Mix 1 retired teacher few old parts and what do get? backyard hydrogen conversion

Originally posted by endisnighe
Water injection, as a direct increase in horsepower was used in ww2 era aircraft and is not even disputed by anyone. This increases the mass of the airfuel mixture which directly increases power output. Basic engineering.

What I find incredible is the mathematics on the possibility of using water alone for a power source. We are close. I will not include any links to the research as it is ongoing and will be shutdown if it is successful.

PEACE AND POWER

But you're forgetting something. Water injection in aircraft engines resulting in increased horsepower didn't come by for free, it also increases fuel consumption... As air density was increased by cooling, you also need to pump more fuel to satisfy optimum fuel-air mixture or else, stall the engine with too much air...

However, the 'unique' ability of water vapor to somehow affect the expansion of the fuel-air mixture in a positive effect, like many TV ads, claim to be, has yet to yield any credible results. For one thing, simply burning gasoline already yields great amounts of water vapor due to presence of hydrocarbons in fossil fuels.

Again, however, I myself can't be certain with what I've said based on sound science as another thing comes to mind. Rapid phase change of water can generate electricity - electricity which could potentially separate the molecule into hydrogen and oxygen!

reply to post by Phage


Hey there 'Phage'-

Your question-Where did I get that 20% efficency number?

My answer- Research my man, research
en.wikipedia.org...

Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%.[7][8]

You can get very detailed studies if you want them by following the links provided in the above article.

On with the HHO topic
I found this site with a study done by NASA-
www.nationalvapor.com...

4. NASA in their Technical Note Report E-9105 (NASA-TN-D-8487) published May 1, 1977:

• "Adding hydrogen to gasoline significantly increased flame speed and allows for a leaner air-fuel ratio. All emissions levels decreased at these leaner conditions....significantly increased flame speed and allows for a leaner air/fuel ratio. All emissions levels decreased at these leaner conditions."

reply to post by Dynamitrios


You cannot burn water. Unless it is snow.

reply to post by LightFantastic


You are correct to an extent and I am wrong due to my wording-
en.wikipedia.org...

Modern automotive alternators have a voltage regulator built into them. The voltage regulator operates by modulating the small field current in order to produce a constant voltage at the stator output. The field current is much smaller than the output current of the alternator; for example, a 70-amp alternator may need only 2 amps of field current. The field current is supplied to the rotor windings by slip rings and brushes. The low current and relatively smooth slip rings ensure greater reliability and longer life than that obtained by a DC generator with its commutator and higher current being passed through its brushes.

What I was thinking about was, let's say that my old '92 duallie came eqipped with a 70amp alternator. Well it's set up for everything that I may want to add on (ie-trailer brakes, tow harness, additional lights,etc) well I'm not needing all those things and at full electrical output, I'm only drawing about 30amps. Well I still have the avalible amperage needed to run a hho unit.

Efficiency of automotive alternators is limited by fan cooling loss, bearing loss, iron loss, copper loss, and the voltage drop in the diode bridges; at part load, efficiency is between 50-62% depending on the size of alternator, and varies with alternator speed.[7] In comparison, very small high-performance permanent magnet alternators, such as those used for bicycle lighting systems, achieve an efficiency around 60%. Larger permanent magnet alternators can achieve much higher efficiency.[citation needed]

Plus as I stated before, there is a new design that uses significantly less amperage (2amps compared to 17amps) and produces the same amount of HHO

This is a great site-
www.overunity.com...

reply to post by groingrinder


Were not talking about burning water.. we are talking about breaking water down into its component gases... H2O
SO real quickly it takes three things to make fire right...
HEAT+FUEL+OXYGEN

Pull water apart and you have two of those O2 and hydrogen... now all you need is heat or in this case, a spark works just fine to ignite....

Sounds so simple right... well the oil companies and car makers have said no.. but there are some, like this guy in the story who say "Now wait a minute..."

Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by Dynamitrios

 

You cannot burn water. Unless it is snow.

You can "burn" anything, it just comes in a variety of forms or reactions. A fire is nothing more than a chemical reaction. Most of the time it releases heat, but some reactions "burn" a reactant and actually cool their environment. Most of the familiar "fires" require oxygen, but there are many that actually produce oxygen instead.

So "burning" is kind of a misleading term in a discussion about producing electricity from some type of reaction.

