Hydrogen Fuel Injection

[GULLETT17]

(Not sure exactly if this is this best section to post this in, may need moved to just the aag)

My father and I have been researching Hydrogen Fuel Injection or Hydrogen boost, and I was wondering if any of you have had any experience with it or opinions on it. I'm not planning on doin this to my ta, but we're thinkin of experiment with it in on our beater 95 gmc pickup. It is suppose to increase the efficiency of your engine, and some claim a gain up to 60% in mpg.

Its basically unit that creates hydrogen from water and injects in your air intake. Supposedly, you can make it from wiring, a relay, carbon rods, pvc pipes, plexiglass, and rubber seals. I guess its a simple unit to make yourself.

Here's a few reference websites:
http://www.eagle-research.com/fuelsav/wafld.html
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Fuel_Efficiency_Hydrogen_Injection
http://www.hydrogenht.com/
http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/store/Hydrogen-Boost/

Pretty interesting concept, but I don't know all the pros and cons of it.

[GULLETT17]

has anyone even heard of this? i never had, until about a month or two ago

here's a pretty cool video that shows its construction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e0xdKMY6AI

and the website the video is from:
http://www.thermo1.com/hyboost.htm

[GULLETT17]

:attn:

[hurraquio]

HHO systems work, but here is the down side... RUST!!! your valves, pistons and chanbers get rusty

[GULLETT17]

HHO systems work, but here is the down side... RUST!!! your valves, pistons and chanbers get rusty
thats what i thought . . . there is no prevention of this?

[hurraquio]

yeah just go stainles steel!, but that cost more and it might be weaker, and hard to find.

[hurraquio]

i actulally am waiting to istal on my Beater Honda, but that POS is giving me a boat load of porblems., but its easy dont spend 90 bucks on them because you will get ripped off, i paid a guy 5 bucks for the same materials, just lo pro though. anyhow seems perty simple all you need is an Electrolyzer, some hoses, a T connector, and distilled water with baking soda.

[GULLETT17]

i actulally am waiting to istal on my Beater Honda, but that POS is giving me a boat load of porblems., but its easy dont spend 90 bucks on them because you will get ripped off, i paid a guy 5 bucks for the same materials, just lo pro though. anyhow seems perty simple all you need is an Electrolyzer, some hoses, a T connector, and distilled water with baking soda.
awesome!! well good luck and let me know how it turns out . . . i think me and pops are gonna play around with a homemade system, and see what gains we get. not gonna hurt this old 240000 mile 4.3L v6 pickup! :lol:

[hurraquio]

Rust, i used a simal system before, but My smart ass wasnt using an electrolyzer, i was using a Heated Coil (like the ones on diesel engines) and it gave me a bunch of rust, and Ill tell you what, that gas is flamable and the orange tips is hot as hell. but if you tuch the blue flame, it wont burn you. theres another chemichal that you can use to make it into brown gas, that way you can actually see it if it chaches fire one day. I hope to get around 80MPg on my beater with that mod ill keep you guys posted. and again i will provide some schematics*.

*Fee Involved


J/K no fee just messing around.

[GULLETT17]

Rust, i used a simal system before, but My smart ass wasnt using an electrolyzer, i was using a Heated Coil (like the ones on diesel engines) and it gave me a bunch of rust, and Ill tell you what, that gas is flamable and the orange tips is hot as hell. but if you tuch the blue flame, it wont burn you.
ive heard this . . .thats crazy stuff!
I hope to get around 80MPg on my beater with that mod ill keep you guys posted. and again i will provide some schematics*.

*Fee Involved


J/K no fee just messing around.
WOW! 80 mpg would be amazing. . . i think were aimin in the 30s or 40s!:chuckles: yeah, let us know . . . ill post what we use!!

[hurraquio]

the the simal system is crap, the electrolyzer uses distilled water which might help prevent rust.

[TedsB4Csled]

Keep us posted please!

[GatorSS]

Don't get your hopes up too high.

[Demon_Z28]

its real alright, and there are cars getting 100mpg with it, but as rust is conerned, i havent heard that much about it if its just hydrogen burning and not water. there is even water injection on turbo'd cars which can increase gains of hp and tq. I also heard that the hyrdogen will actually increase performance.

[Frost]

its real alright, and there are cars getting 100mpg with it, but as rust is conerned, i havent heard that much about it if its just hydrogen burning and not water. there is even water injection on turbo'd cars which can increase gains of hp and tq. I also heard that the hyrdogen will actually increase performance.

Water injection only cools IATs nothing more, and if you use much of it, you will KILL HP.

Now meth on the other hand..... :titslap:

[gregersonke]

I've been looking at it myself. You can build your own fairly easily with only 100 bucks in cost. As for the rust, I'm not sure how you can get rust if you run it through a bubbler. If you ran it straight out of the cell where you might get some water going in with it, then yea, that makes sense.

You can use a large peanut jar, 6 Stainless bolts 3 for positive and 3 for negative. Put some baking soda in the water to increase the conductivity of the water. Put a removable tube holder on the top. Then, you want to run this through a bubbler of some sort. Basically, you'd bubble the air through some water in another tube.

The only downside to this is heat. Peanut butter jars can't handle much heat before they melt. The optimum temperature for production is around 120 to 150 degrees. Also, if you build really good cells they will start to take power really fast. At that point you need a regulator for the power.

This is the reason many people Use Stainless steel and or PVC for this. But the Peanut butter jar is a good place to test it.

[TedsB4Csled]

Here's one: http://water4gas.com/2books.htm

[0rion]

Here's one: http://water4gas.com/2books.htm

some one try that and report back. :D

[TedsB4Csled]

There is a review here, but the site only sells e-books. $97 for the two books, then you build it yourself. I have the time if anyone wants to buy the e-books! I am taking a seminar in an electric auto conversion this summer, maybe I'll study this next? LOL! We had a guy here in town who did the bio-diesel conversion so you would run off grease fast food joints were disposing. A friend of mine has a truck running on it. The gov't shut down the guy who did the conversions: they could not tax the drivers for the use of the free fuel.

review: http://www.auto-facts.org/water4gas-scam.html

[Mark8fish]

The whole HHO thing is crap. Do some research on the internet. I takes more power to break the atomic bonds than is recouped by burning H2. What actually helps the engine is the water (vapor) injection, not the burning of the H2. Catapillar did research on this and found that detriment to the machinery was not worth the effort. That is the reason you don't hear about it much, because chemically it is B.S.

