hydrogen fuel economy device
Submitted: Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 20:40
ThreadID:
38983
Views:
3103
Replies:
12
FollowUps:
13
This Thread has been Archived
F4Phantom
Just saw a stock standard car run on pure hydrogen on mythbusters. I thought there had to be mods. On ACA a few weeks ago this guy made a simple device which uses the alternator to split
water bonds and get h2 and o. The h2 is fed dumped into the air intake and if more or less is put in it reflects on economy. I dont have an issue with this working and after seeing the car run on only hydrogen I am now thinking its worth a build. You need to use some electrolyte and the guy used drano because it has sodium from memory. Anyone else have some comments or ideas on this interesting topic?
Reply By: Footloose - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:01
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:01
I'm
well behind the 8 ball when it comes to applying hydrogen technology to cars. Is there somewhere on the net where I can view any videos of the programs you mentioned ?
AnswerID:
201880
Reply By: GaryInOz (Vic) - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:01
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:01
Too many inherent losses to make it practical.
Unless you intend on traveling with HazChem diamonds and have the appropriate cannisters and licence it is seriously not even worth contemplating.
AnswerID:
201881
Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:21
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:21
It is not designed to run 100% on H, only to subsidize the fuel with whatever H is available which is determined by how much power is made/taken from the alternator. I have read on the net (give me a break on the net thing but thats where people discuss these things!) of a guy in aust who has one in the boot, recons he does see a clear improvement. Also I knew of a guy in QLD who ran a large chevy engine on pure H from rechargeable batts he charged overnight. So it can work in full, but does it work in the subsisizing of fuel.
FollowupID:
461302
Follow Up By: GaryInOz (Vic) - Tuesday, Oct 31, 2006 at 00:11
Tuesday, Oct 31, 2006 at 00:11
Hydrogen has less "bang for the buck" (joules/mole) than hydrocarbons when burned.
You need to actually define what you mean by, "...recons he does see a clear improvement...". Improvement in what? Power? Fuel efficiency?
Generally these hydrogen reciprocating engines (BMW etc) use heaps more fuel than an equivalent petrol/diesel/LPG engine and produce substantially less power/torque from capacity engines that are typically 30-50% larger than and equivalent hydrocarbon engines. Fuel cell technology is getting there, but will never be viable with hydrogen as the primary energy source. Hydrogen has distinct handling difficulties in transport and transfer from one chamber to another. It is also one of the less energy efficient in its production (large losses withing the manufacturing process). It is not going to be "The Winner".
Vegetable oil/ethanol/methanol/CNG/ LPG is a far more promising medium, whether by direct conversion to electricity via fuel cells or direct internal combustion engines, or indirectly via alternator/storage medium.
FollowupID:
461401
Reply By: Member - Andrew (QLD) - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:12
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:12
Just had to wait an hour for Daylight Saving to see the story.....interesting.
Andrew
AnswerID:
201887
Reply By: joc45 - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:13
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:13
When I was a kid in primary school, I had a great idea; an electric motor which drove a generator, which in turn fed the electricity generated back to the motor. Result: free motion!
Sadly, in secondary school, in physics I discovered that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Sadly also, these things are still being peddled in this enlightened age. The energy required to release the hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis is (surprise!) the same as the energy released when burning the gases.
Gerry
AnswerID:
201889
Follow Up By: Member - Glenn D (NSW) - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:55
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:55
There was a post where the guy wanted to know how he could hook up a battery charger from his inverter to charge the battery running the invervter.
Wish I knew how that worked
Glenn.
FollowupID:
461376
Follow Up By: joc45 - Tuesday, Oct 31, 2006 at 00:04
Tuesday, Oct 31, 2006 at 00:04
Come to think of it, when Joh Bjelke was in power, he backed a
water-powered car venture.
Pity he's dead now, so we'll never know how it worked. All that technology lost forever, just when we really need it.....
FollowupID:
461396
Follow Up By: GaryInOz (Vic) - Tuesday, Oct 31, 2006 at 00:22
Tuesday, Oct 31, 2006 at 00:22
Energy released = energy used - losses (heat)
Anyone that has actually done the eletrolysis of H2O in chemistry realises that the
water also gets hot, this is lost energy. The wires get hot, this is lost energy. You cant get all the gas, this is lot energy. You have to find a way to compress the gas, this is lost energy. Then you add a similar amount of losses to the usage of the hydrogen, more losses. Et cetera..... None of this energy is recoverable.
You need something that needs minimal refinement, is easy to handle at room temperature, is simple to convert to energy (work), and is inexpensive to convert to energy.
FollowupID:
461404
Follow Up By: Pajman Pete (SA) - Tuesday, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:36
Tuesday, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:36
I think that was the second law of thermodynamics.
My physics teacher once expressed them as:
1. You can't win
2. You can't break even
3. You can't get out of the game
Pete
FollowupID:
461451
Reply By: Nick R - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:19
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:19
Dumping into the air intake would be quite dangerous, ever revved an LPG car as you start? the same thing would happen, blow your air cleaner apart......
from my basic calcualtions you would need a couple of hundred litres of hydrogen (at atmospheric pressure) every minute in a 5 litre motor doing 1000 rpm. this would only equate to a small amount of liquid hydrogen but the electrolysis we saw on mythbusters produced hydrogen at atmospheric pressure and very slowly to boot.
