Slashdot Mirror
Truckers Choose Hydrogen Power
hipernoico writes to tell us Wired News is reporting that hundreds of semi trucks now on the roads are being partially powered by hydrogen. From the article: "These 18-wheelers make hydrogen as they go, eliminating the need for high-pressure, cryogenic storage tanks or hydrogen filling stations, which, by the way, don't yet exist. These truckers aren't just do-gooders. They like Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Injection, or HFI, system because it lets them save fuel, get more horsepower and, as a bonus, cause less pollution."
Perhaps we should investigate additionally using methane as a source of fuel for these trucks. Not only could we keep these guys in business, but in some cases (such as trucks that haul cattle) they might actually produce more energy than they burn.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
That doesn't fit the rugged stereotypical trucker at all! "Goshdernit, we're gonna pollute all we need to get this convoy to San Antonio by Saturday!"
The article is light on details, and there's no Wikipedia article on HFI.
Burning the hydrogen in the engine can't produce the same amount of work that went into producing it. So if there's a milage benefit, where does it come from? Does it raise the temperature of the fuel enough to cause greater combustion?
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
The trucks aren't using hydrogen as their main source of fuel. They are using hydrogen to enhance the combustion of the diesel.
Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
How are they getting the hydrogen again?
Electrolysis powered by the alternator.
How do they start the vehicle moving down the road?
It's still a diesel-fueled vehicle. Adding hydrogen to the mix is supposed to improve milage somehow.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
They like Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Injection, or HFI, system because it lets them save fuel, get more horsepower and, as a bonus, cause less pollution."
Could our root problem be that we consider less pollution a bonus instead of a motivating factor?
From what I can tell, it doesn't actually provide much fuel, it just promotes a cleaner and more efficient combustion.
Read the Article, they only add the Hydrogen, meaning they still use desiel. Thats how they start. None from Coal plants. Jesus, get informed, then make a comment.
The faster and farther we get away from oil the better IMHO. I think the bonus should be the extra MPG, and the environmental impact should be the reason. We can spare a few $$$ for environmentally friendlier vehicles. I guess the real problem is, if the government does not intervene, companies will only do what will profit them, and if it does, we end up with violations of rights. Will we ever make the switch in consumer end vehicles in the long run?
Help Fight SPAM today!
160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2
^^^ this is right next to where I live. Seriously about 1 block away from my house.
Zuh?
It's still a diesel-fueled vehicle. Adding hydrogen to the mix is supposed to improve milage somehow.
Right. It is the details I'm having problems with.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Er, no. From just the summary, this sounds more like a hybrid using internal combustion -> electricity -> electrolysis -> hydrogen -> energy than anything like what you described. As I didn't RTFA myself, I can't complain there-- but at least RTFSummary. kkthxbye.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
It's called a catalyst.
But the HFI system uses electricity from an engine's alternator to power the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen as needed from small amounts of distilled water.
R Given that diesel engines are not 100% efficient, and even assuming that water->hydrogen is. How is it this produces a net gain in energy? The burning hydrogen should only produce as much energy as is used to seperate the oxygen and hydrogen. Disconecting the alternator (which many cars do right now to increase fuel efficiency) should save more gasoline than seperating the water to hydrogen/oxygen.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I assume it starts like any diesel vehicle. You heat up the glow-plugs, and turn the engine over. Compression ignites the diesel fuel.
Removing the hydrogen shouldn't make the engine any more difficult to start.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
This is not the first marketable apparatus using this technology. H2N-Gen has their very own unit that will cost about 4 grand, will fit under your car's hood, and will be on the market by March. There's been several articles on this (and a recent one in Popular Science, December issue). Here's one http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000373059415/
I assume that their hydrogen source is probably mostly produced from electricity from coal burning plants.
Umm, No...read your own quote: Electricity (from the alternator in the engine) is used to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen.
The fact that water weighs in at over 8lbs is fairly moot -- gasoline weighs in closely, so adding a tank that holds a few gallons of water is not a major addition to trucking weight. Additionally, FEWER emissions. All in all, a good idea, if it is all that it's cracked up to be.
Ignorance is not a crime; neither should it be a way of life
Congress control $ = inmates run the asylum
I assume it starts like any diesel vehicle. You heat up the glow-plugs, and turn the engine over. Compression ignites the diesel fuel.
I thought the combustion had to be modified for hydrogen. Unlike gasoline engines, diesel engines use extemely high compression.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
this article mentions something similar
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
they're Canadian truckers
"let's save the environment, eh?"
Are we talking about perpetual motion?
...this fuel source may not be exactly the "less" polluting alternative as one may think.
No, the trucks still run mainly on diesel augmented with hydrogen.
It's less polluting because the hydrogen boosts the performance of the engine over burning diesel alone, lowers particulates, and all that good stuff. So it does pollute less, by burning the fuel more efficiently.
Not quite. BMW has been researching and promoting hydrogen cars for some time now. They installed a hydrogen refilling station in Munich in '99(IIRC) and more are on the way, some in the US. The interesting thing about the BMW hydrogen car is that it can burn either hydrogen or gasoline so you can burn hydrogen when its available but not be hampered by the current dearth of hydrogen stations. As for the source of the hydrogen, Electricity generated from solar power is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. . The range on the 750H is only 400 km right now. The other trade-off of course is that there is still combustion so it's not as clean as fuel cell cars. Nonetheless, it's a start and not a bad way to transition us into a hydrogen economy.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
The trucks are NOT "partially powered by hydrogen" except in a meaningless technical sense. The trucks are generating small amounts of hydrogen that they have generated (somewhat inefficiently) from water and alternator electricity, using energy derived from diesel fuel as usual. They then inject some of that hydrogen back into the engine for a cleaner burn.
Diesel engines produce soot (dirty filthy polycyclic aromatic compounds) which represents wasted energy and this is merely a way to cut down on the inefficiency represented by the unextracted energy leaving the exhaust. The mechanism by which adding hydrogen to the air-fuel mixture actually accomplishes this involves some complicated physical chemistry beyond the scope of the article- which goes into a misleading nonsequitur about how trucks might use hydrogen-powered fuel cells someday.
This isn't replacing the diesel fuel at all. Somehow the injection of Hydrogen into the intake air improves the efficiency or burning of the diesel, resulting in a more complete burn. It seems like this is a very small amoung of Hydrogen that's being added. I have a feeling that has nothing to do with the concept of an actual Hydrogen powered car that people are going on and on about. You know, the cars that won't actually do anything to help the environment because you have to MAKE the Hydrogen in the first place, which uses electricity, which is mostly made from fossil fuels including coal which is far less clean burning than gasoline or diesel.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
So by using diesel to power the vehicle's alternator, they can generate hydrogen and squirt it back into the engine.
:v)
Why does the cynic in me think it might be more energy-efficient to not load the alternator with a hydrogen generator in the first place?
Surely, if the alternator is not placing the additional load of the electrolysis equipment on the engine, the efficiency of the engine will go up?
Personally, if hydrogen does somehow improve things I'd suspect an even cleaner burn would result by injecting the oxygen from the electrolysis plant too...
Vik
Further, even if the electricity came from a plant (which it doesn't) the vast majority of Canadian plants are hydro-electric.
We're all still wondering where the extra energy comes from. The Engadget article helps:
"[The system] uses current fed from the car's battery to generate the hydrogen and oxygen from a distilled water and chemical mixture."
Ah ha! So the battery generates the hydrogen and oxygen, which are used to create energy, thereby saving some extra gas, gas which you can then use to recharge your battery.
To quote the Guinness gentlemen:
BRILLIANT!
