water to HHO in gas engine

[anthony1]

Has anyone here try this in the truck?
water4gas.com

check it out.

It sounds great if it works.

[Seanz0rz]

i call shenanigans.

[DHC6twinotter]

Sounds too good to be true. Seems like an elaborate April fools joke. :headscratch:

[oly884]

The fact that there are no decent reviews on it, and that the first two pages in google have nothing but "good" things to say (ie, 'it works!') has be thinking this is BS.

Injecting water into your engine in small amounts isn't bad for your engine, hell, there are plenty of people with supercharged 3.4's on here that use water/methanol injection to increase boost. It's the same principle. However, what these people are doing makes it seem like it's the 'cure-all' and that's simply wrong.

[oly884]

Furthermore, notice how EVERY person who talks about it seems like a salesman?

[AxleIke]

Son of a BITCH!!!!

Its over HERE now too?

Good luck man. If you like throwing your money away, this is your ticket.

[AxleIke]

This wikipedia article sums it up.

The production portion is why this crap won't work.

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

It takes far more energy to dissociate the water than you get out of it. In a car, this energy must be taken from the engine. So you use gasoline to make that energy. Thus, your engine becomes MORE inefficient.

[slosurfer]

This is weird, I was just talking about this with the guy who is working for me. He said that his good friend paid the money for the instructions and built the little mason jar type thing that attaches to your intake. Supposedly, he has seen a huge jump in miles that he is getting per tank. :headscratch:

Guy (the guy working for me) said he is going to do it too. I'll wait and see what he finds, he has an 85 Truck. I'm going to make sure he gets good before and after results.

I'm still skeptical, but thought it was funny that this post was on here and we were talking about it yesterday.

[mastacox]

Son of a *******!!!!

Its over HERE now too?

Good luck man. If you like throwing your money away, this is your ticket.



Seriously, it's creeping over from TOF now...

I and several other individuals have gone into EXHAUSTIVE detail explaining why this doesn't work and why on TOF. Read from page 3 on in this thread:

http://www.yotatech.com/f116/hho-hydrogen-oxygen-gas-demand-setup-142590/index3.html

[anthony1]

I think a lot of that argument assumes that the hydrogen will replaced the gasoline. That's not what the original concept was about. It's a supplement to the gasoline. the engine still needs gasoline to run but with hydrogen gas from water increase the burning efficiency. Sure the system in itself is not efficient. It's the same as running your mega boom box with mega wattage to vibrate the guy next to you....not efficient use of energy.

[drguitarum2005]

yeah it doesn't actually do anything better, lets just leave it at that and not make a 4 page thread on it here too...

[MTL_4runner]

I saw a couple of comments that getting greater than 100% efficiency is impossible but that's not entirely a true statement if you only take into account the obvious inputs. In the case of an internal combustion engine, yes, 100% is currently impossible. If you take a heat pump for instance, they regularly generate efficiencies of well over 100% (often 150-300% efficient), but it is because the energy is being taken out of the air or water (so really the true system efficiency is quite a bit lower than 100%).

[AxleIke]

No.

Greater than 100% efficiency is always impossible.

That is called perpetual motion.

You must always take into account the whole system.

[bamachem]

i haven't investigated it yet, but doesn't the alternator put out more power than necessary anyway, but the voltage/amperage is regulated to the electrical system? if so, then there could be energy there that is being paid for (via ICE power already consumed to spin the alternator) that could be put to use for dissociation to produce the hydroxy to supplement the fuel.

dunno, but it's an interesting topic and the people who are adamant about how well it works don't seem to be making all THAT much money off it since they post their plans on the 'net for free.

[mastacox]

I saw a couple of comments that getting greater than 100% efficiency is impossible but that's not entirely a true statement if you only take into account the obvious inputs. In the case of an internal combustion engine, yes, 100% is currently impossible. If you take a heat pump for instance, they regularly generate efficiencies of well over 100% (often 150-300% efficient), but it is because the energy is being taken out of the air or water (so really the true system efficiency is quite a bit lower than 100%).


The apparent efficiency will only exceed 100% if you are mis-calculating the efficiency and not taking into account all of the energy inputs. Even if some engine is getting energy from a tear in the space-time continuum and you can't seem to describe how it is happening, that energy still has an efficiency attached to it.

This is actually a very good analogy of why the "HHO" crackpots are still around (HHO is a crackpot term itself)- sloppy efficiency calculations. They plug some hydrogen into an engine from an external tank, and in turn see an apparent "increase" in mpg. What is really happening is you're burning hydrogen and gasoline together (rather than just gasoine alone) and developing less horsepower in the process. So these people claim hydrogen increases efficiency of fuel combustion (which is B.S.), and through some fuzzy scientific claims try to sell the idea that burning hydrogen made in an on-board electrolysis plant will net the same results.

What they fail to take into account is you are burning less gasoline becasue you are burning more hydrogen from an external fuel source. Calculating miles per gallon with just the gasoline but ignoring the hydrogen (even though you pay for and use the hydrogen too) appears to show an increase in efficiency, when in fact you are just ignoring another energy input. No magic, just selective blindness...

Burning hydrogen from an external tank is also far different from burning hydrogen that has been electrolyzed on-board. Hydrogen in a tank has already been made, so it is a stored form of energy (like a tank of gas or a pre-charged battery) so you can burn and use that energy. But, if you are using electorolysis on board you have to use energy from your engine to make it, and then you try to reclaim some of that energy. Problem is, electrolysis is at best 90% efficient, and your ICE is about 20% efficient. So basically for every 1 unit of energy you use to produce hydrogen, you only get back 0.18 units of energy; you wasted 82% of your energy in the process for nothing, causing a net DECREASE in fuel mileage.



i haven't investigated it yet, but doesn't the alternator put out more power than necessary anyway, but the voltage/amperage is regulated to the electrical system? if so, then there could be energy there that is being paid for (via ICE power already consumed to spin the alternator) that could be put to use for dissociation to produce the hydroxy to supplement the fuel.


The alternator will only create as much power as is needed to maintain voltage in the system. If you're only running the radio, it will only produce enough to run that; if you have your auxillary lights and your radio, it will produce enough to power those, up to its maximum current output. The alternator's drag will change based on the electrical system's load, but there is no free energy to be had from it.

[bamachem]

the only way the alternator will "only create as much power as is needed to maintain voltage in the system" is due to the use of a voltage regulator. the alternator revolution speed is directly proportional to the engine RPM speed via the mechanical linkage of the belt/pulley system.

if you do not have a maximum electrical load (almost never do), then the speed of the alternator is faster than required to keep up with the load. however, the torque required to spin the alternator for a low-load situation is less than the torque required when there is a high load. i.e., more power is required as input to the alternator when there is more load on the electrical system.

now, if the speed is already there, and the cumulative torque produced by the engine during combustion is more than required for the current vehicle speed/load (peak torque is reached early in the RPM band), then the additional fuel that would be consumed to provide the necessary power for the electrolysis is insignificant compared to the torque required to turn the drivetrain and maintain speed. we're talking a 20-30 amp current here - the equivalent of a set of 55W fog lights! if burning your fog lights doesn't pull your MPG's down, then neither would this type of small-scale electrolysis.

the only "cost" would then be the equipment (less than $100 of capital and less than $20/year in consumables) as well as the fuel (distilled water and potassium hydroxide - both VERY cheap). therefore, if the extra amount of gas that is burned to produce the electrical current needed is negligible, and the other costs are negligible, then it's something worth investigating. ya never know... i'm not going to toss this one out with the trash just yet...

[mastacox]

the only way the alternator will "only create as much power as is needed to maintain voltage in the system" is due to the use of a voltage regulator.


... and all of our alternators have voltage regulators.



if you do not have a maximum electrical load (almost never do), then the speed of the alternator is faster than required to keep up with the load.

now, if the speed is already there, and the cumulative torque produced by the engine during combustion is more than required for the current vehicle speed/load (peak torque is reached early in the RPM band), then the additional fuel that would be consumed to provide the necessary power for the electrolysis is insignificant compared to the torque required to turn the drivetrain and maintain speed. we're talking a 20-30 amp current here...


Sure, if the alternator is spinning faster than needed, it can take more load. The point isn't that.

The point is, an electrolysis system stores energy by splitting water into H2 and O2. BUT, you can only store as much energy as is being put into the electrolysis system in the first place. This is because water doesn't have any inherent energy stored in it; any energy you get out of burning the hydrogen and oxygen mixture must first be put into the water through your electrolysis system.

SO, even if the electrolysis system is 100% efficient, and you're putting in 30 amps (which is 360 Watts in a 12 volt system), that means you're making 360 watts worth of hydrogen and oxygen. Now, you burn the H2/O2 mixture in your engine, which is 20% efficient at most, and get about 72W back as mechanical power. In case you aren't keeping track, that's an additional .096 hp added to the engine, but you used .48 hp to make that power because you're driving the alternator and electrolysis system with the engine. So in reality, you're just increasing the drag on the engine by .38 horsepower, not making anything more.

[MTL_4runner]

Brian and Axle, reread my comment and you'll see that I was really agreeing with you.

[ChickenLover]

Son of a *******!!!!

Its over HERE now too?

Good luck man. If you like throwing your money away, this is your ticket.



It's because of people like you that innovative technologies stay underground as long as they do. If Anthony1 wants to experiment with Brown's gas, back the f-ck off and let him.

Your discouragement is shameful. Especially when you have no hands-on experience with HHO injection. Preaching theory is one thing, but don't dissuade someone from experimentation.

