Saving MPG with Brown Gas Generator

Glad to hear your opinion, Sounds like you have had experience with the site I linked and thanks allot for shedding the light on them. I think you are saying that it is feasible but there is no one that is smart enough to make a unit that works yet? I was not planning on spending money on the one in the link but looking in on building one myself from some plans I have. I understand how it basically works and the figuring out the rest is usually the fun part. I also own a complete fabrication and machine shop so I have the tools that I need to tinker with it. Actually me and a friend who is an electrical engineer was looking into this as a project and if anything other than education comes from it the we have partially succeeded. I have done numerous searches on the internet but I respect the opinions and ideas of this site allot and so that is why I ask. The work I put into something is many times great so I don't consider my self looking for a free lunch as you state. Besides, if I am not working on this I'd be working on something else.

pipewelder

The web site states electrolysis "can be up to 80-94% efficient". So if you put 100 units of energy into the process and get 94 units out, there are 6 units are wasted.

TANSTAAFL!

Quite frankly I have reached the end of my rope and have decided that in future I will give people interested in "too-good-to-be-true" free energy devices a warning and if they refuse to listen to reason and would rather blindly follow a bunch of totally impossible promises that break numerous physical, electrical and chemical laws from scammers or uneducated backyard inventors who cannot even seem to perform simple system efficiency tests and measurements, then my advice will be "by all means go buy these products, but don't bother coming back here and discussing it with the rest of us".

I am at about that point too.

I have planned to put up a thread that treats these things generically, so that when another thread starts, we can just say: here -- read this. Unfortunately, the promoters of this garbage will then say "Oh, my device is not like that. My device has magnets in it too... it's not just an electrolyzer." or "Oh my device is not like that. My devices uses a covalizer -- a special fuel additive that makes the whole concept work." or "My device has an "optimizer*" which fools the car's computer into leaning the mixture"

Several people have claimed, re electrolyzers, that "It's not like I'm proposing a free energy device. Waadya think I am, stupid?" I'd have to reply: "Perhaps not truly stupid, but woefully uninformed." All these units, if they worked, would indeed have to be free energy/over-unity/perpetual motion devices. I suppose that is one reason that Dennis Lee operates in both the free energy generator world and the electrolyzer worlds -- they both rely on unsuspecting customers who believe that perpetual motion is possible.

Unfortunately, in science museums, etc where the standard electrolysis --> big bang demonstration is given, there is no talk of the energy balance. In high school chemistry, there should always be, and usually is, I hope. In an unrealistically perfect world, the energy added to perform electrolysis is the same as the energy given out when the H2 burns**. So even in this unrealistically perfect world, on board electrolysis would make no sense. You just made the alternator work harder to get an amount of energy back that just balances the extra work.

But this is not a perfect world, and electrolysis, the internal combustion engine, and an alternator all operate inefficiently, in varying degree. A lab quality electrolyzer will operate at about 75% efficiency (the garbage the scammers sell can be expected to be much worse). An internal combustion engine operates at no better than 25% in an ordinary driving cycle. The alternator is only 65% efficient. So you could expect to get (.75 x .25 x .65) 12% of the energy required to run the electrolysis out of the alternator. Therefore, the process runs at a huge net loss, and produces a tiny fraction of the H2 required to just break even, let alone enough extra to actually help power the car. To be able to produce enough H2 to help run the car, the electrolysis would have to run at far greater than 500% efficiency (5 times better that a self-sustaining perpetual motion machine).

There are loads of threads here dealing with such scams. Search (all of CR4) for HAFC, PICC, runs on water, hydrolysis, "getting more burn", etc.

There are some very slick scams out there. One sells mainly to truckers, and the hardware looks less crude than some others. However, if you take their electrical consumption figures, you find that even if the electrolyzer is highly efficient, the energy value of the H2 produced is infinitesimal in relationship to the energy used by the truck. Thus the reduction in fuel economy caused by the device is not great enough to measure: if you are getting 5mpg originally, and it drops to 4.995, how could you know -- even on a dyno, let alone over the road. So the placebo effect takes over, and people convince themselves that they are getting better mileage.

One of our members here built his own electrolyzer, and was technically more adept than the average guy, but had still convinced himself it worked. Finally, after a lot of discussion here, he retested, and found that it made no improvement at all. Many Prius owners report higher than the EPA figures, whereas controlled tests in magazines report lower than EPA figures. Some of the owner reports may be accurate, because if you buy a Prius, you can be expected to be very concerned with fuel efficiency, and drive accordingly, rather than driving like most people: then their individual mileage says more about how they drive than it does about the car (which is a superb car, in my view).

* the "optimizer" in the Dennis Lee HAFC scam is probably a resistor, and nothing else, in a large enough case to make it look like there a could be meaningful electronics inside. The Lambda sensor varies in resistance with O2 concentration, so it is simple to make the engine computer think the engine is running a little rich by changing the resistance. The computer would then compensate by making the engine run a little lean. This would increase NOx emissions (illegal tampering) and degrade drivability slightly. Under some limited light load conditions, leaning the mixture slightly might improve mileage by a tenth of an mpg, or so. Perhaps in 100 years or so, you'd save enough gas to pay for the device? Doubt it: certainly any leaning effect would not compensate for the increased alternator load.

Even more likely is the possibility that the "optimizer" does nothing at all, just like the "fuel vaporizing" magnets also used in the Lee scam. The "strength" of the HAFC, in terms of it scam effectiveness, is its complexity -- most people so not understand electrolysis alone, let alone a system of 4-5 components ostensibly working together to produce magic.

** Any reversible reaction consumes energy in one direction and gives off an equal amount of energy (ignoring inefficiencies) in the opposite direction -- this is not unique to electrolysis. If that were not the case, we'd already have "free energy": we'd just run a reaction back and forth, extracting heat in one direction (to boil water to run a generator, etc.) and then just run the reaction in revers to get our starting stuff back, without using any energy. The analogy would be to burn wood, getting heat, and then magically (without any energy input) put the ashes, H20, and CO2 back together to make wood, to run the reaction again.

Hey Ken,

Would you agree that the Prius is a perpetual motion machine of another sort.

It may save you on gas but what you save there is funneled back to the dealer for maintenance of a more complicated system then a simple recip engine.

Perpetual motion in perpetually increasing the dealers dip into your pocket.

j.

Would you agree that the Prius is a perpetual motion machine of another sort.

I'd like to. (Unfortunately, I'm developing my own plug-in hybrid, so I can't say too many bad things about hybrids in general.)

It remains to be seen if the Prius maintenance proves costly. Perhaps by the time batteries are due for replacement, their cost will have come down. My own luck with NiMH batteries for use in cameras has been pretty poor. I have a fast charger that is microprocessor controlled, etc. but nevertheless, the batteries often have very short lives (10 cycles, instead of 1000). Of course the warranty on the Prius battery is 10 years, (I think ?) so the first user won't have to deal with it.

I think that the efficiency of a hybrid can be improved by going to series architecture, but even so, a simple diesel Jetta performs just as well as a Prius, with far less complexity.

One of my Automotive X Prize competitors will have a small vehicle, similar to mine, but with straight turbo-diesel power. I am, by no means, writing off his effort. On a long stretch of flat road, at fairly high speed, I'd expect his to be more efficient. Around town, a series hybrid is hard to beat, and has the advantage over a Prius (etc.) of lower complexity.

So basically, I agree with what you are saying -- although I think that Toyota's motive might not be to dip into your pocket through service, because their brand is built on avoiding that -- but in practice, the Prius could be shocking at battery replacement time.

Is their motive with the Prius to be really green? One could assume not, because they crank out huge SUVs, etc. and several of their hybrids get rotten mileage (instead, being aimed at high performance without a huge mpg hit). They are every bit as into the bigger, heavier, more power thinking as anyone else, as far as I can tell.

