Don't worry about EGTs. H+ burns cooler than diesel and will actually help to lower EGT.
H+ = more power, lower EGTs, cleaner and more efficient burn, decreased emmisions. Infused and added properly.
I'm subscribed.
Dan... nice idea about the salt, but when you electrolize a salt solution, you end up with by products of chlorine gas and sodium hydroxide (NaOH). That's the exact same commercial process that has been used for years to generate both caustic and chlorine for industrial applications... virtually no hydrogen gas at all, and we all know that we don't want any chlorine gas inside our iron and steel engines.
One other option instead of the baking soda, though, is lye (caustic soda, or caustic, of NaOH).
Having a physical power disconnect tied to a "blow-off" cap is not a bad thought at all.
The electrolyte you want is Magnesium Sulfate - Epsom salt. It won't evolve any gasses on its own. You can get it at most drug stores, usually in a paper carton like a half gallon of milk.
Hello list. First let me say that I am not trying to hijack any of the excellent information so far mentioned about using or designing a hydrogen boosted fuel system. I applaud parkland's success and effort in starting this thread. I would like to add some very important information about design safety and performance along with some general information.
First is safety: as already mentioned the flame speed of hydrogen is very fast. Protecting the electrolyzer from flash back can be as simple as a "U" shaped tube half filled with water. This may be the best way. The auto ignition temperature of hydrogen is in the temperature range of most glow plugs, so it would be highly advisable to have a disconnect pre and during glow plug operation.
Using the "U" shaped tube provides some protection from the electrolyte getting into the engine as well.
Performance: the basic design of your electrolyzer can add to its performance. The basic design needs to be several times longer or wider than it is tall.(example only) say you want to use a tube design (say 6" by 36") you would want to install the tube in a horizontal position. Using the same example, you would then want the electrodes to be say 36" inches long and Not taller than 50% of the height of the container used. Now, the surface of the electrode needs to be very ruff as if it had been sanded with heavy grit sand paper.
Most of the literature says to keep the amperage draw of the electrolyzer under 10 amps in order not boil the water into steam vapor. You can convert a high percentage of the steam vapor into hydrogen by routing the flow thru small iron pipes or a bed of iron balls or such. This is a high maintenance approach as rust will form very quickly and can block up the system. The better over all system may be to make it large enough that steam vapor is not formed.
Operating the electrolyzer under a vacuum increases the performance greatly. If you use vacuum, you mostly likely will have to increase the volume area above the electrolyte.
Please do not take the above as the only way of doing things, trust what you achieve and not what is said that you can not achieve.......
crossbones
__________________
1989 Super Duty Rollback..Beru GPs...Delphi Injectors.. (10,250# empty, 5.13 RA.....started with about 9.7 MPG....timing change resulted in 11.1 MPG...installed out of the box new injectors,timing change 12.7 MPG, rebuilt IP timing change 13.8 MPG....target 18 MPG)
Thanks for taking the time to share this interesting information, crossbones. Sounds like you know quite a bit about this type of setup.
I do, however, have a few comments/observations/questions. I hope you don't take my comments and questions as being either nit-picky, condescending, or being associated with any other negative approach. I'm just trying to reconcile what I've learned over the years of my engineering work in industry with what you've briefly explained. I'm sure that I've probably oversimplified (in my mind) what you've shared, which is probably why a couple of points are sticking in my mind.
That said.... just take my questions as simple "I don't understand" type of questions.
1. Regarding the orientation of the "tube design", what you have described is exactly opposite of what most "purchased systems" demonstrate as the correct installation of their system. It also complicates the installation potential greatly if one decides to stay under the hood. Why is it that these other systems are opposite your recommendations, and why are you recommending a horizontal approach?
2. In regards to your "u-tube", sometimes referred to as a "loop seal", how is it that the hydrogen is supposed to get past the seal (vacuum pump, air pump, etc.)? Also, the size of the loop (height of water in the U) provides a back pressure against the electrolyzer system that is going to have to be overcome by some means. What is your recommendation for overcoming this back pressure, and is there a maximum water column height that you recommend?
3. In terms of dealing with the steam, why would the loop seal not serve as a heat sink and simply condense any steam generated? Is it because it is too small of a quantity of water to be thermally effective? Also, how is it that the iron balls or pipes are going to convert the steam to hydrogen? Don't they really provide just a condensation surface, and there is no true "conversion" of steam to hydrogen/oxygen gas? If the iron pipe/balls were all that were required, we would not need the elelctrolyzer itself... just a small boiler for a steam generator coupled with iron pipes or a chamber of iron balls, and I don't quite see what the mechanics are for the conversion of steam to elemental gas just by contacting iron metal.
I think that the water in the loop seal would give way to the pressure provided by the steam generation Pete. Thats the way it makes sense to me in my mind anyway. I could be wrong.