1st: since you responded, good luck using those mod points - as if you can mod articles.
2nd: it doesn't inject water (which, Mr. Science, is not combustible) it injects hydrogen formed by splitting water. (thanks for reading the "crank article" before you respond) Hydrogen is quite combustible and helps the diesel burn more completely. Water would be a by-product.
Why does the U.S. need to secure vast amounts of oil? Because adequate sources of energy are critical to preserving and expanding the power, wealth, and influence of the U.S.
Why does this energy have to come from oil? Because if we switched to something else, although we might maintain or expand our current wealth, it might be other people (read: not oil companies and those that profit specifically from oil) who will be wealthy.
There is a lot of interconnections between those who profit from oil, and those who run our politics (usually completely overt connections). This need not be an observation strictly about any one politician, or any particular party.
OK, so is it starting to become clear why it might be more expensive to pollute less? In this case, I am simplistically tying "polluting less" to "not using oil for energy" but I'm sure you get the idea.
If anyone is going to use the argument that economic forces shape our environmental policies. Therefore, people will only do what is profitable (the assumption being that right now, using oil-alternatives is not as profitable). Then I wonder if you truly believe that this is a "free market" issue, and that the U.S. Government is not actively assisting the profits of the most egregious polluters.
Umm, No...read your own quote: Electricity (from the alternator in the engine) is used to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Ok, so the hydrogen is extracted from water with the energy produced by burning diesel fuel.
Aromatic compounds can certainly be hydrogenated (usually at very high H2 partial pressures and high temperatures, so the conditions inside the engine might do the trick), but such hydrogenation is carried out over a transition metal catalyst, typically platinum. What is the catalyst here?
Energy is derived from the hydrogenation, and the hydrogenated products can then be combusted, but I seriously have to wonder if this actually yields a net benefit energetically. The Second Law of Thermodynamics ensures that all energy transformations are inefficient (specifically, cannot exceed the Carnot efficiency if I recall correctly), and electrolysis is one heck of an inefficient transformation. I am quite surprised that less energy is lost to the surroundings as part of H2 generation than is converted to mechanical energy in combustion.
(Yes, I am a chemist.)
Conservation of energy and thermodynamics tells us that this system has to operate with a net loss in efficiency for the *same* operating conditions. Perhaps the enhanced combustion improves the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine enough to offset energy required to produce the hydrogen and yield a 10% reduction in fuel consumption.
For all the naysayers, keep in mind, these truckers make their LIVING hauling product long distances. If this didn't work, or made the overall process less effecient, they'd know it. We're talking about their own profits it would be eating into, not some mystery lab result.
Sorry, but doubt hundreds of truckers are going to do that just to help out a company that involved in "psuedo science".
I think you've probably misunderstood the article, but it might interest you to know that combustion with humid air gives you a better compression/expansion ratio than with dry air.
Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
Beware of Hindenberg Trucking Lines! Oh, the humanity.
Hey, how can I attach this to the 100MPG carburetor I just ordered for my '69 Caddy? With a little help from the split-fire spark plugs, I'll have to carry around a jerry can to siphon out the gas tank before it overflows!
The trucks are NOT hydrogen powered. A quick read through the article reveals that they are generating their own hydrogen using energy from the engine. This, by itself, does not contribute any power and in fact it is wasting energy. HOWEVER, adding hydrogen increases the efficiency of the engine so there is a net gain; it also reduces pollution.
Repeat: NOT hydrogen powered. But hydrogen makes the engine run better.
Much like why speed records are often set at the GatorNationals- the weather here in N Fla in the spring can be *perfect* for engine performance at times, with that just right combination of humidity and temperature.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
You know the one thats been posted to slashdot before.
2 32253&mode=thread&tid=134
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/20/0
Did nobody read up on this? The hydrogen helps the engine burn more of the fuel that would have been released unused. That is why you use less fuel and have lower emissions.
Why does the USA even need to "expand it's power wealth and influence"? When is enough enough? USA should be finding ways to MAKE THE WORLD BETTER, as in educating people, curbing poverty. Why is it always, plunder pillage destroy? Just plain Satanic.
I don't want artificial gas in any car I buy. I make enough natural gas in the car already.
Well hopefully you DON'T use them to mod anything around here, because either you're too idle to RTFA, or too thick to understand it. I do hope you don't stay at "2, Insightful" for much longer.
http://www.physorg.com/news3700.html
Now that's what I'm talking 'bout
H2 is BS.
Gizmos Gagets For Ninjas
The alternator is being driven regardless of whether you use some of the electricity to split water into hydrogen or not. This isn't a matter of getting something for nothing... it's a matter of not throwing away electricity that's already being generated by the alternator.
Maybe the quickest, cheapest way to boost your car's horsepower is with nitros injection. It really improves your combustion just like tfa says hydrogen does.
Of course the down side is that you start measuring engine life in milli-seconds. OK so I exaggerate slightly. But it is really hard on the engine. Tfa didn't mention engine life. These truckers will be really steamed if they have to start replacing engines every 50000 miles instead of every million miles.
The other problem is finding drivers willing to keep their boots off the gas (diesel) pedal. I once had a lightly rodded Camaro that actually got better mileage than stock; as long as I drove like a good citizen. Fat chance.
...they might actually produce more energy than they burn...
;)
[HOMER]
In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
[/HOMER]
Shh.
When will people finally figure out that causing less pollution should be a goal, not just a pretty side-effect? Unless people do, our planet is doomed.
http://www.h20car.org/
I emailed the guy a while back to find out how much the materials cost. $300US for a carbureted engine, more for injected. Injected requires some additional stuff, akin to converting a gasoline engine to natural gas.
Plans are $20. I'm broke. Someone with some spare time on their hands, please give it a try and report back kthx.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
They made an engine that could run on water but the Big Oil companies bought the patents and hid it in a dark room and behind closed doors, black helicopters, Area51, republicans, Bob Lazar, tin foil hats, mind control beam, yada yada yada.
This isn't replacing the diesel fuel at all. Somehow the injection of Hydrogen into the intake air improves the efficiency or burning of the diesel, resulting in a more complete burn.
From the article, and from the CHEC HFI page, I'm assuming that what they're doing is allowing the fuel to burn more efficiently at points such as going uphill, flooring the gas, shifting and so on, which are generally weak points for diesel engines. The engines can't burn all the fuel fed, and as a result create the familiar black-clouds-of-crap. If you could burn more of that, you would directly increase horsepower/torque and decrease emissions. By adding the hydrogen, the engine will run a bit hotter, and probably burn the diesel a bit more efficiently.
So it's basically energy recollection. Generate electricity when the engine's doing fine, and re-use that energy when the engine runs poorly. Sorta like regenerative breaks on a hybrid, except not as obvious.
All in all, however, I have a hunch that a well designed computerized fuel injection system could probably result in just as much polution reduction and energy consumption. Although it may not give as much horsepower as the hydrogen method does. (Mind you, it's not really the hydrogen giving the power.)
I know certain people who produce a lot of their own methane. Can they get methane-powered vehicles, or at least office chairs with gas-powered motorized wheels?
Get your $sys$ camo tees now!
This is not hydrogen power. Not even close. All it's doing is generating a small amount of hydrgen to make the diesel combustion more efficient and complete. This is not perpetual motion (taking energy out and putting a greater amount back into the system), it's just a bit of fancy chemistry to make the existing diesel burn better. This has nothing to do with the hydrogen fuel debate.
...considering where the hydrogen is produced, this fuel source may not be exactly the "less" polluting alternative as one may think.
I am so f sick and tired of gd SUV wanks and oil company astroturfers trotting this one out everytime someone mentions anything that sounds at all like it's going to challenge rotten dinosaur corpses as the fuel of choice.
RTFA numbnuts! The hydrogen is generated in the engine by the alternator. Despite the vast overhead of this electrolytic separation these guys are still saving 10 grand a year in fuel which easily pays for the simple bolt-on mod within a year or too. The source of the hydrogen is no more polluting than the engine it modifies because it is the engine it modifies.
Then I notice another equally brilliant mind observing the vast additional burden of 8 lb of water on an 80,000 lb truck. Grab a snatch of a clue as it goes over your head, Sparky. By my calcuations, the entire system, water and all weighs less than the fuel it saves every day.
For those who can't be bothered to RTFA and aren't completely offended, the system basically adds a small amount of hydrogen to the diesel. The effect is similar (though the mechanism may not be...IANACE) to adding a squirt of acetone to your gas tank.
Can someone please explain to me why TANSTAAFL does not come to bear on this? If I am using fuel to produce electricity to produce hydrogen to improve efficiency, why is there a net gain from this? Is this a matter of improving the efficiency of a closed system? Is the 10% gain in efficiency due to the reduction of deposits in the engine and the rest just marketing?
While I would love to believe this I'm somewhat skeptical.
Thanks.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
I am so f sick and tired of gd SUV wanks
I don't own an SUV, but thanks for asking.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Hydrogen spiking allows for a faster, more uniform ignition + higher initial flash temperature.
Usually we have to inject more fuel than can be burned up completely, or else the mix would not reliably ignite (hence some fuel MUST be wasted or else the engine simply would stall). Unlike a 'normal' diesel, H injection allows us to use less diesel per cycle, and still allow the reliable ignition, which ultimately translates to greater fuel economy!
Ever heard of 'critical mass'? There is something fundamentally elegant here, since a tiny amount of a hydrogen isotope (3H, tritium) can be used to significantly increase the energy yield of a plutonium bomb...
"Chemist" my ass... But seriously, getting a "C" in freshman chemistry does not make one a "chemist", an neither does talking outta your ass about an article that one did not bother to read.
You are aware, of course, that the United States was getting more oil from Iraq pre-war than they are now?
Some news. It's amazing how we forget. A similar technique was achieved nearly 10 years ago WITHOUT the need for hydrogen --it just applied the electrolysis to the fuel itself. Our car engines could be 90% more efficient right now, but hmmmm for some reason the techonology never came about --oh, that's right, the problem was it offered no way to increase consumption addiction. Silly me V-8
Yes I RTFA. The diesel engine runs a generator which electrocutes water to produce hydrogen which is burned along with the regular diesel oil.
How can this possibly burn less oil? TFA implies the hydrogen from the generator produces more power than is used to turn the generator which produces it. Push this to its logical conclusion and you have a perpetual motion machine.
Infuriate left and right
I'd say that the hydrogen is beneficial because of its wide flammability limits. This would help a diesel engine, which doesn't necessarily have a homogenous fuel/air mixture throughout the combustion chamber. Diesels are different to gasoline engines, in that the fuel is added during, or just before, the power stroke. This timing limits the fuel-air mixing somewhat, leading to leaner/richer pockets. The presence of Hydrogen in these regions would possibly serve to initiate combusion earlier, giving more chance for completion of the combustion process before exhausting.
Wouldn't this be somewhat counteracted by the fact that when Hydrogen burns (say in a tube), the product has less volume than the reactants?
I'd just like to point out, H2O != H . They are using electricity to (drum roll, please) SEPERATE THE HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN IN (distilled, but nonetheless) WATER! The hydrogen then creates what can be referred to as 'cleaner ignition and exhaust strokes' of a 4-stroke motor. Less diesel is wasted (black smoke), Less nitro is exhausted into the air, more power (hp- and torque-wise) is created from the same amount of fuel, and excess energy from the alternator is put to use. more efficiency all around. This is no hoax, it is what seems to be a new trend in (in the words of our infamous commander in chief; cue drum roll) THE WAR ON UNSPENT REFINED OIL (AND ITS COUSINS).
Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
There was a similar article in slashdot a while ago.( http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/1 8/1638204&tid=187&tid=14 ) It made much bolder claims about reducing the carbon dioxide emissions and reducing gas consumption from 10 to 40%. It stated that they would give theirs away for free with the purchaser paying a percent of the fuel savings.
Aromatic compounds can certainly be hydrogenated (usually at very high H2 partial pressures and high temperatures, so the conditions inside the engine might do the trick), but such hydrogenation is carried out over a transition metal catalyst, typically platinum. What is the catalyst here?
I think you're on the wrong track. This isn't related to the way we saturate aromatic compounds with hydrogen gas- the polycyclic aromatic compounds aren't formed until the diesel burns, and the goal is to keep them from forming in the first place. The idea here I think is to get away with a higher air to fuel ratio than you could otherwise accomplish without the sputtering and misfires ordinarily associated with lean diesel mixtures. If you can get less C and more O and H into the cylinders, you'll see more energy-poor C-O and H-O bonds leaving the exhaust, and fewer energy-rich (and stinky) C-C and C-H bonds.
Energy is derived from the hydrogenation, and the hydrogenated products can then be combusted, but I seriously have to wonder if this actually yields a net benefit energetically.
Of course it takes more energy to produce the H2 than you can get from burning it, since the process isn't 100% efficient. You have to compare the losses associated with the hydrogen exchange to the losses associated with dirty diesel exhaust. I don't know how well it works. If a little hydrogen can prevent a lot of soot formation then this would be a big win energetically. But it's still annoying to see this setup described as "powered in part by hydrogen" since that doesn't describe it accurately at all.
The way they do this is actually much less efficent than it could be!
it should be performed similar to the way NO2 is used on sports cars with the trucker changing bottles when required and the injection controled by a new EMS it would work out signifigantly cheaper to buy and run and deliver more power and better milage
the truck isnt optimised to make hydrogen so having it do it instead is far less efficent than buying it made from natural gas by a gas company and means that benifits of using hydrogen as a catalyst are reduced
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own" - Adam Savage
Hydrogen is already found combined with other stuff in useful forms such as a CH4 (methane) or C8H18 (octane)
Injecting hydrogen will alter the combustion and subsequently change the operating conditions. Hydrogen burns faster and hotter. Both of these things should improve efficiency according to whatever nebulous definition you like.
To what extent is the real question. I recall a link to this company in the not too distant past. Some company exec said he would provide the equipment to the Canadian government for free in exchange for a cut of the fuel cost savings. Without RTFA, is this the deal he's providing the truckers? They seem like an appropriate bunch. I would be curious about the whole thing if he reneged the claim.
Certainly it is not difficult to imagine cascading heat engines to improve efficiency. However, engineers need to be practical where science doesn't. If thing helps, then good for him, if not, then welcome to the club.
JQ
This isn't a new concept, either. Alchohol and Water injection have been used for quite some time to add a little extra power / efficiency to an already capable gasoline engine by lowering air charge temperatures or creating a more complete burn. I was seriously considering setting up an alchohol injection system on my car once I got the turbo in, but the project didn't end up going the way I wanted it to... Most notably, water injection was used in the P-51H Mustang.
so they use electricity to create a "small amount" of hydrogen, my question is, how much electricity is needed to product hydrogen from water? can X amount of water on product X amount of hydrogen? or more electricty = more hydrogen??
Breaker one nine, we got a big old hydrogen powered generator in the cab......come on!!!
How's it lookin westbound?
Exactly. What's confusing people is the assumption that the hydrogen is being used to power the vehicle. The article summary is quite misleading.
