Water-Powered Car: Breaking the Molecular Bond & Burning Hydrogen

[Holocene]

What happens when you break the molecular bond, and burn the hydrogen? Is the water "destroyed"? And what happens to the hydrogen atoms when your burn them?

Does it break the ecollogical water-cycle, or can there again be a recombination of hydrogen and oxygen atoms?

 

[Mr Noblet]

That would just reverse the original reaction and result in a water molecule. H+O2 -> H2O

 

[russ_watters]

To be pedantic:

H+O2<-->H2O + E

 

[mrjeffy321]

To be pedantic:

H+O2<-->H2O + E

Better yet,
2H2 (g) + O2 (g) --> 2 H2O (l)
ΔG = -474.26 kJ under standard conditions.

2 H2O (l) --> 2H2 (g) + O2 (g)
ΔG = +474.26 kJ under standard conditions.


When you break the bonds in the water molecule you form Hydrogen and Oxygen gas (H2 and O2). These gasses can be recombined by burning them to re-form water.
You will not get extra energy out of burning the Hydrogen to reform water. The best you could do is just reclaim the energy one originally put into splitting the water, but actually you cannot even do this good since you will also loose some energy to heat.

 

[buffordboy23]

With a simple device that uses electrolysis to convert water into hydrogen, you can increase the fuel economy of your car. This link may be somewhat helpful: [Moderator note: crackpot link removed]. A cursory glance at its contents and the cost for the informative booklet may inspire thoughts of a scam, but the idea holds much merit. In fact, if you want to build such a device, you can easily build one from looking at the examples shown. However, I don't recommend a plastic mason jar since it will deform rather quickly due to heat. Depending on your driving conditions (highway/city) you may obtain as much as 50 miles per gallon or more. No joke!

 

[Dick]

With a simple device that uses electrolysis to convert water into hydrogen, you can increase the fuel economy of your car. This link may be somewhat helpful: www.water4gas.com. A cursory glance at its contents and the cost for the informative booklet may inspire thoughts of a scam, but the idea holds much merit. In fact, if you want to build such a device, you can easily build one from looking at the examples shown. However, I don't recommend a plastic mason jar since it will deform rather quickly due to heat. Depending on your driving conditions (highway/city) you may obtain as much as 50 miles per gallon or more. No joke!

Yeah, sure. It does more than 'inspire thoughts of a scam'. It is a scam. What about mrjeffry321's point?

 

[buffordboy23]

Yeah, sure. It does more than 'inspire thoughts of a scam'. It is a scam. What about mrjeffry321's point?

I agree that mrjeffry321's point is absolutely correct, but be open-minded regarding the idea. Simply put automobiles require two energy sources to operate, gasoline and electricity. This device receives its energy from a car battery and proceeds with the reaction as described by mrjeffry321. Sure, energy is lost with the production of hydrogen, but an alternative fuel source is produced which conserves gasoline.

I know for a fact that this device works because my father and I built one for his 2004 Nissan Sentra, and he averaged close to 50 miles per gallon on his trip to work. I would expect that the life of the car battery is shortened due to the extra load, but with these results it more than compensates.

Dick, if you still are skeptical--which I completely understand, since a lot of ideas are only scams to make a quick buck--then build one yourself and report back to me. The necessary parts to build a device are cheap.

 

[Dick]

buffordboy23, the energy to charge the car battery comes from burning fuel turning a generator or alternator, not from the battery itself. I think the success of these devices is due more to a placebo effect. I.e. power of positive thinking. I'd have to invest in a car first before I could actually test one. But 'I don't have to go to the arctic to know it's cold'.

 

[buffordboy23]

buffordboy23, the energy to charge the car battery comes from burning fuel turning a generator or alternator, not from the battery itself.

Dick, you are correct in regards to the above statement. Perhaps, I should have been a little clearer.

However, is it absolutely necessary to have your engine running to listen to the car radio or turn the head lights on? No, but your battery will eventually die and need recharged. When your car is jumped, we let the engine run so that the alternator recharges the battery. Now when we turn the vehicle off with the battery recharged, we are able to start the automobile again with no problem. This suggests that the alternator is able to supply more energy to the battery than the needs of the automobile require.

In fact, an alternator is a self-sustaining, regulating device that tries to keep the car battery at a certain voltage for recharging purposes (a little above 14 V). The rotation speed of the serpentine belt that drives the alternator does not necessarily determine the power output of the alternator due to the alternator's design--the electric signal passes through a rectified diode bridge. So, some energy that was available will be lost as heat anyways. Therefore, why not attach the discussed device, which does increase the overall load on the battery, but diminishes the wasted energy produced from the alternator?

