The Chrysler Minivan Fan Club Forums banner

41 - 60 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,613 Posts
All this talk about charging batteries to run the HHO/H2 seem a bit academic to me, as most HHO/H2 systems generate the gas 'on the fly'
using the alternator/battery on the vehicle. They don't store the hydrogen in a tank, they just produce enough to replace some - or most - of the petrol that the engine would normally burn.
Not using the engine to make the electricity is the reason behind plugging it into the wall. The energy that the alternator will consume from the engine will not be made up by the hydrogen produced. This will result in a net loss of energy the source of that energy being gasoline.

Using hydrogen as a fuel may be fuel mileage friendly but it is not engergy conserving. It uses more energy than buring gasoline.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,508 Posts
That is exactly the point of the whole discussion of plugging it into the wall. The energy that the alternator will consume from the engine will not be made up by the hydrogen produced. This will result in a net loss of energy the source of that energy being gasoline.

Using hydrogen as a fuel may be fuel mileage friendly but it is not engergy conserving. It uses more energy than buring gasoline.
Actually, if you goto YouTube, search for HHO, you may still find a test someone ran on their car running an HHO device, but not consuming the HHO. Just a load test (MPG consumed by alternator). He found it "cost" him about 2 - 3 MPG to run his alternator to generate the HHO, however, when consuming the HHO, he was getting more MPG with the HHO to more than compensate for the minimal loss. :thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
Discussion Starter #43
"Using hydrogen as a fuel may be fuel mileage friendly but it is not engergy conserving. It uses more energy than buring gasoline."

Not relevant to me. My only concern had nothing to do with NET energy usage (all energy transactions are lossy so ANYTHING I do besides make the car more efficient will always use MORE energy in the end)

My only concern really is primarily COST and a very very distant 3rd Cleanliness IE green ness. electricity to charge those batteries costs SO MUCH less than gasoline that the only way for gasoline to compete would be for it to cost 10 cents a gallon. IE electricity is CHEAP (relative to gasoline) THATS why I want an electric car so badly :) It will cost me a DIME in E (or less) to recharge the battery pack. SO it only needs to save me 1/20th of a gallon of gasoline PER 2 hours of driving to pay for itself

First save money THEN worry about green. Thankfully this is also green.

I am almost done my first usable HHO generator. Hopefully within the week I will have it running and in my voyager. Will it work? I have no idea. but it costs me less than $20 and 30 minutes of time so far and will most certainly be fun so WHY NOT :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Hydrogen Fuel

Hope it works for you Nervs. Keep us all posted. There also is a site with tuning info in regard to HHO generation www.mpgresearch.com. I also think that sometimes we get so caught up in the actual science of something that we may overlook the applications that matter just as much if not more if that makes any sense. Great luck - I told the wife that I might be experimenting with her van that we run E-85 in - she just squinted her eyes at me and then smiled. I think that I have the green light. :headbange
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
256 Posts
Discussion Starter #47
I am building ie not done yet :) It is suggested to be around 9 amp per cell (IIRC thats the suggestion from this group??) so I will adjust the electrolyte till its 9 amps per cell once I have it running.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,927 Posts
Well I have never messed with hydrogen myself, I have had friends who have messed with it a bit. the one thing about hydrogen is after the combustion process in an engine it turns back into water, so the long term effect is your exhaust manifold and exhaust system as a whole will probably rust from the inside out, but don't let this discourage you. There is a trucking company not sure which one though. but they outfitted their trucks to run not only on diesel, but with an injection of hydrogen, increasing the trucks fuel mileage, meaning the driver has to pay less for fuel. I'm sure you already know that hydrogen is also 5 times MORE explosive than gasoline, so the amount you'd put in an engine should be about 1/5 that of how much gasoline you'd inject. :thumb:
I have seen cars spewing water out the exhaust and they are not using hydrogen. Gas has water in it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,613 Posts
I have seen cars spewing water out the exhaust and they are not using hydrogen. Gas is part water.
Gas is not part water but one of the combustion components is water.

