Where Are the Hydrogen Cars?

Extraction of hydrogen is still too energy intensive for commercial production. That being said, there is an abundance of research out there hoping to find less costly procedures.

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/

WindGenMan

The problem is that even if there was a way to produce an economic supply of hydrogen you would have to be able to store and deliver it.

Hydrogen is not friendly to welded metal (most process piping cracking is caused hydrogen embrittlement) and many other materials.

Today - like yesterday - and from the time man started using fire - we have used the best hydrogen supplied fuels, the easiest to store, to transport - good ol hydrocarbons!

Yes the gasoline, the diesel, and much of the power to charge the batteries in an electric car - comes from hydrogen - in a nice compact package. Hydrocarbons.

Using nuclear plants to produce the heat to unbond the hydrogen has been talked about for a long time. However it would make far more since, to use that heat to produce electrical power, since, that has a far efficiency.

The power that we will need as we use up our stores of hydrocarbon fuels will be nuclear, wind, geothermal, wave power, and solar(both heat and electric)

Perhaps there will be some break-through that will give us an alternate power supply, but so far none seem that viable!

Wishful thinking will not solve the energy crises that is coming our way, using proven technologies, while looking for that magic energy supply, is what will save our bacon. Wonder how bacon fat would run in that diesel truck?

In any confined space, pure Hydrogen is highly volatile. I'd like to propose a different approach. If we use all of the coal and gas to produce electricity, the central electric plant would be able to process all of the hydrocarbon emissions so that nothing escapes into the atmosphere.

The electricity produced would be used for everything from powering cars to heating/cooling homes, etc. As for the problem of range, electric transfer can take as little as an hour and should yield the equivalent of 38-45 mpg.

If you don't have an hour to wait, the battery can be designed to allow for easy swap out at the filling station and all that requires is a common coupling.

0.0% Engine noise, 0.0% carbon footprint.

Just a thought,

/Ari (Orpheuse)

By using gas I assume you are referring to natural gas. why not run vehicles on natural gas and avoid the 60% energy loss while generating electricity from natural gas?

Because with some basic modifications, I believe we can raise the efficiency of the power stations.

The real problem, however, is that if we power our cars with Natural Gas, we are still releasing hydro-carbons into the atmosphere. When I said burning gas at the power stations, I meant gasoline, diesel, coal shale, household waste and anything else we can burn. If we pipe the hot gas back into the turbine line, and there is no end of how many times we can do that, the Electric companies would be more efficient and willing to use the system, and the Oil/coal producers here in the 'States would be picked up by the oil companies so they won't loose out, then they might adopt the Clean Air initiative with a smile rather than fighting it tooth and nail.

That still doesn't address the main cause of global warming: Carbon-Dioxide. What we have to do is plant as much green algae into our oceans at a steady rate, and we have to go on a massive campaign of re-forestation.

If Obama/Biden are elected, I hope he is smart enough to know that and set the programs in action.

McCain and Palin are absolutely horrifying. He's too old and odd to be doing this and Palin is a nightmare. She's younger, nastier and greener than Obama.

/Ari (Orpheuse)

Burning gasoline, diesel, coal shale will release for more hydro-carbons than natural gas. Organic waste can be used to create biomethane to run our vehicles. The solid and liquid byproducts can be returned to the soil as fertilizer. Anaerobic digestion is a much better use of our organic wastes. Burning it would increase air pollution.

Thanks for injecting mean-spirited personal prejudice and attacks into this topic - I was worried that we would stay on topic and try to solve technical problems.

What did you fiand objectionable in my post?

/Ari (Orpheuse)

That his political opinion/ perspective didn't match your's that you were out spoken about.

Dealt from a stacked deck the players lose to the house every time.

Brad

Hi mschultz,

They do, and have done for some time now. Here in the UK and the Netherlands they are using busses that are run on natural gas!

Spencer.

Yes, some of our Federal Utility Vehicles run on methane. That is not the problem. The problem is CO2. Unless we re-algicide the oceans and re-frrest, or find a catalist that would do the same thing, only faster, we will still have too much CO2

/Ari (Orpheuse)

what about the iron filings ocean dump for CO2 regulation? A drastic measure might be called for. I'm not the chemist here, but remember a recent proposal. Main question is: "What drastic measures are called for?"

How do Iron Filings regulate CO2? I'm not a chemist either but it seems to me that if all we have to do is mix iron filings with sea water, that would increase the amount of Iron, hopefully dissolved and dispersed in the Oceans. Where does CO2 filtration come in?

As to "drastic measures", I believe they mean sowing the oceans with green algae. The problem being that a large algae bloom would kill the fish and algae is hard to control. Ask anyone with an out door Jacuzzi. One night the water is a clear, inviting color. The next morning it looks like the primordial soup.

We use chlorine (bleach) to kill the algae in the Jacuzzi. If a managed algae bloom 'gets away' from it's handlers, it can cover hundreds of miles of Ocean in hours; and we can't use chlorine as a deterrent on hundreds of miles of ocean now, can we? We would need a predator to kill the algae that got away and from there, it's a spiral up the food chain.

I would say that was pretty drastic.

/Ari (Orpheuse)

The Honda Civic GX burning Compressed Natural Gas is certified to be the cleanest car in the USA. The information below come from the DOE site: Natural Gas Vehicle Emissions Compared with vehicles fueled with conventional diesel and gasoline, natural gas vehicles can produce significantly lower amounts of harmful emissions such as nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and toxic and carcinogenic pollutants as well as the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Light-Duty Vehicle Emissions: CNG vs. Gasoline Testing has been performed to compare the emissions of light-duty CNG vehicles versus light-duty gasoline vehicles. For detailed results, see the AFDC Emissions Testing page. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculated the potential benefits of CNG versus gasoline based on the inherently cleaner-burning characteristics of natural gas, summarized in Clean Alternative Fuels: Compressed Natural Gas (PDF 76 KB). Download Adobe Reader. * Reduce carbon monoxide emissions 90%-97% * Reduce carbon dioxide emissions 25% * Reduce nitrogen oxide emissions 35%-60% * Potentially reduce non-methane hydrocarbon emissions 50%-75% * Emit fewer toxic and carcinogenic pollutants * Emit little or no particulate matter * Eliminate evaporative emissions

Well done, Sir,

You almost have me convinced. However, since I do not believe in Government, was the testing done by an independent lab that had no way of being influenced?

I still believe that electric is the way to go. We might be able to use propane, methane etc. in the ICE portion of a hybrid engine, but I believe the cost would be prohibative.

Just my 2 shekels.

/Ari (Orpheuse)

I have done a lot of research in the area of compressed natural gas. My information tells me CNG is the cleanest, cheapest fuel available. Using CNG in the ICE half of a hybrid would be ideal.

AND; a single catastrophic event might place the nation in the dark for who knows how long, or the long finger of Government might use this ability to control the entire nation through the manipulation regarding who gets electricity today vs tomorrow vs next week or those purporting the insanity of one world order would most certainly use their control over this power to bring this nation 's population into submission. ORPHEUSE " you sound amazingly like Jimmy Carter, a peanut farmer seeking world domination, and a former Vice Present, who should consider farming peanuts!

Toomuchfun

Who said it was a good fuel? It would take over twenty four tankers to deliver the same amount of "mileage" as one tanker truck of Gasoline. It is a possible fuel, but there are huge penalties to the replacement of current investments infuel delivery infrastructure, as well as costs and engineering not yet done on standards to make hydrogen a 'drop in" substitute. Ive filled tanks of LP for fork lift trucks, I can't see my wife or alpha daughter doing that every 200 miles. But the engineering is the easiest problem to solve.

How many years did it take to build a gasoline infrastructure in north america?

There are political, economic, and engineering issues besides the cultural "my car as a hindenberg" to be resolved.

