Made hydrogen (HHO) in my garage DIY

[portabuddy]

lol im looking into this too...one thing i have up on this is a high pressure SS tank that i will charge, instead of plates. im looking into useing a neon generator as a power source. as the more voltage given means more bubbles will be created not amps.

[ciprich211]

YouTube - JAPANESE WATER POWERED CAR!!

"The basic power generation mechanism of the new system is similar to that of a normal fuel cell, which uses hydrogen as a fuel. According to Genepax, the main feature of the new system is that it uses the company’s membrane electrode assembly (MEA), which contains a material capable of breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen through a chemical reaction( electrolysis ) .

Though the company did not reveal the details, it “succeeded in adopting a well-known process to produce hydrogen from water to the MEA,”

"With the new process, the cell needs only water and air, eliminating the need for a hydrogen reformer and high-pressure hydrogen tank. Moreover, the MEA requires no special catalysts, and the required amount of rare metals such as platinum is almost the same as that of existing systems, Genepax said."




Wait guys, I thought you said that this process is " Thermodynamically Impossible ". Or are your opinions different now that a company is about to mass produce?

:P

[ciprich211]

Originally Posted by portabuddy

lol im looking into this too...one thing i have up on this is a high pressure SS tank that i will charge, instead of plates. im looking into useing a neon generator as a power source. as the more voltage given means more bubbles will be created not amps.

Dude your not looking for voltage. And why would you use a generator, when you already have a battery? You should reeaaallllyyyy get on the yahoo forum that I posted several times and read up for several weeks before trying something, so you do not have a fire in your car. You dont want the voltage going across your electrolyser to be anymore than 1.24 volts. I had a thread that explained in detail, but I lost it. Anyways, the amount of gas produced depends on the amperage flowing across the plates, not the voltage.

Think of it this way. Here are some facts:
Electrolysis is a chemical reaction.
Voltage is a measurement of electromotive force ( pressure )
Current is how many electrons are flowing over a point in the curcuit ( 1 Coulomb of electrons flowing past a point in one second )

You want more current because the electrons are the actual mechanism generating the chemical reaction, which generates the gas. All voltage is, is the force that is pushing the current though. If you have more than 1.24 volts through cell, the rest of the voltage is lost generating heat. You dont want to have the water in your cell boiling. That is a BAD thing.

"If the voltage applied to the electrolyte is 1.24 volts, then the gas
production for straight electrolysis depends directly on the current, which in
turn, depends on the concentration of the electrolyte. Two points: if you are
using stainless steel electrodes, then there is a voltage drop across them which
makes the optimum voltage across the electrodes to be about 2 volts, and, there
is a better system than electrolysis where a pulsed waveform is applied to the
electrodes rather than just DC. Done properly, this can give ten times the gas
output."


"With straight DC electrolysis, you can adjust the gas production rate by
controlling the current. This can be done using a Pulse-Width Modulator circuit
board. Alternatively, you can leave the electrolysis on full-rate production
and switch it off when necessary by using a gas-pressure switch to disconnect
the electric supply to the electrolyzer."



" There are two main types of electrolyzer. The most efficient is Bob Boyce's
design which uses flat plates positioned very accurately in the housing. A very
different design uses pairs of pipe electrodes. You can see both types in
detail if you download http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter10.pdf which has
a very large amount of electrolysis information in it."

[BigGeorge]

Originally Posted by Mitch

Pseudoscience. You can tell by they way the gas is name HHO. That is the scientific equivalent of Engrish. Then there are those pesky laws of Thermodynamics.

Ding ding ding....exactly. WTF is HHO haha. Its water, H2 is the gas.

[BigGeorge]

Originally Posted by ciprich211

HHO ", "Hydroxy", etc, if you are still a skeptic. A very good place to go to for more information on this is groups.yahoo.com "hydroxy".

HHO is NOT pseudoscience. The other name for is is "Browns gas".

To anyone talking about " Thermodynamics " and how " It could never work ". You are completely wrong.

Wow, before you start trying to power trip, you need to have a reliable source of data/evidence to back it up, ie research journals/articles. Thats just like using wikipedia. HHO is water, H2 is a gas. If you knew anything about molecular bonding and the properties of the elements, you would know that. Do you even know what PV= nRT means....nevermind you use yahoo, so you know everything.

