It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:59 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Increasing MPGs by adding Hydrogen and O2
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:24 am 
Offline
LOST Newbie

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:46 am
Posts: 17
Location: New Milford, CT
Below I placed links to two companies that manufacture pure hydrogen and O2 systems for vehicles of all sizes. What they do is introduce the two gases into your existing intake system. This process is done through electrolysis of a saline solution and drawn, not pressurized, to your intake.
Has anyone ever considered this idea for any of their vehicles? What is everyones thoughts on efficiency with these products? I'm not a chemist but I did pass it. The process does make sense... by introducing pure Hydrogen and Oxygen (O2) into the system, your byproduct would be only water vapor with slight traces of petroleum residue. Will it make the vehicles more efficient? In theory, yes. Does the theory hold true? I don't know. I'm going to purchase one of these systems based on the responses of this post.
What does everyone think about these products?

http://mileagemaker.us
and
http://www.savefuel.ca/hydrogen/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:56 pm 
Offline
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:59 pm
Posts: 5157
Location: Austin, TX
Don't know anything about these 2 systems - and a casual click on the link shows nice pictures and no data - to me that's the standard of snake oil sales.

I do know a bit about Hydrogen and Oxygen in manufacturing processes - and unless you're carrying large pressurized bottles - your not getting the real stuff.

Hydrogen in particular does not occur naturally and requires a lot of energy to separate from the form it's stored in - if they're saying that you can separate it by electrolysis and then save mileage by burning it - they just failed the 1st law of Thermodynamics.

The other thing if you introduce Hydrogen into the intake in anything other than sealed compressed lines - the hydrogen will leak out of the intake (any joint - up to and including leaking through the metal) and won't be anywhere close to an compression chamber.

The only real Hydrogen/Oxygen systems out there are electric Fuel Cells and they're seriously expensive.

_________________
2005 CRD
stuff
Skeptic quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:38 pm 
Offline
LOST Newbie

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:46 am
Posts: 17
Location: New Milford, CT
You don't think any of these items will increase efficiency in an engine even a little bit?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:47 am 
Offline
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:59 pm
Posts: 5157
Location: Austin, TX
You'll get better mileage because your wallet is lighter :) :)

You need real data - something with about 30 data points - not testimonials - numbers -
from an independent source , comparisons in city driving, highway driving
and personally if they don't give a description of what they're trying to do - formulas wiring diagrams

I wouldn't buy it.

_________________
2005 CRD
stuff
Skeptic quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:03 pm 
Offline
LOST Newbie

Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:17 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
If I remember my grade 12 Chemistry electrolysis will produce hydrogen and oxygen, but not in an amount to make any difference to an engine. Your fuel injection is also set to deliver a 14.7 to 1 air to fuel mixture and is measured by the O2 sensor, I believe. People run nitrous oxide because of the extra O2 in it. These do increase power but require a lot of nitrous. I have not looked at the site but would wait for someone else to try it first. I am skeptical of these schemes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hydrogen
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:34 pm 
Offline
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:22 am
Posts: 422
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
I think hydrogen is the future. Ethanol is just a pipe dream.

I consider myself a good chemist, and yes, the only byproduct of hydrogen combustion is water vapor. But these systems are introducing hydrogen and oxygen into your intake system. So they will be reacting with air (78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% other gases). A good analogy is if you hold a cigarette lighter next to a camp fire, the fire burns hotter. The fire doesn't actually burn hotter (i.e. produce more energy) the energy produced by the lighter (i.e. heat) is added to the energy (heat) of the fire.

A closed system that ran on pure oxygen would be great, but I can't think of any way to collect air, purify it, compress it (compressed gases have a cooling effect when decompressed) in the quantities needed to aspirate an internal combustion engine.

Hydrogen also burns hotter than any other gas, (actylene C2H2 is second)increasing engine temperatures, which will lower mpg's, and could also cause damage.

You have to take into account the energy required to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen

On the surface this looks like a good system, but one of the fundament laws of physics is that you can never achieve 100% efficiency, there will always be some net loss. These systems are just snake oil wearing a pseudoscience disguise.

I'd like to be one of the first to jump on the hydrogen bandwagon. But I think adding hydrogen to a gasonline powered engine is asking for trouble, without some extra cooling. A true hydrogen system is what is needed.

Check out this website, its the best I've found: http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm

They address they issue of hydrogen storage, hydrogen separation from water.

_________________
2012 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Hydrogen
PostPosted: Thu May 01, 2008 1:41 pm 
Offline
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:22 am
Posts: 422
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
You've got me thinking. I found another good site: http://www.clean-air.org

Their conclusion is that until a hydrogen distribution system is developed, to convert an existing vehicle to hydrogen, and a small refueling station for personal use, you'd have to drive 1,567,291.03 miles (varies by vehicle) for it to be cost effective. If the average person drives 15,000 miles a year, they'd have to drive a vehicle for 100 years before it would pay itself off.