[wildbanshee]

yep...i posted a clip from a local news station on the hydro4000 a week or so ago...some gizmo that claims to increase mpg by 60%....for ONLY 1200$. I think its the same deal but with some guages and a prettier package. you ever notice stuff like this is never sold in stores but always with some dude that needs to come to your house and give you a demo with the line...if you get three friends to sell it....

[SpecterGT260]

im about 2 labs courses away from a BS in chemistry if that means anything in the way of credentials. on the surface it sounds like this is a myth spawned out of ignorance about fuel cells, which use hydrogen to produce power forming water, not the other way around. looking at the reduction potentials: http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/chemdata/data-e.htm

hydrogen will NOT oxidize iron. rust, or iron oxide is an oxidized form of iron (not because it has oxygen, oxidized as in lost electrons) in fact, hydrogen gas will help to reduce any oxidized iron in the system. Aluminum will also get reduced. If you are truely injecting hydrogen gas then THIS isnt what is causing the rust.

combustions is just another name for an energetic reaction with oxygen. so when you "burn" hydrogen, you are reacting it with oxygen and forming water. this means you are stealing oxygen from the chamber IF this system works as designed (which i doubt, separation of oxygen and hydrogen is very endergonic). this will result in a rich condition..... you will lose power and fuel economy if it works as intended..... luckily i highly doubt they are injecting much H2 at all.

im going to set this one right up on the shelf next to the turbonator.......

[TedsB4Csled]

BUSTED!!! As they say on Myth Busters. I used to work for gas companies(medical and welding gases NOT crude oil) that sold Hydrogen and there was a super car that ran on H2. It just had an ICE modified to run on Hydrogen. 500 HP! One company I worked for ran a fleet of vehicles on PNG and natural gas like you use in a gas stove. They could fill it up at work or home and go! It was called Naturaline. They did this back in the 70s gas crunch. Soon after the price of gas fell and no one was interested. Here we are again. They were way ahead of their time!

[SpecterGT260]

by "busted" are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?



natural gas is not hydrogen. Hydrogen CAN be used as a fuel source, but as a combustable its incredibly dangerous. also, H2 is, obviously, a gas and is incredibly difficult to store reasonably. a couple "gallons" of it will fill a 55 gallon drum even under pressure. my last professor actually worked for a number of years for honda on their hydrogen fuel cel progect. those cars typically store hydrogen by other means, IE protic liquids.

also, i need to ammend what I said a little bit. H2 burns very energetically.... but its a very hot and explosive burn. not as slow and controlled as gasoline. you lose alot of energy to sound and heat. actually combusting H2 in a motor would probably simulate a lean condition even though you arent burning as much fuel. = detonation. although, unless u tune, you will still be pumping just as much fuel per cycle.

a little more though, you are starting with water, separating it, and then recombining it. no circular process can EVAR be 100% efficient. therefore you are wasting power with this system no matter how you cut it.

propane vehicles have, as u said, been around for ever. my stepdad used to drive a kerosine truck too :)
people do goofy things from time to time, and ur H2 supercar may be one of them. although you are more likely to run it like a diesel than a gasoline engine based on the way hydrogen burns.

[TedsB4Csled]

The H2 car was just a publicity stunt to gain attention for use of gases. But the car did work. Dangerous, yup. Huge tanks on both sides to store fuel...but it was kewl! Sometimes you need to think outside the box. For every success there are many, many failures. I'm glad people try this stuff.

[SpecterGT260]

so..... u were agreeing then?

ya, definitly possible, but i bet a single pass had the wear of a top fuel car ;). in the instance were talking here though i cannot find a single possible reason for this to actually work. again, i think its a distortion of the hydrogen fuel cell thats been embraced by the unknowing populace :)

[gregersonke]

Well, the gist of it within the hydrogen comments. Look around and you will see a number of people already running HHO generators in vehicles. Truckers have been using it for a few years already and they see 10-15 percent gains. Wikipedia has a link.

The idea,

Atkins cycle engines are burning gasoline as lean as they can get away with. However, fuel doesn't burn very well when running very lean. Thus cars like to run a little richer for power. On top of this, if you go too lean you start producing too much NOX and officially become a gross polluter in the eyes of CARB. What the HHO does, is reduce the NOX and increase your power output so that you don't lose any power in the process of creating power.

The ghetto rigg method of this is to put a POT on your 02 sensor and intake temp sensors. You increase the heat on your intake temp to reduce the timing. You bump up the 02 sensor into thinking that the system is running lean. This lets you run lean without any loss of power when running HHO. It's going to require some tuning like many things. But once you get it right, its not uncommon to see your fuel mileage increase by 20-30 percent.

Also, you really don't need to buy an instruction manual of any sort to make this when you can easily look around and find video instructions on Youtube.com and make it yourself. Just look around, its not difficult to make. You'd be harder pressed to install new bushings all over the car than making one of these systems until you get into the sensors.

As for hydrogen storage being difficult. It is in a lot of ways, yet its much safer than Gasoline in other ways. Even mythbusters did a hindenberg test and they found that they couldn't make it ignite unless the skin of the ballon was flammable in itself.

In an accident, hydrogen will dissipate very quickly from the scene going straight up. Gasoline, will ignite and stick to the ground.

[SpecterGT260]

i dont agree with most of what u said there. sounds like fallacitical logic. mythbusters and wiki are not the end all authorities on how things work. neither gasoline nor hydrogen will combust without oxygen, and gasoline liquid is not flamable at all. only the vapor is flamable. the storage is more an issue of space. 1 gallon of water does not produce a whole lot of h2 gas.

the issue of running lean is not the ammount of NOx that is produced. nitrogenous polutants are produce with every gram of gasoline burned. by that logic, the richer the more nox (hence the black smoke u see on rich cars). The catalytic converter, however, works at a specific temp range (around 500 usually). A lean condition will result in inefficient catalytic activity, but so will a rich condition. the lean will cause temps to rise, and the rich will cause them to fall. This is why LS1s (and im sure many other motors) have a COT (cat over temp) setting to run extra fuel when the cat is getting too hot. the REAL issue with running lean is the high temps in the chamber and the threat of knocking.

as far as youtube....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6YYUOx6fBU
@ 1:32 they clearly, even tho it is HHO fuel, have 1 hydrogen and 2 oxygens in their schematic.... these people did their homework.....
the buildup is also ridiculous. ive done the hydrogen-oxygen separation in labs several times.... you can do it at surprisingly low voltanges...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfr-YXNEN0g&feature=related

this guy.... all he is doing is adding water to his chamber (remember, hydrogen + oxygen + flame/spark = water) his gain is also unconfirmed, he is complaining about things that are intrinsic to his design, and his description of the video is so ridiculous it made my head hurt. you cannot simply add or subtract carbons and oxygens from sugars. "i discovered sugar has everythign we need for gasoline"..... yeah... so does ur fat head... its not a simple problem, if it was one of the thousands of chemists working on this would have figured it out, why? because they are working on this VERY problem. some Dbag in a saturn isnt going to fix it.

this guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI5YbmCvp_I&feature=related

bases his whole argument on the fact that a revved motor will increase its vacuum.....

once again, you are taking water, converting it to its elements, and then converting it back into water. we cannot do this with 100% efficiency. this is complete crap

[TedsB4Csled]

...and gasoline liquid is not flammable at all.

