running on hydrogen gas

doubling your gas mileage running a home made hydrogen gas generator, has anyone heard of this yet ? My dad made one yesterday and is putting it on one of his cars today for a test run. The claims are very hard to believe, but he knows someone using it right now. And this person is claiming great results also. And for 50 bucks I will give it a shot also. Hey dont laugh it might be worth trying to double your gas mileage. And if it does work I guess some hired oil company assassin will be hiding in my bushes next week for telling you about it.

http://www.water4gas.com/2books.htm

looks very interesting. let me know how it goes with your dad's try at it.

I'm eager to hear of the results... seems more plausible than others I've heard of but I'm still in the "if it sounds too good to be true..." corner.

-Chris

Sounds like the great "Potato bug Cure" to me---

The law of diminishing returns will get ya! It takes more energy to break the water down into hydrogen and oxygen than you get back by burning it. If it didn't you'd be well on the way to perpetual motion, and we all know where that gets you.

Me and the wife have been doing some research on this, and most we have found sayes that it is in fact not a scam, but can be improved alot, there is no found evidence that it does not work. they also have ratings on the best kits to buy and that company comes in second, the first company is called "run your car on water" and if you check ebay, there is the kits cheaper than the fifty bucks.

Might be worth it just to keep our dollars out of the hands of our middle east friends.

"It must be true, I read it on the internet"

Listen to Pope, folks. Think about it. If it were as simple as a fruit jar and some hose, it would be a developed technology. There is no "forgotten patent", notice they didnt give the patent number. There is no miracle separation of water into its elements....it takes energy to do so. You will see an improvement in your mileage since installing snake oil products makes you constantly aware of your mileage so you drive more careful...which works.

These scams have been selling for years and seem to pop up in quantity when oil prices spike.

Tune up your car and lose 50 lbs at the gym...that will do a lot more for your mileage!

"Listen to Pope, Folks." Love it, haha.
The thing is, the hydrogen generator would help a bit if you set it up with a throttle switch, so it injected the gases on demand, such as climbing a hill, or passing. The power loss from the alternator would be small, over a long period, and the burst of power would benefit a smaller engine. But do you want to drive around with a quantity of highly explosive hydrogen/oxygen mixture somewhere on board? Not me, thanx.
Totally different from a hydrogen cell, btw. A cell contains no oxygen, and won't go BANG!

The power company here in our little town in BC (BC Hydro ) is using the water powered generating station to produce hydrogen and has a Suburban
work truck that runs on hydrogen. But until they get up and running (2009)they truck the hydrogen in.
I want to find out more about how they get the power- fuel cell or burn it in a IC engine.
Isn't hydrogen/oxygen what they power the booster rockets.
good power to weight ratio

I used to consult for a company that was developing this sort of process. There is an old patent by a guy named Richardson but I don't recall the patent number. The process could be used to convert waste paper or other carbon containing waste materials to produce methane as well as hydrogen, BUT there are many problems. First, as Pope says it takes energy to split the water and other complex organic reactions that form the methane also require energy. For sure you cannot get more energy out of burning just hydrogen than it took to separate the hydrogen from the water, but depending on what other feed stock materials are involved in forming the methane component as well as some carbon monoxide (CO will burn further and is a low grade fuel) there might be a way to gain some energy from consuming whatever waste material is in the feed stock. I saw several dramatic applications of such gaseous fuel BUT IT IS NOT FOR ME! I saw a demo of pumping this gas into a tank just like service stations use to inflate flat tires on the road and then this gas was fed into a fairly large lawn mower engine. In the demo the fuel gas was turned on and the starter was pulled but the engine did not start on the first pull, but the fuel gas was still flowing! Then the engine started on the second pull but by that time there was a lot of the gas coming out of the exhaust system and WHOOOOOM(!!!!) there was one helluva explosion all around the engine which rattled the roof of the Quonset hut garage we were in. I wonder what would have happened if the engine needed a third pull! So yes, there is some potential to use electrolysis of water based waste to form fuel gas but a sophisticated system like the propane-fueled fork lift trucks is needed to control the gas flow. Be warned that if you mess around with flowing hydrogen you are courting a dangerous explosion. My professional opinion is that this sort of mechanism using electrolysis of waste materials in water could be a valuable way to convert carbon containing waste to useable energy but you need a careful design of a fuel cutoff to control the gas flow; you cannot just generate hydrogen in your gasoline tank and use regular carbueration safely! I quit that consultanship because while I think there is a potentially valuable energy source there, the hype around the advertising is often misleading and such devices can actually be dangerous. One additional problem is that when you electrolize water it is likely that the gas will contain oxygen as well as hydrogen so you are dealing with a dangerous mixture of hydrogen and oxygen ready to explode!