If you then added say 200 more electrolysis units you would produce more but the drain on the alternator would also increase, and of course the weight of your car.
If this really worked don't you think someone would be doing it?
some rogue state that gets energy for free........
some countries the oil companies don't get it all their own way, look at the ethanol industry in brazil......
NickR
AnswerID:
201892
Reply By: Kiwi Kia - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:22
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:22
In a word ..BOOM !!!
AnswerID:
201898
Reply By: F4Phantom - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:30
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:30
I am not suggesting you supply the whole engine with hydrogen. Also look at turbo chargers, they take a lot of energy from the motor, put back pressure on the engine but all these inefficiencys are overcome with an overall improvement. Also electric
water pumps or electric fans, all add load to the alternator but the overall improvement is proven and clearly mearsurable if not small. I still would like someone to prove wrong that taking a little power and not only put in the hydrogen but also the pure oxygen, could not make an improvement. Also electric systems create less power loss than mechanical so basicly you with the above examples you are replacing mechanical loss with a smaller electrical loss, BUT I concede that the hydrogen idea will add a chemical loss which could work out to be a lot different.
AnswerID:
201905
Reply By: Footloose - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:57
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 21:57
Hydrogen powered vehicles were common during WW2. They were also pretty dangerous.
AnswerID:
201915
Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:18
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:18
Actually you could be talking about coal gas trucks? I have not heard about hydrogen cars in WW2 but then again I have never really read about it.
FollowupID:
461359
Follow Up By: Footloose - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:32
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:32
Look it up. Even the taxis had big gas balloons on the top of em , incredible.
FollowupID:
461367
Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:41
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:41
Yeah I remember seeing that once, a massive balloon on the roof. I was thinking in
Melbourne they used to get coal which had not combusted properly, heat it up and the gas would be fed directly to the engine. Apparently around a bag of coal would get a truck around all day.
FollowupID:
461370
Follow Up By: Member - JohnR (Vic)&Moses - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:50
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:50
F'loosie, you don't mean acetylene do you? Gas producers were towed behind some cars I think.
FollowupID:
461373
Follow Up By: Member - JohnR (Vic)&Moses - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:53
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:53
no, you don't. Have a look here. Site Link
FollowupID:
461375
Reply By: Member - Hugh (WA) - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:02
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:02
Howdy F4Phantom,
We are currently doing variety of R&D activities involving Hydrogen. Very interesting; however one of the biggest issues to be resolved is the distribution
infrastructure. A lot of effort in Iceland to generate a Hydrogen economy. A search on that will provide all sorts of links.
Our website provides a little info on what we are doing but not a lot more I'm afraid (but other good stuff as
well you may find interesting). Orbital Website
The SAE website is another very good link. Do a search on Hydrogen and you'll find heaps to read. SAE Website
Professor Harry
Watson at University of
Melbourne has been working with Hydrogen for many years on his HAGI concept (Hydrogen assisted gas ignition).
My apologies for the engineering thrust of the reply but I hope that some of you find these links useful if keen to find out more.
Regards,
Hugh
AnswerID:
201919
Follow Up By: F4Phantom - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:14
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:14
Hi thanks mate, I will read up. I actually dont believe in hydrogen cars and think the problems with trying to spread the stuff around are just too big. I think a far better idea other than inefficient hydrogen powered cars and fuel cells is plain old electric cars. Some amazing ground is being broken as we speak in nano technology batteries and carbon cells and bucky balls and all that amazing stuff, and currently there is only one problem to solve with electric cars, and thats storage. Once that is solved its open slather and power generation will be the only other issue. So my money says hydrogen will never work and that electric cars are the way to go. Hydrogen = expensive fuel cells. Electric motors = 1x moving part!
FollowupID:
461353
Reply By: bludog - Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:36
Monday, Oct 30, 2006 at 22:36
I think the the best part of that experiment was Jamie holding the fuel source (hydrogen) over the carby while Adam was in control of the air source via the throttle, and the inevitable happened, lean mixture equals back fire equals fire and Jamie's moustache still lives to tell the tale.
AnswerID:
201935
Reply By: Pajman Pete (SA) - Tuesday, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:38
Tuesday, Oct 31, 2006 at 08:38
Pity they didn't
test a hiclone or a futch.
AnswerID:
201992
Reply By: Member - Bradley- Tuesday, Oct 31, 2006 at 18:39
Tuesday, Oct 31, 2006 at 18:39
Lots of different ways have been tried over the years, high current/electrolite , low current/high voltage/high frequency, etc etc.
just cruise the web, heaps out there, some cranks but some good stuff as
well.
search for "Stan Meyer" he did a huge amount of work in it. Also download the doco "it runs on water" some good gear on there, including
water heaters that use cavitation instead of resistance elements etc.
AnswerID:
202114