If govt command and control were the answer, the former soviets should have owned this issue.

The economics are pretty daunting, even though the production of Hydrogen is technically easy to demonstrate via a number of routes. But theeconomics must be heeded.considered. overcome. 24 to 1 is the same ratio as the us labor rate compared to that of china or north vietnam. We all have a fair idea how that has been going.

milo

Ok my two bits, What we have is not cutting it.

Environmentally it is full of issues even ignoring the green wash of CO₂.

Cost wise the people in control of it are using a natural resource of millions of years of accumulation to line their pocket, not for bettering the world they got it from.

Hydrogen will not be developed unit the government and banks figure out how to control it. He who has the money makes the rules.

Hydrogen at this time does not like to be contained without much expense. The only viable way is to catalyze it from hydrocarbons. Maybe later we can refuel with solid hydrogen at 72 grams per cm³.

What we need is an easy to make, efficient system that is not quite enough power for the average family so we force efficiency across the board.

realistic? not with the worlds mindset.

Brad

Why is it as a world we are ignoring the bigger issue? Yes fuel is running out, yes we should find new ways of finding fuel, but in reality there are too many people on this planet. The human race have become like parasites on this world and we need to rethink our idea that more people is better! less people = more fuel to go round which is less of a burden on the infrastructure we have created

Or colonise the solar system where the ignorant, stupid and unlucky will quickly meet Darwin.

Brad

Then you are one of the parasites. One of the too numerous people. Begin with yourself and eliminate one. Then we won't have to listen to such a hypocritical twit. Perhaps you just think you are among the elite who deserves to decide such things because you are so much better than anyone else. Hitler thought his Aryans were too, a lot more of them got dead instead.

First of all, there is no free hydrogen! We wither resurrect it totally from its ashes (water( requiring 100%+ energy input from somewhere, or we pull it out of other fuels like Natural Gas (again requiring significant energy input).

The second reason Hydrogen is not going to become a significant energy source is that it is extremely difficult to handle and store in quantities compact enough to be useful. I predict that after years of tinkering with this idea, we will "discover" that the most efficient way to store hydrogen is by using chemical bonds. We will then find that the cheapest and most abundant atoms for bonding this hydrogen are Carbon. We will produce these "Hydrogenated Carbons" in forms that exist conveniently as a liquid at room temperature, yet vaporize readily when needed. Then we will have reinvented GASOLINE!

To Ray8, Et.al.:

Why is it that few if any folks bother to review the many postings/blogs/threads/responses to same. We have thoroughly hashed and rehashed the Hydrogen as a fuel issue. The use of "Hydrogen' as it has been described by the scientific and engineering minds incorporates many problems that include prohibitive production costs, delivery, general safety issues and seemingly impossible to over come storage issues. It has been demonstrated that hydrogen can be utilized as a fuel source, just not very economically.

However: it has been demonstrated that oxy-hydrogen can readily be produced on demand, needs no storage, is produced from a predominately water based electrolyte, can be added to the fuel intake process of both diesel and gasoline fueled engines, improving their performance significantly. There is no free lunch, but if I can get the same berger and fries for half price from one lunch counter vs another right next door. Where do you think I am going to dine.

For get about hydrogen only as a fuel source, you aren't going to the moon. Take a look at the patent and supporting papers produced by DR William A. Rhodes. It is a free education, and will likely convince you to stop considering hydrogen and start considering a combined fuel gas that has a realistic potential.

TOOMUCHFUN

Hello Ken! thank you for the admission of the 4 truthful statements.

Regarding the false charge, I am going to expect you to volunteer to eat your piece of humble pie very soon. I have been working with a group of electrical engineers and mechanics for quite some time now. We Know that we can improve fuel mileage through the addition of a oxy-hydrogen generator. We are simply working out the bugs in a high voltage in put system to enhance the performance of the system. There are 14 members in this group, that includes master mechanics and electrical engineers and others. I just got off of the phone with one of our members that has 8 generators on 8 different over the road simi trucks. I have provided him with information regarding my evaluation of what he has accomplished and some suggestions that he might try to further improve performance. I am pleased to inform you that these trucks are getting a 20% improvement in fuel mileage, and this is with a simple Brute force system. This member has been evaluating these installments for a little more than a year.

I seems that all of you fancy engine performance evaluators stumble over the same issue, and then fall over your selves with your excitement over the point that you have made. "A typical 5 liter V/8 engine will intake 2,5 liters per revolution" OF WHAT !!!!!!

"A few molecules of an explosive fuel and a whole lot of air"

I have no idea who gave you the good rating, but I suspect it might have been Vicini. Whom ever it was, I suggest that you offer to share the "crow" with them!

TOOMUCHFUN

I'm not all that fond of crow, but for you, I'll try to eat it gracefully, if it is well- prepared.

Hi Ken,

None of the folks that I am working with has any desire to get rich from our effort, nor are we covered with moss and grass, and I think that we are all red meat eaters.

I didn't intend to come across as if I wanted to bite your ear off. However I have read too many comments by Gurus who distort the facts. Frankly here is the point! Only a spray of gasoline or diesel enters an intake manifold of an auto or truck engine, the rest of the space is taken up by air, of which only a part of it is oxygen. Hydrogen only needs 4% oxygen to support an explosion, And the oxy-hydrogen fuel contains far more oxygen than is needed to support combustion. So I believe it is reasonable to comprehend that, sense the single duct fuel gas is a proven performer, with a flame propagation rate of mach 7.5, and so very little is needed to add to the liquid fuel to enhance the combustion process that I am reasonably correct, when I theorize that a moderate amount of said oxy-hydrogen can have a performance enhancing effect on the liquid fuel. Comments about how creating hydrogen through energizing electrodes is not energy efficient, have absolutely nothing to do with this issue. They make just about as much sense as those fools over in Pampalona, Spain, with only two feet trying to out run bulls with four feet. Real Scientists do not cloud the facts, however at least some Gurus tend to try to baffel'm with bulls--t. No offense intended.

Toomuchfun

I didn't intend to come across as if I wanted to bite your ear off.

No you didn't come across that way at all.

A couple technical details:

In ordinary "regular" science, hydrogen burns in air from 4% H2 (96% air) ... to 75% H2 (25% air). The latter would be close to your 4% oxygen figure. Once the H2/O2 mix from an onboard electrolyzer is inducted, there is no longer a stoichiometric ratio of H2 and O2. Instead, there is a huge amount of air (mainly nitrogen), a smaller amount of O2 (augmented by a barely measurable addition of O2 from the electrolyzer) a relatively huge mass of fuel, and an immeasurably small amount of H2. If you do the math, you find that any combustion speed change in the overall mixture is too slight to have any effect whatsoever. Unless your electrolyzer is run by a separate 100 hp engine with a huge alternator (50 kW, for instance) devoted only to generating H2/O2, then the amount of H2 molecules floating around in the soup in the cylinder is far from being significant in any respect.

Although some have imagined that the mixture in the cylinder is oxygen rich by virtue of adding an extra .01% O2, there is only enough "extra" oxygen to burn the "extra" H2. The H2 gas is extraordinarily high in volume for its energy value, so it displaces air that might otherwise be used to support ordinary fuel combustion. The net result of all this, even with a high volume electrolyzer like the one used by Popular Mechanics (which showed the expected: "no effect whatsoever") is that the electrolyzer does nothing in a spark ignition engine.

In a diesel engine, on the other hand, H2 injection alone (from an external source) improves combustion efficiency by an amount greater than would be expected from the contribution of the H2 energy alone. However, the tests that have demonstrated this effect have only done so at H2 injection rates about 1000 times higher than the rates generally achieved by electrolyzers.

