TWCCO,

Do you know of any hydrogen generators being sold or installed that work? With my work schedule and limited free time, I would rather buy a kit that is recommended or have a shop install one rather than tinker with it.

The key I hear a lot of people talking about is that most of the generators sold on the Internet don't make enough hydrogen. If you got one to make enough to feed a Ford 4.6L V-8, you must have made one or found one that makes more than enough hydrogen for your car.

Any suggestions?

Joe

Joe, the only way this device could make a substantial dent in mileage is if the car's electrical system is way over-size in generation capacity. The energy from the H2 O2 gas is there because the alternator made the electricity to produce the gas using engine horsepower to do it.

If (and it's a HUGE "if") the alternator is generating large quantities of electricity that the car doesn't need that are then dumped into a ballast resistor or some other device, then there might be enough untapped energy available to produce meaningful amounts of the H2 O2 gas. If there's a car out there with that capacity, it'd be an ex-police car with a high-capacity alternator that is no longer needed in civilian use. In such a case the energy being "produced" (with the concommitant losses in efficientcy at each point of energy transformation) is really only energy that was previously being wasted by an unnecessary heavy draw from the alternator in the first place.

Otherwise (if the alternator is not oversize) then the electricity will either not go to the device or not go to other vital functions (like sufficiently charging the battery). Meanwhile if it really is working the device will overtax a normal alternator, shortening it's life profoundly much like putting a killer stereo in a 25 amp Chevette system. At any rate it is physically impossible to generate more energy in H2 O2 gas than is being sapped from the engine in the first place by the alternator, even if the all of the energy generated by the alternator is going to the "hydrogen generator".

The more I think about it, the more this thing sounds like trouble and a load of snake oil.

Like Indian Industry which provides the list of Indian suppliers, can anyone suggest the suppliers from USA for hydrogen generators.

- - kammam - -

Dave,

I've heard statements like that before, that many of the 'miracle' systems don't make enough hydrogen.

Do you (or anyone) know how much hydrogen is needed, and at what rate?

If there is a benchmark, is there a way to determine if a specific system can meet or exceed the minimum requirements? For example, what are the most critical components, the contents of the cannister, the amount of potassium hydroxide it can hold, the size of the electrodes, or the amperage needed to pass through the system?

Joe

Any chance of seeing pictures of the installation and equipment used?


Isn't HHO just water (H2O)? How are you getting raw hydrogen from this via electrolysis? Salt water + electricity doesn't equal hydrogen gas (see discussion above). It sounds like you've just added water injection, which is a legitmate detonation control for high-performance, high compression, and/or high boost applications. It won't help a garden-variety Crown Vic unless you're running, say, 12+ PSI of boost from a supercharger or 13:1 compression.


Are you just damping the voltage signal with a rheostat? If so, it sounds like you're using water injection to stave off the detonation caused by an extreme lean condition. You aren't adding hydrogen, you're removing fuel, and I'm fairly certain you would experience a dramatic decrease in engine performance because of it, although it might increase gas mileage. Not by 100%, though, and only for a short while until a head gasket pops, or worse.

Also, if you're injecting it in front of the MAF sensor, how are you keeping the hydrogen from leaking through all the poorly sealed joints and gaskets in the intake tract? How are you keeping it from blowing past the rings and valves under compression before ignition? If there is true hydrogen gas going in there, most of it would be gone before it ever reaches the spark plug.

Joe, seriously, this kind of thing smells really funny to me. Nobody's been able to even show pictures of the setup, let alone any empirical data to support their claims. Just basic physics, never mind chemistry, makes these claims of a hydrogen generator being able to create 100% better gas mileage seem, well, fishy. How about spending $20 for one of those sheetmetal tornados you put in your intake instead? It'll work just as well...

Tell you what, TWCCO. If you can build such a thing for $40, I'll send you $160, four times your cost to compensate you for your labor in putting another one together. You send me your hydrogen generator. I'll install it per your specifications on my Mustang (which is mechanically similar to your Crown Vic), and we'll see what happens. What say you?

