My boss ordered and installed a Commercial grade (high priced) hydrogen generator for his 1999 4.6L F-150. This particular unit can produce up to 2.0 liters per minute. He got it installed last week end and is going to share all his data/milage gains with me. He said the unit he got was of great quality, it even had a water pump and water cooler that came with it. I'll get back with you guys with all the gooey details.
__________________
- Chris -
Mine - 2002 7.3L F-350 Dually, Lariat, Crew Cab,
Long Bed, 4X4 and 60+ mods
Hers - 2004 6.0L Excursion Limited, 4X4 and a few mods
Also, can you enlighten us on more of the details regarding the "other issues" which result in engine failures for those who run a hydroboost setup? I know that I have seen one or two people suggest issues like "hydrogen embrittlement" for combustion chamber/exhaust components, but can't find any scientific data or reports to substantiate that suggestion.
Keep in mind that I am not necessarily saying you're wrong... I just want to see some research information that addresses these issues specifically.
I learned about hydrogen embrittlement in my engineering materials courses, but I am not sure about how the materials would be affected during the combustion process.
So far, this is all I have found on the embrittlement issue with combustion engines, but I'm still looking.
I raced a 2007.5 Duramax and it beat me by about 2 truck lengths. I'm pretty sure he was bone stock, cause I'd of been 1/4 behind him had he been.
Anyways, I have a 2002 F350 XLT CC 7.3L DRW. Mods I had running against him were Superchip 1705 (High performance setting), AFE Stage 1, straight piped, and ZooDad Air Intake Mod.
I learned about hydrogen embrittlement in my engineering materials courses, but I am not sure about how the materials would be affected during the combustion process.
So far, this is all I have found on the embrittlement issue with combustion engines, but I'm still looking.
I first have to say I can see great possibilities here.
There are a few things I have noticed as I read all of this though.
One of the first things that sticks out is regulating the amperage drawn by the amount of baking soda in the water.
This is fine, but then later we are wanting to control hydrogen production by regulating the amps.
On the last page I did see voltage mentioned which is the route you would have to use.
Given 15 amps at 12 volts you are looking at 180 watts.
Watts are the spec always given for power consumption or production.
Variations in the strength of the electrolyte is varying the amount of amps (watts) that are passing through the electrolyte at a constant voltage.
Given the same concentration of electrolyte, by varying the voltage you could vary the output.
The next thing that sticks out is separating the hydrogen and oxygen produced.
The farther the electrode are separated, the more voltage you will need to apply to generate the same amount of gas.
You could make the electrolyte stronger as another method to keep the gas production up though.
Several times someone was going to use the container as one of the electrodes, but also consider that the electrodes will need to be replaced at some point in time.
Replacing rods inside the tank will be cheaper than replacing the tank.
Also as the tank degrades, it will become weaker to the point it where fails.
As for the vertical or horizontal orientation of the rods, given a fixed container size the horizontal rods will remain immersed at a constant depth longer than vertical rods will.
Plates would have a larger surface area so the gas production would be greater, but you also have to figure that plates will also trap more gas between them, so the contact area with the electrolyte may become less.
Less contact area means less gas produced.
As for the storage tank, there will have to be an area at the top of the tank that is not filled with fluid for the gas to collect and be drawn off.
Regulating the level with a fill valve would work, but also adds to the complexity, which also adds to potential points of failure.
Something like a stuck valve with a storage tank up under the hood could result in liquid going into the engine, not a good thing.
If you used horizontal rods, as water is used up, the electrolyte will become stronger.
As this happens the amperage the unit draws at a constant voltage will increase as more current is passed through the stronger electrolyte.
So by monitoring the amperage drawn, you could know when it was time to refill.
Something as simple as a plumbing check valve could be used to prevent flashback into the generation tank.
After reading only some of the links provided, I do think a temp limit switch would be a great addition to prevent steam generation instead of hydrogen generation.
And a temp gauge to monitor water temp in the generator might be a great tool to use as you went through the design process.
We are not talking about running the engine on hydrogen and oxygen.
What we are talking about is helping the flame spread through the cylinder more completely and faster to burn the fuel that is already there at a time when it will be used as power instead of being exhausted as pollution.
I have used propane fumigation, both as a way to increase MPG and as an increase to power.
After a while with some careful cost observations, the MPG increase was offset by the cost of propane, so there was no gain where it matters most, in the wallet.
With higher fumigation levels, power increases were also possible, but that just increased operating expenses buying propane on top of the diesel.
Water however has a much lower cost per gallon.
At this time I do have very accurate MPG records on my computer for the last 10 years I have operated my truck.
Since fuel here was 4.10 a gallon as of Friday I will be trying this to see if I can turn the estimated 20% of my fuel that is going out the exhaust into power to the wheels.
__________________
86 F250 HD 6.9 IDI ATS turbo "not exactly" stock 4x4 T19 BW1345 3.55LS both ends D60 front, 10.25" Sterling rear, ram air, dual stacks.
Way back in the 70s, during the last energy crisis, my farmer neighbor knew someone who tinkered with this a lot. He used perforated SS plates, and as I recall, the best spacing for the plates was 3/32". Also, I believe he said it would generate up to 30 psi of pressure on its own within a sealed chamber. Any higher than that, and the output would go way down. He was in to it pretty heavily, but than the price of fuel went way down again in the 80's, so he stopped tinkering with it.
If I recall, his goal was to get his pickup to run on just the Brown's gas, without other gas, but it never quite got there. I think the reason is that the no matter what, the BTUs of energy gained from this is less than the BTU of energy you input to generate the gas, so it isn't efficient enough to be able to do this. However, doing it this way by using some of the spare alternator output seems to make a lot of sense.
