The premise of hydrogen generation adding oxy-hydrogen via electrolysis seems to be gaining acceptance. Reports of 10-25% better mileage, cleaner burning, removal of carbon buildup (not unlike propane) have been suggested.

Now before anyone gets on their "perpetual" energy kick, what is involved is utilizing this process as supplemental fuel in addition to diesel - not to power the diesel itself. Energy isn't being created from nothing, simply taking the hydrogen/oxygen atoms from water and separating them to be used as fuel. I would call it a richer air, rather than fuel. Besides, the richer air will help the engine (at least I think) burn more of the diesel fuel as diesel engines are approx. 75% efficient - I hope it will act sorta like propane, getting that number to about 85-90%

The system I will be installing will run at about 20 amps and because of this, will be installing dual alternators to handle the lost electrical power. If I notice an improvement, I will then possible add an additional unit to increase gas output as I think the unit I will be installing would work better on a small engine rather than an engine over 5 liters.

Anyways, I will post my progress for any that are interested. Also, I'd be interested in hearing from anyone that has experience in hydrogen generating systems - both good and bad.

Thanks!

Sounds interesting to me,
I almost bought a build it yourself hydrogen powered cart I saw in skymall. Just looked like fun to mess with. Keep us updated, I know a few others that would be interested also.

Sounds interesting to me,
I almost bought a build it yourself hydrogen powered cart I saw in skymall. Just looked like fun to mess with. Keep us updated, I know a few others that would be interested also.
I will be starting this week with photos of the install. The hardest part, I see being the custom fabricating of a dual alternator bracket as I'm told GM no long stocks 'em for a truck as old as mine. :( For this reason, I will most likely run the first unit before the dual alternator setup.

Just to explain what and why I am using the hydrogen system I have chosen. It is possible to use a larger system but from my research, heat with the electrolysis becomes an issue. For this reason, I am sticking with a fairly small unit which shouldn't overheat. I figure the addition of a second unit down the road is possible with the moving around of the engine components.

The systems are very simple to install but from what I have read.

Here are a couple of links for those who are interested:

http://www.thetrucker.com/News/Stories/2006/4/17/Hy-Drivehydrogengeneratorreportsfastermorecompleteeng ineburn.aspx

http://www.hydropowercar.com/

There are a couple of questions I have about this. First, any alternator draws more power than what it produces. Second, the electrolysis process requires more energy to break the water down than what energy the hydrogen yields. So, if the engine requires two alternators (one would quickly burn up with the additional load always being present) it will put more load on the engine. The engine will then burn more fuel to power the vehicle and the alternators.

If this actually worked, don't you think the power companies would use it? Who would be more motivated than them, since they make money selling power?

Let us know how much fuel it saves. This was discussed at length on an engineering forum.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=163254&page=3

Hmmmm... Interesting questions but I have to disagree. The concerns with hydrogen are storage and transport. The gaseous hydrogen equivalent to liquid gas would require a containment unit 5 times as big as it currently is - not practical. To transport hydrogen in liquid form would require, yes, energy to transport it as it is very cold - I think only liquid helium is colder.

The solution? Utilizing hydrogen as it is produced. How many amps does your a/c run off? How 'bout that killer stereo? You telling me 20 amps at highway speed is gonna kill my fuel economy?

Now, like I stated before, I don't expect the mileage increase that may/may not happen to be from the oxy-hydrogen - MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT THAT!

What I am hoping for is the oxy-hydrogen mixture to help burn off that 10% that wouldn't have burned under normal conditions - much like with propane! If this oxy-hydrogen can act as a catalyst to burn off energy (diesel fuel) that wouldn't have been burned, well then, I would say it was doing a fair job, no?

As far as big power companies promoting an energy they can't control? LOL, c'mon! You really think those in power are going to promote an industry that may one day put them out of business?

Like you said, proof is in the puddin'... I'll keep you all posted! :D

I'd liked to see your results, but I would be shocked if there was any improvement whatsoever. I would actually expect to see a mileage decrease due to the added load on the electrical system. Diesels nearly always have more air available for combustion that what is required to burn the fuel present in the cylinder, so I can't see extra oxygen doing anything to help.

If making a mounting bracket for your 2nd alternator is your biggest problem, then you are doing awesome. Can't wait to see some posted mileage comparison results as well as a total cost to install when completed.

I'd liked to see your results, but I would be shocked if there was any improvement whatsoever. I would actually expect to see a mileage decrease due to the added load on the electrical system. Diesels nearly always have more air available for combustion that what is required to burn the fuel present in the cylinder, so I can't see extra oxygen doing anything to help.
Can't say I know all the answers and maybe you and marcdeluca are correct. I might just get the opposite of what I am hoping for.

But what the heck? If it works, then great! If not, then I guess it will be like that show "Myth Busters". I have nothing to lose if it doesn't work - I look at it as I will have put the subject to bed and I will know for sure, one way or another. Not knowing is sometimes worse than spending a couple of bucks.

Maybe some of you who do a lot of traveling can help out here. Does your diesel run any different at sea level as opposed to the mountains? Like, can you tell at higher altitudes that a diesel is getting less oxygen? Is atmospheric makeup the same at higher altitudes, but just less dense?

The make up of air is roughly 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% everything else (with hydrogen in trace amounts). I would think if I could produce enough to simply enrich the air just a little, then maybe it will work.

I don't know, I am under the impression that the truth is a good thing - even when we don't always get our desired outcome ;)

I'd liked to see your results, but I would be shocked if there was any improvement whatsoever. I would actually expect to see a mileage decrease due to the added load on the electrical system. Diesels nearly always have more air available for combustion that what is required to burn the fuel present in the cylinder, so I can't see extra oxygen doing anything to help.

What if I was to wire the hydrogen generator in a way to keep it separate from the rest of the system, a closed system with a third battery and a dedicated alternator. Then the only engine power loss would come from the inefficiency of adding a new pulley, no?

What if I was to wire the hydrogen generator in a way to keep it separate from the rest of the system, a closed system with a third battery and a dedicated alternator. Then the only engine power loss would come from the inefficiency of adding a new pulley, no?

No. The power required to turn an alternator is proportional to the amount of electricity it is required to produce. Whether you draw the power from the stock alternator or an auxiliary one, the additional load is the same, or actually slightly worse with the second alternator due to the extra parasitic drag of having to spin the second pulley and armature. I think your number of 75% burn rate on a diesel is pretty low. I read somewhere, can't remember where, that something like 95% of the useable hydrocarbons are burned in a diesel engine. Doesn’t leave a lot of room for improvement. That is one of the emissions advantages that a diesel has over a gasoline engine, especially one burning ethanol, which has a much larger percentage of unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust. The main inefficiencies in any internal combustion engine come from the waste heat. About a third of the energy goes into the cooling system, a third goes out the exhaust, and a third actually make useable horsepower. If you want to make a significant increase in engine efficiency, you'll need to find a way to capture more of the waste heat and turn it into useable power.

Have any of you read about the 6 stroke engine that Bruce Crower of Crower Cams fame invented? It seems to have gone through a few changes since I first heard about it. The first time I saw it, it worked like this: The first three strokes are the same; intake, compression, power. Then, instead of exhaust, it leaves the valves closed and does another compression stroke with the hot exhaust gasses. At TDC, it injects water, which turns to steam and creates another power stroke. The sixth stoke is exhaust. The exhaust is cool to the touch because so much heat was pulled out of it. The engine uses 1/3 less fuel to do the same work. The engine consumes the same amount of water as fuel. When I read about it recently, he has changed it so that it has a third valve, which is a second exhaust valve. On the fourth stroke, it exhausts through one exhaust valve. On stoke six, it exhausts the steam through the other valve, and condenses the water for reuse.

IMHO, this engine has huge potential. Whether diesel or spark ignition.

...I think your number of 75% burn rate on a diesel is pretty low. I read somewhere, can't remember where, that something like 95% of the useable hydrocarbons are burned in a diesel engine. Doesn’t leave a lot of room for improvement...
I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing as I don't know for sure - I know what I read. But these numbers can be off as they aren't mine.

But this project is at the point of no return so like stated earlier, the proof is in the puddin'... I guess we'll see soon enough :D

I wish you the best of luck on your project, will be interested to see your discoveries. However, I too am skeptical that you are not going to break through any innovative miracle process. I'm very familiar with electrolytic hydrogen/oxygen separation - we used it on nuclear subs to produce oxygen. The process consumed tremendous amounts of electricity in high pressure nickel cells using caustic soda to make the water more conductive and we dumped the hydrogen and cleaned and compressed the oxygen.

