Hydrogen Generator
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
Read about them, but most of the stuff I have read indicated its "not ready for prime time", as the power needed to MAKE the hydrogen (in quntities large enough to notice a difference) far exceeds the ability of the vehicles electrical system. This was using an electrolysis style generator.
We need more info on what your doing, or doing differently.
We need more info on what your doing, or doing differently.
Daryl
What you say is true. But this is as an additive (like propane).
I use the bakeing soda mix into the water until i get a 5 amp load at 12 volts. Now as the liquid depletes the amperage rises. The highest amperage i have run is 20 amps.
The generator makes a hydrogen and oxygen gas and i draft it into the airbox. 3 thousand miles of testing thus far.
So far my testing shows good. Just watching out for some water vapor that is entering the air stream. (possibilty of peppering the turbo blades)
I now even see generators on E-bay. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif
BILL
What you say is true. But this is as an additive (like propane).
I use the bakeing soda mix into the water until i get a 5 amp load at 12 volts. Now as the liquid depletes the amperage rises. The highest amperage i have run is 20 amps.
The generator makes a hydrogen and oxygen gas and i draft it into the airbox. 3 thousand miles of testing thus far.
So far my testing shows good. Just watching out for some water vapor that is entering the air stream. (possibilty of peppering the turbo blades)
I now even see generators on E-bay. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif
BILL
Joined
·
2,669 Posts
Many guys are just running a 50/50 water/methanol mix injected directly into the Y-pipe going into the heads.
You gain about 70hp, and drop the EGT's about 150 degrees. However, this only works at boost pressures over say 10psi or more. SO mostly a towing/racing thing, and not a daily driving thing.
Im still curious as to how much hydrogen your system is making volume wise. Also, what about turbo surge/stall where the intake air actually belches BACK OUT the turbo. I would be concered with having hydrogen blow into the engine bay and catch a spark from the alternator. While it might not go BOOM, it could cause a small flareup that catches something else.
Have you tried to capture your hydrogen to measure its creation? We used to do that in science classes on a testtube scale, but it could be scaled up.
Fill a large bucket full of water, then dip a slightly smaller container into the bucket, turn it upside down (still underwater) and then run a hose into that upside down container.
Now seal off your generator and install the other end of the tube into it. As the hydrogen is create, it will go into the tube, and into the upside down container, displacing the water, and lifting the container out of the bucket until it breaks the waters surface and allows the gas to escape.
Measure the volume of the container, and the time it takes to fill it, and thats your capacity of your generator.
Factor in how much air a PSD pulls thru the airfilter and you will get a percentage of hydrogen entering the engine with your system.
You gain about 70hp, and drop the EGT's about 150 degrees. However, this only works at boost pressures over say 10psi or more. SO mostly a towing/racing thing, and not a daily driving thing.
Im still curious as to how much hydrogen your system is making volume wise. Also, what about turbo surge/stall where the intake air actually belches BACK OUT the turbo. I would be concered with having hydrogen blow into the engine bay and catch a spark from the alternator. While it might not go BOOM, it could cause a small flareup that catches something else.
Have you tried to capture your hydrogen to measure its creation? We used to do that in science classes on a testtube scale, but it could be scaled up.
Fill a large bucket full of water, then dip a slightly smaller container into the bucket, turn it upside down (still underwater) and then run a hose into that upside down container.
Now seal off your generator and install the other end of the tube into it. As the hydrogen is create, it will go into the tube, and into the upside down container, displacing the water, and lifting the container out of the bucket until it breaks the waters surface and allows the gas to escape.
Measure the volume of the container, and the time it takes to fill it, and thats your capacity of your generator.
Factor in how much air a PSD pulls thru the airfilter and you will get a percentage of hydrogen entering the engine with your system.