Your own PHEV...cool. Are you blogging or have a webpage? I'm working on an electric conversion for now ( 30-40 mile range for commuting) and hoping to find an appropriate DC diesel generator that could be added for longer trips, perhaps on a small trailer or some sort of a towing hitch rack shaped to house the generator and aid with aerodynamic drag. ...I'd love to see what you have in the works! I'm just getting started so not much to read about: eagletalonev.blogspot.com

Now there is an interesting idea I had not thought of before. My main interest in cars, because when I deliver a school bus a couple thousand miles away or so, I tow a personal car to get to the next job, is long haul.

So batteries for 30-40 mile range, and an additional unit for long haul. In my case perhaps a clip on gen set for the roof.

That is an idea I had not seen before, a changeable configuration depending on use.

j.

Hi kkjennsen:

Yes, I have a web page: www.gaiatransport.com

Interesting that you should mention trailer. I will be doing the same thing to hybridize the current prototype (my avatar pic). Given the right shape, the trailer could improve the aerodynamics of some vehicles. I am using a trailer mainly for ease in construction (not so much shoe-horning) and experimentation. The next (somewhat larger) prototype will have the generator on board.

Good luck with your project.

Ken, I should have made clear I was picking on the Prius because of a drive chain coupled to two power sources, one electric the other recip.

I do indeed think a serial drive system ending in electric drive might be a good way to go since the source of drive for generators could be any number of things, i.e., gas turbine, gas or diesel recip, steam, etc.

Just for the hell of it I pulled up a drawing of a diesel locomotive. I don't think most folks know the driving torque is actually electric motors power for the motors coming from a diesel-generator set of humongus proportions.

Diagram for those curious here http://www.railway-technical.com/diesel.shtml

Something to think about when we think of electric drive for cars. Of course there extreme weight is a plus for necessary traction.

j.

Tad,

Maybe you or anyone else should explain to everyone exactly how these tests should be conducted to prove fact or fiction to take the easily manipulated reality of the human mind out of the equation. I track my gas mileage on every tank of gas, but I don't think that would be enough because not every person online is completely honest. I have gotten to where I don't trust anyone promoting any product unless it is being given away with zero cost (and we know that isn't going to happen). I would like for someone to provide the proof.

On another note, wouldn't the H2O vapors condensate in the muffler and exhaust causing rust? Last I checked, mufflers are still a requirement for all automobiles. If the engine runs cooler, how does this affect the heater?

I know of two ways that add 5 - 12 mpg each. Add a cold air intake and a catback exhaust, but you have to keep the lead out of your foot. I put them on a 99 Mazda Protege and was getting 48 mpg (mostly 70 mph hilly interstate) average across three tanks. It was EPA rated at 34 mpg hwy. I am really regretting trading that car in for a truck 5 yrs ago.

Wwkayaker,

Certainly the best way to test would be controlled tests like those done by auto companies or the EPA. Any reports by posters here would be anecdotal and sure, anybody can fake or lie or even deceive themselves.

However something would be better than nothing. There are folks on the forum that I think have earned the respect from this group by their postings and knowledge. If they posted results, I would tend to believe them. Unfortunately, they are also the least likely to actually play with this stuff.

Let's say one kept accurate mileage records for 500 miles, installed the device and kept records for another 500, removed the device and repeated this process a few times. Of course it would be best if the driving was consistent, like just driving back and forth to work where day to day variations would average out. It would not be a controlled test, but if the numbers were consistent it would be some indication.

Burning any hydrocarbon releases water. Burning a gallon of gasoline produces almost a gallon of water, so the small amount of added water from a electrolysis device would be negligible. Water does condense in the muffler when cold, but the muffler warms up fast enough that it evaporates pretty quickly, and water no longer condenses. If an engine runs cooler, it may take a bit longer to warm up when first started, but the radiator thermostat is what controls the temperature of the coolant, so heating should not be effected.

Tad

Doesn't need to be road tested. That give you apples and oranges. The way to test is on a static test stand with a dynomometer.

Nonetheless, there are still a lot of folk who believe the earth is flat. I propose we test for that.

j.

Water injection was used during WW2 on some aircraft and on Reno race aircraft for power boost, and could conceivably increase fuel economy while exhaust stays warm enough to avoid condensation in a muffler. This "might" be part of an efficiency gain in some electrolyzers that has not been recognized. Unfortunately I do not have the budget or time to accurately analyze, so I will remain sceptical until someone produces independent test data to prove the process.

The water injection system on WWII aircraft is called "ADI" (Anti-Detonation Injection) and does not, on its own, increase power. The ADI allows for a temporary increase of supercharger pressure, thereby increasing engine power. Some (most?) Reno air racers add methanol to the ADI water as a power-adder. (I don't know if methanol was intended for use originally.)

Dugthis article from 1979 from "The MEN" website for fuel economy.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Do-It-Yourself/1979-11-01/Ron-Novaks-Do-It-Yourself-Water-Injection-System.aspx

At the time this was a $5 retrofit that alledgedly improved economy 5-10%. Scrounge up the parts and DIY.

I am very glad someone finaly said something about all of this BS junk Science.

However Mine realy is differant. I do sell a kit that will get you over 180MPG in ANY Car or Truck. IT works on the navel lint atamization process. The technology is very complex and you can do it yourself of purchase from me.

If you want to get this kind of millage what you need is 4 Lbs of Navel lint. IF you do not have enough you can pick the navels of others or just asked them if you can check their navels for lint and offer to pay them for it. Once you have the 4 Lbs of Navel Lint then you add that into a Galvanzied Coffee Can. IT has to be Galvanized with Zink as the plasic polymer coatings will not allow for the reations needed to get the millage we are talking here. After inserting the Navel Lent into the Can add about

two tablespoons of Dry Chinese or English Mustard. Then stur this into the lint in the coffee can intill it is mixed very well. Then add about 4 Oz of Honey and stir that in very well. Let this stand for 5 hours under a pyramid shapped box (Cardbaord is OK)

Every 5 Hours turn the Can 90 Degres to the right if you are about the equator and

90 degrees to the left if you are below the equator. Do this every 5 hours for eaxatly two weeks. Then Add two drops of Vinagar but DO NOT STUR this mixtur.

We are now ready to go. Spread a good dalup of this mixture on you face in the shape of a Go Tee (Spelling) Let it sit for 7 Min and then get into the car or truck or Steam Rollar or whatever you are driving. The ions from the navel lint will jump to time warp to the injectors or carbarator and will reset the wick assembly of the sling sycrometer to 93.7663 kelven or is it Kalven Cline. Ether will work so it does not matter. Start driving and save lot of $. This wlll impress your freinds and the girls will go wild so you get not only better millage but more girls to boot. It is a win win deal and is guranteed for the life of the watch. Hug a Tree on the way and have a good time driving and knowing that you are a big help to the environment. You will look good too.

Jim

You just blew away all the years I spent getting an education!

Now I understand what I was not taught!

wow!

Had a look at the link. All I can say is ROFLOL.

Its still quite amazing that the media still fall for these device's over-unity claims after they have been around for so many years and have all been scientifically and physically dis-proven. I really wish the media (and people in general) would actually spend the time and effort to research what they talk about. I think it would go a long way to helping the gradual dumbing down of society that seems to be occurring (in part due to the massive amount of data we are being bombarded with now-days).

I really wish the media (and people in general) would actually spend the time and effort to research what they talk about. I think it would go a long way to helping the gradual dumbing down of society that seems to be occurring (in part due to the massive amount of data we are being bombarded with now-days).

