So if the gas rises, would it not make more sense in the 2 bucket design to have the electrodes above the crossover or "H" piece of the set up to prevent any crossover?
Also does anyone know how much pressure the hydrogen gas will exert, and will it pass through a second container of water? Could you pipe in a "P" trap that allows the hydrogen to pass through a second small container of water to isolate the hydrogen going to the engine to minimize any explosion and prevent it from reaching the generator?
I love seeing all of us going through these thought processes. Excellent thoughts and questions, F350-6. I don't know ofr sure about everything you've pondered upon, but having the electrodes above the crossover line is definitely the right direction to ensure proper gas separation.
Even though I've stressed the safety issue so hard, my inquisitive engineering brain doesn't want to give up yet on taking advantage of the presence of the oxygen by collecting the combined gas mixture. I just want to do it safely.
Here is the link I saw a couple of weeks ago. The unit for our engines is the $1410 model that produces 100 liters per hour of brown's gas, and reportedly lets you run for 500 miles between "watering holes" ... sorry, guys, I couldn't resist that one. It's about 1/3 down the page.
Well I looked at your link and I can build and purchase all of the items in that picture for $100. If you have the $1310 instructions I think we're in business. It appears the PVC pipe with rubber ends and hose clamps is the hydrogen generator, and the stainless steel pipe (could be PVC pipe) with rubber ends and hose clamps is an outer container to help insulate so it can be operated in freezing temperatures. The copper fitting looks like it plugs into the PVC generator to exhaust the gas but I could be wrong.
The rubber caps with hose clamps are the blow off device for safety. Depending on the guage of the stainless steel PVC might be just as strong. Any explosion will follow the path of least resistance. The toggle switch seems to be the weak link in their design. You can forget to turn that off. I like Dan's idea of a switch wired to the accelerator pedal better, but I would also wire in a master kill switch just in case.
Have you seen the little platforms that plug into your receiver hitch to carry extra junk? This might be a good install place for an experimental generator and a solution to tailgaters at the same time.
Ideally if you are using a 1/4" or 3/8" line to feed the gas forward to the intake, the nominal pressure in the bucket shouldn't be more than a few PSI over atmosphere. I personally would rather have duct tape than a blow off valve. Some are good at .5 psi but I know for sure that a 1/4 blow off valve is not going to vent fast enough in the unfortunate event of explosion. The snap on lit will still hold enough pressure that the bucket would explode, try to take the lid off with equal pressure all around the lid, it won't come off. I think a smaller container for the generator bottom fed by a larger holding tank for water would be the way to go, you could minimize the amount of storage capacity, therefore less boom, but still have the water capacity as to not fill it up all the time.
I don't think separating the O and H in this case with two seperate buckets will work well enough to see any benefit. At 12V there wouldn't be much electrolysis going on. You could devise a louver system to keep each bubble on its own side and seal it at the top for two different chambers. Just have to keep the water level above the top louver. I personally would want to use both. I think focusing on minimal gas storage, and low pressure is the way to go.
Ideally if you are using a 1/4" or 3/8" line to feed the gas forward to the intake, the nominal pressure in the bucket shouldn't be more than a few PSI over atmosphere. I personally would rather have duct tape than a blow off valve. Some are good at .5 psi but I know for sure that a 1/4 blow off valve is not going to vent fast enough in the unfortunate event of explosion. The snap on lit will still hold enough pressure that the bucket would explode, try to take the lid off with equal pressure all around the lid, it won't come off. I think a smaller container for the generator bottom fed by a larger holding tank for water would be the way to go, you could minimize the amount of storage capacity, therefore less boom, but still have the water capacity as to not fill it up all the time.
I don't think separating the O and H in this case with two seperate buckets will work well enough to see any benefit. At 12V there wouldn't be much electrolysis going on. You could devise a louver system to keep each bubble on its own side and seal it at the top for two different chambers. Just have to keep the water level above the top louver. I personally would want to use both. I think focusing on minimal gas storage, and low pressure is the way to go.
I agree with everything you say here except the 12v part. The original post in this thread is using a very crude design with 12v power and wound up coat hanger wire. Plus getting 5 mpg more than without it. That's what I'm after is the mileage and have no intention of carrying a weather balloon around the bed of my truck full of "ignition potential".
I wonder if there is a way to tie it in to the cruise control indicator light so that it would only come on when the CC is engaged. That's all I'm after, really, is a good way to gain some mileage.
__________________
Dan
1999 F550 4x4 ZF6 pulling a Cedar Creek 36RLTS. Lotta mods.
1999 VW Jetta TDI 5speed stick, all stock.
1996 Audi A4 Quattro. Unstoppable in the snow and ice. God and Dog
Ideally if you are using a 1/4" or 3/8" line to feed the gas forward to the intake, the nominal pressure in the bucket shouldn't be more than a few PSI over atmosphere. I personally would rather have duct tape than a blow off valve. Some are good at .5 psi but I know for sure that a 1/4 blow off valve is not going to vent fast enough in the unfortunate event of explosion. The snap on lit will still hold enough pressure that the bucket would explode, try to take the lid off with equal pressure all around the lid, it won't come off. I think a smaller container for the generator bottom fed by a larger holding tank for water would be the way to go, you could minimize the amount of storage capacity, therefore less boom, but still have the water capacity as to not fill it up all the time.