[Brivis]

this thread(and all the replies) has probably been one of the most entertaining things i've read today ha ha ha ha. I love this discussion(and im seriously bored at work).

Now.... (im only curious not attacking anybody) I was just wondering where everybody replying is getting there info. I'm going to stay completely out of this topic.

I am a scientist, and work with all kinds of fund stuff like this everyday.

[20strong]

BigGeorge you are a college student in the field of Thermodynamics. I would hope that you have the intelligence to allow the ignorant to continue down a futile path, rather than waste your own energy trying to sway a fool.

Who is the fool, the fool or the one who follows the fool?

[Driving91LX]

Let's simplify.
1) Passing electricity through metal submerged in water makes flamable gas.
2) This gas gets sucked into the intake and explodes in the cylinders, thus reducing the amount of petrol you need to run the engine.
3) Using less petrol gives you better mileage.
Do we really need a bunch of complicated formulas for this? Ok, proceed with the "over-simplifying" responses
Disclaimer: The guy in this video isn't me

[Mitch]

Originally Posted by Driving91LX

Let's simplify.
1) Passing electricity through metal submerged in water makes flamable gas.
2) This gas gets sucked into the intake and explodes in the cylinders, thus reducing the amount of petrol you need to run the engine.
3) Using less petrol gives you better mileage.
Do we really need a bunch of complicated formulas for this? Ok, proceed with the "over-simplifying" responses
Disclaimer: The guy in this video isn't me
youtube]lB0Rn76kS1E[/youtube]

You're forgetting that that electricity has to come from somewhere. If there was a magical way of producing nameless amounts of energy with no work input then that would be what powers all of the world's nations.

What actually happens is the additional electrical draw on the alternator increases the amount of energy the alternator draws from the engine via physical work (increased resistance to turn alternator over the same period of time = greater work). That's less energy going to the wheels. If the system works perfectly (all components, including engine, operating at 100% efficiency), then your fuel economy will stay the same. Since the system is non-ideal (real), then you will actually lose fuel economy in varying degrees.

What causes people to notice small increases in fuel economy after installing such kits comes down to driving style. They drive more economically, and that skews the results. If the EPA conducted their driving cycle, however, the fuel economy would drop.

[SiBEAR]

everyone needs to read what he said closely. I personally think that the chemical reactions look good on paper, but the biggest flaw is that the system is "real". You are not performing electrolysis in an isolated system and your car is not going to be efficient in extracting any "extra" energy from this reaction due to the fact that it is a COMBUSTION engine. A lot of energy gets lost as heat in a motor, and as Mitch just mentioned, your car would have to work harder to increase the energy supply for the reaction.

I think a more efficient method is to buy a hydrogen tank with a pressure regulator and hook up a line to your intake manifold....haha. I don't know that you would save enough on gas to offset the cost of the hydrogen tank though.

[Driving91LX]

Originally Posted by Mitch

You're forgetting that that electricity has to come from somewhere. If there was a magical way of producing nameless amounts of energy with no work input then that would be what powers all of the world's nations.

What actually happens is the additional electrical draw on the alternator increases the amount of energy the alternator draws from the engine via physical work (increased resistance to turn alternator over the same period of time = greater work). That's less energy going to the wheels. If the system works perfectly (all components, including engine, operating at 100% efficiency), then your fuel economy will stay the same. Since the system is non-ideal (real), then you will actually lose fuel economy in varying degrees.

What causes people to notice small increases in fuel economy after installing such kits comes down to driving style. They drive more economically, and that skews the results. If the EPA conducted their driving cycle, however, the fuel economy would drop.

I agree about unconciously adjusting driving habits. There would have to be a before and after test, such as driving 200 miles at 60 mph in both cases.
What happens to fuel economy at night when you have 2 headlights, 2 tail lights, fogs, and dash lights drawing extra energy from the alternator? Am I losing 10 mpg just because it's night time? I don't think so.
Not sure how long a car battery would run the HHO generator but if the alternator draw did turn out to be a big deal then you could have a second battery in the trunk that's charged at home dedicated to it. I know, added weight and paying for household electric

[ErichPryde]

Originally Posted by Driving91LX

Let's simplify.
1) Passing electricity through metal submerged in water makes flamable gas.
2) This gas gets sucked into the intake and explodes in the cylinders, thus reducing the amount of petrol you need to run the engine.
3) Using less petrol gives you better mileage.