Your links use just a bit of inaccurate science mixed with hype to imply promise. Adding HYDROGEN is not adding AIR. Hydrogen is fuel, will burn, but at what ignition temperature/phasing in comparison to your diesel ignition in the compression cycle. Adding BOTH electoytic gasses IS adding hydrogen and oxygen, but I doubt the metering process is going to be accurately or consistently controlled and once again there is that issue of timing vs. burn which is critical to efficent and low emissions diesel operation over a wide band of operating range. Distilled water? That will be the least efficient possible electrolytic cell. Not to be negative, just to point out some additional information regarding the process and to remind you that water electrolysis and diesel have both been around since 1800 and I'm sure that this is not something that someone else hasn't considered and rejected in over 200 years.

Marc, I've seen a clip of Bruce Crower's prototype engine - amazing and very interesting breakthrough!

I wish you the best of luck on your project, will be interested to see your discoveries. However, I too am skeptical that you are not going to break through any innovative miracle process. I'm very familiar with electrolytic hydrogen/oxygen separation - we used it on nuclear subs to produce oxygen. The process consumed tremendous amounts of electricity in high pressure nickel cells using caustic soda to make the water more conductive and we dumped the hydrogen and cleaned and compressed the oxygen.

Your links use just a bit of inaccurate science mixed with hype to imply promise. Adding HYDROGEN is not adding AIR. Hydrogen is fuel, will burn, but at what ignition temperature/phasing in comparison to your diesel ignition in the compression cycle. Adding BOTH electoytic gasses IS adding hydrogen and oxygen, but I doubt the metering process is going to be accurately or consistently controlled and once again there is that issue of timing vs. burn which is critical to efficent and low emissions diesel operation over a wide band of operating range. Distilled water? That will be the least efficient possible electrolytic cell. Not to be negative, just to point out some additional information regarding the process and to remind you that water electrolysis and diesel have both been around since 1800 and I'm sure that this is not something that someone else hasn't considered and rejected in over 200 years.

Marc, I've seen a clip of Bruce Crower's prototype engine - amazing and very interesting breakthrough!
More good points. And I thank you for your well wishes. if I might adress some of your statements.

I would suggest that hydrogen has been rejected for the last "200 years" because of the presence of cheap crude, not that there are any real other reasons. Again, I could be wrong.

Americans want to fill & go, no thought involved. Why is it Urea is used in Europe but can't get approved in the US? Again, fill & go mentality.

You mention "caustic soda"... Are you referring to the small amount of baking soda or lye used to create an electrolyte out of the water? "Tremendous" amount of electricity is referring to 20 amps as previous outlined?

Thank you for your points, they are noted and taken into consideration. But I personally feel that this is something worth trying and at worst, I'll get slightly worst fuel mileage and spent extra time and money on an experiment. Famous last words, eh?

20 amps at 12V is only around 250 Watts of power going into making the gas. That isn't going to yield very much. Did they happen to say how many miles you get to a gallon of water? I'll bet it's alot.

20 amps at 12V is only around 250 Watts of power going into making the gas. That isn't going to yield very much. Did they happen to say how many miles you get to a gallon of water? I'll bet it's alot.
You "bet it's alot", eh? Is that some attempt at sarcasm? I am looking at increasing my milage by 5-10% if it works, I'd be happy as can be. I put on 20,000 miles/year so that would be 1000-2000 miles.

For some reason, you can't seem to grasp the fact that I am looking to cause the addition of oxy-hydrogen to enrich and burn off any diesel fuel that slips through the cracks in the combustion process. Hydrogen burns at 10* C higher than propane - I don't see you having a problem with propane introduction into a diesel, do I?

I am not in a possition to go into deatails about how much hydrogen gas is in 1 liter of water but when I get home, I'll be happy to post what I know.

Thanks for your interest.

You "bet it's alot", eh? Is that some attempt at sarcasm? I am looking at increasing my milage by 5-10% if it works, I'd be happy as can be. I put on 20,000 miles/year so that would be 1000-2000 miles.

For some reason, you can't seem to grasp the fact that I am looking to cause the addition of oxy-hydrogen to enrich and burn off any diesel fuel that slips through the cracks in the combustion process. Hydrogen burns at 10* C higher than propane - I don't see you having a problem with propane introduction into a diesel, do I?

I am not in a possition to go into deatails about how much hydrogen gas is in 1 liter of water but when I get home, I'll be happy to post what I know.

Thanks for your interest.
Don't let someone that has not tried something talk you out of trying it!!!
Somebody somewhere in the world has to try something a little different once in a while or we would never evolve at all.
Just a thought at the practical way of transporting Hydrogen, What pressure does hydrogen stay in the liquid state at 100F? We can transport Propane & Ammonia in the liquid form under pressure at 100F, we can't do the same with hydrogen & not need such a big fuel cell?

More good points. And I thank you for your well wishes. if I might adress some of your statements.

I would suggest that hydrogen has been rejected for the last "200 years" because of the presence of cheap crude, not that there are any real other reasons. Again, I could be wrong. "Cheap Crude" and gasoline prices have been over since 1974 - that's why there are so many "tornadoes" and "magic fuel magnets" on the market - do you think viable H2 electrolysis would just now be happening?

Americans want to fill & go, no thought involved. Why is it Urea is used in Europe but can't get approved in the US? Again, fill & go mentality.

You mention "caustic soda"... Are you referring to the small amount of baking soda or lye used to create an electrolyte out of the water? "Tremendous" amount of electricity is referring to 20 amps as previous outlined? I was referring to the high power demands in our shipboard units - which produced a relatively small portion of gas at extreme cost and energy consumption - what's a 20 amp underhood unit going to produce?

Thank you for your points, they are noted and taken into consideration. But I personally feel that this is something worth trying and at worst, I'll get slightly worst fuel mileage and spent extra time and money on an experiment. Famous last words, eh? Once again, I'm not trying to rain on your parade and applaud your enthusiasm and pioneering spirit - I just can't be too optimistic about what you are going to gain with the basic principles and physics of the process you are going to employ.

They laughed at Edison. Still wishing you the best of luck.

They laughed at Edison. Still wishing you the best of luck.
LOL, I kinda expected this response, I am having doubts myself now. Only thing I can say is that most of the responses seem to be heresay as opposed to actual first hand experience.

What we'll have here after my experiment has taken place is a basis to put the rumors to rest - for better or for worse.

Please forgive me if I seem defensive in some of my responses as I have yet to even install the kit and already I am being bombarded with 'it can't work' mentality. The kit WILL be installed at we can go from there.

At this point I think it will be a success if I manage to not blow myself up in the process!!!!:rolleyes:

Don't let someone that has not tried something talk you out of trying it!!!
Somebody somewhere in the world has to try something a little different once in a while or we would never evolve at all.
Just a thought at the practical way of transporting Hydrogen, What pressure does hydrogen stay in the liquid state at 100F? We can transport Propane & Ammonia in the liquid form under pressure at 100F, we can't do the same with hydrogen & not need such a big fuel cell?
I am not an expert of hydrogen by any means. I did read that to make the hydrogen refilling stations a reality, a means of self manufacturing of hydrogen would be necessary - but someone correct me if I'm wronge but isn't Germany currently setting up just such a nationwide infastructure?

Just be careful. Don't blow yourself up to save a nickel.

I am not an expert of hydrogen by any means. I did read that to make the hydrogen refilling stations a reality, a means of self manufacturing of hydrogen would be necessary - but someone correct me if I'm wronge but isn't Germany currently setting up just such a nationwide infastructure?
I think I read in Motor Magazine that there is 5 stations in the DC area that have Hydrogen Fill abuility at the fual pumps, More heresay I know but I did read that somewhere.

More heresay I know but I did read that somewhere.
LOL, I guess you got me.... Now as long as I never leave the surrounding DC area I'll be good, right? :rolleyes:

All of the current hydrogen talk is not for combustion (or combustion assistance) use. It's for hydrogen power cells for electric vehicles. There is currently no cheap way to create/store/transport hydrogen (requires tremendous pressurization in gaseous state, super insulation in liquid state) and fuel cells use much less volume of gas than combustion. In addition to the infrastructure issues, production is looking at using fourth generation nuclear plants to try and produce the bulk heat and massive electricity to try and lower the net cost of large-scale hydrogen production.