Care to test that? I'll give you the match and watch from a distance.



Do YOU have any suggestions for alternative fuels for us laymen?
:Poke:

[SpecterGT260]

lol, actually yes, if you wait for the vapor to settle, liquid gasoline will put out a match. im sorry... i thought it was common knowledge.....


and yes, the hydrogen fuel cell will be a great alternative fuel source. the mechanism of the above method doesnt work at all. but hydrogen fuel cells do.

and im still confused.... uve been disagreeing with me this whole time? i couldnt figure it out based on ur responses

[SpecterGT260]

this is the best answer i could find (found it while searching for a video.... which i came up empty handed)

"Fumes", for the purposes of this answer, are gasoline vapors in an oxygen-rich environment (e.g., air).

Liquid gasoline by itself will usually "drown" a lit match. You need oxygen to sustain a fire, so if there aren't any fumes, the flame will die as the match becomes submerged, and loses its oxygen supply.

If there are gasoline fumes present, however, you'll lose a bit more than your eyebrows when the fireball comes.

Note that this is how we get cars to run -- by injecting a fine, vapor-like spray of gasoline into an air-filled cylinder.

anything we think of combusting NEEDS oxygen to do so. or some other reactive media. oxygen just happens to react very exothermically with a wide range of things in the presence of an energy source (spark). if you are familiar with phase diagrams (think HS chem) there is a very large activation energy, but once achived the reaction is extremely favorable.


along the tune of the last line of that quote:
its the reason they are always looking for better ways to mix fuel and air. carbs did a sucky job for the most part. they could partially vaporize fuel, but relied on the turmoil of the cylender to finish the job... which it didnt do. FI cars use high pressure spray to get the job done and do it much better thus diminishing the surface area of gasoline in respect to the oxygen present. remember, gas and oxygen must meet and be ignited for the reaction to happen. in liquid gasoline, the air/liquid interface is an almost infinitly smaller reaction area as compared to a vapor/vapor mix reaction. the liquid surface should technically feed a fire.... but not to much more of an extent than the wood its burning on.

gasoline is also a very volatile liquid, which many people take to mean explosive.... but no, it just means it has a high vapor pressure, gasoline sitting in a high walled container with no ventillation will build up fumes and will ignite in the presence of fire.

[TedsB4Csled]

lol, actually yes, if you wait for the vapor to settle, liquid gasoline will put out a match. im sorry... i thought it was common knowledge.....

I know it is, J/K, but a lot of others won't get it. I know you've got brains, and know a lot more than I do about this stuff. But, do you have any ideas or thoughts on solutions to any H2 related theory? What are your thoughts on fuel cells? Bio-diesel, that works. It seems to me, if we had scientists on the Manhattan Project that could get a chain reaction out of atoms, we could certainly use H2 (or maybe something else) to increase fuel economy. Ever heard of the Pogue Carburetor? Nikola Tesla? Seriously.

[TedsB4Csled]

and im still confused.... uve been disagreeing with me this whole time? i couldnt figure it out based on ur responses

I am not disagreeing, not everything, a passionate conversation for the sake of alternative fuels. Helps me and others understand. I appreciate your thoughts and info.

[SpecterGT260]

lol, its cool. I mentioned fuel cells, but its in an edit so maybe u didnt catch it. we studied those a little this year (but i knew it wasnt on the test so i didnt study it hard.... lol)

the key issue is efficiency (which they have, but.....) and storage. H2 gas IS very dangerous. just like anything else it NEEDS a "spark" in quotes because the metaphorical spark can be just heat in some cases.... but also many times an actual pre-existing flame, heat source, or energy input of some other time, in order to actually blow.

theres a few different types of fuel cells, some work at high temps but NONE work by combustion. its just redox initiated by electrical input. basically, the combination of o2 and h2 release alot of energy. they work with just like a battery would, with an anode and cathode. just that the batteries we use are typically lead and sulfuric acid rather than hydrogen and oxygen. wiki says the difference is that here the reactants are consumed... this is true of batteries too....they are just self contained. the end result is nice and cheap electrical current, and a big ass electric motor moves ur car.


EDIT:
i think i went on a tangent there a little bit..... my bad.
the other issue is storage, aside form being dangerous, H2 takes up a LOT of space. i cant remember the different ways they are trying to store it, but its in liquid form, and in a way that is easily attainable QUICKLY (which electrifying water is not a good way to get it FAST nor in large amounts)

[TedsB4Csled]

Also in freezing cold days, I believe the fuel cells need to be heated? Or is it the actual H2? In order for it to function. Did you study PEMs?

I'm taking an electric car conversion this summer, just for fun. Just love the immediate torque they can put out! Most people don't realize electric cars came before ICEs.

Also another off the wall piece of info; Exxon, Mobil and the like purchased many patents for carburetors that inventors claimed could get high mileage. When initially they regarded them as frauds. The Pogue carb for instance got 100 mpg(claimed), was then called a fraud, but yet Exxon(purchased) owns the patent? It's all here if you look: http://www.uspto.gov/main/profiles/acadres.htm

We are a nation getting screwed. You never know who to believe, but those with money have a way of skewing perceptions.

[SpecterGT260]

i doubt it was real anyways..... those patants cant really be enforced internationally. some french dude would be cruising around right now in it instead of some dorky smart car. :) also yeah, fuel cells operate at specific temp ranges depending on the type. some of them need to be REAL hot. really, the only reason we looked at them is because the prof worked for honda for several years on their HFC projects. also, i didnt know before that civics were so named for the fuel mixing process used in early honda motors or CVC lol.... but it should be noted that this was an economy process.... not performance process.

as far as PEM.... dont knwo what u mean without googling it or seeign it spelt out. Im a chemist, not an engineer. I can understand whats going on within alot of what the engineers are doing, but the study of the actual parts themselves not so much. u wanna talk reaction coordinates, enthalpies, entropies, free energy, quantum mechanics, statistical thermodynamics, im game. :)

[gregersonke]

Wait

I went out and found this...