Cx-Hx + O2 = CO2 + H2O
 

·
1000 Post Club Member
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
Wow, it would seem that so far some folk already have their minds made up, which begs the question, why ask advice? But I would like to say you don't have to use profanity to make your point, and making fun or belittling someone for giving their opinion, when that is what you asked for, is just plain rude. There's plenty of room to have fun, but you don't have to be personal. It is not substitute for a factual explanation of your position or an acceptable exception to someone else's argument. Be nice.
That being said, from what I read many years ago, the real limitation to the performance of an engine is not how much fuel you can cram into a cylinder, but how much oxygen you can get in at the same time. Hence Turbo's and Superchargers. When you generate Hydrogen you also generate Oxygen, so do these systems also introduce the oxygen into the engine, or is that just vented? If not, it seems to me (just seems) that the hydrogen would be fighting for the same oxygen as the gas in the cylinder during the explosion. I don't know how that would affect the O2 sensors, especially if there was not enough oxygen to make everyone happy. If these systems are on the fly and introduce both into the cylinder, then at least it would not decrease the efficiency of the gasoline burn, again, seems like.
As to the economy factor, are we talking about generating H2 at home and introducing it later, or an on the fly version that uses the excess capacity of the alternator to separate water while you are moving? On the face, it would appear that this excess electrical capacity could be put to use generating H2, but that requires more power from the engine. Does it take more than it makes? It would seem so.
If using electricity at home is the question, it should be a simple matter to figure:
Cost of generation / cost of gas with equivalent miles driven. It is math and someone must have done this kind of thing. Sounds like a lot of anecdotal evidence is being referred to, but that does not prove anything. Maybe someone can rustle up the data from a reputable source and quote it.
But diatribes and ridicule neither invalidates anothers view nor reinforces your own.
tcwagner1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,508 Posts
tcwagner1 There are some on this forum (including engineer types) that will claim the bumble bee can't fly. Fortunately for the bumble bee, it can't hear them, so it continues to fly. There are some that claim hydrogen isn't a fuel, and probably haven't seen the Space Shuttle fly, either.

I saw a video on YouTube of some students lighting "coffee creamer" and getting one heck of an explosion. Ever hear of grain silos exploding? Grain isn't explosive, but it seems the "dust" (flour) from it, is when properly mixed with "Oxygen".

As I had mentioned in a post earlier in this thread, one person took a few minutes to actually "test" (loss of mpg) the load due to the alternator having to generate the power to create the "HHO". Yes, they noted a 2 - 3 mpg loss by having the alternator loaded with the 25AMPS to generate the "HHO". However, the increased "energy" of the "HHO" when consumed by the engine, increased the mpg beyond the loss (more than made up for it). At approximatly 25AMPS, the "HHO" generators produce approximately 1 liter/minute of "HHO". The "O" is NOT separated out, it stays with the H2 (same container, same tubing, only one way out for both), thus "HHO".

Fuel injected engines are computer controlled. The computer monitors how much Oxygen is present in the exhaust and adjusts the amount of "fuel" injected (a specific ratio).

When "HHO" is added, the O2 sensor senses more "Oxygen" at the exhaust (a cleaner burn). The computer attempts to compensate for it by "adding" more fuel. To properly run an "HHO" generator on your vehicle, you need to convince the computer the added Oxygen is acceptable, so it doesn't increase the "fuel". There are a couple of ways to do this. Most easily, is a circuit that is connected between the O2 sensor and the computer, that actually modifies the signal being sent to the computer (EFIE -- Electronic Fuel Injection Enhancer). Causing the "fuel" to be leaned out. The "combination" of the fuel leaned out and the Hydrogen added, increases the mpg.

Just leaning out the fuel will cause a "hotter" exhaust, melting the cat (and possibly the exhaust valves. The computer adds more "fuel" into the engine to "cool" the exhaust (other purpose of the O2 sensor is to monitor exhaust temp). If it gets too hot, cool it down by flooding the engine with more fuel. More "unburned fuel" going out the exhaust "cools" the exhaust.

A side effect of "HHO" introduced into the cylinder is that it actually "cools" the exhaust (similar to 1970's "water injection", cooling the exhaust), at the same time increasing the efficiency of the fuel mix. Carborated engines didn't have computers to "compensate" for the water injection, and could be "tuned" manually for the best mpg.

Running alchol in an engine will also "cool" the exhaust, but doesn't give you the same increase in mpg.