The question is, is the extra energy enough to offset the additional energy required to drive the alternator? Based on the testimonials, it would seem to be, probably because so much of the energy of the fuel we are burning anyway is wasted and not being used to move the vehicle. I doubt this would be the case if the engine were loaded very close to its maximum HP, i.e. a small engine that was precisely matched to the power required to move the car at any given speed, where any additional load would put the engine out of its optimal torque/HP curve. Just my thoughts.
I'm seeing other posts in other discussions tallking about not being able to create enough energy to make hydrogen make sense. I know they are talking about an all hydro car, but for this exercize I think your post just kicked this over to the "I wanna try this" level.
Could someone check my public school math, please? Or tell me where else I'm stupid (with women doesn't count - I already know that).
If my V10 gasser makes 310hp at 15 mpg on the road (babying the skinny pedal) then - making this simple - adding 1 hydro cell would effectively make the gas mileage 14.95 due to increased engine load, but would decrease the need for gas by approximately 20 - 25%. Since the decrease in gas mileage is only 1/3 of 1% due to load, the cell makes sense.
Don't take my other posts wrong..I honestly think hydrogen is the way to go ...and is a HUGE untapped resource that we can learn about and use.
I was just trying to get some people to slow down and read , research and learn more
before someone went off half cocked and turned their garage into a smokin' hole in the ground! lol
I had nightmares last night.
The result was a variable output hydrogen generator, but it would only work on a turbocharged engine as I have it figured right now.
I need some info, are V10 engines fly by wire or do they have a throttle cable?
Diesel dummy here, I have never even looked under the hood of a V10.
Now same question about the 5.4 please.
Last evening I watched and read a lot of information on Browns gas generation, and consumption.
Two questions that I have not figured out, actually one question has to do with the need for timing changes on gasoline engines.
We have several natural gas companies here locally, most of their vehicles are converted to run natural gas or gasoline.
The original conversions had very little power, due to the fact natural gas is about like 130 octane gasoline.
Very slow up any incline at all, which we have many of here in WV.
The advent of a dual curve distributor and fine tuning a few things has resulted in a vehicle that runs equally well on either fuel.
__________________
86 F250 HD 6.9 IDI ATS turbo "not exactly" stock 4x4 T19 BW1345 3.55LS both ends D60 front, 10.25" Sterling rear, ram air, dual stacks.
I know what you mean about ignition resistance, same is true for LPG which usually has an octane of 100-110 (thats why early dual fuel setups sucked). But hydrogen has a high flame speed, so once the regular ignition event happens, it should naturally burn at least as fast as the diesel/gasoline/propane or whatever the engine is running on.
Because of the high self ignition temperature of hydrogen, its going to be the petro fuel that sets if off, so the timing shouldn't be a big problem, if at all. I am beginnig to see how the results might actually be possible......
__________________
1986 F250HD Ex cab Fresh built up 6.9L diesel, Lariat AC leather seats power everything w/full cluster, sterling rear 3.08LS gears, E4OD trans, ram intake ATS 088 turbo
1986 F150 Ex cab Lariat rollercam 5.0L on LPG AOD trans 3.55 gears 390 000Ks
I can get my mind around that if you produced enough hydrogen you would get a "boost" with it.
Question I have is how many liter per hour do these hydrogen generators provide and how many liters per hour of air does a 7.3L diesel truck use (or a gasser)? Divide the two and would the ratio of hydrogen to air really be enough to provide enough "boost" to make any significant gains in fuel efficiency?
__________________
Eero
1988 F-250 4x4 7.3L 5Spd XLT SC LB K&N AF 150,000M Great Shape Super Clean Project Truck
1988 F-250 4x4 7.3L 5Spd XLT SC LB K&N AF 286,000M Beach/Wood/ Hunting/Fishing/soon to be parts truck
My boss ordered and installed a Commercial grade (high priced) hydrogen generator for his 1999 4.6L F-150. This particular unit can produce up to 2.0 liters per minute. He got it installed last week end and is going to share all his data/milage gains with me. He said the unit he got was of great quality, it even had a water pump and water cooler that came with it. I'll get back with you guys with all the gooey details.
OK, after fixing some installation errors my boss finally made some head-way. He only saw a solid 2mpg gain with city driving. He will be taking a trip to the Carolina's in a few weeks, so I'll post what gains it does on the highway.
He also thinks that this particular generator may be too small for his application, he has plans to build a larger unit after this one is fully tested. Which works out because he wants to install this one on his wifes Miata.
Here is the link to the one he is currently testing: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Hydro...QQcmdZViewItem
__________________
- Chris -
Mine - 2002 7.3L F-350 Dually, Lariat, Crew Cab,
Long Bed, 4X4 and 60+ mods
Hers - 2004 6.0L Excursion Limited, 4X4 and a few mods
OK, after fixing some installation errors my boss finally made some head-way. He only saw a solid 2mpg gain with city driving. He will be taking a trip to the Carolina's in a few weeks, so I'll post what gains it does on the highway.
He also thinks that this particular generator may be too small for his application, he has plans to build a larger unit after this one is fully tested. Which works out because he wants to install this one on his wifes Miata.
Here is the link to the one he is currently testing: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Hydrogen-Gen-HHO-Fuel-Samson-DUO-Commercial-Grade_W0QQitemZ140214569631QQihZ004QQcategoryZ3360 9QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
That's good info Chris. What mileage was he seeing before the install? If he went from 13 to 15 MPG and drives 30,000 per year then he'll save about $667 assuming $3.50 gas. That's a pretty quick return on investment.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
