hydrogen fuel

[zacc]

i know but i just had to ask . has any one tried this idea ? seems awfull simple . i know that you could never run a car on the complete system but it would be interesting to use it as supplement. the only issue with a pajero is the big back fireing issue, but i do have a guinea pig to try it on . the replys will be very interesting. cheers

[marquis]

I am thinking about a electric supp hydrogen generator cell for the DiD - you only need a small amount like LPG supp system. Thinking about it - going to have to interface with inig switch and RPM. The injection point after the turbo, with auto shutoff valve if the engine is running less than 1200rpm and switch on above 1400rpm - maybe use a LPG regulator system???. Unfortunately it's going to be pressurised system...

[mr_grumble]

Some of the claims I've seen on the net regarding this system are very dubius at best. I have no doubt that a saving arount the 3-5% could be achieved, but the advertised figures of 40+% make me wary of such a technique.
Please prove me wrong

[green monster]

I have also seen the kits advertised on ebay boasting of huge fuel savings ,i had a look on 'wikipedia' and im not convinced that it would really make any noticable difference!
sorry but i dont have a link but its interesting reading if you have the time
cheers cam

[pody]

The idea sounds great "whats the worst that could happen"?

[Ben D]

The hydrogen acts as a "combustion catalyst" - not in the true sense of a catalyst I suppose, but the hydrogen being such a light @*$#@*$#@*$#@*$#cule has a very high flame front speed so you get a fairly complete burn. Furthermore, the other component of browns gas is oxygen, a nice @*$#@*$#@*$#@*$#cule to have in any combustion engine. So for those who pooh pooh the idea of people getting huge fuel savings by using relatively small amounts of HHO gas, think again. Conventional combustion in emissions controlled petrol engines is not as efficient as you think, and diesels even less so.

Hydrogen also enhances the lean burn limit of petrol engines (don't take my word for it, read it from the SAE papers here) http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2005-01-0251

So, if you can generate enough hydrogen to run a petrol engine signficantly leaner (say -17:1 or 18:1) than the usual 14.7: 1 stochiometric, and then have a method to cheat the ECU from closed loop so it doesn't attempt to add the fuel back in again, I do believe you could get at least 30% saving in your fuel bill. Heck, I got a real 20% fuel savings just leaning out an Nissan Stagea station wagon I had with a $75 jaycar digital fuel adjuster without adding HHO. Also, you can sometimes get savings in other areas too, like transmission ECUs locking up torque converters earlier due to you using less throttle in an LPG over diesel application (my experience anyway).

I am currently getting at least 30% savings in my 2002 DID auto with a LPG over diesel setup I made myself (fully programmable EFI with LPG Gas, 1100 km from a single tank of diesel, he he), but the beauty of hydrogen is that you don't have to pay for the "fuel" (water) . On the other hand, the government doesn't give you $2000 to add hydrogen to your car.....

[shado2]

can we see the pictures please

ben d i would like to see some pics of this not that i am a doubting thomas but i have been interest in this for some time .
thanks richard

[nj swb]

ben d i would like to see some pics of this not that i am a doubting thomas but i have been interest in this for some time .
thanks richard

I'm a doubting thomas. LPG over diesel is achieving enhanced combustion efficiency by adding a second fuel from an external source. Billions of dollars of research, and masses of regulations cover the performance characteristics of the LPG - it is, effectively, a well understood constant for which an engine can be tuned.

To imply that LPG injection is somehow comparable to on-board HHO generation is ridiculous. Referring to a published paper discussing H2/CO/N2 (more comparable to LPG injection than HHO generation & combustion) also illustrates a lack of understanding of the principles of energy transfer.

Fundamentally, HHO systems want to use energy from the engine to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, then claim benefits from the combustion. This is the significant difference. It is impossible to recover more energy from turning H2 and O2 into water than is required to split water in the first place. Burning LPG releases energy. Burning hydrogen (which was filtered/refined/cracked elsewhere) releases energy. Burning HHO cannot release more energy than was used to generate the gas in the first place.

There may be some minor "symbiotic" benefits to be obtained by having both combustion processes occurring in the cylinder together. Marginally smoother idle and barely measureable improvements in economy. But a 30% reduction? Don't believe the conspiracy theorists - it's not being suppressed by Big Oil. There is no credible evidence that this works simply because it doesn't really work. Most reported "economy" gains are purely because the "inventor" gave the car a good service and tune, and started to drive for economy.

I can save 3 litres per hundred km simply by NOT driving like a hoon. Perhaps I should sell my right foot on ebay?

[Ben D]

For doubting thomases, may I suggest another comparison ? How does nitrous oxide improve performance in an internal combustion engine ? Is it not the addition of additional oxygen to the combustion chamber then burning it that adds the power ? Don't HHO systems combine induction of an additional gaseous fuel (hydrogen), with additional oxygen ? What would this do if you can induct enough of both into an internal combustion engine ?