You are forgetting a fundamental, 100% indispensable, absolutely necessary step: The "HHO" system is using the battery to make Hydrogen. The battery runs off of the alternator, which generates electricity by utilizing a spinning pulley (much like a water wheel or a windmill, if this helps you any)

Anyone care to guess as to what turns that pulley? The ENGINE turns the pulley when gasoline and air are detonated in the cylinders and the detonation FORCES the crank to turn. the more electrical systems you run in your car, the more work the alternator does, the more parasitic loss your car feels (in the form of loss of acceleration and gas mileage). If you can accept that an underdrive pulley, which causes the alternator to do less work, will add power to your car, why would you not accept that adding a system that draws more power from the alternator would in fact decrease power output?!!??

Do we really need a bunch of complicated formulas for this? Ok, proceed with the "over-simplifying" responses

this thread gets the FAILCAT stamp of approval.

[ErichPryde]

Originally Posted by Driving91LX

I agree about unconciously adjusting driving habits. There would have to be a before and after test, such as driving 200 miles at 60 mph in both cases.
What happens to fuel economy at night when you have 2 headlights, 2 tail lights, fogs, and dash lights drawing extra energy from the alternator? Am I losing 10 mpg just because it's night time? I don't think so.
Not sure how long a car battery would run the HHO generator but if the alternator draw did turn out to be a big deal then you could have a second battery in the trunk that's charged at home dedicated to it. I know, added weight and paying for household electric

what do you intend to run this battery off of? if you run it off of nothing, it goes dead very quickly and suddenly takes a LOT of energy to charge back up. if you run it off of the alternator, you're stealing even more power from the motor.

[Driving91LX]

Originally Posted by ErichPryde

what do you intend to run this battery off of? if you run it off of nothing, it goes dead very quickly and suddenly takes a LOT of energy to charge back up. if you run it off of the alternator, you're stealing even more power from the motor.

That's why I mentioned household current for charging over night and the "unknown" of how long the battery would last.
What if the potential energy in the jar exceeds the extra energy that it takes to turn the pully that extra little bit? We can make assumptions all day. I just need to complete the project.
And remember, pullies drive superchargers too but does that extra work the engine does take away from hp? Not in the end result.

[Mitch]

Originally Posted by Driving91LX

I agree about unconciously adjusting driving habits. There would have to be a before and after test, such as driving 200 miles at 60 mph in both cases.
What happens to fuel economy at night when you have 2 headlights, 2 tail lights, fogs, and dash lights drawing extra energy from the alternator? Am I losing 10 mpg just because it's night time? I don't think so.
Not sure how long a car battery would run the HHO generator but if the alternator draw did turn out to be a big deal then you could have a second battery in the trunk that's charged at home dedicated to it. I know, added weight and paying for household electric

No, your fuel economy doesn't drop 10mpg just because your lights are on, but it does drop 0.5-1.0mpg (from data on DRL impact on fuel economy). I'd be interested in the wattage of the standard hydrolysis reaction these systems operate on. And yes you could have a separate battery. Depending on the weight of the system and the actual fuel economy change, you could theoretically increase fuel economy. Overall, though, you'd probably be in the red when it comes to operating costs.

Originally Posted by Driving91LX

That's why I mentioned household current for charging over night and the "unknown" of how long the battery would last.
What if the potential energy in the jar exceeds the extra energy that it takes to turn the pully that extra little bit? We can make assumptions all day. I just need to complete the project.
And remember, pullies drive superchargers too but does that extra work the engine does take away from hp? Not in the end result.

What your forgetting about the "potential energy inside the jar" is that the amount of energy it takes to liberate H2 and O2 gas is greater than the energy released by the combustion of H2 and O2 gas. It doesn't matter how much energy is stored in the chemical bonds of the water. You're going to have put in more energy to get it out than you'll recover from its combustion.

As for superchargers, you have to remember that the more air you put in the more fuel you can put in. That's all you're doing. You have to keep the air to fuel ratio in a certain range to operate an internal combustion engine. You can put in more fuel if you match it with the correct amount of air, the same as you can put in less fuel so long as you decrease the amount of air. The energy that shows up as increased horsepower comes from the chemical energy of the increased amount of fuel you're putting into the engine. As it pertains to this conversation, fuel economy goes down with the addition of a supercharger.

