an 80 amp load @ 12 volts, on an alternator only equates to 3-4 HP of mechanical energy.

 

I'll type slowly so 6686 can understand......All of the fuel (gasoline for instance) that is injected into the cylinders of the motor is not burned. The idea behind injecting the small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen is create hotter more complete burn of the fuel in the cylinder. There is no energy created you are just realizing a greater percentage of the potential (a catalyst). It's only been 15 years since I've taken a physics class so I remember some of it along with the little bit of chemistry involved. I'm no dumby either.....but I just don't get your horny squirl idea maybe you could send some pix or a nice diagram to help the rest of us out. From my reserch horny squirels only like Japanese supermodels and I don't think that Alba girl is one. Let us know how that thing work out for ya.

 

Thank you for typing slowly - I am even more stupid than I am ugly...so, yeah..I am really dumb.

I do agree with much of your "post" as you note, internal combustion engines are not 100% efficient. They waste energy like crazy. Much of the energy from the burning of gasoline is wasted as heat - which is why we have radiators. I would not be surprised if you could demonstrate, if not in a lab, at least theoretically, that introducing an oxidzer into the combustion process would reduce the loss from unburned gasoline.

The problem I see, as I have noted earlier, is how do we get that oxidizer. If we are going to create it by breaking down water, we are going to be simply doing a "slight of hand" with the energy-exchange issue. Which leads us back to the question of what can we do to increase over-all gas mileage.

Best way to reduce the heat loss, i.e. capture more energy from the combustion process - is raise the compression ratio - which explains why diesel engines are so much more efficient than gasoline engines. Problem in raising the compresson ratio but sticking to gasoline, rather than slower-burning diesel, is you have to chemically reduce the flame travel speed of the gasoline, as you increase the compresson ratio. That means "hi octane" fuels, which isn't a viable choice in view of the contanimation issue (octane inhancers (translation into plane English - stuff that slows the flame speed so as to prevent "detonation") screw up the atmosphere.

Which leads me back to the idea of the horny squirrel. Would squirrel poop work as an oxidizer ? Damn...but we'd have to feed the squirrel...so even THAT isn't going to change those pesky laws of physics...

Here's an idea - I have found ( no joke..this is for real - several mpg diff.) that even slightest changes in wind speed and direction, can have dramatic effects on an Excursion's fuel burn.

What about only driving with a tail-wind..and only driving down hill ?

 

OK. Here's the deal. Let's stipulate that if you inject Hydrogen into the mix that there is a more complete burn and more power is milked out of each bit of fuel. That would increase fuel economy. Nobody is disputing that.

The other side of the equation is the source of the Hydrogen. If you brought a bottle of compressed Hydrogen with you (didn't make it with the Excursion's engine) you would not have a downside in fuel economy. There would be the price you had to pay for the bottled Hydrogen, but that is another subject. If you are going to make the Hydrogen gas with the Excursion's engine as you drive, however, it is going to cost you some power. Electrolysis takes LOTS of power. That is going to put an additional drag on your engine. Kind of like running your air conditioner. That would decrease fuel economy.

The question is: Will the increased fuel economy resulting from burning the fuel more completely offset the decreased fuel economy caused by the additional load on the engine from the electrolytic decomposition of water into Hydrogen and Oxygen?

I can't say definitively. I have an appreciation for how much power it takes to bust up water molecules, but I don't have any idea how much power would be realized from the Hydrogen in the fuel. My gut feel is that you would be using more power than you would be gaining and overall fuel economy would go down.

Now, I realize that nobody here has the ironclad answer to this. Who can know without someone trying? I would never say, "I don't think it will work, so you're an idiot if you try." That is just a stupid position to take.

I anxiously await the results of someone's trial. Don't get taken advantage of by hucksters, though. There are plenty of them out there.

 

Finally a voice of reason!!! Any way does anyone have any ideas of where you could put something the size of a one gallon container on the truck in a safe location?

 

I have a 12.5 gallon air tank and two compressors under the truck between the drivers frame rail and the driveshaft.

There is plenty of room under there.