I agree completely. The media have swallowed utterly fantastic claims hook, line, and sinker time and time again. One would hope that they would have at least the most basic BS detectors engaged. When there is nothing to balance the onslought of drivel, society truly gets dumbed-down. Perish the thought that anyone would actually open up a physics text.

I don't have the link, but I think it was last year that I read a story about a student experimenting with "cold fusion", or what I call "a fancy looking water electyrolyser". The media reported that it looks like it works as (wait for it)................ The purple glow inside the water chamber looks like the purple glow mentioned in a paper by another cold fusion "scientist".

Obviously this story wouldn't be half is funny if the results of the experiments of this other scientist were repeatable and proven. Thing is they were not either.

Words fail me.

What pisses me off is I see some of the "free energy" stuff being discussed here on the Science Channel and National Geographic. In fact, I think I actually saw Dennis Lee and his torch on some Green Planet Documentary. There's been alot of talk about how green building is no more expensive than conventional. I'm flabbergasted. Maybe if you chose solar panels over hand cut exotic Italian slate roofing it is no more expensive. Putting in a $70,000 solar system on my house would save me about $200 a month, so if I borrowed the money to do it, it would never pay for itself. Maybe some day it will, so I think its worth working on. I guess my main point after the rant is, first we had Discovery, then The Learning Channel, and now we have Cash Cab, Trading Spaces and now I guess Cool Fuel (which, BTW, its website has an ad for, you guessed it, a hydrogen from water generator).

Hello jack of all trades

A couple of GA points for your answers.

Kind Regards....

Make sure your electrical engineer friend's wife also has the information so she too can sue when both of you get your asses blown sky high.

j.

Hey jack, point well taken the fact is I build burner management skids in my shop for large industrial recovery, power boilers and an occasional glass furnace or lime kiln. I do work with hydrogen gas a good bit because many paper mills already burn allot of hydrogen in south America on large industrial burners. It seems they figured out that the hydrogen is allot cheaper than natural gas and make just as good steam in their areas at least. I am sure they get it as a by-product from on of the many paper making processes rather than electrolysis though. Maxxon actually makes special block valves just for hydrogen. One thing I know for sure is that hydrogen is flammable and it does generate heat/energy that has already been proven. I appreciate your concern about my safety but I know allot about burner safety and I assure you that being safe is my top priority. We are planning to build a unit and experiment to see for ourselves if we can get any benefits from it. I know that there are allot of scamers out there just as there are allot of people that swear every thing new is a scam. So I usually end up doing some controlled experiments to find out for myself. I was asking if anyone had already tried one or had experience with this technology so that I might get some technical data on the design.

pipewelder

I would hope that anybody doing what you say you do would know enough about physics and chemistry to know that what you propose is not a viable proposition.

No mystery about that. Perhaps you ought to get a good basic high school chemistry book and get an education.

j.

Hello pipewelder

<"........said to save MPG, prolong engine life, add power and is very "green"......">

Never believe everything you are told, moreso if someone is going to ask you to open your wallet

Water is an extremely stable molecule, and in a low position of energy.

it is normally made by burning Hydrogen in an atmosphere of Oxygen.

Because the energy expended in dissociating the Water back into Hydrogen and Oxygen is far greater than the energy expended in combining the individual gases into water, there is always an energy loss in electrolysis.

Thus you cannot get back what you put in, but must inject an extra amount of energy, which has to come from somewhere.

Forget the idea of "Free energy from Brown's Gas", and the like, it cannot happen under the Laws of Physics.

It could happen in a genuine Miracle, but that's another story.

Kind Regards....

ok so getting hydrogen from electrolysis is a net loss. What about the so called research claiming improved efficiencies from addding hydrogen to gasoline. One article mentions "hydrogenated or oxygenated gasoline" and I have seen another article which talked about injecting hydrogen into the air stream just before it enters the combustion chamber.

Does the addition of hydrogen result in a net loss of power because the combustion process is affected? Why do refinerirs talk abotu oxugenated gasoline with reference to adding ethanol blends. Is this also so much marketing crap or does that have any basis in scientific fact.

There is now so much BS being printed that I am getting extremely sceptical of any claims in print. If someone told me gasoline was explosive, I'm not sure I would beleive them until I had tested the theory out for myself.

Hello elnav

Most of the inflated claims are advertising puffery = lies.

The oil Industry has a long and continuing history of market manipulation of the masses, by the very few.

Just thinking back to the many "additives", we were told over the years would save us money and give us greater fuel economy:

Shell with "X-100"

Caltex with "Boron"

Those are only 2 of the "Special Additives" which were said to be so essential, some 40 years ago.

No doubt there are many examples of these so-called "Special Additives", in various Countries.

However, in New Zealand, if there was a fuel shortage, tankers from one Company could be seen filling up at the so-called opposition's depot, and the same thing still happens - bit of a joke if you know, really, because New Zealand has only the one domestic refinery, and all "Brands" draw from the same output of that refinery.

I'm certain the same situation exists in most Countries.

So...Shell, BP, Caltex, Atlantic, Europa, and a raft of other "brands" which have locally fallen by the wayside, were all actually the same petrol, at all times.

Of course, if the oil Companies were genuinely independent of each other, there would be variations in price, every day, at different Service Stations.

If the interlocking Directorships are carefully examined, it is found that the same people control them all.

An interesting book to read is: http://books.google.com/books?id=qAsZXT5CwWIC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=oil+company+cartel&source=web&ots=WNrGUwtI8b&sig=d6cSud7jFIoy434XVMBaW42c8vk&hl=en

Get yourself a copy of this book "The Billion Barrel Oil Swindle": http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/bkcoun/24126X1.shtml

Other relevant historical and updated information is readily located.

Kind Regards....

Good points elnav. I too see all the BS that gets printed as well as stated by schemers and people who have something to sell or just want to make other believe what they think is Gospel. This is the whole point of me looking into the subject.

pipewelder

From a chemistry standpoint, the ethanol molecule is oxygenated. But the economic cost is higher than regular fuel that it has to be subsidized to be "cost" effective.

Ethanol is also somewhat more environmentally friendly than MBTE for emission reduction.

Thanks sparkstation for you reply and I appreciate you not calling me a fool or uneducated because I asked the question. I respect you opinion.

Pipewelder

You have to admit though. They build a VERY nice web page.

So if the hydro4000 is bogus what about the so called parent company.

Diversified Energy Group, Inc are they a real energy exploration company? They are NOT on the NYSE.

There are lots of Diversified Energy Groups but not one called "Diversified Energy Group Inc."

It's incorporated so you cannot go after the owners assets. You can only sue the incorporated company for it's assets. So when you try to sue the company, you find out that Diversified Energy Group Inc is nothing more than a PO box and an address in cyberspace.

Caveat Emptore

Check this out.

www.msdcweb.com/gasoline.aspx

I actually witnessed my brother's car after his first trip. I can confirm that his old beater Taurus wagon is getting 21 - 22 mpg with a MASON jar installed. Was getting 15. Yeah right. But I saw it with my own eyes. So, I (I can't believe I'm admitting this) installed one he made up, in my 2002 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited V8. Normally gets 14? city/21 HWY unless I'm pulling the boat. So far with 46.7 miles the needle is still solidly on the full mark. Granted, this does not constitute meaningful research, but we'll see...

Blame my brother's banker who turned him on to this crazy idea. But he's saving money, so why not? By the way, his car tends to overheat in stop and go traffic, so we installed a small under dash LED lighted switch to kill the power in case the Jeep does it too. He suspects his old radiator is the culprit. Note: he's a programmer, but get this, he graduated from Navy Nuclear school right out of HS. So he's not stupid. My excuse? Theres none I can think of, except it was free except for the $7.00 switch. By the way, both cars seem to run just fine.

