Hydrogen from water and getting 30mpg on diesel

[FLSTS03]

I've posted this site before and I have a friend who has just installed the system. These guys seem to have a good product and it's worth a little time to check them out. While it's not water4gas, it is a injection method of improving performance not to mention it helps to keep your diesel running cooler. Steve www.snowperformance.net

[Marc Morgan]

Just for the record, the Hindenburg did not go up in flames because of the hydrogen, it was a reaction with the covering ( skin) that caused the explosion and burning.
Just a bit of history trivia.


I'm all for just offsetting the cost of regular fuel...but someday I believe we will replace it and I think water is the way to go!

marc

[HamRad]

Marc Morgan,

Last time I checked they still did not know for certain what set off the explosion. As far as I know it certainly was not the covering. If you are using the Mythbusters as a source for this information they did do an episode on this. What they demonstrated was that the compostion of the ingredients that made up the skin helped explain why the ship burned as quickly as it did...... they did not indicate that was what caused the fire and explosion in the first place.

So what is your source for this information?

HamRad

[SlickWillie]

Mythbusters = entertainment TV

[firetrucker]

Hydrogen burns, and explosively in the presence of the right amount of oxygen. In the Hindenburg, once ignited, the hydrogen HAD to burn, not explode, which is why people want to use it as a fuel. The Hindenburg was originally designed to use helium, but the US controlled the supply of helium, so hydrogen was used. US dirigibles used helium and consumed most of the world's supply at the time.

The Hindenburg and other Zeppelins had flown millions of miles, so why did it suddenly have a reaction with its skin? How could the skin burn and not the hydrogen, which was, by far, the largest fuel component?

Bob

[HamRad]

Will,

I'm not sure what you mean by your "entertainment" statement. Of course the program is entertainment. Do you mean that the science they use is NOT really science? If that is what you are saying then I would have to disagree. They seem very objective and follow a verifiable science routine.

Bob,

Good points.

Dennis

[firetrucker]

Dennis, I watch mythbusters quite a bit, and am mostly happy with their experimental technique. There are times, though, that I wish they were a bit more rigorous. I think they are close enough most of the time that I'll accept their results with only a bit of skepticism. They have even repeated experiments when readers have brought up significant questions. They don't seem to be so invested in their results that they aren't willing to question them and change their minds based on the new input.

Bob

[MacDR50]

Yes hydrogen requires a net loss of energy to separate it from water. What you have to look at is the total cost of getting a fuel from its natural state to its final point of use and then add costs associated with usage such as equipment maintenance as well as pollution and other environmental impacts. Hydro-electricity applied to water can produce hydrogen. Both are renewal resources and other than loss of land to flooding for dams, both are environmentally positive. Wind, solar, tidal and ocean energy systems are also sustainable sources of electricity. The greatest impediment to them all is a history of cheap fossil fuel and the incredible economic and political power associated with its extraction and distribution. Western society has developed and prospered burning fossil fuels. We have become like the Florida Kite, a bird that appears doomed because it only eats a certain type of snail that is becoming scarce. Unlike the kite we can change if we find the personal and collective will to do so. The experts say we have reached peak oil production and that even if we find every possible source of new oil and gas world production will level out and start to fall. I'd rather be using an alternative before that tidal wave builds and breaks on our shores.

[blarkman]

I know a great place to go trout fishing is this the same topic??
bob

[RVWheels]

Blarkman,

I assume from your post that you are questioning whether or not recent posts are on topic. For the most part the posts are discussing hydrogen. I see nothing wrong with the discussion as long as we don't go further afield.

The topic is making hydrogen from water to be used as fuel for internal combustion engines. For those who may be wondering exactly what the topic is.

Enjoy your trout fishing. Fishing is ALWAYS good!

RVWheels

[blarkman]

thats fine I was just curious

[skypilot]

It takes someone with foresight and a little (lot) craziness to come up with new ideas. Who knows, given a solar roof to provide the electricity at times, this may become more feasible. Just like adding propane to diesel, adding hydrogen adds another element into the 'fire' which increases power and efficiency. If the literature on hydrogen is correct, this also aids in reducing polution -- wouldn't it be nice to add this and get rid of the DPF and regen cycles ???

It takes many people, time, and corrective cycles to get a concept to market -- who would have thought from the early 'horseless carriages' we'd develop the cars and trucks of today; or from the Wright brother's first bicyles we'd have 767s, stealth aircraft much less space shuttles. Thankfully we have people who continue to think outside the box (so to speak), and those who are willing to invest their property in the testing. That said, I can't afford to be my own warranty station but when this product comes to the full market, I'll be one of those looking at it very hard -- truthfully, I already am - just not that convinced it is quite there yet.

[SlickWillie]

quote:Originally posted by HamRad

Will,

I'm not sure what you mean by your "entertainment" statement. Of course the program is entertainment. Do you mean that the science they use is NOT really science? If that is what you are saying then I would have to disagree. They seem very objective and follow a verifiable science routine.