[bamachem]

i'm not saying that i'm buying into it, but i am saying that it's worth a deeper look when people who have NOTHING to gain monetarily swear by it - and i happen to personally know one person who has one of these and says that he's seen it get as much as 44MPG on his Z71, but he keeps blowing fuses (too high of an electrolyte concentration, but it makes more dissociated gasses).

i'm an engineer, a chemical engineer, and i currently work with ammonia systems (important later) in the design of refrigeration systems. anyway, when you do the mass/energy balance around the entire system, i realize that you're not getting "free" energy. however, water is next to free in price (for now), and there is energy in the molecular bonding between the atoms - that's why it takes energy to seperate them and they readily re-combine during combustion, giving off energy.

i know that the energy that you get back from re-combining the hydrogen and oxygen will be less than the electrical energy that you put in the system to dissociate them in the first place, but what you are not taking into accout is the fact that you are adding a VERY strong oxidizer and a good reducer to a volitile mixture of atomized/vaporized hydrocarbons and air under high compression in the combustion cylinder. there *may* be some secondary or tertiary reactions going on with the hydrogen and the hydrocarbons to allow for further cracking or breaking of some double or triple bonding between the carbon atoms, yeilding lower molecular weight hydrocarbons which could have a higher combustion coefficient and lead to a more complete and more volitile burn.

for instance, if you put nitrogen gas (in air) in the presence of dissociated hydrogen under higher pressures and temperatures, you will form ammonia, especially in the presence of iron oxide (engine block). in it's vapor form is HIGHLY flammable. so, you're putting 80% nitrogen thru your air intake, add some hydrogen and some heat and pressure (inside the engine) and you have a NEW FUEL formed that is MUCH more reactive than hydrogen alone. also, this reaction is EXOTHERMIC, producing heat, which means that it will readily occur and produce pressure in the cylinder, helping to drive the piston down with more force.

another reaction is the production of ammonium nitrate, NH4NO3, which can also be formed when hydrogen gas, oxygen gas, and nitrogen are present under high pressures and temperatures. put ammonium nitrate in the presence of a hydrocarbon (like gas or diesel) and then add an energy source (detonation by the spark plug) and you have a VERY violent explosion which would create POWER in a piston-driven engine. for reference, IIRC, just 1000lbs of ammonium nitrate fertilizer soaked with less than 100-gallons of diesel fuel that was ignited with a single stick of dynamite is what brought the murrah federal building down in oklahoma city.

anyway, the haber process combines nitrogen and hydrogen to produce ammonia, part of which can be oxidised to nitric acid and combined with the remaining ammonia to produce the nitrate. Another production method is used in the so-called Odda process.

under extreme temperatures (like what you would find in an engine), ammonium nitrate can break down and produce nitros oxide. we all know what that does for an internal combustion engine.

anyway, it's worth looking into - that's all i'm saying. when adding highly reactive hydrogen and oxygen atoms produced by dissociation (not the fairly inert atom pairs as they are found in nature) and combine them with a supply of nitrogen, hydrocarbons, heat and pressure, you will get all kinds of chemicals formed, most of which would be considered to be fuels.

however, the down side of this would be the production of NOX gasses from the reactions involving the combustion of nitrogen-containing chemical compounds. NOX gasses are bad (smog) and therefore, this would not be commercially viable unless more was done to control the exhaust makeup, possibly requiring larger or different catalytic converters.

links:

http://www.ausetute.com.au/haberpro.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Cracking
http://www.answers.com/topic/cracking?cat=technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_(chemistry)

[DHC6twinotter]

This thread just went over my head. :laugh: Best grade I ever got in college level chemistry was a D.

Interesting stuff, nonetheless.

[AxleIke]

Son of a *******!!!!

Its over HERE now too?

Good luck man. If you like throwing your money away, this is your ticket.



It's because of people like you that innovative technologies stay underground as long as they do. If Anthony1 wants to experiment with Brown's gas, back the f-ck off and let him.

Your discouragement is shameful. Especially when you have no hands-on experience with HHO injection. Preaching theory is one thing, but don't dissuade someone from experimentation.


Explain to me how my post is preventing him in ANY way from doing this. Thats right, its not. Try to remember that this is the internet, where opinions abound.

Its been explained by Mastacox very well. There are HUGE threads on it on several other forums. There is theory and then there are the laws of physics. You CANNOT exceed 100% efficiency in ANY system. Period. I am not preaching a damn thing, that is fact.

You need to chill out. I wished him good luck, and provided my opinion on the matter, which is that this sucks. My opinion can be taken however he wishes. I personally give anthony1 the benefit of assuming that he is an intelligent person who can make up his own mind. You should try it.

[AxleIke]

Son of a *******!!!!

Its over HERE now too?

Good luck man. If you like throwing your money away, this is your ticket.



It's because of people like you that innovative technologies stay underground as long as they do. If Anthony1 wants to experiment with Brown's gas, back the f-ck off and let him.

Your discouragement is shameful. Especially when you have no hands-on experience with HHO injection. Preaching theory is one thing, but don't dissuade someone from experimentation.


However, after further consideration of your point, I realize that I have been overly negative about this from the start. I've said my piece often enough, and there isn't really need for me to continue to negatively contribute to these threads.

My apologies to the OP, and rest assured that I will not be contributing to your thread any longer. If you wish to give this a shot, best of luck to you.

[bamachem]

Ike: no need to leave the discussion. it's good to have someone play devil's advocate to poke holes in theory that the "rosy glasses" tend to hide.

anyway, more on the formation of ammonia via the combination of nitrogen and hydrogen under pressure in the presence of iron oxide (rust).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber-Bosch

Fuel:

Ammonia was used during World War II fuel shortages to power buses in Belgium and used in engine and solar energy applications prior to 1900. Liquid ammonia was used as the fuel of the rocket airplane, the X-15. Although not as powerful as other fuels, it left no soot in the reusable rocket engine and its density approximately matches that for the oxidizer, liquid oxygen, which simplified the aircraft's design. Ammonia is proposed as a practical, clean (CO2-free), alternative to fossil fuel for internal combustion engines.[20] In 1981 a Canadian company converted a 1981 Chevrolet Impala to operate using ammonia as fuel.[21][22] Ammonia is marketed as a low-emission fuel.[23]

[mastacox]

anyway, more on the formation of ammonia via the combination of nitrogen and hydrogen under pressure in the presence of iron oxide (rust).


I'm going to continue being a negative force against this scam, sorry guys :angel:

While the Ammonia example is interesting, I doubt anything similar happens when you add Hydrogen into an AFR mixture in an engine for a couple of reasons:

1) WHERE'S THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF??? This scam has been around for 30 years (yes, it really has been around since the 70's), yet no real scientific labs have proven the technology in a peer-reviewed publication. All we ever hear are "satisfied customers" that say it worked for them and made their Bronco get 65 mpg, but we don't get any data or actual proof that what they're saying is true. The sites devoted to this "technology" are full of scam mumbo-jumbo, and never actually show real data or real proof. Also, people who do try the technology and don't seem to get a result tend to qualify their failure with yeah-buts and well-maybes.

2) You'd think if this was truly a real valid technology and a good way of increasing "efficiency of burn" in the engine, it would have been adopted by car companies looking to increase power and efficiency in their engines... I'm not seeing any electrolyzer-injected vehicles being marketed by anyone... Anyone? Bueller? And don't tell me it's because they're in a giant conspiracy with the oil companies...

3) The gas in our engines is ALREADY burns completely! Ever notice any extra fuel dropping out of the tailpipe of your EFI engine? No? That's because your engine has an oxygen sensor so that it can adjust the fuel mixture and makes sure you're burning the fuel going into the cylinder. We don't need to add Hydrogen to make sure the gas burns "all the way."

4) Mythbusters busted it, it HAS to be fake! (J/K) Seriously though, the Mythbusters test is one of the closest things to an actual published scientific test of the claims of these crackpots. That doesn't bode well IMO.

5) The "increases in efficiency" that seem to be somwhat realistic are always using an external Hydrogen tank, not an electrolyzer. I've already explained why the two cases are night and day different.

6) The mason jar "electrolyzer" that every one seems to think does wonders for your engine barely puts out any Hydrogen at all! Its basically a trickle of Hydrogen and Oxygen bubbles, not a wild rush. It would literally take kilowatts of power to put out enough Hydrogen to affect your engine. 30 amps just don't cut it.



Anyway...

I already know I'm fighting a losing battle. People that try this and it doesn't work never post their results (or instead try to explain what THEY did wrong), and the net is literally full of fake testimonials dedicated to spreading the scam. Someone needs to just install this thing on their vehicle so we can see it doesn't do anything! It's a turbonator in sheeps clothing!

[bamachem]

I'm going to continue being a negative force against this scam, sorry guys :angel:

While the Ammonia example is interesting, I doubt anything similar happens when you add Hydrogen into an AFR mixture in an engine for a couple of reasons:

1) WHERE'S THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF??? This scam has been around for 30 years (yes, it really has been around since the 70's), yet no real scientific labs have proven the technology in a peer-reviewed publication. All we ever hear are "satisfied customers" that say it worked for them and made their Bronco get 65 mpg, but we don't get any data or actual proof that what they're saying is true. The sites devoted to this "technology" are full of scam mumbo-jumbo, and never actually show real data or real proof. Also, people who do try the technology and don't seem to get a result tend to qualify their failure with yeah-buts and well-maybes.




here's your PROOF that it occurs when you have di-atomic Nitrogen molecules in the presence of Hydrogen atoms (not di-atomic) in the presence of Iron Oxides (rust).

when you have lower pressures, then you just have lower yeilds. therefore, it would make perfect sense for a commercial ammonia production process to increase the pressure in order to drive the reaction to the right and produce a higher concentration. in our engines, we are seeing 100+ PSIG before detonation, so we WOULD be driving the equation to produce ammonia as you get above atmospheric conditions.

anway, read more. ammonia is produces from the hydrogen injection into the engine. ammonia also has a HUGE amount of energy that it releases during combustion when compared to hydrogen alone. it's a viable alternative to hydrocarbons or ethanol as a fuel because of it's energy content per mass.



The Haber Process (aka Haber-Bosch process) is the reaction of nitrogen and hydrogen to produce ammonia.