Flame propagation speed for H2 in a cylinder can be as high as 40 M/s, a small fraction of mach 7.5. Rhodes is the only person I am aware of who has claimed such high propagation rates (other than those who parrot his "finding"). And of course such a rate would have nothing to do with the combustion of infinitesimally small amounts of H2 in a cylinder otherwise filled with ordinary air and diesel fuel.

Actually, contrary to your assertion, efficiency has everything to do with the equation, because we know that an infinitesimally small amount of generated gas can have no effect at all, and efficiencies would need to be extraordinarily high (many times over unity) to expect the evolved gas mixture to have any effect at all on flame speed or overall energy.

But perhaps there is some other effect at work that you have failed to annunciate. Maybe your device works for that elusive reason, but all the many scam devices do not.

Ken,

I'll not support the many scam devices, nor will I bother to challenge your comments regarding efficiencies, as we clearly view certain points from different eyes. As for the research performed and papers published by Dr. Rhodes, I am not aware that there has ever been any scientific or professional challenge to his findings from any source. I am very much aware that the late Dr. Yul Brown applied for and was granted Patents regarding the same single duct fuel gas some 10 or 11 years later, And that Dr. Rhodes challenges prevailed regarding the matter.

Regarding "my secrete methods for producing great quantities of the fuel gas" There are no secretes at all. The splitting of the water molecule is not only accomplished through applying huge quantities of brute force electrical energy, a high frequency pulse of 40,800 volts applied at "MILI AMPS" of pressure will also violate the integrity of the bond between the two hydrogen and single oxygen atom. This can be accomplished through the use of micro electronics with a low energy requirement to make it all happen. Other high voltages are also known to work as well.

If you really want to make a realistic evaluation, you shouldn't need to manufacture anything to accomplish it. For instance, consider rattling the water molecule with any number of high voltage pulses that are known to weaken or break the bond between the oxygen and hydrogen atoms in a water molecule and use a random generator to do it with so that there is no pattern involved. The point is that creating this instability can not only cause the monotromic, but also the diatromic parting of the hydrogen atoms. However this separation is short lived as the second hydrogen atom will quickly reattach to the oxygen atom. That is why it must be consumed through the ignition process quickly. Brute force electrolyzers have been around for a long time, and have been known to be an inefficient way to produce hydrogen. Unfortunately too many folks from the scientific and engineering community refer only to this method of production in their comments. As the result, though they not making false statements at all, they are not telling the "WHOLE" truth.

As I have stated many times on CR 4, The level of influence that micro electronics has had on both scientific and engineering development seems always to be completely ignored in favor of the ease of simply repeating the well worn and somewhat antiquated scientific laws.

IF WE IGNORE HISTORY WE ARE DESTINED TO REPEAT OUR MISTAKES, BUT IF WE DON'T LOOK TO THE FUTURE WE'LL LEARN NOTHING NEW!

TMF

The level of influence that micro electronics has had on both scientific and engineering development seems always to be completely ignored in favor of the ease of simply repeating the well worn and somewhat antiquated scientific laws.

Actually, micro electronics are not ignored at all. Many schemes have been tried to improve electrolysis efficiency including pulse width modulation of many frequencies, many diffferent voltages, etc. None of ths gives any indication that efficiency over 94% is likely to be achieved, and certainly, the tiny increment up to let's say 98% efficiency makes no difference in the subject at hand. That subject is the "antiquated scientific laws" such as the first and second laws of thermodynamics, neither of which show any chance of being wrong other than in the minds of over-unity types.

I understand you are not a man of science, and apparently hold educated folks in low regard. Perhaps, though, you have a good grasp of math?

You mention, above, a 20% improvement in efficiency with the use of brute force electrolysis. One of the more famous brute force electrolyzers is the Smack Booster, and it comes highly recommended by rcbondsr, who is very keen on such scams. It can generate 1.2 liters per minute of H2 and O2 from 20 amps at 12 volts. That output would be .8 liters of H2 and .4 liters of O2. The energy value of the H2 would be .142 kW minutes. The input value would be .240 kW minutes. The resulting 59.4% efficiency is pretty good for a crudely constructed electrolyzer.

Perhaps you can check my math here: Our 5 liter engine, cruising at 2000 rpm, takes in 5000 liters of air, or 6500 grams per minute. Assuming our engine is running on gasoline, it takes in 442 grams of gasoline per minute. The Smack Booster provides .072 grams per minute of H2, an astonishingly small amount. However, H2 is worth, by mass, about 3 times as much as gasoline! Maybe that our answer! That brings the energy contribution of the H2 to the equivalent of 2.1 grams! Therefore, if we assume that the engine runs at 100% efficiency (of course it does not) and assume that the alternator is 100% efficient (of course it is not)... (but you seem to think that efficiency has nothing to do with all this, so we'll omit it for the time being)... then the contribution of the H2 would be .5% of the total fuel.

We know from many tests, that injecting H2 has no effect at all in such low amounts. We also know that H2 and O2 injected together in such low amounts has no effect. When the gases are this dilute, there is no change in flame front speed.

Yet the Smack Booster guy and other scammers claim the same figures, or even higher figures than you claim. The Popular Mechanics test, though, found no measureabe change at all, just as the science would predict: the mass of H2 generated is simply too small to have any measurable effect at all.

This all gives you the benefit of the doubt, by making the grossly incorrect assumption that engines are 100% efficient and alternators are 100% efficient. The actual facts of the matter are over five times worse than I have portrayed here.

You bring us conspiracy theories, and have denounced accepted scientific theories, but you have not come up with anything that would support there being any effect from these infinitesimally small amounts of H2 and O2.

Perhaps you can point out the errors in my math. Or give me a reference that even remotely suggests that "micro electronics" makes ordinary energy balances incorrect or outmoded. You claim your system that gives 20% improvement is "brute force" but have not indicated anything at all that would make a rational person think it works in any way differently from the scammer brute force systems, which have been proven not to work. What is different with your system?

We have all heard the statement, crap in crap out. For the moment I'll make this remark. I do not hold those who are well educated with any unpleasant opinion. However I know a great deal about automobile engines , their ignition systems and performance abilities. I have observed multiple comments from those claiming to be Gurus, engineers , scientists, Et.al. I have evaluated a multitude of the products that have been designated as scam products. I have the ability to reproduce any of them, yet I have not. I have good reasons for this. I feel that you and many others have confused me and my comments with the comments of others. Much of what I seem to be accused of I have neither said nor supported. Much of what I say is stated in a manner that will make comprehension easier for viewers of this forum who are not professionals. Unfortunately many of the professional types take offense to this, that is their problem. And it is quite all right with me. In fact there are a variety of methods to fracture the water molecule, including micro waves sound waves/radio waves, high voltage impulses and brute force energy input. I see the majority if the scientists and fakes who have posted information that seems to come from a naysayer attitude as demeaning to those of us who are not exactly uneducated. You will; however notice that I have not included everyone with that professional back ground. I find that too many of you are encircled by the limits of understood scientific authority, that is the laws of Thermodynamics. If it were not for the few scientists, engineers and others who are motovated to experiment out of the box, around the fringes of accepted scientific restrictions, nothing new would be created, discovered or invented. I have determined that even the best electronic ideas cannot over come a shoddy beginning. This begins with the development of the quality of the electrodes and the electrolyte. As an example I have a one gallon glass container with a well conditioned electrode packet of eleven stainless steel plates. It is filled with a weak solution of distilled water and distilled white vinegar. On a daily basis I connect this single celled generator to a 12 volt battery. At this time I am waiting for the participating electronic engineers to complete the the high voltage input equipment that I have suggested and they have satisfied me that it will work. In 5 seconds or less the 1 gallon container is completely fogged with hydrogen and some oxygen bubbles. The solution is almost a rolling boil at the surface, The only time I tested the volume performance for this set up, it was not performing nearly as well. I was able to produce three liters of the fuel gas in about 4 minutes. I am quite certain that much more fuel gas is being produced today. The tempreture after three hours is only luke warm to the touch. I have no desire to continue trying to advance the performance until I have the additional electronics in hand. I find that preparation of the electrodes to be the single most important step in gaining the performance desired. Even if the electronics prove to be superior and the electrodes are performing at 50% of their capability , one can only achieve a performance level of at a maximum of 50%.