No one is saying the laws of physics are being bent using hydrogen/oxygen - yes additional power is used up to drive the alternator harder, but given the combustion improvements, clearly the addition of both hydrogen and oxygen has the potential to overcome the loss to the alternator to provide net positive increases in power to the crank. And that means you need less throttle to keep a similar speed. Sure , you can simply use less throttle and also get fuel savings, but this is also not a valid comparison as you'll be accelerating slower, etc.

I have not run a hydrogen system myself, but know some people who are playing with it. Once they develop a system which generates enough hydroxy gas, I'll explore how to control it. In the meantime I'll play with the LPG - which is still working very well - doesn't look much, just a regulator and a homemade fuel rail and a computer box in the glovebox to drive the injectors, but I note a similar sort of system just won viewers choice on new inventors (how much was really new though ?) . Will post a pic soon

[Mr C]

Really interesting topic guys, one that I have been looking at for some time. There are 2 camps in this........the does, and the donts. Either camp cannot completely prove their position./... as l see it, the only way it to do it and see if it works.
zacc, good on you for wanting to try it. I would like to partner you in this so if there is any way I can help you with your project let me know.
Anyone else............anyone?

Nig

[Rocketsurgery]

For doubting thomases, may I suggest another comparison ? How does nitrous oxide improve performance in an internal combustion engine ? Is it not the addition of additional oxygen to the combustion chamber then burning it that adds the power ? Don't HHO systems combine induction of an additional gaseous fuel (hydrogen), with additional oxygen ?

The problem with your theory is that you are not adding any extra oxygen to the system. When you electrolyse water the equasion is: 2 H2O + energy = 2 x H2 + O2. When you burn this "brown's gas" or HHO all that happens is that the equation simply goes back the other way 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + energy. So only water vapour left - NO EXTRA OXYGEN.

These HHO systems use power from the alternator to generate the gas. Even the commercial scale units in laboratories are only about 50% efficient in turning water to its constituent gases. These gasses are then fed into the combustion chamber to add to the energy in the fuel. Now as an Internal Combustion Engine is only at best around 25% efficient at turning the calorific value of fuel into propelling the vehicle, you have already lost 3/4 of the energy in the HHO. Then the alternator needs to convert the energy from the crankshaft into electricity to run the electrolyser. Lets say the alternator is only 50% efficient at turning kinetic energy into zap - so you now have only 1/8th of the energy that went bang in the cylinder at this stage. The electrolyser is say 25% efficient - suddenly you are looking at only 1/32nd of the energy being used to generate more gas. So somehow, this process needs to liberate 32 x more power simply to break even...it's not looking good is it? There are too many losses in generating the gas to be effective.

Read up on the Laws of Thermodynamics before jumping in on this. Effectively for this process to work as most of the people selling these devices advertise, the laws of thermodynamics have been demolished. Odd that not even NASA can break these rules... As you can possibly tell, I'm a sceptic. There does not seem to be a single peer reviewed or double blind study out there showing that generating the HHO by electrolysing water and feeding the resulting gasses into your intake will improve your fuel economy with the possible exception of a unit used in heavy trucks. And even then I have not seen rigorous testing - but then again they are only claiming an improvement of 3 -4% if I remember correctly from a system that costs $15,000ish. Those sort of economics work if you run a truck in a 24/7 linehaul operation, but not for joe average.

I suppose the question you should ask is if these devices are so effective, why are manufacturers going to the expense of developing hybrids, stop start technology, intelligent alternators that charge only on the overrun etc when they could get double the claimed benefits from under a hundred buck worth of stainless steel plates, a few hoses, a flash arrestor, and some wires? Maybe because it doesn't work...

Give it a go if you want to, just go into it with both eyes open.

[nj swb]

For doubting thomases, may I suggest another comparison ? How does nitrous oxide improve performance in an internal combustion engine ? Is it not the addition of additional oxygen to the combustion chamber then burning it that adds the power ? Don't HHO systems combine induction of an additional gaseous fuel (hydrogen), with additional oxygen ? What would this do if you can induct enough of both into an internal combustion engine ?

Nitrous oxide is an oxidising agent - it's effectively adding additional oxygen to improve the combustion of the fuel. But the nitrous is another external fuel source - similar to the way LPG is a second fuel source in a diesel/LPG system.

Adding a metered amount of HHO into a combustion chamber should be able to produce a beneficial impact on the combustion process - if everything is right. But the combustion of HHO gas cannot produce more energy than required to split water in the first place.

No one is saying the laws of physics are being bent using hydrogen/oxygen - yes additional power is used up to drive the alternator harder, but given the combustion improvements, clearly the addition of both hydrogen and oxygen has the potential to overcome the loss to the alternator to provide net positive increases in power to the crank.