#
# "Jim Cash" wrote the following on Roadfly.com, "The Nitrogen Oxide emissions come from running a lean burn engine. This is good in that it lowers CO emissions but can cause the NO issue in the higher temperatures of a lean mixture operation. The Cats are there to clean up the NO issue

and

At ambient temperatures, the oxygen and nitrogen gases in air will not react with each other. In an internal combustion engine, combustion of a mixture of air and fuel produces combustion temperatures high enough to drive endothermic reactions between atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen in the flame

The idea I get from hydrogen and oxygen, is that they will increase the combustion of lean burn which should decrease the Nox because there will be less oxygen to react with because you are increasing the efficiency of the burn right?

You say that hydrogen is very combustible, that combined with the lean issues of most vehicles where knock occurs. Knock is generally caused by more than one explosion occuring in the cylinder or a miss fire right?

If hydrogen increased the combustibility of Gasoline going into the cyclinder during lean cycle. Wouldn't that increase power and let you go even leaner on the fuel burn??? It would require shortening the spark advance. Which on the ls1 is around 20-30 percent right? Least according to my obd2 scanner.

I remember, a researcher who was experimenting with natural gas injection. Not to say that everything on discovery is real. But he was able to increase the combustion efficiency of ICE up to 80 percent.

As for videos, I was commenting that you can learn how to make the basic design and even use the electricity to build your own Generator.

http://youtube.com/user/ZeroFossilFuel
You can learn most of that through this guy and thinking about it a little. It's really not rocket science.

I'm commenting that its not difficult to make your own HHO generator. While the above video may be a rather advanced version. Its gives you an idea of what the basic process is.

As for the vacuum that the guy was commenting about. Hydrogen like water when it first starts to boil likes to stay in the water like little bubbles. Using the vacuum from the engine would make the water more likely to boil that out. Much like water boiling easier at higher elevations requiring the use of a pressure cooker.

Most people usually use distilled or filtered water combined with baking soda for use with HHO. Not every method is perfect.

If you could go 20 percent leaner and only had to expend 40-50 percent of that on electricity generation wouldn't you be ahead?

Though, I dunno if I'd try it on my ls1. I'm happy that it has always has and still continues to get 24-25mpg with an autotragic no less. All stock and proud of it. 120 thousand miles on it and still doesn't burn oil between the 10k synthetic oil changes.

But on my daily driver Honda and its mad 1.5L of raw power. I'd consider it just for the challenge and fun of the project that would probably take a weekend and be fun to do. Also, see HHO bombs, cool videos on Youtube.

[hurraquio]

i have the ebooks now, guess what i paid ten bucks for em!!!! lol, but i still havent had the time to figure them out. any smart genuses out there? ill tottaly comply! if you in return share the info. (hope this discussion isnt illegal!, if it is I appologize :) )

[gregersonke]

My last post has to be approved by moderator or something.

Anyways, while it works to be approved.

http://www.youtube.com/user/zerofossilfuel
http://www.youtube.com/user/madscientist

Many use Baking soda added to the water.

I'm not a chemist or an engineer, but I can grasp a theory and converge ideas pretty well. Though, I'm more of a Popperist about it.

[TedsB4Csled]

i have the ebooks now, guess what i paid ten bucks for em!!!! lol, but i still havent had the time to figure them out. any smart genuses out there? ill tottaly comply! if you in return share the info. (hope this discussion isnt illegal!, if it is I appologize :) )

PM me I'll bite.

[gregersonke]

i have the ebooks now, guess what i paid ten bucks for em!!!! lol, but i still havent had the time to figure them out. any smart genuses out there? ill tottaly comply! if you in return share the info. (hope this discussion isnt illegal!, if it is I appologize :) )

Ditto on the PM, I'm kinda curious what these instructions look like.

[SpecterGT260]

Ok, im going to address this piece by piece. If I oversimplify or overdigress to the point that i insult your intelligence its not my intent. just trying to be very clear.

Wait

I went out and found this...

#
# "Jim Cash" wrote the following on Roadfly.com, "The Nitrogen Oxide emissions come from running a lean burn engine. This is good in that it lowers CO emissions but can cause the NO issue in the higher temperatures of a lean mixture operation. The Cats are there to clean up the NO issue

and

At ambient temperatures, the oxygen and nitrogen gases in air will not react with each other. In an internal combustion engine, combustion of a mixture of air and fuel produces combustion temperatures high enough to drive endothermic reactions between atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen in the flame

This is the actual graph we were presented in class
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/2440/S342_1_003i.jpg
dark line is w/o cat, bottom with cat. its against speed, but the true independent axis would be cat temperature here.

I cant find the exact cycle we were given, but in a nutshell I believe NOx is first reduced in the catalytic converter. This oxidizes the metal catalyst in the honey comb. Then carbon monoxide comes through and gets oxidized to CO2, which reduces the catalyst back to its original state. and the process repeats.

as you can see, at different temps the cat is better or less able to catalyze different reactions. for CO, at higher temps you actually produce MORE CO than you would without the cat at all, this has to do with the NOx available. at higher temps the ratios are off and the metal catalyst isnt in the right state to react with the CO as much. so really, yes, a lean engine will produce more NOx, but its because of the efficiency of the cat at higher temps due to the lean condition.


The idea I get from hydrogen and oxygen, is that they will increase the combustion of lean burn which should decrease the Nox because there will be less oxygen to react with because you are increasing the efficiency of the burn right?

You say that hydrogen is very combustible, that combined with the lean issues of most vehicles where knock occurs. Knock is generally caused by more than one explosion occuring in the cylinder or a miss fire right?

Knock is a PRE-detonation of the fuel. not multiple detonation. its also called dieseling and diesel motors run on this concept. basically, the fuel mixture gets hot enough that when compressed it ignites before the spark plug zaps it, if this happens BEFORE the crank has rolled over, the force will be OPPOSED to the rotation of your pistons (ie, trying to reverse the crank). 1 cyl cannot fight off 3-7 more cyls, so it still goes over, but it is incredibly hard on a motor. in older motors its easy to hear the piston rattling around in there, which is wher you get the term knock or "ping". this is an excellent way to fry pistons and destroy seals.

hydrogen is a very very HOT burn, it would be extremely unwise to combine this in appreciable ammounts with gasoline. your motor cannot handle those temps. its kinda like running nitrous with no additional fuel. you can even melt piston heads straight through. IF burned in a controlled way it WOULD make more power, but hydrogen is not a slow burn like gasoline. this is why we use higher octane fuels. the higher octane does NOTHING except burn slower. it doesnt make more power, doesnt burn cleaner, more efficiently, it burns slower. thats all. therefore it resists knock and you are able to run more stenuous conditions in the motor.