I ask you, does this sound like a short-term "magic bullet" solution to you?

from my reading these kits do not store the gas, they process after engine is running and add into intake like propane. if you could breakdown the cost of your materiels. have you thought about going to a larger alternator(cutting down frictional HP for driving 2 alt's and need for bracket). Detriot Diesel experimented with fuel and water Upto 70/30% in head(hot) tank, just before fuel pump(recirc setup) claimed 25% fuel savings on 71 series, think Penske dropped it to go with 4-strokes. have always read about energy required to seperate, for gas production not kit for vehicles, wonder if simple tactics(tire sizing/pressure, outside air turbulence reduction) if these would gain at less cost. thanks for trying this, we won't know til someone tries it. best of luck and keep us updated.

from my reading these kits do not store the gas, they process after engine is running and add into intake like propane. if you could breakdown the cost of your materiels. have you thought about going to a larger alternator(cutting down frictional HP for driving 2 alt's and need for bracket). Detriot Diesel experimented with fuel and water Upto 70/30% in head(hot) tank, just before fuel pump(recirc setup) claimed 25% fuel savings on 71 series, think Penske dropped it to go with 4-strokes. have always read about energy required to seperate, for gas production not kit for vehicles, wonder if simple tactics(tire sizing/pressure, outside air turbulence reduction) if these would gain at less cost. thanks for trying this, we won't know til someone tries it. best of luck and keep us updated.
Yes, I have toyed around with the idea of a heavy duty alternator. I actually just found a HO alt distributer that I am interested in. I will contact them first thing tomorrow - Thanks for the positive input!

Just be careful. Don't blow yourself up to save a nickel.

Thank you for the concern as I will be extra careful. I will be wiring in as to only let the oxy-hydrogen generator become active ONLY while the key is in the on position.

This will lower the chances, but not eliminate room for accidentally forgetting to shut down the generator when not in use. Also, I will hard wire the generator so it needs no relay, thereby eliminating the chance that a relay might stick. I will most likely also install a warning light on the dash to remind me when the generator is on as I would like to utilize it only at highway speed - until I possibly feel more comfortable using it for in town driving.

Again, thank you for your concern. Safety and keeping my truck operational are my primary focus :D

I ask you, does this sound like a short-term "magic bullet" solution to you?
I'm not sure if this is directed at me but I understand there are many issues with setting up an infrastructure. Right now, generating the hydrogen, storing it, and transporting it make it's use prohibitive. I am not out trying to change the world.

I just became interested in this subject for my own personal reasons - namely me and my truck. I studied both sides of the equation for several months before making the decision to give this a try.

I currently believe that this might actually work. I have read about it being "perpetual" energy - so it can't possibly work. I have heard just today that it can't possibly work because it doesn't produce enough gas. I have also heard just today that it can't work because it will likely use more energy than it'll create.

I'm not denying that there is no possible way, right now, to run a vehicle on strictly hydrogen with todays technology - at least, not self generating of hydrogen on board. No way to even produce enough hydrogen by the means I outlined to make a noticeable difference - but that's if the variables where simply the oxy-hydrogen itself. I'm looking at the big picture that there IS unburned diesel fuel that might actually burn more completely if the oxy-hydrogen is added to the equation.

Could I be wrong about this? Sure I can. But I am willing to take that chance. Where did I come up with the 75% number for my combustion of the diesel fuel? Right here:

http://www.mrsharkey.com/lpg.htm

If you notice, I didn't get that number off a site that was trying to sell me the oxy-hydrogen generator. I got that number off a site that simply wants to help people with the addition of propane to the diesel mix. Sure it's not MIT's site so maybe they are wrong about the 75% number - I don't know.

After reading it, I thought to myself, "what if hydrogen injection worked like propane injection?".... Why wouldn't it? The only question is if this system I am trying to utilize will be able to produce enough oxy-hydrogen to make a noticeable difference? Maybe it will, maybe it wont - but I will hopefully find out soon enough. :cool:

This thread has "spilled over" from an on-board electrolytic cell to the hydrogen infrastructure for feeding hydrogen fuel cells and I thought we should try and keep the apples separated from the oranges. Currently, hydrogen is produced in bulk by steam reforming natual gas. It's used in hydrocracking petroleum and in cooling large power generators. Of the methods for hydrogen production, electolytic decomposition of water is the least efficient and most energy comsumptive. Just to keep the "hydrogen economy" and projected fuel-cell powered vehicles from getting "glossed onto" this project.

More info here:

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/production/basics.html

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

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

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

They have been running a bunch of government owned vehicles in Germany on hydrogen for at least 20 years. I remember writing about it in a school essay way back when I was in high school. Its use hasn't spread since only a government could afford to operate a system like that. They run it in a modified internal combustion engine very similar to a gasoline engine. If I recall correctly they store the hydrogen on board in a cryogenic liquid state. The technology to run a vehicle entirely on hydrogen has been around for a long time, its just the high cost, and the fact that it is actually less energy efficient that nearly any other fuel that is stopping its widespread use. Like Idle Chatter mentioned, currently the vast majority of hydrogen produced is made by steam reformation of natural gas, since that is the cheapest way to make it. Since hydrogen is such a poor energy transfer medium, you'd be much further ahead to just build a car that runs on natural gas and skip the hydrogen middle man entirely.

A few fun facts about liquid hydrogen:
1. There is actually more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
2. Cryogenic liquid hydrogen is so cold that if a storage tank is not sufficiently insulated, oxygen out of the air can condense on the outside of the tank. If the liquid oxygen drips off onto nearly any combustible surface, say an asphalt road, it will spontaneously burst into flames. In Germany the fueling areas they use for their hydrogen powered vehicles have concrete on the ground instead of asphalt to help lower the risk of fire.

I to would look at getting a HO alternator rather than trying to add a second one. 20 amps more to the system is relay not that much to ask of a stock 90 amp alternator for testing.
In the long run tho PowerMaster makes several levels of outputs 200amp being the biggest that they make or theres Primer Power Welder whos alternators come up to 300 amps (on the 12 volt side)

Hey good luck with your testing.

I to would look at getting a HO alternator rather than trying to add a second one. 20 amps more to the system is relay not that much to ask of a stock 90 amp alternator for testing.
In the long run tho PowerMaster makes several levels of outputs 200amp being the biggest that they make or theres Primer Power Welder whos alternators come up to 300 amps (on the 12 volt side)
Thanks for all the input and I will listen to the conventional wisdom as the consensus seems to agree - a HO alternator.

I found a 140 amp that is a direct bolt on with the same case as the CS130. After a long an pleasant talk with the alternator remanufacturer, he says the 140 amp versions do much better with less problems down the road, as opposed to the 200 amp versions. He said I could go with a 200 + amp but that would involve a bigger alternator all together and the bolt up/electrical might need fabricating. Not that it would be too much of a problem but I figure I can always upgrade later - I wanna get the generator going first.

With 140 amp, I figure I could possibly go two separate 20 amp generators after I get more comfortable with the whole hydrogen generating concept and be pretty close to where I am now with my OEM.

I still would like a dual alternator set up, but that would be for other things and isn't a priority now - maybe later :rolleyes:

Anyways, thanks again for the input, HO alternator it is!

Confuzed guy,
How goes the progress comin on the install an do you have any figures yet?

Ryan

Sorry for the delay in posting on this thread, especially since I started it :rolleyes:

The hydrogen generator I originally went with is ready to have the wiring hooked up and I hoped for it to be completed by the past week. Changes in my work have put me behind on this one.

I will get it up and running this week, for sure. After that, I will report my findings as I will be taking the hydrogen generating a step further and will be experimenting with some HO generators :D

But baby steps, right?

How did I miss this thread for so long?

The alternators in our trucks run from about 30% to 60% efficient depending on load. They dump an awful lot of thermal when being worked hard.

A good Hydrogen generator is going to be ~60%. Only the exotics approach the 85% or higher. And that depends on how you are measuring the efficiency.

What volume of hydrogen? Diesels consume massive amounts of air and to even make a recordable dent with a generator you would have to dump something like 100 AMPs or more.

Run your experiment as you wish, but really, you need to isolate the electrical generation from the engine crank first. Measure your results to see if you are actually helping the engine with the added H2 O2. Then look for a way to produce the H2 O2 mix without using the crank. I would suggest a turbo shaft generator using the engine exhaust for instance.