Again, I am not restricted by pounded in limitations gained from higher education in the field of science. I am certain however; that those in the field of science and engineering will find an exception to the accepted rules based on new discoveries utilizing new and more modern technologies. I'll share the Fried Crow With You.

TMF

I'll share the Fried Crow With You.

Well, ordinarily I am a vegetarian, but I'll make an exception for fried crow! Pass the Frank's Hot sauce. If you can demonstate 20% mileage improvement, I'll not only happily eat crow and wish you well... I'll buy the beer.

Good Answer. There is an old saying: "Science, to date, has done it's utmost to prevent what science had done."

It is not and never was "overunity". It is simply a more efficient use of the electrical energy already being produced.

Regards Dragon

Thanks Dragon," for the rate ".

I have recently found a less expensive source for the SS wall plates that I use to create my version of the electrode packets. I immediately bought 33 new plates, At the earlier higher price, because time is of the essence for me, and I wish to get moving on with the evaluation of multiple cells. I feel that attempts to extrapolate performance estimates from the performance of only a single 11 plate set of electrodes is fool hardy as one has nothing standing by with which to effect an immediate comparison.

Likely it will take me a couple of weeks of spare time to modify these new plates and prepare them and a new batch of electrolyte for evaluation. I am working on modifying my former plate assembly design to make it even more efficient. However of course it means that I will have to maintain my existing electrode testing set-up for comparison to the new technology.

TMF

Agreed. Comparison is the only logical method as there is very little empirical published data. (Those secretive inventors.)

Let me know if I may assist. Private communication, through CR4, is acceptable.

Regards Dragon

I'll leave your vote as is, but toomuchfun's is anything but a "good" answer, mainly because it does not directly answer anything in my post to which he responds. The fundamental problem, as stated in my post, is that the amount of H2 and O2 gases produced by these devices is not adequate to have any effect whatsoever. That has been demonstrated by many studies at university, government, and manufacturer labs, even when the H2 and or O2 is provided "for free" from an energy perspective (in other words, when it comes out of a bottle rather than being created by power from the engine under test).

Using Smack boosters own figures (which show greater production volume than toomuchfun quotes) the H2 produced is an infinitesimally small amount of the intake fuel stream. In ratios of H2:fuel of less than one percent, H2 has never been shown to have any effect at all on any engine, gasoline or diesel. The combustion science (that enables engines of today to far outperform engines of 30 years ago while emitting 1/100 the pollutants) indicates that there should be no effect at all at these low ratios, and studies show that the theory holds in practice.

There is nothing in Toomuchfun's answer which indicates that the combustion science is wrong or that my numbers are incorrect. His "answer" simply skirts the relevant issues.

It is not and never was "overunity". It is simply a more efficient use of the electrical energy already being produced.

That is incorrect. If these devices were to "work" (in any sense other than to simply make bubbles) then, the energy from the H2 must exceed the energy used by the engine that runs the alternator. The alternator produces electrical energy at 16.75% efficiency, and if you increase the load on the alternator you increase the load on the engine, driving up fuel consumption. The situation that scammers claim, that the alternator is simply "putting out" excess energy that can be used is simply wrong. So, to simply break even on an energy balance, the electrolysis process would not just need to be over unity, it would have to be 600% -- far over unity.

Clearly, though, the process does not and can not run at over unity, as the 59% efficiency of the Smack Booster shows (and as millions of process around the world show). Therefore, the process runs at a serious net loss. (With 59% electrolyzer efficiency and 16.75% engine/alternator, efficiency, each watt's worth of H2 requires 10.1 watts worth of fuel.) Raising the efficiency of the electrolysis to 99% means that 6.03 watts worth of fuel is used to make 1 watts worth of H2 -- still, a huge net loss.

The only saving grace in all this from the scammers perspective, is that the additional energy consumed by the alternator and engine to run the process is so small (again, by the Smack Booster folks' own admission) that any loss, (as well as any gain if there could be any) cannot be measured. The 240 watts of the Smack Booster is just a far too small part of 100,000 to 200,000 watts of a typical engine to be able to measure any change.

If you won't believe any of this, then provide your own, scientifically supportable energy balance, that suggests that there is some way in which these things might work.

Nothing Toomuchfun has written supports his suggestion that he is getting 20% improvement in fuel efficiency, and his own numbers show he is getting even lower output that the Smack Booster people claim. The Smack Booster, if it ran at 99% efficiency, would still produce far to little H2 to have any effect whatsoever. If you can produce any study that indicates that adding less than 1% (of the fuel flow) in H2 and/or O2, measurably improves the efficiency of an engine -- even when the gases are produced off line, industrially, instead of by perpetual motion schemes) then produce it.

The success of the scammers owes to several things, the most obvious that the public at large has no idea how to perform a system energy balance. But also, the public "knows" the hydrogen burns "cleanly". They have no idea whatsoever, how tiny an amount of energy is contained in one liter of hydrogen gas, and they have no idea whatsoever how tiny that amount of energy is relative to the large amount of fuel energy pouring into an automotive engine. All they know is that you light H2 or H2/O2, and it goes bang. They think that a fuel cell is "high tech: so when Dennis Lee calls his electrolyzer a fuel cell, they think "Oh, sounds high tech... it must work."

It does not.

Toomuchfun's scheme does not either, unless it is entirely different than he has described. (The Popular Mechanics test shows that, when fuel flow is precisely measured, the devices make no difference whatsoever -- just as the science would predict.) No amount of belief in antiscience will change that. No amount of snide remarks about Gurus and scientists will change that. No amount of off-topic rambling will change that. If you want to be taken seriously in a science and engineering forum, then you need to speak the language of science and engineering. Toomuchfun fails to do that in any meaningful sense.

Ken, this time I'll be real blunt, If you can see where you are, where you have been and going at the same time, You are walking in circles. Are you lost, and following the same well worn path that seems to effect change but always ends up back where you started. Like others before you, you also attempt to blend the Scientific math of apples and oranges. The general public isn't really all that stupid. When scientists begin to prove their point by combining grams and mili liters with liters and mili grams and revolutions per minute of engines blending mixtures of assorted gases and fuels, and then have the audacity to state that the flame propagation rate of fuel gases have no effect on the combustion process, we see you baffel'en um. We don't need petrol to run an ICE, Whole fields plowed for the planting of food crops have been powered by the fumes given off by the heating of wood chips, that were heated by the burning of some more wood chips. To most that sounds preposterous, but it is a proven fact. NOW, if we can plow fields with some wood chip fumes for fuel, then why can't we use a little electric energy to release a little single duct fuel gas to run the engine in our car. After all the flame propagation rate of smelly old wood chips is considerably slower than that of the oxy-hydrogen fuel gas.

Oh, and about the guy with the El Camino, I owned a 1960 model and a 1969 model. The older one was constructed on a station wagon platform and the later one on the frame of a Chevel station wagon. Neither one is suitable for increases in power or weight. There is not enough weight in the back to help with traction, and the frames are TOO flexible to handle the added torque and power.

Toomuchfun

Ken, this time I'll be real blunt,

You are anything but blunt regarding the details of the subject matter. I understand that you are perhaps confused regarding mili [sic] liters and mili [sic] grams, but the fact is this: oxyhydrogen scammers use "liters of HHO" deliberately to confuse gullible people. Your device, by your own admission, produces less than one liter per minute of H2. That is an astonishingly small quantity, from an energy standpoint. Sad to say, the only way to demonstrate that is to do the math. In science and engineering, and especially combustion engineering, fuel usage is given in units of mass not units of volume. Thus, to make sense of this, to show what a scam these devices are, one must do the conversion to mass. It is not as you imply, to confuse people; it is to talk in the language any competent engineer understands. I note that no engineer here was unable to follow the math.