If hydrogen increased the combustibility of Gasoline going into the cyclinder during lean cycle. Wouldn't that increase power and let you go even leaner on the fuel burn??? It would require shortening the spark advance. Which on the ls1 is around 20-30 percent right? Least according to my obd2 scanner.

H2 wont increase the combusability of gasoline. it itself will combust and yes, this can be used to generate power but its more energetic than your motor willl handle. once again, you will go hot, you will burn something up. H2 is also not a practical fuel source in these things because it just takes too freakin long to get it out of water.





I remember, a researcher who was experimenting with natural gas injection. Not to say that everything on discovery is real. But he was able to increase the combustion efficiency of ICE up to 80 percent.

hydrogen is not natural gas. natural gas fuels are things like propane and kerosine. We looked at those too.... if i remember right they ARE much more efficient than gasoline (and much less than H2 fuel cells for that matter) I think that was more of a cost of production issue.




As for videos, I was commenting that you can learn how to make the basic design and even use the electricity to build your own Generator.

http://youtube.com/user/ZeroFossilFuel
You can learn most of that through this guy and thinking about it a little. It's really not rocket science.

I'm commenting that its not difficult to make your own HHO generator. While the above video may be a rather advanced version. Its gives you an idea of what the basic process is.

As for the vacuum that the guy was commenting about. Hydrogen like water when it first starts to boil likes to stay in the water like little bubbles. Using the vacuum from the engine would make the water more likely to boil that out. Much like water boiling easier at higher elevations requiring the use of a pressure cooker.

maybe this isnt what ur saying... but getting hydrogen from water is not a matter of boiling it. the system he had, at 1.4V will draw such little grams H2/sec that he really wasnt accomplishing anything. i breezed through that vid, but the fact that his car drew a higher vac through those tubes on throttle is a no brainer. that video was similar to billy maze on late night infomercials showing you how amazing oxyclean is with a digitized swipe of the camera and OMFGWTF its clean! pretty much gimmick




Most people usually use distilled or filtered water combined with baking soda for use with HHO. Not every method is perfect.

If you could go 20 percent leaner and only had to expend 40-50 percent of that on electricity generation wouldn't you be ahead?

Though, I dunno if I'd try it on my ls1. I'm happy that it has always has and still continues to get 24-25mpg with an autotragic no less. All stock and proud of it. 120 thousand miles on it and still doesn't burn oil between the 10k synthetic oil changes.

But on my daily driver Honda and its mad 1.5L of raw power. I'd consider it just for the challenge and fun of the project that would probably take a weekend and be fun to do. Also, see HHO bombs, cool videos on Youtube.

one last thing:
HHO was developed for use in plasma cutters and industrial purposes. that alone should tell you something about its properties and make you raise an eyebrow before pumping it into ur engine on the advice of youtube. its kinda like that vaporized alcohol thing with CO2. not a complete hoax, but a complete waste of time

[GULLETT17]

awesome feedback on this subject guys! im learning a lot about the scientific and sometimes debateable (sp?) facts about this process, which was definately the main purpose that I originally started this thread! with all the "positive" info i found, its good to hear the "real" affects, negatives, and the actual science involved here.

[gregersonke]

at 1.4V ya that would be a complete waste of time. However, at 14volts with 25-35amps. You'd be producing several liters a minute more than enough to supplement a larger engine inefficient combustion.

http://www.hydrogen.org/Knowledge/w-i-energiew-eng2.html


H2 wont increase the combusability of gasoline. it itself will combust and yes, this can be used to generate power but its more energetic than your motor willl handle. once again, you will go hot, you will burn something up. H2 is also not a practical fuel source in these things because it just takes too freakin long to get it out of water

Doesn't hydrogen have 112 octane rating? According to the sources, hydrogen has a Auto-ignition temperature of 570 ˚C temperature. Where as Gasoline has a 282 ˚C auto ignition temperature. Diesel is supposedly even less than that. Using fuel as the catalyst to ignite small amounts of h2 for increased energy seems like a decent idea when you think about it. You are right in that the timing will need to be adjusted due to the higher flame front speed from Hydrogen.

Actually, I found a resource that mixed natural gas and hydrogen to get the best emissions.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JETPEZ000122000001000135000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

You'll have to use your school research database or local large library to get access to the full report.

But the Gist of it by adding 10 percent hydrogen to the mix they achieved significant gains in efficiency. at 15 percent they saw even more. At 20 percent they didn't see any gains. They also discovered that the optimum timing advance was reduced because of the faster flame fronts of hydrogen.

You can get a fair amount of hydrogen out of Water electrolysis. You can't get enough to fully supplement the cars gas. But, according to theory, you can increase the optimum combustion efficiency.

[SpecterGT260]

were running circles. H2 contains no hydrocarbons. therefore no octane rating. u may be confused with E85 which is in the 110 octane range.

it is much hotter and more explosive than gasoline. yes, it sounds like a good idea.... but so does the turbonator.

you need to keep in mind your total system. you are burning hydrogen, which burns HOT (in fact, hot enough to sustain its own autocombustion temps for further injection thus perpetuating knock... but ive got a better reason...) it burns well over hot enough to autocombust gasoline. you have gasoline and H2 mixed together, you only need one of them to ignite to cause a problem.

to ur first statement:
14 volts at any amperage is not going to produce liters a minute. In the lab i work in we regularly run electrophoresis and one of the things that occurs is the sparation of water into its elements. its not a part of the process, but being able to see the bubbles as an indicator the apparatus is working is pretty nifty. we typically run between 80-90 volts and 30-40 amps for our experiments. they last about a half hour to hour depending on what were doing. we use less than 250mL of fluid. we cannot easily measure the liquid volume lost, its very small (not that we would anyways, its irrelevant). The ammount of gas released is directly proportional to the surface are of the electrode. with a hip-shot estimate I would say you would need over a mile of wire coiled into your apparatus in order to produce liters per minute in the power levels you are talking about. Its a VERY slow process: which brings me back to my main point. A water jug in your car is by NO means a reasonable way to go about doing this. another point is that you are, once again, going from water, to elements, to water. a circular process CANNOT produce net energy as oulined by the laws of thermodynamics. this is why we turn to fuel cells, which do not use electrolysis and combustion, but rather redox reactions and produce electricity. this is not a circular process, and the waste product is still water.

to your link:
Engine. A Crusader T7400 spark ignited engine (based on the
GM 454 engine, best known as the Chevrolet Big Block) was
adapted for gaseous fuels.

they are not using gasoline. Hythane (a commercial name) is the fuel formed when reacting hydrogen with natural gas, usually taken to mean methane, but can also be propane and kerosine (probably methane in this case though since theyd o not elaborate in the article). the ironic thing is that gasoline is not a gaseous fuel :) this motor has been adapted to run in the conditions present. their schematic also shows a series of large hydrogen tanks, also not something you would want to lug around in your car, used to achieve the desired mixtures.

with the exception of my first post which i promptly ammended, ive been saying that there is a lot of energy in hydrogen. this does not mean that pumping it into your gasoline engine is at all a good idea or will yeild ANY positive results.

this article is useful for research but almost completely inappropriate for this discussion. they are using a different fuel source, an engine modified for the conditions of hydrogen (and lets face it, nat gas is just as harsh as H2), and they are using volumes of hydrogen that are just unreasonable for any consumer to posess.