_________________
2012 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:14 pm 
Offline
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:57 am
Posts: 260
Location: Independence, MO
After much research i built and installed an HOD (hydrogen on demand) unit last week of May '08. i do not have an EVIC or scan guage for data so i established a base line for comparison by topping off and then measuring mileage for the first quarter tank burned for 4 tankfulls. i controlled as many variables as possible (i.e same type fuel from same company, city driving, AC off, passenger weight, etc.) and produced 73 miles each first quarter tank within a few tenths of a mile.

After installation, and under the same relative driving conditions, it produced 83.4 miles for the first quarter tank. Other observations: i noted significantly smoother motor operation and noticable power gains (moreso than any other mod i have tried).

At this point i have driven many tankfulls under different conditions and i am keeping meticulous notes for comparrison data. i don't believe i have enough data presently to make a formal argument (though what i have substantiates the technology) and anyone with any understanding of mechanics knows there are numerous factors to consider with any modification. For my initial impression however i would say this, built and installed properly one will not be disappointed.

Anyone interested in my data to date can PM me and i am happy to share.

_________________
'04 Renny
Mod's: See Avatar

Conquests: Poughkeepsie Gulch, Governor's Basin, Black Bear/Imogene/Engineer/Cinnamon pass, Coal Creek OHV, Badlands OHV, S.M.O.R.R., K-Rocks, Parent's driveway


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Accuracy
PostPosted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 6:11 pm 
Offline
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:22 am
Posts: 422
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Glad to see that someone is taking a scientific approach to this. I still think that the fuel gauge is preventing you from getting accurate results. Determining when the needle hits 3/4 of a tank isn't an exact science, and you could be off. How many miles do you have to drive while it's on 3/4 of a tank to notice a difference? What about parallax, the fuel gauge looks different depending on where you're sitting.

So why doesn't this device, give its inaccuracy, give you a worse fuel economy reading? Hard to say, too many variables, you installed the device with a bias, a bias that you would get better fuel economy, so maybe your subconscious mind is having an effect. Who knows?

Generally you can't measure more accurately than half of a gradient, our fuel gauges are divided in to eighths, so you best estimate would be +/- .0625 * (19.5 gallons per tank on my 04, or 1.21875 gallons. I know I can't accurately determine when I need to add 5 gallons. If I guessed it would be between 1.28125 - 3.71875 gallons. Assuming you get 20 miles per gallon, that's a mileage range of 25.625 - 74.375. That's 50% above or below on an 1/8 of a tank, a HUGE difference in distance when calculating fuel economy over short distances. The fact that you're getting within 25% of your initial measurement is an accomplishment, and a 15% improvement doesn't look that impressive when you factor in uncertainity.

Run it completely down to empty, until the Jeep stalls and dies. The put a known amount of gas in. Then repeat the process a total of four times (four is statistically more accurate than three, you start to get diminished returns repeating an experiment more than four times, but the more you repeat it the better). Then do the same thing with the hydrogen generator. This means carrying a gas can with you at all times and hoping you have enough momentum to pull to the side of the road. The best was to do it would be to fill it ALL the way up, and carry a 20 gallon gas can around with you. I know, its very inconvienient, but I believe its the only way to get a credible reading. Unless there is some type of inline device that accurately measures gas consumption. A digital device accurate to two decimal places would do the trick.

Are you also keeping track of the cost of the equipment, the price of gas and any materials used (sodium bicarbonate, water, etc.) I'd be interested to know the cost/benefit analysis and if the system does improve fuel economy, how many miles you must drive to see any cost benefit.

I believe if you were using an accurate measuring device, your fuel economy would slightly decrease.

_________________
2012 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:51 am 
Offline
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:57 am
Posts: 260
Location: Independence, MO
i certainly agree w/all the points you make VT, and the idea of running to empty then filling w/a known amount and repeating the process certainly has merit. For me it's hard to find time when i can just drive til' i run out of gass and repeat that process, so doing it the way i did (though admitedly less effective) was and is more practical. Maybe some long weekend . . .

However, even testing it as you suggest leaves variables such as wind, temperature, etc. that will tamper results. The only way to get TRULY viable data would be to run a motor in a controlled environment (inside on a dyno) where all these factors would be negated; establish a solid baseline, proceed w/the modification and tuning and gather the data. And here's one that hasn't yet been adressed: in certain models the car's computer, when supplemented w/HHO, senses the fuel mix is too lean and enrichens the mix to adjust. So in the end, though you are introducing a supplemental fuel that is much more efficient, the computer doesn't understand and adjusts to essentially negate the gas saving benefit (though you still reap the benefit of running a cleaner fuel).

IMHO the best i will be able to achieve is a good indication of whether or not the technology works or not and, as stated in my previous post, my limited data thus far seems to support it.

Thanx for your feedback!