Joined
·
121 Posts
Sorry to dampen your spirits,but due to the law of conservation of energy, your system creates a net LOSS, NOT a net GAIN, that is, IF you are making that electrical power from your vehicle's electric system for the electrolysis. You are simply converting energy from one form to another, with inherent losses at each conversion that cannot be eliminated. Even if you made the hydrogen in your workshop and transferred it to a tank in your vehicle, you still used much more real energy to make the usable energy, than what you end up with to burn in the vehicle. I am firmly convinced that our government is pushing the hydrogen economy only so that they can have a tighter grip on the generation and distribution of energy, in this time when decenralized energy is becoming more a reality. No other reason comes to mind, as hydrogen is not a fuel, it is only a carrier of energy, and costs a great deal to set up to distribute, and is even more difficult to contain in a vessel, since it's the smallest atom in the periodical chart ans swims past most anything trying to contain it on a molecular level.
I hopoe this helps...electrolysis is a neat experiment, but it is lossy from a conversion standpoint. And using the vehicle's inherent energy to generate less energy isn't good economy. Hope this helps...
I hopoe this helps...electrolysis is a neat experiment, but it is lossy from a conversion standpoint. And using the vehicle's inherent energy to generate less energy isn't good economy. Hope this helps...
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to dampen your spirits,but due to the law of conservation of energy, your system creates a net LOSS, NOT a net GAIN, that is, IF you are making that electrical power from your vehicle's electric system for the electrolysis. You are simply converting energy from one form to another, with inherent losses at each conversion that cannot be eliminated. Even if you made the hydrogen in your workshop and transferred it to a tank in your vehicle, you still used much more real energy to make the usable energy, than what you end up with to burn in the vehicle. I am firmly convinced that our government is pushing the hydrogen economy only so that they can have a tighter grip on the generation and distribution of energy, in this time when decenralized energy is becoming more a reality. No other reason comes to mind, as hydrogen is not a fuel, it is only a carrier of energy, and costs a great deal to set up to distribute, and is even more difficult to contain in a vessel, since it's the smallest atom in the periodical chart ans swims past most anything trying to contain it on a molecular level.
I hopoe this helps...electrolysis is a neat experiment, but it is lossy from a conversion standpoint. And using the vehicle's inherent energy to generate less energy isn't good economy. Hope this helps...
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep might be snake oil, though the theory that I have heard is that a little bit of hydrogen burns faster and advances the flame front for more complete combustion and more more power from the availble fuel. Supposed to work on diesels as we are generally a lean burn situation.
Real numbers I don't know.
Sorry to dampen your spirits,but due to the law of conservation of energy, your system creates a net LOSS, NOT a net GAIN, that is, IF you are making that electrical power from your vehicle's electric system for the electrolysis. You are simply converting energy from one form to another, with inherent losses at each conversion that cannot be eliminated. Even if you made the hydrogen in your workshop and transferred it to a tank in your vehicle, you still used much more real energy to make the usable energy, than what you end up with to burn in the vehicle. I am firmly convinced that our government is pushing the hydrogen economy only so that they can have a tighter grip on the generation and distribution of energy, in this time when decenralized energy is becoming more a reality. No other reason comes to mind, as hydrogen is not a fuel, it is only a carrier of energy, and costs a great deal to set up to distribute, and is even more difficult to contain in a vessel, since it's the smallest atom in the periodical chart ans swims past most anything trying to contain it on a molecular level.
I hopoe this helps...electrolysis is a neat experiment, but it is lossy from a conversion standpoint. And using the vehicle's inherent energy to generate less energy isn't good economy. Hope this helps...
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep might be snake oil, though the theory that I have heard is that a little bit of hydrogen burns faster and advances the flame front for more complete combustion and more more power from the availble fuel. Supposed to work on diesels as we are generally a lean burn situation.
Real numbers I don't know.
Joined
·
2,430 Posts
I agree, hydrogen is very difficult to store with it's low density and problems of distribution.
Did you know that the largest producers of hydrogen gas now are the petroleum companies? Who else would benefit the most from a total conversion to a hydrogen mentality.
Lockheed studied the problems of hydrogen powered aircraft in the 1960 with Project Suntan, a Mach 2.5 spyplane capable of 85,000 feet service ceiling.