You wrote: I was able to produce three liters of the fuel gas in about 4 minutes. I am quite certain that much more fuel gas is being produced today. Suppose today, we give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are producing as much as the Smack Booster: 1.2 liters per minute, instead of the .75 liters per minute you have observed. (We will ignore the fact that your not knowing how much you are producing seems very implausible -- all the other scammers seem to obsess over their lpm figures. You've got 14 people working, and you are clueless about how much you are producing? Right.) Then, that means that you are producing .8 liters of H2, and .4 liters of O2. To understand the energy value of that we must convert to mass, obviously. .8 liters of H2 is .072 grams of H2. That is a very tiny amount, with a very tiny amount of energy. The energy contained in that tiny amount is far less than the energy expended to create it. Further that tiny amount is not even remotely close to the amount required to produce any of the effects you claim, such as improved flame front speed. The dilution ratio is far far too great, even for a tiny car engine, let alone an over-the-road truck engine for which you make your astonishing claim.

Rather than being bluntly abrasive about non-science issues, please be blunt about the science. Show, accurately, the energy balance if you are certain it is not as I showed above, in post 43. Point out the specific errors in that assessment. Not one engineer here has asked for clarification; not one has criticized the figures. The figures are correct. Until you produce believable, real figures instead of cutesy aphorisms and criticisms of me rather than the science, you are, in my book, just another of the scammers. You cannot reasonably claim to be both too unintelligent to follow the math, and able to put together a team of 14 people to work on this. It all sounds too much like Dennis Lee.

PERHAPS, You can check the math here.

Actually LETS CHECK THE PRESENTATION.

Are we attempting to deal with scientific facts properly presented or are we attempting to perform another illusionary scam by mixing the chickens and oranges withe the eggs and apples, "again"?

And frankly I can count! And I have reasonable comprehensive skills. I do know the significant difference between tank H2 Hydrogen and Oxy-hydrogen, a single ducted combination of the blend of oxygen and hydrogen atoms. It is as always your and others reference to the performance of tank hydrogen that is specifically referenced instead of the specific performance of the fuel "oxy-hydrogen". Tank Hydrogen (H2) has a flame propagation rate of 680 ft/sec. The "oxy-hydrogen" only has a flame propagation rate of 8160 ft/sec. I think the appropriate quote here is "Speed Kills". I think that for at least some folks, a comparison to ballistics will aid in the comprehension of the actual performance in comparing the two gases.

A .243 Winchester brass case is the same size and basic shape as a .308 Winchester round. They will both kill. The .243 W. is considerably faster and and has a much flatter trajectory than the .308 W. However the .308 packs more ft/lb of energy way out there, but will not Travel as far as the .243 W., a round that ultimately still has something left, long after the .308 round has landed on the ground.

When we compare this with an auto engine, the .243 W. is like a 3000 hp 355 cu.in. super charged fuel dragster or funny car engine. The .308 W. is better compared to the engine in an over the road simi. The more powerful engine in the dragster will move the vehicle down the 1/4 mile at record speeds, often around 3.5 seconds. The simi will do the same thing but the time is measured in minutes. Apples and oranges. Leave'em in the fridge if you are in a hurry to get somewhere. H2 and HHO, don't use the performance specs of one when you are referring to the other.

TMF

Hello ken.

Pretty good, only one issue.

(Measured by the only legitimate method, by mass. Sorry to have to trouble you with the scientific reality of combustion.)

Sorry,I disagree. Moles are the proper method of measurement in any chemical reaction. There are some other things like valence and energy states that can have an effect on the reaction. The starting temperature of the reaction also figures into the equation and his 243win can vary over 100 fps just from the temp of the cartridge when fired.

Brad

I agree that in general, moles are very useful for scaling up chemical reactions from molecules to larger quantities. However, in practice, measurements are done by volume or mass: in other words, if you wanted to make water from H2 and O2, you'd measure the gases by volume or weight, because we don't have devices that measure in moles. So, for 18 grams of water, you'd need 2 grams of H2 and 16 grams of O2. The 2 grams of H2 could be measured by volume (making sure that temperature and pressure were constant) in which case, you'd need 22.4 liters. For 16 grams of O2 (half a mole) you'd need 11.2 liters of O2.

However, in practice, when talking about air-fuel ratios in engines, mass is virtually always used. The 14.7:1 air fuel ratio people talk about for spark ignition engines is a ratio by mass. (Air mass is also what is typically measured as an input to the fuel injection computer, using a mass air flow sensor.) So when I said that measurement by mass was the only legitimate method, I meant it's the legitimate method, in the context of the discussion. In an engine, the pressure and volume changes very dramatically, with an intake air mass starting at a volume of 10X (+/-) before compression and ending at a volume of X at TDC, so dealing in mass makes sense.

A further reason for not introducing moles is that it would sound like even more scientific gibberish to TMF, and would require a little extra math, too.

Yes sensors use mass but chemical reactions are in moles or ratios of atoms. Two different perspectives of the same elephant. I was only stating your declarative statement was incorrect not your logic.

I happen to think H₂ could be used to fast burn a mostly naphtha mixture (modern gasoline) in a lean burn combustion but have not had the time to work out the optimum ratios. Hopefully this winter things will slow down so I can do some research.

I do know that mixing large grains of gunpowder or black powder with flash powder causes a dramatic change in propagation of the flame wavefront vs total energy of only flash powder. Whether this effect can be made practical at a molecular level remains to be seen.

Brad

I happen to think H₂ could be used to fast burn a mostly naphtha mixture (modern gasoline) in a lean burn combustion but have not had the time to work out the optimum ratios. Hopefully this winter things will slow down so I can do some research.

There is a lot of evidence that your thinking is correct. In extremely lean burning engines, an addition of H2 of 5%, 10%, etc of the total fuel load can smooth out combustion in a way that might work better than simply bringing the mixture up to stoichiometric with the primary fuel. There are several studies along these lines with homogeneous charge engines. (All these ignore the economics and practicalities of hauling H2 around.)

Let us know if you get the time to experiment.

I suggest that you get off your soap box before you fall off. You made so many miss applied statements that after my wife read them and I pointed out some others that she advised me not to bother replying as you would likely blow a head gasket then I might be held responsible by present monitors of the internet for any harm that may come to you from my contributions. I recommend that you cool off, "you know like find a block of ice and sit on it". Dr William A Rhodes is/was a research Physicist at Arizona State University I think your reference to "that Guy Rhodes was unnecessarily demeaning, and you owe the gentleman a public apology. Do your self and the other Gurus that voted for you a favor, and get educated about Dr. Rhodes experience with this patented single duct fuel source. The two papers that he published on the subject contain information that clearly will clear up your mistakes about subjects like flame propagation rate, and heat produced by combustion of the "oxy-hydrogen fuel gas. Quote Dr. Rhodes " Carbon's melting temperature (3550C/6422F) is exceeded but its boiling point (4827C/8720F) is not.

Coming from a professional in the field "Guruisims" I find your response to be pathetic. I will not respond again to any of your comments regarding this matter.

Toomuchfun

"That Guy Rhodes" You think that was demeaning, you should try sitting in at my work over dinner one night. They would make your ears bleed. You need some thicker skin. I trust Dr Rhodes is as brilliant as you say, but come on can he pick tomorrow's lottery numbers?

