Make a Hydrogen Booster For Your Car; Runs on Water

suppose you use braking power to turn a generator to perform your electrolysis...sort of like regenerative breaking on a prius. you could feed the little bits of hydrogen into the engine to give yourself some boost and not have paid anything for it. you would need to store the hydrogen until it was needed - no point in burning it while sitting at a red light. also, you still have the problem of potentially ruining the engine and replacing the electrodes once in a while. i don't know what the effects are of burning hydrogen in trace amounts like that or if it would even yield enough of a boost to be worth the trouble.

in my fantasy world, you could could pull H out of the H2O while breaking, store it until you let off the brake/press the gas, and use that to assist in acceleration. OR have a button that would let you manually release the H while driving. better yet, in mass production terms, the car's computer would control the timing of its release.

i'm half-tempted to give something like this a shot, but i would want to be fully aware of the effects it might have on my engine first. i'm really not a car buff, so i don't even know what engine blocks are made of. are they susceptible to corrosion?

[edit on 2-1-2008 by an0maly33]

reply to post by an0maly33

Sure, you could do that, and actually it could be made very safe and reliable. It would work. To a point.

It’s just not even close to as good as using a battery to hold that recaptured energy like the Prius does. It would be a sort of Rube Goldbergish way of doing it.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by MurderSmurf]

Originally posted by MurderSmurfI can see how you conveniently disregarded, misunderstood, or just plain ignored:

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
Do you think the ideal conditions for one side are the same as for the other?

None of the above.

I said we should agree that your original statement about the energy on both sides being equal in a perfect world was not accurate before continuing to address efficiencies etc.

First you say it isn't, then you say it is, then you say it isn't again!?!?

Now that's confusing. I do wish you could make up your mind.

It looks like you are arguing from theory, so this is a theoretical debate is it not? However, you state things as fact. Either you're arrogant, or ignorant, or you have personal experience which would be very valuable to share here.

Have you experience building resonance/harmonic circuitry into 'cold' electrolysis systems, like Furnace Man has? If so, please share. If not, please confirm that your responses are based solely on your limited understanding of conventional chemistry and physics, so I can gracefully bow out of our debate and leave you to argue theory with others that enjoy that sort of thing.

best
R





[edit on 2-1-2008 by RogerT]

reply to post by MurderSmurf


well the benefit of this type of system is that it would be easy to fit to any existing car. adding battery packs and electric motors wouldn't be as easy i think. =)

Originally posted by RogerT

Originally posted by MurderSmurfI can see how you conveniently disregarded, misunderstood, or just plain ignored:

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
Do you think the ideal conditions for one side are the same as for the other?

None of the above.

I said we should agree that your original statement about the energy on both sides being equal in a perfect world was not accurate before continuing to address efficiencies etc.

First you say it isn't, then you say it is, then you say it isn't again!?!?

When somebody tells you “in a perfect world,” it means in theory, ignoring a lot of factors.

Literally speaking, this can’t work even in a perfect world, because it would require two coexistent, different yet different perfect worlds.

Now that's confusing. I do wish you could make up your mind.

I wish you would read and experiment rather than just trying to pick apart what I tell you. Maybe if you did you would quit being so confused all the time.

It looks like you are arguing from theory, so this is a theoretical debate is it not? However, you state things as fact. Either you're arrogant, or ignorant, or you have personal experience which would be very valuable to share here.

You say that as if theory can’t also be fact. Scientific laws, rules, equations, etc. are called “theory” but they are also fact.

Have you experience building resonance/harmonic circuitry into 'cold' electrolysis systems, like Furnace Man has?

No, but it’s an interesting lead. It will never yield 100% efficiency or better, since that’s impossible.
But I do realize that it can increase efficiency.

If so, please share. If not, please confirm that your responses are based solely on your limited understanding of conventional chemistry and physics, so I can gracefully bow out of our debate and leave you to argue theory with others that enjoy that sort of thing.

And just what sort of thing do you enjoy?


reply to post by an0maly33

Excellent point.

Not only would it make things simpler, but it ought to give you the benefits of a Prius (though not as pronounced) in city driving like the Prius does, without being nearly as lousy as the Prius for highway driving since it’s still basically an ordinary car.

(Contemporary hybrids are lousy for highway driving because of the heavy batteries and electric motor they have to carry and because of the undersized internal combustion engine.)