 

[mrjeffy321]

Every drop of energy in the car’s battery comes from the fuel which is burned in the engine (neglecting the energy initially there when installing a new battery).

If you attempt to run the engine solely on Hydrogen produced using the battery and/or alternator (which, in turn, gets its energy from the engine) you are bound to fail since you are forming a closed loop in your energy flow diagram and effectively are trying to make a perpetual motion machine. Even if we ignore the fact that in order for this to be practical you would need to be able to extract extra energy from this closed loop to make the car move (instead of merely discharging then recharging the battery), you are also bound to loose some fraction of your energy as heat. Over some time period, the battery will just drain down to nothing and the car will stop.


Another, less blatantly illegal, approach would be to merely supplement your gasoline fuel with Hydrogen, as you describe. Some theories suggest that the Hydrogen itself may not be so much an energy source as it is something to increase the efficiency / completeness of the combustion of the gasoline fuel.
With all the modern day gadgets and computers cars have now-a-days to try to control the fuel delivery to the internal combustion energy under different conditions, I am not sure how much I believe some of the explanations given.

The only way I can see something like H2-supplemented gasoline fuel working is with sacrificing a lot of engine’s output power. That way your gasoline mileage will increase and at the same time the law of conservation of energy is preserved.

 

[Dick]

buffordboy23 is making this sound somewhat more plausible by claiming the alternator is wasting some largish amount of energy which can be reclaimed for splitting the water. This doesn't violate any conservation laws, but it does imply the alternator/recharging system is so badly designed it turns a substantial portion of the engines output into waste heat. I remain deeply skeptical.

 

[buffordboy23]

The alternator has an efficiency of 50-60% when it is operating, so a lot of potential energy for output is wasted. Also, since alternators are controlled by a computer, when the battery is fully-charged when the car is running, the alternator shuts itself off. Therefore, the mechanical energy from the serpentine belt that turns the coils of the alternator is also wasted during this condition.

The purpose of this electrolysis device that splits water is to increase the fuel efficiency of the automobile, as also suggested by mrjeffy321. The electronic control module (ECM) controls many functions of how the car engine operates and makes modifications accordingly. In this case, the most important one is the amount of fuel that is injected into the cylinders. With the addition of hydrogen and oxygen, the combustion of gasoline is more efficient, so the ECM "tells" its attached components to inject less fuel into the cylinders because the car's energy needs are satisfied.

The best results from this device occur when driving at a steady speed, such as on a highway. This is because the ECM makes adjustments according to the car's energy needs. For example, approaching a large hill and then accelerating heavily to compensate for the increased energy needs to get the car up the hill causes the ECM to make drastic adjustments relative to driving at a steady speed on a level highway. This scenario is less stable, and therefore, the increase in fuel economy is lowered. The same analysis applies to city driving, where there are many stop-and-goes.

 

[johnandrews52]

Can we run our car with water and gas?
Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?

 

[TVP45]

Carnot, Thompson, Kelvin, Otto,...

 

[mrjeffy321]

Can we run our car with water and gas?

Sure, but it might not be nearly as efficient as other fuel systems, much less practical, and could result in a drop in power output of the engine relative to gasoline fuel.

Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?

I do not understand why so many people insist on referring to “HHO” gas. I am not specifically referencing you in particular (johnandrews52) this is just something I have noticed happening a lot over the years.
When you split a water molecule you produce Hydrogen gas (H2) and Oxygen gas (O2), not some type of ‘new’ water molecule that has a differently written chemical formula.

 

[LtStorm]

Sure, but it might not be nearly as efficient as other fuel systems, much less practical, and could result in a drop in power output of the engine relative to gasoline fuel.


I do not understand why so many people insist on referring to “HHO” gas. I am not specifically referencing you in particular (johnandrews52) this is just something I have noticed happening a lot over the years.
When you split a water molecule you produce Hydrogen gas (H2) and Oxygen gas (O2), not some type of ‘new’ water molecule that has a differently written chemical formula.

It has an official chemical name and a trade name, actually; Oxyhydrogen and Brown's Gas.

It's been used in welding for decades.

 

[TVP45]

It has an official chemical name and a trade name, actually; Oxyhydrogen and Brown's Gas.

It's been used in welding for decades.

HHO may have a trade name but it is not an "official" chemical name, whatever that means. Gunsmiths have used sweet spirits of nitre for generations but that still doesn't make it a chemical name.

 

[LtStorm]

An official chemical name would be one created using IUPAC's nomenclature system. But, you're right, the word I should have used was 'common' chemical name, which is 'oxyhydrogen.'

