# My Jeep's running on Hydrogen



## Anonymous

I will soon be installing a hydrogen generator in/on my Jeep :wink: 
Has/is anyone using one right now? :?:


----------



## Harold_V

I expect you're going to be chasing your tail next. 

Harold


----------



## Lou

Good luck with that. I hope your Jeep's cylinders and pistons aren't aluminum, that hydrogen embrittlement is a real bear.

That and the fact that it's quite hard to get a lot of hydrogen gas into your fuel tank, unless that is you managed to liquefy it. If in fact you can show me or tell me how you're doing that, you'll have my respect, especially if you're doing it at home.


My car runs on candy canes and wishful thoughts


----------



## markqf1

:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Thats funny Lou! :lol: 
I'm running a special on candy canes this month if your interested.

Mark


----------



## markqf1

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/329904/hydrogen_gas_generater_for_your_car.html


----------



## Lou

The link is broken, but I get the point about the fuel cells.

They are the wave of the future. Near where I live, there is a collaboration between Rolls-Royce and a local college for making large fuel cells (15kW and up). They run them off of methanol if I remember correctly. I've toured a few times, it's impressive stuff!

As for the candy canes, 'tis the season!


----------



## markqf1

Link is fixed.

Mark


----------



## banjags

If he is building an hho generator the problems with hydrogen embrittlement are almost non existant. The hho is added to aid the burning of the gasoline. This is proven technology that has been around for 50 years.

Now running purely on hydrogen... that is a different monster altogether.


----------



## Harold_V

Anyone interested in buying an old bridge, slightly used?

Listen, folks. I'm far from a physicist, but even a lowly moron like me understands that you can't split water to hydrogen and oxygen and recover more energy than it took to make the split. Water, in and of itself, contains no energy. It is used as a conveyance for energy by heating the water (the source of energy), or by gravity, taking advantage of its weight. It is, for all practical purposes, inert. 

When water is split to hydrogen and oxygen, then recombined, all you recover is the energy you expended in splitting the water. You also experience losses (resistance), in the way of heat that does no work. The overall result is a net loss, not a gain. 

Fuel cells are not one and the same, assuming you're discussing a fuel cell that operates on a hydrocarbon. In that case, the recovered energy is contained within the fuel itself, so it's a matter of recovering it in an efficient manner. In that case, yes, more energy is returned than was expended in splitting the fuel, but it still isn't a free lunch. The energy was stored by nature, via sunlight. With luck, the gain is greater than the losses in the transformation. 

Get over the notion that you can run an auto on generated hydrogen using the power created by the vehicle to split water. That's a free lunch, and by now you should understand there is no such thing. It's not going to happen, not now, not in ten years. Spend your time in a useful and constructive manner recycling precious metals, instead. That's a sure thing. 

Harold


----------



## DNIndustry

I disagree completely. By throwing a die hard in bucket of water. Ill conceed. most people only use the Hydrogen...I have no Idea why.

I would like to point out the magne-cule.

2 Hydrogen bound magnetically to oxygen. 
Worth looking into. 

is the bridge shiny?


----------



## qst42know

"Santilli's theory has been discredited by other scientists as having 'many serious misinterpretations, and misunderstandings of the “data” presented... [the paper] creates some doubt as to whether [the author] actually knows the difference between a gas chromatograph (GC) and a mass spectrometer (MS).' [15]" 

"Most of his work on this theory has been published in Hadronic Journal, a journal of which Santilli himself is the founder and chief editor. Santilli has also established the journals Hadronic Journal Supplement and Algebras, Groups and Geometries, in which he publishes papers by himself and others. These journals are published by Hadronic Press, a firm of which Santilli's spouse Carla Santilli is the sole officer/director.[5]"

" a large amount of his work has dealt with his so-called hadronic mechanics, a novel fundamental theory of the universe which is not generally accepted by the physics community. "


from the wiki on magnacule

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruggero_Santilli


----------



## DNIndustry

I wasnt specifically referring to santilli, but more so a real world application.

I am not sure on the name, Aguyagen 1500 torch.
The car thing is a farse, but the torch is interesting. I have my theories on his design. Havent had time to investigate. May be Superheating water beyond boiling with microwaves. Electrolysising via a Palladium catalyst. the Pd holds 900x its weigh in H supposedly. H can also be electropositive or electronegative. F'n with the charge of the ion could be the trick while it is the boiling point is suppressed, Neodium losses its magnetic properties at 80'C to 200'C. (Depending on grade) Magnetically charging large amounts of Hydrogen could be possible through this method

People are using Palladium to create heavy water. Deuterium and Tritium, by bombarding it. I think 1 out of 10,000,000 atoms will become tritium through bombarding. Using Pd to assist gives much better chances. [This part was a side note]


----------



## Lou

I don't know where to start or if I even should...