[edit on 2-1-2008 by MurderSmurf]

funny how even in this thread there seem to be disinformationist's.

if oil can be refined feasibly for a motor fuel i see no reason why water cant be "refined" into hydrogen, efficiently that is for use as a motor fuel.


and i beleive many agree......... search hho on youtube for opinions other than mine

reply to post by Furnace_Man


Furnace_Man, I have been working on this, and agree that these other guys quoting physics, while they may be smarter than 5th graders, aren't actually looking at the right picture.

If I carry a can of gas to the middle of the road and ignite it, are they then saying that he resulting explosion can produce no more energy that I used in carrying it to the road. They are missing the point completely.

Anyway, my experiments have been DC and have produced "impressive" results, but I VERY MUCH would like to see your info on how you produced the precise AC required for yours.

Can you please provide some details about your modifications, and maybe some construction details of your lawnmower model?

you are all barking up the wrong tree...the answer is the metal oxide method.
check it!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by NRen2k5
Hoaxes, all of them.

Water is not a fuel. No matter how you break water down into 2×H2 and O2, in an ideal system, you’ll only get as much energy out of burning it as you put in.

This is in an ideal system. In reality, a lot of energy is wasted trying to break water down into 2×H2 and O2 and then a little bit more is wasted in the combustion not being perfect.

Klein and Meyer and their kind are con artists. Their vehicles run off of some other kind of energy, whether it be a flywheel, a hydrogen tank or plain old gasoline.

In fact, similar to Newman refusing to run his free energy machines on their own output, I’m pretty certain I’ve heard Klein claim that his car is gasoline powered and hydrogen assisted, and that even though he claims to be able to run it on water alone, he chooses to use some gasoline.

I am no expert but this is my thought on it!

A car uses a dynamo which is always operating and charging the battery.
The battery itself has always a buffer (overcapacity).

So if you put an device on the battery or not, the engine still power the dynamo.

An extra device on the battery will not make the engine or dynamo work harder if your driving? the battery itself will just take longer to be fully charged! (but regular driving is needed to allow the battery to charge).

So connecting an hydrogen booster to a battery takes the access energy from the battery turns it into hydrogen which makes the engine more fuel efficient.

Or am I wrong?

What I like to know doesn't the water damage the engine?

When I was a kid and a conman tried to scam someone and got caught he would get physically harmed by the victims. Some of this violence should be unleashed on theses scammers of today. It is so obvious to anyone with a scientific background that these devices are just scams.

Originally posted by johndoeknows

Originally posted by NRen2k5
Hoaxes, all of them.

Water is not a fuel. No matter how you break water down into 2×H2 and O2, in an ideal system, you’ll only get as much energy out of burning it as you put in.

This is in an ideal system. In reality, a lot of energy is wasted trying to break water down into 2×H2 and O2 and then a little bit more is wasted in the combustion not being perfect.

Klein and Meyer and their kind are con artists. Their vehicles run off of some other kind of energy, whether it be a flywheel, a hydrogen tank or plain old gasoline.

In fact, similar to Newman refusing to run his free energy machines on their own output, I’m pretty certain I’ve heard Klein claim that his car is gasoline powered and hydrogen assisted, and that even though he claims to be able to run it on water alone, he chooses to use some gasoline.

I am no expert but this is my thought on it!

A car uses a dynamo which is always operating and charging the battery.
The battery itself has always a buffer (overcapacity).

So if you put an device on the battery or not, the engine still power the dynamo.

An extra device on the battery will not make the engine or dynamo work harder if your driving? the battery itself will just take longer to be fully charged! (but regular driving is needed to allow the battery to charge).

So connecting an hydrogen booster to a battery takes the access energy from the battery turns it into hydrogen which makes the engine more fuel efficient.

Or am I wrong?

What I like to know doesn't the water damage the engine?

Except for some unavoidable friction and losses to eddy currents and back EMF, the amount of mechanical power it takes to turn an alternator depends on it's load. So using the alternator to do anything but operate the engine will make it use more energy. Consequently, using the alternator to electrolyze water will reduce the fuel efficiency, unless a mixture of gasoline and hydrogen is just *that* much better than straight gas or straight hydrogen.

I don't see why it would be, but hell, throw me some reputable numbers and I'll change my mind.