Bryan

 

Great post. Here's the rest of the story. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion engine -- meaning you will ALWAYS use more energy than you can make. This hydrogen generator is just another scam to capitalize on the furor over gas prices. Remember the '70's and all the gadget folks had to improve MPG then?

Physics; not just a good idea, it's the law!

Steve

 

many cars that i have had have a windshield washer tank that sits in the front wheel fender area, somewhere between the outer fender and the inner wall. <can probably take off the fender and mount it securely before replacing the fender> heck you could prob use a container like that from and old vehicle, still will have pump and all to get the water to where you need it>

many a person will be watching these threads in good hope. GOOD LUCK and keep us posted with your advancements.

 

Shame on you, Steve, for your "smart a$$" answer. These nice people KNOW what they want to believe - how dare you come in here and bother them with simple laws of chemistry and physics they SHOULD have learned in high school. Dont you see the business opportunity here ? Instead of making fun of these nice people, we should be starting a mail-order business for hydrogen generators (powered by horny squirrels..)

Here's an idea for a nice accessory....I am thinking about going into production of a two gallon water tank, and hose, together with a mouth-piece, so the squirrel (did you follow MY solution to how to get better gas mileage out of the Excursion..you gets you a nice horny squirrel, a circular cage (known traditionally, and for obvious reasons, as a "squirrel cage", and hook it up to a bicycle head-lamp generator...that's how you will make all that hydrogen)......anyway...I forgot that the squirrel might get thirsty...so, people will need to buy some provision for the squirrel to get a drink of water. I am also going to market a plastic protective cover for the PLAYBOY calendar girl that needs to be posted where the horny squirrel can see it. I mean..if the squirrel gets TOO excited...well....

I see some TREMENDOUS financial opportunities to sell accessories for the "hydrogen generator" idea...let's get started on this with some new ideas..! What about a nice set of fashion designed "bootes" for the squirrel's paws..?

 

So the supercharger on my buddy drag car doesn't actually make more power, it is robbing him of power...right?

My point, is that you can increase efficiency without 'creating' energy.

 

Correct...there are any number of ways to increase the effiency of a gasoline motor.

Yes, super-charging is one way of increasing efficiency, IF your desire to to get a LOT more power (energy) to the rear wheels. But it sure as hell wont improve gasoline mileage ! Why, because its function is to cram MORE energy into the motor. The super-charger on your buddy's engine dosnt make actually "make" ANY power at all. What it DOES do..is just SIT there, until it is "driven" by the crank-shaft.

Once the motor is started, that super-charger is "driven" - it STILL dosnt make ANY power whatsoever. What it DOES do, is FORCE a lot more energy into the engine, which comes from the gasoline tank. Of course it takes a LOT of energy to drive that super-charger, but, it is taking so much MOREenergy from the gasoline tank, there is a tremendous net gain in rear wheel power. Again, that power had to come from somewhere. You want lots more power ? You got to get a lot more energy. We call the energy we use in our cars "gasoline". The more power you want, the more gasoline you use.

Which gets us back to our horny squrrel. You want him to generate hydrogen ? You are going to have to feed him.

 

The supercharger does not make the engine more efficient. It gives it more capacity. The engine is designed to put out a certain amount of power. The support systems (fuel delivery system, air delivery system, transmission, etc..) are sized with the engine's designed performance in mind.

When you put a supercharger onto an engine that was originally not supercharged (increasing its air delivery rate and begining-of-cycle pressure), you must also redesign the other support systems to make good use of the extra air. The fuel delivery system must be able to provide a higher flowrate of fuel. The transmission must be able to withstand a higher torque value. The engine's maximum horsepower output is now higher than it was before, but it is definitely not more fuel efficient.

That being said, some cars are designed with a turbocharger or a blower so that they will have a larger range of power using a smaller engine. For example, a four-cylinder engine with a turbo will cruise with slightly less efficiency than the same one without a turbo, but have a higher maximum output when called for. This makes more sense than putting a larger, normally aspirated engine in the car because the larger engine will use more fuel at any power other than the top end of the power band, a place where you spend relatively little time.