Harold, for someone who likely never had a course on thermodynamics, you sure have a better handle on its second law than many, many people do.

As long as there is entropy, people will still get old, the universe will get bigger, stars will burn out, there will never be Carnot engines, and there will never be that truly free lunch!


----------



## qst42know

Though there is no doubt hydrogen can be extracted from water, more than enough to run a torch. 

However it remains energy cannot be created or destroyed. You can only change its form. 

This Aguygen hydrogen generator requires a significant electrical input. There are no practical perfect conductors so some of the input energy will be lost to heat while producing the hydrogen you desire. The losses (not easily accounted for) plus the output will be equal. 

If you needed hydrogen it would indeed be convenient and perhaps a cost savings to not have to go get it, but no energy would be created.

Just as a point of intrest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax


----------



## watlarry

Water has no potential its a stable molecule it likes being water. If you have to add energy to create potential you just can't get more out than you put in. 1+1 will never equal 3.
A gallon of oil has more hydrogen than a gallon of hydrogen, oil has potential.


----------



## watlarry

Water has no potential its a stable molecule it likes being water. If you have to add energy to create potential you just can't get more out than you put in. 1+1 will never equal 3.
A gallon of oil has more hydrogen than a gallon of hydrogen, oil has potential.


----------



## banjags

While it is correct that it requires more energy to separate the oxygen and hydrogen from water that it returns, the gains come from adding the hho gas produced to the air fuel mixture in a vehicle. MPG gains on smaller vehicles have been to go from 30mpg to almost 60mpg. Worth it? I think so. Running a even a vehicle totally on hho created by the average generator would be virtually impossible. You would need a generator the size of the trunk and a 200 or 300 amp alternator. 
The claims that adding hydrogen to the air fuel mixture are very true. A friend of my parents added kit to his truck and gained 10mpg on a 5 litre motor. There are also other electronics required to modify the input received by the vehicles computer to tell it to lean the AF ratio a bit.


----------



## Harold_V

DNIndustry said:


> but the torch is interesting.


Hydrogen torch? One that produces its own fuel?

No big deal. They are available commercially, and used in the jewelry industry. 

They're nice, but they still consume more energy than they yield. 

Harold


----------



## Harold_V

banjags said:


> While it is correct that it requires more energy to separate the oxygen and hydrogen from water that it returns, the gains come from adding the hho gas produced to the air fuel mixture in a vehicle. MPG gains on smaller vehicles have been to go from 30mpg to almost 60mpg. Worth it? I think so.


Talk is cheap, and that's nothing but double talk. You can achieve the same gains by simply adding a miniscule stream of water to the engine. 

It has nothing to do with the imagined HHO, which is nothing more than a catch phrase used by hucksters to convince idiots that they have developed something new. Total nonsense! Perhaps you can explain what magical thing happens to the hydrogen and oxygen that allows it to yield more energy than was required to make the separation? That's a free lunch------and there is NO SUCH THING. 

My take on this is that the included water is flashed to steam, expanding the water to many times its original volume, providing a greater thrust to the piston. That's not free, either. The energy involved comes from heat that otherwise would have gone to the radiator----so all you've done is improve efficiency-----you have not created something for nothing. You would be well served to lose the notion of HHO, for it can be accomplished without the addition of the electrolysis unit. 

On the Chaski board, we are fortunate to have a gentleman by the name of Russ Hanscom, who has all the appropriate degrees, and is a recent retiree from Unocal. Recently he posted on this very subject, and pointed out that while there were gains by the addition of the devices, Unocal concluded that the gains were not a result of the devices involved. They attributed increases to other factors, such as controlled driving, in an effort to support the notion that there would be gains. He also suggested that in many cases, a simple tune-up would have been just as effective, as would the addition of water, as mentioned above. 

Unless I was to experience these reported "gains" on a personal level, there is no doubt in my mind------they are bogus, and if the money is followed long enough, you see the reason for the, thus far, unsubstantiated claims. 

Get serious for just a moment. Don't you think that large automakers would have included these devices to their fleets long ago, when they were mandated to increase the average fleet MPG? Why are they so stupid, and why are individuals with few or no credentials so smart? Doesn't that send up a red flag for you? It certainly does for me.