How did I miss this thread for so long?

The alternators in our trucks run from about 30% to 60% efficient depending on load. They dump an awful lot of thermal when being worked hard.

A good Hydrogen generator is going to be ~60%. Only the exotics approach the 85% or higher. And that depends on how you are measuring the efficiency.

What volume of hydrogen? Diesels consume massive amounts of air and to even make a recordable dent with a generator you would have to dump something like 100 AMPs or more.

Run your experiment as you wish, but really, you need to isolate the electrical generation from the engine crank first. Measure your results to see if you are actually helping the engine with the added H2 O2. Then look for a way to produce the H2 O2 mix without using the crank. I would suggest a turbo shaft generator using the engine exhaust for instance.

Very good points... But like stated in the very beginning, the excess hydrogen/oxygen (i.e. Brown's gas, aka e-gas) will hopefully help burn any of the unspent diesel.

For this experiment we are looking at 20 amps with possibly 40-60 amps down the road with a HO alternator and possibly a dedicated dual alternator set up.

Also a possibility is turning the second alternator into an amp restrictor for hydrogen production - but that's way down the road. Along with possible solar panels on a custom tonneau cover for daytime hydrogen production.

But I like your turbo shaft generator idea. Got an extra turbo gathering dust. Hmmmmmm...

I think it would be easier to throw a genset in the back. Can't get more isolated than that.

I think it would be easier to throw a genset in the back. Can't get more isolated than that.
Yeah, you're probably right about that. The generator would at least help determine at what volume hydrogen would need to be produced at... After that, figuring a way to extracting the hydrogen without use via generator is, of course, the hard part.

The premise of hydrogen generation adding oxy-hydrogen via electrolysis seems to be gaining acceptance. Reports of 10-25% better mileage, cleaner burning, removal of carbon buildup (not unlike propane) have been suggested.

Now before anyone gets on their "perpetual" energy kick, what is involved is utilizing this process as supplemental fuel in addition to diesel - not to power the diesel itself. Energy isn't being created from nothing, simply taking the hydrogen/oxygen atoms from water and separating them to be used as fuel. I would call it a richer air, rather than fuel. Besides, the richer air will help the engine (at least I think) burn more of the diesel fuel as diesel engines are approx. 75% efficient - I hope it will act sorta like propane, getting that number to about 85-90%

The system I will be installing will run at about 20 amps and because of this, will be installing dual alternators to handle the lost electrical power. If I notice an improvement, I will then possible add an additional unit to increase gas output as I think the unit I will be installing would work better on a small engine rather than an engine over 5 liters.

Anyways, I will post my progress for any that are interested. Also, I'd be interested in hearing from anyone that has experience in hydrogen generating systems - both good and bad.

Thanks!

You have a very good idea, please keep us posted as to how your experimentation goes.

I just want to ask- 75% efficient? That is a pipe dream for any internal combustion engine. If it were that good at at converting energy, it wouldn't need a huge cooling system. More along the lines of 20-25% efficient.

confuzed guy,
I hve read about this when I did my resurch on WI. I don't remember where. It is supose to work and you are on the right track. The systems I read about were very complicated and expensive. the sience is there, don't listen to the nae sayers, just do it!

Finally installed the hydrogen generator. Wish I had more to report but it will probably take awhile to get some numbers up as far as if it's working.

In the mean time, I found this thread at another site (Don't hate me! Came up on Google search, I swear!) if anyone wants to look at a case study that is 1.5 years old and still going!

http://www.dieseltruckresource.com/dev/showthread.php?t=81058

Will let you all know! Later.

-Keith

Did you know your 6.5 will be consuming over 250 cubic feet of air when driving at 2200 RPM's with a few pounds of boost?
That hydrogen gererator will only produce several cubic inches of gas every minute. 2/3 of the gas volume will be H. The other 3rd mostly oxygen.
It wont even be as effictive as a fart in the wind.
These hydrogen generators can not be effictive, you start by generating the power form the fuel your engine burns at about 30% efficiency. The alt turns it into power with about 85% efficiency, then you use it to split water into H and O with 60% efficiency. Half of the power used in the electrolysis is wased by making Oxygen because oxygen is free, so the electrolysis machine is realy only 30% efficient at making hydrogen. Then you reburn it for about 30% efficiency and come out ahead?

I say these people that sell the hydrogen generators are scamers. I saw one unit that was all most $8000! Oh but you could lease it for $100/month if you wanted. Those guys claimed up to a 50% gain in fuel milage, but they said most people saw a 20% to 30% improvement.
That is funny because your milage can vary up to 30% form tank to tank for a lot of people.
Hydrogen is an energy dead end.
I can post more links to drive this hydrogen thing into the ground if needed.

Did you know your 6.5 will be consuming over 250 cubic feet of air when driving at 2200 RPM's with a few pounds of boost?
That hydrogen gererator will only produce several cubic inches of gas every minute. 2/3 of the gas volume will be H. The other 3rd mostly oxygen.
It wont even be as effictive as a fart in the wind.
These hydrogen generators can not be effictive, you start by generating the power form the fuel your engine burns at about 30% efficiency. The alt turns it into power with about 85% efficiency, then you use it to split water into H and O with 60% efficiency. Half of the power used in the electrolysis is wased by making Oxygen because oxygen is free, so the electrolysis machine is realy only 30% efficient at making hydrogen. Then you reburn it for about 30% efficiency and come out ahead?

I say these people that sell the hydrogen generators are scamers. I saw one unit that was all most $8000! Oh but you could lease it for $100/month if you wanted. Those guys claimed up to a 50% gain in fuel milage, but they said most people saw a 20% to 30% improvement.
That is funny because your milage can vary up to 30% form tank to tank for a lot of people.
Hydrogen is an energy dead end.
I can post more links to drive this hydrogen thing into the ground if needed.
AW, Come on, Tell us what you really think!! & Don't Sugar coat it either!:D

Did you know your 6.5 will be consuming over 250 cubic feet of air when driving at 2200 RPM's with a few pounds of boost?
That hydrogen gererator will only produce several cubic inches of gas every minute. 2/3 of the gas volume will be H. The other 3rd mostly oxygen.
It wont even be as effictive as a fart in the wind.
These hydrogen generators can not be effictive, you start by generating the power form the fuel your engine burns at about 30% efficiency. The alt turns it into power with about 85% efficiency, then you use it to split water into H and O with 60% efficiency. Half of the power used in the electrolysis is wased by making Oxygen because oxygen is free, so the electrolysis machine is realy only 30% efficient at making hydrogen. Then you reburn it for about 30% efficiency and come out ahead?

I say these people that sell the hydrogen generators are scamers. I saw one unit that was all most $8000! Oh but you could lease it for $100/month if you wanted. Those guys claimed up to a 50% gain in fuel milage, but they said most people saw a 20% to 30% improvement.
That is funny because your milage can vary up to 30% form tank to tank for a lot of people.
Hydrogen is an energy dead end.
I can post more links to drive this hydrogen thing into the ground if needed.
Feel free to post away. I never said it would work, just that it is worth trying, IMO.

I don't know to which sites you are refer, " I say these people that sell the hydrogen generators are scamers." Personally I steer clear of these sites and frequent sites that provide free "how to" info.

But I will be happy to post results no matter what occurs as I have nothing to lose or gain - except a little bit of time and money.

I didn't know if you were going to buy or make it.
Just didn't want you to give your money to a snake oil scamer.

I didn't know if you were going to buy or make it.
Just didn't want you to give your money to a snake oil scamer.
Thank you for offering you input and concern. It does seem hard to believe that this might work and you, as well as others, have make some valuable points as to why it wont.

But please see post #42 to this thread as it contains a link to a guy at a Dodge diesel site that has been playing with this for the last year and a half! He is still going and claims it does work! As far as I see, he isn't selling anything.

But I am not trying to convince you either way as I can't say - so far I haven't any proof myself. This is just something I have to do or I'll alway be asking "what if?".

Thanks again.

Because vehicle mileage can vary so much due to driving style and road conditions, to get reliable mileage results you need to run a double blind type of test. You could install an on/off switch under the hood that is labeled A and B instead of on and off, and have someone other than the driver who dosen't know whether A or B is the on position, randomly switch the unit from one position to the other without the drivers knowledge, and track mileage in both positions over a long period of time, under varying driving conditions, then tabulate the results. It is crucial that neither the driver nor the person collecting and tabulating the data knows whether the unit is on or off at any given time. Only then could you get a reliable indication of how good, or how poorly, the system works.