[edit on 23-5-2008 by mdiinican]

Originally posted by earthman4...Some of this violence should be unleashed on theses scammers of today.

I have a neighbor building one of these. I'll go over and beat him up now.

ok here's another thought: many of you state that the efficiency and benefits created by hydrogen boosters is very limited, if any at all. Even if you create hydrogen offboard in your own home for instance. I can see where you're comnig from, especially with your energy and gas prices.

BUT, for instance, i live in Holland, Europe. In less than a few months time, we will be paying €2 per liter ($15 PER GALLON!) for fuel. On the other hand ,electricity at home is a fixed price. So even the slightest improvement in MPG created by either onboad or offboard fabricated hydrogen is a real treat to us..

Would this make it more interesting for you than for ppl from the States for isntance?

Good thing I didn't beat up my neighbor as suggested by resident Luddites! He installed his kit and could not tell if the engine was running it was so quiet. Still waiting on mpg reports.

haha this is obivious scam, you can't gain energy by doing this cause hydrogen is nowhere to be found in the world. This means you would have to make hydrogen which costs more ENERGY than you gain from burning it. You can use forexample oil to power the manufacturation which means in the end you will lose ENERGY.

However energy doesn't equal money so if you have a booster and can manufacture hydrogen somewhat cheaply, it might be still cheaper than the gas. (In other words if you buy oil it is not even close the amount of energy required for making the hydrogen however, you can get the power from nuclear plant for much cheaper energywise than from oil).

So as you can see you don't need to break rules of physics to make booster worthawhile, it's economics really. And currently Nuclear energy is a lot cheaper than oil energy.


Hydrogen has other benifits too, it doesn't pollute and you could imagine some systems can run better with that kind of fuel (If you can't use straight nuclear energy which is always better, however hydrogen is a method to store it too).
This is the reason why it is good to have a machine that can produce it with very little energy loss.

Anyway I doubt hydrogen will play a big part in anything ever but I could be wrong. There are probably much "better" same kind of substances already.

And I think this "free energy" thing is redicilous. Energy is always free and can't disappear, it just changes form to hear (and rays which also later on transform to heat), so therefore a machine that can transform heat to energy would give us as much energy as we wanted (ofc solar power is free too).

reply to post by Luther777


Water, on it's own, contains no harvestable chemical energy. In hydrogen production it is just the cold source of energy carrier atoms. In order to produce hydrogen, you must put in move electrical energy than you get out in chemical energy in the hydrogen. So why is the hydrogen movement an interesting one. Here is the answer: gasoline emissions are some of the worst emissions possible environmentally. We CAn produce hydrogen from such sources of electricity that are non carbon sources such as wind, solar, or nuclear. If hydrogen can be produced this way (which it can) and can be transported stored and used in a safe, cost effective way (which it can't yet) than we could all drive around without the slightest worries about carbon and it's implications geo-policitally, or environmentally.

yeah, that was exactly my point (i was the anonymousATS mentioning our expected $15 per gallon fuel price). Here in Holland, the majority of the electricity that is delivered to our homes is won by either environmental energy ( DUTCH WINDMILLS BABY! ), or natural gas we have undeground (don't know what it's called in English, literally translated i would refer to it as 'earth gas') making energy at home is quite a bit cheaper than energy (fuel) for our cars..

So, in my case it maybe WOULD pay off to create hydrogen by 'home energy' and use it as 'car energy'..right?

Because inthat case, the next step is finding out whether it will damage my engine or not and if it is better used as fuel (depends on research octane number) or as additive to gasoline..
i drive a tuned 2001 R34 Skyline ...don't want to mess up that baby as you may understand

[edit on 28-5-2008 by spdfrx]

I have a question for those that feel "it takes more energy to... Blah, Blah.

Where do you get the power to run your headlights? How about the amp for the sub's? or the KC lights? ans: Alternator

This handy device is always putting out MORE energy that is being used by the vehicle. When installing a Hydrogen device, you are using EXISTING energy, which is why these devices have the potential to help.

Think About it!

If I carry a can of gas to the middle of the road and ignite it, are they then saying that he resulting explosion can produce no more energy that I used in carrying it to the road. They are missing the point completely.

Your example is stupid... burning water in a car would be like igniting a full can of gas in the middle of the road, having a big explosion, and being left with a full can of gas.