It numbs the mind to think that people that are otherwise intelligent buy into this garbage. The laws of thermodynamics were not "invented" by people------they were observed by people. That's a whole different matter-----one that, thus far, has escaped the scrutiny of any and all doubters. 

Harold


----------



## Oz

What is being discussed here is over unity. This simply means that more output power is produced than what was originally input into a device. It is just not possible. The idea of a hydrogen economy for vehicles is not viable either (today), because of the additional energy required to compress the gas to a liquid in order to have enough energy in a small enough space to go any distance down the road creates too many losses. 

Having said that, I can see a few applications that could take advantage of hydrogen as an internal combustion fuel if it is a stationary engine at a site cheap alternative electric is available. You will not get more out of it than the energy you put in but if you have a free or inexpensive source of electric such as solar (after infrastructure cost) it may be cheaper to accumulate hydrogen from such a source to use when the sun is not shining or the tide is not going out than to store the energy in a battery or use fossil fuels as their prices go up. There is plenty of sunlight in the world and the tides will continue to come in but oil is running out. Hydrogen is only an alternative storage medium of energy with the huge limitation of having little energy content per cubic foot unless you expend the extra energy to compress it to a liquid giving it a net loss compared to the fossil fuels we still have today.

Beyond my lifetime it may be that oil is scarce enough to make it cost effective to compress hydrogen for vehicles to move the goods we need at a far higher cost than we enjoy today. Or if we don’t have oil we could always use horses and oxen, but they are a bit slower than the delivery times we have become accustomed to. It still comes down to cost vs. convenience.


----------



## Harold_V

Oz said:


> The idea of a hydrogen economy for vehicles is not viable either (today), because of the additional energy required to compress the gas to a liquid in order to have enough energy in a small enough space to go any distance down the road creates too many losses.


Absolutely correct! This is not a new issue. For more than 30 years people have devoted countless amounts of money and time to this idea, which has yet to be resolved in a commercially satisfactory way. Even if the economic problems of producing the hydrogen were overcome, there's still the issue of safe storage. 

I expect that the day will come when we will know more and it may become feasible, but with the available technology, it's just not happening. If it was, is there anyone naive enough to think it wouldn't make the front page of every newspaper? 

Guys, we've had people on this forum promote their investigations and experiments. I mean them no offense, but it's obvious they have accomplished nothing. Has anyone taken note that they have vanished? 

There are some absolutes in life that one is wise to understand. If you do not, you open yourself to being suckered by others. 

Harold


----------



## Lou

My opinion on a hydrogen economy is that it will never work. People can barely manage flammable gasoline, imagine putting them in control of something far more volatile that boils at -423F and expands over a thousand times as it does? Think then what would happen should someone crash? Also consider that hydrogen has more bang per gram than practically any other fuel out there, so the more grams present, the more danger! It's just its low density, which also makes it spread out more and increase the potential for a fuel-air explosion. 

I personally believe that when (a matter of decades) us humans obtain controllable, successful fusion and implement it on a large scale, then our energy problems are over. It's obvious that energy is required for our continued happy existence, especially in the United States. When that happens, homes will be electrically heated, cars will run on highly efficient (relative to gasoline!!) induction engines, and many problems will be solved. Granted, there will first be the problems of retrofitting and updating infrastructure to support this change!


Oddly enough, I seem to remember reading or being told that life is the most efficient way to increase entropy, in specific, human life.

Something I find quite amusing is all the energy we have stored up in nuclear arsenals worldwide---I wonder if anyone has yet taken the time to do the math and figure out just how many years all of that could power our societies.


----------



## Oz

The rapid expansion of hydrogen you mention with it going from a liquid to a gas reminds me of the steam explosions from old trains. It was simply amazing the distance pieces weighing several tons were thrown when you have a thousand gallons of water instantly go to steam when a boiler fails. The water expands in volume by about 1600 times almost instantly so a thousand gallons becomes 1,600,000 gallons of steam. 

That’s an interesting point on the energy we have stored up in our nuclear arsenals. I seem to remember hearing that with the collapse of the Soviet Union the US was purchasing their nuclear material to keep it off the black market. We were using it in our nuclear reactors supposedly. I do not know how factual this is however.


----------



## Lou

Oz, that stuff is a bit too hot to be useful for any reactor, at least straight up. With dilution, it'll work just fine!