[ErichPryde]

Originally Posted by Driving91LX

That's why I mentioned household current for charging over night and the "unknown" of how long the battery would last.
What if the potential energy in the jar exceeds the extra energy that it takes to turn the pully that extra little bit? We can make assumptions all day. I just need to complete the project.
And remember, pullies drive superchargers too but does that extra work the engine does take away from hp? Not in the end result.

The reason a supercharger works is because the pulley is turning a screw/turbine, or very simply- a fan, that is forcing a significant amount of air into the engine. the computer ups the fuel, and more power is created. Superchargers reduce your gas mileage (which is pertinent because you're not trying to gain power out of this HHO system, you're trying to gain gas mileage). The end amount of power is greater, but the parasitic power loss is present with a supercharger. In addition, it's adding way more air to the motor via the "fan" than a "HHO" system ever will.

If you want to increase your gas mileage, try reducing the amount of work the engine does. remove your AC and radio for starters. then, move onto the power/electrical steering. From there, why not lean out the engine and drive slowly?

[ErichPryde]

40 dollars for the new battery, unless you have a wall pug-in battery charger, that's going to cost you money. judging on how quickly a battery goes dead when a car's lights are left on (overnight) you can count on the battery going dead in a couple of days or less. I don't know how much your electric bill would cost you per month, but charging the battery constantly will reduce its lifespan, and you'll have to buy another battery pretty shortly.

[Driving91LX]

Originally Posted by ErichPryde

If you want to increase your gas mileage, try reducing the amount of work the engine does. remove your AC and radio for starters. then, move onto the power/electrical steering. From there, why not lean out the engine and drive slowly?

No radio?! You nuts?!
I'm not going to those extremes but I do plan on putting about 5 more lbs in the tires of my Pilot for an upcoming 3,000+ mile trip.
I have plenty of $$ to buy gas and I hardly drive at all because I work out of my home. I'm just intrigued by this experimentation that more and more people are doing. If it turns out to be nothing in the end I had fun anyway.

[Yospeed]

Originally Posted by Wilson

I am going to hook a tube upto my arse and then run it into the intake and patent the first truly 'brown gas' hybrid civic, instead of running off of water it will run off of taco bell bean burritos. I am expecting to increase my mileage by 20%, but I will probably gain like 60 lbs so it will all even out when I have to carry my fat ass around town. I hope that 'big oil' doesnt murder me too......

Holy sh*t. After reading all the debating and arguing I was totally thrown off by your post. I literally burst out laughing with tears coming from my eyes. needless to say, my co-workers gave me the stink eye for showing some form of emotion inside of our cubicle, which has been deemed an emotionless wasteland.

[Wilson]

Originally Posted by ciprich211

YouTube - JAPANESE WATER POWERED CAR!!

"The basic power generation mechanism of the new system is similar to that of a normal fuel cell, which uses hydrogen as a fuel. According to Genepax, the main feature of the new system is that it uses the company’s membrane electrode assembly (MEA), which contains a material capable of breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen through a chemical reaction( electrolysis ) .

Though the company did not reveal the details, it “succeeded in adopting a well-known process to produce hydrogen from water to the MEA,”

"With the new process, the cell needs only water and air, eliminating the need for a hydrogen reformer and high-pressure hydrogen tank. Moreover, the MEA requires no special catalysts, and the required amount of rare metals such as platinum is almost the same as that of existing systems, Genepax said."




Wait guys, I thought you said that this process is " Thermodynamically Impossible ". Or are your opinions different now that a company is about to mass produce?

:P

Once again you are just too willing to believe anything you read on the internet (or in this case watched on the internet). Here is another take on that reuters piece you may want to look at. Genepax Water Car: Too Good to be True? Yeah : TreeHugger I dont think that you understand what it actually means when we say something is thermodynamically impossible. NOBODY has ever said that a car cant run on some sort of hydrogen source wether it be in a fuel cell car (electric) or an internal combustion engine (like that BMW that was talked about previously) the problem is that with all these 'examples' you keep bringing up the source of the hydrogen costs more energy than you will ever be able to get out! SO have YOU put an 'HHO' system on your car yet?? Why not if you have so much confidence in them?