Bob,

Good points.

Dennis

Anyone that produces a TV show to make money on; they worry about ratings. You can make lots of things turn out multiple results, just by slightly changing the inputs. I just like to take everything I see on TV with a grain of salt.

[HamRad]

Will,

You pretty much just described the "scientific method". Of course if you vary the input you may (will) effect the outcome! That's why they do the things the way they do.

And of course we should be careful of what we see and hear and read from TV, radio, newspapers and even our various governmental agencies. So I, too, look for various sources before settling on whether to believe something. That just makes good sense.

You do know the world is flat don't you?

Dennis

[blarkman]

Update on my origional post on water for gas. We did complete one unit from a very basic kit to see if it worked. Installed it on a Chev pick up and after 400 miles of fairly long drives on highways milage went from 18 to 22. Did hook up travel trailer but only got 1mile increase, but this was only to coast and over the mountains and winding road. We are finishing up the second one and will be installing it on my dodge diesel and see what I get on mytrip to Yuma, about 1250 miles so should be good test. We went for the very basic kit to see if it did get any improvement and so far are pleased with results
bob

[HamRad]

Bob,

Thanks for the first hand report. I'm wondering how you are dealing with all the variables. Are you driving as you did before you installed the device?

Anyway we appreciate your report and will follow this with great interest.

Thanks,

Dennis

[Dave Nowlin]

Let's see if I can shed a little light on this subject. It has been stated that the net energy which can be produced from the HHO made by the generator is only 85% of the energy used to produce it. So some call it a hoax without fully thinking this through. The real savings occur because when the HHO is introduced downstream of the MAP sensor and before the turbo no extra fuel is added by the computer to offset the extra pure oxygen which is introduced along with the hydrogen. Atmospheric air only contains 21% oxygen. The real advantage occurs because the burn rate of the diesel is accelerated by the Brown's Gas and it burns more completely. The resulting exhaust is cleaner and the energy output of the engine increases without adding more diesel. I am putting a unit on my truck this next week. I have also purchased a ScanGuage II to fully monitor more of my engine and drivetrain's vital info. This unit is made by some fellas out of Huntsville, Alabama and is using some innovative ideas. I will use the #1 upfitter switch to operate a solenoid so I can turn the unit off or on at will from the drivers seat. I will be monitoring water temperature, cylinder head temperature and other vital signs along with fuel economy. I will post a report when I have sufficient data. By the way, this unit uses distilled water which doesn't conduct electricity so baking soda is added to increase it's conductivity. The amount of baking soda added will to some extent control the amp draw and HHO production of the unit. If to many amps are drawn the fluid will boil which is not desirable. An aquarium pump isn't needed. The hydrogen is drawn from the unit by vacuum in the intake and if a vent is introduced to the vessel with a hose connected to it which runs to the bottom of the vessel, air will be drawn into it by the vacuum. This bubbler unit requires no energy and can be throttled. This really isn't rocket science. There are many here who are smart enough to produce their own unit. These products will continue to evolve. Another thought is the fact a vehicle with an HHO generator is considered a hybrid. Hence certain tax breaks are available to you which will in effect cause the government to reimburse you in tax credits for the cost of the unit up to a certain amount. Do a little research and you will be amazed at what is already out there. While the government claims to want you to reduce fuel use consider the fact that the auto makers and others know about this type technology. If this was on your 08 diesel from the factory you wouldn't need that expensive to purchase and expensive to operate particulate filter on your truck and your exhaust would be even cleaner. The downside is the government wouldn't be collecting as much fuel tax. Do you see the big picture now? This will be factory installed only after enough of these small businesses produce sucessful HHO units which the public finds do in fact work and save them money. Then the embarrased auto makers will be forced to produce their own units. Just think what it would mean to you if you could increase your mileage by 6 to 8 m.p.g. This will be done if it isn't already being done by someone somewhere. If I could just 18 to 19 m.p.g. while towing my 3295RK at 60 m.p.h. I would be a very happy fella.

Dave Nowlin

[blarkman]

Well just got the unit hooked up and running, drove out to visit the fellow who started me on this. I spent about $60 on it and in hindsight could have gone cheaper and easier. Truck started fine and by the way it is an 04 Dodge 3500 with 70,000 miles on it. It seems to run better but will be driving it to Portland airport tuesday about 150 miles and will check to see what it does for milage. At this point I have not changed anything as to driving or inital settings. You can buy made up kits, I have info,but they are six-seven weeks behind in delivery due to demand.
bob

[blarkman]

I did first test drive to Portland on freeway at 65 using cruise control, drove 95 miles and ended up 25.3 and I am smiling.

[dsprik]

I'm curious how it does carrying a load (Montana). Also, wondering about durability - long term maintenance, etc...