 

[TVP45]

An official chemical name would be one created using IUPAC's nomenclature system. But, you're right, the word I should have used was 'common' chemical name, which is 'oxyhydrogen.'

But, isn't the common name for HHO "water"?

 

[LtStorm]

But, isn't the common name for HHO "water"?

I usually see water written as "HOH," as it makes it more clear what you have. Otherwise it'd be H_{2}O.

 

[ronaldcollins]

Water as a supplement to gasoline!

hi there, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed,only one quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through this site [Moderator note: crackpot link removed] i really recommend it to everybody, it's a nice ebook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.

 

[TVP45]

I usually see water written as "HOH," as it makes it more clear what you have. Otherwise it'd be H_{2}O.

Exactly.

 

[mgb_phys]

I found the way through this site [Moderator note: crackpot link removed] i really recommend it to everybody, it's a nice ebook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.

Thanks, we have been spending billions of $ on engine research for 100years but somehow missed that site.
Does it work for aircraft and naval engines as well? We were just waiting to make aircraft that could fly around the world efficently but in spite of all the billions of $ we spent on research at Boeing/Airbus/Rolls Royce/GE we missed this site.
Thanks again - we look forward to halving the cost of airline tickets by July.

 

[DaveC426913]

The alternator has an efficiency of 50-60% when it is operating, so a lot of potential energy for output is wasted. Also, since alternators are controlled by a computer, when the battery is fully-charged when the car is running, the alternator shuts itself off. Therefore, the mechanical energy from the serpentine belt that turns the coils of the alternator is also wasted during this condition.

Incorrect. The reason the alternator shuts off when not needed is because it requires energy (i.e. gasoline) to power it. If you leave the alternator running you will see a corresponding increase in fuel consumption.

Sorry, no matter how you cut it, your gas savings will be nil.

 

[buffordboy23]

Incorrect. The reason the alternator shuts off when not needed is because it requires energy (i.e. gasoline) to power it. If you leave the alternator running you will see a corresponding increase in fuel consumption.

Sorry, no matter how you cut it, your gas savings will be nil.

I do not claim to be a car expert, but I am not completely understanding your point. From your argument, it suggests to me that when the vehicle is running and the alternator subsequently shuts itself off, it is because not enough gasoline, or "energy", is being provided to power it. Is this correct? If so, I do agree with this statement to a point. Some alternators are designed so that they operate above some lower RPM limit. However, this is not true for all cars, since many cars have alternators that operate regardless of RPM--their output can vary with RPMs but is not totally reliant on it, since the regulator ultimately determines what is outputted.

Your argument in regards to my statement about the alternator shutting off does suggest that my statement could probably have been said a little clearer. What I really mean is that when the battery is fully-charged, the alternator no longer needs to supply power to the battery, although it is still operating to provide power to run the electrical systems of the car.

Also, I never claimed that the operation of the alternator could lead to gas savings. However, I did claim that by attaching a device that uses electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen it is very likely that your car will have better fuel economy depending on your driving conditions.

 

[DaveC426913]

I do not claim to be a car expert, but I am not completely understanding your point. From your argument, it suggests to me that when the vehicle is running and the alternator subsequently shuts itself off, it is because not enough gasoline, or "energy", is being provided to power it. Is this correct?

No. I'm saying the alternator shuts off when not needed because the alternator is a drain on power (and thus will use fuel). Like every other device, if you don't need it, shut it off.

However, I did claim that by attaching a device that uses electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen it is very likely that your car will have better fuel economy depending on your driving conditions.

I thought the issue was how would you power your device? To which your suggestion was: from the alternator of course. To which my response was: but the alternator uses energy, eating up any potential savings.

This is fundamentally no different than other attempts to find the elusive "free energy".

 

[buffordboy23]

No. I'm saying the alternator shuts off when not needed because the alternator is a drain on power (and thus will use fuel). Like every other device, if you don't need it, shut it off.

From my understanding, the alternator will always be a drain on power, even if we assumed it was turned off (i.e. outputting no energy to the electrical components). I say this because the alternator has an internal rotor that spins via the serpentine belt. The combustion of gasoline leads to the turning of the crank, which in turn rotates the serpentine belt. There are definitely frictional losses somewhere just by the fact the alternator is part of the system, although not operationable.

I thought the issue was how would you power your device? To which your suggestion was: from the alternator of course. To which my response was: but the alternator uses energy, eating up any potential savings.

This is fundamentally no different than other attempts to find the elusive "free energy".