Thanks for the information I have found several people that have built these units and claim they are getting a benefit from them. Most of these people are not dummies and believe me I am not calling anyone dumb here. It is plain that there are allot more people on this site that say it will never work. The fact is that it doesn't cost much to play around with something and even if it did I have been called allot worse than a fool by very smart people.

pipewelder

You are right. It doesn't cost much to play around with things for entertainment/scientific exercise. My comment earlier was not pointed at you, just at lot of these internet panaceas. "Hey I can make your car run on water, just send me a $1000 cash or better yet give you credit card number and I will send you my kit. "

If you find that this works through your own experimentation, that would be awesome. I hope that this will work. I am just not confident enough about it to throw large amounts of my money at it. (I wish I had large amounts of money to throw in the first place) I would love to experiment with it myself if I had more free time.

I would just like to mention that their are many news stations checking these devises out on their own vehicles and have given quite a good report. Personally I have seen chanel 5 and Wave 3. Now I am aware there will be more stations doing their own testing and advising persons to check them out to help get better gas mileage. I have a friend getting ready to build one so we can see if we can stop less at the gas pump. Other than that maybe some engineers need to take over the positon of gas purchases for America and set it straight or maybe even lets buy our through a secondary country to get cheaper prices.

So why should we believe you?

This is after all a web site where anybody can sign on and claim anything. I sure as hell am not going to believe what I know in terms of the laws of chemistry is not productive of any gain and neither should anybody else happening on this site who may not have as good an education as I or others on this site, actual engineers as evidenced by their well considered, sourced, detailed, educated remarks.

To folks without the basic science I would suggest going to the book store and buying a basic chemistry book, or if you are capable of separating the wheat from the chaff (Usually posters with an .edu address) reading basic chemistry here on the web.

There is no question you can split water by electrolysis but pay special attention to the table of elements and energy issues as to molecular combinations.

As to your "brothers banker who turned him on to this crazy idea" I'll quote Mackie "What is the crime of robbing a bank compared to the crime of founding one" or the old anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon "Property is theft!"

As to your competence by way of your brother "Note: he's a programmer, but get this, he graduated from Navy Nuclear school right out of HS. So he's not stupid."

To paraphrase Shakespeare I think you offer too many bona fides, I think you protest too much.

j.

"But I saw it with my own eyes."
I'm betting that you saw the MPG readout from the dashboard computer, right? Have your brother do a calculation of actual fuel consumption for at least one full tank. Be prepared for a disappointment.

Im found this site while looking for more info on browns gas type systems,my dad just installed one on his car,the first run his mpg went from 31 to 37.i wonder more about bad effects on the engine,i guess the water vapor would get rid of any carbon.yes im a skeptic also.it seems to make sense if done right.

Did this HHO generator come with a device to change the output of the Oxygen sensor? Some sellers of HHO generators claim that the injection of HHO is nullified by the O2 sensor. They claim the extra oxygen makes the Engine management system richen the mixture.

Perhaps the overheating is happening because this manipulation of the sensor output is forcing the motor to run too lean.

Jack,

While I completely agree with beating any over-unity schemes into a fine pulp, brown's gas injection is being used in commercial diesels with several reputable firms producing gas generators in the US and Canada.

The goal not being some mythic run-for-free scheme, but instead taking the minor alternator load to displace some portion of the diesel we are currently paying 4.25 for.

The reputable sites claim nothing more than 10 to 20% savings, but the savings on a 5 - 7 mpg truck is substantial.

Not trying to justify nonsense, just trying to point out that we can use too broad a brush if we aren't careful.

Emmett

First, I happen to have a Commercial Drivers License in my pocket. It's a fun way, delivering commercial vehicles, to generate a few extra bucks over and above Social Security.

Truckers, who spend most of their time alone in the cab, are a talkative lot. They bitch a lot about the cost of fuel. I have not heard one come up with this wonderful way to save a bit.

Please source your claims.

Two, there is no question you can produce "Brown's gas" through electrolysis. The question is does it offer a saving?

You demonstrate your ignorance, and the fact that you are proposing one of the elements of an "perpetual motion machine" when you talk about "taking the minor alternator load" to replace expensive diesel fuel.

There is no minor alternator load. Load is determined by just that, what you require the alternator to power. If you load your electrolysis scheme onto the alternator and the "load" it puts on the alternator represents energy in excess of what you get back in "Brown's gas" than you are even further behind as to cost of fuel.

In fact I have a question for the diesel specialists as may be on this web site. Seems to me injecting into diesel cylinders something as volatile as an oxy-hydrogen mixture along with diesel would result in pre-ignition damaging the engine.

Am I right?

j.

I am NOT a diesel engine expert, but in early 1960's farmers boosted tractor power with propane injection by 25-40%.

But, TANSTAAFL!

Engines had higher failure rates due to over pressures and crank shaft stresses.

Hi Emmet:

The reputable sites claim nothing more than 10 to 20% savings, but the savings on a 5 - 7 mpg truck is substantial.

You would have to provide a link to a reputable site. This one appears to be a scam, but the site looks slick, and would give the impression of being reputable, if you didn't read the data carefully.

Please provide a link to a site for which independent testing (by the EPA, for example, which has a program to test these devices. Purdue, MIT, and U Wisconsin all have good engine labs, too) verifies the claims.

Without real evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to believe that the amount of H2 generated on board (even in a truck unit drawing 13.5 amps like the CHEC unit, that amount is less than 1/2 a horsepower's worth of H2 assuming perfect efficiency) would have any measurable effect on fuel mileage whatsoever.

The injection of gases of various sorts (H2, propane, natural gas) can have beneficial effects on power and emissions in diesels. However the amounts injected in tests have been many many times higher that the 1/2% of the incoming fuel flow that would be produced by a unit like the CHEC one. These tests have been done for many years, but as you can see, there has been no large scale trend to fueling trucks with diesel fuel plus gases, despite the obvious huge cost savings, if the cost of the additional gas could be justified.

If you have links to university studies that indicate that such tiny amounts injected can result in relatively huge gains in efficiency -- even when the gas is from a tank and not generated at an energy loss on board -- then I'd love to see them. The tests I've read were done with very large amounts of gases: 5% 10%, etc.

While I completely agree with beating any over-unity schemes into a fine pulp...

Brown's gas generation is an over-unity scheme, if the gas is generated on board: you cannot possibly get, out of the electrolyzer, an amount of H2 and O2 that equals the energy content of the gases when recombined. To just break even, the efficiency of the electrolyzer would need to be 500% for a car, perhaps 450% for a truck. (See my other post in this thread) Obviously you cannot even come close to the break-even point, let alone produce enough gas to improve fuel efficiency. The saving grace of these scams, from a marketing perspective, is that they do nothing measurable, letting the imagination of the truck driver boost fuel efficiency to any level he wants.

Even in actual dynomometer tests of such systems on stationary engines, there has been no measurable effect one way or the other, even when the engine is only a few liters, where you'd perhaps hope to see a fuel efficiency reduction -- but alas, dynos do not reliably measure down to 1/2%.

Ken, Thanks for the reply I respect you opinion and you have a very good way of explaining things so even us "uneducated" (as jack puts it) people can understand. I am going to go forward with my experiments but will keep my findings to myself about this from now on. I really didn't mean to stir up so much BS when I asked what I thought was a simple straight forward question.

pipewelder

Yoou askede a reasonable question, and seem to have the time and inclination to investigate. I for one would have an interest in your result.

Ken,

Another excellent post. I had composed a similar one regarding the burnout of the group of answering the same technical questions over and over again (and the increasing frustration), but my computer froze, and so I lost it.