Because vehicle mileage can vary so much due to driving style and road conditions, to get reliable mileage results you need to run a double blind type of test. You could install an on/off switch under the hood that is labeled A and B instead of on and off, and have someone other than the driver who dosen't know whether A or B is the on position, randomly switch the unit from one position to the other without the drivers knowledge, and track mileage in both positions over a long period of time, under varying driving conditions, then tabulate the results. It is crucial that neither the driver nor the person collecting and tabulating the data knows whether the unit is on or off at any given time. Only then could you get a reliable indication of how good, or how poorly, the system works.
Yes, and other variables can be in effect as well.

I have been driving the oxy-hydrogen generator for a few days now. While I can't comment yet on mileage, power seems to have improved.

Of course the weather here has dropped 20 degrees and this might be the real reason it seem to be a bit more powerful. I can't say for sure.

I will look for an inspection shop to help me out with a sniffer - maybe a before/after comparison? This would at least tell me that something might be going on - not necessarily mileage but something.

Again, will keep everyone posted.

No. The power required to turn an alternator is proportional to the amount of electricity it is required to produce. Whether you draw the power from the stock alternator or an auxiliary one, the additional load is the same, or actually slightly worse with the second alternator due to the extra parasitic drag of having to spin the second pulley and armature. I think your number of 75% burn rate on a diesel is pretty low. I read somewhere, can't remember where, that something like 95% of the useable hydrocarbons are burned in a diesel engine. Doesn’t leave a lot of room for improvement. That is one of the emissions advantages that a diesel has over a gasoline engine, especially one burning ethanol, which has a much larger percentage of unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust. The main inefficiencies in any internal combustion engine come from the waste heat. About a third of the energy goes into the cooling system, a third goes out the exhaust, and a third actually make useable horsepower. If you want to make a significant increase in engine efficiency, you'll need to find a way to capture more of the waste heat and turn it into useable power.

Well, I must admit my 6.5 doesn't have much in the way of black smoke so I would guess it's burning pretty good. I am looking for a sniffer and, believe it or not, I just happened to stumble across a group of mechanics here in town that have a hydrogen development group - my Snap On dealer put me together with them.

With that being said, my hydrogen generator seems to be working but I have no concrete evidence. My first meeting with the hydrogen group will be tomorrow so, who knows? They explained to me they did some pretty cool things with a Power Stroke so I'll see for myself soon, hopefully ;)

I made a new hydrogen cell that seems to put out about 3x the gas my current cell puts out - and that's only at 10 amps! I think I'm on to something and hopefully, soon, pics and videos to follow.

Later.

Well, I must admit my 6.5 doesn't have much in the way of black smoke so I would guess it's burning pretty good. I am looking for a sniffer and, believe it or not, I just happened to stumble across a group of mechanics here in town that have a hydrogen development group - my Snap On dealer put me together with them.

With that being said, my hydrogen generator seems to be working but I have no concrete evidence. My first meeting with the hydrogen group will be tomorrow so, who knows? They explained to me they did some pretty cool things with a Power Stroke so I'll see for myself soon, hopefully ;)

I made a new hydrogen cell that seems to put out about 3x the gas my current cell puts out - and that's only at 10 amps! I think I'm on to something and hopefully, soon, pics and videos to follow.

Later.
Go Guy GO!!! There is much power in the art of self motivation to try something a little different. :)

Quite a bit of intersting info has come to light in this thread, & I must say it all has excellent supporting evidence. My only concern: will the heat & pressure from the turbo ignite the O2 / H mixture inside the intake?

I tried one of these on my '87 GMC 350 TBI. I made it from an 18" lenth of 4" ABS tubing with a couple of electrodes made of 1/4" ready rod & scrap steel. I plumbed the gas mixture to the intake (upstream of the filter) & saw an increase of 2 mpg. My problem was controlling regulation of the current. Any hints on keeping a steady 10-20 Amps flowing? I would blow 30 Amp fuses every 25 miles or so.

I've got the contraption on a shelf in the garage but have been scared to install it on the LLY due to my issues addressed above. If I can regulate amperage I may give it a go.

Erik

Quite a bit of intersting info has come to light in this thread, & I must say it all has excellent supporting evidence. My only concern: will the heat & pressure from the turbo ignite the O2 / H mixture inside the intake?

I tried one of these on my '87 GMC 350 TBI. I made it from an 18" lenth of 4" ABS tubing with a couple of electrodes made of 1/4" ready rod & scrap steel. I plumbed the gas mixture to the intake (upstream of the filter) & saw an increase of 2 mpg. My problem was controlling regulation of the current. Any hints on keeping a steady 10-20 Amps flowing? I would blow 30 Amp fuses every 25 miles or so.

I've got the contraption on a shelf in the garage but have been scared to install it on the LLY due to my issues addressed above. If I can regulate amperage I may give it a go.

Erik

from what I have read stainless steel plates are better than scrap steel,, but this wont help your power problem

I would say that the H2 gas amount present in the intake would not be enough to present a flash ignition problem. It is being moved in at a high rate of speed therefor keeping the potential down. Now if the engine were off and the thing kept adding H2 then I could see a potential issue.

On a side note, if you don't have something constructive to add to this persons idea you can always move to the next topic. I always think it's great when someone has an idea and we try and kill it before it gets looked at. It makes people not want to share their ideas which is why (I thought) this forum came to be.

I LOL whenever I read one of these treads. On any dicussion board. The number of folks ready to discourage someone is amazing. And they have never tried It.

Oxy-hydrogen is actually Brown's Gas. The properties when it burns amazes me It will implode rather than explode. And immediately turns into water as water is already burned oxygen and hydrogen.

The biggest argument is that you get less power than it takes to produce the gas. Maybe so maybe not. It depends on what method you use to produce it and where you get the power. Electrolisys is not the only method to produce hydrogen.

Let me throw this out for discussion. How much energy do you think it took to get your tankfull of fuel in your truck?

The energy used to locate the oil, drill the oil, transport it how many times? during the process, refine it, pump it into your truck etc. I would guess that gas or diesel is horribly ineffecient to produce.

The main difference is the VOLUME of the production. Mass production is how it is possible to use it.

Now were comparing making some gas in real time to run in your truck to fuel that is produced on a global scale? Not a fair comparison. Try and make from scratch. a tankfull of fuel and then compare it.

I am facinated with Brown's gas myself and dabble in it occationally. We made an electrolizer one day at my machine shop, Made some gas and lit it off. Just to see if we can do it.

There are many countries that make hydrogen on demand on the spot with a spool of aluminum wire to run generators pumps etc. Because that is their only source of fuel.

It can be done and some day will be done but not until we decide we have had enough of the oil companies and government manipulating us. It's just too easy to drive to any corner store and fill up the tank.

Just keep at it , I for one is interested in your results .

I too believe we should be helping each other out in this process. I've posted a pic in my garage if anyone would like to see my example. Like I said, it's just a piece of ABS with a cap on both ends with electrodes running the length. To the top I just attach my electrical leads. I just can't figure out how to control current. Erik

I LOL whenever I read one of these treads. On any dicussion board. The number of folks ready to discourage someone is amazing. And they have never tried It.

Oxy-hydrogen is actually Brown's Gas. The properties when it burns amazes me It will implode rather than explode. And immediately turns into water as water is already burned oxygen and hydrogen.

The biggest argument is that you get less power than it takes to produce the gas. Maybe so maybe not. It depends on what method you use to produce it and where you get the power. Electrolisys is not the only method to produce hydrogen.

Let me throw this out for discussion. How much energy do you think it took to get your tankfull of fuel in your truck?

The energy used to locate the oil, drill the oil, transport it how many times? during the process, refine it, pump it into your truck etc. I would guess that gas or diesel is horribly ineffecient to produce.

The main difference is the VOLUME of the production. Mass production is how it is possible to use it.

Now were comparing making some gas in real time to run in your truck to fuel that is produced on a global scale? Not a fair comparison. Try and make from scratch. a tankfull of fuel and then compare it.

I am facinated with Brown's gas myself and dabble in it occationally. We made an electrolizer one day at my machine shop, Made some gas and lit it off. Just to see if we can do it.

There are many countries that make hydrogen on demand on the spot with a spool of aluminum wire to run generators pumps etc. Because that is their only source of fuel.