I can tell by your remarks that you know little or nothing about the accomplishments of this successful Physicist. I believe that Dr. Rhodes is even more brilliant than most Guru's responding on these threads. If you have time to join the 12/13 others that gave Blink a good rating for his post 61 and come after me regarding these responses, you have enough time to research the work of Dr. Rhodes. My hide is as tough as an old Florida Gator. My response to those who deliberately mislead the guests who stop by to see which side is ahead in the oxy-hydrogen debate, is just as swift and attention getting as you might expect if you invaded ole Gator's space. What I see more than anything else is that currently scientists are not doing all that they could be doing to help alleviate the petroleum crisis. That was a previous thread, why don't you go back and review that one. Just one more comment before I turn in for tonight. If folks like me don't challenge you Guru's, fairly quickly, The threads regarding the work of scientists would crawl to a stop, and you folks might have to find something else to do with all of your excess time.

Tmf

Reguardless, I'd love for anyone to drive a few hundred miles in my car, or many of my friends cars who have installed a system (each one is a bit different, due to us each building our own), and see for their own eyes, that fuel economy is increased when i flip the switch to "on".

If you haven't built a circut to "fool" the computer into thinking that the emmissions are ok, it will compensate by dumping extra gasoline into the engine, which will counteract any bit of gains possible.

I wont argue too much right now untill i'm finished in the lab, i just know what i see at the gas pump, and in reality thats all it took for me.

I used to discredit my friend who first brought up the idea, which i quickly dismissed to be "impossible". Untill he showed me results, with his old truck. Now I can't understand why more research and development has not been undertaken.

I wont argue too much right now untill i'm finished in the lab, i just know what i see at the gas pump, and in reality thats all it took for me.

No need to argue. Just provide two links to university-level research. The HHO scam has been around since at least 1932, so there has been ample time for such studies.

With Ford having lost about $22 billion in revenue from declining F150 sales, you can be sure that they would have started to use this well-worn technology to keep their business afloat. Imagine how profoundly idiotic the engineers at Toyota must be to have spent $1,000,000,000 on developing their hybrid system, when they could have just thrown on $10 worth of existing hardware on a Camry, and get not just mileage equal to the Prius, but better mileage. According to Lee's figures (which claim 900% improvements) a Camry could go from 30 mpg to 270 mpg, suggesting an engine efficiency many times over unity. Your own figures would suggest that a Camry could get 60 mpg with this 1930's era "technology".

If you have achieved what you claim to have achieved, where so many others have failed, then it would behoove you to rush to a good engine program, like that at the university of Wisconsin or at MIT, and get your gains certified in an engine lab. Your achievement would be worth a large number of billions. There must be some "secret sauce" you are using to get your gains, and that would be almost certainly be patentable -- if it were obvious, all the folks who have failed at this would be using it, right?

By the way Ken, "fried crow is very good". It is a dark meat but can be cooked much like quail, squabs and Cornish game hens. As a matter of fact one must have a migratory bird stamp in order to hunt them in many states, but not too many folks know that. If I can't show the Gurus' that "Our Gang" is successful at creating a worth while fuel through the use of oxy-hydrogen, I'll be pleased to eat that crow myself. After all I am a pretty good cook!

TMF

I have installed many HHO on demand systems in vehicles, and have ABSOLUTLEY proved fuel consumption decreases. My favorite: ~14 months ago i installed one in a 94 suburban that was getting ~12-15 MPG, For the past 14 months that exact same suburban with no other modifications has been reliably getting ~28-31 MPG. Proof is in the pudding my friends!

Proof is in the pudding my friends!

Truer words were never spoken. No independent testing agency and no university study has ever demonstrated these devices to work. Stanley Meyer was successfully prosecuted for fraud. Dennis Lee was successfully prosecuted for fraud.

I assume you are posting this tongue-in-cheek, but if not, then produce a link to any reputable university study that shows that creating HHO onboard, using electrolysis powered from the car's alternator, has any positive effect on fuel economy.

The Popular Mechanics test was carefully done with an HHO unit that produces more HHO per watt than the Smack booster, and the results were exactly in line with the science -- namely there was no effect whatsoever. The motor scooter test I mentioned earlier shows exactly the same thing: the results were identical with HHO or not. The test at Greenville Tech shows the same. No rational person with an understanding of the basic chemistry, physics, combustion science and thermodynamics involved would expect that these systems should work as advertised. The fact that hydrogen takes more energy to create than you can get out of burning it is not a subject of any debate whatsoever: that fact has been demonstrated thousand and thousands of times by real scienctist, and real engineers, and there has never been any demonstration that such is not the case. Even Rhodes, a proponent of using HHO for welding (a perfectly legitimate use, in which the energy for the welding comes, typically, from the coal being burned at the power plant) states clearly that no manner of pulsing, etc changes the energy balance. TMF's own figures show that the amount of H2 he produces in not equal to the amount of energy invested.

If proof is in the pudding, then provide proof, not simply the same drivel the scammers have been pushing for decades. There is no engineering or scientific reason that these things should work, and there have been no independent studies that show that they do work, so any claim that they do work has to be considered very extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, simply provide links to 2 university studies one supporting the other, that HHO injection, (with that HHO produced from current supplied by the vehicle's electrical system) produces any measurable improvement in fuel efficiency. What could be simpler: the proof is in the pudding.

That would not be extraordinary proof, but it would be a start. So far, not one of your cohorts has been able to produce any support for these claims. Perhaps you will be the first.

I will prove it put your money whereyour mouth is and come get a 50% increase in mpg or your money back www.preingitioncc.com

Your link appears to have evaporated. Nevertheless, I'd be happy to take you up on your offer to test one of your units. If you send me one of your units, I will install it and test it using a dynamometer and fuel flow measuring equipment.

Ken, perhaps its because he misspelled the word "ignition" in his link. You know, not every automotive genius has grat speling.

milo

Hello Ray,

You got it right! Using chemical bonds to store Hydrogen, and the answer is right before us all. It is called "WATER".

TMF

Replies #1, 2, and 3 have given you most of the reasons for not using hydrogen. Reread their posts and learn. One additional thing to think about is that if there is a leak, such as what would almost inevitably happen in an accident and could easily happen during the night in your garage, once the hydrogen concentration in the air has reached 4%, even in a very small volume - kaboom! It explodes. Now imagine what devestation this could wreak on a busy downtown city street after a minor accident when your car, with its nice sized hydrogen tank explodes and kills everyone within a 1/2 to one city block area and injures or deafens everyone over the next 1/2 city block. You will probably never see hydrogen cars in use as long as this danger, along with all the energy efficiency, economic, and physical barriers are in place. Most of these barriers cannot be skirted since you can't rewrite the laws of the universe.

Could someone please give a reference to this 4% thing, at what pressure? what temperature? When hydrogen in a tank reaches 4% why does it not explode? I'm not an advocate for hydrogen but I'm suspicious of this "fact'. In case anyone has not mentioned why the Hindenburg went down so fast, it was not the hydrogen but the coating on the outside that was made with a substance used in rocket fuel at the time. This was reveled in a documentary on public television.

Hi mshultz,

4% is the LEL (lower explosive limit) for hydrogen. 75% is the upper explosive limit.

These both refer to the lower and upper concentrations in air, by volume, at which hydrogen can be ignited. An ignition source (spark, etc) is required.

Ordinarily, hydrogen will not reach 4% hydrogen/air ratio in a tank. When filling tanks, people are quite careful to avoid introducing a flammable or explosive mixture. A hydrogen tank will supply essentially pure hydrogen at a declining pressure as the gas is used up.

WHERE ARE THE HYDROGEN CARS?

Here We go again with the dangerous "chickens and the rotten eggs"! Over the past several months there have been numerous blogs/threads/posts and some down right volitile responses between the participants regarding the Hydrogen as fuel issue. Much if the confrontation is derived from input posted by uninformed participants.