_________________
'04 Renny
Mod's: See Avatar

Conquests: Poughkeepsie Gulch, Governor's Basin, Black Bear/Imogene/Engineer/Cinnamon pass, Coal Creek OHV, Badlands OHV, S.M.O.R.R., K-Rocks, Parent's driveway


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Mileage
PostPosted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:13 pm 
Offline
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:22 am
Posts: 422
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
One thing I forgot to ask, have you noticed any difference in engine temperatures?

_________________
2012 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:00 am 
Offline
LOST Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:59 pm
Posts: 272
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
apparently the engine runs a bit cooler
there's a crude method of a system on ebay, there's a pretty good explanation of how it works....don't know about the guy's V8 results though....keep in mind he's a seller :wink:

_________________
2004 Liberty Columbia Edition BLACK
Upgraded Interior Lighting to LEDs
Installed EVIC, D Shackles in front bumper
2.5" All J Frankenlift (OME springs, Rancho shocks)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: My 2 Cents...
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:25 pm 
Offline
LOST Member

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:34 am
Posts: 200
Location: Rochester, NY
I installed an HHO system on September 17th. I have been filling up every 100 miles since then. I am not seeing any change in mileage. What I am seeing is:

1. The exhaust has a distinctly different smell
2. The engine is running a full gradient cooler on the temperature gauge
3. The engine runs smoother at lower rpms

I am working with the HHO generator inventor for this model. We have put a larger than needed generator on the car. Normally he has seen several tank full are needed to burn out the carbon and soot deposits. Once the HHO has done that, it is free to assist in the efficiency of the diesel explosion by releasing more of the energy from each explosion. We will downsize the generator at that time (the exhaust pipe should be clean once the engine is clean) because too much hydrogen added to the fuel typically gets worse results. The MAP sensor want to dump more fuel into the system because of the higher concentration of oxygen (at least that is how the gas vehicles work it).

I will know more in another couple of weeks. I drive 350 miles a week to and from both stores I own. It would be good to get better mileage than the 24-25 I am currently getting. I have a fantasy of 50% or 37.5 mpg. Bias...yep but not stupid. If the system works great, if not, I get my money back.....

Remember, the idea is not to run completely on HHO but to increase the % of fuel that adds to the vehicles energy instead of dissipating into heat and unburned fumes.

Thanks for letting me stand on the soap box for a bit...

Jim


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:41 pm 
Offline
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 415
Location: Hanover Park, IL
This was a year ago and some have brought this up again in a different thread would like to know some data after this being some time, anyone have to share

_________________
Bill and the divided Danette

2009 Liberty Sport 4x4
Sky Slider
Factory Tow Package
Super Expensive Gutter Screen Grill Inserts
24" of PPF on the front
Factory skids
AEM intake, Scanguage II
Skink Super Sliders, 3/8" Boiler Shims
Stops here for now....baby here!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Accuracy
PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:57 pm 
Offline
LOST Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:17 pm
Posts: 153
Location: Lower Yakima Valley, WA
VTNomad wrote:
Unless there is some type of inline device that accurately measures gas consumption. A digital device accurate to two decimal places would do the trick.


This unit could work as a measurement device. This has the smallest pipe size that I've seen. You should be able to set up the mass flow to read in gal/min and may have a totalizer showing total gallons..now weather or not you could reset the totalizer I'm not sure. I've used other Coriolis meters and they are very accurate, we use them alot in custody transfer. You could run this transmitter off of 24Vdc. Just a thought. The biggest problem is $$$$ these are far from cheap.

http://www.fluidcomponents.com/Industrial/Products/MassFlowMeters/ProdCMseries.asp

_________________
RIP....04 KJ Sport

2006 Jeep Commander, 4.7L (stock for now)
Homemade Roof Rack or Thule Atlantis 2100

Comming Soon: 2.25RR", 265/70R17 Goodyear Duratracs, wheel spacers, 6000k HID's.

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3314060


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 pm 
Offline
Lifetime Member
Lifetime Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:59 pm
Posts: 5157
Location: Austin, TX
1) Water as fuel - violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

2) H2 and O2 dumped into the intake - may fake out some sensors - driving the mixture lean - which will get better mileage until the pistons melt - or the exhaust valves burn (and no way that would be warranty)

3) - the only data point anyone's come up with is an SAE paper from Bulgaria - in a Lab - they used a 6 hp engine - added 3 liters/minutes of H2 (a lot compared to the bottle thingys') and got a 15% power improvement - to scale that to the Jeep - you need to put more that the power output of the motor into a generator that would create H2. Oh Yeah - they also increased smoke - which means unburned fuel - so they decreased the efficiency of the engine.


And this site had a good analysis.
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam.shtml

and Popular Mechanics too
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4310717.html

_________________
2005 CRD
stuff
Skeptic quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group. Color scheme by ColorizeIt!
Logo by pixeldecals.com