It reminded me of being in elementary school. We had quizzes, and we stood in line to have it graded. Sometimes, the first person in line made a mistake. The teacher would explain why it was wrong in a calm voice. By the time a third or fourth person had made the same mistake, the teacher was literally screaming at them. They were not any stupider then the first student (and I think it reflected on how and what was taught), but they sure caught the wrath.

I've done a fair amount of time researching H2 injection in engines. So far I have only seen abstracts of papers from reputable sources like SAE, MIT and others. I might get the bug to get the original papers some day. Most were from years ago, and most were looking at the reduction in pollutants. Lean burn is known to reduce NOx, but can cause misfires, and poor fuel economy. The consensus of these papers was that H2 injection solved these problem, allowing lean mixtures without missing. Most did not address fuel economy directly, but CO emissions were also reduced, indicating more complete combustion.

From a scientific point of view, on-board production of H2 is thermodynamically very unfavorable. The only advantage would be from the flame propagation speed increase that H2 provides. There seems to be evidence that this is what accounts for any gain in performance (and reduction of pollutants), and it may outweigh the losses from the net loss in energy input, created by the inefficient generation of H2. So, it would seem that cars in a poor state of tune would benefit. Or cars tuned to run lean.

I would still love to see some tests, so if pipefitter accepts your offer, please keep me filled in. I also offer my services, if there is any way that I could assist.

Tad

To speak of including hydrogen as a fuel generated on board by electrolysis is absurd for all the reasons recorded here, its consideration as a fuel produced otherwise makes sense.

There is no question that burning hydrogen would give you a clean burn devoid of the pollutants burning various fossil fuels produces. There is some question in my mind as to running on it devoid of the anti-knock compounds and what that might do to an engine. If it could be run without those compounds it would be the cleanest fuel.

Nonetheless, the primary consideration then would still remain. Can it, BTU for BTU, be produced at or lower than the costs of gasoline? Since its industrial production utilizes other energy sources my guess would be it is far more expensive.

Nonetheless, in the same vein, liquefied natural gas (LNG) is being used and provides a relatively cleaner burn. Instead of screwing around with electrolysis like a bunch of alchemists looking for the philosophers stone to create gold from base metals, somebody with knowledge of engines ought to look at producing simple, cheap, conversion kits. Given the lack of distribution of LNG at service stations, BP tried that a while ago, it would also be advantageous to make the conversion capable of burning LNG or LP. For local use somebody has recently produced a fairly cheap compressor for liquefying natural gas right off home service lines.

That would make a lot more sense then trying to produce fuel from cheap water.

j.

Ken,

Obviously we are in total agreement. We cannot emphasize too much that any claim of getting more energy out than you put in the system is nought but another perpetual motion machine.

Further, we should make clear there is something wrong with any reasoning process that does not automatically bridle at such schemes.

To be honest I think it is akin to folks who get taken by one or another version of the old pigeon drop. Internally they know quite well they have no right to what is being proposed but are still, despite every internal warning, going to try and get over although they don't necessarily think of it that way.

The pigeon drop works, because it works on an element of dishonesty in the pigeon. Some of these folks are going to scream at this but I think we have here the same phenomena.

Perhaps one of the reasons I get so mad at this stuff is there are obviously a lot of folks who are being thrust into industry for the first time. This nonsense does not help them and may misguide them into all sorts of baseless speculation instead of reliance on basic principles of science and engineering.

We of course get accused of being closed minded and opposed to considering new things. Nonetheless, I cannot think of any new thing in my 74 years that was not firmly based on what came before. That is true of the entire history of science and of course good engineering. It is the baseline for separating hot air and hogwash from serious ideas.

If you go back and study, for instance, some of the most startling aspects of new architecture, you find the engineering studies, the math and equations, that were at base.

Again, although in your case I know I'm beating in an open door, for all the others who are not sure every new advance in science and engineering, is firmly based on the material conclusions and works of the past.

For some of the folks who are new or who are pulled by arguments about not giving consideration to new things, it might be a good idea to do some reading in philosophy of science or history of science and engineering. In addition to actual studies in one or another field it is a good way to get a firm base that instinctively rejects speculation.

j.

I agree with everything you say here.

Re bridling at such schemes, I find it distressing that a "news" organization would put together such a slip-shod report as shown in the video. Shouldn't they bridle at such far fetched claims?

The profoundly wrong calculations alone are astonishing: from 9.4 to 23.2 representing a 60% change??? It's in the script... they say it... it's overlaid in text form... doesn't anyone take even a second to see if the calculation might be right? Doesn't anyone do a quick internet search to see that there are 50 similar electrolyzers available? Doesn't anyone at the TV station apply just a shred of logic or thought to this? I suppose that is too much to ask.

Wouldn't you hope there would be at least one question about this phenomenal improvement? Shouldn't there be a question about 9.4 mpg while cruising at 55 being astonishingly low for even an SUV (the Durango is rated at 19 highway). Shouldn't there be some question about the test validity, if it shows an improvement of about 150% (i.e., 250% of original).

It would be reasonable to assume that the journalists had nary a clue about dynamometer testing (they clearly have no clue about math, and have no clue about the ordinary questioning that comes into even the most cursory scientific process). I'd assume that the dyno was set to a high load for the 9.4 mpg figure, and to very low load for the 23.2. The journalists probably assumed that because the speed was 55 mph in both cases, that the test conditions were the same. Having designed, built and operated dynamometers, I can say with come conviction that I could obtain figures ranging from about 6 mpg (highly loaded) to 40 mpg or even higher (very light load) from that vehicle, all with a wheel speed of 55 mph. (In a dyno I built, adjusting the load was a simple matter of turning a knob on a hydraulic valve -- and that could be done in front of the journalists without their having any idea of what was going on.)

Was the TV station paid off?

The brush is not too broad. Indeed it is designed to take in such none sense as "The goal not being some mythic run-for-free scheme, but instead taking the minor alternator load to displace some portion of the diesel we are currently paying 4.25 for."

Just how do you figure you can place any extra load on an alternator, for that is what you do no matter what gimmick you hook up to it, and somehow get more back than the load to do so.

That is the classical perpetual motion machine, no matter how you clothe the beast.

Perhaps, as a exercise in thinking, engineers as well as everybody could benefit, we ought to run a section on theory of knowledge. After all, I am not unaware that we have some technical types on here that every now and then buy into this sort of none sense.

j.

Furthermore,

"brown's gas injection is being used in commercial diesels with several reputable firms producing gas generators in the US and Canada."

I never doubted that folks running the con game, i.e., stealing the value produced by drivers surplus to their own daily needs; think carefully through the equation "A fair day's pay for a fair day's work" are not themselves subject to being conned.

If I remember correctly there are studies that show con artists are themselves likely to be susceptible to being conned. After all there are still a large number of folks who insist the earth is flat.

j.

Thanks all for your comments. I too have found some companies that are using a unit to help with combustion and to save a few MPG in thier fleet vehicles which can amount to some money if it works as several people tell me. One the other hand I have spoken with many engineers about the subject and got mixed but generally negative opinions as to whether the brown gas has a benefit. As far as the guy that tells me to get an education or accuses me of wanting to get something for free I see this as an insult. The very fact that he does not even know me and implies that I am not an educated person shows his character pretty plain. Also I don't need someone to tell me what to spend my money on and if they would read the first post they could plainly see that spending money does not even enter into it. I have not bought any plans or even spent a dime on this so don't waste tour breath on telling me that I am a fool because I have. It is plain to me that some people probably read the headline and then went to thinking I was trying to scam him or some non sense like that. I am an honest, fairly well educated person and I do not steal and I would not scam a soul. I am however a tinkerer and do things for the benefit of myself and family only and would never try to push an unproven idea in someones face. I am only trying to get a little information to be able to make my decision and I appreciate all the replies that state peoples opinions with out calling me a fool.

pipewelder

You seem to be sold regardless of the advice of everyone on this web site. Hell, go for it piss your money away on this pie in the sky dream. Sometimes education is free, sometimes it is expensive. In your case it will be expensive.