The nitrogen and hydrogen are reacted over an iron catalyst under conditions of 200 atmospheres, 450°C:


N2(g) + 3H2(g) <--> 2NH3(g) + ΔH ...(1)

The process was developed by Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch in 1909 and patented in 1910. It was first used on an industrial scale by the Germans during World War I: Germany had previously imported nitrates from Chile, but the demand for munitions and the uncertainty of this supply in the war prompted the adoption of the process. The ammonia produced was oxidised for the production of nitric acid in the Ostwald process, and the nitric acid for the production of various explosive nitro compounds used in munitions.
The nitrogen is obtained from the air, and the hydrogen is obtained from water natural gas in the reaction:


CHH4(g) + H2O(g) → CO(g) + 3H2(g) ...(2)

Equilibrium and the Haber Process
The reaction of nitrogen and hydrogen (1) is reversible, meaning the reaction can proceed in either the forward or the reverse direction depending on conditions. The forward reaction is exothermic, meaning it produces heat and is favored at low temperatures. Increasing the temperature tends to drive the reaction in the reverse direction, which is undesirable if the goal is to produce ammonia. However, reducing the temperature reduces the rate of the reaction, which is also undesirable. Therefore, an intermediate temperature high enough to allow the reaction to proceed at a reasonable rate, yet not so high as to drive the reaction in the reverse direction, is required.

High pressures favour the forward reaction because there are fewer molecules on the right side. So the only compromise in pressure is the economical situation trying to increase the pressure as much as possible.

The catalyst has no effect on the position of equilibrium, however it does increase the reaction rate. This allows the process to be operated at lower temperatures, which as mentioned before favors the forward reaction. The first Haber-Bosch reaction chambers used osmium and uranium catalysts. However, today a much less expensive iron catalyst is used almost exclusively.

In industrial practice, the iron catalyst is prepared by exposing a mass of magnetite, an iron oxide, to the hot hydrogen feedstock. This reduces some of the magnetite to metallic iron, removing oxygen in the process. However, the catalyst maintains most of its bulk volume during the reduction, and so the result is a highly porous material whose large surface area aids its effectiveness as a catalyst. Other minor components of the catalyst include calcium and aluminum oxides, which support the porous iron catalyst and help it maintain its surface area over time, and potassium, which increases the electron density of the catalyst and so improves its reactivity.

The ammonia is formed as a gas but on cooling in the condensor liquefies at the high pressures used, and so is removed as a liquid. Unreacted nitrogen and hydrogen is fed back in to the reaction.

Notwithstanding its original adoption as a military necessity, the Haber process now produces about half of all the nitrogen used in agriculture: billions of people are alive and fed from its use.

[mastacox]

No, no, no... :shake:

I don't want proof that you get Ammonia in the presence of Nitrogen, Hydrogen, and Iron Oxides. I very much believe that is real (however I'm curious about its efficiency, is there net energy available if you create Ammonia from Hydrogen and Nitrogen, and then burn the Ammonia?). I was trying to point out that while this is a real and proven chemical process, it isn't really comparable to what the "HHO" proponents are spouting.

I want proof that adding Hydrogen (diatomic, since that's what an electrolysis process will create) into the combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine with a stoich AFR mixture already present will somehow increase the power output of the process (and therefore the efficiency). My point is that there is no scientific proof that these "HHO machines" actually do anything other than waste energy.

[anthony1]

Part of the system is that they have to " trick " the ECU into thinking that there's enough gas to run.

[bamachem]

also, this is worth reading on electrolysis:

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

The amount of electrical energy that must be added equals the change in Gibbs free energy of the reaction plus the losses in the system. The losses can (in theory) be arbitrarily close to zero, so the maximum thermodynamic efficiency equals the enthalpy change divided by the free energy change of the reaction. In most cases, the electric input is larger than the enthalpy change of the reaction, so some energy is released in the form of heat. In some cases, for instance, in the electrolysis of steam into hydrogen and oxygen at high temperature, the opposite is true. Heat is absorbed from the surroundings, and the heating value of the produced hydrogen is higher than the electric input. (It is worth noting that the maximum theoretic efficiency of a fuel cell is the inverse of that of electrolysis. It is, thus, impossible to create a perpetual motion machine by combining the two processes. See Stanley Meyers' water fuel cell for an example of such an attempt.)

The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely. The efficiency is a measure of what fraction of electrical energy used is actually contained within the hydrogen. Some of the electrical energy is converted to heat, a useless by-product. Some reports quote efficiencies between 50% and 70%[1] This efficiency is based on the Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen. The Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen is thermal energy released when hydrogen is combusted. This does not represent the total amount of energy within the hydrogen, hence the efficiency is lower than a more strict definition. Other reports quote the theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis as being between 80% and 94%.[2]. The theoretical maximum considers the total amount of energy absorbed by both the hydrogen and oxygen. These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included.


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

Decomposition of pure water into hydrogen and oxygen at standard temperature and pressure is not favorable in thermodynamical terms. This is because, E(cell)=E(Oxidation) + E(Reduction). If E(cell) < 0, reaction is not favorable.


Thus, the standard potential of the water electrolysis cell is 1.23 V at 25 °C.

The positive voltage indicates the Gibbs Free Energy for electrolysis of water is greater than zero for these reactions. This can be found using the Nernst Equation at equilibrium. The reaction cannot occur without adding necessary energy, usually supplied by an external electrical power source but also possible with thermal energy.

Substance State ΔG˚ (cal/mol)
NH3 g -3.976
H2O lq -56.69
H2O g -54.64

liquid water takes ~57 calories of energy to dissociate 1-mol of water (18 g/mol) into oxygen and hydrogen atoms (not di-atomic!). 18-grams is about 0.04 lbs. that's not much energy...

lets say that you would consume about 1-pint of water per 10-gallons of gas. (80:1 ratio)

1-pint is ~1 lb, so then you would need 1417 calories of energy (just under 6000 J of energy) to dissociate the water. now lets say that you burned that 10-gallons of gas over a 4-hour period at 60MPH (24MPG efficiency). therefore, you would need to produce 6000 J in that same 4-hour period via your vehicles electrical system. that's only 25 J per MINUTE, or 0.4167 J/s. that's an equivalent of 0.00056 HP.

now, lets take some efficiencies into acccount. let's say the dissociation is 50%, and the alternator is 50% and the gasoline engine is 25%. 0.0625% total efficiency. that's still only 0.009 HP to produce the power needed for electrolysis.

[bamachem]

FYI: just because the people that are touting the results don't understand the chemistry of how they got them doesn't mean that the results are false, it simply means that they simply came across this by accident.

the hydrogen and oxygen that forms from electrolysis is NOT di-atomic. it is HIGHLY reactive ATOMIC hydrogen and oxygen and they will READILY react with nitrogen to form nirous oxides, nitric acid, and ammonia, which also happen to react with each other to form ammonium nitrate as well. all of these are either combustable or promote combustion, even in very small quantities.

[bamachem]

you also have to consider that you are essentially pumping nitrogen thru your engine and not using it at all in everyday driving. that takes work from the engine, and energy from the hydrocarbons. pumping that nitrogen in no way helps your efficiency - it robs efficiency.

you add potential energy to the system as mass - the water. you use electricity to seperate the water, and the hydrogen reacts with the nitrogen in the air already being pumped by the engine to form combustables like ammonia as well as nitric acid (combines with ammonia to form ammonium nitrate) as well as nitrous oxide (promotes combustion of hydrocarbons). therefore, you are taking something that is a burden to the engine's efficiency and converting it to a fuel.

in doing so, you can consume less hydrocarbon since you are making fuel from the hydrogen & oxygen contained in the water and the nitrogen in the air. now, instead of just gas and oxygen, you have an additional fuel source - water combined with the nitrogen.

do the mass/energy balance on the complete system and it actually makes sense... now, instead of an inert mass simply passing thru the system, some of the nitrogen becomes a fuel, adding energy to the system.

THAT'S where the energy is coming from...

[mastacox]

liquid water takes ~57 calories of energy to dissociate 1-mol of water (18 g/mol) into oxygen and hydrogen atoms (not di-atomic!). 18-grams is about 0.04 lbs. that's not much energy...


But, Hydrogen is a naturally diatomic gas (as is oxygen). When you separate 1 mol of H2O into its constituent components you get 1/2 mol of O2 and 1 mol of H2. I would assume that Hydrogen won't stay monoatomic for long after it is created at the electrolysis cathode without some special agents in the mix (apparently NASA has experimented at storing monoatomic Hydrogen in liquid Helium). So, making Hydrogen in an electrolysis cell to be injected into the intake of an engine will for all practical purposes produces diatomic (molecular) Hydrogen, since measures cannot be taken to keep it in its monoatomic state.

So, what you are suggesting be created is an Ammonia generator, where you mix Nitrogen into the electrolysis cell to "capture" the monoatomic Hydrogen before it bonds with another Hydrogen atom to create di-atmoic Hydrogen. Then, you inject the Ammonia into the engine. So, I will ask again, is there more energy available in the combustion of Ammonia than it takes to split water into monoatmoic Hydrogen and Oxygen? If there is you may be on to something, but something doesn't quite add up yet for me...

What are the combustion products of Ammonia?



lets say that you would consume about 1-pint of water per 10-gallons of gas. (80:1 ratio)

1-pint is ~1 lb, so then you would need 1417 calories of energy (just under 6000 J of energy) to dissociate the water. now lets say that you burned that 10-gallons of gas over a 4-hour period at 60MPH (24MPG efficiency). therefore, you would need to produce 6000 J in that same 4-hour period via your vehicles electrical system. that's only 25 J per MINUTE, or 0.4167 J/s. that's an equivalent of 0.00056 HP.


All of this is of course assuming that adding electrolysis-created hydrogen and oxygen to the intake charge will have the effect of creating more horsepower than it originally took to make. There is of course, no proof of such an effect. Since Hydrogen doesn't stay monoatmoic long enough to make it from the electrolysis cell to the cylinder for combustion and all...

