on the other hand, if you were to get the hydrogen from another source like an external bottle then maybe there is some merit to it. a friend of mine was suggesting that you actually produce the hydrogen at your house and compress it and use it like nitrous.
Then my car gets infinite miles per gallon. I get my energy from another source so I don't count it. So what if that source is the electric company, or the fuel station down the street, I get to decide what energy I want to count and ignore all other sources to puff up my numbers.
I want to reduce the energy I use, not substitute one more polluting, less efficient energy supply one for another.
I can't believe, well really I can, why people are throwing down good money for these "run your car on water" conversion kits. Just seems like a ridiculous way to part a fool from his money. Of course I could be wrong, so report back.
2) BUT the laws of physics state that you will always be BEHIND in the energy equation, when you are using energy to make the hydrogen (vs say getting it in tanks of hydrogen gas you fill up from some other source). i.e. the laws of physics require that the energy used to make the hydrogen fuel (in the car, from the water) will ALWAYS BE GREATER than the energy you get from burning it.
That's true, but what you've gotta look at is where it comes from and where it goes. For instance at standard temperature and pressure, 20% or so of the energy required to separate O from H2 comes from environmental heat. Stick it in a warm engine bay and you could be up to only needing 60% in electrical power for the energy the H2 is worth. Then where does the energy go when you burn it? When burning gasoline, in an efficient engine only around 30% goes to developing cylinder pressure, the rest goes out in heat through the tailpipe and radiator. When you burn pure H2 in an IC motor, that maximum is somewhere around 50% going to cylinder pressure, with a theoretical maximum much higher than that, the efficiency there is basically restricted by the mass of the pistons and the reciprocating nature of the engine. If you burn a portion of H2 in a gasoline mixture it's possible that H2 comes much nearer it's theoretical efficiency, with the gasoline mixture kind of acting as a buffer, so it's probable that a given BTU quantity of H2 is "worth" twice to several times the equivalent BTU in gasoline... then there's synergistic efficiencies possible in the H2 which has a very low ignition concentration limit, increasing the efficiency of the gasoline burn through speeding the flame front and allowing less heat to escape, and more pressure to be generated.
Now this still doesn't seem right, because if you burn 33,000 BTU of gas to get 10,000 BTU of mechanical energy, you get 6,000 BTU of electrical energy out of the alternator, which is about what you get if you convert it to hydrogen, you typically get a minimum 20% extra free from thermal inputs, so it makes the actual 80% electrolysis conversion efficiency look like 100% (or more if your engine bay/cell gets toasty) So it takes 5.6 BTU worth of gasoline to make 1 BTU of HHO... if all your trying to do is make HHO
However, we're not running a motor to make HHO, we're running a motor to move us down the road....
So being fuel economy enthusiasts all our cars have 25HP motors that run at 55mph on the highway when your foot is pressed flat to the floorboards right? Fully open throttle, minimal pumping loss, thrashing along at peak efficiency using gas by the teaspoon.....
Ummm no actually, we have horrendously oversized motors that are considered "small" or barely adequate by your typical adrenalin fried motor journalist at 100HP outputs. So, barely cracked throttle, huge pumping loss, purring along at minimal efficiency using gallons.
So you put your 33,000 BTU worth of gas through the first motor and it takes you 5 miles, you put your 33,000 BTU through the second and you're delighted when you do half that. What gives? Well #1 put 23,000 BTU in to heating the atmosphere going down the road and #2 used about 28,000 of it doing that.
So all I need to do is go WOT and drive faster? Um no. If air resistance increased linearly with speed, this would indeed be an (unsafe) option.
So I can install really tall gears and slog along at 1000 RPM with the throttle wide open? Wellll you could.. you've reduced pumping loss, but the efficiency of the motor is both a function of RPM and load, you'd heat the atmosphere with 27,000 BTUs instead.
So can I load the motor in a way such that I gain efficiency? Yes make HHO.
But you just said it takes 5.6 BTU of gas to make 1 BTU of HHO??? Yep at peak efficiency it does.
WHAT? It takes MORE than 5.6 BTU to make 1BTU at low output???
So how in any way shape or form can that be more efficient???
Because you're using 33,000 BTU to do 5,000 BTUs worth of actual useful work in moving the car. (Overcoming drag) and because we're going to load the motor more and increase efficiency by doing so.
That will just burn through my 33,000 BTU quicker!
It might, but what say we save some of it.
Sort of, we'll make HHO with it.
Aaaargh there you go again with the HHO.
Calm down, so, if we increase load by 5%
You mean you're just wasting 5% of my BTUs.
Gah, okay, we're "wasting" 5% BUT efficiency has gone up to 18% you now do 5940 BTU worth of work in moving the car..
Less the wasted 5%
WHA??? That's MORE. Why can't I just go faster again?
Because the energy to overcome drag increases exponentially, you'll not get a proportional increase in ground covered, you'll just heat more air.
Yup. NOW do you wanna see what happens to the other 297 BTUs
Hum, I guess.