Lou


----------



## SilverFox

Harold_V said:


> Anyone interested in buying an old bridge, slightly used?
> 
> Get over the notion that you can run an auto on generated hydrogen using the power created by the vehicle to split water. That's a free lunch, and by now you should understand there is no such thing. It's not going to happen, not now, not in ten years. Spend your time in a useful and constructive manner recycling precious metals, instead. That's a sure thing.
> 
> Harold



*This system is not a fuel replacement, it is a fuel supplement.*

Harold, I have One such device running in my 2004 Colorado, have been doing so for the last 7 months.

I have mine powered by Thermo Electric that I made from 35 peltier cooling units, which I tied in series to form a circuit that grosses 17.5 volts at 14 amps. This is strapped to my radiator. I use a 55timer circuit, to power my Coil pack I salvage from a 96 ford explorer to rack my Voltage up and my current down, to keep my electrodes from seriously eroding. 

I saw a 48% increase in my fuel economy, by using this device. From 25 MPG Hwy, to 37 MPG hwy.

The Device doesn't need to be complex most alternators just end up grounding extra current into your cars chassi just because it is not used. It is foolish notion to think that energy can not be harnessed.

Edit. spelling.

This was developed with my brother in law, who is an electrical engineer , and my brother who is a mechanic.
The Thermo Electric Power was my Idea when I scrapped my Electric Fridge 

One more small thing, Higher compression engines see better results from these devices.


----------



## DNIndustry

Harold_V said:


> DNIndustry said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the torch is interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> Hydrogen torch? One that produces its own fuel?
> 
> No big deal. They are available commercially, and used in the jewelry industry.
> 
> They're nice, but they still consume more energy than they yield.
> 
> Harold
Click to expand...


I know their are hydrogen torches, I am not refering to hydrogen. I am also not saying hydrogen is the answer to our prayers; like "the chosen one" Barack Obama [ok, a bit of snotty sarcasm as I watch cnn]. It doesnt pack much of a punch alone. I believe the hindenburg blimp burned, not exploded.. ? 
I have been refering to H20 and different molecular arrangements.

I know what the rules of physics are; 4 months I was in the 93rd percentile on the ASVAB. [I knew I should have studied...]
Think of the fire cracker analogy, light one in the open palm of your hand...a little sting. Now make a fist around it and light it. Ur wife will be opening pickle jars for the rest of your life. 

The only point I am trying to get across is that there is more to water than we currently accept as common knowledge or understand. 

If you get a chance look, try and find the video on Youtube about that Aqayugen 1500 torch. Maybe you.ll see what I mean. 

[U physics guys, what IS a Photon?...really?.?.?  ]


----------



## DNIndustry

...
I hope I didnt step on any toes last night, way over tired...I wasnt trying to be a cock.
Hell, I think we completely hijacked this guys thread and I am sorry.
Good for you with the truck! No matter what we think I am sure you are proud of your accomplishment! Congrats.


----------



## peter i

DNIndustry said:


> No matter what we think I am sure you are proud of your accomplishment! Congrats.



As soon as "HHO", Santilli, "magnecules", "Brown's gas" or "Sid Myer" (spelling?) is mentioned, my bullshit-o-meter reaches the red zone.

The people believing in these things generally have very little understanding of basic thermodynamics, but lots of wishful thinking.

There is no free lunch in thermodynamics. There are some ways of "eating "that use the food better than others, but none that are "over unity".

Any power gained from _using some of the energy from your engine, to run a generator that delivers electricity to an electrolysis cell, then delivering "fuel" to the engine_ would have to be an "over unity"-effect.

We have been over this before, see this thread for an example http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=2138


It's just another way to spell "alchemy" (and there are still people believing in alchemy, and getting conned)


----------



## Oz

In general I am not a fan of ideas along these lines as they think that over unity is possible. The one that does make some sense is the use of Peltier modules to make use of low grade waste heat energy that would not have been utilized otherwise. I personally would not want to run hydrogen in my vehicle but would love to know where to find some modules dirt cheap for other projects.