How much Hydrogen is created and how much energy it took to create it is essentially irrelevant, the question is how do you get more energy out of its use than you originally put in to create it?

EDIT: Why don't Ammonia manufacturing plants use electrolysis to create Hydrogen, and then run a generator burning Ammonia to power the electrolysis process and the plant? Probably because it takes more power to create the ammonia than you could recover through combustion...

[bamachem]

as far as di-atomic vs. atomic, you are correct that more than likely, a majority of the h2 probably re-constitutes into the di-atomic molecules before it reaches the nitrogen in the intake. however, in the presence of iron oxide (engine componenets, valves, pistons, rings, etc), nitrogen and hydrogen diatomic molecules will react to form ammonia. if there are atomic hydrogen protons avaiable, which there will be at least in small amounts, then the reaction will just be quicker. either way, ammonia is formed as well as nitrous oxide and nitric acids. that's a given. i don't have the reaction constants handy, or i would be able to predict the concentrations of each. at any rate, they occur and they are there. when ammonia and nitric acid react, they produce ammonium nitrate. put that in w/ the hydrocarbons and you have a VERY effective combustable. combined with nitrous oxide, and it would be an incredible boost... in theory...


i never said that it was perpetual motion. i never said that you'd get as much energy out of the ammonia as what was put into the system (pumping the nitrogen and also producing the hydrogen). however, pumping the nitrogen is already going to be done whether it's converted or not - and that's what you need to look at. the electrical power is available for essentially no added cost as well. use the electrical power that you have to convert the nitrogen into something that AIDS efficiency instead of inhibiting it.

i think you're still not letting this sink in...

i'm saying that the ammonia, et.al. produced is SUPPLEMENTING the fuel/combustion in the cylinders, therefore if you trick your ECU into delivering less fuel (via the O2 sensor signal), then you can in effect get more MPG from the GAS in the tank. it's NOT free energy, and it's NOT more energy from the gas (higher engine efficiency for the hydrocarbon cycle only), but the additional fuel comes from the hydrogen/oxygen produced by electrolysis from the power available via the alternator at little or no extra expendature as well as the nitrogen that the engine is already expensing power to pump through the cylinders anyway.

what i am saying, even if this is on a small scale (1:100 ratio of water to gasoline), then the power to produce the ammonia and nitrates is already there and has already been "paid" for by burning the hydrocarbons. ammonia has enough kinetic power to run a combustion engine. ammonium nitrate when mixed with hydrocarbons becomes a HIGH EXPLOSIVE. that means that it would only take a MINUTE amount to produce incredible amounts of energy in the form of PRESSURE in a combustion engine. as we know, in an ICE, pressure = work!

instead of WASTED energy via heat or electrical output not used, put that into usable electricity or thermal processes to make fuel from water and nitrogen, both of which are *essentially* free compared to the cost of the hydrocarbons.

[bamachem]

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

The explosive efficiency associated with ANFO is approximately 80% of TNT, also stated as (0.8) TNT equivalency. The most efficient mixed AN explosives using fuels other than fuel oil can exceed (1.6) TNT equivalency.

The basic chemistry of ANFO detonation is the reaction of ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) with a long chain hydrocarbon (CnH2n+2) to form nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water. In an ideal stoichiometrically balanced reaction, ANFO is composed of approximately 94.3% AN and 5.7% FO by weight. The normal ratio recommended is 2 quarts of fuel oil per 50 pounds of ammonium nitrate.[2] In practice, a slight excess of fuel oil is added, as underdosing results in reduced performance while overdosing merely results in more post-blast fumes.

[mastacox]

i never said that it was perpetual motion. i never said that you'd get as much energy out of the ammonia as what was put into the system (pumping the nitrogen and also producing the hydrogen).


But that's exaxtly where it all falls down... If it takes more energy to create the hydrogen necessary for the reaction than you can recover burning the products, then you will have a net LOSS in efficiency.

If the entire system is contained on-board, and is powered by the engine in the vehicle, you would have to gain more energy from the combustion of the products than you did in creating the reactants for it to result in a net gain...

It's a chicken or the egg problem- you could in theory use less fuel if you had more Ammonia and other assorted combustibles in the combustion process, but you have to use more fuel to create those additives in the first place since they are being created with the help of the electrolysis. So in theory you could use 5% less fuel to make the same power due to the addition of other combustibles in the chamber, but you have to use 10% more fuel to get those combustibles in the chamber in the first place since you are creating them on-board... Now we're back to the same problem that Hydrogen has, and the difference between using a tank of Hydrogen gas or making the hydrogen on-board.



i think you're still not letting this sink in...


I would love for something like this to work, I reeally would (I've never heard this Ammonia theory before, its kind of an interesting idea) but the fact remains that if you create the fuel on-board with some kind of process that uses an energy supply from the vehicle, you can't have a net gain in efficiency unless you gain more energy from burning the fuel than you used making it in the first place...



i'm saying that the ammonia, et.al. produced is SUPPLEMENTING the fuel/combustion in the cylinders, therefore if you trick your ECU into delivering less fuel (via the O2 sensor signal), then you can in effect get more MPG from the GAS in the tank.

This is only true if you had an extra tank of fuel (like for example, a Nitrous Oxide bottle). Otherwise, you have two competing metrics- you would in theory use less gas to make the same power if you added some other combustible product, but at the same time if you're making that combustible product on-board you have to use more gas (a.k.a. energy) to create that new combustible product.



it's NOT free energy, and it's NOT more energy from the gas ... but the additional fuel comes from the hydrogen/oxygen produced by electrolysis from the power available via the alternator at little or no extra expendature.

But the point is that energy created by the alternator comes from physical work. More electrical energy created = more drag on the engine crank from the alternator = more fuel burned. It's an energy balance- (work in) * (efficiency) = (work out). There is no point in an alternator's operation that it can create more electrical power with the same amount of mechanical power. That would essentially constitute either an increase in efficiency, or a violation of the alternator's energy balance.

So if you're creating an insignificant amount of drag, then you are also creating an insignificant amount of Hydrogen and Oxygen, and your engine will take an insignificant drop in efficiency; but the efficiency still goes down no matter how insignificant.

To increase the efficiency of the engine, you need to pull power from energy that would otherwise be thrown out For an ICE this means thrown out heat, such as the exhaust or radiator, which accounts for about 70% of the energy lost in the engine. If you could run your contraption off of the heat of the exhaust (maybe some magic box that takes exhaust gas in at 800 degrees and releases it at 200 degrees plus some electricity) THEN you could in theory see an increase in efficiency. The alternator, however, is not a source of energy that would otherwise be thrown away.

[bamachem]

ever done a patent search on electrolysis and combustion at : http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html

why would all these people patent these things if they did not have any commercial value?

[mastacox]

ever done a patent search on electrolysis and combustion at : http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html

why would all these people patent these things if they did not have any commercial value?


Patents definitely aren't a good measure of technical value or feasability. People patent stupid things all the time! It isn't the patent office's job to judge technical feasability or merit; nor does it require a working prototype or scientifically tested proof of concept.

EDIT- And they ARE of commercial value, but they still don't work. If you flood the internet with enough false information and technical double-speak, you can sell pretty much anything. So even if the product doesn't work, you can still sell it. Take for example, the diet pills industry (I wouldn't be suprised if many pill formulas had patents associated with them).

[slosurfer]

...but, will the plane take off?!!!
















































Oh wait, wrong thread! :D Please continue, I'm learning a ton. :thumbup:

[DHC6twinotter]

:lol: That's exactly what I thought about as I've been reading this thread. lol. This is a pretty informative thread.

So, electrolysis aside, could I just buy some ammonia and store it in its own tank and run it through the intake as a supplement to the fuel? It sounds like ammonia is a type of fertilizer, so could I go down the flower section of Wally World and buy a gallon? Is the fertilizer in liquid form? So, maybe spend a few bucks on a gallon of ammonia to double my fuel efficiency? I dunno...probably a dumb question, but like I said, chemistry was not my strong point. Pretty cool thread nonetheless. :D


Also, how does this whole process compare to a hydrogen fuel cell? Does ammonia play a factor in that?

[MTL_4runner]

...but, will the plane take off?!!!


I'm an ME not a ChE so I'll sit this one out too. :laugh:

Someone should just try it and either bust the myth or make a fortune.

[bamachem]

:lol: That's exactly what I thought about as I've been reading this thread. lol. This is a pretty informative thread.

So, electrolysis aside, could I just buy some ammonia and store it in its own tank and run it through the intake as a supplement to the fuel? It sounds like ammonia is a type of fertilizer, so could I go down the flower section of Wally World and buy a gallon? Is the fertilizer in liquid form? So, maybe spend a few bucks on a gallon of ammonia to double my fuel efficiency? I dunno...probably a dumb question, but like I said, chemistry was not my strong point. Pretty cool thread nonetheless. :D


Also, how does this whole process compare to a hydrogen fuel cell? Does ammonia play a factor in that?


i wish it were that simple. pure ammonia (anhydrous) boils at -28*F at atmospheric pressure with a vapor pressure of 114 PSIG at 70*F. in other words, you would have to have a high-pressure receiver to contain it in liquid form. ammonia also will corrode copper, brass, bronze, aluminum alloys, mercury, gold, and silver. anhydrous ammonia (without water) will form explosive mistures in air with hydrocarbons, chlorine, ethanol, etc.

it can also be tough to get your hands on some even if you wanted to. it's used in the production of crystal meth, so getting pure, anhydrous ammonia requires some hurdles.

however, forming it from hydrogen and nitrogen in the presence of iron oxide might have some benefits, especially if the hydrogen can be produces via on-demand methods and then just use atmospheric nitrogen.

[bamachem]

i have read a bunch on the subject as well as the use of "hydrogen injection systems" in general.

