Hydrogen generator, a failure as you guys said 2

[gpara]

OK on board hydrogen generator, from water, fully tested and a glowing failure. Advertised volume was 1 liter/minute, tested at 17 and 15 amp draw it would only produce 1 liter every 2 minutes 15 seconds, 1/2 the spec volume. Anything beyond would boil water in generator. 17-18 amps for several muinutes seemed to be the peak before boiling. I tested it anyway on a 1996 Saturn 1.9L vin"8" engine using a scangaugeII reading serial data, the unit is very accurate and calculates instant MPG, average MPG, load, rpm, fuel used, distance ect. I have used it for several months now and tracked it's accuracy, which I was impressed with.
Test data 20.4 miles 2200rpm about 60mph, mostly flat expressway, low traffic, acceleration not above 80% up to cruise speed Normal engine 43.3mpg, .5 gal used
Hydrogen on 42.6mpg, .5gal used 15 amp draw
Oxygen sensor was disconnected and the mileage never changed.No difference was seen on the fuel trim numbers or even the oxygen sensor graph, at idle. I feel the volume was so low that it had no effect at all. We bubbled the hydrogen into water and ignited it as it came to the surface, all we observed was a very small "pop", this amount of energy would have almost no effect on a full breathing engine at 2000rpm.
So as most of you said, save your money, I opted for a full refund as advertised.
Gary Para contact me for any more information gpara@mis.net
SAE, ASE PMTA, BS. IN&T L-1 certification

 

[marcdeluca]

Let us know how long it takes to get your refund. I have heard that it can be forever on these kind of things. I believe that even if you could break down water fast enough to make a difference, the alternator load would consume more energy than the H2 would yield. Everything I have ever read says that it takes more energy to electrolyze water than the energy it yields.

 

[GregLocock]

I don't want to defend the indefensible, but you are missing the point. The hydrogen is not being used solely as a fuel, the benefits of hydrogen as a combustion initiator are well known in the literature. The idea is that the hydrogen improves the combustion process for the gasoline as well.

Nowm, that may not work, or it may absorb more energy to amke the hydrogen than the compensating improvement gives, but it is not a totally stupid idea.



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[mpgmike]

Out of curiosity, was this the hydrogen boost version?

 

[gpara]

The generator was supposed to increase fuel economy 20% min. increase power, keep oil cleaner ect. Looking back thru the communications it was supposed to generate 2 liters/min, not 1, perhaps at that level it could have effected the economy but as it stands now, you saw the test results. The company did give me a return address, from Florida where it was sent after I submited the test data to them. It is going back today and will let you know when the refund comes. Perhaps the states attorney would be interested in the false statements made by this guy. Web site is out of Canada, but shipped from Florida. I wounder if he is trying to hide being listed thru another country????? It was worth the effort to at least see if H-0 readded to the combustion processe did anything for the IC engine at the low level.
Gary

 

[kenvlach]

A 1.9L, 4-cycle engine at 2200 rpm consumes 2090 L/min of air-fuel mix. So, even 2 L/min of H[sub]2[/sub] is only 0.01% of the total. Adding the 1 L/min of O[sub]2[/sub] also produced would help (or is that done, already?). But, more energy input than output. Perhaps, solar cells on car roofs for the electrical input.

 

[gijim]

I'm telling you guys... a nuclear reactor is the answer. Now aside from the problems with every Tom, Dick and Muhammad having access to nuclear materials, it would mean never having to fill up for 10, 20, or 30 years?

I'd support that, just get a fusion reactor together when my first fuel cell runs out in 30 years.

 

[kenvlach]

gijim, Ford build a 3/8-scale nuclear-powered concept car called the Nucleon back in 1958. Pretty sure it wasn't operational.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

A B&W picture:

http://www.seriouswheels.com/def/Ford-Nucleon-Concept-Car.htm

The real thing, in red:

http://www.peacethroughunderstandin...4adb7ab6dea9c882&act=Attach&type=post&id=2793

 

[rdd48856]

GregLocock, is it possible that such a small hydrogen mass could change combustion in such a dramatic matter?

There is a company stating an "ultra-lean burn" spark ignited engine with hydrogen boosting.

Thank you.

 

[GregLocock]

Look for papers by Dr Harry Watson. Yes, it doesn't take much hydrogen to modify the combustion process.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[gpara]

Just for your information, refund was within 5 days of return of generator.

GP

 

[Azmio]

gpara

the claim of 20% improvement in fuel consumption is still conservative. The one from this side of the world claims that there will be 50% improvement in fuel consumption. I checked on the demo vehicle but as expected there was no increase in torque or power if compared to the original car without any electrolizer installed. how on earth can anyone expect a 50% improvement?