----------



## butcher

.My area why not wood gas, instead of water (HHO, browns gas),
Better yet area why not wood gas, instead of water (HHO, browns gas),
Better yet why are we trying to get rid of spent nuclear waste, a handful could probably power a home for generations, and then be safer for disposal. I think it is great anyone who wants to experiment with new ways to get power if we don't we wont. And sometimes the guy who everyone is telling him it wont work is the guy that proves them wrong, but also we do need to be able to see the reality, physic’s laws are not broken very easily and especially by wishful thinking yet why are we trying to get rid of spent nuclear waste, a handful could probably power a home for generations, and then be safer for disposal. I think it is great anyone who wants to experiment with new ways to get power if we don't we wont. and sometimes the guy who everyone is telling him it wont work is the guy that proves them wrong, but also we do need to be able to see the reality, physic’s laws are not broken very easily and especially by wishful thinking. I think hydrogen would be a good source of fuel but not for vehicles (how about electric trains or stationary machines), we really do need to go back to the horse and buggy days, to learn how not to waste the resources we do today, then our energy will get us further down the road. As a kid in Kentucky I lived with a Grandmother who lived without running water no toilet, she used oil lamps, wood cook stove and woodstove a few batteries if she wanted to listen to a radio (which were precious so time was limited) she raised a large garden, and canned for winter, a few hogs and chickens, and a shared milk cow. it was three miles to the nearest road, crossing a swinging bridge, following the creek cliffs (where her forefathers the Indians lived) through woods on well worn path to her little home.
If she new the power I use today she would bend my ears.


----------



## Oz

I would not want to see radioactive waste generation in back yards, some smuck will be building dirty bombs.

I do agree with trying to optimize the fuel we do consume.

Ethanol fuel is a big example of waste giving a net return of only a few percent. It might be a worthwhile proposition if they quit using perfectly good natural gas as a heat source to distill the mash when solar would work wonderfully and give a good net energy gain. That would be too easy though.

I have a long term project for a generator using a compression start (no glow plugs or electronics) 12HP diesel engine. This will drive a 10KW generator head, some of you here may know that 12HP is not enough to drive a 10KW head under full load but this engine has huge cast iron flywheels that will allow the engine to do it for 10-15 seconds before stalling. This allows me to get away with a lower fuel consumption engine yet still get 10KW peak for start up loads with refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners. An added benefit is that the engine can easily be run on filtered waste vegetable oil. 

This is under normal conditions is just a back-up generator giving about 8KW continuous. This set-up will come into its own during the winter as it is water cooled by thermo siphon. In real rough terms internal engines consume a fuels energy giving about 1/3rd of it as mechanical energy, 1/3rd as heat from cooling the engine with air or water, and another 1/3rd as exhaust heat. I will be building a water based heat exchanger for the exhaust in addition to the water cooling tank for the engine. Between the 2 I should have about 16,000KW of heating easily stored for use as needed in an insulated tank. Water is a great heat storage medium. 

Electric is high where I live so if I discount my labor to run the engine it is a break even proposition buying off road diesel fuel and charging a battery bank . If I use recycled oil it is near free, and during the winter I would get 3 times the value by the use of the waste heat.


----------



## peter i

Oz said:


> ......
> 
> I do agree with trying to optimize the fuel we do consume.
> 
> ............
> 
> I have a long term project for a generator ....



And that's a very viable idea!

What you talk about is in fact a "decentral power/heat-plant"

You use the high value energy to produce electricity, and the heat that would otherwise be wasted, for heating. 
In that way, you have a very efficient use of your fuel.

1.st generation biofuels (plant oil, ethanol from sugar and the like) is in fact a very poor idea. You use food for fuel, and the emphasis on these biofuels have caused a global rise in food prices and deforestation, because third world countries clear the rainforests, to produce vegetable oil. More CO2 is released than will ever be spared by the biofuel grown in these fields.

2.nd generation, that is waste wood, sewage sludge and such, is much better. Here a waste problem is solved by using it as an energy source, in fact creating value from something that would otherwise be an expense. But as it is waste, it is harder to process.

Thermoelectric generators are still quite far from being a really good idea for waste heat. They need a large temperature gradient across them to be efficient, and they are not cheap (I'm doing research in this subject, there is a Nobel Price and a heck of a lot of money at stake, if you find a cheap and efficient thermoelectric)
The roles so far are primarily cooling, and energy generation is only at an advantage in very special applications such as "The SNAP-27 radioisotope thermoelectric generator" and other gizmoes for space, where a low efficiency is outweighed by extreme operational reliability.