My argument here is that there is "free energy" available to power the device. The rotational speed of the serpentine belt determines the rotational speed of the rotor inside the alternator, and hence, creates some initial AC current that is available to power the electrical systems. However, the output current from the alternator is controlled by the regulator, which monitors what energy is needed at the current moment to run the electrical systems--this is why I previously said that RPMs do not determine the energy output of the alternator. If the initial energy available is more than what is needed, there is a loss of energy through heat. Now, if we attach the described device to the car's electrical system, we increase the energy needs to power the car. If the initial energy available from the alternator is still greater than what is needed with this new component, then we are well in bounds in terms of the conservation of energy.

I know it's hard to believe, but nothing beats experimental verification, which I have achieved. If you are interested, see my previous post about a website that shows what these devices look like and how they operate. I am not promoting their website, nor encouraging you to buy their books, but only to use it for ideas on how to build such a device because it is so simple to see from just one picture.

 

[mgb_phys]

Yes there are some frictional losses by having the alternator spinning but unloaded, but there would be exactly the saem frictional losses if you used the alternator to do work AND there would also be the extra power extracted from the engine to do that work (plus anny efficency losses in the process)

 

[buffordboy23]

Yes there are some frictional losses by having the alternator spinning but unloaded, but there would be exactly the saem frictional losses if you used the alternator to do work AND there would also be the extra power extracted from the engine to do that work (plus anny efficency losses in the process)

I agree with your point about the frictional losses being the same for an operating and non-operating alternator. However, I don't understand why you say that extra power must be extracted from the engine to do work. Initially, the field coil of the alternator must receive current from the battery when the car is turned on to power the alternator. The spinning of the field coil by the serpentine belt--due to engine RPMs--produces a magnetic field that varies accordingly with RPMs and induces a current in the stator coils, which is outputted to the electrical systems. After a short moment however, part of the alternator's output is redirected back to the field coil and the process repeats, but now the alternator is self-sustaining and no longer relies on the battery. The regulator controls this process by regulating the current to the field coil--although the RPMs may be constant, the current into the field coils is not. Therefore, the potential work that could be done by the mechanical energy of the RPMs from the crankshaft-serpentine belt system is not fully used. Attaching this electrolysis device requires the regulator to pass more current or pass it more frequently to the field coils, which accesses more of the available mechanical energy from the crankshaft-serpentine belt system RPMs.

 

[Dick]

buffordboy23, I'm really giving you the benefit of the doubt here. These explanations are getting increasingly implausible. I can understand how earnest people might believe in this. This is the "I want to believe" syndrome. Look at Fleischmann and Pons cold fusion. Do you know how much that website looks like a scam? Flashing gaudy colours, garish typeface, hysterical testimonials. It hurts my eyes. I looks a LOT like a scam. $97 USD for an ebook. Give me a break. Can we drop this?

 

[buffordboy23]

buffordboy23, I'm really giving you the benefit of the doubt here. These explanations are getting increasingly implausible. I can understand how earnest people might believe in this. This is the "I want to believe" syndrome. Look at Fleischmann and Pons cold fusion. Do you know how much that website looks like a scam? Flashing gaudy colours, garish typeface, hysterical testimonials. It hurts my eyes. I looks a LOT like a scam. $97 USD for an ebook. Give me a break. Can we drop this?

It is fine to disagree but provide an explanation why. Your current argument is weak; it attacks the website--which I do agree with you about--and me personally, once again, but not the logic of my arguments. What points about my previous arguments are implausible? In hindsight, my initial recommendation of the website probably caused some individuals to doubt the validity of my arguments. The reason I posted the URL to the website in the first place was to provide individuals with a picture of the device, so that they could design one themselves. Notice from my previous posts, that I stated it is not essential to buy the ebook because the device is so simple to build.

 

[Dick]

Because to get the claimed 25-50% fuel saving requires a hugely inefficient electrical generation system. And while I am certainly no expert I would expect that any decent engineer would figure out a way eliminate much beyond essential frictional losses in the drive mechanism. It's not that hard. If nothing else you could power down the field coils.I simply don't find any of the arguments all that compelling. I don't have to disprove them one by one. You've already changed the basis of the argument at least once. And, yes, referring to a scam website for credibility or even a diagram doesn't help. Shall we try the 'injecting hydrogen increases gasoline burning efficiency' one? Sorry, I'm not buying this.

