SCAM ALERT - Adding Hydrogen To Your Gas WON’T Save You Money
By Jason on Apr 11, 2008 in Accurate Auto Advice
Adding hydrogen to your gas won't improve your gas mileage. [3:00m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Adding hydrogen to your gas won't improve your gas mileage. [3:00m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | DownloadListen to this post.
I stumbled across a scam today that I just had to write about. Here’s the hook:
“Increase your gas mileage 20-90% by adding a supplemental hydrogen generator to your car! A supplemental hydrogen generator works simply enough - you put distilled water in a special canister in your car, and electricity from your car’s battery is used to separate that water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is added to your car’s fuel because hydrogen burns very well (hydrogen is a very combustible gas), and it reduces the amount of gas you use! The oxygen is added to the air your car breathes in. Oxygen is needed for combustion, and more of it makes your car more efficient. One gallon of water is enough to provide oxygen and hydrogen for hundreds of miles!“
Here’s a nice graphic of the system.
The hook is followed by lines like “the secret the oil companies don’t want you to know” or “automakers and oil companies are working to keep this technology out of your hands”, etc. The websites (which I won’t link to because they’re a complete and total rip-off) even sell parts or entire mechanisms for adding a separator to your car. Unfortunately, there’s a problem with this idea. It doesn’t work! It’s impossible!
Here’s a summary of the system:
Step 1: Using electricity from the battery, the system separates water into oxygen and hydrogen. Keep in mind that the electricity in the battery is simple stored electricity from your engine. The engine creates electricity by turning your alternator, which powers your radio, headlights, turn signals, etc., with any extra charging your car’s battery.
Step 2: The oxygen from the separator is added to your air intake. More oxygen in the air makes for better combustion.
Step 3: The hydrogen from the separator is added to your fuel, reducing the amount of gasoline your car uses.
Step 4: Hydrogen and oxygen re-combine during combustion in your engine, releasing energy and making your car go. Unfortunately, the engine also needs to send electricity to your hydrogen separator in order to continue the process. That brings us back to step one.
At best, this would be a break-even process. While it is true that hydrogen can supplement gasoline, it’s important to remember that whatever energy you added to the water to get it to separate in step 1 doesn’t fall from the sky - it comes from your engine. Whatever power you gain in step 4 goes towards providing energy for step 1.
Here’s the ironic part - adding this equipment will probably reduce your gas mileage. You’re pulling energy out of the engine to break down water, but you’re going to loose some of that energy to electrical resistance in the alternator as it charges the battery, heat loss from the battery and the separator, and probably some combustion efficiency loss because the engine’s computer won’t understand what’s going on (the computer would need to be re-calibrated for the un-naturally high oxygen in the intake air stream, not to mention the hydrogen in the fuel).
There’ s a law called “conservation of energy” - whatever energy we put into something, that’s the most we can get out of it. We add energy to water to make oxygen and hydrogen, but whatever energy we get back can’t be more than we added.
In other words, it’s a scam.
L.R. PAGE | Jun 4, 2008 | Reply
Question:
When adding hydrogen and oxygen to the burn, does this inprove the efficiency of the burn and the efficiency of the engine?
Jason | Jun 4, 2008 | Reply
L.R. - It does not - it’s a zero sum gain when it comes to burn efficiency.
Jim | Jun 25, 2008 | Reply
I believe before you condemn something you should do a lot more research than you have. Did you know that by adding Hydrogen into the cylinder you will be essentially steam cleaning your engine? That means there will be less build up to cause less friction to cause…less energy used to maintain combustion. When you spend less energy in the combustion cycle you will get more energy to be used for the other systems.
Also did you know that by adding hydrogen in at the combustion level you will burn the fuel more efficiently, a larger “Bang” for your buck. This will produce more energy, as well as produce less harmful emissions.
So in just these two situations we are reducing the amount of energy needed for the combustion cycle, and increasing the amount of energy generated in the combustion cycle.
I will agree with you that there is more to the story than the websites let on. Newer model cars will have issues surrounding the O2 sensor. It will need to be “tricked” so that it does not make the fuel mixture to rich.
The fact of the mater is I know people that run hydrogen generators, of one form or another with real world results. As an example I know an owner of a Chevy Avalanche. He went from 12 mpg to 17 mpg. It may not seem like allot but lets do the math. Lets assume the tank is 24 gal. So his before fuel range was 288 miles. His after fuel rang is 408 miles. He increased his fuel range by 120 miles!!!
You will def have to do your research regarding hydrogen generation to get the right application for your need. One thing I know for sure is this, it works. It will save you money because it DOES extend your fuel range.
Bruce | Jun 25, 2008 | Reply
It’s actually a much bigger scam than you realize.
Check out this YouTube video and see what I mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSnSxAMjXq8
Millions of dollars have been bilked from a huge number of people who don’t realize what’s going on.
Jim | Jun 26, 2008 | Reply
Sigh….there is a Yahoo user group called water4gas. This user group give out specs for Hydrogen generators FREE. Yes that’s right, not one penny spent to get your hands on the design specs. Sure you will have to pay for the parts…but come on nothing is free.
Just because some scam artists are out there trying to rob people blind doesn’t mean that the product does not work. In the Yahoo user group you will find many avid proponents that USE the generators. You can ask for pictures, and if you happen to live near one of them they will be happy to show you there installation. Yes they will open the hood, and let you look at it…maybe if you are good they will let you touch it.
You guys really need to do more research. The only reason that I haven’t posted my fuel mileage savings is because my truck needs a fuel pump…not going anywhere without that. Once the fuel pump is changed the generator will be installed. Unfortunately for me that will not be for 3 weeks or so.
but because I know that you will not research…instead you will take the word of other people who will not research….the link to the freely obtained plans for the SMACKS BOOSTER
http://www.smacksboosters.110mb.com/
It’s all there in its naked glory.
You can even see videos.
I have shown you the math, now I have shown you the specs…what else do you need? Why not d/l the smacks booster specs, go to Home Depot and spend $80 and run the thing.
Bruce | Jun 26, 2008 | Reply
Jim, I’ve done the research.
I’ve already got tests here that show measured reductions in fuel efficiency after fitting well engineered “HHO” systems to gasoline engines.
I’ve also spoken with professor Harry Watson of Melbourne University who has reviewed the content of the website at http://aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam.shtml and said “I can only concur with what you say”.
This guy obtained degrees and diplomas at Imperial College London where his doctoral thesis was on the combustion of hydrogen in engines. I think he knows what he’s talking about.
I’ll be filming a scientifically conducted test of “HHO” injection this weekend and posting the results for all to see on the internet.
As for the math — there’s plenty of reference on the Aardvark site with links to other sites like this:
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9551919888/m/2321969559
which back it up and further disprove the claims of the HHO scammers.
Who are people going to believe?
Someone like me who has done the math and done the tests and a highly respected professor who has majored in hydrogen combustion — or a bunch of guys with jamjars and baking soda who have no conventional science or independent peer-reviewed research to back up their claims?
Jason | Jun 26, 2008 | Reply
Bruce - I really appreciate your comments. It’s great to see someone taking the time to discredit this ridiculous idea that adding “HHO” will actually result in fuel savings.
Jim - you accuse me of not understanding, of not “doing the research”, but you have yet to disprove one of my points. Incidentally, I have an engineering degree. I studied thermodynamics. I can tell you with 100% certainty this “HHO” system is a net loser. As long as you’re taking energy from the engine to split the water molecules, you’re losing. If you filled up your truck with hydrogen every morning, then you might have a fuel savings device. Just be careful - Hydrogen is highly explosive.
James Spencer | Jun 26, 2008 | Reply
Jason:
You want to talk about a scam? OK. Your car is currently 20% efficient - meaning - out of 1000 gallons of gasoline you put into that car, it throws away 800 gallons! Out of $4000 worth of money you poured into your fuel tank $3200 went into making heat and poison gasses and $800 was available to make you go down the road. Out of that $800, as much as $400 was burned at a stoplight or on your driveway with a mileage of ZERO.