*some* think that the hydrogen's flame propagation speed is what aids in combustion. supposedly, the flame propagation speed for hydrogen is something like 3400 M/sec compared to that of typical gasoline at 39 cm/sec.

*if* that is indeed the case, then the hydrogen would have am almost instantaneous ignition when the spark plug fired, providing an extra points of energy all around the cylinder to ignite the gas vapors that would burn slower. if, and i say *IF*, that is indeed the case, then the hydrogen *might* be something of interest since it would be like having hundreds of spark plugs per cylinder rather than just one ignition source. with that being the case, a more-complete burn *MIGHT* possibly be achieved. if that were true, then catalytic converters could be simplified and EGR valves might be a thing of the past. eliminate the EGR, and you'll get better performance as well.

again, this is all speculation and it cannot be confirmed without proper testing and hard evidence, which doen't seem to be of concern to the people selling the plans.

however, there is a company in canada that sells them for semi-trucks and they aren't cheap. they also back them with a full warranty as well as a full service department. these trucking companies wouldn't put up with spending $14k on a unit if it didn't work and if it wasn't proven to work BEFORE paying that much.

anyway, the ammonia, ammonium nitrate, etc is all still theory as to if that *may* contribute to the additional power that people are reporting. it's feasible, and according to the reaction coefficients, some should be formed in the process, but how much? i don't know and don't have time to look into it to be honest. same goes for NOS that's formed.

it's interesting stuff, none the less...

[mastacox]

So, electrolysis aside, could I just buy some ammonia and store it in its own tank and run it through the intake as a supplement to the fuel? ... So, maybe spend a few bucks on a gallon of ammonia to double my fuel efficiency?

If you're out buying a tank of some "supplemental fuel," ammonia is a poor choice IMO. There are many "better" fuels with higher energy densities and at the same time would be easier to get and safer and easier to store.

... but, no matter what fuel you're running off of, you won't double your fuel mileage (a.k.a. efficiency). Instead what will happen is you will burn less gas, but more of the other fuel. It's possible you could save some money depending on what kind of fuel it is and how much it costs, but I doubt it. You can take the net stored energy in the fuel divided by how much it costs, and find that gasoline is still the most-energy-per-dollar, other than maybe biodiesel if you make it yourself at home.



Also, how does this whole process compare to a hydrogen fuel cell? Does ammonia play a factor in that?


Hydrogen fuel cells are "reverse electrolysis." So they take in gaseous Hydrogen and Oxygen, and output electricity and water. They are a pretty cool technology, that are in some ways better than battery-driven electric cars; mainly because it's faster to fill up a Hydrogen tank than to charge a battery.

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

[mastacox]

The really fundamental problem with these little electrolytic mason jar systems people are trying to make is that they're just too small. I'm talking WAY too small. 30 amps is nothing compared to the overall power of even a small engine. The little jars just can't put out enough Hydrogen to make a difference that can be discerned over all of the other factors affecting an engine every day (like air density, temperature, tires, wind, gas inconsistencies, etc). So even if you do install the system, the difference will be so small its effect can't be measured accurately.

I would think that you would need something that put out a pretty significant amount of Hydrogen, like 10Hp worth (621 amps on a 12V system), maybe even more. Obviously a system of that size couldn't be powered by any conventional alternator, but when it was turned on it would hopefully be more obvious if it was having any positive or negative effects on the system. You basically need the hydrogen's effects (positive or negative) to be larger than the statistical noise present in measuring any engine's efficiency.

[DHC6twinotter]

Thanks guys. This thread really makes me wish I paid more attention in Chemistry.

[oly884]

Ok, to me, it's all interesting and maybe possible. However, the style of advertising, and the lack of real information/testing/etc has me feeling that it's more-or-less a line of BS to some degree. This isn't to say that people are not getting better mileage.

What WOULD be a good thing for us to look at is home generation and compression of hydrogen for use in external tanks on vehicles. If one could design a safe system to produce and compress hydrogen at home, then store it in containers in your vehicle which would feed into your intake, you would see some benefit. As Brain talked about, the great numbers that individuals are seeing are most likely due to this.

Also, because you can produce the hydrogen at a slower rate, you can obtain a better overall efficiency. The trick is the cost. Compressing hydrogen is nothing that I want to start to dabble in without the proper equipment!

[mastacox]

What WOULD be a good thing for us to look at is home generation and compression of hydrogen for use in external tanks on vehicles. If one could design a safe system to produce and compress hydrogen at home, then store it in containers in your vehicle which would feed into your intake, you would see some benefit.


This is possible, but I'll bet you don't really save any money in the long run. Sure, your vehicle may appear to get better mileage, but you have to pay for the electricity to run an electrolysis plant, and the compression of the Hydrogen. Of course that's just based on my guesses, but pressurizing a gas to thousands of psi takes a lot of energy, and electrolysis takes fair amount too, so I have trouble finding a way that you would get a good return on your investment.

[mastacox]

Here is an interesting post of mine from the thread on TOF about the economics of creating Hydrogen at home for use in your car (assuming the vehicle is 100% Hydrogen run).


I really don't know if this is accurate. This is exactly what United nuclear is doing. They just started their production again because they finally found a way around some law....

...I think everyone here is overestimating the amount of energy required to produce H2 through electrolysis. They use a 400w 48v dc current. That is only 8.3 amps at 48v....


My reply:


The point is not how much power it takes to create hydrogen (you can do electrolysis with a single 1.5V AA battery if you're so inclined). It's the total energy stored that matters...

So say for their case a 400W system is storing hydrogen in tanks at 90% efficiency. We won't even look at the power required to pump the hydrogen to pressures needed to liquefy it, but just the stored energy going from water to H2 and O2 gas.

One gallon of gasoline holds about 119,000 kJ of energy, so for 360W of input power (400W x 90% eff.) it would take 91.5 hours to store that much energy. 91.5 hours, for one gallon of gas.

Say you were making H2 at home, and wanted to store as much energy as 3 gallons of gasoline overnight (6 hours) to get to work and back the next day. Not including pumping to storage pressures, you'll need a total of 356,000 kJ (about 100 kW-hr, don't know the rates at the electric company but anyway). So figure 90% efficiency, you'll end up paying for about 397,000 kJ of energy. To get that much energy in 6 hours, you'll need a total power input of about 18 kW (18,000 W). 18kW of draw, for 6 hours, to store the equivalent energy of 3 gallons of gasoline.

As it turns out, paying for the electricity to make hydrogen is about the same price per energy returned as paying for gasoline in the first place...

[oly884]

Well, I was just getting done with me stating that if you did the math you would be able to find out (I'm too lazy/busy right now to do math).

And I see you already did! Doesn't surprise me one bit with the results. The energy density and cost of production for fossil fuels is what kills most other ideas out there.

[bamachem]

I realize that the "53 MPG" claim in this article isn't a very good measurement due to a very small sample of driving and the uncertainty of how much fuel is really put into the tank at the start and finish, but for that truck, they should have burned ~2.5 gallons, so the difference appears to be significant.

i'm seriously thinking about giving some of this a try.

the difference with this system is that he has an auxillary tank for the water, then he takes the hydrogen gas, compresses it, and injects it via the EFI on the engine. that way, the fuel is measured and no tricking of the emissions is required.


http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/business-2/1210618168320070.xml&storylist=alabamanews&thispage=1

Hartselle man says his hydrogen fuel system lowers gas costs
5/12/2008, 1:40 p.m. CDT
By DEANGELO MCDANIEL
The Associated Press

(AP) HARTSELLE, Ala. (AAP If you are tired of paying $3.50 to $4 per gallon for gasoline, Larry Thrasher wants you to visit him.

He won't be able to lower the cost of gas. But, he said, his generated hydrogen system will increase your miles per gallon and decrease the number of trips you make to the gas station.

After more than a year of research and testing, Thrasher said he has perfected a system that will allow your vehicle to run on hydrogen and gasoline.

Long range, his plan is to run a vehicle on hydrogen only.

Hydrogen is a highly flammable and colorless gas that is the most abundant element in the universe.

Because of the number of electronics in vehicles, he said, his hydrogen system still depends on some gasoline.

Since installing the hydrogen fuel system on his eight-cylinder Cadillac, Thrasher said his fuel efficiency has increased from 19 miles per gallon to 53. His wife's 1996 Toyota gets about 71 miles per gallon.

"I was just tired of these big oil companies raking in record profits while the little man and people on fixed income were suffering," Thrasher said.

A former teacher at several technical schools with more than 30 years of automotive experience, Thrasher started researching his system about 16 months ago.

Convinced that he could design it and make it work, he told friends in August that his vehicle would one day run on water.

"They laughed, but it didn't hurt my feelings," he said.

Larry Whitt, who doubted Thrasher, has changed his mind.

He is so convinced of the product Whitt has become Thrasher's partner and installed one of the systems in his Chevrolet truck.

The turning point for Whitt came when Thrasher asked him to take a trip to Good Hope.

The men went to a station in Hartselle and filled Thrasher's vehicle until it would hold no more gas.

They returned to the same station after the 53-mile trip, and Thrasher's vehicle had used only one gallon of gas.

"We went from Hartselle to Good Hope and back on one gallon of gasoline," Whitt said. "I know it works, and this brought me into it."

Thrasher's system is relatively simple. For his vehicle, Thrasher installed a 14-gallon-water supply in his trunk and a pump to get the water to a generator under the hood. The tank could be smaller and the water could come from the windshield fluid container.

Thrasher is applying for a patent for the generator components and did not want to release the details.

He did say the generator has 12 electrodes that help produce the hydrogen. The hydrogen is pumped through a valve that is connected to the vehicle's fuel injection system.

There is a switch on the valve under the hood that allows the vehicle owner to switch from hydrogen to total gasoline.

A gauge inside the vehicle monitors the temperature, amperage and hydrogen pressure.

Since hydrogen is hotter, the vehicle will automatically switch back to gasoline if the engine becomes too hot, Thrasher said.