Originally posted by geo1066
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

- Now here I must blantantly disagree with you 200%! Your electrolyte is the key ingredient for this recipe to work. It's discussed in every article I've ever read on my Internet. It can be either acidic or alkaline and the concentrations are different due to the design you use. No matter though because the electrolyte is still corrosive. Where did you get the idea that aluminum screen works as a cathode? I tell you what, one of the real popular electrolytes used in these systems is Sodium Hydroxide, commonly known as lye or drain opener. Get a little drain opener and put some aluminum foil in it. I don't want to, but I must warn you, your supposed cathode is going to be doing some major reacting. Do not smoke and don't have any open flames about. This reaction is producing Hydrogen gas due to the sodium hydroxide breaking down. Every unit that has been concieved only uses stainless steel when in contact with the electrolyte.

Please try using somebody else's internet. Yours apparently has alot of misleding information on it.
[edit on 20-10-2009 by geo1066]

Ok, you are correct, and I didn't explain the difference between my catalyst, and an electrolyte used as a catalyst! I have used NaOH with limited success, I have also tried isopropyl alcohol, and several dissolved minerals such as magnesium, and the internet is full of ideas for this type of catalyst.

What I haven't found on the internet is something similar to the way a catalytic converter works (platinum mesh) or anything exploiting the polarity of water molecules (i.e. magnetic field to polarize the water and separate the molecules), I think this is the next big break through that needs to happen.

reply to post by LightFantastic


This aspect is much more difficult to explain. Of course IC engines have wasted energy in the form of heat, and the convert a certain amount of energy to the wheels, but the "reserve" aspect is how much extra fuel does it require per horsepower in their power band?

My example is my old 2004 Nissan Titan. It got 14 mpg on the highway empty, and it also got 14 mpg on the highway pulling a 9,000 lb trailer!!

Therefore, in that trucks power band, moving it down the road at 65 mph did not begin to tap into the potential of the engine. Therefore, it is feasible that I could have hooked up a high powered generator to the engine, without hurting the gas mileage at all. In that case, the generator could have been used for electrolysis, which would proved added horsepower and fuel into the IC, and I may have seen a significant INCREASE in fuel economy!

It seems counterintuitive, because I am adding a load to the engine in order to hydrolysize water into its components which are then combined again to produce the energy. You would think that the efficiency conversions at each step would zap energy from the system, but since the truck is capable of covering that added load without using extra fuel, then we see a benefit!!

[edit on 21-10-2009 by getreadyalready]

Originally posted by geo1066
You are only using about 20% of the actual fuel. The rest goes out your tailpipe!

This is a false statement. Show the source. The actual number is 70 to 95%, depending on the engine.

reply to post by geo1066

In doing research it behooves one to understand the terminology being researched. The wiki article is talking about thermodynamic efficiency, not fuel burning efficiency.
You said:

Remember as of now we only burn about 20% of the fuel in the cylinder.

Thermodynamic efficiency is an entirely different matter. It concerns energy lost through heat.

It also behooves a researcher to go directly to the source rather than looking only at selected excerpts. Yes the NASA testing you quoted shows that by adjusting timing of the engine the use of supplemental hydrogen can allow an engine to run leaner. Running leaner does not mean less fuel is unburned, it means there can be fewer polluting emissions as a result of the burning. Running leaner causes an engine to run hotter, resulting in lower thermodynamic efficiency.

The higher flame speeds resulting from adding hydrogen produce larger energy losses to the cooling system. Higher flame speeds correspond to higher combustion temperatures, which, in turn, force larger energy losses to the cooling system.

ntrs.nasa.gov...
There is a table in that paper which shows no gain of brake horsepower by using hydrogen. There is a slight increase in indicated horsepower but most of that is consumed by the extra waste heat. There may be a very slight increase in mileage but there is no indication of that in the paper. By using hydrogen you get a hotter engine with cleaner exhaust. That's about it, maybe a bit more MPG but your engine may die sooner because of running hotter.

[edit on 10/21/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
Running leaner causes an engine to run hotter, resulting in lower thermodynamic efficiency.

It's a blessing to have a contributor here with such firm grasp of many technical subjects.

Thanks.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Phage
Running leaner causes an engine to run hotter, resulting in lower thermodynamic efficiency.

It's a blessing to have a contributor here with such firm grasp of many technical subjects.

Thanks.