PS: Why aren't you a millionaire?

Matt,

A hydrogen generator is being tested right now by one of the most credible resarch labs in the country. As soon as I hear of their results, good or bad, I will post them here.

Joe

It really doesn't matter how the system works beyond the fact that it uses electricity from the car's electrical system. The only source of electricity to make it work in a conventional car is the alternator. If you assume 100% efficientcy in the hydrogen generator, 100% efficientcy in the H2/O2 gas delivery system, 100% efficientcy in the alternator, 100% efficientcy in the engine itself (in converting the H2/O2 gas into kinetic energy), and zero electricity demand from all other systems in the car..., then the most energy boost/generation you can possibly expect would be the energy that the alternator took from the engine to produce the electricity in the first place.

It's a simple conservation of energy problem.

If you want to know what kind of maximum mileage boost you'll really get, pull your alternator and run the car off the battery only for a tank. That estimate will probably be a little high, though, because the car isn't using energy to carry the alternator and "hydrogen generator" around.

Frankly I don't expect much.

As of this moment there are 963 units for sale on eBay. I think that pretty much says it all.

Automobile manufactures have been under the gun for years to increase mileage figures. If they don't meet CAFE averages, they get fined. Factory engineers, with all of the expertise available to them, could whip up a fantastic version of a Hydrogen generator in a few days. The patents have long since expired, so it would be a slam dunk to manufacture them. The cost of mass producing these units would be very small, probably dollars each.
The factories choose to ignore this technology and spend millions of dollars for even a tiny gain in MPG. Perhaps the engineers aren't as smart as Joe Average, tinkering in his garage., or maybe they are just stubborn???
I'm thinking they may have an even more diabolical reason behind their refusal to study this amazing invention. That reason being, there isn't a chance in Heck that there is anything to these claims. If there were, they would have been produced by someone long ago. Patents are expired, very cheap to build, built in market, would make you richer than Bill Gates could even imagine, yet no one has jumped on the band wagon. Kind of makes one wonder...???
I have been wondering, since the first gas crunch of the seventies, when some genius would come up with an answer to the problem. I am as hopeful as anyone, and more than willing to look at anything that comes along, but having been in the industry for over 40 years, I have seen these claims come and go for ever. I believe the term is "Dog and Pony Show"..!
This particular "invention" has been around for many years, and was disproved many years ago.
Reprint from Times...
"End of road for water powered car, 1 Dec. 1996.

An Ohio court ruled against inventor Stanley Meyer, in a case brought against him by disgruntled investors recently.

Meyer had sold "dealerships" and licensing rights in his Water Fuel Cell technology to interested investors, in anticipation of the day when it would power electric vehicles or even aircraft.

That dream was shattered as Meyer was found guilty of fraud when his Water Fuel Cell failed to impress three "expert witnesses" who decided there was nothing revolutionary about it, rather that it was simply using conventional electrolysis.

The Sunday Times article also stated that when one of the court experts went to examine the Water Fuel Cell driven car, it was impossible to evaluate because it was not working.

It's nice to dream, but keep your money in your pocket until it's proven. So far, it never has been..!

I should have said: If you want to know what kind of maximum theoretical mileage boost you'll really get, pull your alternator and run the car off the battery only for a tank.

Donn,

Normally, I would agree with you. However, last night, I was reminded of how those '50 lb. brains' can miss the obvious while watching "In the Shadow of the Moon" and another documentary on the Discovery channel. During that I was reminded of the thousands of engineers at NASA that couldn't figure out:

-Putting three astronauts in a bolted-shut unproven capsule then pumping it full of 100% Oxygen at 14 PSI was a DUMB idea (Apollo 1, three astronauts dead)

- Launching a shuttle in freezing weather after numerous engineers said the O-rings might leak is a DUMB idea (Challenger shuttle, seven astronauts dead)

- Bringing a shuttle home after a piece of rigid foam hit the fragile heat tiles at 100++ MPH was a DUMB idea without inspecting the tiles firt (Columbia shuttle, another seven astronauts dead)

- Not testing the $2.5 billion Hubble Space Telescope on the ground so as to detect a 1.3 MM error in the mirror was a DUMB idea (No one died, but it did cost $630 million to repair)

So, if someone wants to try to prove the 50 lb. brains wrong, I am not only ready to listen, I wouldn't be surprised if he proves them wrong.

