Slashdot Mirror
Increasing Fuel Mileage With Hydrogen?
cr0sh asks: "I was recently looking into the costs and availabilty associated with small, hydrogen fuel cells (results: they are still expensive), when I came across this site about the Hydrogen-Boost [Warning: Pop-ups]. Looking at this site, it seemed like just another in the long line of scamming 'get more mileage/power' engine products out there, but it intrigued me enough to continue looking into it. I eventually came upon another site on
hydrogen experiments. A little more searching revealed this one about constructing your own Hydro-Boost device, which goes into detail about how you would build such a system. None of these sites answered the big questions, however: 'does it work?', and 'if so, how well?'. I also wanted something a little more authoritative. So, back to digging...which came up with this paper from OSTI [PDF]. The very first line of the abstract of this paper reads 'It is well known that hydrogen addition to spark-ignited (SI) engines can reduce exhaust emissions and increase efficiency.' This paper seems to advance the notion that such a system like the 'Hydrogen Boost' system may actually work. Does Slashdot think such a system would work? If so, how it could be improved, especially given today's rapidly rising gasoline prices, here in America?"
"On the experiments site, via the link to 'Hydrogen Experiments Part 2', the author references the first site. He ultimately decides to 'home-brew' his own system instead, and gives enough detail for anybody to do so. I was hoping the author had more details on the effects caused by dumping hydrogen into his engine, but that doesn't appear to be.
A notable observation on the Hydro Boost Device is that instead of using a stainless steel mesh as the other guy uses (which would seem to be a superior material to use, though difficult to find), this design uses galvanized steel bolts for the electrodes, making it something that can be built from materials found at a local building materials warehouse."
I did some research and ended up chosing a Honda hybrid. There just wasn't enough of an availability to the consumer to drive something based on hydrogen. At least not yet.
My civic hybrid gets 45-47 MPG, is quiet as hell, and was fairly cheap. GM and Ford both have alternative fuel vehicle programs, but until I can go down to the local dealer and drive home with a hydrogen F-150, I'll be in a hybrid.
--------
Free your mind.
Efficiency is for tree hugging hippies. You drive a car because you want insane power at your disposal. So you need a NOS system, not a hydrogen system. However, if you combined the two.. Imagine the possibilities.
I heard that jet engines actually utilize (i.e. burn) the hydrogen in water vapor that comes through the intake. Any aviation experts out there care to confirm?
I also heard cars get a little horsepower boost from intake of highly humidified air?
Experts, please confirm or deny.
Most fuel cells that will be used in cars will be PEM (proton exchange membrane) fuel cells. The problem with PEM fuel cells is that it requires a platinum catalyst to remove the electron from the hydrogen aton. As we know platinum is one of the most expensive elements on earth. The key is to find a catalyst that is cheaper and just as noble as platinum. There are other hydrogen fuel cells out there, but they usually operate at high temperatures (the main advantage of PEM). It is not like you want to wait 5 minutes for your car to warm up before you leave.
The energy required to break the water up into hydrogen and oxygen will be at least equal to, and in a practical electrolytic cell it will be greater than, the energy you get back by burning the hydrogen later on. Typical electrolytic processes are around 60% efficient, from memory. This energy comes from the battery, which is about 92% efficient, which comes from the alternator, which is about 60% efficient, which is driven by the engine. So I get a loop efficiency of about 30%.
However, there may be some subtle advantages in adding gaseous hydrogen and oxygen to the fuel mixture. I doubt they would compensate for the efficiencies in the first paragraph.
You should ignore this post, the oil companies are paying me $$$ to suppress these crazy inventions.
The person to go looking for on this one is Roger Billings; he's currently with the International Academy of Science (I drive by there every morning on my way to work). He was driving hydrogen-powered ICE vehicles back in the '70's.
He ran into two problems with running an engine on Hydrogen.
He got hydrogen engines down to such an artform that he modified a Volkswagen Beetle ('72, IIRC) to run on the stuff for a college competition (he was an undergrad at the time), and the emissions coming out of the tailpipe were actually CLEANER than the air going into the intake. Basically, any Carbon Monoxide or unburned Hydrocarbons (common vehicle pollutants) which made it into the intake were finished off in the process, and the hydrogen fuel didn't produce any such emissions (water vapor).
I'd be wary about adding hydrogen to a gasoline engine to help the economy. You'd need a significant amount of hydrogen to make any real difference, and hydrogen storage these days is either:
Sorry guys, but this sounds like B.S.
... by the Dew of Mountains the thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning
I once read a page containing a suspect method for boosting the power of a motor by adding water. I don't remember how I ran across the page, but it was full of rambling by someone who basically had no idea how chemistry works but who had done some experimenting and may have stumbled on something...
The idea basically involved mixing water and gasoline before feeding it into the engine. A surfactant was used to allow the two to misch, so the engine was never fed pure water. The experimenter also bolted a hunk of platinum to the top of the cylinder, saying the platinum would be a catalyst and would crack the water into hydrogen and oxygen, producing more energy.
Pretty funny, huh?
Well, maybe not. I sent him a letter with an alternative theory; that the added water absorbed heat and evaporated, trading heat that would otherwise be wasted for additional pressure inside the cylinder. I also postulated that the platinum chunk wasn't taking an active part in the situation, but was instead using up space inside the cylinder and increasing the compression ratio; and that a ratio that would lead to pre-detonation in a pure gasoline engine might not do so in a system that ran at lower temperatures, thanks to the water's cooling effect. I suggested running a few experiments to find out, by measuring operating temperatures with and without the water, and by bolting in a hunk of steel in place of the platinum and seeing if it made a difference. I also recommended he try a dual injection system, one for fuel and one for water, rather than try and mix them.