The two biggest problems that they encountered was size, the aircraft had to be huge to hold enough hydrogen for a reasonable radius of action and the fact of storage and production of fuel for the aircraft. Kelly Johnson, seeing that this plane was going to be a dog, promptly refunded the Department of Defense it's money.
I think that methane would be a much easier gaseous fuel to produce (look at all the waste treatment plants in the United States, livestock farms and chicken farms) and to store, it would only require tankage similar to propane, and those tanks and regulations have been pretty safe for the past 50 years or so.
I'm curious as to the behaviour of a diesel engine with methane supplimentation.
Did you know that the largest producers of hydrogen gas now are the petroleum companies? Who else would benefit the most from a total conversion to a hydrogen mentality.
Lockheed studied the problems of hydrogen powered aircraft in the 1960 with Project Suntan, a Mach 2.5 spyplane capable of 85,000 feet service ceiling.
The two biggest problems that they encountered was size, the aircraft had to be huge to hold enough hydrogen for a reasonable radius of action and the fact of storage and production of fuel for the aircraft. Kelly Johnson, seeing that this plane was going to be a dog, promptly refunded the Department of Defense it's money.
I think that methane would be a much easier gaseous fuel to produce (look at all the waste treatment plants in the United States, livestock farms and chicken farms) and to store, it would only require tankage similar to propane, and those tanks and regulations have been pretty safe for the past 50 years or so.
I'm curious as to the behaviour of a diesel engine with methane supplimentation.
[ QUOTE ]
I think that methane would be a much easier gaseous fuel to produce (look at all the waste treatment plants in the United States, livestock farms and chicken farms) and to store, it would only require tankage similar to propane, and those tanks and regulations have been pretty safe for the past 50 years or so.
I'm curious as to the behaviour of a diesel engine with methane supplimentation.
[/ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't be to hard lots of clean air buses out there with natural gas tanks on the top that use it as a supplement.
The question is do you have a source of methane at hand?
I think that methane would be a much easier gaseous fuel to produce (look at all the waste treatment plants in the United States, livestock farms and chicken farms) and to store, it would only require tankage similar to propane, and those tanks and regulations have been pretty safe for the past 50 years or so.
I'm curious as to the behaviour of a diesel engine with methane supplimentation.
[/ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't be to hard lots of clean air buses out there with natural gas tanks on the top that use it as a supplement.
The question is do you have a source of methane at hand?
Joined
·
121 Posts
This is getting slightly off topic, but yes, methane, hydrogen and even carbon monoxide burn just fine in a diesel. YOu simply port them into the air supply and, on a governed engine like a standby generator, you can literally watch the fuel control arm lessen its throttle to maintain the same load, as the added gaseous fuel enters the engine. Ask the folks building wood gasifiers all about it 
Sometimes I am really thankful for the physics, statics and dynamics and chemistry coursework, it comes in handy for this stuff.
The poster above with the hydrogen generator is still missing the point. The generator is loading down the engine MORE THAN the hydrogen injected into the engine is adding power-wise. It isn't guesswork, it isn't opinion. It just is. Conservation of energy. Join the magnet freaks and infinite power flywheel groups if you don't believe me
Sometimes I am really thankful for the physics, statics and dynamics and chemistry coursework, it comes in handy for this stuff.
The poster above with the hydrogen generator is still missing the point. The generator is loading down the engine MORE THAN the hydrogen injected into the engine is adding power-wise. It isn't guesswork, it isn't opinion. It just is. Conservation of energy. Join the magnet freaks and infinite power flywheel groups if you don't believe me
I agree, you don't get something for nothing. However, since it is electrical I don't see how the alt. is adding any additional "resistance" on the motor. Wouldn't you just run in to a situation where you are using more electricity than you are makeing? Thus leaving you stranded if you shut off your engine and don't have enough juice in your batteries to start the truck.
Joined
·
2,945 Posts
[ QUOTE ]
I think that methane would be a much easier gaseous fuel to produce (look at all the waste treatment plants in the United States, livestock farms and chicken farms) and to store, it would only require tankage similar to propane, and those tanks and regulations have been pretty safe for the past 50 years or so.