There is one FISITA paper on how a japanese researcher improved a CNG DI engine using hydrogen premixed with the CNG. This is ok because the researcher was looking for way to improve the misfire problem when runned at ultra lean burn mode.

Claiming or boasting that hydrogen can be generated onboard a vehicle using water is just plain stupid. In the first place, if we invest 2J to get 1J of heating value from hydrogen, how can we expect 50% or even 20% fuel consumption improvement? electrolysis is not 100% efficient, generating electricity from alternator is also not efficient.

 

[kenvlach]

Azmio,
Re "In the first place, if we invest 2J to get 1J of heating value from hydrogen, how can we expect 50% or even 20% fuel consumption improvement? electrolysis is not 100% efficient, generating electricity from alternator is also not efficient."

It's a lot worse than that. An auto engine is only about 33% efficient in converting heat into mechanical energy, and I suspect an alternator is ~45% efficient at converting mechanical into DC electrical -- it makes AC, then half is absorbed by large diodes (waste heat) in making the DC, so a cooling fan is required. So, from 2 J electricity, get 1 Joule of heat which only produces 1/3 J mechanical --> 0.15 Joule electricity = -92.5% loss.

 

[SomptingGuy]

... An on-board ammonia generator using H from water and N from the air (don't ask me how it would work) would make a lot of sense.

 

[Azmio]

kenvlach

you're right, with all this inefficiency we have not even discussed about the temporary storage and transporing the hydrogen from one location to another. With such a lightweight molecules, hydrogen can easily leaks out. This will further go against hydrogen and the device that gpara bought.

somptingguy.

i read about that as well. If i am not mistaken, the chemical reaction involving ammonia will still require activation energy to get hydrogen. Where will this come from? nothing comes for free in this world.

I somehow still wonder, is the hydrogen economy real or it's just something to win vote during election?

 

[SomptingGuy]

Azimo, you may have missed the point. On-board ammonia generation would eliminate the need to buy bottles of AdBlue (or equivalent) for SCR systems. Agreed it'll require some energy input, but it might be less than that required to manufacture and distribute urea.

 

[SomptingGuy]

So it's not a new idea then:

http://www.freshpatents.com/Internal-combustion-engine-dt20051215ptan20050274331.php

 

[dcasto]

I went to a web link from the above link for Hydrogen generators a 600 cc/min generator consumes <1200 watts. Here is what it costs. I've included other fuels too. The reason methane is cheap is because there are no taxes on it, similar for propane. Take taxes from the others and gasoline and disel are neck and neck the cheapest on an energy basis. Oh, and for all diesel users, you should get about 15% better milage because diesel has 15% more energy than gasoline........

HYDROGEN
1100 watts From Brochure
600 cc/min From Brochure
36000 cc/hr
1.27 ft^3/hr
274 BTU/CF
347.98 BTU/hr
102 watts
$0.10 $/KW-HR Electricity Price
$0.11
$316.11 $/MMBTU For H2
GASOLINE
125000 BTU/Gallon
$2.50 $/gallon
$20.00 $/MMBTU
Methane
56000 BTU/Gallon
$1.10 $/gallon
$19.64 $/MMBTU
Propane
100000 BTU/Gallon
$2.00 $/gallon
$20.00 $/MMBTU
Disiel
140000 BTU/Gallon
$2.70 $/gallon
$19.29 $/MMBTU
Electricity
1 MMBTU
293 KW-hr
$0.10 $/KW-hr
$29.30 $/MMBTU

 

[globi5]

A few more thoughts regarding the hydrogen generator:

At higher temperatures electrolysis can actually reach an efficiency above 100% (if you don't count the waste heat as energy - which you do have anyway).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_electrolysis

Also, when you lift the throttle and increase the load on the alternator, you can use wasted braking energy to produce hydrogen.

So, one could possibly and mainly use waste energy to generate that extra hydrogen.

Adding hydrogen can improve the combustion process:
Since hydrogen can accelerate the combustion process this could be an advantage at low throttle settings when burning speed is lower and efficiency suffers. (The faster the combustion, the higher the efficiency).
Also, as hydrogen does ignite at leaner settings than gasoline does, this concept could be an additional advantage at low throttle settings and high pumping losses.

Obviously, as has been mentioned, additional NOx would need to be reduced (for instance, with a NOx-catalyzer).

However, if you consider the complexity this entire system would add, there might be simpler ways to increase efficiency on a gasoline or diesel engine.

 

[thundair]

globi5

"Adding hydrogen can improve the combustion process:
Since hydrogen can accelerate the combustion process this could be an advantage at low throttle settings when burning speed is lower and efficiency suffers. (The faster the combustion, the higher the efficiency)."

Is hydrogen really introduced to accelerate the process? It would seem the octane rating is to slow the burn rate..or have I had a senior moment??

Cheers

I don't know anything but the people that do.