Wasn't sure if this belonged here, in the DIY, or Ashcan? Anyone have an experience with these? Do they work and are they worth it, or are they bunk? Just curious. Thanks.
Hydrogen Generators for Cars
- Thread starter Czech
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
I'm looking at whats gonna be next, and I think it will be all electric plug in's, the present hybrids are not plug in's so I'm not interested.
Have a look here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSZrpTb2_4I
Cheers
;-)
Have a look here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSZrpTb2_4I
Cheers
;-)
Adios Pantalones
Minister of Fire
If you mean the hydrolysis based ones that you hook inline- last I heard you may see a little tiny (couple mpg) boost, or you may see nothing. Neat little gadgety idea, but it doesn't look practical.
Todd
Minister of Fire
MishMouse
Minister of Fire
Todd, like that. I'm a lab guy, the idea looks like something fun to try on my Yukon that has 225000 miles on it, I don't expect the mileage claims tho. I'm more interested in a fun 'see how it works' project than anything. I would diy it rather than buy a kit. Just wondering if anyone has actual experience with these. If you could push some O2 and H2 into the throttle body, I can see it doing some good, just can't believe it could too much good. At my mileage, at least I don't have to worry about voiding the warranty! Thanks for the replies.
These do work quite well, but you have to bypass your oxygen sensor to trick your computer or else your you oxygen sensor detects the extra oxygen from the fuel cell and reads that it is running lean and injects more gas into the engine. They are not free power they just make your gas burn more efficiently. I have seen people get a 30% increase in gas mileage with one of these. They work the best in the old carbureted engines. There have been plenty of claims on people running a car 100% on water and Oil Company’s buying them out or murdering them when they refuse to take there offer, but these are just conspiracy theories I think. Search Stanley Meyers.
My O2 sensors are already coding since I drilled thru the cats, they are doing their thing still, but code because the fronts and backs read the same (ie the cats aren't doing anything). For what that matters, the truck is getting better mileage since I did that months ago, and performing better (and it smells better too!). As far as I know, the truck reads the front O2 first, feeds rich and lean very quick on start up, if the post cat O2 reads the same as the pre cat O2, it codes. That's all, it does engine management from the pre cat O2 only. Someone jump in if I'm wrong please? I'm thinking now, but I don't want to get killed quite yet......
I dont know if you checked youtube but there is all kinds of info and people building home made cells and puting them in there cars. these are my favorates
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=ZeroFossilFuel
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=johnaarons
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=ZeroFossilFuel
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=johnaarons
Adios Pantalones
Minister of Fire
"There have been plenty of claims on people running a car 100% on water and Oil Company’s buying them out or murdering them when they refuse to take there offer"
It is impossible. You have to put energy into the water to extract hydrogen and oxygen. You then react the H2 and O2 to get energy out. The laws of thermodynamics say that you need to put more energy IN to the water than you get OUT.
It is impossible. You have to put energy into the water to extract hydrogen and oxygen. You then react the H2 and O2 to get energy out. The laws of thermodynamics say that you need to put more energy IN to the water than you get OUT.
I agree with you on the law of thermodynamics and I believe it can’t be done with the research that I have done on it but these people claim that if you have the right frequency and voltage than the H2 and O2 molecules will separate on there own. If you read about Stanley Meyers he really was offered money from an oil company, refused to take it and ended up dead. It just make me wonder if it was a hoax why did he not take the money and shut up, but I don’t know there are a lot of conspiracy theories on the web.
Adios Pantalones
Minister of Fire
"these people claim that if you have the right frequency and voltage than the H2 and O2 molecules will separate on there own."
They are trying to use some sort of vibrational coupling: even if possible- that is ENERGY that has to come from somewhere (frequency is a property of a wave- that wave must be created, and its energy must be supplied to create it). You will need to use more energy than you will get out. There is simply a certain amount of energy that must be overcome to disassemble the water molecule, and that does not change when you use one method or another to put that energy in.
People have all sorts of new more efficient systems for extracting H2 and O2 from water- but nothing gets around thermodynamics. They just approach the case where they put in the theoretical amount of energy required with less wasted heat. They gloss over it in the pieces you see on this.
They are trying to use some sort of vibrational coupling: even if possible- that is ENERGY that has to come from somewhere (frequency is a property of a wave- that wave must be created, and its energy must be supplied to create it). You will need to use more energy than you will get out. There is simply a certain amount of energy that must be overcome to disassemble the water molecule, and that does not change when you use one method or another to put that energy in.
People have all sorts of new more efficient systems for extracting H2 and O2 from water- but nothing gets around thermodynamics. They just approach the case where they put in the theoretical amount of energy required with less wasted heat. They gloss over it in the pieces you see on this.
GotzTheHotz said:
Had a discussion about this on a performance board I frequent, said that the rear O2s actually do have a hand in fine tuning the fuel/air mix, and the person that supplied that info got it from a GM fueling engineer. Course, on the last truck I tuned I disabled the entire rear O2 setup and did some other tuning, and got more power and better mileage as a result. If they do fine tune, it's apparently only noticeable to an emissions testing machine. If your vehicle is a GM product you can use EFI Live to get rid of the rear O2 issue, and tune better, if not a GM I have no idea what you might use.
Highbeam
Minister of Fire
They make "O2 sensor simulators" to plug in in place of the rear O2 sensors and stop the SES light from coming on. The rear sensors are only for emissions verification. They have to be since the cats would bastardize the exhaust into something unrelated to engine management.
Wow, the stuff you learn here! Highbeam, do you have any specifcs on the simulators? I've been the codes read every month or so just to be sure I'm not missing anything, it is always cats. It would be nice to not have the light on. Thanks. It's a 97 GMC Yukon 5.7L btw.
mikeathens
Minister of Fire
OK, I personally believe the whole "brown's gas generator" for automotive fuel economy improvement is total BS. Current into water, generate hydroxy gas. More strain on the alternator = more drag on the engine. More energy in than out (hey, sounds familiar- biofuels???) I have an office mate that thought this was the answer to everyhting, and I started looking into it a bit more. What I found was that you had to mess with O2 sensors and EMU, leaning the mixture way down. BUT, if you do this without the little mason jar under the hood, you get the same results (better mileage, reduced engine life).
I'd like to see someone credible try this and show some results. I think this is a case of someone thinking they are doing something that they're not.
Why isn't this in NY Times? Why isn't this huge news in maninstream media? Where the Science journal article from university research?
I'm not buyin' it. But, if someone wants to take a chance with their car and document results, I'd be interested.
I'd like to see someone credible try this and show some results. I think this is a case of someone thinking they are doing something that they're not.
Why isn't this in NY Times? Why isn't this huge news in maninstream media? Where the Science journal article from university research?
I'm not buyin' it. But, if someone wants to take a chance with their car and document results, I'd be interested.
Like I said, it's bunk. You'll never generate enough hydrogen efficiently to aid in any significant mileage increases. Don't you think if adding this silly little contraption under the hood would yield 30% mileage increases (or even 5% for that matter), wouldn't the auto manufactures be doing it?????????????
Wet1 said:
Not if the auto manufacturers had a lot of money invested in the oil companies
:lol: ;-)
mikeathens
Minister of Fire
Telco said:Not if the auto manufacturers had a lot of money invested in the oil companies
I think they would if it meant that their sales would go through the roof (which they would right now - I never used to see MPG ratings in ads, now it's plastered across the screen in the commercials).
Nope I dont there are a ton of alternative energy sources and we still use oil, that is what are government wants.
- Status
Similar threads
