Hydrogen generator

[crossman]

The energy required to break the chemical bonds in water is the same as the energy released when those bonds are formed. You will not get more energy from burning the hydrogen............. oil from water, carbon dioxide, and energy. The amount of energy input would be greater than the energy stored in the oil.

Very well put, Jon. Thank you.

 

[cschmid]

the use of water is no different then the use of food for fuel..enjoy high food prices now you can enjoy the most basic needs a human has and that is water cool pure water..our clean drinking water supply is already in jeopardy as many states already do water rasionng..add the driving pressure to your drinking water supply..they are not talking taking polluted water to make hydrogen they are using your unpolluted water..go ahead encourage that and watch you bottom line and your health as well..

edited to add..it would take more energy to make hydrogen then you would get if you use polluted water and what about the byproduct..can you drink the water from the exhaust..

 

[Len]

Go to waterpower.com

 

[kjw444]

I have a generator I made myself. It's on my car and I found I get about 30% better fuel economy. I installed it in my trunk. I jumped off the fuel pump relay to close another relay to send power to the unit, this way its only on when the engine is running. I'm trying how to figure out how to lean my car out being that it's all controlled by computer. I was thinking of extending the o2 sensor out off the exhaust so it would only get a whif, not a full smell. Don't know I still trying. I have used a cup of water in about 900 miles. I have put 5000 miles on my car since the install and I have never had any problems. Oh by the way I fused it at 30 amps and insatlled an amp gauge, it will pull about 10 amps until it warms up, then it stars climbing to around 25 where it remains constant.

 

[s.sparkomatic.r09]

"and was making hydrogen. I am going to try it for my truck. I am thinking of using a whole house water filter canister as I have seen them made with pvc pipe but the pipe breaks down."

really? you can just make hydrogen? I saw this add about BMW hydrogen cars but that was big bucks.

I think its great you can do this your self but......you just put the hydrogen in to a PVC tank? and the van or cars fuel system handles this? I?m missing something.

I?ve looked on the web for natural gas conversion kits but that?s like + - $10,000 from what I read. And would I really very see the savings? Or by the time I got the savings price of gas would come back down?

There is no point to any of the above statements but at least I not out driving around wasting 4.50/gal for gas.

 

[winnie]

I want to make sure that my 'nay saying' is appropriately limited to what I do know.

I will state with certainty (as above) that the energy that goes into making the hydrogen will _always_ be less than the energy that you get out when you burn the hydrogen. You don't get something for nothing.

However it is well known that internal combustion engines in cars are phenomenally inefficient. If your modification, but some yet unclear mechanism, has managed to improve the efficiency of gasoline use, then even if you lose something significant on the 'engine to alternator to hydrogen generator to gas into engine' route, you _might_ gain something on the gasoline to engine to wheels route.

This is the core concept of 'hybrid electric vehicles', where you _add_ energy conversion steps (generating electricity, charging batteries, using electric motors), and these energy conversion steps are of necessity lossy...but you then get to use a smaller, more efficient internal combustion engine without sacrificing driveability.

I should note that driving differently can improve gas mileage; sometimes if you want to believe that something is improving your gas mileage, then your gas mileage really will get better...but because you are driving more efficiently, not because of the item that you are testing.

Finally, you mention wanting to 'lean out' your engine. The fuel mixture is selected by a microprocessor to be 'optimal' for some engineer's trade-off of performance, pollution, fuel efficiency, etc. I know that you can get black market chips that will give you better performance but won't meet emissions laws; I wonder if anyone is selling chips that sacrifice performance but improve mileage.

-Jon

 

[ceb58]

I want to make sure that my 'nay saying' is appropriately limited to what I do know

This is what I have found. My son and I installed one on his 05 Dodge Durango 5.7 hemi. By the on board computer he was getting 16mpg avg. .After we installed the device it is now reading 20mpg. We have a whopping $22.00 invested in it.

 

[hillbilly]

.

I will state with certainty (as above) that the energy that goes into making the hydrogen will _always_ be less than the energy that you get out when you burn the hydrogen. You don't get something for nothing.
-Jon

winnie...you're missing the point.

You're not making hydrogen.

You are simply (and yes...it's a simple process) using electrical current to break a molecule.

When this happens, the result is a (almost) pure (gaseous), very combustible mixture of hydrogen and oxygen.
The hydrogen has been around since creation....it is simply being released from it's molecular bonds.

The correlation between the amount of electrical current verses the amount of gas released varies with the design of the (as of now crude) system.
This is dependant on and varies with the amount of and type of electrolyte added to the water, and also the type and design of the equipment used to produce the electrolysis......which is improving with every new idea that is designed and tested.

The process is not developed to it's full potential....yet.
When it is, I have no doubt that it will be possible to totally power a internal combustion from (water derived) hydrogen gas.

This is simply my (somewhat educated) opinion.

steve

 

[dereckbc]

Steve what you do not seen to understand is Thermodynamics. Half the energy is lost from heat and at best theses crude homebrew systems are 50% or less efficient. Electrolyses is not a new technology, it has been around for over 100 years and is a very well developed and mature technology. The most efficient is used in nuclear submarines of about 75% efficient and has been used since Admiral Halsey’s first nuke sub SSN 571 in July of 1951 to supply the occupants with oxygen from sea water

Basically for every 100 watts you are only putting 50 watts or less back into the engine, a net loss of 50 watts. There is no way around this.