[gregersonke]

were running circles. H2 contains no hydrocarbons. therefore no octane rating. u may be confused with E85 which is in the 110 octane range.

it is much hotter and more explosive than gasoline. yes, it sounds like a good idea.... but so does the turbonator.

you need to keep in mind your total system. you are burning hydrogen, which burns HOT (in fact, hot enough to sustain its own autocombustion temps for further injection thus perpetuating knock... but ive got a better reason...) it burns well over hot enough to autocombust gasoline. you have gasoline and H2 mixed together, you only need one of them to ignite to cause a problem.

If you watch a number of the videos by ZeroFossilfuel on the Youtube link. He details out some rather large coil packs that are capable of absorbing 100 amps of current at 14 volts once they get up to temperature. Water mixed with baking soda as you know does increase conductivity with temperature. More conductivity, means that it will absorb more current. When you run an HHO generator it will gain temperature. Optimum production seems to be right under boiling point.

There is a patent out there that puts it under pressure and does this process at significantly higher temps. But in a car, I wouldn't want that much steam anywhere.

If you were running 250ml of water I'm willing to bet that while you may have been trying to pump that much power into it your water certainly wasn't absorbing it unless you had it at a rather high temp and managed to fill the water with something that made it very conductive towards the production of hydrogen. You could use salt but then you'd be making chlorine gas along with the H2.

Look up more of the videos posted under the zerofossilfuel user on Youtube he even shows how much production he's getting at different temperatures. Very interesting.

Also type in hydrogen for youtube there are a number of cool hydrogen generators out there just from video.

[SpecterGT260]

electrophoresis doesnt work unless you have an electrolyte present to carry the charge across the electrodes. :think: so i hope ur willing to bet that, because im broke right now and would love to take that bet.
nowhere did i say these things cannot be done. what i have been saying is that the application to consumer automobiles is just absurd. no tests being performed, in a way that can at all be deemed credible, has used a gasoline engine. the method for obtaining hydrogen requires excessively large space or excessively large ammounts of power. Im sorry, but your youtube guy is is a starry eyed thinker who is missing some very essential peices of this puzzle. conductivity in liquids is directly related to ion concentration. with temperature you only drive the bicarb eq toward ionization but this effect is finite.

this has nothing to do with absorbing current. in any cell, the electrolyte does nothing but carry current from one electrode to the other. this current does nothing but replenish electrons lost by the oxidized species to perpetuate the reaction. at the anode side water is oxidized yeilding oxygen gas and H+, at the cathode the H+ is reduced to hydrogen gas. water itself will, to an extremely small degree, form a stable equilibrium in the absense of electricity. the reason the reaction stops is because after O^2- gives up electrons, there is noting left to accept them. in electrolysis the anode takes them away. they are brought back around to react with hydronium. in this way, no electricity is absorbed, electrons are just shuttled around and the process is very much catalytic.


we are talking about, not about the ability to produce hydrogen, but the viability of doing it in a vehicle by zapping water. it is not a reasonable approach. youtube is not a reliable source of information on any level, and the MOST important fact that we keep ignoring is that:
THIS PROCESS IS THERMODYNAMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! you are attempting to take a substance, input energy to transform it, and then let it spontaneously react in such a way to produce net energy. This is impossible. i believe its the 2nd law... but i dotn know the laws in order off the top of my head. basically no real process is 100% efficient, therefore in a circular process such as this there will always be a net loss of power. this is then similar to the mythbusters perpetual energy special.... they had one where they used a motor and tried to use its own momentum to charge a batter to keep it going. it eventually will wind down. so basically, the water, to gas, to water process has a net cost of energy, coupling this with gasoline burn will not make a gasoline engine more efficient. 3-1 does not equal 4.

fuel cells use the fact that the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen is an energetically favorable when catalyzed. Nobody is even considering starting from water for the reason stated above. but there are non-aqueous solutions that are very hydrogen rich which can be used as reasonable storage for hydrogen with a positive net yeild of energy. fuel cells use the redox couple of hydrogen and oxygen to create a potential and carry a charge. this charge is the thermodynamic equivelant of igniting hydrogen. its just in the form of electricity.

[hurraquio]

PM me I'll bite.


PM me your email! i hope you can understad them all they talk about is how much money youre gonna save and dont get to the designs. I'm more of a do work by the pictures guy than reading it out really lol

[gregersonke]

THIS PROCESS IS THERMODYNAMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! you are attempting to take a substance, input energy to transform it, and then let it spontaneously react in such a way to produce net energy. This is impossible. i believe its the 2nd law... but i dotn know the laws in order off the top of my head. basically no real process is 100% efficient, therefore in a circular process such as this there will always be a net loss of power. this is then similar to the mythbusters perpetual energy special.... they had one where they used a motor and tried to use its own momentum to charge a batter to keep it going. it eventually will wind down. so basically, the water, to gas, to water process has a net cost of energy, coupling this with gasoline burn will not make a gasoline engine more efficient. 3-1 does not equal 4.

fuel cells use the fact that the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen is an energetically favorable when catalyzed. Nobody is even considering starting from water for the reason stated above. but there are non-aqueous solutions that are very hydrogen rich which can be used as reasonable storage for hydrogen with a positive net yeild of energy. fuel cells use the redox couple of hydrogen and oxygen to create a potential and carry a charge. this charge is the thermodynamic equivelant of igniting hydrogen. its just in the form of electricity.

We aren't talking about producing everything an engine needs. We are talking about producing only 10 to 15 percent. You are 100 percent correct in that a 1 to 1 ratio of hydrogen burning to hydrogen production will lose power. What we are going after, is that huge gap in percentage where gasoline is burning at its most inefficient state and increasing that. Typical ICE engine runs around 25 to 30 percent. If we get that up to 40 or 50 before power generation costs we should be ahead. Hydrogen more readily mixes with air which should make it more readily mix with gasoline.

