Hydrogen generators

My first gut reaction was 'snake oil', but a google search indicates that there is some published research backing it up. But 700$?! Definitely not worth it IMO.

Do you watch the mythbusters show?

They got a hydrogen generator in their test of 'snake oil' fuel devices and they think that 'maybe' the car started once with it, but they weren't sure if it might be left over gas because it only started the once.

Mike

Sure, injecting hydrogen into the combustion chamber along with the gasoline means you'll burn less gasoline... injecting ANY fuel along with the gasoline means you'll burn less gasoline.

If you cut your gasoline 50/50 with aviation fuel, you'll use half as much gasoline as you did before. The problem is that you'll ALSO use as much aviation fuel as gasoline, and the aviation fuel costs a lot more than the auto gas.

Replacing a portion of your fuel with another fuel that costs more is not a way to save money.

--scott

ya, and those silly automakers all over the world are just too lazy to use this magic water to increase mileage 50% :lol: they prefer to spend millions on R&D and in their stupidity are happy with just a few percent mileage improvement:rofl: what a stupid people work in auto industry:lol:

If seriously, industry is working hard on using hydrogen as a fuel for quite some time already, and solution is not here yet obviously. It takes time to do something right, you know.

Well, I don't know exact numbers, by your logic definitely seems to be right

My understanding is there is enough hydrogen (and gaseous oxygen) in the conversion (and they use Lye as a catalyst) to burn off buildup in the engine where eventually your fuel consumption goes down by a certain percentage. The claim also is that the engines computer adjusts your fuel mixture and all of this takes about two or three weeks to occur depending on the engine. The unit requires about 10 amps to run but that is adjusted by the amount of Lye in the chamber. It is possible to run it high enough to load your alternator down and cancel whatever saving your doing. The units truely do produce the gases they say. Whether they are enough to do anything productive is in question.

One can build one of these units versus buying one by using carbon rods out of an old dry cell, some pvc piping and some fittings. The cheapest one for sale is similar and the costlier ones are stainless steel.

My preference is chemically stored hydrogen which the engione runs on exclusively. We're talking 10k for a system like that once the government says we can have have it (for purchase). Then there is the cost of getting the hydrogen into the stored form which is more cost. All of this could be made cheap is they wanted it to be. They just don't want it to be. We've come a long way since the Wright brothers in planes and spaceships, but we still have clunky engines in our cars running on fossil fuels.

eh, my .02

The efficiency of the production is close to 90% with only slight losses due to heat. Most of that 10% is spent getting it into tanks, too, since the actual electrolysis is very efficient.

And when you burn it, you DO get all the energy you put into it back. If you can't USE that energy and most of it (as in an internal combustion engine) is wasted as heat, don't shoot the messenger.

--scott

Ooops, sorry. I did not understand your post, I thought you were talking about some sort of on-board hydrogen production using energy produced from hydrogen usage. :frown: