Fabrimacator21
1/2 ton status
Had a few customers at my old job say they were running it... anyone here doing it?
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
Anyone run hydrogen?
- Thread starter Fabrimacator21
- Start date
Do you mean propane or CNG (compressed natural gas)?
Hydrogen is a great fuel but is super hard to find and can be dangerous to store unless very good (and hence expensive) methods are used to store it.
Hydrogen is a great fuel but is super hard to find and can be dangerous to store unless very good (and hence expensive) methods are used to store it.
Fabrimacator21
1/2 ton status
Thats what I was getting at.
http://ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Make-Your-Own-Hydrogen-Fuel-Car&id=1299284
http://ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Make-Your-Own-Hydrogen-Fuel-Car&id=1299284
bp71k5
3/4 ton status
It's pretty easy to know what fake stuff is out there by looking at its supporters. All the supposed people benefiting from it talk about conspiracy theories, asassinations, etc.
The big premise these hydrogen generator schemes have is that they use the "extra" energy created by your alternator to power it. "free power" = false
I could possibly see some improvement if you were running an old school generator that had a bad regulator that wasted tons of power, but alternators only generate the amount of power requested by them. There's no "extra" generated of any significance.
The big premise these hydrogen generator schemes have is that they use the "extra" energy created by your alternator to power it. "free power" = false
I could possibly see some improvement if you were running an old school generator that had a bad regulator that wasted tons of power, but alternators only generate the amount of power requested by them. There's no "extra" generated of any significance.
Fabrimacator21
1/2 ton status
Judging from what I've read I don't see why it wouldn't work... Worst case scenario buy a higher amp alernator and maybe a dual battery setup. Theres already a car that has this technology... came out in 2008. 450 hp and 40+mpg.
http://www.gizmag.com/scorpion-hydrogen-hybrid-car/9423/
http://www.gizmag.com/scorpion-hydrogen-hybrid-car/9423/
lectric80
3/4 ton status
Talk to nojeepshere and a few other guys, this has been tried before with no noticable difference in fuel economy.
bp71k5
3/4 ton status
Higher amp alternator = more engine drag = lower gas mileage. It doesnt work because of the laws of thermodynamics. Also, alternators don't put out full power all the time. They regulate themselves to only generate as much current the car is using. The more current the alt produces, the more drag it puts on the motor.
Similar scams have been going on since gasoline engines were invented. The Internet just makes it easy for the scammer to post tons of replies to his ads posing as supposedly happy customers who happily sent him $29.99 for the plans and they all say they now get 500 miles per gallon.
Check out mythbusters episode where they try all the different scams. The hho system isn't busted properly but they bust the rest of it.
Fabrimacator21
1/2 ton status
Kind of hard to accept your alternator theory... sure higher amp means more drag but we're talking a couple hp which can be made up by using electric fans.
I dunno... I'm very interested. Like I said the scorpion uses hho setup and has 450hp with 40+ mpg.
Read here.... http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/hydrogen-generators-cars.htm
And here... http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-cars/ronn-scorpion-supercar-gets-40-mpg/
They got 27 mpg without the hydrogen setup and 40+ with it.
Last edited:
lectric80
3/4 ton status
Like I said, at least two individuals here on the board tried it, and they found no increase in fuel mileage. So regardless of what that Scorpion is claiming, real world test by members here on the board found no increase in fuel mileage. These were tested on newer fuel injected motors, and there was no difference. Without significant retuning, you cannot acheive an increase like these systems are claiming. Regardless of how much HHO I pump into my engine, my carb still pushes the same amount of fuel unless I rejet it. Then I run the risk of running lean if the HHO isn't there.
The information about the alternators is correct, they don't produce "excess" energy, they produce just what they need. While it may only be 1 or 2 horses, you can't offset that by electric fans, since they in turn require more electricity to run them, therefore requiring more of the alternator.
Also, notice the Scorpion information says they are "expecting" to acheive 40, but I haven't been able to find any confirmation that they ever acheived it. If this stuff actually worked as claimed, why wouldn't all the manufacturers be adding systems like this to meet current regs?
The information about the alternators is correct, they don't produce "excess" energy, they produce just what they need. While it may only be 1 or 2 horses, you can't offset that by electric fans, since they in turn require more electricity to run them, therefore requiring more of the alternator.