I'm curious as to the behaviour of a diesel engine with methane supplementation.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you could find records or laid-off employees from Superior Engine (Springfield, Ohio) they could tell you. For years, they made 500-2500 Hp stationary Diesel engines and specialized in making them run on landfill gas.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3159/is_3_222/ai_72659376
Making Diesel engines run on pure methane's relatively easy, although it's nowhere as easy to store as propane. Propane can be liquified at room temperature, density = 450 g/liter; methane at room temperature & pressure is about 1 g/liter. You'd have to pressurize methane to more 6500 lb/sq.inch before it would equal the storage density of propane and more than 12,000 lb/sq.inch before it would equal the density of Diesel fuel. A propane tank only needs to contain about 450 lb/sq.inch.
Landfill gas is another story because it's only about half methane. The other half could most resonably be described as "crud": carbon dioxide, sulfur compounds, moisture, decomposed proteins, volatile fatty acids, you name it. It requires a lot of fuel pretreatment and still compromises engine life, but when you're burning free landfill gas, you can pay for a few extra overhauls and still be money ahead. Not to mention reduced net carbon dioxide production, reduced global warming and reduced petroleum consumption.
If you tried to use landfill gas in a vehicle, you'd waste half your storage space and double your work of compression compressing and storing all these crud gasses.
I think that methane would be a much easier gaseous fuel to produce (look at all the waste treatment plants in the United States, livestock farms and chicken farms) and to store, it would only require tankage similar to propane, and those tanks and regulations have been pretty safe for the past 50 years or so.
I'm curious as to the behaviour of a diesel engine with methane supplementation.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you could find records or laid-off employees from Superior Engine (Springfield, Ohio) they could tell you. For years, they made 500-2500 Hp stationary Diesel engines and specialized in making them run on landfill gas.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3159/is_3_222/ai_72659376
Making Diesel engines run on pure methane's relatively easy, although it's nowhere as easy to store as propane. Propane can be liquified at room temperature, density = 450 g/liter; methane at room temperature & pressure is about 1 g/liter. You'd have to pressurize methane to more 6500 lb/sq.inch before it would equal the storage density of propane and more than 12,000 lb/sq.inch before it would equal the density of Diesel fuel. A propane tank only needs to contain about 450 lb/sq.inch.
Landfill gas is another story because it's only about half methane. The other half could most resonably be described as "crud": carbon dioxide, sulfur compounds, moisture, decomposed proteins, volatile fatty acids, you name it. It requires a lot of fuel pretreatment and still compromises engine life, but when you're burning free landfill gas, you can pay for a few extra overhauls and still be money ahead. Not to mention reduced net carbon dioxide production, reduced global warming and reduced petroleum consumption.
If you tried to use landfill gas in a vehicle, you'd waste half your storage space and double your work of compression compressing and storing all these crud gasses.
Joined
·
2,945 Posts
[ QUOTE ]
I agree, you don't get something for nothing. However, since it is electrical I don't see how the alt. is adding any additional "resistance" on the motor. Wouldn't you just run in to a situation where you are using more electricity than you are making? Thus leaving you stranded if you shut off your engine and don't have enough juice in your batteries to start the truck.
[/ QUOTE ]
The alternator in a vehicle makes a variable amount of electricity. The field is excited more or less strongly so that there's just enough electricity made to keep the battery voltage constant. Turn on the lights, the voltage regulator juices up the alternator field a little more and the alternator manufactures more electricity to keep the battery voltage from sagging.
But when the alternator is asked to make more electricity, it requires more mechanical energy to do so. And when the engine delivers more mechanical energy to the alternator, it consumes more fuel.
If you have an antique car, (one with a carburettor) you can demonstrate this: With it warmed up and slow-idling, turn on the high-beams and the rear window defrogger. The engine will slow a little as the alternator demands more mechanical power so it can deliver more electrical power. (An alternator in a modern car does the same thing but you can't see or hear it happen because idle-speed stabilization prevents any rpm drop)
I agree, you don't get something for nothing. However, since it is electrical I don't see how the alt. is adding any additional "resistance" on the motor. Wouldn't you just run in to a situation where you are using more electricity than you are making? Thus leaving you stranded if you shut off your engine and don't have enough juice in your batteries to start the truck.