Why do you think I am spending money on this when I have said repeatedly I am not? I am not sold on anything except that you are reading just as much as you need to in order to make a rude anonymous reply. How do you know what I am planning on doing other than tinkering with a few experiments and what cost it will be? I have been keeping up with the pros and cons from this post and sir you are wrong when you say that everyone on this web site is against it.

pipewelder

Pipewelder

If you can send me some information on this project of yours. I was tinkering with a vapor injector for making an engine run with water vapor being flashed into steam in the combustion chamber. This seemed to help with power output with little change in fuel consumption. I did find that it was a really good way to remove the old carbon build up in the combustion chamber. Still working with that and would like a little more information on your system.

Ric in Cincinnati.

willrw1@fuse.net

Come on Jack J. Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

From the Electrolysis of water you loose energy.

You might get a boost from adding the water vapor.

"In our HYDRO-4000 we use inexpensive distilled water."

As water is distilled it becomes purer and purer - You can measure the purity of water by measuring the amount of current that it will allow to pass. Pure water does not conduct electricity!

"In practice, some kind of electrolyte will need to be used. Electrolyte is a dilute mixture of minerals and water used to enhance the flow of electricity. In our HYDRO-4000 we use inexpensive distilled water."

Distillation removes minerals and other impurities so there goes the electrolyte action!

Hydrogen has a big dislike for being lonely - just cannot stand it - so in a container with O2 and Hydrogen it combines and goes back to being (guess?) WATER!

Oh if it were so simple!

Most high school and some fifth graders have made hydrogen this way, it just don't make very much. There is far more hydrogen in the fuel that you are already burning than you will ever be able to separate from the little amount of water in that little vessel.

Your power increase will not be 1%, 10% or any such thing - maybe 1000th of one percent.

Sorry pipewelder, hydro4000.com is a definite scam. The very fact they claim to use distilled water for electrolysis proves it. Electrolytes are necessary for water to conduct electricity, which is what electrolysis is based on.

As a water engineer, I can assure you that extremely pure water does not conduct electricity. In fact, we measure the purity of ultrapure water systems by the resistivity of the water; the purer the water, the higher the resistivity. Electronics grade 1 water has a minimum resistivity of 18.1MΩ/cm at 77^oF. Even if your distilled water is not that pure, its conductivity will still be negligible.

Since you are determined to find out the truth for yourself, let me help you out here. The best way to do this is to build 2 electrolysis units, 1 running on distilled water, the other on water with added electrolytes. Use identical specifications for both units. Simply place positive and negative terminals in each tank and connect them to your DC supply, which should be as close to that obtained from your vehicle alternator as possible. Connect an ammeter between the terminals to measure the power consumption. Fill the two units with your water, then test. The gas produced at the negative terminal is hydrogen.

Since your objective is to determine if this process can replace fossil fuel, note the amount of gas produced, then compare to the power consumed to produce it. Finally, get a table with shows the energy that will be produced from burning hydrogen. For your information, two moles of hydrogen will combine with one mole of oxygen to produce 1 mole of water and heat. Compare the amount of energy obtained from burning the gas, and compare it to the amount of energy you recover from burning it. Repeat this several times to average out the results, then decide for yourself whether this is an economically viable solution to your problem.

One final thing, your vehicle will require extensive modification to run on H₂ gas. For one thing, the gas tends to damage the structural integrity of metal parts through hydrogen embrittlement, which means your tank must be made of SS316L stainless steel or better. Likewise, your fuel pipelines will all fail in no time, especially if they're made of copper or rubber. Work out all these factors in addition to the energy input versus output ratio, then decide for yourself if all the negative feedback you keep receivng here is entirely justified.

Thanks for your reply, First let me say I never did say whether I though the hydro 4000 was a scam or not I was simply asking what people thought and if anyone had experimented with it and or had info. about it. I am not trying to replace fossil fuel so I hope you don't think I am. I was just checking into something that claimed to have a benefit. I do this allot with different things and I usually ask questions and make my decision before I actually have to do very much. I got some very good answers right off as far as opinions along with allot crazy accusations from people who read allot of crap into what I asked. I thought I actually had a right to ask my question and get an straight answer from some educated people with out all of the name calling and insults. I see that I was wrong. What gets me though is that if makes so many people mad about me wasting their time why the heck do they even bother answering in the first place?

I appreciate you info. though and I chose a pc. of 4" sch 10, 2205 duplex for the container but being that I have allot of 316L handy I may use it. As far as pure water I got 5 gallons of reverse osmosis treated boiler feed water we use at the paper mill. I plan on using this because the mineral content is very low on this water and it is about as pure as I can get my hands on. We use 304 L pipe and tanks to contain it in the mill but I see your point about the 316. For now I am planning on making the electrodes from inconel 625 but I may switch to 316 if it will work. I plan on insulating the inside of the container with a liquid rubber material although I am not sure this is necessary. I will also build a second bubbler tube from 1.5" 316L pipe with a 316 L check valve to make a spark arrestor safety device. I plan on testing only with the electrolyte at this point and not just pure water. I will use the same electrolyte that is used in a car battery.

pipewelder

Demonstrating that for all the hard science thrown at you as to the facts of the matter, including advice about the dangers of "Brown's gas," all you really wanted was information to support a course you had already decided on, the hard facts of the matter from knowledgeable people notwithstanding.

What concerns me, because I have worked with people like you in industrial environments, is that these sort of hair-brained ideas, applied to other situations, could put other people at risk.

I don't think you have any reason to complain. You wrote to an engineering site and got, mainly, what you should have got, good advice you are going to ignore.

j.

Actually Mr. Blink is the one that supplied me with some facts and told me about his ideas on WHY it won't work. I would like to thank him explaining this and apologize if I caused him problems by having to repeat himself. Jack please remember that what I said was that I was thinking about experimenting with it and had anybody ever tried this or had any ideas, you are the one that fabricated all the other nonsense to fit your idea of who I am. You are very knowledgeable in making insults and I will give you that. Other than all the "I know what kind of person you are" babble you spew out in every direction I haven't heard you say anything except it won't work and I heard this very plainly. It is very hard to listen to someone that talks as you do with the I am smarter than you crap or what ever in the hell other insult you were trying throw out. You never wanted to talk to anyone about hard facts you just want to keep insulting me and bitching about how I was taking up your sweet time till I quit asking my question. Well get this: I got plenty of people saying it wouldn't work that didn't try and insult me and I got allot of information from people who probably didn't want to hear you insult them for speaking about it. When you said I put other people in danger you crossed the line and you sir you are a liar.

pipewelder

I would like to thank him explaining this and apologize if I caused him problems by having to repeat himself.

You're welcome, and no apology necessary -- I'm approaching that age where I'll start repeating myself all the time for no apparent reason.

You, Jack, and I are all Georgians, so we must all be pretty good guys. Jack is, I think, trying to "knock some sense into you" so you don't "go over to the dark side". I doubt that he would come across as insulting if the two of you met in person (although I don't know him -- maybe he'd pull a gun on you). Online, without the benefit of seeing the other person's reaction, it is pretty easy to be too blunt.

There is little to lose (provided you don't generate and contain a lot of mixed H2 + O2) in doing your experiment, and there is the potential to gain a lot, even if it doesn't work as planned. There's much to be learned from doing stuff hands-on, as opposed to just reading about it, and even if this idea doesn't work out, it might stimulate some thinking about an idea that does. You might even find that the ideas that come up are entirely different than you would have expected: for instance, in welding the thing together, you might make a specialized work positioner to make the welding easier, and then realize that it could be used by every pipefitter in the country... you get rich, and Jack shows up to apply for a job as a janitor... and you think, "why does that name sound so familiar?"