Also, notice the Scorpion information says they are "expecting" to acheive 40, but I haven't been able to find any confirmation that they ever acheived it. If this stuff actually worked as claimed, why wouldn't all the manufacturers be adding systems like this to meet current regs?
from what i have researched there are several different methods to producing hydrogen some are more effective than others. the more effective ones are based on using stainless steel plates for more contact area. the less effective ones use a stainless steel wire coiled up. it's all surface area and amperage. and output from alternator is usually around 50 amps. pretty sure big stereo's take up that much atleast.
as far as the theory if it's so great why are manufacturers using it, i think that is a bit of a stretch. for example
early 80's we had diesel cars getting 45+ mpg. where are those cars coming from the big three today? we're lucky to get 30mpg out of one
unit bearings
ifs
non turbo charged cars are inefficient.
many examples out there
search for the slap an engineer thread
there are a lot of people besides conspiracy theorist doing this for the science of it and to save fuel. if we didn't have conspiracy theorists we wouldn't have biodiesel or vehicles capable of burning wvo. sounds just as rational
not trying to be a pirate just trying to be realistic, criticism welcome
as far as the theory if it's so great why are manufacturers using it, i think that is a bit of a stretch. for example
early 80's we had diesel cars getting 45+ mpg. where are those cars coming from the big three today? we're lucky to get 30mpg out of one
unit bearings
ifs
non turbo charged cars are inefficient.
many examples out there
search for the slap an engineer thread
there are a lot of people besides conspiracy theorist doing this for the science of it and to save fuel. if we didn't have conspiracy theorists we wouldn't have biodiesel or vehicles capable of burning wvo. sounds just as rational
not trying to be a pirate just trying to be realistic, criticism welcome
As said, it's the laws of thermodynamics. You will NEVER get more energy out of a system than you put into it (this actually applies to "green energy" as well, but is apparently ignored). If you get more energy out than you put in (impossible at this point in our evolution) you've solved an age old problem and there is no longer a need to worry about energy production.
Getting away from the political aspect, look at a less complex application, a generator. If they could be more fuel efficient, adding a hydrogen generator would make great sense. Why don't they come from the factory that way? It's not cost, that's a dumb argument, people pay premiums for hybrid cars, and would for any more cost-effective/fuel efficient technology.
Scale of the operation doesn't matter either...large or small, you can't get more energy out than you put in.
Haven't you ever seen/heard an engine (generator too!) change RPM as the electrical load increases? Generating electricity takes a lot of power. Think about that...an electrical system with a modest load will slow down the rotation of a V8 engine! The more the electrical load, the higher the engine power needed to compensate.
You might as well throw the current vs. old mileage argument out the window as well...criteria for measuring mileage has changed, as have the environmental rules that govern the vehicles. Of course, using rare materials like palladium in catalytic converters produces massive pollution of it's own, but don't tell the environmentalists.
Getting away from the political aspect, look at a less complex application, a generator. If they could be more fuel efficient, adding a hydrogen generator would make great sense. Why don't they come from the factory that way? It's not cost, that's a dumb argument, people pay premiums for hybrid cars, and would for any more cost-effective/fuel efficient technology.
Scale of the operation doesn't matter either...large or small, you can't get more energy out than you put in.
Haven't you ever seen/heard an engine (generator too!) change RPM as the electrical load increases? Generating electricity takes a lot of power. Think about that...an electrical system with a modest load will slow down the rotation of a V8 engine! The more the electrical load, the higher the engine power needed to compensate.
You might as well throw the current vs. old mileage argument out the window as well...criteria for measuring mileage has changed, as have the environmental rules that govern the vehicles. Of course, using rare materials like palladium in catalytic converters produces massive pollution of it's own, but don't tell the environmentalists.
loafer
1/2 ton status
From the article abaove:
"...the engineering department is expecting to achieve 40 mpg by the time the first of 190 of these limited run Scorpions rollout in October 2008."
I think they have an overly optimistic engineering department or they failed Thermo 1
__
I think they also failed scam 101. 2008? A bit behind. "Proven" technology can be rolled out almost instantly.
If you actually check out the Scorpion, you'll see that it's nothing more than a motor swap into a kit car.
"
Acura dual overhead cam, aluminum/magnesium block, 3.5 liter, V-tech, V-6, Type S Engine
289 Horsepower in stock form, 450 plus with the twin turbo option "
Lose a bunch of weight, and a motor has to work less, and gets better fuel efficiency.
If you actually check out the Scorpion, you'll see that it's nothing more than a motor swap into a kit car.