It can be done and some day will be done but not until we decide we have had enough of the oil companies and government manipulating us. It's just too easy to drive to any corner store and fill up the tank.


Your comparison to petroleum doesn’t work. The primary problem with it is that petroleum as it comes out of the ground is an energy source in itself. Even if it takes 10 gallons of crude oil to produce one gallon of finished gasoline, you still come out ahead since the crude oil can furnish the energy required to do the conversion. There is no freely available hydrogen is useable quantities to be found anywhere on earth. You can't dig it out of a mine or pump it out of a well. It is always combined into molecules with something else. That means to use hydrogen as a fuel you first have to make it. It is also true that no matter how you make it, it will always take more energy to produce it than you get back when you use it. No amount of large-scale production can get around this. The more hydrogen you make, the further in the hole energy wise you'll be. That means that hydrogen isn't really an energy souce at all, just a means of transporting energy from one place to another, much like electricity. I'm not trying to stop anyone from experimenting with these systems if they so choose. People should be free to spend their own money on anything they want. I'm just trying to spread some awareness so that those who don't know much about hydrogen don't fall for some of the scams and gimmicks out there that unscrupulous salesmen try to make a buck on. You can use this information or discard it as you see fit. For those that haven’t seen it yet, here is a good article on the many problems with using hydrogen as an automotive fuel: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm

Dude think about what you are saying. Acually I can't believe you said it and believe it. It's OK to use 10 x the amount of petroleum to make gasoline but it's not OK to ue a little more power to produce hydrogen? Even though it really does not?

Hydrogen has more energy than any other substance on earth. It can be extracted easily from water using solar or wind energy. It does not have to contain within itself the means to extract it.

Try and drill pump and refine petroleum using those methods.

Do you think the guy's truck will get poorer fuel economy by making and consuming hydrogen from water using the truck's fuel and electrical systems?

If your opinion is based solely on that aricle There is not much anyone can do for you

And.. When you extract the hydrogen and oxygen from water and burn it, it turns right back into water. You have use a little bit of electricity to extract it or any of the other means to extract it.

When you use all of that petroleum to make gas and burn it., it does not turn right back into petroleum.




quote=_MJB_;1980345;]Your comparison to petroleum doesn’t work. The primary problem with it is that petroleum as it comes out of the ground is an energy source in itself. Even if it takes 10 gallons of crude oil to produce one gallon of finished gasoline, you still come out ahead since the crude oil can furnish the energy required to do the conversion. There is no freely available hydrogen is useable quantities to be found anywhere on earth. You can't dig it out of a mine or pump it out of a well. It is always combined into molecules with something else. That means to use hydrogen as a fuel you first have to make it. It is also true that no matter how you make it, it will always take more energy to produce it than you get back when you use it. No amount of large-scale production can get around this. The more hydrogen you make, the further in the hole energy wise you'll be. That means that hydrogen isn't really an energy souce at all, just a means of transporting energy from one place to another, much like electricity. I'm not trying to stop anyone from experimenting with these systems if they so choose. People should be free to spend their own money on anything they want. I'm just trying to spread some awareness so that those who don't know much about hydrogen don't fall for some of the scams and gimmicks out there that unscrupulous salesmen try to make a buck on. You can use this information or discard it as you see fit. For those that haven’t seen it yet, here is a good article on the many problems with using hydrogen as an automotive fuel: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm[/quote]

You seem to be completely missing the point. Hydrogen is not, repeat not, an energy source the way petroleum is. It is only an energy transfer medium. The energy to make the hydrogen has to come from some other source. If you are using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then whatever energy is used to generate the electricity is what the true energy source is, be it coal, or natural gas, or nuclear, etc. Because hydrogen is so poor as a energy transfer medium, you wouldn't even consider using it unless you are unable to use the primary energy source directly. Currently about 90% of hydrogen production is done by steam reformation of natural gas, becase that is the cheapest way to make it. Therefore you would be much better off to just use the natural gas directly, and skip the hydrogen middle-man entirely. Using solar or wind energy to generate the electricity to produce hydrogen would only serve to waste the "green" energy. When you stack up the various inefficiencies going that route you would be wasting nearly 80% of the energy you started with. The "green" power would do much more good for the environment if it were simply pushed onto the power distribution grid to displace electricity generated by burning coal. This isn't rocket science, it is high school level chemistry and physics. Pick up a textbook on the subject and start reading.

Yes apparently I did miss the point. I stand corrected.

I'm new to diesel engines but not to gasoline engines. The introduction of Brown's gas into a gasoline engine is not necessairily for the energy in the hydrogen but for the combustion stabalizng effect it has when it is burned. Not just the water produced but he implosion that occurs.

It's not actually the enegy of the hydrogen replacing the energy in the gasoline. It merely allows a much leaner mixture to burn where it normally could not. Thus better fuel economy.

But.. have you seen the RF method of producing hydrogen? I honestly think it is possible to produce it without consuming more energy than you get back.

I honestly beleve that hydrogen can be produced without utilizing the law of diminishing returns.




You seem to be completely missing the point. Hydrogen is not, repeat not, an energy source the way petroleum is. It is only an energy transfer medium. The energy to make the hydrogen has to come from some other source. If you are using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then whatever energy is used to generate the electricity is what the true energy source is, be it coal, or natural gas, or nuclear, etc. Because hydrogen is so poor as a energy transfer medium, you wouldn't even consider using it unless you are unable to use the primary energy source directly. Currently about 90% of hydrogen production is done by steam reformation of natural gas, becase that is the cheapest way to make it. Therefore you would be much better off to just use the natural gas directly, and skip the hydrogen middle-man entirely. Using solar or wind energy to generate the electricity to produce hydrogen would only serve to waste the "green" energy. When you stack up the various inefficiencies going that route you would be wasting nearly 80% of the energy you started with. The "green" power would do much more good for the environment if it were simply pushed onto the power distribution grid to displace electricity generated by burning coal. This isn't rocket science, it is high school level chemistry and physics. Pick up a textbook on the subject and start reading.

I did throw that out for discussion and I will take my lumps for it. :) LOL

So... Im still not convinced that producing hydrogen from water is much different than producing gasoline or diesel from crude.

You still have to produce them from a base material. OK crude is an energy source to begin with but so what. They both need an outside source of energy to do the transformation or production. The crude is not supplying the energy to transform itself.

Does anyone actually know how much energy it takes to make the gas or diesel from crude? If you made two identical SMALL quantities of hydrogen and gasoline. Which one would require more energy to produuce? Regardless of where the energy to produce it comes from.

Here is a study done for the DOE comparing various alternative fuels: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/fuel_choice_fcvs.pdf Its a pretty long read. The paper is mostly oriented toward fuel cell vehicles but it is safe to ignore any references to them since the cost of the fuel cell alone means you will never see one as the primary power source in a production vehicle. Check page 11 for the executive summary of relative cost of hydrogen versus petroleum. There is a great deal more detail later in the article if you want to take the time to read it.

Dude think about what you are saying. Acually I can't believe you said it and believe it. It's OK to use 10 x the amount of petroleum to make gasoline but it's not OK to ue a little more power to produce hydrogen? Even though it really does not?

Hydrogen has more energy than any other substance on earth. It can be extracted easily from water using solar or wind energy. It does not have to contain within itself the means to extract it.

Try and drill pump and refine petroleum using those methods.

Do you think the guy's truck will get poorer fuel economy by making and consuming hydrogen from water using the truck's fuel and electrical systems?

If your opinion is based solely on that aricle There is not much anyone can do for you

And.. When you extract the hydrogen and oxygen from water and burn it, it turns right back into water. You have use a little bit of electricity to extract it or any of the other means to extract it.

When you use all of that petroleum to make gas and burn it., it does not turn right back into petroleum.


I'll go one step further and contend that not only is the hydrogen and oxygen produced by electrolysis energy, water in itself contains energy in forms we don't yet understand.

MJB may be right in saying through traditional electrolysis electrolysis that it might not do much but we are beyond that. Cell design, pulsating current, electrical frequency are making it so the energy output is actually greater than energy input. It's just too bad all the pioneers in the field seem to meet up with some really bad luck :rolleyes:

Sorry to hijack your thread confuzed_guy

And without throwing in the conspiracy theory regarding supression of technology :rolleyes: :rolleyes: That is an interesting report from the DOE but never the less it was written by the DOE.

