HHO generators

[Scuderia Nuvolari]

With gas going through the roof, I thought this might be a good additive but I don't know if they actually work. I have heard that it takes a nuclear reaction for this to be cost affective. Can any of you gentlemen please lend your opinion?

[Scuderia Nuvolari]

here is a link to what I am talking about

edited by poster

[Dragonfly]

If you are not trying to do an indirect advertizing, my answer is that I haven't heard about a break-through technology to split the water molecules with less energy than the energy produced by burning the resultant gas mixture.

[Scuderia Nuvolari]

They all seem to claim some kind of Electrolysis as the method used to seperate the molecules

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

[Richard]

To be effective, the energy used to power the hydrogen generator has to be less than the energy gained in supposed improved combustion.

Here are the claims, I'd like to see those with more knowledge than me pull it apart...

Hydrogen gas has a much higher flame speed than regular gasoline and acts as a catalyst to help the gasoline burn more cleanly and completely. This is why only a small amount of hydrogen is needed. We use Hydrogen gas not to replace the gasoline, but to assist the gasoline.

It is common knowledge that only about 30% of the fuel (gas or diesel) that you put in your vehicles gas tank is not burned during the engines combustion process. Diesel engines will expell the unburned fuel directly out of the vehicles exhaust pipe. Gasoline engines use a catalytic converter, so that the wasted fuel can be re-burned.

By Injecting a small amount of hydrogen gas into your vehicles engine mixed with your normal fuel will greatly improve the fuels Octane rating to about 140 Octane, much better than the 91 Octane that you get at gas stations. This causes a chain reaction with your gasoline to make it dramatically increase your vehicles horsepower and produce a complete burning of all the fuel in your vehicles gas tank.

.....

You will notice a HUGE difference… burning Hydrogen gas through your engine is like running 140 octane fuel, except without the heat. The hydrogen vapor will actually cool down your engine

Our Hydrogen Cell will help not only eliminate carbon deposits caused by unburned gasoline - but will actually steam-clean your engine.

Over the first couple of days you will notice that your engine will start to become smoother and quieter, then it will level off at a new level! The hydrogen vapor changes the combustion cycle into a more even or "round" cycle.

The effect is not only less noise, it's also less vibration, resulting in reduced strain on the transmission (thus smoother gear shifts), cleaner pistons and valves, and generally better engine operation.

....

Our average increase is around 45% and some people enjoy up to 60% and more, depending on your vehicle and driving habits. This includes both city and highway driving conditions.

[Scuderia Nuvolari]

They say that they can perform the separation with just a small amount of electricity which with my small knowledge of this makes all the red flags go up.
One claims that for $299 you can get 2-3 liters per minute and for $499 you get
4-5 Lpm of pure oxygen and hydrogen, that is a LOT of fuel, if that is the case, you would have to stop at every other gas station to fill up thier 3 quart water bottle. oh wait, I forgot, you have to use distilled water.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car

[xxChrisxx]

It's bollocks.

The energy required to break the hydrogen bonds, is higher than the energy released when they join back together (ie when they are combust). No amount of pseudo-scientific bullshit about electrolyte catalysts will change this. It not only goes against how chemistry works, but would also violate the laws of physics.

see enthalpy of formation and combustion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_e ... _formation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion

So you are wasting energy. Breaking the water into hydrogen and then burning it.

The excessive figures for 'efficiency' such as 'USE 50% LESS GAS'. Are either outright lies by people who want you to buy their design, or people who genuinely don't know what they are talking about.

You will see some marginal gains in MPG, becuase you are essentially running the engine lean, which means it gets hot (and in some cases breaks).


Bottom line - it's a con..

It is common knowledge that only about 30% of the fuel (gas or diesel) that you put in your vehicles gas tank is not burned during the engines combustion process. Diesel engines will expell the unburned fuel directly out of the vehicles exhaust pipe. Gasoline engines use a catalytic converter, so that the wasted fuel can be re-burned.

This is rubbish. All the fuel is burnt (assuming stoiciometric mixture and perfect combustion), but thermodynamically we are only captuing about 30-40% of the energy available from the content of the fuel. The result similar, but it's a critical distinction that shows someone with a poor understanding of how combustion works.

By Injecting a small amount of hydrogen gas into your vehicles engine mixed with your normal fuel will greatly improve the fuels Octane rating to about 140 Octane, much better than the 91 Octane that you get at gas stations. This causes a chain reaction with your gasoline to make it dramatically increase your vehicles horsepower and produce a complete burning of all the fuel in your vehicles gas tank.

What a load of ---. The only thing that a higher octane rating does is allow higher compression ratios without detonation, so unless you are swappuing out your rods to allow higher compression ratios, it's a total waste of time.

If your car has a knock sensor and can combust at max brke torque on 91 octane, putting in a higher grade is pointless.