"
Acura dual overhead cam, aluminum/magnesium block, 3.5 liter, V-tech, V-6, Type S Engine
289 Horsepower in stock form, 450 plus with the twin turbo option "
Lose a bunch of weight, and a motor has to work less, and gets better fuel efficiency.
i agree that the law of thermodynamics applies if it didn't it wouldn't be a "law" hydrogen just transfers the energy being manipulated from gasoline or diesel to water and electricity as a means of saving money because water is cheaper to buy than fuel. and i seriously doubt that the alternator and battery would need to be replaced often enough to say that it's not worth it.
as far as hydrogen powered generators do you mean like this?:
http://www.thermo1.com/hydrogen.htm
or this
http://www.hydrafuelcell.com/#products
and this was interesting.
http://www.miamiherald.com/home/story/544713.html
"You might as well throw the current vs. old mileage argument out the window as well...criteria for measuring mileage has changed, as have the environmental rules that govern the vehicles. Of course, using rare materials like palladium in catalytic converters produces massive pollution of it's own, but don't tell the environmentalists. "
i agree the way manufacturers measure mpg has changed, but mine hasn't and those measures of 45+ mpg still stand and are being produced today by a 1982 vw jetta diesel. deisel chevettes and diesel escorts produced similar numbers.
and yes catalytic converters are dumb and same goes for electric cars. cats are bandaids for poor engineering. electric cars are just my opinion. i also think for should have stuck with the 7.3l and fixed the injection problems with it instead of going to the 6.0l but that's a side note.
and scorpion is retarded
as far as hydrogen powered generators do you mean like this?:
http://www.thermo1.com/hydrogen.htm
or this
http://www.hydrafuelcell.com/#products
and this was interesting.
http://www.miamiherald.com/home/story/544713.html
"You might as well throw the current vs. old mileage argument out the window as well...criteria for measuring mileage has changed, as have the environmental rules that govern the vehicles. Of course, using rare materials like palladium in catalytic converters produces massive pollution of it's own, but don't tell the environmentalists. "
i agree the way manufacturers measure mpg has changed, but mine hasn't and those measures of 45+ mpg still stand and are being produced today by a 1982 vw jetta diesel. deisel chevettes and diesel escorts produced similar numbers.
and yes catalytic converters are dumb and same goes for electric cars. cats are bandaids for poor engineering. electric cars are just my opinion. i also think for should have stuck with the 7.3l and fixed the injection problems with it instead of going to the 6.0l but that's a side note.
and scorpion is retarded
bp71k5
3/4 ton status
I do wonder how a generator operates compared to an alternator though. Do the old generators used on cars in the late 60s run at full capacity all the time and dump whatever power isn't used through the external regulator?
Theoretically if the browns gas actually has some benefit during combustion, (similar to propane injection?) some of that wasted energy could be recouped instead of dumped. Of course, just switching to a modern alternator would be much more efficient and cheaper. My theory is that if any true gains seen from a system like that must be in comparison to a horribly inefficient engine. After all if they get 3mpg before the "test" and they can sqeeze 1 mpg extra out of it, that's a 25% increase similar to all the claims.
Theoretically if the browns gas actually has some benefit during combustion, (similar to propane injection?) some of that wasted energy could be recouped instead of dumped. Of course, just switching to a modern alternator would be much more efficient and cheaper. My theory is that if any true gains seen from a system like that must be in comparison to a horribly inefficient engine. After all if they get 3mpg before the "test" and they can sqeeze 1 mpg extra out of it, that's a 25% increase similar to all the claims.
But you are using fossil fuel to generate the hydrogen. That's the fallacy behind the whole hydrogen infrastucture in the first place, but applies equally here...ANY time you convert energy from one form to another (fossil fuel burned to produce hydrogen) you lose efficiency.
Why lose power converting gasoline to hydrogen, when you can just power the vehicle with gasoline, and see an INCREASE in economy due to one less conversion of the energy?
The point about old vehicle mileage (your examples) I was trying to make is that the environmentalists are the ones that killed those high mileage vehicles. Now we use more gas, but burn cleaner? The net gain is zero! They made no difference, but it feels good to know your vehicle burns cleaner, right?
Why lose power converting gasoline to hydrogen, when you can just power the vehicle with gasoline, and see an INCREASE in economy due to one less conversion of the energy?
The point about old vehicle mileage (your examples) I was trying to make is that the environmentalists are the ones that killed those high mileage vehicles. Now we use more gas, but burn cleaner? The net gain is zero! They made no difference, but it feels good to know your vehicle burns cleaner, right?
bp71k5
3/4 ton status
And just to be clear, I'm not saying you can't make hydrogen from water. The ancient egyptions were doing it a long time ago.
And comparing home fuel cell technology is different than hho. Fuel cells burn fuel and convert it to electricity. Hho USES electricity generated by burning gasoline to split the hydrogen from water and uses the hydrogen to suppliment the combustion of gasoline. Hho has an extra energy conversion disadvantage over the fuel cell.