Refining petroleum has been in existance on a global scale for how many years? So the effeciency of the process is constantly improved. Breaking water into hydrogen and oxygen is not performed on nearly the same scale and the emphasis on improving the process is not the same.

Water is a renewable energy source. Petroleum is not. Break water into hydrogen and oxygen burn it and it turns right back into water.

A barrel of water contains so much more extractable energy than a barrel of petroleum there is really no comparison.

The more effecient methods of making hydrogen are out there, they are just not common knowledge.

So.. if you can put a water breaking device on you vehicle using the vehicle's existing systems topower it and get better fuel economy. How is it so inefficient?

The "Second Law of Thermodynamics" guarantees that you can never use energy to break water into hydrogen and oxygen and then re-combine them to form water again and come out ahead on energy. Water can only be considered an energy source if you are using it in a nuclear fusion reactor. The DOE article was comparing the cost of hydrogen made the most efficient way known, by steam reformation of natural gas. They mentioned that hydrogen made by electrolysis is lot worse cost and energy balance wise than using the steam reformation technique. On the "suppression of technology conspiracy" topic, such a conspiracy would have to include every chemist and physicist in the world. Pretty tough bunch to slip something by.

Actually my position is not to come out ahead energy wise. That would require a re-write of nearly every text book in existance. :D

A new source of fuel or fuel suppliment would be great.

But a conspiracy theory is so much fun to believe. :)

Water is about as stable a chemical bond as you can get. If you want more energy out of it, you have to add it. The great thing is that it is a closed cycle. 2H2O => 2H2 + O2 => 2H2O The bad thing is that each state change will cost you in efficiency.

Personally, I think the Hydrogen/Electric energy economy is the way to go. Without fuel cells though, the energy density of hydrogen isn't high enough to support mobile applications and without a better form factor such as Metal Hydrates, distribution problems will kill it.

Back on topic though, the only way this experiment makes sense is if you can scavenge energy from the engine through it's waste emissions. (exhaust. radiant heat) Every time you convert energy types, mechanical, electrical, thermal, you will take about a 40%-60% hit. You just can't get around it.

Sorry to hijack your thread confuzed_guy

And without throwing in the conspiracy theory regarding supression of technology :rolleyes: :rolleyes: That is an interesting report from the DOE but never the less it was written by the DOE.

Refining petroleum has been in existance on a global scale for how many years? So the effeciency of the process is constantly improved. Breaking water into hydrogen and oxygen is not performed on nearly the same scale and the emphasis on improving the process is not the same.

Water is a renewable energy source. Petroleum is not. Break water into hydrogen and oxygen burn it and it turns right back into water.

A barrel of water contains so much more extractable energy than a barrel of petroleum there is really no comparison.

The more effecient methods of making hydrogen are out there, they are just not common knowledge.

So.. if you can put a water breaking device on you vehicle using the vehicle's existing systems topower it and get better fuel economy. How is it so inefficient?
No problem, I don't consider it a hijack.

But to get back to some issues raise, I hear the 3 times less energy consumed as produced.... This makes me question, based on what? I can increase hydroxy output based on many factors: frequency, pulsation, electrolyte, amps, volts, cell configuration, water/electrolyte temperature, and I'm sure there are many more that aren't even listed here.

So, again, I ask under what conditions is this 3:1 ratio extracted? I personally made a cell that extracted probably 4 times as much gas as the original cell I bought at the onset of this project - and that was at 12 volts and 3.2 amps! Is 3.2 amps gonna cause way too much parasitic drag on my engine? I hope not, true it's only a 6.5 but I would hope it could lose 3.2 amps without suffering.

I have talked to people of a local alternative energy group in the town I live in and, on average, they say the increase gas mileage by 20-30% - and, yes, one of these vehicles is a diesel truck (Power Stroke) of which they claim a 2 MPG increase.

And as far as conspiracy theories go, lol... Maybe we should refrain from calling the "conspiracies" as much as the are really just "coincidences". Funny that all these guys just seem to die untimely deaths but coincidences do happen. Google "Oglemobile".... This guy was awarded his patent 3 months after his death. More coincidences I'm sure :rolleyes:

heard today on RUSH, doctor up in erie, pa. that treats cancer patients with frequency generator, applied it to salt water to desalinate(make potable water). he noticed that fumes would burn. not sure how your system works, but maybe you could try this, might be able to build your own freq. gen., know battery desulfators, use frequency oscilators to remove sulfate off plates. have found DIY systems on solar/wind power(mother earth news) websites. how is system doing upto now. good luck.

I think this is a very interesting concept, I could see this working. I think it is definetly worth trying out, even if the only positive outcome is being able to sleep at night! Keep us posted with the results. This is one of those subjects I wish I knew more about, guess I'll be doing some reading. Best of luck, with this project.
Jesse

Well, sorry for the delay in reposting as I have been busy trying to put together a new eletrolysis cell to support greater hydrogen output.

First impressions would tell me that, the cell I currently have, while I seem to have noticed a little power gain, my mileage hasn't varied much from where it was before the hydrogen generator.

This leads me to take other measures, such as designing my own cell to increase production.

While this might sound hard, it is actually nothing more than a mater of surface area and spacing. A typical cell might look like this:

[-] + [-] [-] + [-] [-] + [-] [-] + [-]

This is an actual cell I am putting together now. I was able to go 9 plates but I want to increase to the 12 plates above. Spacing is 1/8" and I will be using a mixture of distilled water, vinegar, and the smallest drop of soap as the electrolyte mixture.

The cell I put together tonight consisted of the 9 plates mentioned and plain tap water acting as the electrolyte. Production was pretty decent for drawing only 8 amps. My goal is to push this to 25 amps with the cleaner distilled water - tap water turns everything a nasty reddish color. Metals and chemicalls in the water, I suppose.

Because of uncertainty as to how this electrolyte might affect engine components, I will be bubble washing the hydroxy gas in distilled water. Hopefully this will capture most of the impurities before reaching my intake.

Also, I did finally find an exhaust sniffer so before and after tests will provide insight to whether or not this stuff is actually making a difference. Besides mileage and power, a cleaner running engine is the by product of injecting hydrogen into the system - so I'm told anyways!

Thanks!

Hey confused guy...

I really appreciate what you are doing here even if it amounts to nothing at all. We really need people to have the balls and energy to actually put these crazy ideas to work.

I read your last post and I am wondering what sort of "plates" you are using, What type of metal are they???

Hey confused guy...

I really appreciate what you are doing here even if it amounts to nothing at all. We really need people to have the balls and energy to actually put these crazy ideas to work.

I read your last post and I am wondering what sort of "plates" you are using, What type of metal are they???
Plates are stainless steel, 304 stainless to be exact. I'm told 316 is best, at least at a practical cost level. But 304 should work fine.

I had to order a few plates for the assembly as I tries my hand at cutting them myself and without the right tools, the end result doesn't come out too well.

Like I said, I wont claim it works if it doesn't and I think at times, the only objective way to determine whether or not it does is over a few tank fulls and a sniffer.

Thanks for the comments, I'll post more soon - with photos.

So what is the latest with this project?

I've been doing some research on this and would like to hear how it is going.

Check out this link:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html

this guy is running a hydrogen/diesel system (according to the article) on a duramax/ali combo mounted in an H1... if it is true it is pretty interesting

hehe I want a turbine motor 60,000 rpm thats bad ass :ro):ro)

I havent taken the time to read the whole thread, but the first few pages were very interesting. Having taken a few classes in thermodynamics, I'm skeptical of the benifits of the hydrogen, with one notable exception.
Possible problems I see, The generation of hydrogen through electrolysis is an "energy negative" process, meaning that the total available energy from the produced hydrogen is less than the energy that went into its production. Also, the alternator takes more power than it makes, since no process is 100% efficient. Since diesels generally run with an excess of air, the effect from the addition of the extra oxygen byproduct is negligable.
Possible benifit i see, if, like you said, the combustion of the hydrogen is hotter than the general diesel combustion, the increased tempurature could help the unburnt hydrocarbons combust more completely. If you do manage to more completely combust the energy rich diesel fuel, you will be gaining more energy output than you originally did, not because you are adding energy, but because you are extracting more of the energy that already there which before, but you were passing out the tail pipe as soot and short chain hydrocarbons.