So, to get back on subject, what we are talking about here is a tradeoff. I think the original poster was looking for a way to improve the fuel economy of his Excursion, not the maximum performance. We still have the same question to answer:

Will he gain more than he loses in fuel economy when he runs a Hydrogen Generator and injects the gas into his fuel system?

I am interested to find out two things, actually. Firstly, can this thing be built (or does it already exist)? Secondly, assuming the first question is answered affirmatively, what will the net result be in regards to fuel economy?

We can have this discussion without calling each other fools if we are grownups, you know. I am reminded of a guy that we had to fire a few years ago. If you didn't agree with him, you were an idiot. Very rude. He was convinced that he was the smartest, most capable operator Nuclear Power had ever seen. That is, until the day he was frog-marched off site for gross incompetance. You see, if a person is convinced that he is always right, he isn't in a position to learn from his mistakes. He doesn't recognize them. It's always the other guy that is hosed up.

While I personally don't think this idea has merit, I am very interested to know the answer for sure. I would very much like to be off base on this one. Since I don't think it will work, I won't invest any of my time and effort on it. Someone who thinks it will work, on the other hand, might be willing to. That's how the rubber meets the road in idea land. Just keep your eyes open and don't get burnt.

 

I am glad you "dont think this idea has merit". Shows you are using your head.

But you ask "can this thing be built"..? Had you more background in basic physics ( I dont blame you personally ..I blame the post 1950's disaster we call public education) you'd know that hydrogen generators are at LEAST a century and a half old.

Back in my high school generation (when we were still training kids to participate in an industrial economy) you could always tell when a physics class teacher was demonstrating this particular aspect, by the laughter and the repeated "booms" as we'd "light off" the hydrogen we generated.

Seriously, if you'd like to try generating a little hydrogen yourself, all you need is, oh..I'd say..24 volts should do it, and a bucket of water with a little salt in it. As the water "gassifies", you will get pure oxygen at one electrode, and pure hydrogen at the other. A lit match or any ignition source will "lit off" the hydrogen.

As for superchargers - I disagree - I think you can demonstrate that by compressing the induction air, you DO increase an engine's effiency ( as well as dramatically increasing its power). But, there we are, back at that horny, hungry squirrel again - the harder you work him, the more you will have to feed him. Which goes for super-charged engines too. Which is why, when you engage the super-charger, you MUST supply the engine with more fuel in proportion to the power you want to generate.

You have a good point about censorship. In my own view, you can judge a culture by how eager it is to censor those who disagree with any given "belief system". I personally believe you can demonstrate historically, that the more primitive, the more back-ward a group of people are, the more they will be determined to censor ideas that disagree with the 'established belief'.

Sure, even in my high school generation, which, supposedly, was more technically sophisticated than today, (at least about mechanical aspects-I am lost with computers) I recall ads for "200 mpg carburetors" ...stuff like that ( my favorite, was the idea of attaching a cow magnet to a fuel line to improve...oh..I forget...)...

So - yes, hydrogen CAN make a great fuel. NO there is no practical way to generate and store it today in today's motor vehicles.

Now..who is interested in buying some booties to protect the tender feet of those squirrels......

 

I just spent a couple hours this afternoon makaing and testing my hydrogen generator. It's about a half gallon in size and was making pretty good gas off of 12.2 volts and less than 15 amps. As I kept adding baking soda to the water the rate of gas production increased (I'm up to 4 tbls now and fills a latex glove in about 90 seconds give or take). I found a nice spot behind the front bumper on the driver's side to tuck my little generator. In the morning I'll wire it up to a switch and see what it does with the alternator power and check to see if there will be any difference in feul economy. If not I'll add some more baking soda and keep going from there. So you can make it and it doesn't draw too much power.......yet.

 

Hi Red:

Please be careful
1) while you arent going to generate enough hydrogen to make any significant difference in how your Excursion runs, you could generate enough to get a nasty "bang" in your engine compartment. Could blow something apart.

2) I have NO idea what the "octane" rating of hydrogen is. Maybe someone in here knows what the approximate "flame travel-speed" rate of the stuff is. My concern is, if your motor gets a full whiff of the stuff you are generating, could you be risking "detonation" ? Have you got a way to just give your motor limited doses of what you are generating ?