But to convert heat to energy, a steam engine is better than a thermoelectric (so far :wink: )


The use of hydrogen would be that of an energy carrier, hydrogen is easy to make, and easy to use, but the stumbling block is primarily storage and transportation. The energy to volume ratio is just rather rotten. It is simply not possible to put sufficient hydrogen in a car to give it an acceptable range without sacrificing either space or weight.
(safety is in fact a minor concern. Lots of hydrogen is used and transported every day with no problem)


----------



## SilverFox

I read somewhere that palladium chips inpregnated with mangnesuim beads can absorb 1000 Times its own weight in Hydrogen. A simple HV pulse releases the hydrogen at a rate controlled by the electrical pulse.

If I recall I read this on the Boston's MIT Website, I am pretty sure It can be found with a simple search from google.


----------



## Lou

1000X their own weight?!?! That would indeed be astounding. I think perhaps you mean _by volume_. Anyway, some forms of highly active palladium can adsorb up to 12,000 times their own volume in hydrogen.


----------



## SilverFox

Lou said:


> 1000X their own weight?!?! That would indeed be astounding. I think perhaps you mean _by volume_. Anyway, some forms of highly active palladium can adsorb up to 12,000 times their own volume in hydrogen.



It was something like that, I wasn't sure. Thanks for the leg up


----------



## Lou

Glad to help!


By the way, very nice signature!


----------



## SilverFox

You like that?

It was told to me by one of my students who was severely overweight. I had recommended that he get a physical before seeking instruction for scuba.

He returned a month later, with his results. Josh weight approximately 325 pounds at only 5'10 in height. Remarkable he had better Cholesterol then I did.


----------



## The Green Team

*Word of caution!!!!! Anyone attempting to experiment with this please be proficient in wiring and electrical work. Use hi grade wire, solder, shrink tube, quality connections and most importantly wire it to circuit 15 which is only on when key is on. If this thing ran with key off you might come out of the bar after 2 hours and blow yourself up. John Gotti will look tame.*
No free energy I agree.
BUT as most energy saving devices due they cut down on waste and use 
it.
These vehicles equipped with after market cells may experience increase
in mpg because their electrical systems can often times produce extra amperage without adding up load on the engine (decel may be an exampl
e)
The hydrogen component then created will then not be free, but easily
captured from waste.
Hyrdogen is allegedly an excellent catalyst for carbon based fuel. If it 
promoted complete combustion then this adds to efficiency.
These measures may be good for the environment if done properly.
I am concerned about hydrogen embrittlement and would say try it on a
vehicle which is disposable or be ready for the worst possible outcome.
Right now people are not interested because fuel is down, but at times
it may be cheaper to curb fuel cost and replace engines more frequently.
There should be engine management adjustments and modifications. 
I promise that these would be unique to the fuel systems that each vehicle
uses. A great skilled dealer technician skilled in engine performance would
be best to adapt your system (good luck finding one who is capable and willing) An engineer based thinker with a lot of time, and resources would be next best.
I have not had the time to apply this to any of my vehicles, but I will one day. I will due studies before and after in same conditions. I am skilled in these matters. I am formerly a Mercedes Benz Master Technician and a Shop Manager. I am also an SLR Technician which required very skilled professionals so I guess I am qualified. Also Master ASE and all advance engine performance and alt. fuels certfs. I must admit I have little practical experience with alt fuels.
I normally say can't hurt might help. In this matter I will say might hurt, and might not help. Jury is out for now, but I think I could make real gains here.

I must say injecting water into a regular vehicle is dangerous. Jet engines did it, but there are no cylinder walls getting scrapped by piston rings. 

First of all failsafe systems and metering would be my first concern. My second concern would be water becoing intermixed into oil. I thing this is probably not so likely, because of temp, but someone will make it happen. This will hurt engine bearings quickly.

I would probable find a way to just inject H not HHO I think you can collect them from the anode and cathod and keep them apart. That may be a stupid measure, but if you inject the components of water and they reorganize in the engine then I would be concerned. 

I am interested in discussing this further. PM me if you like


----------



## SilverFox

The Green Team said:


> I am concerned about hydrogen embrittlement and would say try it on a
> vehicle which is disposable or be ready for the worst possible outcome.



The Chemical composition of Gasoline, methane, propane, all Hydrogen Based molecules. Em-whatever is going to happen whether or not your using the HHO Generator. 

As far as this old fart knows it matters little when you split your fuel, a split is happening. :roll: 

I find that most people who dog this auto hack, don't really know what Gasoline is.