Water injection would be different, because it would be increasing the amount of water given based on the load/rpm of the engine. HHO production which is producing O2 and H2 at a constant or variable rate based on how much current you give it. Theoretically should work for those us who drive 30k plus a year and spend most of our time at cruising speed.

[SpecterGT260]

why would the mixing of 2 gasses affect the mixing with a liquid? hydrogen has no special affinity for air. If it did, it would be pulled out of the gas phase and disolve well before it would "help" oxygen mix with the gasoline.

to get back onto topic, yes, hydrogen may in theory increase efficiency of a fuel burning engine. but it is not in any way, shape, and/or form increasing the efficiency of the fuel burn. its supplying its own energy, consuming its own oxygen.

In order to make any use of this you need a readily available source of hydrogen. tanks are out of the question, you can run down a barrel of pressurized hydrogen in a car in a few miles. you need something hydrogen rich stored in liquid form.

water is not it. I dont know how many times I have to tell you, 2%, 5%, 90%, Kobe Briant's 110%, any process with a net loss of power will not supplement another. you have to show that the energy that the engine is required to put into the aparatus to obtain your fuel is made up by burning the fuel, and that there is excess power remaining to perform some work. you are attempting to link 2 processes. they may seem, logically, to coincide but they DO NOT.


process 1: burning hydrogen in an engine increases the engines efficiency
this is true to a point. but you are not increasing fuel burn efficiency, you are increading engine output per unit fuel consumed. this does not take into account bulk hydrogen consumed.

process 2: hydrogen can be created from water, which, unless figi, is cheap as free.

the key problem with linking these:
your cost of fuel will go down because you are using less fuel to make similar ammounts of power. but are you making enough of your substitute fuel per energy input to make this worthwhile? no. no, you are not. hydrogen production vs combustion has a net loss of energy, and as stated above it does NOTHING to affect the oxygen/gasoline burn stoichiometrics. it is simply providing its own energy to the overall system.

since hydrogen production and burn results in a net loss of power, youre fuel burning engine must make up this gap.

its like if i were to add 5 gallons of kerosine to my engine and 5 gallons of gasoline. i went 300 miles on this take where on 10 gal of gasoline I went 200. more efficient? well, tell me how much you paid for kerosine first... then we will decide if you increased efficiency.

Now, to address these youtube videos. nobody is producing hydrogen large scale. even the HHO machine is hose fed and highly pressurizes the hydrogen it makes to make it last, its shoots out a very very small jet stream of hydrogen and oxygen. it is not producting liters per minute. that sort of production would require massive surface area and a very large water source. the videos we see are producing trace ammounts of hydrogen gas... and not even injecting it, using vacuum to pull it off to where they are
probably getting more water vapor than anything else.




to the OP:
there is no way to make a practical hydrogen burning system in a gasoline engine because of:
the size necessary to produce sufficient ammounts of hydrogen
the energy cost of trying to convert hydrogen from water
the temperatures involved in the process will kill a gasoline engine.

[gregersonke]

I don't know where you are getting such low production numbers. Even the guy I posted was pushing about two liters per minute at 98 degrees F on his system. Showed it on video as a test even after going through a water bubbler and no vacuum. Even posted his results 1.76 LPM HHO at 382W or 13.19V, 29amps, 382W, 4.61 ml/min/watt. Work from there and see what you get.

http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9DFE7E11652346B3 is a list of all his tests.

I'm kinda curious, how you guys were using 250Ml worth of water with such a massive amount of current and the water wasn't boiling outright. I'm quite surprised you didn't make it explode because 90 volts is enough to spark if the electrodes were close enough in conductive water. I could see that much current working for maybe 25L. I'm also kind of curious how big your transformer was if you were pumping that kind of DC power into it. The conversion cost of going from a/c to d/c then into a gas would be prohibitively expensive

Regardless, even if everything on Youtube isn't true, I'm willing to try it. I've seen enough positive results to give it a shot. Plus, I want to be able to make HHO balloon bombs at parties and what not. Just fill em, tie em hang em around the party and then when you want to liven up the party. Boom, boom, boom.

[SpecterGT260]

its standard electrophoresis..... simple agar gel suspended in a tris base solution..... there are thousands of these performed daily..... im sorry man, but you dont seem to understand the input required to separate massive ammounts of gas. its entirely impractical

[SpecterGT260]

i watched his record video. he is running the gasses together. he is producing 3 moles of gas per unit volume. 2 of those are hydrogen. 1 is oxygen. 2/3s of what he gained was actual hydrogen. and when you said "liters" i was taking at as a unit of measure more than well.... 2.... i guess technically that is "liters per minute" but i was taking it to mean at least 10. think about it though, in an engine displacing at MINIMUM 1.8L (just typical honda motor for comparative reasons) at 1000rpm its displacing 1800 liters in each minute. he had 1.8 liters of gas produced per minute, 2/3s of that are hydrogen, the other 1/3 is oxygen (which 1/3 is roughly atmospheric concentration as well, which is convenient) so at any given cylce at anything above idle (ie, when ur actually moving) he is making 0.1% hydrogen for his mixture. how exactly can you argue that he is doing anything at all to affect the performance of that motor? .1% is trace levels. theres already hydrogen in the atmosphere in levels slightly lower than that.........

[TedsB4Csled]

What are your thoughts on this; http://ashevillecamaroclub.hostsnake.com/pvc.html

nothing to do with H2, but still...

[gregersonke]

Wait, let me convert that into cubic feet, then into gallons. Something isn't adding up correctly. Even using my old auto shop teachers calculation of 10,000 gallons of air for every gallon of gas. That would be 1 gallon of fuel for every 21 minutes on a 1.8 liter engine. Even at cruising speeds that doesn't fit the bill.

I think I found the problem we have to also look at pressure in the intake manifold. Because an engine isn't going to always consume it's maximum capacity worth of air unless at WOT and even then, its limited by the flow capacity of the intake manifold. Then, you need to divide that by the 14.6 times mass air for the 1 part fuel ratio

However, I think it is safe to say that it would be easier to work from fuel consumption backwards to figure out how much air a vehicle is consuming. Rather than guessing from the size of the engine, rpm, intake manifold flow, and pressure in the intake manifold.