Because of the explosive properties of hydrogen, Thrasher said his system does not store the gas.

"It's only produced when the engine is cranked," he said. "My No. 1 concern in designing this has always been safety."

So far, Thrasher has installed the system on five vehicles. He has several vehicles waiting to get the system outside his shop on Blowing Springs Road in Hartselle.

A South Carolina company plans to have the $5,500 system installed on its trucks, he said.

Thrasher said the knowledge to construct the system has been available for years. He successfully cranked his vehicle with hydrogen on April 18 at 2:30 p.m.

"I ran around my shop and yelled for joy," he said.

To be able to make every component of the system in his shop, Thrasher purchased a milling machine.

"This allows me to control the cost," he said.

[mastacox]

Sorry, but there have been many news stories over the years about guys making their own water-powered cars, and none have come to anything. While I'm sure he's a very nice guy, $5,500 is a huge amount of money that people will be paying for this unproven system (we're going off his word, right?). I'm more interested in hearing from a large sample of his customers rather than him. And while we're at it, lets see performance data from those customers too...

This guy is making the EXACT system I'm saying can't work based on the laws of themordynamics. He takes water, splits it into Hydrogen and Oxygen using on-borad energy from the engine, pumps it into the engine, and burns it. This must lead to a decrese in efficiency and/or power output unless there is something special happening (of which there is yet to be any scientific evidence of).

The most likely possiblities that are happening here are:

a) He's outright lying about his mileage increase for media attention.

Possible. His test was not done in a controlled environment or with any kind of scientific study. I hate to go there first, but people lie all the time. Why can't he repeat his experiment for the media to witness? (e.g. he drives the same route again with media vans following to confirm the amount of fuel he uses.)

b) His truck is running terribly lean due to massive amounts of hydrogen being pumped into the engine

Doubtful, because the engine would have to burn a bunch of gas to make the hydrogen in the first place. I've already shown it would take a GIANT alternator/generator to create the electrical energy required to split significant amounts of water. If this invention of his runs off the alternator, I doubt it creates much Hydrogen at all.


This guy is insinuating the same thing that all of the other water-car people are: that burning the hydrogen they make somehow nets more energy than was used to create it from water in the first place. As always, I'm VERY skeptical...

[oly884]

I can see the trend here...


They are leaning out their vehicles and "making it up" with hydrogen. My guess is the hydrogen doesn't do an incredible amount, it's simply that they are running lean combined with the possibly effect of 'thinking you get better mileage' that subconsciously gets you to drive slower, etc, etc.

The more I read and hear, the less I believe that it really is the production of hydrogen from water, and more about a lower amount of fuel entering the engine. Until I see someone who knows what they are talking about with evidence, then I'm not going to buy into it.

[mastacox]

They are leaning out their vehicles and "making it up" with hydrogen. My guess is the hydrogen doesn't do an incredible amount, it's simply that they are running lean combined with the possibly effect of 'thinking you get better mileage' that subconsciously gets you to drive slower, etc, etc.

The more I read and hear, the less I believe that it really is the production of hydrogen from water, and more about a lower amount of fuel entering the engine. Until I see someone who knows what they are talking about with evidence, then I'm not going to buy into it.


When you are adding Hydrogen from an external source (such as a pressurized tank of hydrogen) this is exactly the case- they are burning less gas and more Hydrogen but only taking into account the gas being burned; they say the Hydrogen is increasing the efficiency of the engine, but in reality they're just ignoring a significant portion of chemical energy going into the engine. Then through some hand waving, they insinuate this is the case for any amount of Hydrogen added to engine, despite how it is produced or how much is added.

BUT, when you make Hydrogen on-board, the effect is completely different. You're using power from the engine to create Hydrogen, and then burning it. But, since you used power from your engine to create the Hydrogen in the first place, all that happens is you see a drop in efficiency. Mind you, the drop in efficiency is usually small since the systems only draw 30-60 amps of current (.5-1.0 hp) and therefore end up having a small and difficult to measure effect. When you cut through all the crackpot claims and wild theories, the end result is that there is no increase in engine efficiency, and no increase in mileage; just a lightening of the wallet.

[mastacox]

It's pretty obvious why good ol' Larry wants his system to look like it works and have media attention though. At $5,500 a pop, he's getting some pretty good money for something that hasn't been tested or proven independently.

Once interest dries up he won't be able to make any more easy money, so he needs to install as many of these systems as he can before people realize they don't do jack...

[oly884]

They are leaning out their vehicles and "making it up" with hydrogen. My guess is the hydrogen doesn't do an incredible amount, it's simply that they are running lean combined with the possibly effect of 'thinking you get better mileage' that subconsciously gets you to drive slower, etc, etc.

The more I read and hear, the less I believe that it really is the production of hydrogen from water, and more about a lower amount of fuel entering the engine. Until I see someone who knows what they are talking about with evidence, then I'm not going to buy into it.


When you are adding Hydrogen from an external source (such as a pressurized tank of hydrogen) this is exactly the case- they are burning less gas and more Hydrogen but only taking into account the gas being burned; they say the Hydrogen is increasing the efficiency of the engine, but in reality they're just ignoring a significant portion of chemical energy going into the engine. Then through some hand waving, they insinuate this is the case for any amount of Hydrogen added to engine, despite how it is produced or how much is added.

BUT, when you make Hydrogen on-board, the effect is completely different. You're using power from the engine to create Hydrogen, and then burning it. But, since you used power from your engine to create the Hydrogen in the first place, all that happens is you see a drop in efficiency. Mind you, the drop in efficiency is usually small since the systems only draw 30-60 amps of current (.5-1.0 hp) and therefore end up having a small and difficult to measure effect. When you cut through all the crackpot claims and wild theories, the end result is that there is no increase in engine efficiency, and no increase in mileage; just a lightening of the wallet.


Right, I understand completely what goes on with the additional hydrogen.

However....

Most of these kits, when you read what people say (with the on-board kits that is), say that they didn't see 'real' improvement until they tweaked with their O2 sensor to lean out the vehicle.

To sum up what I'm saying, you'll most likely see the exact same improvements in MPG if you simply leaned your vehicle out and possibly added water injection of some kind. ALL these kits do is burn less gasoline. I'm not saying that the hydrogen is displacing any gas, just that their little 'trick' to the ecu is causing a lean condition in the engine and as a result better mileage. Plus, running lean increases the temperature of the engine as well, thus improving efficiency even more.

The kit is there as a marketing tool. I'd imagine it's much easier to market an 'addon' to a vehicle, and have something to show for it, than it is to say you're leaning out the engine (which would also draw auto mechanics out saying it's not exactly the best thing for your engine)

Just my opinion on these products.

[oly884]

Ok, I found this link that offers a suitable explanation for me to give this a shot:

http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/hydrogeninjection.html

[oly884]

A little excerpt from the link:

"...a Hydrogen Generating System (HGS) for trucks or cars has been on the market for some time. Mounted on a vehicle, it feeds small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen into the engine痴 air intake. Its makers claim savings in fuel, reduced noxious and greenhouse gases and increased power. The auto industry is not devoid of hoaxes and as engineers are sceptics by training, it is no surprise that a few of them say the idea won稚 work. Such opinions, from engineers can稚 be dismissed without explaining why I think these Hydrogen Generating Systems do work and are not just another hoax. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a likely source of those doubts. Meaning ...the law -would lead you to believe that it will certainly take more power to produce this hydrogen than can be regained by burning it in the engine. i.e. the resulting energy balance should be negative. If the aim is to create hydrogen by electrolysis to be burned as a fuel, the concept is ridiculous. On the other hand, if hydrogen, shortens the burn time of the main fuel-air mix, putting more pressure on the piston through a longer effective power stroke, and in doing so takes more work out, then this system does make sense."

[oly884]

I'm sure most of you notice how my opinion has changed slightly in the last 3 posts, haha.

It's nice to FINALLY see someone making sense instead of this regurgitated crap that people spew out. What was said in the article does make sense to me, and while it still may not work, at least it appears that it has a chance.

[mastacox]

Unfortunately, that website isn't really any different than any other websites on the internet trying to sell their hydrogen machines... The site, like many others, does a good job of coming up with a semi-half-convincing argument, and the rest is meant to be taken on faith and testimonials. The "scientific explanation" page you linked is really more of a personal essay than a scientific paper. It's inconsistent, uses scientific terms out of context or in ways that don't make sense, and doesn't provide any new or original data that hasn't been seen before. What the entire site does provide is a lot of anecdotal evidence without scientific review.

The studies addressed in the "essay" are between 10 and 30 years old... Why nothing newer? Additionally, why have no findings been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? All of the "testimonials" they have on the website are blatantly ill-conceived anecdotal evidence, with no real data taken. i'm willing to give that gas+hydrogen = less emissions, I might even admit that a car running very lean will get better mileage (but at what cost to the engine?). But there is a lot in there that just plain jumps too many steps.

Here is a telling quote from the site-


Though the installation of a hydrogen gas generator will increase the mileage of most vehicles by a considerable amount, usually 5-10% or more, the system that accounts for 50% to 100% increases in mileage includes other components and the implementation of the numerous maintenance and driving recommendations outlined in the operator's manual.

First of all, I am skeptical that the system increases efficiency by even 5%, and second of all look at what they say- you need to use their driving techniques outlined in their book to get the "full effect." Many of their testimonials admit their mileage increases include things like drafting and driving slower (which will of course yield better mileage, even without the $1000 Hydrogen system).

They also are wildly inconsistent with their percent gain claims. In the space of a couple paragraphs on their very front page:


[Title picture] Get 25% to 50% better gas mileage with a Hydrogen Boost kit!


With the complete Hydrogen Boost system we have achieved typical increase in mileage of 15-25% on the vehicles we have tested, without the use of driving tips, and well over 50% with the implementation of the driving tips in our manual.