 

[buffordboy23]

Because to get the claimed 25-50% fuel saving requires a hugely inefficient electrical generation system. And while I am certainly no expert I would expect that any decent engineer would figure out a way eliminate much beyond essential frictional losses in the drive mechanism. It's not that hard. If nothing else you could power down the field coils.I simply don't find any of the arguments all that compelling. I don't have to disprove them one by one. You've already changed the basis of the argument at least once. And, yes, referring to a scam website for credibility or even a diagram doesn't help. Shall we try the 'injecting hydrogen increases gasoline burning efficiency' one? Sorry, I'm not buying this.

You make some good points.

The alternator does not have an entirely great efficiency--there are many sources that quote a 50-60% efficiency. Also, not only is hydrogen injected into the fuel system but oxygen as well, since it is one of the products of the electrolysis reactions.

You said that I changed the basis of my argument. I don't recall this but perhaps it is true. When I built and used the device myself, I was skeptical until I saw the results. I must admit that when I made my initial post that I did not entirely understand why such a device worked. It was only when my claim was refuted that I had to research the operation of the systems involved to prove my point. Therefore, with my learning of these subjects, I was probably prone to some minor misunderstandings along the way and conveyed a misunderstanding or two in my statements. Perhaps, I don't have all of the knowledge necessary at the moment to prove my claim. Therefore, the only way of convincing nonbelievers would be to have the support of converts who were also skeptical.

I challenge any users of the forum to build this device and report with their results. It is relatively easy to build and cheap. This is the basic design and the materials that I used, although I believe that there are better materials to use. I used a plastic mason jar as the container--deformation occurred due to heat. For my electrodes, I have used both stainless steel and copper wire that was bent back-and-forth in a shape as depicted in the attachment--the stainless steel has a significantly lower conductivity than copper but the copper electrodes had a build up on them in a few days due to the chemical reactions involved. For the electrolyte, I used baking soda. I ran an output tube from the device into the air filter--these tubes must be sealed well. I connected the device to the car battery via alligator clips. Once attached to the battery, the electrolysis reactions begin to occur--a switch could be used to control the circuit before and after driving. A bracket was used to hold the device during driving. We obtained close to 50 mpg with a 2004 Nissan Sentra driving on country roads at a near constant speed of 50-60 mph.

 

[DaveC426913]

Attaching this electrolysis device requires the regulator to pass more current or pass it more frequently to the field coils, which accesses more of the available mechanical energy from the crankshaft-serpentine belt system RPMs.

If this energy from the alternator/belt mechanism really is wasted as you propose (such that hooking up your device causes no increase in energy requirements) where do you propose the extra energy is going? Heat?

Consider the implication of this: the corollary of your cliam as that hooking up a device (any device, not just yours) that puts a load on the alternator will serve the secondary effect of cooling the engine (since you're now not expelling the extra waste energy-which-is-dumped-as-heat).

You've got to see that this is wrong.

 

[Dick]

I challenge any users of the forum to build this device and report with their results. It is relatively easy to build and cheap. This is the basic design and the materials that I used, although I believe that there are better materials to use. I used a plastic mason jar as the container--deformation occurred due to heat. For my electrodes, I have used both stainless steel and copper wire that was bent back-and-forth in a shape as depicted in the attachment--the stainless steel has a significantly lower conductivity than copper but the copper electrodes had a build up on them in a few days due to the chemical reactions involved. For the electrolyte, I used baking soda. I ran an output tube from the device into the air filter--these tubes must be sealed well. I connected the device to the car battery via alligator clips. Once attached to the battery, the electrolysis reactions begin to occur--a switch could be used to control the circuit before and after driving. A bracket was used to hold the device during driving. We obtained close to 50 mpg with a 2004 Nissan Sentra driving on country roads at a near constant speed of 50-60 mph.

Thanks for sharing the info. I believe that you believe that it works. But I don't think you know how it works. I've been looking for an objective test of such a device (something like Consumer Reports, not someone who is trying to sell me plans to build one), but putting a search term like 'water powered car' into google takes you straight to cootie land. That's not encouraging. I did see a few comments that Mythbusters may have tackled the subject. There must be one somewhere...

 

[buffordboy23]

I found that Mythbusters did do an episode on the topic and the idea failed. Here is a link for a video clip that shows why their test likely failed:



This video claims that they did not use an electrolyte. It also shows the clip of the Mythbuster's electrolysis device producing very little gas and another clip of a homemade device producing a lot of gas. I realize that this does not prove that the electrolysis device actually works but I thought people might find it interesting.

 

[buffordboy23]

Previously, on this forum I have stated that I used the electrolysis device as a gasoline combustion enhancement and reported success in increasing fuel economy. I explained how I thought the device worked, but my ideas were incorrect; particularly, the argument regarding the alternator. Therefore, the refuting arguments from other posters appeared to show that this device could not work and that my results must be due to something else other than the device.