Think of the hydrogen here as something a bit like a spark plug, though IIRC diesel engines have something a bit different from spark plugs. Spark plugs used stored power to initiate combustion, spending stored chemical energy in the battery to release more chemical energy fromm the fuel. The hydrogen here is using stored chemical energy to release more energy from the fuel than would normally be released. The chemical energy from the hydrogen doesn't power the vehicle, just like the chemical energy from the battery doesn't; it's the diesel fuel. The benefits are higher fuel effeciency.
You get the hydrogen for free basically, especially if the vehicle were equipped with more advanced ways to generate electricity like regenerative braking. This isn't in violation of thermodynamics or anything, it just squeezes a little more effeciency out of the system than you'd otherwise get.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
Are we talking about perpetual motion? Yes! Yes we are.
It's not water that is being injected, it's hydrogen. Very big difference. Injecting hydrogen into the engine along with gasoline has been shown to increase combustion efficiency and lower emissions. This has even been covered on Slashdot before.
"Through electrolysis, the Hydrogen Fuel Injection (HFI) kit generates hydrogen and oxygen, which are injected directly into the intake manifold. Published data show that hydrogen burns nearly one order of magnitude faster than petroleum fuels, thus approaching ideal thermodynamic cycle; and hydrogen has a shorter flame quench distance, allowing flames to travel closer to the cold zones, thus improving combustion. These hydrogen properties improve engine performance and emissions."
I would think there are a lot more 18-wheelers driving constantly than there are regular cars. Thus, it would only make sense that pollution would nationwide might decrease a lot even with cars that are without the technology. Infact, there should be steps for all commercial vehicles (delivery trucks, phone/gas/electric trucks, other fleet vehicles) implement the technology since I would think a bulk of pollution would be coming from them.
Well, the alternator is necessary for powering on-board electronics, refrigerators, lights, a/c, radios, the engine management computers, fuel injectors/pumps, etc. so it can't be abandoned. However, it seems to me that putting photovoltaic cells on the top of the vehicle would be an efficient no-load (on the engine) source for electricity while operating during daylight hours. At night, the alternator could be used but there's no reason why the solar powered hydrogen generator shouldn't be running during all sunlit times storing surplus H and O for future use.
" ... eliminating the need for high-pressure, cryogenic storage tanks ... "
The reason they don't need cryogenic storage taks is because (a) it's November and (b) they are in Canada.
Since higher combustion temperatures are mentioned, won't this adversely effect engine lifespan?
Vik :v)
Its the trucking companies and the owners doing this, not the truckers. Half of the truckers I've ever met are hillbillies that probably don't even know what hydrogen is
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcriptNOW145 _full.html
With the rigging by the oil industry, one can certainly understand.
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/gasprices05.html
Of course some good may come of all this if it forces the american consumer to be more efficient. Shame it has to be at the sharp edge of a crook.
What about idling engines? I still see trucks running at rest stops, even though their driver is inside having lunch or getting coffee. It's clear that many drivers (and owners) don't really care about saving money OR the environment...
The effects of hydrogen injection sound similar to the effects from water injection, except that it may work better without additional engine tuning.
Water injection (often mixed up to 50% with alcohol or methanol) has been used to improve the detonation resistance of combustion engines for many years. It was pioneered by WWII engineers looking to extract more power out of their engines during takeoff and landing, but now is typically only used by people modifying or racing their cars/trucks.
In your typical combustion engine, maximum power is very often limited by a phenomenom call detonation, also called ping or knock. What happens is that during the compression stroke, the air/fuel mixture overheats and spontaneously combusts which results in a huge spike in combustion chamber pressure. If it is bad enough, it can break pistons or damage rod/crank bearings leading to engine failure.
There are a number of ways to reduce the chance of detonation which primarily involve cooling temperatures in the combustion chamber. A very common way of doing this is to add extra fuel to the mixture, but obviously this is not efficient or clean.
By injecting a small mist of water into the air/fuel mixture, the presence of water will help cool the mixture and prevent detonation, letting you lean out the engine to where maximum power is produced as well as adding additional timing advance and/or add boost (if running a turbo or supercharger).
As a side effect, the water ends up "steam cleaning" your combustion chamber which keeps carbon deposits to a minimum and your engine running well.
However, water injection does nothing unless your power output is detonation limited. In fact, if you inject water with no other changes, power output will go down a small amount.
It sounds like hydrogen injection may improve power and combustion efficiency in all situations.
Since the amount of hydrogen generated can't be that large, I imagine that using hydrogen injection in addition to water injection for heavy engine loads would be a great combination.
Hmm, maybe I better patent that idea.
The flaw I see in this reasoning is this:
Black smoke from a diesel is caused by incomplete combustion in the cylinder. Incomplete combustion occurs because too much fuel is present per mass of air in the cylinder, the oxygen runs out before the fuel does. If the incomplete combustion were a heat issue, it would not happen under the highest loads which create the highest engine temperatures.
Diesel oil is a fuel and hydrogen is a fuel. If you get incomplete combustion due to lack of oxygen then adding more fuel results in less combustion.
Further, the hydrogen is more volatile than diesel oil and would combust first, leaving less oxygen for the diesel to burn with.
At least in my view this entire system is bunk and the person interviewed must have some financial interest in the promotion of this product.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, we aren't. They're not powering the truck *only* off the separated water. Read a bunch of other posts.
Someone else has already posted the link to this: previous story about the same company improving gasoline engines.
What I would like to know is will this gadget have the same effect as increasing the octane rating of the gas? So, if I have a turbo-charged engine that wants the high-octane stuff, can I, at least in theory, use the cheap gas plus a little itty-bit of hydrogen and get the same effect?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
This one's only $200 for now (normally $250) and has been around for years:
http://savefuel.ca/
This one's more expensive than that ($1200), but still less than the one in the article:
http://www.burnh2o.com/1000.html
savefuel.ca claims to have been doing this since 1991.
i>How are they getting the hydrogen again?
Strangely, those answers are in TFA. Thx for proving yourself a loon.
--
$tar -xvf
for this device, they just need to fill up on water... which I assume they already have water tanks on the trucks?
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Incomplete combustion occurs because too much fuel is present per mass of air in the cylinder.
Ever have a campfire? Although you had unlimited air supply, why did you have unburned logs at the conclusion of it? Answer: because the material that didn't burn didn't reach the heat needed to combust. If you took a blowtorch to those remaining logs, you may be able to get another fire going, as the particulate that didn't reach it's combustion point the first time is burned off. With enough unburned logs, you might be able to get more energy back than the blowtorch uses. Same principal here.
At least in my view this entire system is bunk and the person interviewed must have some financial interest in the promotion of this product.
Or maybe he just knows what he's talking about, and doesn't draw conclusions from a single faulty premise.
--
$tar -xvf
Strangely, those answers are in TFA. Thx for proving yourself a loon.
Well thank you for your positive comments.
You don't know how much that means to me.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Before everyone runs out and buys these gimmicks for their cars, shouldn't we find out if they have any side effects on car emissions systems? I'm thinking it's possible that more corrosive gases could be produced by the system as a result of the modification of the burn. The downstream sensors and all the other crap we put in cars to save orphaned bald eagles are expensive, and not something you want to replace.
Wow, really? I did not know that. But I think maybe that is a really bold claim to make without any attempt at a citation or source.
Considering that demand for oil is continually growing, and considering that the U.S. has quite literally taken control of the Iraqi oil infrastructure. What source is telling you that we have decreased our supply of oil from them? How could that make sense?