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

The comparison to propane brings up another point. The gaseous fuel takes up a lot of volume in the intake system, with a resultant loss of power. I ran a pickup on propane for a year or so. Even with raised CR, it was a gutless wonder with lousy fuel mileage. A little cheaper than gasoline, but not worth the hassle.

There seems to be a limited success with this so far. Even with gasoline, it's readied and produced on demand, from a stored liquid to an automized or vapour fuel that is burned. Hydrogen as produced, is a vapour, unless your using a membrane to seperate the ox and hydrogen, you will have both gases combined as stated earlier. And it will be an explosive mixture as such. I suppose the way around it, is to produce it on demand, instead of trying to store it. But the unit required using todays tech, would be a rather large one, and slow to meet the actual demands of todays vehicles, and consumer expectations. I have been gathering info on the subject myself. And so far, have items that cover the whole spectrum, from Billy-Bob in the backyard, to scientific experiments that are so far out there, that both are rather useless. This is the just the tip of the iceberg, as experiments and tests are performed, more and more is going to learned. Todays tech and computers will play a huge role, something that wasn't available when hydrogen was first discovered. Up until recent times, there hasn't been any push, or reason to persue hydrogen as a replacement fuel. High prices, projected shortages for gas has changed the thinking. And your right when you say, "you can't get something for nothing". Whether your refering to hydrogen production, or saying the "fuel" will be free. Nothing is free. I'm not ready to laugh this off, or dismiss it as a crack-pot scheme just yet. I think it will play an important role in the near future for everyone. Ok, getting off my soapbox now! Sniper

Yeah...,I am sure big daddy oil would just break his neck to tell us how to give him half as much money..........:LOL:
Just like the phone company does not want you to know ,you can use your existing internet connection as a world wide phone for free .........
C-mon people your fools if you think any of this is for our benifit or what is being done is the best most efficient manner possible,thier out to get as much from you as possible........bottom line,end story.

Like TOWD sez, rockets run on the stuff. But it's compressed to liquid, and injected into the chamber as such. Now, if you injected liquid hydrogen and oxygen directly into your street rod engine, that puppy would FLY! But who wants to motor around with 3000 lb. pressure bottles tied to his butt? Not me, thanks.

Interesting topic for this day, the 71st anniversary of the Hindenburg disaster.

:LOL: :LOL: never thought of that

Scam beware:CRY:
http://www.anti-guru-movement.com/Water4Gas.Exposed.htm

Just as a side reference, the number one country the US imports oil from is Canada, and Mexico is number two. Since Canada has 90% of their population massed along the northern US border, can we claim Imminent invasion and do a pre-emptive attack? =)

My old grandfather, who would be over 100 now if he were still alive, told me about the "Great Potato Bug Scam"---(this was in about 1912 or 1913). There was a terrible blight of potato bugs that year, and nothing seemed to stop them. This was in the pre-pesticide era, and for a lot of small farmers, if your potato crop failed, your family went hungry the following winter. Just when they thought all was lost, a young, well dressed fellow showed up---came into town on the train. He was selling a SURE KILLER FOR POTATO BUGS.!!! GUARANTEED TO WORK.!!! This was a small package, that sold for 25 cents, and the wrapper was covered in mystical symbols, with a big warning "DO NOT OPEN UNTILL FULL MOON FOR BEST RESULTS". All the rural folk rushed to buy them, and the young fellow took the next train out of town. The "full of the moon" came, and everyone anxiously tore open their MIRACLE POTATO BUG KILLER. and there inside was two little blocks of wood, with the instructions---PLACE POTATO BUG ON BLOCK "A--PLACE BLOCK "B" ON TOP OF POTATO BUG---SQUEEZE HARD!!! Times have changed quite a bit since 1912, but there are still people around willing to spend their money on a MIRACLE POTATO BUG KILLER. (or hydrogen powered automobile).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stovens

Scam beware:CRY:
http://www.anti-guru-movement.com/Water4Gas.Exposed.htm

---

Did you notice at the very end of the link you sent debunking the water 4 gas, That guy is trying to sell you something also. Face it someone is always trying to scam something somewhere. Another quote from someone else here says, every invention has already been made and nothing else can be made, Thats probably what someone told Bill Gates oneday, and you should see his house. Dont be doubting thomases just yet.

As far as why dont automakers use it if its so good, They have never really needed to make something like this before because they were turning a profit. I bet R&D teams are now looking into this stuff now though. I work for 2 major automotive companies under the same roof. One company will allow a rev nut as a replacement for a stripped, missing or broken fastener, and the other will not because the have personally not R&D'd the process. So the car must be tore down and welded, and if it cant be reached they scrap the entire car over a stripped bolt.