The "Peoples Republic of California" you know that state way out on the left coast of the U.S. of A. has instituted a hydrogen refueling net work for a limited # of vehicles, and in a very limited area. It is at best a trial operation!

The problems with using Hydrogen as a fuel vary from creating it, to storing it, transporting it both in the vehicle using it as fuel as well as the delivery system. Further added to the issue is the problem with keeping it in the fuel tanks for extended periods of time, as the Hydrogen atom seems to be so small that it finds a way to migrate through the walls of steel tanks. We can add to this the fact that continued use of pure hydrogen in ICE's as they are presently designed, creates problems with the molecular structure of the metal from which these engines are constructed. They become brittle and therefore subject to failure.

Further confusion is added to the issue by the skeptoids and naysayers through their history of partial truths and disinformation posts.

The so called hydrogen cars being offered to day by the Auto Mfg's is actually an expensive hydrogen related battery powered electrical system. So much money has been invested into the research to create this system that the investors will promote this system over any lesser expensive system just recover said investment. You don't have to be a math major to comprehend this fact.

There are a variety of Joe Cell creations that have demonstrated the ability to create significant quantities of "Oxy-hydrogen" a single duct fuel gas that was first patented by Dr. William A. Rhodes way back in the mid 1960's. Several of the developers of these creations have claimed to have made significant progress with their efforts only to have the lives of their families threatened if they continued their work or published information about their progress/performance.

However: Numerous would be inventors refuse to be bullied or intimidated. These players can be found working in their shops and garages all around the world. Many are educated scientists and engineers. There are a variety of claims of success, with efficiencies claimed from 10% to 90% improvement, In a few cases claims that ICE's can be run on this Single duct fuel gas alone. The down side of the oxy-hydrogen as a fuel gas is that it is too dangerous to store for future use. However the up side is that it can readily be made and used on demand, and " it can be used as a suppliment to diesel and gasoline, to increase fuel mileage and with out modifications to the engines. There will have to be some minor electronic modifications to the engines electronics for the later model engines, but the older engines only need to have the ignition timing retarded to allow for the rapid performance of the oxy-hydrogen flame propagation rate.

I believe that oxy-hydrogen, the single duct fuel gas, not hydrogen, whether used in batteries or as a fuel source will be fuel of choice to bridge the gap from fossil fuels alone to electricity. After all we do not have to re-create the ICE that has been around for more than 100 years, and this will save billions of dollars that can be put to better use improving electric motors and battery power. However the naysayers and skeptoids continue to demand that those working in seclusion provide scientific evidence of their performance claims. Those of us working alone or in small groups say to them, If you want the information, do your own experimentation and investigation, and don't bother me with your Statements concerning the very antiquated Laws of Thermodynamics as they were created long before the advent of very efficient micro electronics. Most of us are not claiming to be creating free energy, or even 100% efficiency, only to be making significant improvements to the use of gasoline or diesel fuels alone.

Toomuchfun

Several of the developers of these creations have claimed to have made significant progress with their efforts only to have the lives of their families threatened if they continued their work or published information about their progress/performance.

Can you give me the names of some of these developers who's life has been threatened? It would be interesting to google them and see more of the details.

I don't bother to do the research that is readily available to everyone any more. I suggest that you begin with the "Land Down Under" and learn about the event that challenged the creator of the original "Joe Cell".

TMF

I was just curious if any of these threatened people had any proof of their threats, or if it was like that huge number of black voters who were prevented from voting in Florida in 2000. When asked for proof the Democrats could not come up with a single name of an actual individual.

Without proof urban myths can quickly become undisputed facts, like the water powered car so many just know existed and was stopped by the "evil oil companies," yet no one can point a finger to anyone that actually saw it operated. And no one can duplicate the demo either.

I am curious but not enough so to spend hours verifying your assertions that people were so close that they were threatened to shut them up. If you cannot supply that info I would drop that from your story line as proof of the technical concept.

Is there any proof that Jimmy Hoffa is dead. If a giant Oak tree falls over and down to the ground deep in the woods and no one is there to hear it happen, "DOES IT MAKE ANY SOUND"?

If you can see where you are going and where you have been at the same time "you are likely walking in circles"

"I live in Florida" and I am not a Democrat. We must always watch where we walk, for the way is always littered with political Bull S--t.

TMF

But this is an engineering/science blog, where we are trying to assert things using the scientific approach. Once you start using things that cannot be verified into the proof process while assuming they are true you now are into the realm of faith rather than proof.

In other words, you want me to accept your concepts through faith with some scientific facts thrown in to make it look like a proof.

Tomuchfun- Could not have said it better myself. I've been working with "on demand" HHO generator for a while now, and have seen some rather awsome things accomplished. For example, we have powered a small ICE to turn a alternator to power our HHO generator, this is done without the use of any gasoline or diesel. The unit got us excited, and we have since then began working on larger scale projects for residential and comercial use of the HHO gas. The bottom line is: Why pay someone to create, compress, liquify, and store something that can be safely created literally (and easily) seconds before the time of use.

Simply, two major problems, storage and manufacturing. The storage problem is for the most part solved. Hydride materials will store massive amounts of hydrogen and the technology has been proven.

Here's the best part, you take coal and decompose it at high temperature, which will give you three by-products. Heat, which is used to make steam that drives a turbine and makes electricity. (basically what is being done now). Syngas, which is a combination of Hydrogen and CO and water vapor.

This is a really simple explanation of the process so just bare with me. Now when you cool the syngas you can separate the CO and Hydrogen. Here is the main reason why this process is not more widely accepted.

When cooling this reaction you create carbon, which is very detrimental in that is turns metal alloys into powder. This corrosion phenomena is called metal dusting. Metal dusting is very costly. As you can image most of the power plants that would use this process (coal gasification) have to be made from very expensive alloys, most of which still suffer from metal dusting.

Part of my research, OK almost all of it, is working toward solving this problem and we are really close. Hydrogen is the key in that we can all benefit by using fuel cells, turbine heat recovery systems, clean electricity and some say even a good source of clean water.

Good day, NiCrMoNoMore

You have provided some interesting information. However, I cannot even imagine just how we can get from some sort of container of "dusty hydrides" to some version of transportation, with out adding to the polluting issues we face today and getting it accomplished before world goes financially bankrupt or runs out of crude enough to continue powering current economies. Though battery technology is improving, It is not even close to being there yet. We still use ICE's as our primary power source for motor vehicles, and we cannot realistically move away from that power source within the next 15/20 years. Assorted fuel sources, liquids and gaseous materials are proposed, but it seems that they all have their baggage problems, or inefficiencies.

We have invested so much of our creative abilities trying to live with liquid petroleum, and invested our financial future in its continued use. Present day inventor types are on the verge of being tarred and feathered by many in the scientific community for their efforts to find a way to reduce our present volume of liquid fuels through the addition of oxy-hydrogen and yet the condemmers offer no viable solution to the problem in the near future. For certain, if you have a solution that threatens the continued use of almost incomprehensible quantities petroleum, you will surely be T/F/& run out of the community on a rail.

TMF

For certain, if you have a solution that threatens the continued use of almost incomprehensible quantities petroleum, you will surely be T/F/& run out of the community on a rail.

This is utter BS. The developers of the Prius, the Honda Civic hybrid, the many US cars in the 30-plus mpg range, the small European diesels cars in the 50 mpg range, the Aptera, the Tesla, 150 mpg mopeds, 80 mpg motor scooters, etc etc have not been run out of town on a rail. Fraudsters, like the perpetrators of oxyhydrogen scams occasionally get run out of town, in a figurative sense. Stanley Meyer was successfully prosecuted for fraud because he was a fraud, not because he threatened the status quo. Dennis Lee, another oxyhydrogen scammer, was successfully prosecuted for fraud... because he was a fraud. Billions of dollars are pouring into all sorts of alternatives to oil. "Clean tech" stocks are the hot stocks.