[Scuderia Nuvolari]

From what I understand, you need about 500 degrees C to create the seperation.
Hypothetically, why couldn't a small onboard nuclear device perform this operation? With enough demand, why shouldn't this type of system be cost effective?
Let's just say that Hypothetically there are no terror cells, politicians love your product, and oil companies are forced to cage thier dogs.

[Scuderia Nuvolari]

Check out Chris's chart on combustion.
Gasoline looks like a toy compared to hydrogen

[autogyro]

Hydrogen is the lightest element, comparing it in a graph or chart showing thermal energy by mass is completely stupid.

[xxChrisxx]

From what I understand, you need about 15000 degrees F to create the seperation.
Hypothetically, why couldn't a small onboard nuclear device perform this operation? With enough demand, why shouldn't this type of system be cost effective?
Let's just say that Hypothetically there are no terror cells, politicians love your product, and oil companies are forced to cage thier dogs.

You don't need anywhere near that sort of temperature to create hydrogen. Electrolysis will make it just fine. How you make the electricity for the electrolysis is irrelevent.

The first thing to do before you asses if something is worth doing or not, is look at the steps from power generation to useage. As the laws of physics mean that nothing is 100% efficient the less steps the better.

So in this case you are proposing:
Nuclear reaction -> Electricity -> Hydrogen production -> Combustion -> motion.

When you could use:
Nuclear -> Electiricty -> Motor -> Motion.

This is the fundamental flaw of producting a 'fuel' to use immediately. It's is always more effcient to just use the energy that would 'make' the fuel to just power the car.


Also Hydrogen is NOT a fuel. It's an energy carrier, it has to be produced to be used. Meaning that it will ALWAYS return less energy than it took to make it.

Hydrogen is the lightest element, comparing it in a graph or chart showing thermal energy by mass is completely stupid.

This is crucial to understand. Although Hydrogen does indeed have a large amount of energy per kilo (specific energy), it's energy density is very low. Energy density (or molar energy) is more important than specific energy.

The only time Hydrogen becomes a useful fuel is when it's in compressed liquid form.

[Scuderia Nuvolari]

Hydrogen is the lightest element, comparing it in a graph or chart showing thermal energy by mass is completely stupid.

The chart is rated by the pound, not by specific gravity.
liquid hydrogen should be similar(without looking it up) to gasoline

[Scuderia Nuvolari]

From what I understand, you need about 15000 degrees F to create the seperation.
Hypothetically, why couldn't a small onboard nuclear device perform this operation? With enough demand, why shouldn't this type of system be cost effective?
Let's just say that Hypothetically there are no terror cells, politicians love your product, and oil companies are forced to cage thier dogs.

You don't need anywhere near that sort of temperature to create hydrogen. Electrolysis will make it just fine. How you make the electricity for the electrolysis is irrelevent.

The first thing to do before you asses if something is worth doing or not, is look at the steps from power generation to useage. As the laws of physics mean that nothing is 100% efficient the less steps the better.

So in this case you are proposing:
Nuclear reaction -> Electricity -> Hydrogen production -> Combustion -> motion.

When you could use:
Nuclear -> Electiricty -> Motor -> Motion.

This is the fundamental flaw of producting a 'fuel' to use immediately. It's is always more effcient to just use the energy that would 'make' the fuel to just power the car.


Also Hydrogen is NOT a fuel. It's an energy carrier, it has to be produced to be used. Meaning that it will ALWAYS return less energy than it took to make it.

Hydrogen is the lightest element, comparing it in a graph or chart showing thermal energy by mass is completely stupid.

This is crucial to understand. Although Hydrogen does indeed have a large amount of energy per kilo (specific energy), it's energy density is very low. Energy density (or molar energy) is more important than specific energy.

The only time Hydrogen becomes a useful fuel is when it's in compressed liquid form.

I am trying to make fuel not electricity.
I think that if you heat up certian elements and pass water over them, that it will produce hydrogen. I believe one of them is zinc.
Sorry about the 15000 degrees, I pushed the wrong button on my calculator.
Gentlemen if you want to make a nuclear powered electric car, wow far out man, more POWER too you.
Our cars should be (in my humble opinion) powered by hydrogen turbines with the fuel from OUR oceans, processed in OUR refineries.

[tathan]

Sorry about the 15000 degrees, I pushed the wrong button on my calculator.

Ah, that'll be the button marked "BULLSHIT"

My Casio doesn't have that one sadly.

[Scuderia Nuvolari]

Sorry about the 15000 degrees, I pushed the wrong button on my calculator.

Ah, that'll be the button marked "BULLSHIT"

My Casio doesn't have that one sadly.

I am truly sorry sir.
I am trying to get information about an alternate fuel.
I read one of the links and it said 500 degrees centigrade.
I multiplied 500 times 32 degrees farenhiet and said 15000.
Are you absolutely sure that you are in the correct forum?
Maybe you can add something constructive too this thread.
Please, by all means, enlighten us sir and please be the gentleman that we all know that you are capable of. =D>