__________________ -Jason PAA Member #3 2003 Lariat CC4X4, DP Tuner, leveling kitw/ 315's, straight piped... As my friend Mark would have said-The 2nd Amendment- Washington didn't use his free speech right to defeat the British, he SHOT them. Roadside Help Network
That's sort of what I'd be afreaid of, too... ending up blowing the seal into the intake system... we don't want that to happen, for sure.
About the only way to avoid that, in my mind, would be to use a large diameter hose, say 1-1/2 inches, looped down very low, say about 30 inches, but only run with about 2-3 inches of water depth. Under those conditions, it would take a tremendously HUGE surge of pressure to blow the seal water up into the intake system, but very little pressure to actually allow the gases to pass through with a little bit of steam absorption.
Hello F250. You should be nit-picky about information that goes against the "flow of excepted information". I am not saying that the vertical orientation will not work, just that the horizontal orientation will work better. First adding depth to water adds pressure, pressure decreases bubble production. Second, as people experiment to get the most hydrogen production, they will be adding more electrodes and they will be closer together in the chamber, this sets ups "channels" that can become "clogged" with slow moving bubbles decreasing the production of hydrogen.
The expansion ratio of water to hydrogen is about 1800 to 1. As hydrogen is produced, the pressure rises inside the electrolizer and pushes the hydrogen and oxygen by the "U tube" water seal. As for the depth of water in the U tube, this will be trail and error relationship to the production level of your electrolizer.
I most likely should not have mentioned hydrogen production from steam reforming as this thread started about electrolyzes, but it is very old technology, maybe older than electrolyzes. As the steam vapor passes over the iron balls, oxidation takes place (rust), this takes up the oxygen molecule and frees the hydrogen. Steam reforming is very problematic and has high maintenance on the equipment, plus the equipment must be much larger to provide the require surface area for the oxidation to take place, and much more difficult to control the volume of production. I do not recommend it. I highly recommend to design your electrolizer so that the water temperature never gets hot enough for steam production.
A big problem can happen with steam vapor is when the water in the U tube gets hot enough to start producing it's own steam vapor, the water level will drop and you lose the flash back protection.
It's not a question of Hydrogen Economy, it's just how was it done 150 years ago. Think in simple terms using basic logic..................
crossbones
__________________
1989 Super Duty Rollback..Beru GPs...Delphi Injectors.. (10,250# empty, 5.13 RA.....started with about 9.7 MPG....timing change resulted in 11.1 MPG...installed out of the box new injectors,timing change 12.7 MPG, rebuilt IP timing change 13.8 MPG....target 18 MPG)
First adding depth to water adds pressure, pressure decreases bubble production. Second, as people experiment to get the most hydrogen production, they will be adding more electrodes and they will be closer together in the chamber, this sets ups "channels" that can become "clogged" with slow moving bubbles decreasing the production of hydrogen.
First let me say I'm not claiming to be as smart as you or Pete. I understand you're comment about rough texture since you are trying to increase the surface area of the electrode. In regards to the vertical application, how much are you thinking an additional 8"-10" of water will slow production? Do you have a percentage in mind?
In regards to the channels reducing production, sticking with our 5 gallon bucket starting point, what kind of spacing do you recommend between electrodes? Are you in favor of the coat hanger style rods, or the plates?
Your last comment about keeping things simple points back to parkland just sticking coat hangers in a plastic bucket. He's the one getting better MPG's & power while we all sit around and attempt to redesign the wheel.
Just read the whole thread, and sounds really cool. I can't think of any reason why this wouldn't work in the long run, hydrogen acts as a combustion aid being more easily combusted, and as a bonus, produces small amounts of water directly in the chamber. This in turn helps to control the EGTs and should help thermal efficiency (better MPGs). I have to try this........
__________________
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
If you surrounded your electrodes with something insulating, gas tight, and gas conductive (a gurgical tube 'manifold' arrangement) you could keep the H2 and O2 separate, thus greatly reducing the chances for accidental detonation. It's been @30 years since I took chemistry, but I think the - electrodes will generate H2, while the +poles will generate O2. The solution becomes gradually more concentrated as H2 and O2 is drawn off, but that is readily eaplaced. Also, you could release the O2. and claim you're actually improving everyone's air!
I have to say that this is not something that I will try.....well maybe, but I have posted this thread on some other sites to bring in some new ideas. Great stuff.
I have an idea of my own about the container. How about a Tuff Box or what ever they call them. Like you see at Lowes and Wally World to put your stuff in and put in the truck or garage for storage....the heavy plastic storage box, not the under your bed type. Use bungy cord for the lid. Inside use horizonal pipe set in three or four rows with end plats to hold them, I was thinking plexi. This could be set down into the water in the box. Larger than a bucket with a lot of contact area like Crossbones said.
Edit: You know, after rethinking this idea, it would be the Semi size. Maybe a plastic tool box?
I also have a question about the "U" tube. If it were made with 90* fittings, would it be harder to push the water up? Maybe even an expansion tube on the up side?