Air normally contains (roughly) 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 1% Argon, and trace amounts of a couple of dozen other molecules. This is increasing the amount of Oxygen and Hydrogen in the air entering the engine and conversely lowering the ratio of the Nitrogen, Argon and other (mostly nonvolatile) gases. This will naturally allow for a quicker, hotter, more complete burn that generates more power and less naughty parts like Nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.
I would imagine that the additional Oxygen provides a large chunk of the benefits, rather than it just being attributed to the Hydrogen.
They've actually invented a way to use some handy prepackaged "air for burning" (distilled water) that is (relatively) efficient and simple to make by using electrolysis. Not too much of it, because there it can be too much of a good thing. Try running an engine off pure oxygen and see what you get. You'd still get explosions, but they'd likely be uncontained this time around. The amount of electricity to electrolyse a lot of water would be quite counter-productive anyway.
I would imagine you could get much of the same results if you could figure out a way to filter some of the Nitrogen out of the incoming air. Unfortunately, there's no good, cheap, efficient way to do that... yet....
If you go read the manufacturer's web site they don't claim that the introduction of hydrogen itself will increase the fuel efficiency, but that the hydrogen will clean out the carbon deposits in the engine.
.001% hydrogen to air ratio in the cylinders during combustion.
The process will take "from 0 to 9 months" depending on the type of vehicle, amount of build-up, the weather, the speeds driven, the idling time, start/stop driving, etc. Once the engine is cleaned you can see up to "40% increase in fuel efficiency".
We're talking about some insanely small amounts of hydrogen here.
The standard kit holds about 4 liters of water and will run for about 12,000KM. If 2/3 of the water is converted to H and captured for use, that means there's 2,261 liters of hydrogen extracted.
I randomly took a Volvo VE D12 395 engine for specs:
12.13L displacement and 1500RPM suggested cruise RPM, I'll guess 95Km/h is "cruise".
12,000KM / 95KM/H = 124.3 hours
Hydrogen is produced at 18 liters per hour
124.3 hours * 1500RPM = 11,187,000 revolutions
11,187,000 revolutions * 12.13L = 135,698,310 Liters of displaced air/fuel mixture
If my conversions and guesses are close, that means there's
I say scrap the entire thing. Don't hack in to your electrical system and don't carry around the extra weight of the machine and water. If you want to reduce operating costs, increase fuel efficiency and reduce pollution then BURN BIO-DIESEL!! Bio-Diesel has a net zero effect on atmospheric carbon, is low cost (about $.50us/gal to produce yourself), and is a tremendously powerful solvent that cleans engines of deposits like nobody's business.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Here is one, it doesn't say how much the US is getting but does say total output is down from 2003 pre-war levels.
0 05-10-10-iraq-oil-usat_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2
My point is that if it's economically ripe, the truckers will be the first to use a new form of energy. If they ain't using it, it ain't ripe (unless it's an amphetamine). Moreover, "If you got it, a truck brought it."
We have to start from somewhere. Gradual improvements are the best.
Strange, from all the truckers I've met, I would have guessed they would have chosen methane.
No, it's not.
In your log situation there is an effectively unlimited supply of oxygen for combustion.
In the combustion cylinder of an engine there is a fixed amount of oxygen. If you burn hydrogen in there it will consume some of the oxygen and leave less for the diesel to burn with. Making the cylinder environment hotter will do nothing but get your hotter soot in this situation. Possibly, the soot would spontaneously combust as it exits the exhaust pipe and locates available oxygen (assuming gas temperatures are still above the ignition point).
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Well, it is right and does make sense. It is true that Iraq was technically restricted from selling oil for profit and only for food/infrastructure/medicine. In reality, the money was syphoned off more than pre-Gulf War and little money was spent on any of those things. The only thing that hurt Iraqi oil production was its lack of proper investment in oil production infrastructure in the twelve years that followed - thus reducing the rate of production growth. Nevertheless, the shock of war proved incredibly destructive to the deteriorated oil infrastructure - combined with insurgency, Iraq is not yet producing as much oil as it did before the 2003 war. As for how much the United States received at any given time, it seems irrelevant. Most of the US' oil comes from domestic sources, Canada (the largest foreign share), Venezuela, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. Given transportation costs, it seems unlikely that Iraq will ever be a major supplier for the U.S., and will more likely supply Europe and Asia - particularly India, China, and east Asia. Where oil comes doesn't that matter except for geopolitical reasons, as any producer or buyer anywhere affects the world price.
"In God we trust, all others we monitor." -- Unofficial NSA motto
Electrolysis is a tremendously inefficient process. "But it's solar, it's free!", you say.
An important aspect of commercial enterprise, which is often missed by many a slashdot poster when they assume "any profit = good". It's not matter of whether you make a profit on $X; it's a matter of whether you'll make more money spending $X on Y, or $X on Z.
It applies in this case. That solar-generated electricity would do a lot more good being fed into the grid where about 2/3rds of it could take the place of coal generated electricity. The coal-burning electricity generating industry spews more crap (much of it low-level radioactive particulate!) into the air than a modern car does. More than, in fact, a well-maintained diesel engine (a poorly maintained or overloaded diesel is another matter.)
It absolutely infuriates me to see electric vehicle owners claiming they're "doing the environment good" by plugging in their car to the grid each night. Some of them say "I'm buying GREEN electricity".
Here's a shocker: if you didn't charge your car using this "green" electricity, it could be replacing coal; instead you're "using" it to replace a fairly non-polluting internal combustion engine. All comes out of the same pot, boys and girls.
Same thing goes for the solar-charged cars. How about putting that power into the grid so that there is less coal burned?
Please help metamoderate.
It would greatly increase NOx production. The high temps of Diesel combustion already do this, more heat would make it worse.
Honestly, this whole thing is bunk.
Either the truckers are not paying attention.
Or they're bad at math.
Or they're being paid to lie.
Or they're not even real and someone just made them up to sell product.
This whole "these people are not stupid, they do this for a living, believe them" argument is interesting. Only problem is the argument has a built-in subtext of "but the people who make trucks/Diesel engines for a living ARE stupid, they missed a big fuel saver/energy gainer". Does not compute.
Look! This hydrogen BS works on gas engines too!
http://www.slspart.com/df.html
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
"But the HFI system uses electricity from an engine's alternator to power the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen as needed from small amounts of distilled water. "That's a big advantage and a bit of a novelty," said Venki Raman, an expert on hydrogen-energy applications who started Protium Energy Technologies." TFA claims (though it could be wrong) that the innovation is creating hydrogen from elecrolysis. Frankly, it's a fairly obvious idea to generate hydrogen with elecrolysis. There is a short list of practical well-known methods for getting hydrogen out of other compounds, and elecrolysis of right near the top. The metal-oxide coil in water car posted on slashy a while back was a more innovative, though not necesarily practical way to get at hydrogen. It also says that the idea of using hydrogen to boost efficiency has been published since the 70's. I don't see an innovation here, I just see common knowledge finally brought to the market in a product. My hat's off to them, but though IANAL I think a patent needs a more original idea, unless they patent some highly specific process used to electrolyse water or inject the hydrogen.
The reason for distilled water should be obvious. Take plain tap water and boil it away on you stove. Notice the crud left over in the bottom of your pan. Now, imagine that crud coating your H2O -> H2 electrolysis gear.
You can distill it before putting it in the supply tank, or put additional equipment to deal with the crud under the hood. How much more weight/complicated gear (i.e. something else to break down) do you want to add to the truck?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
The faster and farther we get away from oil the better IMHO. I think the bonus should be the extra MPG, and the environmental impact should be the reason. We can spare a few $$$ for environmentally friendlier vehicles.
