water to HHO in gas engine

[DHC6twinotter]

This thread just went over my head. 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

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

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...

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.