Just to set the records straight, I'm not saying that hydrogen isn't a viable fuel. What I am saying is those little jam-jar water bubblers are a cruel joke. They do not work, they have never worked, and they never will work! Anybody trying to sell you on the crackpot idea that you can make hydrogen using your car electrical system and get better gas mileage is either a fool or a crook. My vote goes to crook.

Automotive companies ARE investigating hydrogen fueled cars...GM has been particularly involved in fuel cell research for at least a decade. Auto companies have no incentive NOT to release such technology if it is viable...think of the advantage that a company would have if it had a zero emissions car that ran on water!! However, one small mountain is in the way.... the second law of thermodynamics. Room temperature electrolysis is terribly inefficient....the energy in results in somewhere near 40%-70% energy out. Not a good trade.

Any time there is a statement regarding "the auto companies (or oil companies) are suppressing the technology", then you know that it is a scam. Scams always have a disclaimer about those knowledgeable in whatever industry and those experts are trying to hide something. This plays on a natural distrust by people who dont understand science (or who slept thru 8th grade). However, try it.... what can you lose? $50 and a rusty intake tract isnt a big outlay. It's kinda like the science fair only the exhibitors are a little past junior high.

mike in tucson

It's funny, because locally they were hyping Hydrogen powered cars as clean burners. The problem is the amount of energy it takes to produce hydrogen gas is tremendous. Something like two to four times the amount of natural gas for hydrogen gas to be created for fuel. No jelly jar is going to solve this.
This same scam was out in the 70's during that oil crisis. You could buy the exact same setup from poplular mechanics magazine adds, right next to the x-ray glasses!:D
Now the home brewing kits they sold, there was a viable fuel source for the average minor!:LOL: :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brianrupnow

Sounds like the great "Potato bug Cure" to me---

---

I ain't a Canadian, Bran, but I am old enough to be aware of the famous "potato bug" scam!

The same cure supposedly worked on our big Texas Red Ants.

Jim

Do not get caught up in the effeciency of hydrogen,the purpose is to not pollute and use less oil.
Who cares if I have to put 150 gallons of water in it a day....or if 50 percent of energy generated goes back into re-generation............its water ...good cheap clean water.
Effeciency is a mute point when the fuel source is almost free and unlimited.......you can bet they will dole it out one gallon at a time{with a massive tax} ,not convert it on board like should be done.
Just keep in mind ,like i mentioned before ,there will be no one source as a replacement for gas ,it will be many different sources to replace the one.

"or if 50 percent of energy generated goes back into re-generation............its water ...good cheap clean water."

IF it were 50 percent of the energy generated! It is really right now, put in 100 energy units and get back 40 to 70 energy units....it is a net loss process using electrolysis.

Give me a dollar and I will give you back 50 cents...see how long you play that game!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shawnlee28

Do not get caught up in the effeciency of hydrogen,the purpose is to not pollute and use less oil.
Who cares if I have to put 150 gallons of water in it a day....or if 50 percent of energy generated goes back into re-generation............its water ...good cheap clean water.
Effeciency is a mute point when the fuel source is almost free and unlimited.......you can bet they will dole it out one gallon at a time{with a massive tax} ,not convert it on board like should be done.
Just keep in mind ,like i mentioned before ,there will be no one source as a replacement for gas ,it will be many different sources to replace the one.

---

Shawnlee
It unfortunately isn't just water producing hydrogen right now. You need an alternate energy source to split the water molecule, like electricity or natural gas. It takes twice the amount of natural gas to make half the amount of hydrogen. To put it simpler, inorder to convert water to 20 gallons of hydrogen fuel, it would take approximately 40 gallons of natural gas to supply the energy to convert water to hydrogen.
California was promoting Hydrogen powered cars, because they are clean burning as you know. The problem was where do you get the hydrogen from and how much does it cost. a friend of mine works for the california energy commision. She was furious over the hydrogen hype, because it doesn't use less energy, it uses twice as much. If you just used 20 gallons of natural gas to drive with, you'd save 20 gallons of natural gas to drive the same distance as you would with hydrogen. People are working on using solar photovoltaic cells to make hydrogen fuel sources, but it is not very efficient(i.e. it costs more to produce the hydrogen, than to use traditional fuel sources. As gas goes up, alternative fuels will be more competitive, but unless technology leaps foward, we are going to be paying higher prices at the pumps, and cars like the Volkswagen Rabbit will be very popular again!:CRY:

A neat bit of trivia....just recently, it was demonstrated that a particular solar cell design would output MORE energy than it took to make the solar cell....just recently!

Before that, a solar cell was a net energy loss over its life. The new designs are still in their infancy but they are coming. However, the new designs are still not to the point where it takes X energy to make them and they put out 10X the energy over their lifetime.