I totally agree, but I don't think you'll get where you want to be with that attitude. If money doesn't come first, we'll likely spend lots of money on things that don't make a significantly larger impact than on potentially cheaper things that weren't invented because everyone was spending money on the expensive items.
Yes, a market needs to be developed by spending some money, but I'd much rather see a lot of less expensive methods (such as this one) start going into cars without price increase in the next 2 years than 1 Fuelcell car that hardly anyone can afford in 5 years, even if it delays that fuel cell car by an additional 2-5 years. Changing habbits and spending a few $ (not $$$) will help force the discovery of cheaper solutions in a way unlimited research budgets often don't.
Because you cannot blend hydrogen and diesel, you would have a gas phase since hydrogen is not (very) soluble in diesel. Therefore you cannot make a single product, and have to blend them at combustion time. However, I wonder why they don't use simple hydrogen tanks: electrolysis equipment is not necessarily cheap or light.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
to make diesel burn cleaner and more efficiently. It may a useful device, but does nothing to reduce dependance on oil.
Cleaner + More Efficient burn = Less Diesel Used
Less Diesel Used = Less Oil Demanded + Lower Oil Prices
No, it's not a flat out alternative to oil, but it certainly reduces our dependence. Perhaps you meant "cut" instead of "reduce"?
On the downside, the alternator is now constantly loaded, which is an unusual situation and does require additional power.
Apparently the increase in overall combustion efficiency from the addition of H2 and O2 more than offsets the additional power requirement for the electrolysis. So in the end the engine is more efficient and saves money. Cleaner combustion should also lengthen engine lifespan.
It should be possible to do the same thing easily with most automobile engines. The only problem I see is ensuring that the alternator is not overloaded, which is primarily a function of the electrolysis electrode size.
This should also make automobiles easier to start, something useful in wintertime in high-altitude regions such as California where CARB gasoline is a requirement (and is a poor starting fuel).
So, you generate H2 and O2 from water through electrolysys, a process which is less than 70% efficient (the rest of the energy being released as heat). And that's not including the inefficiency of generating the electricity in the first place. Then you add that hydrogen to the fuel mixture, stir in some technobabble ("one order of magnitude faster", "approaching ideal thermodynamic cycle", "shorter flame quench distance") and voila, you've got greater overall efficiency and lower emmisions. I hope I'm just a cynical bastard, and this isn't yet another example of a junk science scam being posted on slashdot.
>if we switched to something else, although we might maintain
>or expand our current wealth, it might be other people (read:
>not oil companies and those that profit specifically from oil)
>who will be wealthy.
You have this backwards. If another source became cheaper than oil then people and business would be crawling over each other to start using it. As it is switching to something else is just shooting yourself in the foot economically.
Diesels actually have excess air available, with the possible (but unlikely) exception of full demand. They emit carbon because there is not enough time for all the fuel to burn fully. The hydrogen /may/ improve the combustion efficiency to reduce this, or even prevent it.
Of course, if they then richen the mixture again (and knowing truckies that's quite likely) then you are back where you started, but with more power.
I don't necessarily believe the hype, but the benefits of using hydrogen to improve efficiency and reduce emissions has been demonstrated by several groups over the past decade.
Iraq
/ iz.html
Oil - production:
2.25 million bbl/day (2004 est.); note - prewar production (in 2002) was 2.03 million bbl/day (2004 est.)
From the CIA World Factbook Web site:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos
You're absolutely correct, as far as I can see. Diesel smoke is influenced by a) the air-fuel ratio b) the timing of the injection of fuel into the cylinder. Since diesel engines typically rarely run at stoichiometric (where some smoke could result) ratio for very long, I don't see the hydrogen having a smoke reducing/power+efficiency increasing ability as a result of being used purely as a fuel.
The thing is, after the diesel is injected into the cylinder, there is a sort of lag in the combustion of the fuel, because of oxygen availability and proximity. It's not instantaneous, just like gasoline in an engine, it takes time for the flame to propagate in the cylinder, however short that time is. Obviously, more efficiency is obtained when the flame is contained going at full blast for the entire power stroke, but since there is a lag in combustion, the fuel has to be injected before the cylinder reaches top dead center on the power stroke. Under full load conditions, the combustion lag is longer because the increased fuel, but similar fuel/air proximity. This results in unburnt fuel getting exhausted, resulting in higher exhaust gas temperatures, and typically more boost if there is a turbocharger present--the unburnt fuel is being combusted in the manifold, just before the turbo. It's not obvious, but in the diesel truck tuning industry, this is actually desirable--it increases efficiency and performance because that fuel is still being utilized--to increase boost pressure (increasing the effective compression ratio and therefore efficiency) and allow for even more fuel to be injected, but I'm sure it causes more stress on the engine's materials.
Consumer trucks can already have propane injection installed as aftermarket modifications. Propane is injected into the intake manifold. It's just a guess, I'm not a diesel guy, but I know a bit about it... I'd guess the result of doing so is to effectively decrease the ignition lag of the diesel fuel itself, thereby allowing injection timings nearer TDC... Thus giving the fuel more time to completely burn in the power stroke, increasing efficiency, power, and reducing particulate emissions--but only at high load conditions. If any of that makes any sense, particularly to a non-gearhead, I'd be surprised, but oh well.
If this is the case, they're obviously touting hydrogen because "everyone" knows hydrogen is "green", and propane is not, you know, even though it's probably more efficient and cheaper to just use propane.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Why are they getting the power from the distributer when there is all that lovely heat comming off the engine/exhaust that could be used to make electricity?
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
For those who read french... http://www.utopiatech.fr/ Enjoy!
"Why can't we just work out the bugs with water injection?"
What are you talking about?!
Water injection works just fine, and has been on a production vehicle since at least 1962.
The Oldsmobile Jetfire was turbocharged, and came equipped with water injection, direct from the factory. It worked fine.
I used to run a turbocharged vehicle back in the 70's, and I added water injection to it because I'd made so many performance mods that it became a necessity.
Hydro lock?
More like brain lock...
As long as world economy is running by oil, it will still take a long time before this new technology would be commercially available, unfortunaly.
Else, it would be in everyones interest to adapt this technology to every type of compatible engine, so we can avoid the Ninja Penguins attacking New York in 2010, when antartica is all gone.
where can i buy a HFI kit for my car? .50 x .50 m solar cell? of course there's not ...
hurry up already damnit. some of us don't talk
but do so give me an addresse and a compatibilty
liste already!!!
and maybe if it's such a small amount maybe
insead of burdening the alternator, why not
a
always sunshine (duh!) but
News at nine: Dumb truckers caught by Canadian snake oil salesmen.
Nuff sed.
We need to understand that "Noooooooooo!!" a little better.
Is it the classic, high-pitched "Nooooooooooo!!"
or
Is it the neuvo Star Wars, low-pitched, newly-minted Darth Vader "Noooooooooooo!!"
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I was waiting for someone to bring this up. If any of you were car guys, you'd know how simple it is. The hydrogen is probably just acting the same way propane injection does. It's not so much being added to the diesel, as it is replacing some of the diesel. It burns cleaner, and the byproduct of that is the efficiency of the diesel is increased (and the efficiency of the hydrogen is similarly decreased)
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
4 L of HOH per 10Km pretty much tells you the effect is more like catalytic, than fuel
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The thing uses 15 Amps, about the same as the headlight, a car alternator can put out 50 - 100 amps, a semi-truck tractor is probaly closer to 150- 300 amps in 24 volt systems so they are a long ways from peak.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
You are not throwing away electricity--the load on the alternator requires energy from the engine. While it is true the alternator is always turning, the work being performed is not constant. To keep a constant load on the alternator would be wasteful.