----------



## Lou

SilverFox said:


> The Green Team said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am concerned about hydrogen embrittlement and would say try it on a
> vehicle which is disposable or be ready for the worst possible outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chemical composition of Gasoline, methane, propane, all Hydrogen Based molecules. Em-whatever is going to happen whether or not your using the HHO Generator.
> 
> As far as this old fart knows it matters little when you split your fuel, a split is happening. :roll:
> 
> I find that most people who dog this auto hack, don't really know what Gasoline is.
Click to expand...



Can you please clarify what you mean about the chemical composition of gasoline? It almost reads as if you were saying that gasoline is made of methane and propane. 

I'm fairly certain that you say they are hydrogen based molecules. This is incorrect--they are carbon based molecules. They have a carbon skeleton. 

Gasoline is a mixture of many components and it is a fraction component of cracking oil. 

The idea about hydrogen embrittlement is valid--hydrogen gas is a small molecule, and at high temperatures and pressures encountered in the engine it easily penetrates into the aluminum, thereby weakening the structure.


----------



## The Green Team

Lou said:


> SilverFox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Green Team said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am concerned about hydrogen embrittlement and would say try it on a
> vehicle which is disposable or be ready for the worst possible outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chemical composition of Gasoline, methane, propane, all Hydrogen Based molecules. Em-whatever is going to happen whether or not your using the HHO Generator.
> 
> As far as this old fart knows it matters little when you split your fuel, a split is happening. :roll:
> 
> I find that most people who dog this auto hack, don't really know what Gasoline is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please clarify what you mean about the chemical composition of gasoline? It almost reads as if you were saying that gasoline is made of methane and propane.
> 
> I am too interested to hear this clarification.
> 
> I'm fairly certain that you say they are hydrogen based molecules. This is incorrect--they are carbon based molecules. They have a carbon skeleton.
> 
> Correct, as far as I know fossil fuels are indeed carbon fuels, and I hear hydrogen will help as a catalyst to promote a more complete burn of the carbon base fuel. My guess is performance and mileage changes are more to do with the catalyst effect releasing more useful carbon based energy. The volume of hydrogen doesn't seem to be enough to simply create a increase based on btu's.
> 
> Gasoline is a mixture of many components and it is a fraction component of cracking oil.
> 
> This is very true, and in addition they have additives. I know states vary a bit and seasons vary a bit on what blends you get at the pump. Testing to the most proven levels would take all of this in consideration. I am not a chemist by any stretch, but I would say that HHO or H added to enrich the Air Fuel Mixture will act differently in the presence of these other chemicals.
> 
> The idea about hydrogen embrittlement is valid--hydrogen gas is a small molecule, and at high temperatures and pressures encountered in the engine it easily penetrates into the aluminum, thereby weakening the structure.
Click to expand...


Most concerned on diesel engines. They are durable, but conditions seem to invite Hydrogen Embrittlement.


----------



## The Green Team

SilverFox said:


> The Green Team said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am concerned about hydrogen embrittlement and would say try it on a
> vehicle which is disposable or be ready for the worst possible outcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chemical composition of Gasoline, methane, propane, all Hydrogen Based molecules. Em-whatever is going to happen whether or not your using the HHO Generator.
> 
> As far as this old fart knows it matters little when you split your fuel, a split is happening. :roll:
> 
> I find that most people who dog this auto hack, don't really know what Gasoline is.
Click to expand...


What is gasoline? Been trying to understand it more as I get older, and gets more expensive. I will say I think it is a carbon based fossil fuel with different blends in different states, and seasonal changes. 

I guess Gasoline may be more of a synthetic these days. I could be wrong, but it's not what it was in 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and so on. I think in order to understand what Gasoline is for hi level debates someone would have to settle down and pick a blend which is sold by a specific outfit and at a specific octane rating, and additive package. Otherwise generalizing it as a carbon based fuel is accurate enough for general discussion. 

Diesel is more interesting to consider for this type of experimenting. I think of HHO or Hydrogen as a catalyst for the most part. I doubt you could use it as btu energy because of storage and delivery issues.

Gasoline, Diesel and all petro fuels are really good at storing and delivery energy. I think this is why we don't switch right over to alt. fuels. Not to mention the infrastructure change over would bring the cost of alt energy up anyhow.


----------



## Lou

Wikipedia has a decent article on what gasoline is.

If you want to know how it's made, in it's entirety, that would be something of a read!