One of my most memorable experiences in windsurfing was when, just as I thought I had it all figured out, and was doing 30 knots, seemingly flying above the water more than on it... right at that exact instant when I had convinced myself that I was really cool and king of the windsurfers, and commanding nature to do my bidding... a gust came along and threw me all the way over the top of the sail and maybe 30 feet downwind. Peteeew is that sound when you spit. I'm sure I heard that sound as nature spit me out like a pumpkin seed: one tiny body, on one tiny lake in one tiny country on one tiny earth, in one tiny solar system in one large universe. It's great to have perspective restored, and if you restore mine by getting your device to work, I will be the first to clap.

I also applaud your scientific approach.

I do too, (at least in the sense that it shows gumption) although not without reservation. I think that to justify experimentation, it makes sense to first do a literature search.

It is interesting to do a Google search on "run your car on water" (in quotes, to avoid the millions of hits that simply have all three key words). 158,000 hits come up. You can scan through many pages to verify that the hits are really about running your car on water -- and sure enough, the vast majority are. No one has demonstrated that running a car on water is possible, despite the obvious financial windfall that would come to anyone who could demonstrate such a thing. Doing so would require the electrolysis part of the scheme to run at about 500% efficiency (to balance the awful engine efficiency and uninspiring alternator efficiency). Aside from running cars, such a process would solve the world energy needs. The person who could develop such a perpetual motion machine would become wealthy enough to make Bill Gates seem a pauper by comparison.

Suppose that someone wanted to run a car just partly on water. Then that person would want to understand that the same perpetual motion scheme must apply, unless it is believed that a very tiny amount of gas put into the airstream can make extremely large gains in combustion efficiency.

A literature study would reveal that hundreds of studies have been done along these lines, and it has been shown that injecting hydrogen into a diesel's intake air stream Hydrogen can improve combustion efficiency somewhat. Injecting H2 into the airstream of a spark ignition engine simply reduces power, as would be expected, because it displaces air, and creates a too rich mixture.

So, in evaluating the hydro 4000 one can say that the promoter's contention the H2 injection can improve combustion in an SI ICE is simply wrong and probably intentionally deceptive. The promoters' contention that 15% of the fuel that goes into an engine leaves the engine unburned is simply entirely wrong, and the implication that injecting H2 would improve that condition (if it existed) would also be entirely wrong: obviously making a grossly over-rich mixture even richer is not an improvement.

So... getting back to the scientific method, a literature survey is a key first step. Otherwise one could spend a lifetime trying to prove that the world is round (despite its rather flat local appearance) without realizing that there are already a great many well-accepted and logical proofs that the world is indeed round. In a similar vein, one could spend a great deal of time simply recreating the thousands of experiments that have shown that perpetual motion and onboard hydrogen generation and consumption does not work. We have had visitors to this forum who have spent thousand of dollars to build "magnet motors" (perpetual motion machines using only permanent magnets and no external source of energy) only to realize after the expenditure of time and money that, had they come here first, they could have instead been pursuing a more likely fruitful path.

There is no need, in this day and age to recreate Newton's work. We can chose to stand on the shoulders of giants, or ignore all previous scientific work and strike off on our own without any idea of what has gone before. Personally, I think it makes sense to do a literature first, to become acquainted with the technology. Why reinvent the wheel?

Suppose we Google "run your car on wood." Here we get 547 hits. Running your car on wood works quite well, and was widely practiced during WWII in Europe. One can imagine all sorts of possibilities for updating the process, so that we could reduce our reliance on petroleum, and rely more on waste wood and vegetable products. Obviously, the idea of wood gasification works, and has been demonstrated, and has high potential for all sorts of improvements. Interesting that there are so many hits for a process that has never been demonstrated to work, and for which the energy balance is implausible, and so few for a process which has been demonstrated to work, and which requires no belief in magic to reason that it should work.

In ordinary engineering, one looks at many possible solutions to a problem, and then does some study and calculation to see what the feasibility of each possible approach might be. (Does it make sense to use an expensive, higher efficiency motor which uses magnets that can be found mainly is a single country, or a less efficient motor that is cheaper to buy and consumes less energy in its manufacture, but uses a hazardous chemical in its insulation? These questions are not always simple, even when the physics are conventional.)

Before starting down a path unsuccessfully trod by thousands of others, it makes sense to me (and most engineers, I think) to come up with an explanation (a hypothesis) for why the intended "new" approach will work where others have failed. A literature search helps in formulating such a hypothesis.

IC engines are very inefficient; if there's a way to help the hydrocarbons burn more completely and improve the efficiency, then most engines would benefit from that.

True, although with more than 99% of the hydrocarbons already being burned in the cylinders, we'd expect at most a .25%* improvement in fuel efficiency, if we could come up with a way to have a perfect stoichiometric burn without driving up NOx emissions too high for the catalytic converter to cope with them. In the last 20 years, significant gains have been made in friction reduction, pumping efficiencies, etc., whereas the percent of fuel burned has remained nearly unchanged -- largely because it is anything but one of the low hanging fruit.

Unfortunately for Pipewelder, some brusque treatment was misdirected at him rather than the real culprits -- the purveyors of products like the Hydro 4000, HAFC, and PICC.

* with only 25% of the fuel burned converted to useful work

Ken

Thanks for your thorough reply. I tend to err on the concise side. Research is certainly important and I've done a fair bit of it myself on this topic already. There's certainly no point in reproducing someone else's failures. Then again, I haven't come across any blogs or websites out there saying "I tried this and I couldn't get it to work" but there's plenty of people saying "this works", even if it's followed by "…but I don't know how" or, worse still, some inaccurate or misleading explanation of how they think it works. There's even some genuine attempts at providing some sort of scientific experimental evidence in the public domain. There are a couple of YouTube clips where a guy uses a very small fuel container on a scooter and notes how far he can drive before it runs out of fuel, repeating the test with and without the HHO generator. It's not the most thorough of scientific tests but neither can it be as readily dismissed as some would like.

True enough that adding pure Hydrogen to a slightly rich mixture will likely make things worse. Adding a stoichiometric mix of H₂ & O₂, however, will not adversely affect the mix. My understanding is that the main effect of the HHO is to increase the speed and thoroughness of burn. If the fuel is completely burnt during the first, say, 30% of stroke rather than the first, say, 50% then the power output will be greater (greater force acting over greater distance). I have no data on this but I can understand that this simple mechanism alone would produce a tangible improvement in power output. (People start talking about "magic" when they cannot understand how something happens.) If IC engines were very efficient to start with then there would not be much room for improvement but a figure of 25% was quoted earlier. Even improving that to 30% would give an output gain of 20%! ({30%-25%}/25%=20%). From what I know of various engines, that doesn't sound too far fetched to me.

It's true that the real culprits here are those who are trying to make a fast buck out of pseudo-science and people's fear or greed and the evidence suggests that some of the products out there may well be scams. Then again, I have heard people write things off without trying them on the basis that they do not understand how they work. The "suck it and see" approach can sometimes carry you much farther than the cynical approach and you discover that there's more to the world than you already understand.

I understand that part of what Pipewelder was wanting, was to learn from the experience of others. "Has anyone tried this? I would like to here all comments from anyone with experience with this technology." I have not seen any comments in the posts so far from anyone who has actually done an old-fashioned experiment with this stuff.

If the fuel is completely burnt during the first, say, 30% of stroke rather than the first, say, 50% then the power output will be greater (greater force acting over greater distance).