For the last 70 years the world land speed records have been set in Utah and Nevada.
Which speed records do you mean?
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
The hydrogen isn't so much a fuel, as a catalyst. A litte bit goes a long way, and more isn't necessarily better. Adding a small amount might improve efficency 10%, but adding twice as much doesn't result in a 20% boost, in fact, it would probably reduce the efficency.
From TFA: "HFI's manufacturer guarantees 10 percent fuel savings, which likely won't interest car companies or consumers, Raman said. But a reduction of pollution emissions could spur broader use."
Umm...who *wouldn't* be interested in saving 10% on fuel costs? As if biodiesel wasn't making diesel tech attractive enough...this is a true no-brainer. Go-go-gadget hydrogen-power.
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
Current hybrids store excess mechanical and electric energy from braking and downhill in batteries to be consume by an electric assist-motor during low and high speeds. This hydrogen method replaces the batteries with electrolically created hydrogen gas from the surplus energy, and employs it as a super-burner rather than an assist-engine. I wonder which method is cheaper, including additonal parts and reliability?
You play too much INWO.
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
No we aren't. Hydrogen works as a catalyst on burning the oil. It only improves the oil burning, that is in no way 100% efficient.
Hydrogen will not make the burning 100% efficient either, but ANY improvement to the efficience is welcome, as it is reflected in less emissions and more power or milage...
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat, plausible, and wrong."
H. L. Mencken
If you burn hydrogen in there it will consume some of the oxygen and leave less for the diesel to burn with.
Certainly.
Making the cylinder environment hotter will do nothing but get your hotter soot in this situation.
Only if soot is a product of the diesel running out of oxygen; I don't know that to be true. There may be plenty of oxygen in the cylinder, or you can adjust the mix to provide more oxygen.
Rather, I think it may be because the diesel takes longer to reach combustion temperature than it is allowed to remain in the cylinder. If this is the case--and that's an if--if you increase the temperature fast enough, you'll burn more of the otherwise unburnt fuel.
--
$tar -xvf
>Truckers Choose Hydrogen Power
Are those truckers bearded and wear a green headband with gold calligraphic inscription? If the answer is yes, infidels better run for their lifes.
Hidrogen = Hindenburg
Nobody is disobeying thermodynamics. The injection of hydrogen improves the efficency in burning the hydrocarbon == less fuel used. The reason that nobody has used a system like this before is that the burning of hydrogen leads to making the iron and steel inside the engine brittle == catostrophic engine failure. I think these truckers will be in for a rude surprise down the road. (Bad pun possibly intended) For the truely dedicated: http://www.knovel.com/knovel2/Toc.jsp?BookID=776
Funny, I just bumped into a trucker who's proudly crowing about how he's running machinery on soybean oil.
I've been mulling this concept in my head for years. Enriching desiel fuel with hydrogen created by the heat of the engine. The direction I started with was to generate the hydrogen using a "reverse peltier" methode. Two disimilar metals create a current when one side is hot and the other is cold. http://www.greencarcongress.com/thermoelectrics/ I wish I could find a link to the guy that actually created a generator out of this process using the exhaust system of a semi to create electricity in the 1Mw area. Anyway, using electrolysis was only good to create small amounts. The difficulties in pluming the hyrdogen into the fuel system, while keeping steam/water out of the mix, made the expense greater than the gain. Lately I've been thinking of routing the heat exhaust onto, or against, an area of a water tank. On the inside of the tank, where the heat is focused, I would like to place a zinc coil. In, an untested, theory the heated rod should suck the oxygen out of the water leaving hydrogen. Unfortunately, both ideas require me to cross into the area of patented technologies.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
There's a consumer-ready hydrogen filling station a mile from my house. Seriously.
Granted, you won't be driving cross-country, but I wish people would get their facts straight. They DO exist. There may only be a handful around the country, but cheeky statements like "oh, which don't exist by the way" just make the author look like an ass when I've been able to pull up to a hydrogen pump for two years...
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but doesn't a more fuel effecient vehicle will run at a higher temperature?
Maybe I missed it, but does the added hydrogen keep the cylinder head temperature down as well as increasing the amount of fuel being burnt?
There were a number of crack pot devices available for cars that 'injected exotic materials into the intake manifold, dramatically improving fuel effeciency'. These turned out to be nothing more then putting a controlled leak in the intake, thereby leaning the mixture - which saved gas at the cost of increased running temperatures which led to shortened engine lifetime.
As an example of people desperate to conserve fuel - look at pilots of smaller aircraft that have a mixture control by the throttle. The conventional wisdom has always been to lean out the mixture to save fuel (especially as you gain altitude). However, there have been some concerns that pilots may be over leaning the mix and causing pre-mature engine failure. (A much bigger problem when you rely on the engine to avoid a collision with mother earth.)
I'm in my right mind and I have the answer to everything!
[Joey says you must be new here]
-- mmmmmng eurgh
Water injection was OLD technology by WWII. The 1904 Hart-Parr tractor came from the factory with water injection. (the first known commercial application of water injection)
Water injection however has problems. Water freezes in winter, which is perhaps the worst on. So it is used where it is needed (Hart-Parr wanted to use kerosene fuel, but they needed some knock control), or where the hassle is worth the gains. (racing)
Trucker hydrogen supplimental systems decrease the percentage of available Ozone.
-PMP-
The DOE show that the prewar production levels were on the order of 2.5 m bbl/day (peak) and 2.0 m bbl/day now.
CIA World Factbook shows Iraqi production as currently 2.25 million bbl/day (2004 est.); note - prewar production (in 2002) was 2.03 million bbl/day (2004 est.)
And the Iraqi gov't says they can return to prewar levels sometime in 2006.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
It's not even replacing any of the diesel. It's there as a supplement that helps the diesel ignite faster, because at the rates it's added to the air, propane simply will not burn efficiently.
This method is not to be confused with diesel-cycle combustion busses and whatnot that actually full time run on propane or natural gas.
Crisco powered trucks :)
I think that the old saying 'You get what you pay for' applies here. Having read the $200 page, it seems to assume that generating the hydrogen is free. It's also scaled for a car, not a diesel semi. The idea that it'll benefit every IC engine is also hooky, especially with the 21% claim. Basically, I'd want a guarentee and a positive review by a company I trust, such as consumer digest.
The second site didn't mention prices, but did mention that it uses a gallon of distilled water per 1000 miles, as well as some sort of electrolytic solution. The distilled water isn't a big deal if you figure on saving 3-4 gallons of gas/diesel per 1000 miles. But the ounce of electrolyte is questionable.
Like what other posters have mentioned, diesel tends to burn dirtier than gasoline. Modern gasoline cars already combust the vast majority of their fuel, but diesels were something like 10% lower. You have alot more to gain if the standard is only resulting in 85% burn, rather than 95-97%. Then again, all three sites claim to benefit even gasoline engines.
As for taking some time to notice the effects, cleaning the engine seems likely. This was seen when some older cars were switched to 10%ethanol. Performance would decrease for a little while, then improve. This could be attained purely by much cleaner burning resulting in new deposits not happening, and old deposits breaking off because of engine stresses (heat, vibration, etc)
If I was this company, I'd be offering free trials to big companies. If the payoff is really only 1-2 years, tractor companies will take them up on it left and right. I'd be encouraging trucker magazines to produce articles on it. I'd see if I could get consumer digest to test it.