Dear NiCroMoNoMore, Just a thought: using a ceramic polymer, called by the trade name "Ceramer" solves the Carbon penetration problem. Fuel cells are effective until the Hydrogen degradation of the membrane requires a total cell rebuild.

Regards Dragon

In fuel cells.

Hydrogen is not cost-efficient or energy-efficient and has too many problems in making it, storing it, transporting it and using it. Most of it is made from oil, some from coal, releasing a lot of CO2. It takes a lot of electricity to make it cleanly from water, but then where do you get the electricity from? If you say solar electricity then you make no H at night and have to store it. Storage is a problem with pressure or refrigeration and the embrittlement of the storage tanks which leak and can result in a very big "BOOM!!!" Transport is also difficult requiring more delivery trucks using more fuel to deliver less usable energy.

If you posit making the H at the site of the filling station please figure out how many acres of solar panels would be needed to fill just 60 cars per minute for 8 hrs. Not practical.

The fuel cell vehicles are all prohibitively expensive to sell to the general public. Just because they can be built does not mean they are marketable. The government brought us ethanol, which is now decried by the greens for raising food prices and starving people. The government always makes a mess, because they are politicians, working as a committee. Remember that a camel is a horse designed by a committee, as the saying goes.

If you are so concerned about CO2 as a pollutant, stop emitting CO2, stop breathing. A much better solution would be to plant or keep protected the 2-6 deciduous trees that supply your oxygen. Separate and run industrial CO2 [and waste heat] into huge greenhouses or tubes of algae where the plants love and use the CO2 and give off oxygen and make more food and fuel. Reduce the clear-cutting of trees by developers. [Construction workers can only walk in straight lines and would be stopped by trees, unable to walk around them. ]

What we really need are cheap, small, high energy batteries so we can use the stored electricity itself directly. Only then will the alternative energies be truly practical.

A simplified single-step combustion reaction is represented as:

[FUEL] + [HYDROGEN] + [AIR] → HC + CO + CO2 + H2O + NOx

1975

Research in 1975 examined hydrogen enhanced gasoline in lean combustion. John Houseman and D.J Cerini of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory produced a report for the Society of Automotive Engineers titled "On-Board Hydrogen Generator for a Partial Hydrogen Injection Internal Combustion Engine", and F.W. Hoehn and M.W. Dowy, also of the Jet Propulsion Lab, prepared a report for the 9th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, titled "Feasibility Demonstration of a Road Vehicle Fueled with Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline."

2002

Research done in 2002 shows that the "addition of hydrogen to natural gas increases the burn rate and extends the lean burn-limit". Also concluded was that "hydrogen addition lowers HC emissions", and with properly "retarded ignition timing" also reduces NOx emissions.

Further research in 2002 achieved results showing "a reduction of NOx and CO2 emissions", by modeling an on-board hydrogen reformer and "varying the efficiency". The research was specifically a "numerical investigation" done to "forsee performances, exhaust emissions, and fuel consumption of a small, multi valve, spark ignition engine fueled by hydrogen enriched gasoline".

2003

In 2003 Tsolakis et al. of the University of Birmingham showed that "partial replacement of the hydrocarbon fuel by hydrogen combined with EGR resulted in simultaneous reductions of smoke and nitrogen oxides emissions (NOx) without significant changes to engine efficiency". Similar results have been presented by a team of scientists from Zhejiang University, China, which found that "a little amount of hydrogen supplemented to the gasoline-air mixture can extend the flammability of the mixture... improving the economy and emissions of engines".

2004

Test results in 2004 show "that the H2-rich reformate gas was an excellent NOx reductant, and can out perform raw Diesel fuel as a reductant in a wide range of operating conditions". This is referring to Diesel fuel being used in excess, as a reductant, to cool the combustion reaction, which indeed has a mitigating effect on NOx production.

In 2004 research was conducted concluding that an "ICE engine system fueled by gasoline and hydrogen rich reformate gas have been demonstrated" to achieve a "dramatic reduction of pollution emissions". This was achieved by "extending EGR operation" in addition to consuming "gasoline and hydrogen rich reformate". Emissions results show that "HC-emissions as well as NOx-emissions could be reduced to near zero". Overall a 32.5% reduction in CO2 emissions was achieved during the cycle. The research also concluded that the exhaust aftertreatment system can be simplified, "resulting in cost reduction for the catalysts".

Good Answer. I believe that is two university studies.

Dragon

Wrong. These studies have absolutely nothing to do with HHO boosters or onboard electrolysis. Our current fraudster has simply copied a group of studies from a Wikipedia article. There are certainly well over 100 legitimate studies on the uses of H2 supplementation of other fuels in spark ignition and diesel engines. These have nothing to do whatsoever with the typical HHO scam.

It is not a good answer. It is a deceptive answer with, I can only assume, fraudulent intent.

Evidently, you have not read any of these studies. These are a few of the studies often cited by the fraudsters. Not one of these has to do with HHO generation via electrolysis powered by the engine's alternator. Also not a single one of these has to do with H2 injection in the minutely small quantities produced by an onboard electrolyzers. All of these deal with H2 quantities more than 100 times as high as that produced by an onboard HHO "booster".

The energy required to split H2O into H2 and O2 exceeds the energy recouped by burning it. Because an ICE is only 25% efficient, and because an alternator is 67% efficient, the HHO process would need to be over 500% efficient, just to break even on an energy balance. I hope you realize that 500% efficient processes are impossible.

The Wikipedia article from which you copied your information is primarily about legitimate uses for hydrogen in supplementing various fuels in internal combustion engines. However that article cites several tests (footnotes 12, 13, 14, 15) that show that onboard electrolysis does not work as claimed.

Did you honestly think any of these studies had to do with the HHO booster scams?

So: clearly, you cannot produce two studies, one supporting the other. How about producing just one?

My post was a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor. Sorry you missed the joke.

Oh yes, like you. I can post a "good answer" report when I see what I think is a good answer even if I disagree with it.

I have no interest in the argument between you and any HHO posters. Please do not include me.

Dragon

I have no interest in the argument between you and any HHO posters. Please do not include me.

I assume this is intentionally circuitous and also tongue-in-cheek. Obviously, if you do not wish to be included, don't respond. What would be simpler?

In your post #44, you jumped in with the provocative and incorrect statement: It is not and never was "overunity". It is simply a more efficient use of the electrical energy already being produced.

An alternator consumes an amount of energy equal to the load on it, plus losses. This is true of any generator, big or small. It is simple to prove this to yourself by spinning a permanent magnet motor by hand. With nothing connected to the terminals, it spins very easily. Connect a wire from one terminal to the other, and it spins with difficulty, because it is now a loaded generator. This basic fact is demonstrated in children's museums, where you can pedal a bike with different electric loads connected to the pedal-driven generator.

Therefore, an unloaded alternator requires scarcely any fuel to run. A loaded alternator (such as happens when you place a 20 amp load on it by running an HHO booster) requires an additional amount of fuel proportional to that load. The amount of additional fuel used is (because of engine inefficiency and alternator inefficiency) about five times the energy value of the hydrogen produced (even if you assume that the booster itself is 100% efficient, although it is not). So to simply break even, (to avoid having the booster reduce your fuel efficiency) the booster would have to be at least 500% efficient: over unity.

It is no coincidence that the largest promoter of over-unity generators (Dennis Lee) is also the largest promoter of the HHO scam -- the physics are the same. It is also no coincidence that he is a convicted fraud.

Please feel unincluded, if you'd like. If you choose to respond, I will be happy to ignore what you write.

I have only read the posts that were presented here, but the results of the testing only related to the lowering of emissions. Nowhere was lower fuel consumption mentioned.