Henceforth, with my basic and limited chemistry background I have been trying to analyze the energy balance among the inputs and outputs, since the totality of the systems and processes involved in such an analysis is more complicated than the arguments of antagonists suggest. Currently, my analysis shows that I am inputting more energy into the system than I am getting out. Although my analysis is deeper and supports the general argument against the viability of the device, I still feel that I am missing key parts in my analysis.

I was curious and decided to search the academic literature to see if their was any publications about this electrolysis device. Surprisingly, I did come across an article that describes the device that I am trying to analyze. Unfortunately, it is not very quantitative, yet my perspective on the issue has become more optimistic. Moreover, the authors cite three sources that support using hydrogen as a combustion enhancement.

For interested readers, the article's citation is listed below.

Z. Dulger, K.R. Ozcelik. Fuel economy improvement by on board electrolytic hydrogen production. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 25, (2000), 895-897

Does anyone know the reputation of these authors or how to discern it? Ethics has been an issue in controversial scientific issues.

 

[buffordboy23]

I found another interesting article that should help to clear up the debate over whether or not an on board electrolysis device improves fuel economy.

As the main focus for the paper, the authors developed a model to analyze the effects of hydrogen as an additive to the combustion energy output of methane fuel. In general, the results are positive; an addition of a small amount of hydrogen increases engine output power. There are many studies in the literature that support this idea.

The important part of the paper in regards to this thread was when they modeled the viability of using an on board electrolysis device to produce hydrogen and oxygen. The authors assumed efficiencies of 70% and 30% for the electrolysis device and the overall electric generation and mechanical efficiency, respectively.

The graph of their results is posted as an attachment. The line designated "PROD ENERGY" represents the total energy needs to run the electrolysis device. Based on their brief analysis, the authors state that the viable range of beneficial operating conditions is narrow and that the idea is not economically advisable.

So what do these results mean? Can the electrolysis device really work? I guess the answer is that it depends; the main zone of engine operating conditions one consistently drives within plays a large role, which probably lends support to why there is such a divide among people regarding this topic.

I have two important things to point out to the reader concerning this graph. First, the primary fuel used in the analysis was methane rather than standard grade gasoline. Second, their graph is based on a compression ratio of 8.5:1. I believe that most standard vehicles have a compression ratio of 10:1. In the main body of their paper, the authors show that this compression ratio has a power output about .3 kW greater than the 8.5:1 ratio with the addition of hydrogen.


For interested readers, the paper's citation is

S.O Bade Shrestha, G.A. Karim. Hydrogen as an additive to methane for spark ignition engine applications. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 24 (1999), 577-586.

 

[Borek]

I suppose if it works this way it is not because of the energy added in the form of hydrogen, rather the hydrogen presence modifies combustion parameters. This at least doesn't violate nature laws.

Still - car industry have spend about 100 years to optimize the combustion to get as much as possible from the fuel. They may know the trick and rejected it for some reasons.

Attachment pending approval, so can't comment further.

 

[buffordboy23]

I have one more important point about the graph that I forgot. The authors assumed that all of the oxygen and hydrogen produced from the electrolysis device would be present at the time of combustion. Actual systems could come very close to this ideal I believe since the oxygen and hydrogen are produced at different electrodes.

 

[atom888]

I totally agree with Borek about fuel modification. Let's not discuss "free energy" to create unfriendly atmosphere. However, we should not totally reject possibility. I've done some experiment with hydrogen before. It is a strong reaction, complete reaction with no/low heat to the surrounding. It could be that the engine needs oxygen and not hydrogen. Ambient have .. I think 21% oxygen? Electrolysis makes 33% oxygen per break down. If you intake 70%+ gas(from ambient) that not participate in combusion but obsorb heat, then that's a major loss in efficiency. This could be the reason.

 

[Borek]

This oxygen thing can be easily checked. Buffordboy, do you know how much water is electrolized per gallon of gas consumed?

 

[chemisttree]

I have two important things to point out to the reader concerning this graph. First, the primary fuel used in the analysis was methane rather than standard grade gasoline. Second, their graph is based on a compression ratio of 8.5:1. I believe that most standard vehicles have a compression ratio of 10:1. In the main body of their paper, the authors show that this compression ratio has a power output about .3 kW greater than the 8.5:1 ratio with the addition of hydrogen.

A few comments about the attached graph... Each of the dashed/dotted lines represent different equivalence ratios. The graph includes the energy requirement to produce the Brown's gas. Notably, the Prod Energy line is only shown for that portion of the graph that would account for a maximum usage of only about 0.35 mmol/cycle. More than that and the line 'rockets' off the page!