Yes, you're bending the laws of physics. Combustion of HHO gas is oxidising hydrogen, which creates water. Generating HHO gas is reducing water to hydrogen and oxygen. The energy released during the oxidation step is exactly the same as the energy consumed during the reduction step.

Reducing water on board requires power from the engine, to create electricity in the alternator, to push current through the HHO generator. Energy is lost at every step in this process.

Oxidising the hydrogen releases heat. This heat creates pressure in the cylinder to push the piston to turn the crank to drive the alternator. Energy is lost as heat (into the engine block, piston, oil and out the exhaust) and friction in every moving component. It is impossible to recover the amount of power initially consumed, much less "create" more.

Split the water at home, carry the gas in a cylinder and inject it as you drive and there should be a minor improvement in consumption of petrol/diesel/LPG/CNG. But splitting the water on board will use more engine power than can be recovered from the combustion process.

As I mentioned previously, there may be some symbiotic benefits; such as a true catalytic effect on the fuel combustion process. This may create small (single digit) impovements in efficiency, but 30% is a huge stretch.

Direct water injection will probably create better results. Add a small volume of water into the cylinder, which turns to steam during combustion. Theoretically, the steam increases the BMEP, while reducing combustion temperatures - which reduces NOx emissions.

Edit: the rocket surgeon has done a marvellous job explaining the issues. Obviously I'm no brain scientist...

[Ben D]

I think ricardo showed evidence that water injection delayed onset of detonation by slowing combustion, but besides that I think no one has shown increases in power from water injection without increasing advance/boost to take advantage of the delayed onset of detonation - as no energy is released from burning water.

As for hydrogen, its a bonafide fuel, and oxygen is what we use to make combustion, so I stand by my position that induction of both in enough quantities can improve performance. I think the big gains in fuel economy occur when people change other things to take advantage of what the combustion engineers call " hydrogen enhanced combustion". things like the extended lean burn limit of hydrogen, allowing you to take fuel away without misfire will always net fuel economy benefits.

As I have stated, I have not played with it myself, but intend to do so. I also am not trying to sell anyone anything - just keeping an open mind and letting people know what I think - as combustion is such an inefficient process anything that can improve it will be potentially beneficial.

[Ben D]

Just reread some of the above posts:
pertinent point 1
Nitrogen in nitrous oxide does not contribute to the combustion process just as nitrogen from the atmospheric air mix does not contribute to combustion. Air is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen by volume (23% by weight). We ignore the nitrogen content in the air when calculating power as it does nothing. Similarly the nitrous oxide works (NO2) because by weight it is bearing lots more oxygen than normal air. OK then, how does nitromethane work as a fuel ? Yes, it is an oxygen bearing fuel therefore adding nitromethane adds power.

From this you may be gleaning a hint of the second point, which is this. Yes, I believe the Hydroxy systems are adding extra oxygen to the process, as well as a fuel (hydrogen). To me it only comes down to how much of both gases you can produce in order to make a difference, then how you recalibrate the fuel delivery (and ignition in a spark ignition engine) in order to take advantage of the altered combustion characteristics of the fuel/gas mix.

The hydrogen advanced combustion papers I have read are coming from high ranking university types who are playing with fuel catalysts and reformers - check out the earlier link again - some people believe that any fuel treatment is hocus pocus, but when these devices show significant improvements in combustion efficiency in the laboratory, I begin to believe that the basic theory of using hydrogen during combustion can also work in the real world - even if it being done with what effectively are crude hydrogen generators using technology which OEM manufacturers wouldn't consider touching because of the service issues involved.

OEMs also seem to hesitate adding LPG to diesel vehicles, even though from my experience the benefits in power, fuel economy, and oil life are significant. So don't look to OEMs for tips to make your motoring cheaper and your car last longer - you will find these issues that are important to us the consumer are not their primary considerations when marketing automobiles.

So no conspiracy theory from me - plenty of rational reasons why OEMs would not consider these hydroxy generators - they are for the aftermarket to exploit.

[Ben D]

Just googled some more stuff - make up your own minds, but the OEMs know about it and extension of the lean burn limit then subtracting fuel away to take advantage of the new condition is where your 30% (and more) savings comes from.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/11/hydrogenenhance.html

and

http://georgepehli.googlepages.com/HEC_Presentation.pdf

However if you don't make any changes to the fuel delivery to take advantage of the new combustion conditions, any fuel savings will be minimal at best.

All of my cars run aftermarket fuel compters where fuel delivery can be altered with a flick of the laptop and a look at the wideband O2 readout, so once I get a hydrogen system I am happy with, I'm sure I will see this 30% saving the engineers are talking about in my spark ignition engines, just as I saw a similar saving with the diesel and the LPG.