jchunterelectric

I am working on a hydrogen generator to supplement fuel consumption.
Has anyone tried this and if so what of the results?

Nigel Goodwin

The general consenus is it's a complete load of rubbish - you can't get more energy out than you put in.

The claims of improved consumption are because they mess about with the settings of the engine - increasing fuel consumption, but probably reducing performance, and reducing engine life.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

jchunterelectric

Do you know any one who has actually tried it?

mvs sarma

Other day, I saw a TV documentary on compressed air driven car and bike on demonstration. they claimed it would run at 110kmph and for a distance of 40Km with one cylinder of compressed air. Though it consumes electricity, it appeared to work well, besides the safety of the air tank . reloading the air is equally risky as the cylinder gets HOT. Perhaps one can get a refill and go on.

__________________
Regards,
Sarma.

Sceadwian

Same problem with hydrogen vehicles. How do you store that much hydrogen inertly but chemically available when it's needed. Ever seen the Hindenburg disaster tapes? and all that mixed with was ambient air, and the blimp itself wasn't under that much pressure. Fuel storage is the prime concern of a hydrogen economy.

I wouldn't say hydrogen generation as a supplementary fuel is generally considered a bad idea, it's universally a bad idea. Step 1 generate electricity. Okay that one's fine. Step two, electrolyze water to generate and store hydrogen, bad idea; see Hindenburg. Store the electricity directly via large capacitor banks or batteries; a little better. You might actually gain a few city MPG doing that for starting and stopping, if you can feed a true high torque motor into the drive train without enough mechanical loss to make the entire project a complete waste of time.

__________________

rjvh

hydrogen manufacturing and storage fixed in a place to run a generator

I don't see the problem if you're installing it properly and with the safety in mind

Hydrogen in mobile aplications that's a nightmare, and a wet dream for terorists and holywood film makers

Robert-Jan

3v0

It is said that the dope covering the skin was more of a fire danger then the hydrogen. Every time a full size commercial jet augers in there is larger loss of life. The Hindenburg's demise is over hyped.

The problems with compressed hydrogen are possibly over hyped too. Why is it so much worse then other compress flammable gasses like propane of liquefied natural gases?

__________________
search engine for electronic parts
Junebug USB PIC programmer kit., USB Bit Wacker, Homepage
The 15 Minute Printed Circuit Board! (+drill time)

Amra

Perhaps a method of producing hydrogen on the fly might be more applicable.

Though there would be the obvious problem of generating the hydrogen in enough volume to be useful, and how much energy would be needed to produce it...

Nigel Goodwin

The Hindenburgs demise was one large scale disaster amongst a relatively low number of total flights - modern airliners crashes are incredibly rare, and there's a tremendous amount of air traffic about.

There are probably more people carried in jets in a single day that have ever been carried in airships.

Hydrogen and oxygen is an extremely voltatile mixture, and the tiny size of a hydrogen molecule means it's always leaking through the canopy - a disaster just waiting to happen. In this day and age of Health and Safety, what do you think the chances of using Hydrogen as an airship lifting agent is?.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

killivolt

I have someone who has approached me with this. He wants me to assemble a Product an on the fly hydrogen producer.

He explains it as the gases produced are infused with the air mix in the intake. He was supposed to send me the pdf on this stuff this morning but we are going to University status and my e-mail here is catching everything in my spam or rejecting it.


As soon as I get it. You know I'll be posting anything that happens.

kv

__________________
Truthiness Monkeys : Obedience, Ignorance, Fear.

3v0

I was not proposing that we resume the use of hydrogen as a means of lift. My point is the hype surrounding the Hindenburg's demise is way out of proportion to the loss of life. Is is often used to raise FUD regarding hydrogen as a fuel. As the quote in my previous post said, more people died when the helium filled USS Akron crashed. The two crashes are in the same time frame.

I am neutral on the use of hydrogen as a fuel. But it does not make sense to drag out the over hyped Hindenburg crash as a reason not to pursue it.

__________________
search engine for electronic parts
Junebug USB PIC programmer kit., USB Bit Wacker, Homepage
The 15 Minute Printed Circuit Board! (+drill time)

Pommie

LNG is liquid at 45psi, Hydrogen around 5,000-10,000psi and it's still gaseous at these pressures. One vents a little gas the other is a bomb.

Mike.

Clyd3

i can't resist but say how much i love and appreciate hydrogen and all it has done (disasters aside).
It truly is an amazing little (little) element.
In fact, it is so tiny, and explodes so fast that the flashback arrestors in blowtorches are too slow!!! (very scary)

I've been curiously and very sceptically looking at various claims of hydrogen powered systems for cars and generators and all online recently. Many of the most common claims, especially for cars, generate the hydrogen or gas (whatever they claim it is) on demand. In other words, they don't store it.

They then use a water "bubbler" as a substitute flashback arrestor. So the gas line is fed into the water, bubbles to the surface, and from there is collected to the engine. This is so that if there is a flash, it will stop at the bubbler and not go back into the electrolysers tank (bigger boom).

I have not really taken sides as yet. The people who make these so called generators and all don't sound too intelligent (they sound dodgy), but I've always looked at water as a source of power in a chemical sense. Just still to work out how...

It is the honour of God to conceal a matter, and the honour of kings to search it out.

__________________
Under the terms of the GPL - General Posting License
[Meaning mods may modify, delete and redistribute any of the posts herein contained, 'cause there's no stopping you]

arrie

One has to admit, some major vehicle manufacturers have implemented it successfully. It is thus very possible and probably even feasible to some extent.
The only thing is, it is done so under very strict control.
As soon as you add your average "don't care" Joe Street to the equation, things can and will go wrong.
That is probably why none of these major manufacturers have said they are planning a roll-out as jet.
So we're still burning fossils.
The best solution for alternative energy will most likely be some hybrid system, and no, not the pruis, it still burns fossils, something else, but what.
That is why we have all you brainy guys over here, to come up with something better.
Think people, my brain is already burnt out.

Clyd3

Fellow South African? ROCK ON!!!
Yeah, the best solution for now will be some hybrid system. But using that as middle ground, they'll be able to work out the knots and perfect a pure and efficient final system. We do hold high hopes inside - and with good reason!

__________________
Under the terms of the GPL - General Posting License
[Meaning mods may modify, delete and redistribute any of the posts herein contained, 'cause there's no stopping you]