I don't think separating the O and H in this case with two seperate buckets will work well enough to see any benefit. At 12V there wouldn't be much electrolysis going on. You could devise a louver system to keep each bubble on its own side and seal it at the top for two different chambers. Just have to keep the water level above the top louver. I personally would want to use both. I think focusing on minimal gas storage, and low pressure is the way to go.
You make good points, I'm just concerned with the effectiveness of duct tape. I think water splashing in the bucket will loosen the tape and therefore cause a leak. Maybe we should be thinking of using a sheet of rubber with a large hose clamp for the lid. I've got some rubber .045" thick that should rip open easily in case of an explosion.
I wonder if there is a way to tie it in to the cruise control indicator light so that it would only come on when the CC is engaged. That's all I'm after, really, is a good way to gain some mileage.
I like that idea. Another though would be speed related. I dont know if there is some way to get a signal from the speedo. Would work for those of us not running in the cities at least.
I like that idea. Another though would be speed related. I dont know if there is some way to get a signal from the speedo. Would work for those of us not running in the cities at least.
But that wouldn't work for guys driving down mountains. The cruise might work going uphill if you kept your foot in it before the cruise kicked out. I'm in flat country so none of that would affect me.
I was also thinking of a plug style connector, like they well with the crimped ends for connecting at least one lead to the generator. You could stabilize the wire, but in the case of an severe accident the generator could get knocked loose and the wire would unplug itself.
But that wouldn't work for guys driving down mountains. The cruise might work going uphill if you kept your foot in it before the cruise kicked out. I'm in flat country so none of that would affect me.
that was my thought, why I mentioned possibility of having it speed related. As far as and accident, could you tap into the same setup that shuts the fuel off in an accident?
that was my thought, why I mentioned possibility of having it speed related. As far as and accident, could you tap into the same setup that shuts the fuel off in an accident?
I don't trust that. I've had 3 work trucks (99 & up PSD) totalled and a half a dozen different wrecks in the last 8 years. (Other drivers not me. I apparently have a tendency to hire idiots ) I have not seen the fuel shut off activated yet.
This guy had to turn his engine off before he crawled out of the passenger door.
I have a question Pete might be able to find out more about, having access to a number of engineers. I talked to a chemist who said metal gets brittle when soaked in hydrogen. I'm going to corner him later next week and get more info, but just thought I'de put out some warning flags for the people ready to experiment.
I have a question Pete might be able to find out more about, having access to a number of engineers. I talked to a chemist who said metal gets brittle when soaked in hydrogen. I'm going to corner him later next week and get more info, but just thought I'de put out some warning flags for the people ready to experiment.
Consider me cornered already!!
That's an interesting concept regarding the embrittlement issue, and is certainly not far-fetched, but also may not quite apply to the type of process we are talking about in the electrolysis of water. I know that embrittlement can become a problem a variety of metals depending upon which chemical they are exposed to, chemical concentrations, temperatures, and the presence of any other chemicals that can sometimes act as "catalysts" for the embrittlement reactions. A perfect example is caustic and the 300 series stainless steels (304, 304L, 316, 316L, etc) ... extended exposure results in what is termed "caustic embrittlement" or "caustic-induced stress cracking". I am currrently working with a customer who is having to replace two large plate and frame heat exchangers due to this problem, which, by the way, is a direct result mainly of the heat exchangers having been originally oversized (long story)... the solution for them is smaller heat exchangers with more exotic plate materials.
In terms of the same phenomenon happening with exposure to hydrogen, the first thing I wonder about is whether or not the embrittlement is a result of extended low-temperature exposures due to the liquification/evaporation processes. Off-hand, I can't answer the question, but will certainly see if I can scratch anything up on the issue either over the weekend or sometime early next week.
Thanks Pete, I thought I might be the only one concerned about this.
I'm not worried about the embrittlement of the container. I'm concerned about any chemical reaction or chemical embrittlement inside the injector/cylinder/ exhaust etc. I also wonder about the physics of the explosion and how hydrogen effects the cetane level. Hydrogen is so much more explosive than diesel. If you added a percentage of gasoline to a tank of diesel will you see the same milage increase? Would this have a compareable effect on the engine. We are discussing the introduction of a fuel that our engine was not designed to use. The concept of something we could build at home and get fuel efficiency numbers like those of parkland has got me thinking, but also thinking about the longevity of the engine (which is why I bought it in the first place).
I did have an idea for the blow off valve. You may be able to get something like a relief valve for a hot water tank. I don't know the psi it would release at but someone may be able to chime in. I'm not sold the duct tape solution, something that threads in would be alot more permanent/reliable. I'm trying to think of something that would use a valve like that.
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. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
... sorry, guys, I couldn't resist that one. It's about 1/3 down the page.
) I have not seen the fuel shut off activated yet.