Think about it folks... "energy is neither created nor destroyed" Energy can only be converted from one form to another

There is a totally new way of extracting hydrogen from coal and natural gas, other than electrically "cracking" water. The new method uses a membrane that will allow only hydrogen molecules to pass through it. If anyone is interested, go to your internet search engine and type in "hydrogen" and "membrane".

Great to hear about the new cell design, Robot. Also interesting about the membrane Brian!

Here is some interesting reading on the subject of oil:

http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#dollar

mike in tucson

Since hydrogen can pass though membranes more easily than other gases whose molecules are larger that is also an added problem of leakage from whatever container it is stored in.

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

I think someone mentioned the hindeberg!:D

I did a google search, and one site i found claims the us makes about 2billion cubic feet of hydrogen a year, so how many cars could that run?

Not many... about a million hours of driving which is not even one day for the USA cars. Here is an interesting hydrogen article with the source at the end:

"Consider a mid-sized car, traveling at 60 mph down an Interstate Highway. It is well known (and easy to calculate) that roughly 40 actual horsepower is needed to maintain a constant speed. A horsepower is equal to 2544 Btu/hr, so we are talking about 102,000 Btu/hr of "actual" energy/work. For an hour's driving, we would therefore need 102,000 Btu of output energy. (A gasoline engine would use maybe 3 gallons of gasoline during that hour's driving (20 miles/gallon) which actually contained about 378,000 Btu of energy, but the engine/car efficiency is only around 25% to create the 102,000 Btu of output work.) Consider now that a cubic foot of Hydrogen (not compressed) only contains 319 Btu per cubic foot. That hour of driving would therefore require over 1,000 cubic feet of the Hydrogen.

We can say this same thing in terms of "gallons". A gallon of gasoline contains around 6 pounds, and has 126,000 Btus of energy in it. A gallon of hydrogen (gas) only contains around 40 Btus in it. Quite a difference! Instead of a two cubic foot gasoline tank (15 gallons) in your car, you would need a tank more than 3,000 times bigger, over 6,000 cubic feet, for the equivalent Hydrogen! That's a little more than TWO standard semi trailers (8'wide x 8'high x 45' long or 2900 cubic feet each). Pretty big gas tank!

Well, that is obviously not going to happen! So, the many ongoing explorations into using Hydrogen as a fuel always involve carrying HIGHLY COMPRESSED Hydrogen in very thick, heavy tanks. If you have ever seen the kinds of tanks used for the Oxygen for a worker's oxyacetylene cutting torch, that's the kind. Such tanks can hold Hydrogen at around 100 times atmospheric pressure, or 1500 PSI, an extremely high pressure (or even higher) (We will later mention even higher pressure hydrogen tanks at 3000 PSI).

Well, at 100 times atmospheric pressure, the Ideal Gas Law tells us that the Hydrogen would now only take up 2900/100 or 29 cubic feet. That works out to around 60 of those (fairly large) high pressure storage tanks (to match the effective capacity of the 15 gallon gasoline tank.). Each tank is very massive to withstand the very high pressure, and each weighs nearly 100 pounds empty. (And around 1/4 pound more when filled with Hydrogen!) So the normal American car which presently weighs around 2800 pounds would have around an extra 6,000 pounds added, so the vehicle would now weigh more than three times as much as current cars! (This tremendously affects acceleration, handling and other performance, and it would be like that car pulling a huge 6,000 pound trailer behind it." exerpt from http://mb-soft.com/public2/hydrogen.html

So how much hydrogen is in the space shuttle`s tank?

2 million liters of hydrogen and 2 million liters of oxygen, both in liquid form. Remember, the shuttle also has solid fuel boosters too. And, it gets worse mileage than a big block Chevy!

Look, energy is energy. There is no free lunch any way you slice it. The space shuttle uses liquid hydrogen and oxygen. When it hits the nozzles it transitions into vapor. Obviously this is more better than gasoline> :whacked:

With HHO people always semm to get carried away the total deal. That is, running your engine totally on HHO. This does make sense to me. However I am on the fence wrt using it to suppliment your engine. I have seen some data that indicates it works and some that refutes it.

Don't just think in terms of energy here, think about $/mile ...............

Kitz

Interesting article in the current issue of Design News.
They compare the energy per kilo for gasoline vs. Lead acid vs. lithium ion batteries.

Gasoline has 12,722 W-hr per kg (watt hours per kilogram)
Lithium batteries have 150 W-hr per kg
Lead Acid batteries have 50 W-hr per kg

What this is saying is that, if you want to go as far as one kg of gasoline will take you, you have to have have almost 85 kg of batteries! No wonder electric cars either weigh a bunch OR they get terrible range. Even if you factor in the inefficiency of a gasoline engine, the gasoline is still 25 times the energy density of the good batteries. It's going to be quite a few years before good ole gasoline gets beat for portability, distribution networks, cost, etc.