I don't read AC A human right
1/4 mile drags/NHRA/top fuel/funny cars, etc. IIRC (not likely, since i'm not a race fan) first to break 250mph in the 1/4 mile and first to break 300mph in the 1/4 mile happened here in Gainesville... OK, some quick googling shows that I of course don't RC, but here's the blurb -
"Gainesville Raceway opened in 1969 and held its first Gatornationals event in 1970. Long considered one of the fastest tracks on the NHRA circuit, it was from this legendary launch point that drivers clocked the first 260-, 270- and 300-mph Top Fuel runs. It also was from this starting line, during the 2000 Mac Tools NHRA Gatornationals, that eight of 10 national records were set in the professional classes."
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
The reason for leaning out the fuel mixture as the aircraft gains altitude is not for fuel efficiency, but to prevent fouling of the plugs.
As the aircraft gains altitude the density of the atmosphere goes down, making the fuel-air mixture much richer. If the mixture isn't leaned out the engine will flood, resulting the return of said aircraft to mother earth -- not necessarily in a location conducive to a happy meeting.
"Hot Smoke results from incomplete combustion during heavy engine loads. Hot smoke also results from an over-rich fuel mixture. Insufficient oxygen prevents the diesel fuel from completely oxidizing. Besides generating particulate pollution, hot smoke performs no useful work; it reduces net engine power and lowers vehicle mpg. Traditional engine adjustments do nothing to hot smoke production. Fumigation reduces most hot smoke production resulting in reduced pollution and increased vehicle mpg."
Hot smoke happens because you don't have enough oxygen in the chamber to burn the fuel. So you're going to fix this by adding more fuel and no more oxygen?
Also, this LPG injection makes it possible to burn all the air, even that near the cold cylinder walls! But then later it says, don't use it when the engine is cold. Those statements make no sense.
Please, give me a break.
I do understand adding LPG could make more power. But it's because you're burning more fuel. And you're paying for more fuel too. No magic here.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I think that the old saying 'You get what you pay for' applies here. Having read the $200 page, it seems to assume that generating the hydrogen is free. It's also scaled for a car, not a diesel semi.
Such a system might make more sense on a locomotive or a marine diesel.
The idea that it'll benefit every IC engine is also hooky, especially with the 21% claim.Also given that spark ignition and gas turbines have very different combustion mechanisms.
The octane rating was an arbitrary scale much like the farenheight(sp) scale. When they began testing fuels for things like auto-ignition in ICEs, they thought iso-octane was the hardest to auto-ignite. Later they discovered things like benzene and toluene were even harder to ignite, having octane ratings near 106. Also, the "octane" rating at a fuel pump is not necissarily the original scale. There is a new method that is not based on the octane molecule at all. I suggest some googleing.
oh yes, it is obvious. I was just pointing that out for those who do not know the difference. Had I not said that, someone other than you (maybe) would have said something about it being distilled.
Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
From the company's website, the device is injecting a hydrogen-oxygen gas MIX. This is highly EXPLOSIVE, and is not well-suited to long-term storage. H2 from a bottle would provide many of the same benefits to combustion, but then you have to produce it, add a storage facility, refueling facility, etc etc.
With their system, you add water.
People here are saying they have seen similar things sold on the internet (or to be announced) for insane amounts of money. I have seen these devices sold on Ebay - every time there is an "energy crunch", you see the number of auctions skyrocket. Most of these are for plans or sometimes actual devices - some knowledge of your car and engine, and some level of mechanical aptitude is required to install them.
At the same time, all of these things sound like a scam. I have heard all of the arguments, some make sense, some don't. So, instead of arguing about it, why don't we slashdotters construct our own, test it out, then see what is real? First off, start by googling hydro-boost. One of the first few links will take you to this page, which is a complete set of "plans" on how to build this kind of device from parts picked up at Home Depot (or the building supply place of your choice/location) and AutoZone or Checker (or whatever auto parts store is near you).
These devices are simple - they make what is known as Brown's Gas - a HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE MIXTURE of hydrogen and oxygen gases (note that if you build a "hydro-boost" cell for your car, that you want to make sure all of the gas is going into your engine, and not building up in areas under the hood/bonnet - unless you want a "car that goes BOOM!" literally) - used industrially for welding (similar to an oxy-acetylene torch system) - in fact, from that google search link you will find many suppliers of industrial Brown's Gas welding systems.
I don't know if these systems are the equivalent of fuel-line magnets or if they really work. If you are willing, try it yourself. Also note that I am not sure how your local environmental testing spot will treat you if you leave that device hooked up under your hood for a smog/emmissions test. They would probably fail you outright for unlawful engine modifications. However, they probably wouldn't have a problem helping you test such a system if you are willing to pay the fees needed - to see if emmissions go down if nothing else (other measurements they may or may not be willing to help out on). Just don't go through there "on the sly" - they don't look kindly on loose hoses, never mind funky emmisions modifications they don't approve...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
We need to get the combined force of slashdotters to refute gravity.
No, it's nothing like a hybrid. RTFA :)
Hydrogen combustion has a flame propagation rate several times that of hydrocarbon fuel. This 'kickstarts' the combustion process and causes more hydrocarbons to be burned, rather than spewed out the tailpipe. More power, improved mileage, reduced emissions.
These have been installed for a little while now, and there are distributors all across the USA and Canada.
Not exactly - it's actually a case of the performance gain by the improved fuel consumption initiated by the hydrogen injection offsetting the current used by the electrolysis system. From the company's website documentation, this draws about 35A - that is far more than any 'excess generated power' available from a freewheeling alternator.
Your headlights draw about that kind of current, maybe a bit less.
The more current draw, the harder the alternator is to turn.
You make generalized accusations. You say nothing that you can defend based on facts. You are a troll. If you want to be a better troll, study the works of Biff.
BTW, I rebuilt my first engine in 1966. I've done lots since then. They've all lasted a long time and they've all been way better than stock. And, no, I've never used nitros.
> The energy in the match already exists as potential energy.
And the energy in the unburned diesel that's being lost out the tailpipe already exists as potential energy.
The hydrogen is only useful to aid in burning that otherwise-lost diesel, just like the KE involved in striking a match is only useful to aid in burning that otherwise-unburned match.
How many times do people have to be told to RTFA before they'll at least stop pretending they know what they're talking about?
You've been reading my page: http://www.newpath4.com/enginewow.htm .
Push comes to shove soon. I just released my last engine to the Internet: http://www.newpath4.com/millenialdawnpowerandlight secure21.htm . We will soon see which wins out, "Free Energy" or sockXXXholder profits er stockholder profits. I announced my engine from February to October 2005, told everyone what I had was going to change the World. I hope they listened. I encouraged that new laws be written to protect stockholders from the impact of a new technology. I tried to keep from hurting anyone. Now da cat's outta da bag and I guess no matter how hard I tried to protect them they'll soon be screaming bloody murder. Well, it was a toss up; stockholders of old technologies vs new babies being genetically damaged from hydrocarbon/lead/etc permeation. The world was able to ignore my previous engine: http://www.newpath4.com/enginewow.htm but I doubt it will ignore a waterwheel that sets up its own matter stream & can go ANYWHERE. http://tinyurl.com/7aaca .
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Okay I am gonna run an idea past you, tell me if I am off track. I drive a truck and would rather have a way to make electricity to run stuff like a 12v heater, the tv, a microwave, my laptop, a satellite system, and the stereo while I am stopped instead of idleing the truck. Wouldn't it make more sense to use the hydrogen to make electricity to charge batteries for 10 or 12 hours and not burn diesel. I know all about the Idle Air hookups in some truckstops but they are not numerous enough to be a help in being more profitable (I own my truck sorry I have to think of this first.) and more environmentally conscious which I try to be. Generators and APU units are heavy and undependable. Inverters are light and dependable and I would rather have one. Don't rip me too bad but please comment I would like to know.