The reason we use octane boosters in gasoline is to slow the burn rate and prevent knocking - pinking.

The faster burn is more like an explosion and can really damage your engine!

Pinking occurs not because of fast burn but because of inconsistent burn, where another part of the mix spontaneously ignites rather than the flame front progressing from the spark plug or injector nozzle. Wikipedia has a good article on engine knocking. The effect of the HHO and octane boosters are the same; regularising the burn so that it is smooth.

The 'burn' that we refer to in IC engines is indeed an explosion and engines are designed to not only contain but to make use of that 'bang'.

"Knocking" "pinging" and "pinking" are all terms for detonation, which is an explosion, and which produces a clearly audible result. Ordinary flame front travel is not an explosion, and produces no such sound: imagine how loud engines would be if the entire mixture exploded: gasoline engines would be more rattly than diesels.

Detonation is often linked with pre-ignition -- although pre-ignition (ignition prior to spark by, for instance a hot piece of carbon) does not always lead to detonation. Typically, detonation occurs some time after the flame front has been established.

You would need to supply a link to a journal article to convince me that HHO is the same as an octane booster.

If the effect of HHO and octane booster are the same, then why do octane boosters have no effect on power or fuel economy, whereas you claim that HHO generators do have such an effect? Running your "regular gas" car on high octane does not improve performance.

Do you have engine test stand studies that indicate that HHO has a beneficial effect on power, efficiency, or reduction in detonation? The Canadian Hydrogen Energy Company Device was tested on a 2.1 liter diesel on a test stand and no measurable effect was demonstrated either way. (CHEC's own study claims a 4.4% improvement, but the report has parts missing, and does not read like a standard lab report, but more like a congratulations letter.)

Imagine how thrilled Toyota would be to get such data. They spent billions on their Prius design for only a 30% improvement in efficiency. If they could double efficiency by installing a $10 piece of hardware, they'd jump at the chance.

Ken,

You've hit on something there that should be explained better by the oil companies.

High octane fuel was first introduced to solve the pre-ignition problems of higher compression engines. It costs more because of the aditives. Running a lower compression engine on high test fuel is a waste of money in several ways. First you are buying aditives your engine can't use and then those aditives reduce the power you should get from the fuel.

When you examine the breakdown of a barrel of crude you find that the highest BTU ratings are closer to the bottom (tar level) and decrease as you go up through bunker oil, diesel, heating oil, kerosene (jet fuel), gasoline and then the lighter esters. I probably missed a few in there but I'm sure you get the picture.

It is the explosivity of the fuel coupled with the ability to create that explosion (compression and spark in a gasoline engine),(compression alone in a diesel engine),(higher compression and preheating in a ship using bunker oil) coupled with the ability to contain and control that explosion that determines the usefulness of each segment of that barrel of crude.

If we were really clever we'de find a way to utilise tar for fuel.

It's not as simple as you put it and we already do.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/
analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/refining_text.htm

j.

OK Jack,

I realise it's not as simple as I stated it. I did, however, include a disclaimer about my 'facts'.

What I was trying to say was that there is a need for some informational advertising on the part of the oil industry and the DOE. How many hits do you suppose an obscure DOE publication is going to get. Yes, suckers (I mean people in general) should do better research before they put thier money and thier mouth into any product. We do put lots of tax dollars, however, into government agencies that are supposed to have the public's interest at heart. Why isn't the DOE spending some of that (often pork-barrel) tax revenue to educate the public whome they supposedly serve?

Nah...

"We do put lots of tax dollars, however, into government agencies that are supposed to have the public's interest at heart."

You don't voluntarily put anything in except through fear and habit you think you do.

And do you really believe the oil industries government serves the public's interest? That's pure garbage. The only interest that is served is the oil industry's.

As far as the technical issue? You would twist the technical facts to serve your propaganda interests?

j.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Even they say so.

"This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations.

"You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations."

j.

Furthermore, you do not source your assertion that "HHO" provides the same service as anti-knock compounds.

Therefore, it must be taken as mere speculation.

j.

Hydrogen has an octane rating of about 130.

http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/faqs.asp

Tad

Tad,

That is of course a biased source, but we will ignore that.

All of this about octane ratings, etc., etc., is really beside the point.

The central issue is, since we have long had the technology (Simple really and probably easier with computer controlled fuel injection), why aren't we burning it as a gaseous fuel? After all we burn natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, propane, etc.

The answer is cost. That is the problem all our silly hydrogen in a bottle electrolysis alchemists are trying to find the philosophers stone to solve.

It takes large amounts of heat or large amounts of electricity to produce industrially meaningful amounts of hydrogen. That is why we do not produce it as engine fuel but rather reserve it for process where the return is worth the cost.

Anybody that mainly wants to run an engine on hydrogen can do so. Go down to the store and buy a bottle of hydrogen.

j.

Then again, I haven't come across any blogs or websites out there saying "I tried this and I couldn't get it to work" but there's plenty of people saying "this works", even if it's followed by "…but I don't know how" or, worse still, some inaccurate or misleading explanation of how they think it works.

Actually, we've had a thread here that says "I tried it and it did not work." I'd have to think of a couple key words, or remember the experimenter's name...

There are a couple of YouTube clips where a guy uses a very small fuel container on a scooter and notes how far he can drive before it runs out of fuel, repeating the test with and without the HHO generator. It's not the most thorough of scientific tests but neither can it be as readily dismissed as some would like.

This guy starts out by saying that his odometer does not work, but claims that the last digit works. Therefore we have to rely on his counting off the miles. Hmmm. Then his non-HHO test shows that the scooter goes 3.1 km on 250ml of gas. I have an ordinary 50cc Kymko scooter in my garage which is a little bigger, heavier, and faster, capable of cruising at 72 km/h. It US terms, it gets 80 mpg, which I have verified over several road tests, and which is a figure commonly advertised for such vehicles. My scooter, at 80 mpg, will go 128 km on 3.78 liters. Therefore it will go 33 km per liter, and 8 km per 250 ml. So my unmodified scooter is almost double the efficiency of his modified one, and nearly three times as efficient as his modified one. I'd say a tiny scooter that is claimed to have such poor mileage in its unmodified state (about the same as an ordinary small car) can indeed be "readily dismissed."

Close to the clip you suggested is another, showing a tank of HHO blowing up. The experimenter claims that "the pressure blew your bubble thing apart!" Obviously, this was not a mere pressure rise from H2 generation -- it was an explosion triggered (probably) by a tiny spark when the experimenter turns the electrolyzer on the second time. It points up the hazards of drinking while experimenting, as well as the apparent low level of understanding of some experimenters with this stuff.

I've played with this stuff when I was a kid, even getting a lawnmower to idle on H2 produced by electrolysis (the current for which was supplied by a battery charger). (Even then, with the risk assessment part of my brain underdeveloped, I didn't think creating the gases in a mixture would be safe.) Nothing I experienced then was out of line with conventional physics or chemistry.

All these schemes completely leave out any discussion of mixture control. The rate of production is constant, so if the engine is not overwhelmed at idle, with the area under hood being flooded with H2/O2, then how can the tiny amount produced have any effect at all at the far greater air flow rates associated with high power?

Interesting that the production rate for this tiny 50 cc scooter (one commenter said 7 amps x 12 v, but the driver seemed to be saying about half that) is quite close to the same as that for the Dodge in the TV "news" clip, despite the Dodge having 100 times the displacement. How might one explain that? (An obvious explanation is that the devices are having no real effect in either case, which would be in accordance with ordinary engineering expectation.)

In the scooter case, the battery state would have to be carefully assessed for a valid test. In another thread here, I proposed building a water powered go kart, which would work just fine for a couple minutes, with most people not thinking or bothering to check the battery level.