The equivalence ratio is defined as the ratio of the actual fuel/air ratio to the stoichiometric fuel/air ratio. We see in this graph that by varying that ratio between 0.55 (quite lean) and 0.75 (somewhat lean) and then including varying concentrations of Brown's gas, changes in the power output are realized. The magnitude of these changes becomes less and less as we approach a stoichiometric ratio... we only get 3/4ths of the way there in this graph. The 0.75 equivalence ratio line (the uppermost dashed line) shows a modest increase of from 2.5 kW to ~2.7 kW when only 0.2 mmol/cycle of the gas are used. That represents a net increase of only 0.2 kW and to achieve even that level, the electrolysis requires a whopping 1.7 kW of energy which leaves us with a power deficit of roughly 1.5 kW when the unit is operating in that region. I am analyzing this line only because most modern automobile engines operate at or near stoichiometry and this line is the closest to that reality.

If we assume that we have an engine operating at an eqivalence ratio of 0.6 the story is different. This is a quite lean condition but shows the maximum response to injecting Brown's gas in this graph. I estimate that the maximum positive effect of introducing Brown's gas occurs at an injection rate of approximately 0.1 mmol/cycle. This results in an increase of power of ~1.3 KW (1.4 kW at 0.1 concentration of BG - 0.1 kW at 0 concentration of BG). To produce that level of BG, the graph indicates that about 1 kW of energy is required yielding the reported 0.3 kW maximum benefit.

To calculate the Prod Energy line, the author's use an alternator efficiency of 70% (typical values are 55% however, Bosch introduced one that operates at 70%) and an electrolytic efficiency of 30% (small 1kW+ plants can operate at 55%) so the best case scenario could be somewhat more than a 0.3 kW net advantage. Of course, electrolysis plants of 1kW are expensive and anything you could probably come up with in your garage wouldn't be nearly 55% efficient at electrolysis.

Of course none of us drive a car that operates on methane at an equivalence ratio of 0.6! Our cars operate at equivalance ratios of >1 most of the time and we run on gasoline. I suspect that as the molecular weight of the fuel increases and when operated on the other side of stoichiometry that the rather large increases in power (30% in this paper) will vanish into the negative region and it will likely cost money to run the system.

 

[buffordboy23]

It could be that the engine needs oxygen and not hydrogen. Ambient have .. I think 21% oxygen? Electrolysis makes 33% oxygen per break down. If you intake 70%+ gas(from ambient) that not participate in combusion but obsorb heat, then that's a major loss in efficiency. This could be the reason.

Hydrogen is the key input, which is supported by research, and is the only reason that this idea could be plausible. The properties of hydrogen during combustion in the engine causes the flame velocity of the spark ignition to increase dramatically; hydrogen laminar flame velocity is 1.9 m/s, gasoline is 0.37-0.43 m/s according to one of my sources. The result is a more complete burn of the gasoline. Addition of hydrogen also permits the engine to run leaner (with more air), which also increases the thermal efficiency.

Could you please elaborate a little more on the rest of the highlighted portion of your post? I am having trouble following your explanation.

 

[buffordboy23]

This oxygen thing can be easily checked. Buffordboy, do you know how much water is electrolized per gallon of gas consumed?

I can't specify an exact number from the article; they never mentioned it. They did their research using a CFR engine. The kits or e-books sold on the internet supposedly produce 2 grams of hydrogen per hour--I heard this, so I don't know if it is true though.

If it were true, then every second we would be putting about 5 x 10^-4 grams of hydrogen into the engine and also an extra 4 x 10^-3 grams of oxygen; these are really small amounts. If we assume the car usually gets 30 mpg, then the car uses about 1.5 grams of gas per second. If we also assume that the car operates with the stoichiometric ratio (about 15:1), then about 22.5 grams of air is used every second.

It takes about 33 watt-hours to produce 1 gram of diatomic hydrogen, not including inefficiencies. Assuming the inefficiencies with device in the car as discussed above, then we need about 170 watt-hours per gram of hydrogen. This relationship tends to be linear. In truth, it deviates as the temperature of the water goes up, because the entropy increases, reducing the input power we need according to the Gibbs free energy equation.

Suppose we want 1% hydrogen relative to gasoline in terms of mass. Then we need .015 grams/second, or 54 grams per hour, which requires about 9 kilowatt-hours of power.

I believe that once a car is up and running at a steady speed, like 55 mph, we need 20 hp, or about 15 kW, to maintain that speed. I wonder how much extra horsepower could we draw while driving at this speed to produce hydrogen?