I'd highly recommend people read through the trials and testing of the following group completely before shooting "HHO" down;
http://www.fuel-saver.org/index.php
 

·
1000 Post Club Member
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
Thanks for the input on Hydrogen generators. I have not seen one of these, but have some understanding of chemistry. Actually separated H and O in jr High as part of physics class. What I didn't understand was the function of the O2 sensor. I was under the impression that adding unburnt fuel to the mix would heat up the catalytic converter, since, as my understanding was, that the platinum in the converter, catalytically turns (burns without O2) the unburnt fuel into CO2 and water (to reduce hydrocarbon emissions) and gives off heat as a by product, so it seemed to me that unburnt fuel would heat up the cat, not cool it. I had an old Pea**** hand warmer from the Korean War that worked that way, catalytically producing heat from the fumes of gasoline on a platinum wire, even in a pocket devoid of O2. So you taught me something about catalytic converters I didn't know.
Sometimes the conversion as one type of energy to another defies obvious logic. Like how does the rubbing of a matchhead on a piece of sandpaper generate such heat? It is turning one type of energy, heat of friction, to start a chemical reaction with the sulfur on the matchhead, oxidation, by supplying the threshold energy to start that reaction. In doing this, we produce a form of energy we want to use, a flame. More heat energy results than YOU put in, but not more than was potentially available in the chemicals on the matchhead. So really in using electrical energy to separate water, producing highly reactive forms of both elements which are looking for a way to reach a lower energy state, you are kind of making a matchhead. You use a electrical energy to create potential heat energy, a form we want to use, in this case. Or turbos, for that matter, turning mechanical energy into chemical potential (more O2 in the cylinder). The principle is sound, seems to me the only question is cost effectiveness and how you tweak a modern engine to do this. You have answered some of these questions for me. Thanks for that.
I would like to add that if you have free oxygen floating around anywhere, you have something that makes gas look stable. Any spark or even the coal of a cigarette will provoke a nice explosion. So treat it with absolute care. Pure hydrogen will not ignite an ember, but pure oxygen will explode immediately. That is how we tested which was which when we separated it in Jr Hi, the ember went out in the hydrogen test tube, emitted a nice POP with the oxygen. That makes me wonder, if both the O and H are funneled into the intake, why there would be excess O traveling down the tailpipe. It would appear that the water formed by the explosion would use both up, regardless of the gas burn with the oxygen coming in through the intake. I don't have a chart for these reactions, but the H O one is very strong. But, clearly, modern engines are very finely tuned and messing with anything messes with everything else, so would have to have some way, (eefi? control) to rebalance the engine, it would seem to me.
Hey, how bout using a windmill to separate the water? After the initial $5,000 investment, it is free fuel. Or build your own.
It is always an education reading your posts, and I thank all those who take the time to share what you know with us.
tcwagner1
 

·
Latent car nut
Joined
·
8,963 Posts
Come on folks, this has been tried and tried again by many qualified engineers and NEVER ONCE has the power generated by the hydrogen produced by this process been even as much as the power required to run the process in the first place. Saying anything else is an absolute falsehood and is doing a disservice to the readers of this board.
 

·
1000 Post Club Member
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
Even if that applies to the on the fly systems, the economics of home electrical creation of H and O, is something to consider. I don't have the answers to either question. Does it save or cost money is what I believe is the question I would like to know the answer to. There are even some systems I heard of which utilize a small diesel engine to run an alternator to split water and make fuel. Someone who has no interest in either answer likely will provide us with some data.
tcwagner1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
The amount of energy that is provided by the burning of hydrogen with oxygen is precisely the same amount of energy that is required to separate the two to start with...............provided that you do both with 100% efficiency. Since it's impossible to do either with 100% efficiency, it's a net loss system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,613 Posts
The amount of energy that is provided by the burning of hydrogen with oxygen is precisely the same amount of energy that is required to separate the two to start with...............provided that you do both with 100% efficiency. Since it's impossible to do either with 100% efficiency, it's a net loss system.
Please read the previous 100 post on this thread. We have been there and beat that one silly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,613 Posts
tcwagner1
As I had mentioned in a post earlier in this thread, one person took a few minutes to actually "test" (loss of mpg) the load due to the alternator having to generate the power to create the "HHO". Yes, they noted a 2 - 3 mpg loss by having the alternator loaded with the 25AMPS to generate the "HHO". However, the increased "energy" of the "HHO" when consumed by the engine, increased the mpg beyond the loss (more than made up for it). At approximatly 25AMPS, the "HHO" generators produce approximately 1 liter/minute of "HHO". The "O" is NOT separated out, it stays with the H2 (same container, same tubing, only one way out for both), thus "HHO"
We can make this very simple. ENERGY CAN NOT BE CREATED. If you think that this can be done, do it. If you can make a car that goes 10% further on a gallon of fuel than it did before you made it hydrogen, I will pay you for your time. I only have one stipulation:

The vehicle must be sniffed running gasoline and gasoline/hydrogen and both must be equally as clean.