Phage is certainly an asset to ATS, but the paper him and the other guy were quoting concerns adding Hydrogen to a system. I have never been a fan of Hydrogen engines, because the cheapest and most efficient way to obtain Hydrogen at this point in time is from Fossil Fuels!! Therefore, we get rid of polluting cars, but we create new Hydrogen Plants that are converting fossil fuels into Hydrogen.

The OP, and tinkerers like me are experimenting with H2O, in the form of water vapor, or H2 and O2 gas, and hypothetically in the form of "Brown's Gas HHO."

The distinction is that the combustion of H2 and O2 is actually endothermic and will REMOVE heat from the system, the same goes for adding water vapor that is subsequently converted into steam. Both of these techniques have cooling effects on the engine, and reduce fuel consumption by mass, while hopefully providing increased horsepower, or at least increased fuel mileage on the same horsepower. I think many readers are still stuck on the idea of adding H2 to the fuel mixture as a way of boosting horsepower, but in my opinion, that is an old technology that did not pan out!! Fuel Cells that require compressed H2 will never become mainstream, but electrolysis still has a chance!

Years ago I ran across a website and videos that had a guy converting an engine and using some type of "alternative" energy to power it.

I've spent a few years looking for these videos. Not remembering his name, or what exactly he was doing had made websearches fruitless. I'm sure he was an older guy, and his wife was involved in alot of the videos, I also think they were in TX. I think he was somehow involved or in contact with John Hutchinson, and he was possibly doing something with zero point energy?

If anyone has any idea what I'm talking about and could help me out it would be awesome.

Sorry to be OT.

reply to post by getreadyalready

Hydrogen combustion is an exothermic reaction.
2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O + 572 kJ

By definition, any combustion reaction is exothermic.

[edit on 10/21/2009 by Phage]

double posted somehow...

[edit on 21/10/2009 by Pilgrum]

As anyone who's experimented with electrolytic production of H2 and O2 from water will have discovered, it takes more energy to separate the H2O molecule than you can ever recover from burning the gas which makes this an inherently losing proposition. Unless a technique can be discovered which turns the tables this is something of a dead-end economically. I'm aware there have been claims of beating the odds here using various obscure techniques but I've never seen any of these proven in practise - Stanley Meyer's water powered car was one (he claimed to have found a magic frequency that split the molecule at much lower energy input) but it failed scientific scrutiny completely.

It could be made practical if the actual electrolysis was done on a large industrial scale allowing cheap bulk power at off-peak or better contract rates to be used. At the current price of gasoline, hydrogen produced this way could be competitive & even attractive at the bowser but at domestic general supply power rates - forget it. The same goes for producing it on-demand in the vehicle (rapidly diminishing returns).


[edit on 21/10/2009 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
Years ago I ran across a website and videos that had a guy converting an engine and using some type of "alternative" energy to power it.

I think you may be refering to Paul Pantones GEET. Google should turn something up.

Unfortunately I didn't get around to trying his system.

Everyone on this thread is likely to find this interesting: NewScientist

Unfortunately the full article isn't shown for non subscribers but basically an alcohol tank that lasts about 10k miles inject alcohol for extra power for the times when needed allowing a smaller engine to be used for greater overall efficency.



[edit on 21/10/2009 by LightFantastic]

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by LightFantastic

My example is my old 2004 Nissan Titan. It got 14 mpg on the highway empty, and it also got 14 mpg on the highway pulling a 9,000 lb trailer!!

Apart from the additional aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance caused by the trailer you will only use more fuel to accelerate with the trailer attached. so when driving steady it isn't surprising you saw a similar fuel consumption.



[edit on 21/10/2009 by LightFantastic]

Originally posted by Phage
That's about it, maybe a bit more MPG but your engine may die sooner because of running hotter.

Extra heat is only one of the worries with using hydrogen as a fuel in IC engines. Hydrogen also causes metals to become brittle which is not the best effect for an engine.

PS Behoove isn't a word you see much these days

[edit on 21/10/2009 by LightFantastic]

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Therefore, we get rid of polluting cars, but we create new Hydrogen Plants that are converting fossil fuels into Hydrogen.

Yes and each conversion step lowers the overall efficiency of the vehicle. At the moment it is most efficent overall to burn petrol in you car than to run an electric car with electricity created from fossil fuels.

I think thats about 5 posts on the trot!