on a petrol engine. Not saving fuel but increasing power.

Steve

[barryogen]

water injection is a bit different to this sort of thing...
correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the water slows the flame edge, so timing can be advanced further than without it.

futher, any water than is not atomised gives a minor(however small) bump to compression(as water cannot be compressed).

So it is almost like using a higher octane fuel in a higher compression car.

[fivebob]

You probably use the same logic to proove that water injection (straight water) can't and doesn't increase the power on a petrol engine. Not saving fuel but increasing power.

No I wouldn't I actually have several water injection units .

Adding water injection to a detonation limited engine is proven to work, whereas generating hydrogen from water to burn is proven not to work.

Got any proof that self contained hydrogen generation will produce more power than it consumes??? There's a Nobel prize and everlasting fame waiting for you if you do.

[touge rolla]

How much chemical potential energy does Hydrogen contain?

[fivebob]

How much chemical potential energy does Hydrogen contain?

Well it takes approx 3.55Kwh to splt one litre water at 100% efficiency. As the process of combustion is just the reverse I'll let you do the maths

[sergei]

Also please do not confuse hydrogen powered cars with this HHO mumbo jumbo.
The hydrogen powered cars consume hydrogen that is has been made elsewhere, they store it special tank/fridge. Biggest draw back is that you cannot store hydrogen safely in huge quantities and have it light enough and small enough to fit in the car, hence most of the hydrogen powered internal combustion cars run also on gas.

[sergei]

Hydrogen 33.33 kWh/kg
Petrol 12.0 kWh/kg
But obviously petrol is a lot denser, so actually it has more energy per litre .

[MAGN1T]

So, supposing you left out the first stage, being water to hydrogen/oxygen splitting, as it's inefficient

Then

also left out the second stage, being the combustion of hydrogen/oxygen, which nearly cancels the first stage

then

if you just injected water into the cylinder instead, it still wouldn't do anything to save fuel??

No I wouldn't I actually have several water injection units .

Adding water injection to a detonation limited engine is proven to work, whereas generating hydrogen from water to burn is proven not to work.

Got any proof that self contained hydrogen generation will produce more power than it consumes??? There's a Nobel prize and everlasting fame waiting for you if you do.

[sergei]

So, supposing you left out the first stage, being water to hydrogen/oxygen splitting, as it's inefficient

Then

also left out the second stage, being the combustion of hydrogen/oxygen, which nearly cancels the first stage

then

if you just injected water into the cylinder instead, it still wouldn't do anything to save fuel??

No I wouldn't I actually have several water injection units .

Adding water injection to a detonation limited engine is proven to work, whereas generating hydrogen from water to burn is proven not to work.

Got any proof that self contained hydrogen generation will produce more power than it consumes??? There's a Nobel prize and everlasting fame waiting for you if you do.

If you just inject water, no it will not do anything, but if you would advance ignition/lean out mix then it might , water is just a detonation suppressor.

[fivebob]

Sergei has summed it up nicely. If you just inject water without leaning the engine and/or advancing the spark you will have less power and poorer fuel economy.

The only way you'll get an economy benefit from water injection is by leaning the engine out, which only works if the engine was purposely tuned rich to suppress detonation. Advancing the ignition may also help by improving the power levels.

All this requires retuning the engine management system, which is far and beyond the generate (very small amounts of) hydrogen and plug the tube into the manifold approach proposed by the Hydrogen generation scams.

Lean burn Hydrogen assisted engines require far more Hydrogen than can be generated by onboard electrolysis systems (AFAIK about 25-50% of the combustable components), and also require major engine management changes.

[MAGN1T]

If you just inject water, no it will not do anything, but if you would advance ignition/lean out mix then it might , water is just a detonation suppressor.

That's exactly what I said in the first place but someone brought up those half arsed laws of physics.Apart from the fact that the water will turn to steam possibly increasing cylinder pressure whilst reducing temperature.

I used to have an Austin A30. The advertised power was 28HP and would just get to 100Km/h. So that figure should be pretty close for any car so long as the windage losses and rolling losses are similar.
It would also get about 40 to 45 mpg on a trip. Overtaking is out of the question obviously.