For the doubters, think of it this way, each generation of injection system uses the same fuel as the older ones, But they get more hp/tq and more out of each gallon of fuel. SO while there is not any more more energy in this system, he may be able to extract more of the evailable energy. Jsut compare the 6.2 to the 6.5 to the 6.6 GM deisels. All pretty much the same displacment, but goes from 120 hp in the old motor to now well over 350hp in the new dmax, on the same fuel.



Overall, in fuel cells, hydrogen combustion, or hydrogen supplementation, the problem is that hydrogen costs more per BTU of output than hydrocarbon (oil, coal, wood) combustion. In fact, most hydrogen produced today is cracked off of petroleum stock, which negates its environmental effects, since the pollutants produced by the combusion of oil are not eliminated, but just moved from your car the the refinery.
I honestly think that hydrogen will be the most promising fuel and suppement for the future, but until it can make more money than oil, no one is going to do any serious investment in it.
It takes our back yard inventors like you to prove the point. Thanks for all the hard work.

(Quote from above post)Possible benifit i see, if, like you said, the combustion of the hydrogen is hotter than the general diesel combustion, the increased tempurature could help the unburnt hydrocarbons combust more completely. If you do manage to more completely combust the energy rich diesel fuel, you will be gaining more energy output than you originally did, not because you are adding energy, but because you are extracting more of the energy that already there which before, but you were passing out the tail pipe as soot and short chain hydrocarbons.

I have been doing some experimenting myself, and observing that, together with what I have been reading on the subject, seems to boil down to the quote above.
Hydrogen seems to act as a catalyst for diesel combustion much as propane does. There doesn't seem to be any argument that propane does help the fuel economy of a diesel more than just the fuel it provides, by making a more complete burn. If hydrogen has the same effect, than what we need to compare is the cost difference of the purchase of the propane, and the parasitic drag of the alternator to produce electrolysis generated hydrogen.
If either source produces (for example) 5mpg increased economy, then which source costs more to produce? Remember now, the cost of pulling the alternator will have to be figured out of the fuel mileage. Am I thinking right here?

My personal experience running lp and cng with diesel doesn't support the idea that you use less energy running both. If I add the amount of btus of each fuel consumed together, I come out the same as if I was running only #2. If I do use less, it hasn't been measurable to me.

This may turn out to be like the guys who were buying hay for a dollar a bale and selling it for a dollar a bale. When they didn't make any money, they decided it was because they needed a bigger truck.

In a roundabout way, this could be called a water injection system (albeit maybe the most complicated way of doing it). It's possible that the only thing you'll see is EGT reduction.

So what is the latest with this project?

Latest on this is while not a "success" in terms of MPG, other benefits have been noticed. Truck seems to have more power of the line but not in a racer kind of way - more of a extra "pep" kind of way. Also, oil stayed cleaner for a longer period of time, so I can only assume less soot from a cleaner burn of the fuel.

The generator I was using, IMO, can't produce enough hydrogen as some have stated to be sustained. That is why I have "of the line" type of power but not much in the way of MPG increase. At idle, not enough air is being sucked into the intake but when I give it some throttle, what hydrogen is there, gets used up fast. I think this can be somewhat compensated for with a more efficient generator.

Project has been put on hold as I have built several new cells for better hydrogen production. But the issue is, while these cells produce a much greater amount of hydrogen (better know as hydroxy due to the addition of oxygen as well), they also get hotter much faster :( Too hot for my taste as the cell can reach temperatures of 200* F in the matter of about 1/2 hour.

I am trying to design an efficient "series" cell rather than the parallel cells I have been experimenting with.

As you know, there is also the whole draining of the electrical system as well so that problem has to be addressed - and at this point, it might very well has been :D

I apologize to all you that have followed this thread if I let you down by neglecting it. I'll post when there is more to post but as it stands now, I am at the testing phase before I reinstall on the vehicle. If only there was 48 hours in a day :rolleyes:

Here (http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/turbine4.htm) is a link to a guy pulling shaft power out of the exhaust stream.

If it was me, I would put a rare earth magnet generator on the shaft of a separate turbo to generate power to run the hydrogen generators.

Here (http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/turbine4.htm) is a link to a guy pulling shaft power out of the exhaust stream.

If it was me, I would put a rare earth magnet generator on the shaft of a separate turbo to generate power to run the hydrogen generators.
I might just do that, I'll have to look more into that option.

Actually, I have been thinking along those lines. Looking at trying to use a heat exchanger and generate heat to produce steam and power a Tesla Turbine... But that is a ways down the road.

For those interested, more on the Tesla Turbine:

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

Video:

http://staff.washington.edu/sbtroy/turbine/Tesla%20Turbine%20(DivX%205.2.1).avi

Here (http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/turbine4.htm) is a link to a guy pulling shaft power out of the exhaust stream.

If it was me, I would put a rare earth magnet generator on the shaft of a separate turbo to generate power to run the hydrogen generators.

I might just do that, I'll have to look more into that option.

Actually, I have been thinking along those lines. Looking at trying to use a heat exchanger and generate heat to produce steam and power a Tesla Turbine... But that is a ways down the road.

For those interested, more on the Tesla Turbine:

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

Video:

http://staff.washington.edu/sbtroy/turbine/Tesla%20Turbine%20(DivX%205.2.1).avi
wouldn't using a shaft off the turbo to make power some how actually cost some power in the end to make? if you have magnents they are going to be like an alternator which will need to have something keep a force to turn it hence could possible make your turbo stop turning when you have a heavy load on it?

And the steam thing, i've also wondered about creating something like that to use exhaust heat to generate power. I know some newer hybrid cars are using brake rotors to do this, but I believe they are using diodies that when they are heated send out electrical charges

Using and exhaust turbine would have the least impact on engine output though there still would be some.

Here (http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/turbine4.htm) is a link to a guy pulling shaft power out of the exhaust stream.

If it was me, I would put a rare earth magnet generator on the shaft of a separate turbo to generate power to run the hydrogen generators.

Thats a pretty crazy idea

Run the electrolysis off solar power then compress the oxygen and hydrogen seperately use 1 or both as a supplemental fuel source using no power company electric

or burning diesel to generate power FREE

Have either of you guys ever heard of high output alternators ???? Simply go bigger not multiple. and marcdeluca is right it won't work simply because HE sells propane kits. IF he sold hydrogen kits it would work great. I don't sell either but have used both. propane gives more power BUT costs a HE$$ of a lot more for a refill and has road tax added distilled water can be found in almost any store that sell beverages,[.68cents a gal at walmart] or make it at home. Have you heard GM is talking about a hydrogen diesel duramax for 2009:eek:

I have an idea. Why not carry around a genset to make the electric for the electrolysis? That way, when you find it doesn't save you any money, you won't be out the cost of the retrofit of the monster alternator that consumes more power than it produces, to power the process that consumes more energy than it produces. Even if this process only improved efficiency 5%, do you really think the power companies wouldn't implement it? Oh, that's right, then people would get wind of it and make their own and put them out of business.

and that could be run off of one of ypur propane kits too. right? I think you need to take your generator and go back to your cave and give yourself some shock treatments to try and see the lite. caution!!!! do not smoke while urinateing after shock treatments.[HYDROGEN GAS MAY BE PRESENT].

I think a better comeback would be to prove me wrong. Good luck with that.

and that could be run off of one of ypur propane kits too. right? I think you need to take your generator and go back to your cave and give yourself some shock treatments to try and see the lite. caution!!!! do not smoke while urinateing after shock treatments.[HYDROGEN GAS MAY BE PRESENT].

wow, your new here and have to act like this?

have you made a hydrogen generator already?

how much gas is produced by it?

Marc is a good guy and sells kits for a less than the other places.

Also has a lot of good info and testing to support his #s.

Have either of you guys ever heard of high output alternators ???? Simply go bigger not multiple. and marcdeluca is right it won't work simply because HE sells propane kits. IF he sold hydrogen kits it would work great. I don't sell either but have used both. propane gives more power BUT costs a HE$$ of a lot more for a refill and has road tax added distilled water can be found in almost any store that sell beverages,[.68cents a gal at walmart] or make it at home. Have you heard GM is talking about a hydrogen diesel duramax for 2009:eek:
Hey 57-b100! Now you can probably understand why I abandoned the thread I started. :rolleyes:

But I look at it in the positive. If too many people start doing it, the inspection stations would be forced to start cracking down on people like us. So, positive is fuel savings for us - let them buy the propane. :D

Shoot me a pm I'd like to talk to someone else that is actually interested and knowledgeable about this sort of thing - diesel enthusiast is a plus as well! ;)