[/ QUOTE ]
The alternator in a vehicle makes a variable amount of electricity. The field is excited more or less strongly so that there's just enough electricity made to keep the battery voltage constant. Turn on the lights, the voltage regulator juices up the alternator field a little more and the alternator manufactures more electricity to keep the battery voltage from sagging.
But when the alternator is asked to make more electricity, it requires more mechanical energy to do so. And when the engine delivers more mechanical energy to the alternator, it consumes more fuel.
If you have an antique car, (one with a carburettor) you can demonstrate this: With it warmed up and slow-idling, turn on the high-beams and the rear window defrogger. The engine will slow a little as the alternator demands more mechanical power so it can deliver more electrical power. (An alternator in a modern car does the same thing but you can't see or hear it happen because idle-speed stabilization prevents any rpm drop)
Joined
·
244 Posts
Has been reading infromation about using Hydrogen as alternative fuel. Only that it is good for gassers and that they use similar pump as propane used. There are some cars running on water, using "hydrogren" generator. There are several sources and you can make it yourself. Only that none of them mentioned to use in diesel engines. IMPCO is one of several makers that make pumps to "feed" hydrogen into the engines.
Don't you know that Arnold Schwarzenegger had ordered one of his Hummers to be converted to use hydrogen as fuel source?
One or other, biodiesel and water are reusable sources, regardless everyone's opinion differs at some points.
Don't you know that Arnold Schwarzenegger had ordered one of his Hummers to be converted to use hydrogen as fuel source?
One or other, biodiesel and water are reusable sources, regardless everyone's opinion differs at some points.
You can also generate hydrogen as producer gas by burning wood. During WW1 and 2 when there was no gas available, there were lots of wood-powered cars in europe. This is really only applicable for gasoline engines though. The wood is burned , which makes CO2 and H2O among other things.. the gases are then drawn back through the coals which separates the CO2 and H2O into CO and H2. This is then filtered and sent to the manifold at a mixture of 1.1:1 or so.. Any gas engine will run on it, but will only make around 50% of its rated hp running on wood. If you use charcoal, it'll make about 75% of its rated power.
Joined
·
4,150 Posts
Coming totally out of left field here. But, has anybody ever played with an ozone generator in our trucks. The Hydrogen generator (at least to me) seems somewhat similar to the ozone stuff. Ozone generators are commonly available for aquarium enthusiasts. Just a thought that had been stirring in my head. I apologize for getting off topic.
Joined
·
121 Posts
[ QUOTE ]
Coming totally out of left field here. But, has anybody ever played with an ozone generator in our trucks. The Hydrogen generator (at least to me) seems somewhat similar to the ozone stuff. Ozone generators are commonly available for aquarium enthusiasts. Just a thought that had been stirring in my head. I apologize for getting off topic.
[/ QUOTE ]
But once again, what would be the point? Anything you do onboard to generate another form of energy will be a net loss in either performance or efficiency (mileage) or both. It's just so.
Coming totally out of left field here. But, has anybody ever played with an ozone generator in our trucks. The Hydrogen generator (at least to me) seems somewhat similar to the ozone stuff. Ozone generators are commonly available for aquarium enthusiasts. Just a thought that had been stirring in my head. I apologize for getting off topic.
[/ QUOTE ]
But once again, what would be the point? Anything you do onboard to generate another form of energy will be a net loss in either performance or efficiency (mileage) or both. It's just so.
Joined
·
103 Posts
Im gonna have to disagree with you here, because our trucks are equipped with a turbo that increases the amount of work the engine must do, but then offers increased gains in performance. Just as a supercharger runs off the engine, and then produces additional HP. The engine has to do more work, but the increased induction makes up for the loss. An intercooler works the same way, restricts airflow, but lowers egt and gives the engine a denser intake charge and more power. The higher current draw may be offset by more complete combustion and a increase in power.....Just saying that a onboard system can turn mechanical energy into increased performance
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