Maybe better yet.... Every member of this forum will give you $10....... Thoughts?

10% better, just as clean, $10 each. My money is safe.
 

·
1000 Post Club Member
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
It's true, that except in nuclear reactions where mass turns into energy, you can't create energy. But I don't think that is really the question. You can make fuel. Even petroleum has to be heated to boiling and processed which is an energy intensive process. But after processing, you end up with a fuel that when burned generates more energy than the amount it took to make it. That is why some oil generation processes are not feasible until oil prices hit a certain point, like oil shale. It is not economically feasible to produce this fuel if oil is cheap. So I guess the real question would be, would the cost of electricity to process x liters of hydrogen be economically a wash, more costly or less costly that an equivalent amount of gasoline. That depends on several factors, source of the electricity, cost/kwh, cost of gasoline to compare it with. It must not be economically feasible right now or there would be more of it. But that is likely because our entire energy system is geared toward gasoline. That may change in the future.
tcwagner1
 

·
Latent car nut
Joined
·
8,963 Posts
It's true, that except in nuclear reactions where mass turns into energy, you can't create energy. But I don't think that is really the question. You can make fuel. Even petroleum has to be heated to boiling and processed which is an energy intensive process. But after processing, you end up with a fuel that when burned generates more energy than the amount it took to make it.
Ummm, no. Separating the various components that make up crude oil is not even remotely akin to "generating" energy. The real cost of producing the energy that is in oil is the millions of years of pressure and heat that went into turning the organic matter into the oil in the first place. If we were to put a price on that process, petrolium, would be cost prohibitive.

That is why some oil generation processes are not feasible until oil prices hit a certain point, like oil shale. It is not economically feasible to produce this fuel if oil is cheap.
What you are talking about here is the extraction cost, not the generation cost of producing any given fuel.

So I guess the real question would be, would the cost of electricity to process x liters of hydrogen be economically a wash, more costly or less costly that an equivalent amount of gasoline. That depends on several factors, source of the electricity, cost/kwh, cost of gasoline to compare it with. It must not be economically feasible right now or there would be more of it. But that is likely because our entire energy system is geared toward gasoline. That may change in the future.
tcwagner1
Separating hydrogen (and oxygen) from water and then recombining it to make water again is a circular process, each step of which is less than 100% efficient, and even if it was 100% efficient in both directions, there would still be absolutely zero net gain in energy. You will never EVER be able to achieve a net gain in energy with such a process. Period, full stop, the end.
 

·
1000 Post Club Member
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
Well, I guess there is no way to make the point that you can produce a usable fuel economically with Hydrogen separation. But let me make the point this way. If I have a wind powered generator that separates hydrogen and oxygen which I store and I later put this gas in an engine designed to burn it, would you not agree that I have a fuel that is economical to use? I am not on the same line of reasoning as you are in this discussion. I see your point, that the energy you get out of hydrogen separation cannot be more than energy it took to separate it. That is not the point I am making. My point is that you can make a fuel that is economical to burn by the expenditure of energy to produce the fuel, one does not preclude the other (hence the illustration, and that is what it was and illustration, of the petroleum cracking). You are making fuel, the only question is, is it economical. From the illustration of the wind generator, you have to agree, if the source of electricity is cheap enough, hydrogen fuel generation can produce an economical fuel and the only question is the cost of production the comparison of crude oil and shale oil (windmill/alternator) both produce the same fuel but the cost to produce it will determine whether it is worth the effort. I understand it, I hope I can make what I am trying to say understandable to another person, because it is a perfectly valid point, even if I not its most elegant apologist.
tcwagner1
 
41 - 60 of 80 Posts
Top