Joe

Steve just told me on his radio show (www.ktsa.com) that he should have his hydrogen generator on the market within 30 days. Even if he is too conservative and it takes 60 days to get them on the market, wow! Guess what OPEC can then go do? Yep, over and over again!

The same thing they've been doing over and over again for years now, only harder.

Joe
I hope Steve is correct and honest about his new toy the hydrogen generator. If you remember a few years ago he was promoting devices from Jacobs Electronics that were supposed to increase power and mileage. He suddenly dropped all mention and would not comment when asked. I tried one on a 1976 Delta 455 and it ran worse with lower mpg. I got (most) of my money back but this soured me on Steve's recommendations. He talks a good line but...
Now maybe if he installed one as a test on the Delta...
Willie

Willie,

The reason he stopped endorsing Jacobs (and installing them) is because another company bought out Dr. Jacobs. The quality went to pot, and I think he and Dr. Jacobs were both sorry they ever had anything to do with an inferior product that had the Jacobs name on it.

I know that a lot of people want to believe in this, but I think the scrutiny will be so huge that if it isn't a viable, provable product, it will get shot down in a big way.

Like you, I hope he is right.

Joe

The Southwest Research Institute has published a report on May 28, 2008 stating this technology DOES work! Here is the link to the report:

http://www.gasadvancesystem.com/Sothwest%20Research%20Test.pdf

The dealer installing them here in Florida is located here:
www.masterautotech.com

You can click on his link about "Fuel Cell Information Website" which links to the Huffman Foundation, which is the ower of the site that published the SWRI report.

In case you are wondering if I am going to buy one, the answer is YES. As soon as I return to Texas, I am going to have one of these systems installed on one of my older cars; probably the 2000 Buick Park Avenue Ultra with 168,000 miles, or a '99 Olds Intrigue with about 85,000 miles. That way, if it does work then I will have it installed on one of my newer cars or trucks.

Joe

O.K. Last line of the report:


And the shocker, guess who they are and what they sell. (see link)

This is not an independent test. It also is a test of cars leaned out to the max, with multiple additional modifications of zero description beyond name ("simple fuel heat exchanger installed", "computer device installed and adjusted to 350 milivolts", "halo plus spark installed", and several more {see page 8}), and with tires pumped up to 50 psi (including on a Dodge truck! ).

The most interesting part of the data tables is that the best mileage increase comes in the last line, when the only difference is listed as "driving", defined as "all the driving techniques in operator's manual were implemented". I'd love to know what kind of instructions in the "operator's manual" they were ignorring to get 15 mpg (city) out of an already thoroughly modified 2004 Dodge Ram that, when followed, brought the mileage all the way up to 22 mpg. I'd also be willing to bet that the "operator's manual" is something that came with the unit and is basically a hypermiler drivers instruction manual (shut it off and coast, draft trucks as close as possible, run stop signs, etc.).

(The link is to an article in Mother Jones Magazine on a guy who gets 59 mpg out of a stock Honda Accord. The sales pitch web site for this device lists their Honda Accord as getting 55.9 mpg. An awfully similar result. I wonder..... )

I seriously doubt the cars modified as they were for this test would last more than a few weeks in normal use. I also seriously doubt that the final testing procedure ("driving") is anything like normal use.

There may be some benefit in using hydrogen to lean out the fuel mixture and gain some mileage that way. It would be nice if that were true. But if these are the ends that have to be gone to to make this thing work, I can't imagine wanting any part of it.

BTW, This thread is coming up on 3000 hits, with almost 1000 of them coming in the last 24 hours. What gives?