Okay so we take 297 BTUs of mechanical output, put it through the alternator and get 178 BTU of electricity, which gives us about 178 BTU worth of HHO
Yes but we expect to burn them in the motor at 50% efficiency, since gasoline is only at 18% efficiency at the moment, that makes that 178 worth 2.77X it's BTUage in gas... or about 500 BTU. So we put that in the motor...
And now I'm getting 6143 worth of BTUs worth of moving the car out of 33,000?
That's right, that's actually a 22% gain over what you were getting without claiming unsettlingly large efficiencies for burning hydrogen, or taking into account combustion enhancing aspects.
Right, but I'm still burning 33,000 BTU to get less than a fifth back in moving me, so even though I've gone from 30mpg to 36 mpg it still sucks.
That's right, TANSTAAFL and this isn't it, it's using more of what you already paid for instead of heating the atmosphere.
So tell me about the Arvin-Merritor and MIT research that says that hydrogen can reduce the lean burn limit to 26:1, so I can crack the throttle wider and get closer to using 30-40% of the go in my dino juice.
Next time young Padouin, the basics learn you must.
I remember The RoadWarrior..To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time..the world was powered by the black fuel & the desert sprouted great cities..Gone now, swept away..two mighty warrior tribes went to war & touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing..thundering machines sputtered & stopped..Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice
way to take things out of context man. I mean really, read the entire thing. don't take out what you want to create your own beef with me (no pun intended).
I think anyone that has been on this forum for any length of time will tell you that grid energy is more efficient and less expensive than running your vehicle to get the same amount of energy. that was more my point.
I guess some people are just going to see what they want to see in my posts. I also assume that you think that I am pouring electricity into my car to get better gas mileage and I guess all the numbers in my gas log are all a load of crap too.
think whatever you want. I got work to do. GOTTA FUDGE SOME MORE NUMBERS SO I LOOK BETTER ON THE MPG LINEUP.
Be the change you wish to see in the world
The separate battery suggestion was mine, and it is a valid option especially compared to the gross inefficiency of using an IC engine to generate electricity.
Road warriour makes a compelling argument for HHO, although I dont agree with some of his assumptions about the high efficiency of hydrogen enhanced combustion. I do believe its possible, but no probable, if you are using the engine (loss) then the alternator (loss) then electrolisis (loss) to generate less than .3% of your combustible fuel. The amount is so small the "enhancement" would have to be borderline miraculous.
Now lets look at it another way. If you make your HHO generator a completely independent system, then you have the opportunity to separate the benefit from the cost.
Like my previous chassis dyno suggestion for testing HHO enhanced combustion, the separate battery allows the same direct comparison without the expense of the chassis dyno rental.
Mix in a scan guage for those who have newer vehicles, and you have the opportunity to test both methods of generation, to see if the energy in is more or less than the energy out.
If you already have a system installed, and can use a scan guage, you should be able to see the HHO versus no HHO direct comparison. A separate battery will allow you to see what the benefit would be without the vehicle providing the power to generate the HHO.
I guess you could say that was not fair as far as your fuel economy, but that kind of seems to me like a moot point. Our purpose in being here is to find ways to improve fuel economy. What is the difference between using a separate battery for HHO generation and driving your car with the alternator belt disconnected and charging your battery at home?
For those who have HHO installed it would be interesting to see some credible statistics, and you could always make it so the additional battery could be charged by the cars engine.
I have a question... Would the extra 40 - 50 pounds from carrying an extra battery negate any gains from using said battery to power an HHO setup?
EDIT: I looked into thermoelectric generators. There is a quite common one used in boiler controls. The downside is that it only generates 750 mv, and costs $70. 16 connected in a series and strapped to the cat would generate the voltage required using waste heat, making it "free" without adding any load to the alternator or having to lug around an extra battery. The problem comes with that it would cost over $1,100 for this thermoelectric setup.
Great post Draco could not of said it better.
Producing HHO on board will use more energy then it creates.
The correct way to do hydrogen power is to generate the the hydrogen using solar power. You will have to separate the Hydrogen and Oxygen or you might get an explosion when you compress to 3000+ psi but this is easy to do because the negative electrode attracts hydrogen and the positive electrode attracts oxygen so just put the electrodes in tubes.
Then you will need to compress the Hydrogen you could use a CNG (compress natural gas) tank these tanks are rated at 3000+ PSI setting up the controls to compress the gas would not be hard but the tank will cost you about $3000 you could use a CNG compressor to fill the tank http://www.fuelmaker.com/Products/NaturalGasRefueling/
again about $3000 to do it right you'll need 8000 to 10,000
$2000 to $4000 for solar cells and $1000 to $2000 for electrolysis and precompression tanks controls etc
GreyG: Old school guys are very good at working with things because they come from the "Do it not say it" generation that got things done. Let us know of his results I have my reservations though
Originally Posted by R.I.D.E.
Sounds like the kind of person who would give a fair analysis, from a guy who sectioned and channeled a 49 Plymouth businessmans coupe and put it on an 83 Nissan piskup truck chassis, with a 240 Z engine and transmission.
Sounds good Gary. Props to you Send some pics sometime if you can.