If you take a BSFC of .55 then working out a bit of maths you'll end up with about 25% efficiency. Supposing your (different) car only gives 20mpg on a trip, you could assume that it's efficiency is 12.5% roughly of course.

If you've got a big block V8 that only gives 10mpg then efficiency would be 6 or 7 %. Obviously it's going to be easier to make fuel savings on an inefficient setup a lot easier than a good one.

The programme on TV showed ozzies with a Falcon 6, it would have been EFI too. Not the most fuel efficient of cars either. Feeding the H2/o2 mix before the throttle body will no doubt trick the ECU in some way without doing anything else. It really depends on whether the ECU uses a MAP sensor or an AFM. Of course a carby is different again.

No doubt when the TV revisits those experimenters some off then will have zero fuel savings and some will claim substantial savings.

Steve

[fivebob]

That's exactly what I said in the first place but you brought up those half arsed laws of physics.

Please explain what is half arsed about the first law of thermo dynamics???

[MAGN1T]

They're half arsed because they're only relevent to a small part of what's going on inside the cylinder. As I mentioned before, it's all about reducing thermodynamic losses which end up as wasted heat. A diesel engine wins hands down due to it's higher compression ratio and no throttle.

Steve

[fivebob]

They're half arsed because they're only relevent to a small part of what's going on inside the cylinder. As I mentioned before, it's all about reducing thermodynamic losses which end up as wasted heat. A diesel engine wins hands down due to it's higher compression ratio and no throttle.

It's 100% relevant to the subject of onboard hydrogen generation. Which is what I thought was being discussed.

If you want to discuss hydrogen assisted lean burn engines then it's a totally different subject and something that's not possible with onboard electrolysis systems.

[Trls250s]

When discussing first law you dont think about the fact that burning the hydrogen in the combustion process increases the effeciency of the petrol.

Only way i could think that this would improve fuel savings is you get the power out of the hydrogen + power from increased effeciency.

So you put in saw 5 watts of energy into producing the hydrogen, and you get 4 watts of combustable hydrogen out of the process. But by burning the hydrogen in the combustion process you increase the effeciency of the unburnt petrol by say 1 - 2% that will more then make up for the power lost generating the hydrogen and then some (btw 5 watts is an example)

Like people have said before you arnt getting free energy but you are getting energy that would normally be wasted.

[sergei]

When discussing first law you dont think about the fact that burning the hydrogen in the combustion process increases the effeciency of the petrol.

Only way i could think that this would improve fuel savings is you get the power out of the hydrogen + power from increased effeciency.

So you put in saw 5 watts of energy into producing the hydrogen, and you get 4 watts of combustable hydrogen out of the process. But by burning the hydrogen in the combustion process you increase the effeciency of the unburnt petrol by say 1 - 2% that will more then make up for the power lost generating the hydrogen and then some (btw 5 watts is an example)

Like people have said before you arnt getting free energy but you are getting energy that would normally be wasted.

The problem is that you will not get 4W of Hydrogen power out of 5W electricity, you will only get a small fraction of that due to massive losses.
and 1% of Hydrogen will not affect the mixture anyway (chemically) as matter of fact there always is small amount of free hydrogen recombining during the combustion. Also calling HHO gas, is a big mistake as at the end you get 2 part of H2 (molecular Hydrogen) and 1 part of O2 (molecular Oxygen) while HHO name suggest atomic Hydrogen and Oxygen and all associated miracle properties with it. If you had atomic Oxygen coming out of the electrolyser you would have it recombine pretty quickly with Hydrogen and parts of apparatus, rubber hoses and result in huge nasties.
In fact adding water to hot charcoal can result in production of Hydrogen.
So think about it hot amorphous carbon (soot) reacting with moisture from air already making Hydrogen in combustion chamber (probably in bigger quantities than brown gas apparatus).
Again I would like to repeat myself that combustion process is very complex and does not occur in one single step (other wise it would be very explosive), and some of intermediate stages are the atomic Hydrogen in a lot bigger quantities (again) than apparatus will produce. So if Hydrogen is having miracle properties, well it is there any way in a lot bigger quantities so whatever it is supposed (miraculously) to do it is doing so already.