I suppose you can say that all gasoline is synthetic--you don't dig a hole and have gasoline come up gushing from it, even if you have the lightest, sweetest crude gush forth, you still wouldn't dare burn it in your engine--it must be _refined_. There are numerous processes that the fuel components must go through before they are blended. Gasoline is a description for a fraction that boils in a specific temperature range and has molecules with more than 4 or 5 carbons but less than 9. Methane and LPG products first, then gasoline, then kerosene and napthas, then diesel then paraffins, then asphaltum. What's in gasoline compound wise depends on where you are, what grade (octane rating), what season, and what use. 

Heheh, this is a goldrefiningforum, not gasolinerefiningforum! Noxx, want to make another forum for people who want to refine their own gasoline?


----------



## SilverFox

http://www.altfuels.org/backgrnd/fuelchem.html

There are some good examples of Gasoline, and Fossil fuel gas Molecules like methane and propane.

Each one is just carbon and hydrogen, What determines what each one is? The length of the Molecule chain I would imagine.


----------



## aflacglobal

:arrow: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051107083255.htm


----------



## nicknitro

I have recently heard of intstead of vehicles storing liquid hydrogen to fuel their "fuel cells" , an original creator of the NIMH battery will produce an alloy that will store similar quantities of hydrogen safely, 
ie. in a crash the car will not behave like the hindenburg. 

Interested in any opinions to this theory, rumor, process.

Nick


----------



## peter i

Well, the Hindenburg just burned, the problem was, that there was a lot to burn.

Hydrogen storage in alloys, hydrides and such is used already but has some large deficits:
- The capacity is low compared to hydrocarbons
- The reaction when storing in solids is exothoermic, meaning you loose a lot of energy as heat, and the same amount of energy must be added to release the hydrogen again (doing the math on storage in hydrides is depressing!)
- storage alloys are typically heavy/expensive/rare
- most hydrides are very flammable, and quite a few ignite spontaneously with air or moisture (fume hood fires are routine business for the people I know who do research in this subject). 


And it does not change the basic problem: Hydrogen is only an energy carrier. You have to have the energy from somewhere, and unless it is something like sun/wind/waves/water/geothermal (or nuclear), you are back to using fossil fuels with a lower efficiency than just burning it straight.


There really is no free lunch in thermodynamics.


----------



## Anonymous

My jeep runs on air, I just have to put a little gasoline vapors in. To condition it, sorry I couldn't resist.

Jim


----------



## peter i

james122964 said:


> My jeep runs on air, I just have to put a little gasoline vapors in. To condition it, sorry I couldn't resist.
> 
> Jim




naughty you!


But it is a very good point, and quite relevant in the discussion of how some people belive to get "free energy".


----------



## nicknitro

TY PeterI,

I agree totally on the fossil fuels issue. I am all for renewables like Alcohol and the like. But I just heard this subject was supposed to revolutionalize the electric cars of today. LOL.

Thanks again.

P.S. The original Model T came with a free accesory o the buyer. Any guesses as to what this was?

A personal still , to produce the fuel for the vehicle. Guess we were to lazy to make our own fuels. It was just easier and cheap to buy oil from other country's. :roll:


----------



## peter i

I once heard a guy say, that the only application for which fossil fuels were too expensive, were for burning. :wink: 
They are fantastical chemical precursors, and just burning them, is in fact pretty silly.

1.st generation biofuels are on the other hand even more crazy. Burning off high value grain, sugar or vegetable oil is just madness.
The rising prize of plant oils has led to destruction of rain forests to make space for oil plantations, and the CO2 released in this process will take several decades to earn again (if ever!). Furthermore it has led to growing prices on foodstuff, by some economists thought to be a main reason for the global food crisis.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_vs_fuel for a rather long talk.
But the idea is old, Rudolf Diesel proposed vegetable oil as a fuel in his engines.


Second generation fuels, where waste products are used as fuel is a much more sensible solution, but it is an infant technology. (and the energy balance is not all that impressive).
Hydrogen storage has the same problem.

So we're left with the ways we know to produce electricity and using it directly, and my personal guess is, that better batteries is the most likely solution for many years to come.


----------



## SilverFox

Charging a battery is a extremely wasteful process. I Imagine a couple thousand shock Chevy volt owners after they read their next Bill from Edison.


----------



## qst42know

As far as bio fuels go oil from algae shows some promise. It requires no valuable crop land, grows very quickly, and is a continuous not an annual crop.


----------



## peter i

qst42know said:


> As far as bio fuels go oil from algae shows some promise. It requires no valuable crop land, grows very quickly, and is a continuous not an annual crop.



and you can feed them with "waste"*, solving another problem as well.





*Algae simply love four letter words! (not "gold" by the way)


----------