__________________
03, CC,F350,DRW,SB,4WD,7.3,AFE II Pro 7,CCV MOD,THREE GAUGES,4739, DP TUNER with Permagrin setting, 5" Cannon, Zodad, AIH Delete, Power Slots, Hawks. TCLUS. Coolant Filter, Sonnix, Fuel Pump Shim.....SOLD
Last edited by Hotwheelbill; 12-19-2007 at 06:52 AM.
crossbones.... thanks for the clarification. I didn't even think about the oxidation reaction itself being the source of the H2 generation. In terms of Horiz-vs-Vert, I was suspecting that your explanation was why you were recommending that configuration, but it does end up creating potential installation barriers for an "under hood" installation. In fact, the highest H2 generation rates I've seen in the "commercial units" are still using the vertical arrangement even for semi's that have engines up to 900 CID. I guess this might potentially be a point where the theory is exactly correct, but the practical demands for our engines may not make the difference great enough for us to be able to appreciate in reality.
wdycus... your proposal is most effectively applied when using something like what Joe presented in post #73, which is known as a Hoffman Apparatus. The upside of increasing safety by releasing the oxygen is also coupled with a downside of less oxygen hitting the combustion chamber for at least some impact on combustion efficiency.
Bill, your concept of an "expansion tube" on the up side of the loop seal is basically what I was getting at with my earlier post in terms of trying to stay with a large diameter hose for the loop seal to begin with. A really fancy approch to this would be a short piece of say 2-inch PVC that is very loosely packed with stainless steel scrubbing pads as a form of a mist eliminator, especially if it is mounted on a slight incline so that the condensation or entrained moisture could run down the bottom side of the pipe back into the loop seal.
Here's another concern I have over simply relying on the pressure generated by the electrolyzer as being the sole means of getting the gas past the loop seal. Our turbos have the ability fo create a vacuum inside the induction tube from our gas generator, but this ability in reality will vary as the air filter gets more and more clogged over time. It almost seems to me that a small vvacuum pmp may be a good addition to the system to always ensure that the gas gets injected into the intake tube, especially when the air filter is clean and free flowing, which is when the turbo-created vacuum in the intake tube will be at it's lowest.
Also, while I'm thinking about this again, I think that we all may be overdoing it a little bit by using 5-gallon buckets. Looking at all the systems I've been able to track down, as well as the plans for "building your own", they all are using containers less than one gallon, but they are generally for smaller engines as well. The few I've seen designed for our larger sized engines are using something in the order of 1 to 1.5 gallon containers.
Therefore, if we take the approach to provide as much water as possible to create a substantial heat sink in effort to avoid boiling, a 2.5 gallon bucket should be more than adequate and at the same time double the travel distance on a single charge of water and "catalyst" (baking soda, lye, Epsom Salts, etc.). The only system I've seen advertised for engines our size (that has pictures of the apparatus) advertises a 500 mile travel distance on a single charge. By doubling the charge volume into a 2.5 gallon bucket, that takes the travel distance to 1000 miles, which would be anywhere from 3-6 filllups for most of us (obvisouly veries depending on when you fill up and how large your tank is).
Hello F350-6. The total depth of the water is important, but the more critical factor is length of the channel that the bubble has to rise through to free itself from the electrodes.
Ok, with the 5 gallon plastic bucket or plastic tub. I would prefer plates as electrodes as I can control the distance between the plates with plastic shim washers (hey, use what works for you) Just keep in mind that the plates have to be secure so that they can not short out. I would start with about 3/8 to 1/2" spacing and work from there(experiment with the number of pairs of plates and the spacing to keep the total amperage draw under 10 amps)
I have up loaded a typical example of a Hydrogen Booster for a Gas Engine to my gallery. This design relies on the intake vacuum of the gas engine to pull outside air up through the electrodes to "scrub" the hydrogen/oxygen bubbles off the electrodes for increased performance. You could use this design on a diesel by adding a small 12 volt vacuum pump.(remember vacuum is preferred over pressure). If you look closely at the source of the outside air supply it says it is from the exhausts manifold........Please Note that this design is for a gasoline engine of which has about 2% hydrogen by volume in the exhaust flow. I Do Not Know if this percentage applies to a diesel engine or what effect any particulate matter sucked into the electrolizer would have..............it could be worth a try?????
I am not saying to reinvent the wheel here........just to build a damn good wheel..........with simple methods, design and materials........
Pete......on your suggestion about using a expansion chamber.........you need the highest pressure/vacuum disparity you can get in the expansion chamber (low pressure/high vacuum)
By the way, if Epsom Salt makes a good electrolyte,,,,,,,then a little residue getting into the combustion chamber would be a good thing..........the other so far mentioned electrolytes would Not be good.......
crossbones
__________________
1989 Super Duty Rollback..Beru GPs...Delphi Injectors.. (10,250# empty, 5.13 RA.....started with about 9.7 MPG....timing change resulted in 11.1 MPG...installed out of the box new injectors,timing change 12.7 MPG, rebuilt IP timing change 13.8 MPG....target 18 MPG)
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.