Dave is right, that it is a simple conservation of energy problem. Two molecules of hydrogen plus one molecule of oxygen give two molecules of water plus a large specific quantity of energy; and the reaction is reversible if you apply the exotherm to the same two molecules of water. If you try to use heat it will escape to other surrounding matter of course, so efficiency becomes negligible in reversing the reaction. Electrical energy is easier to direct and constrain, but you need to apply exactly so same amount as you will get back in heat by combustion.
I suspect there may be a much better financial benefit making and selling these devices than using them on cars; and the best collective of potential customers might be just be politicians. Consider the use of ethanol as "biofuel".
This is produced by anerobic fermentation of a carbohydrate stock by specific yeasts or bacteria. There is inefficiency in this too, because you turn some of the grain energy into other things such as more yeast or bacteria; and you also have to expend energy to extract/concentrate the ethanol. But the killer is the fuel cost of producing the grain. My former boss at our Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation did post-graduate research at the Waite Institute in South Australia in th early 1960's. With the best outcome from the absolute minimum number of equipment passes over the paddock from seedbed preparation to harvesting, it takes 4 1/2 tons of diesel to produce one ton of grain!!! Then you have to add the fuel use in transport to destination. One wheat farmer in the northern Wimmera region here in Victoria discovered that one B-double taking his wheat to port used the same quantity of fuel that would propel a 6000 ton train the same distance. But the government had "privatised" the rail lines, and the companies had not made enough profit during a drought when there was little wheat, so they closed the lines. Politicians who subsidise ethanol fuel production, or who allow demise of efficient public infrastructure are most certainly the ready customers for hydrogen generators.
One of the most convenient ways to produce hydrogen is from aluminium and sodium hydroxide. May be you could make expendable hydrogen generators of aluminium tanks, to which you add sodium hydroxide as required. You would need a very good politician to work out the risk, the original energy cost, and the mess of that one.

If a con man wasn't good at what he does, he wouldn't be a con man....!

Last Monday night there was a guy at the local cruise with a 68 Chevelle SS 350. He had some contraption hooked up to his car stating he was getting 27mpg. There were 2 glass jars with baking soda and water hooked to the battery and lines running to the vacuum on the carb. It looked dangerous to me and besides that when he ran the motor we went behide the car and felt water in the exhaust...........yea, sounds good to me.
I hope he made it home.

The ratio has improved considerably since then due to imporved efficientcies at several levels. Most current analyses have the net production of energy using corn around a positive 25%. Even ten years ago that was definitely not the case.

Further improvements are expected as well, especially as cellulosic ethanol comes online producing fuel out of what is essentially waste material and grasses.

I am curious to know how there is such a huge difference between wheat utilizing legume nitrogen, and corn presumably grown with fertiliser nitrogen, Dave. Fertiliser nitrogen is manufactured form atmospheric nitrogen at very significant energy cost. I'll have to check my referral network to get up to speed microbiological conversion of cellulose to liquid fuel. I guess the non-pharmaceutical Indian hemp would be more ideal than corn for that, because it will tolerate soil salinity and will produce a crop fom less water than most crop plants require. (produces better, more durable clothing fibre than cotton, too). I would really like to be able to get scientific understanding of the huge difference in efficiency you allude to. The conversion rate of oil to crop at Waite Institute in th '60s was decades before government decided to subsidise conversion of cereal into transport fuel.
Ivan

I think a big part of the efficientcy increase has to do with yeild efficientcy. There are just a lot more bushels per acre harvested then there were in the 1960s. Then there's improvements in farm equipment, technique, and transportation, as well as the distillation/fermentation processing equipment.

Those are just guesses, however. I've not read any breakdowns that explain how the ethanol yield improved.

I have read that when cellulosic ethanol becomes established the feedstock plant will be different location by location. Pretty much anything that grows is a candidate, and it'll be a matter of determing on a field-by-field basis what will grow the fastest with the least amount of energy input.