Lets take something along the lines of a typical 1.5L engine to make things simple. Lets say 35mpg at 70mph. This would equate to 1 gallon of fuel being used every 30 minutes during which time we would make roughly 30 liters of oxygen and 60 liters of hydrogen to be injected into the system with a ratio of 2:1 mixed in whatever calculation we get for air. Now, part the reason I didn't go down the science route is because my memorization of math formulas sucks. I remember some of the chemistry stuff like moles and little about stoic, but its a faded memory of so long ago. So I'll leave it to you to be fair on this one..

Have a good nite.. I'm enjoying the learning.

[TedsB4Csled]

We have a winner! Yes, a car that runs on water!!! I did not believe it, but it's true. It's called a boat! Get it!

C'mon made you smile!?

[SpecterGT260]

greg, rpm aside, a motor will displace nearly its total volume regardless of conditions. also, the hydrogen is competing for space just like the normal air, so any flow restrictions will affect both equally. Even IF we say the motor is only pulling half its volume per sweep, .9L x 1000rpm is 900 liters of total volume displaced in a minute. 15/16ths, or more precisely 14.7/15.7ths at cruising afr, of this is not fuel (you dont devide by 14.7, you multiply by the ratio of air to total mixture volume) so we lose a little over 50 liters in that minute that is comprised of vaporized fuel (this is EXTREMELY rough estimation). you then increased your hydrogen percentage to 1.8lpm /840 lpm which is 0.21% hydrogen factoring in lost volume to gasoline and assuming the motor "inhales" only half its displacement per cycle

in reality functional displaced volume is pretty close to actual motor displacement.


this whole thing is a nice theory... but there are severe problems with the application.

[FUELS94]

i have the ebooks now, guess what i paid ten bucks for em!!!! lol, but i still havent had the time to figure them out. any smart genuses out there? ill tottaly comply! if you in return share the info. (hope this discussion isnt illegal!, if it is I appologize :) )


hurraquio if you don't mine emailing me a copy of that so I can take a look at it myself. Might try it out on my truck. muentesv@lha1.navy.mil

[wildbanshee]

Just read St. Lucie County Police is putting two of the hydro4000 units on two vehicles to see if it works....if i see something in the paper ill pop in the article.

[FUELS94]

Just read St. Lucie County Police is putting two of the hydro4000 units on two vehicles to see if it works....if i see something in the paper ill pop in the article.


Keep us updated....Thanks

[az-ben]

My neighbor put a similar device on his heads/mild cam fuel injected 5.0 mustang.

He has the hydrogen producing canister venting the gas to his throttle body. He also has a potentiometer that plugs into maf sensor and lowers its voltage to keep the computer from richening fuel curve back up on him. Lastly, he has insulated his O2 sensors.

He said this simple looking system took him from 25 mpg to 40 mpg or so, and he is still experimenting. This is second hand, so take it at face value. Once I get my camaro back on the road (needs flywheel/clutch), I will try this out and report back. I am waiting on my 'economic stimulus' check to be mailed still....

Ben in AZ
P.S. He is already in the process of making a new canister that will theoretically produce more hydrogen.

[abqz28]

I have a friend who helped me install this on a '94 mazda 2.3L pickup.
Mileage went from 24mpg to almost 32mpg. About a 25% increase.
The site is water4gas.com, you can find the online books on how to do this along with the parts needed.


http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii101/hamp_urmp/DSCN0100.jpg
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii101/hamp_urmp/DSCN0090.jpg

[abqz28]

P.S. He is already in the process of making a new canister that will theoretically produce more hydrogen.
my friend used the "charged water" method and got a 70% increase in mileage, up from the 35% increase using the electrolysis method.

[GULLETT17]

my friend used the "charged water" method and got a 70% increase in mileage, up from the 35% increase using the electrolysis method.
wow awesome info!!! good you hear some "real" results with this!! keep us updated if you or your friend have any issues with it!

[SpecterGT260]

sorry bro, that is STILL electrolysis. and a 70% increase in mileage? you're insane. for the sake of anyone around here still thinking please stop propagating this crap.... this isnt at all new technology. this same thing was out in the 70s as well.... didnt work then... doesnt work now.

[abqz28]

I know that it is still electrolysis and browns gas is used. 70% is going from 28 mpg to about 49-50mpg.

Now I'm not saying its going to do this on your camaro, I'm saying that on a pre odbII car its gonna be simple and effective.

[SpecterGT260]

ok, lets get this straight right here and now. lots of confusion on this subject. brown's gas is not A gas. it is the product of electrolysis which is a 2:1 mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. as per the reasoning before, since it is not injected but simply vented into the chamber, you are affecting less than .1% of the mixture at low rpm (about half of what a normal car would be at the highway) so we could even say .05%, 1/3 of that isnt even hydrogen, its oxygen. since over 20% of the atmosphere is oxygen anyway you have effectively accomplished nothing

im shocked that someone decided to name that after themselves. "browns gas" is a basically the result of a blunder of electrolysis... usually you want to separate the annode and cathode into different tubes so that the gasses are separated. here they are not. thats the only difference

[wildbanshee]

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/News.do?id=529[/URL]

[URL="http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/reports.htm"]
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_saving_devices"]



http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/News.do?id=529

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/reports.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_saving_devices

Because im half dumb and not sure if the hyperlinks attached i copy and posted the same links again they are the lower set.
I was really interested in the topic and from the above information it does not look good....and if gas were 2$ we probably would be talking intakes and cams right now....

[SpecterGT260]

wiki isnt reliable. i can go in there right now and write an article saying if you smack your dashboard with ur junk you will increase mileage because of the added momentum, but you require at least a 7 incher for the effect to be noticable.......

i didnt read those hyperlinks though, care to give the general gist?

[wildbanshee]

the epa link has a review of atleast 2 dozen different products. i was on my lunch break (wink wink) when i found the site so i did not read the reviews of any of them -cant tell you what they contain but it did look like something i would refer to before purchasing any gas saving device. the other link is an article that quotes epa staff and the departments findings on a variety of different products. the article mentions the hydro7000 along with the tornado air and the 'gas magnets'.
The executive summary of all three articles.....there are more BS products than real ones and with gas getting more expensive people are apt to try anything....the device that works the best is taking the foot off the gas...but who can do that?

[GatorSS]

If it's on wikipedia it must be true, right?

[SpecterGT260]

i can spell this out another way. based on what i said on the other page, you arent making enough hydrogen to accomplish anything. but the other side to these things is you trick the pcm to running lean since ur injecting hydrogen. so really.... all you are doing is running dangerously lean. you will still get better mileage.... but does anyone really think this is a smart move?

[qwkgto]

:Popcorn: guess the ole addage is still true seems too good must not be.