Dynamometer Tests have shown 18-31% mileage increases with equipment alone. Road Tests have shown 50-100% increases in mileage with the additional implementation of driving tips in the operator’s manual.



Though the installation of a hydrogen gas generator will increase the mileage of most vehicles by a considerable amount, usually 5-10% or more...

So, we're looking at an increase anywhere from 5% to over 100%... Fall anywhere in that range during any time period and they claim success (and you get to write a lovely 1-paragraph testimonial), fall below 5% and you must have done something wrong... no testimonial for you! Don't bother with their "testimonial video" by the way, it's just some British guy from the 70's or 80's by the look of it talking about why he went with a GM car with the special edition LeMans Northstar engine, and oh by the way he thinks he may be getting better mileage with the hydrogen system he put in...

But, worst of all:


Hydrogen, in combinations with other electrolyzed gases (actually Brown’s gas), introduced into the intake manifold of your engine...

This is on the title page, in the first paragraph describing how their system works... Any site claiming that their machine makes Brown's Gas is a hoax, because Brown's Gas itself is a hoax as no such thing has been documented to actually exist.

[oly884]

Brian, great points.

The simple notion that was made about hydrogen assisting to decrease the combustion time makes some sense, though, making THAT much of an impact on fuel mileage is left to be proven.

This article at least made a better attempt at explaining what is going on with these devices. At least they said it wasn't made to create so much H2 that it would be used as an energy source.

I should have read their home site before I posted the link, apparently, they are using the same BS terms that all the others use. It was just nice to see another explanation aside from the near 'viral' like advertising.

[bamachem]

i have read a bunch on the subject as well as the use of "hydrogen injection systems" in general.

*some* think that the hydrogen's flame propagation speed is what aids in combustion. supposedly, the flame propagation speed for hydrogen is something like 3400 M/sec compared to that of typical gasoline at 39 cm/sec.

*if* that is indeed the case, then the hydrogen would have am almost instantaneous ignition when the spark plug fired, providing an extra points of energy all around the cylinder to ignite the gas vapors that would burn slower. if, and i say *IF*, that is indeed the case, then the hydrogen *might* be something of interest since it would be like having hundreds of spark plugs per cylinder rather than just one ignition source. with that being the case, a more-complete burn *MIGHT* possibly be achieved. if that were true, then catalytic converters could be simplified and EGR valves might be a thing of the past. eliminate the EGR, and you'll get better performance as well.


i'm with david. IF this is what happens, then there is a possibility for a more powerful combustion stroke, therefore needing less fuel for the same power output.

unfortunately, all the snake oil salesmen are selling these with very little to back up their claims other than "they work, joe is getting 47MPG from his H2, and for $3000, you can too!" type of comments.

[oly884]

i have read a bunch on the subject as well as the use of "hydrogen injection systems" in general.

*some* think that the hydrogen's flame propagation speed is what aids in combustion. supposedly, the flame propagation speed for hydrogen is something like 3400 M/sec compared to that of typical gasoline at 39 cm/sec.

*if* that is indeed the case, then the hydrogen would have am almost instantaneous ignition when the spark plug fired, providing an extra points of energy all around the cylinder to ignite the gas vapors that would burn slower. if, and i say *IF*, that is indeed the case, then the hydrogen *might* be something of interest since it would be like having hundreds of spark plugs per cylinder rather than just one ignition source. with that being the case, a more-complete burn *MIGHT* possibly be achieved. if that were true, then catalytic converters could be simplified and EGR valves might be a thing of the past. eliminate the EGR, and you'll get better performance as well.


i'm with david. IF this is what happens, then there is a possibility for a more powerful combustion stroke, therefore needing less fuel for the same power output.

unfortunately, all the snake oil salesmen are selling these with very little to back up their claims other than "they work, joe is getting 47MPG from his H2, and for $3000, you can too!" type of comments.


Righto Andy!

I'm far from saying this will work, but IF it does, this seems to be the most likely cause.

The question does come up though... does flame propagation REALLY matter? In my 3.4 V-6 we're talking about ~567ml's of volume burning very, very fast. That's one combustion every 0.085 seconds (some one correct me if I'm wrong with that) @ 700 RPM's.

Now, one can make the argument that the combustion is more complete. However, I cannot fathom that the combustions taking place in engines are SOOOO bad that simply increasing the speed of the combustion would net an increase in mileage as claimed.

I'm still standing by my 'lean-out' theory though. Hell, if I had more time and a beater car, I'd put water injection and lean the crap out of the engine to see what it'd do.

[mastacox]

I'm far from saying this will work, but IF it does, this seems to be the most likely cause.


I'd say this is about where I'm at. It seems possible that Hydrogen in a cylinder could help combustion in the cylinder if it does indeed spontaneously combust helping to ignite the fuel molecules; however I don't really think a little electrolysis jar will put out enough Hydrogen to do that. Making Hydrogen on-board uses a lot of power, probably more power than will be returned in better more efficient power strokes.

I have also read that Hydrogen makes regular gas engines ping terribly... so IMO the most likely case for using a gas-hydrogen will be specially designed engines.

The path of better combustion in a gasoline engine really needs to be better fuel atomization. The finer a mist of fuel that is injected into the engine, the better/faster the combustion of the fuel mixture. I suspect that hydrogen injection systems could be nullified if the gasoline was perfectly atomized in the first place.

I have noticed that the largest gains for injecting Hydrogen into engines (from a tank, not an on-board electrolyzer) seems to be on carbuerated engines, where the fuel atomization is of course the worst. I suspect modern engines with direct-injection systems and carefully designed heads and spark plugs would have little to no gain. Take for example the direct-injection system Porsche is coming out with in the nex-gen 911 for 2009- it will 4-5% more fuel efficient AND 10% more powerful at the same time. Paired with the fact that higher compression ratios and more forced induction can be used in direct-injection engines (which also yield higher efficiencies), you have a winning combination for real gains in fuel combustion.

[bamachem]

http://vadaenergy.com/index.html

kits with "fuel controller" for under $200.... hmmmm. might be worth a try...

[oly884]

Found this funny:

"Why do I need a fuel controller?
-when adding hydrogen and extra oxygen, you o2 sensor thinks itç—´ running lean, fuel controller tricks the computer to thinking its running normal, which will results in extra MPG"

So, then, what does the hydrogen DO? Not really asking, just pointing out the obvious. They didn't explain how the hydrogen helps at all. They simply state, you 'trick' your computer to run lean and you get better mileage. Well, you don't have to put hydrogen in your engine to get better mileage when your truck is running lean.

[bamachem]

lol... didn't see that!

here's a valid question (at least i think it's valid)...

why not put the H2/O2 gas mixture into the intake BEFORE the AFM so that the oxygen content is accounted for in the stochiometric mixture calculations?

wouldn't that essentially solve the lean-out issue?

[mastacox]

Something's not quite making sense for me...


Without using an EFIE, as hydrogen flows, the oxygen sensor reports a change in the exhaust gas mixture to the computer. In result, the computer reads a high level of oxygen and sends extra fuel.

If you're putting water through an electrolysis process to split it into Hydrogen and Oxygen, and then putting it into the engine to be burned, all you'll see after combustion is more water in the exhaust (assuming all of the hydrogen is burned). The oxygen sensor shouldn't see any difference at all?

So if that's the case, really all you're doing is leaning the fuel mixture, right? Or are they just injecting the Hydrogen, and venting the Oxygen; which seems like a silly idea...

[mastacox]

here's a valid question (at least i think it's valid)...

why not put the H2/O2 gas mixture into the intake BEFORE the AFM so that the oxygen content is accounted for in the stochiometric mixture calculations?


The AFM is used to measure airflow in volume/time. It's used to estimate how much fuel to put in based on air, not an air/hydrogen mix. Theoretically, if you're injecting Hydrogen and Oxygen from an electrolysis can, you shouldn't need to adjust anything, it has all of the hydrogen and oxygen it needs for a complete combustion...

I found it interesting that they quote their gas flow too- a maximum of 1.5 l/min. A 3.4l engine pulling 2000rpm should be sucking up about 3400 l/min, right?

[mastacox]

I also noticed that VadaEnergy assumes the oxygen sensor has an output of 0-1V:


The oxygen sensor tells the computer oxygen readings by providing a voltage between 0 and 1 volt.

But, only narrow-band oxygen sensors have an output of 0-1 V. Wideband oxygen sensors have an output of 0-5V, and defeating them is no easy task as seen with people who supercharge and want to control AFR in closed loop...

Basically, any gains seen will be due to leaning the mixture, but possibly at great cost to the engine's lifespan...

[oly884]

I also noticed that VadaEnergy assumes the oxygen sensor has an output of 0-1V:


The oxygen sensor tells the computer oxygen readings by providing a voltage between 0 and 1 volt.

But, only narrow-band oxygen sensors have an output of 0-1 V. Wideband oxygen sensors have an output of 0-5V, and defeating them is no easy task as seen with people who supercharge and want to control AFR in closed loop...

Basically, any gains seen will be due to leaning the mixture, but possibly at great cost to the engine's lifespan...


Right, this is my hypothesis as to how the gains are made for nearly all of these systems. As you know, water injection helps to alleviate the heat problems from a lean condition in the engine. Which makes me wonder 2 things, number one being that if this is the method that these people use to gain mileage under the false pretense of 'creating' energy from water via hydrogen.

also

If one could create a water injection system and simultaneously lean the engine out to a safe degree to obtain better mileage. Obviously, the mechanics of this are understood, and due to that, can be controlled much more precisely.

Thoughts?

[mastacox]

Right, this is my hypothesis as to how the gains are made for nearly all of these systems. As you know, water injection helps to alleviate the heat problems from a lean condition in the engine. Which makes me wonder 2 things, number one being that if this is the method that these people use to gain mileage under the false pretense of 'creating' energy from water via hydrogen.

also

If one could create a water injection system and simultaneously lean the engine out to a safe degree to obtain better mileage. Obviously, the mechanics of this are understood, and due to that, can be controlled much more precisely.