 

[ceb58]

Steve what you do not seen to understand is Thermodynamics. Half the energy is lost from heat and at best theses crude homebrew systems are 50% or less efficient. Electrolyses is not a new technology, it has been around for over 100 years and is a very well developed and mature technology. The most efficient is used in nuclear submarines of about 75% efficient and has been used since Admiral Halsey?s first nuke sub SSN 571 in July of 1951 to supply the occupants with oxygen from sea water

Basically for every 100 watts you are only putting 50 watts or less back into the engine, a net loss of 50 watts. There is no way around this.

Ok,I understand what you are saying and it is correct. However, I am not looking to power the engine completely with this Hyg.- Oxg. gas, only supplement what is all ready there. It's like taking a vitamin it supplements the nutrition you get from eating food. The engine is already running on gas, producing elect. by means of the alternator and going down the road like it should. The power source is there, so by tapping into the supply of elect. to enhance the fuel mileage, I dont see a loss. At 16mpg that's $0.25 per mile. With the generator it has gone up to 20mpg or $0.20 per mile. When it is broken down it seems small but on 20gal of fuel that's $16.00 or 80 miles more than what you would have gotten with out it.

 

[crossman]

Any electrical energy produced by the alternator requires all the more gasoline to be burned.

It seems to me that using gasoline in the highly inefficient combustion engine to make electricity via a less-than-perfectly efficient alternator to inefficiently break the chemical bond in water to get hydrogen to add back to the gasoline which goes into the highly inefficient combustion chamber would be a completely lost prospect.

Well, unless we take that hydrogen and squeeze the energy out of it by converting it to helium.

 

[ceb58]

Any electrical energy produced by the alternator requires all the more gasoline to be burned.

It seems to me that using gasoline in the highly inefficient combustion engine to make electricity via a less-than-perfectly efficient alternator to inefficiently break the chemical bond in water to get hydrogen to add back to the gasoline which goes into the highly inefficient combustion chamber would be a completely lost prospect.

Well, unless we take that hydrogen and squeeze the energy out of it by converting it to helium.

Bottom line 16mpg with out, 20mpg with.

 

[crossman]

Lacking a scientifically-designed-and-conducted double-blind experiment, I can only take the "16 to 20" claim as anecdotal.

 

[Cold Fusion]

Lacking a scientifically-designed-and-conducted double-blind experiment, I can only take the "16 to 20" claim as anecdotal.

ceb -
As others have already said:
Your data is anecdotal. That's not a bad, just an is. for example, I drive a fairly light vehicle, FWD, 13lbs/hp, 5speed. I can get 20Mpg or I can get 16MPG. It's just up to me and my foot.

I wouldn't recommend any double blind driving tests, You really need some peer reviewed Dyno tests of the engine and equipment.

If you know of any peer reviewed testing or research - I'd be interested.

cf

 

[dereckbc]

Bottom line 16mpg with out, 20mpg with.

Sory but I don't belive you for a minute. This myth has been busted many times every since it raised its ugly head back in the 70"s during the embargo.

If iy were really possible, auto manufactures would have done it long ago and be standard equipment.

 

[kjw444]

I get a 30% increase right now and that is fact. I drove on a full tank and got on average 20mpg with I got 26mpg. I keep track on every tank and it's consistent. Is'nt the alternator producing 13.5 or so amps whether it's spinning at 1500 rpm or 5000 rpm? So I see no strain there since your defroster pulls more amps or your electric seats or even the rear window defroster.

 

[iwire]

Is'nt the alternator producing 13.5 or so amps whether it's spinning at 1500 rpm or 5000 rpm?

Do you mean volts?

An alternator when producing 0 current spins almost freely regarless of the voltage.

So I see no strain there since your defroster pulls more amps or your electric seats or even the rear window defroster.

Each time you turn something on the alternator takes more HP from the engine to turn. The battery tends to spread it out over time but you still never get something for nothing and actually you always end up with less then you put in.

 

[ceb58]

Sory but I don't belive you for a minute. This myth has been busted many times every since it raised its ugly head back in the 70"s during the embargo.

If iy were really possible, auto manufactures would have done it long ago and be standard equipment.

You must have ties to the oil company:grin:

ceb -
As others have already said:
Your data is anecdotal. That's not a bad, just an is. for example, I drive a fairly light vehicle, FWD, 13lbs/hp, 5speed. I can get 20Mpg or I can get 16MPG. It's just up to me and my foot.

I wouldn't recommend any double blind driving tests, You really need some peer reviewed Dyno tests of the engine and equipment.

If you know of any peer reviewed testing or research - I'd be interested.

Anecdotal ? Don't use, them I prefer Rolaids:grin:
Isn't it illegal to let two blind people drive a car?:grin:

Really, as some others have said it works for them . My daughter in law drives this SUV not my son or I so there is no "babying" the car to try to increase mileage to prove a point. All she knows is aim and mash the gas:smile:

 

[nakulak]

Any electrical energy produced by the alternator requires all the more gasoline to be burned.

It seems to me that using gasoline in the highly inefficient combustion engine to make electricity via a less-than-perfectly efficient alternator to inefficiently break the chemical bond in water to get hydrogen to add back to the gasoline which goes into the highly inefficient combustion chamber would be a completely lost prospect.

Well, unless we take that hydrogen and squeeze the energy out of it by converting it to helium.

I have wanted to build a Helium-4 geneator since I was a child. Unfortunately, I have not been able to figure out how to adequately contain the energy. Apparently the ppe boundary would be somewhere in the range of a half a million miles, best as I can figure. I am still working on it tho.

 

[sparky 134]

I looked into making my own bio-diesel fuel from vegetable oil and I learned that I would be required to pay road taxes to the government for doing so.

The fuel we purchase for our vehicles whether they be gas or diesel has taxes added to the price to maintain the roads. By making your own fuel you are avoiding paying taxes that help maintain the roads.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p510/ch01.html#d0e1293