And comparing home fuel cell technology is different than hho. Fuel cells burn fuel and convert it to electricity. Hho USES electricity generated by burning gasoline to split the hydrogen from water and uses the hydrogen to suppliment the combustion of gasoline. Hho has an extra energy conversion disadvantage over the fuel cell.
loafer
1/2 ton status
I happen to working on an alternative fuels program at work so I have collected a significant amount of literature on this stuff.
Here is a paragraph from a report from the the University of Florida on coal gasification:
“Water is obviously a virtually unlimited feedstock for the production of hydrogen.
Unfortunately, producing hydrogen in this manner requires more electrical energy input in hydrogen production than can be reclaimed through the utilization of the chemical energy available in hydrogen as a fuel. In other words, there is a net loss in available energy when hydrogen is obtained from water. Therefore, an inexpensive and bountiful source of electricity would be required to harvest hydrogen from water in the magnitudes required to fulfill the expected requirements of the “hydrogen economy.” “
http://fuelcellbus.georgetown.edu/files/MethanolFromCoalFinalReport04-2004.pdf
So, if you want hyrdrogen injection from water to boost your fuel economy you will need a solar cell on your roof to provide the electricity to avoid the net loss.
Here is a paragraph from a report from the the University of Florida on coal gasification:
“Water is obviously a virtually unlimited feedstock for the production of hydrogen.
Unfortunately, producing hydrogen in this manner requires more electrical energy input in hydrogen production than can be reclaimed through the utilization of the chemical energy available in hydrogen as a fuel. In other words, there is a net loss in available energy when hydrogen is obtained from water. Therefore, an inexpensive and bountiful source of electricity would be required to harvest hydrogen from water in the magnitudes required to fulfill the expected requirements of the “hydrogen economy.” “
http://fuelcellbus.georgetown.edu/files/MethanolFromCoalFinalReport04-2004.pdf
So, if you want hyrdrogen injection from water to boost your fuel economy you will need a solar cell on your roof to provide the electricity to avoid the net loss.
ok obviously there is some misunderstanding going on here. i'll see if i can slear this up.
production of hydrogen requirements
electricity, water, stainless steel, potassium hrydroxide or sodium hydroxide and a containment device. no fossil fuels needed
the electricity goes to two electrode placed close together in lets say a mason jar. one side is positive one negative. the jar is filled with water and then the naoh or koh is added to make it easier to produce the browns gas. when an electrical charge goes between the two electrodes it seperates the water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen producing a fuel that can be burned.
which is why we have hydrogen powered cars in california that run solely off of hydrogen.
i didn't take thermo dynamics so i am not going to disagree with your understanding of it.
all a hydrogen generator does is produce a fuel which can be burned in place of gasoline or diesel to offset mpg numbers and fuel costs. yes it does require elctricity from alternator and batteries.
"The point about old vehicle mileage (your examples) I was trying to make is that the environmentalists are the ones that killed those high mileage vehicles. Now we use more gas, but burn cleaner? The net gain is zero! They made no difference, but it feels good to know your vehicle burns cleaner, right? "
no i think this is retarded, and as a people there are better ways to spend our time and money. that's why i don't own one. i would rather see people keep there old vehicles and improve them than send them to the crusher. which would bring the cost of new vehicles down due to less demand. imo
i'm done
fabrimacator i support ya!
production of hydrogen requirements
electricity, water, stainless steel, potassium hrydroxide or sodium hydroxide and a containment device. no fossil fuels needed
the electricity goes to two electrode placed close together in lets say a mason jar. one side is positive one negative. the jar is filled with water and then the naoh or koh is added to make it easier to produce the browns gas. when an electrical charge goes between the two electrodes it seperates the water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen producing a fuel that can be burned.
which is why we have hydrogen powered cars in california that run solely off of hydrogen.
i didn't take thermo dynamics so i am not going to disagree with your understanding of it.
all a hydrogen generator does is produce a fuel which can be burned in place of gasoline or diesel to offset mpg numbers and fuel costs. yes it does require elctricity from alternator and batteries.
"The point about old vehicle mileage (your examples) I was trying to make is that the environmentalists are the ones that killed those high mileage vehicles. Now we use more gas, but burn cleaner? The net gain is zero! They made no difference, but it feels good to know your vehicle burns cleaner, right? "
no i think this is retarded, and as a people there are better ways to spend our time and money. that's why i don't own one. i would rather see people keep there old vehicles and improve them than send them to the crusher. which would bring the cost of new vehicles down due to less demand. imo
i'm done
fabrimacator i support ya!