Also, is there a limit to the amount of current that a car battery could put out? I would think so, but don't know what it is. This would limit our hydrogen production.

I thought of something else that I haven't been able to answer yet. When we split water, it is approximately at the ambient temperature, but when the products reform back into water during combustion the temperature is very much higher. Does this significantly affect the enthalpy and entropy values of the reaction?

 

[buffordboy23]

To calculate the Prod Energy line, the author's use an alternator efficiency of 70% (typical values are 55% however, Bosch introduced one that operates at 70%) and an electrolytic efficiency of 30% (small 1kW+ plants can operate at 55%) so the best case scenario could be somewhat more than a 0.3 kW net advantage.

Actually, it's the other way around and includes the mechanical efficiency as well. Taken verbatim from page 582, "This production energy was based on a 70% effectiveness of the electrolysis and an overall electric generation and mechanical efficiency of 30%."

 

[buffordboy23]

Of course none of us drive a car that operates on methane at an equivalence ratio of 0.6! Our cars operate at equivalance ratios of >1 most of the time and we run on gasoline. I suspect that as the molecular weight of the fuel increases and when operated on the other side of stoichiometry that the rather large increases in power (30% in this paper) will vanish into the negative region and it will likely cost money to run the system.

This makes sense. In my exploration of this subject, I am learning quite a bit of interesting things about cars.

For example, some car makes and models use a pulsed signal rather than a magnitude-varying current return to the field coil. I think that the frequency of the pulsed signal would be so high that essentially the engine loses power constantly due to electromagnetic drag within the alternator. If the frequency increases more, the drag is essentially the same, but output energy from alternator is increased. This is speculation; I have no mathematics to back it up at this point.

Another example, is that different cars probably operate at different equivalence ratios although the driving conditions are the exact same. More air usually means a better combustion efficiency. I would really like to get some engine data for different car makes for comparison, but haven't came across anything yet. There are a lot of delicate factors involved--perhaps, some vehicles it is possible, others it is not. The large energy needs of the device seem to drown out these small, but possibly important factors. I have no idea. =)

I think some people are getting positive results using the device only because they reprogrammed the ECU to make the car run leaner. With the device attached, they are getting better mileage than before, but they are likely to get better mileage just because of this reprogramming.

If we could electrolyze liquid ammonia, the idea is definitely possible. It takes only 1.55 watt-hours per gram of hydrogen, not including inefficiencies. Good luck with getting this idea to work anytime soon! By the way, ammonia is toxic in large amounts.

 

[buffordboy23]

I came across another interesting article. Here is the citation:

Maher Abdul-Resul Sadiq Al-Baghdadi. Performance study of a four-stroke spark ignition engine working with both of hydrogen and ethyl alcohol as supplementary fuel. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 25 (2000) 1005-1009.

I attached the graph as well.

Basically, a 2% mass fraction of hydrogen relative to gasoline results in a "specific fuel consumption" (sfc) value of about 0.5, where 1.0 represents the sfc at 0% mass fraction.

I posted three citations so far and wanted to comment personally about the authors. For the first citation (Z. Dulger, K.R. Ozcelik), I seriously question the authors' results--article was a technical communication, it lacked quantitative data, and stated that they used a novel bonding material to form the carbon electrode (this novel material was never mentioned). For the second citation (S.O Bade Shrestha, G.A. Karim), I feel that this is a quality article--the authors have many publications on the subject and even stated that the idea of on-board electrolysis does not appear economically advisable. For the third citation, I haven't found anything yet to make me question the authors' claims.

 

[buffordboy23]

I found that Mythbusters did do an episode on the topic and the idea failed.

I can't say the idea works until I have solid scientific evidence that it does. However, I do want to comment on the Mythbusters' episode (see link from original post) that explored the viability of this device, because many people refer to this episode as their source of evidence rather than thermodynamic laws.

With the device attached, the car didn't even start. This doesn't make sense at all unless they were trying to run the car only on the electrolysis products without gasoline. Maybe this was the point of their test but I couldn't tell from the brief video, but if it was, then their test is very different from the claims of this device. You can't run a car only on water.

 

[DaveC426913]

With the device attached, the car didn't even start. This doesn't make sense at all unless they were trying to run the car only on the electrolysis products without gasoline. Maybe this was the point of their test but I couldn't tell from the brief video, but if it was, then their test is very different from the claims of this device.

Did you watch the whole ep? I didn't, but I'll bet money that this was only the first test of many - this one would be the sort of "best case" or "most optimistic" baseline scenario: "what does it do with no gas", then they'll proceed systematically across the scale to "worst case".