I did get an email message back from the page's maintainer, but I've no idea if the experimenter ever got the message. Oh well.
You are probably right about the amount needed for increasing the efficiency - still, it would be a fun thing to play with (one of those weekend time projects) - my only main concern is avoiding hydrogen gas leakage at the hose joints...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Changing from 12V to 42V will be a lot easier than moving from gasoline to something else. Look what you get for going to 42V:
That's a lot of weight removed and fuel saved. And it's all so much more attainable and immediate than fuel cells with PEM conversion or changing to pressurized tanks of hydrogen. Don't get me wrong, good practical stuff comes out of alternative fuel research. But let's not focus on pie in the sky to the exclusion of all else.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
This "hydrogen boosting" is just adding a different fuel to the mix. Of course the "mileage" will increase because you are getting more power from the other fuel. The other fuel is probably more expensive than gasoline, so why bother? Not only that, but you are "misfueling" your vehicle, so unless you really know what you're doing it could impact the performance and/or lifetime of the engine and it certainly voids your warranty.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
- Emissions result from incomplete combustion of the fuel. If this is true, how can adding hydrogen (i.e. more fuel) help the emissions quality when the limiting ingredient is oxygen?
- NOx gasses are going to form as long as there's nitrogen present at high temperatures, pretty much no matter what you burn. So that's not going to improve emissions...
- Where are we supposed to be getting the hydrogen from in sufficient amounts to make it worth the effort?
Color me very confused...Here in india we are not that power consious. So a 90-95mph top speed car(diesal) gives around 20Km/ltr on long trips, thats about 12.5 miles to a litre or more than 60 MPG!. So if you are willing to sacrifice power, its easy to get economy
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
First, an acid filled generator will produce acid spray in the hydrogen. Which gets into the engine...which is made of aluminum and iron. Instant damaging corrosion time.
If you use the alternative electrolyte, sodium hydroxide, that just dissolves the piston.
Second, it is possible that (assuming the article isn't a complete troll) the engine used was fouled up and the acid mist actually cleaned up the plugs a bit. Cleaning plugs on old dirty engines usually increases gas mileage for a short while till the thing starts poorly and fouls up again.
I don't know why chemistry teachers bother, honestly. Conservation of energy, thermal changes in reactions, then their little charges grow up and forget the lot, and start believing in fairy dust.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
I live nearby, the address of the company is a residential subdivision in a small town nearby. The site also fails several of the test from the recent Seven Rules for Spotting Bogus Science article.
Nothing says that you have to inject the water after the fuel, nor do you have to inject the water in the same manner the fuel is injected.
Note that some of the older fuel injection designs, instead of having multiport injection (one injector/cylinder), they used throttle body injection. (One injector at the throttle body). You could just add a water injector at the throttle body. One guy did it on his Dodge Shadow (http://www.karlsnet.com/mopar/) - There's a lot of info not on that page, he was an active poster on the Allpar (http://www.allpar.com/) forums until he changed jobs and no longer had much time to experiment or post on the forums. Too bad, the guy had some great ideas and was very good at documenting his results, and open to suggestions/constructive criticism. (He had a few errors in some formulas and said, "oops, you're right" and subsequently made corrections on his page.)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Here are a few reasons Biodiesel is a better immediate solution.
- Biodiesel requires no diesel engine modifications to run
- The fuel infrastructure exists now. No modifications needed.
- Mass production is very feasible
- No net carbon dioxide emissions (if made with ethanol)
- Renewable
- For every 1 unit of energy used to make biodiesel 2.3 units are gained
- In a modern diesel engine (VW TDI for example) there are fewer toxic emissions than in a gas/electric hybrid (Toyota Prius for example).
For more info check out the fact sheets at biodiesel.org.a little thing called thermodynamics. More specifically, the second law. You can't get more energy out than you put in. As a matter of fact, you can't even get back the same amount.
Heisenberg might have been here.
Have you ever looked at water injection systems? Basically you spray a small amount of water into the inlet tract of the engine, carefully metered, so it breaks up into a fine mist. This vapourises as the piston compresses the charge in the cylinder, and boils into steam when the charge fires. You raise the combustion pressure and lower the combustion temperature, which increases the power produced by the engine but reduces NOx emissions. I converted an old Volvo to this a few years ago. It went like hell and was very very quiet.
When working out your "mpg" remember:
gallon (US) = 3.7854 litre
gallon (UK) = 4.5460 litre
So please state your units. Gallons is ambiguous. Better still... use metric.
Water injection is used to cool the intake air in supercharged aircraft engines. Kind of like an intercooler but cheaper and lighter.
It makes use of water's heat of vaporization to reduce the fuel/air mixture temperature before it goes into the cylinder, and it reduces the chances of detonation (knocking)under high intake pressures. Also cleans the plugs and valves rather nicely. One problem, water is not compressible like air is, so you can blow your engine big time with too much water injection. BOOM.
Incidentally, adding hydrogen to the intake won't accomplish squat, except possibly jack up the chamber temperature. Not what you want in a long distance engine.
What you do want is more oxygen, so adding a supercharger or turbocharger to compress the intake charge is good, or possibly nitrous (NOS for you rice heads out there) for a bit of extra kick.
Trying to inject pure oxygen just drives the temperature up to acetalene torch temperatures. That's rocket territory, reciprocating engines can't survive that kind of heat. Plus the violence of the combustion makes detonation knock look like a pat on the head from Grandma. BOOM!