Thoughts?


Makes sense... If you want to get 25% better mileage by using 25% less fuel, you would have to run the engine at an AFR of about 18:1 assuming the same amount of throttle was used as would otherwise be done with a standard AFR. Of course, a similar effect can be had by just using less gas pedal in the first place...

Problem is, if you're running 25% less gas (and assuming you're running a water injection system to keep your EGT down), you'll make 25% less horsepower. Odds are people would tend to use more gas pedal to make up for this fact since the engine would probably feel sluggish as well as rough-idling. Because they are using more throttle, they would either use about the same amount of gas as before the modification (except now the engine runs like crap and uses distilled water too), or they might even use more than 80% throttle while accelerating, pushing the engine into open-loop where the ECU ignores oxygen sensor feedback and dumps in about 12.0:1 AFR.

Basically, everyone wants a magic bullet where they can drive the same way they always have, but get 100% better mileage (I would love to bolt a magic gadget to to my engine and get the same horsepower plus 50 mpg). This is of course impossible if you have the same weight, same aerodynamics, same engine efficiency, and same driving style.

[mastacox]

I think the best chances of significantly improving engine efficiency in the near future are:

1) Extracting energy from the exhaust. The exhaust is HOT, and that's energy down the tubes. If you can somehow convert a significant portion of that energy back to mechanical work, you could increase the engine's efficiency by 30-40%! Something like BMW's turbosteamer concept.

2) High-temperature resistant materials. If the engine could run at a higher tempertuare, you would lose less energy through the radiator keeping the engine within operating temperature. In theory, if a fully-ceramic engine could have an operating that is the same as the stoichiometric flame temperature of gasoline (or any of the alchohols) you would have a huge increase in efficiency. Even if the engine's operating temperature only increased to something like 500 degrees, that would be quite an improvement over 180-200 degrees.

[oly884]

Right, this is my hypothesis as to how the gains are made for nearly all of these systems. As you know, water injection helps to alleviate the heat problems from a lean condition in the engine. Which makes me wonder 2 things, number one being that if this is the method that these people use to gain mileage under the false pretense of 'creating' energy from water via hydrogen.

also

If one could create a water injection system and simultaneously lean the engine out to a safe degree to obtain better mileage. Obviously, the mechanics of this are understood, and due to that, can be controlled much more precisely.

Thoughts?


Makes sense... If you want to get 25% better mileage by using 25% less fuel, you would have to run the engine at an AFR of about 18:1 assuming the same amount of throttle was used as would otherwise be done with a standard AFR. Of course, a similar effect can be had by just using less gas pedal in the first place...

Problem is, if you're running 25% less gas (and assuming you're running a water injection system to keep your EGT down), you'll make 25% less horsepower. Odds are people would tend to use more gas pedal to make up for this fact since the engine would probably feel sluggish as well as rough-idling. Because they are using more throttle, they would either use about the same amount of gas as before the modification (except now the engine runs like crap and uses distilled water too), or they might even use more than 80% throttle while accelerating, pushing the engine into open-loop where the ECU ignores oxygen sensor feedback and dumps in about 12.0:1 AFR.

Basically, everyone wants a magic bullet where they can drive the same way they always have, but get 100% better mileage (I would love to bolt a magic gadget to to my engine and get the same horsepower plus 50 mpg). This is of course impossible if you have the same weight, same aerodynamics, same engine efficiency, and same driving style.


You are correct, there is no magic bullet, and never will be. As for the water injection/larger AFR, good point, the increase in mileage would be negligible due to the performance loss (if you make up for it by mashing on the gas more). Just a thought.

As for getting the engine hotter, that's the ticket. You can put in a hotter thermostat to help, ever so slightly. However, the risk of running hot and causing problems in the engine seem to take precedent.

Ceramic engine, now that's a sweet idea! The only problem with heat is the cost of materials (as you know). I would be fun to design engines to run much, much hotter.

I will say that the largest gain I've noticed in mileage is #1 decreasing drag, and a close #2 decreasing weight.

When I put my camper on my truck, not only do I add weight (approx 700 lbs), I add a VERY large amount of area. As a result my mileage hits between 13-15 in the city, and 18 or so on the highway (60-65 MPH)

With out it, I get 18 in the city and 20ish on the highway.

[bamachem]

running an engine at a hotter temp is the ticket for efficiency. however, with dis-similar alloys and metals (also vs ceramics), that just isn't currently feasable. the expansion coefficients are screwing that idea up. in order to run an engine at 800+F in order to gain some really good efficiencies, then you'd have to have every mechanical part be made of the same alloy or ceramic so that it would expand and contract at the same rate with temp rise and fall. also, you'd have some serious concerns with fuel lines, etc at that high of temp, as well as comfort issues with the AC, etc.

for speciality applications, i can see the benefits, but for everyday use, it would be tough, and that's why it hasn't been done - YET.

[mastacox]

Worse than thermal expansion issues which can be gotten around with some creative engineering, wear characteristics of ceramics (especially at high temperatures) are not up to par with steels.

Still, its a cool little thought experiment.

[gogetit]

ok guys, im brand new to this site, but i got on here for exactly this forum. i need to know where the primary O2 sensor(s) wire(s) come into the ecu(s) in my wifes 2004 v6. i have been running the water4gas setup in my 2001 honda s2000 for about three months now and can honestly say that i went from 27 mpg to 40. it was a very simple system to install (two wires and a hose to the pre and post butterfly valve intake plenth. thats it. i have a couple write ups on www.s2ki.com if any of you want to go there and read them. it just pretty much goes through the process of me doing this. ive got pics showing it installed there too. im not making this up.

there is something that anyone trying this technology needs to know, that is not explained on any of the sites selling the electrolyzers. they all seem to push a map sensor adjuster, which is worthless, dont do it. what you do have to have, however, which i found out the hard way, of course, it something called an efie. this device, which is very tunable, slightly leans out the signal comming from the O2 sensors to the ecu. this is crutial, but no one really explains it on their electrolyzer sites. if you use an hho device, itll pump more O2, as well as H2 through your engine, which is the whole point. but in doing so, the O2 sensors tell the computer to dump more fuel to burn up the extra O2. what this all boils down to is that the system will work great for about a week or so and then your mileage will start to tank. this is exactly what happened to me in my s2000.

there are several versions of the efie out there but the best one ive found is the one made by fuel-saver.org he tells you how to make one for about 15 bucks, if you are so inclined, but im not so i bought one. several actually. there are single and dual O2 sensor setups. this pertains to the number of foreward/primary O2 sensors in the vehicle. the rear/post O2 sensors (after the cat. converters) are of no concern as this goes. also, i got the delux versions because they are in cab mounted and are very easy to just leave a volt meter hooked up to while driving to monitor the electrical offset they produce.

hopefully you guys believe me about all of this. im not trying to sell you anything. i really do need to know where these wires come into the ecu, and or if there is more than one ecu (i saw multiple ecu fuses under the hood). any help you can give me will very much appreciated. my car is way more simple that this 4runner. if anyone wants help/advice doing one of these setups i will be more than willing to tell you everything i know. ive already taken the electrolyzer out of my car and, just to see what happened, hooked it up to the extra vac. nipple on the post butterfly valve side of the intake manifold. there is a strong vacuum here, so keep the adjuster valve on top of the jar lid all the way tight when you start the car and them open it up two or three clicks or you could suck some water straight through the jar and into the intake. i didnt do it because i knew it could happen, but i immagine it could be very bad for someone who didnt know. after about ten seconds of running the hho through the intake, the valve ticking quieted down dramatically, which is exactly what happened to my s2000 too. the jar will eventually get hot and produce steam, which will get pulled into the engine, along with the gasses. dont put more that 1/4 tsp of baking soda or youll warp the plexi tower in the jar. this steam will clean out the carbon deposits off of your valves and other internals, helping overall efficiency.

well, now that ive talked youre eyes off, thanks for reading my post, and please help me find this O2 wire(s) answer. im an architect, not mechanic, and i really need a hand here.

[AxleIke]

Can't help with the ECU thing, but you claim a mileage increase of 27 to 40.

Are you counting ACTUAL MPG? As in, Miles per gallon of gasoline AND hydrogen. Or just gas? It would be good to see some real world numbers on this. If that is just gas, then I'm right, and the claims on this HHO thing are totally bogus, but if that is combined, then I'm wrong.

Just curious to see some real world data on that.

Also, did you get any pinging?

[BruceTS]

One thing that I can't understand is how the heck can they produce enough hydrogen to keep up with the volume needed.

I'm gonna build an huge electro magnet and attach it to the front of my 4Runner, with a drive system off my rear diff that will turn a alt to produce the power. Then simply attach myself to a big rig going down the highway.....

[surf4runner]

1) Extracting energy from the exhaust.
like this???
http://pic.phyrefile.com/2007/11/10/despairperpetualmotionmchndei.png

[dontdo_that]

skeeetch post

[oly884]

After further research, reading, etc. This is bunk.

Here are my 2 reasons:

#1 perpetual motion is impossible (thank the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics)

#2 'increasing the speed of combustion' is not going to result in much, if any, increase in mileage. Especially not what these people claim.

The increase that people are seeing is due to a lean condition created in the engine by 'tricking' the O2 sensor to run lean. It has nothing to do with hydrogen, all the water electrolysis device does is make some bubbles and is used as a marketing tool to make people who do not know the process believe it works.

If you want to get better mileage, just 'trick' your O2 sensor to make the engine run lean and have fun with the repair bills.

Search 'HHO' 'debunking' 'physics' 'engineering' and you'll find some interesting threads/pages from very smart people who will give you the run down as to why this does not work, and will never work. You'll also have some interesting reads from those defending this product without giving any new, or useful, information.

[oly884]

http://aardvarkforums.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1960&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Read that if you still think this will work. I even joined in on the discussion. The later pages get better.