Add to that the fanatic preoccupation we are forced to participate in putting oil, antifreeze, brake and power steering fluid, freon, battery acid, water and bearing grease into this 20%-(maximum)-efficiency poison-gas-belching, heat-wasting pile of bolts we call a “car.”
You arrogant defenders of the status quo need to be a little less pompous - considering the above.
You want some engineering?
As the piston is going upward, the gasoline explosion begins (early) at -usually- 6 degrees before Top Dead Center. At this point, the piston is being driven up by the flywheel momentum and (simultaneously) down by the beginning expansion of the air. As the engine - literally - tries to tear itself apart, a tremendous amount of the gasoline is being converted to wasted heat that is transferred to the block and the heads. The addition of a small amount of hydrogen “characterizes” the explosion at 40,000 feet/second. Your engine timing has to be retarded to almost TDC. The O2 sensor will see a leaner burn, so the brain will try to defeat the improvement by adding more gas. So that has to be corrected. The improvement in efficiency by the reduction of heat conversion can more than offset the alternator drag. And there are a multitude of other factors that go to improving the efficiency of the burn. Example: The addition of water vapor was used in WW II in bombers to increase efficiency. Point being this part is not a new concept. I could give you more hints, but just try to think a tiny bit more outside the box and you will get there yourself.
Heaven knows, the current crap technology we are forced to use with these engines designed by lawyers could be improved by any 5 year old and a hammer if he isn’t saddled with various pre-conceived notions.
I am also an engineer. But I am an OLD engineer who has seen enough changes in the so-called “immutable” laws to know that the less experience someone has …. the more dogmatic they are about the status quo.
Gasoline and atom bombs are 2 different types of latent energy. Nobody has to put the energy into them before they can get it back out. It’s already there and all you have to do is “release” it. Gasoline is one hell of a powerful substance. If you had taken 1 gallon of it and told someone in 1820 that “this gallon of clear liquid can take you 30 miles down the road in 30 minutes,” they would have called YOU a scam artist.
Using cavity quantum electrodynamics, it may be possible to fracture the HH-O bonds rather than “separating” them. Using pure water as the dielectric and a simple 555 pulse generator, one could build a high voltage on the plates with zero current flow. At that point you can kiss all the “energy-in = energy-out BS goodbye. Cause then you are dealing with more of the same kind of latent energy that you already have with gasoline.
Bruce | Jun 26, 2008 | Reply
James, you’ve been visiting too many of those pseudo-science sites.
Tell me, which of the “so-called “immutable” laws” have you seen change (as you claim)?
And believe it or not, modern internal combustion engines are already running remarkably close to the theoretical maximum for the Carnot cycle so a 40% improvement would vastly exceed that theoretical maximum - thus violating the laws of thermodynamics (which remains immutable to this day).
Please explain your claim that hydrogen “characterizes” the explosion at 40,000 feet/second.
What we want/need in an ICE is a deflagration of the air/fuel mixture, not a detonation.
Now I have done a lot of research and design work with combustion and a detonation is combustion involving flamefronts traveling at supersonic velocities. These are typically very destructive and most certainly *not* desirable in an ICE.
The typical flame-front speed for a hydrogen deflagration is subsonic and far short of the 40,000 feet/second you claim.
If you want to see some of my combustion work, take a look at http://interestingprojects.com
I have developed a type of pulse-jet engine that uses very high-rate deflagration to improve performance by a factor of three over conventional pulsejets. This has been the result of much research and development during which many things have been learned and relearned about combustion. see: http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/xjet.shtml
This engine is about to undergo independent testing at an accredited university.
I’m not a tinkerer or pure theory academic. I’m working with the science and practice of combustion every day.
Trust me, if this HHO rubbish had any merit, I’d be using it.
Jason | Jun 26, 2008 | Reply
James - So what you’re saying is that gasoline and the ICE are both scams because they’re grossly inefficient?
OK - everyone’s entitled to an opinion. I expect you’ll be riding your bicycle from now on then? Of course, that process isn’t 100% efficient either (sweat is a form of heat loss). I guess you’ll be calling God a scam artist then for designing an inherently inefficient process?
On to your “science”. You’re basically saying that adding hydrogen to the gasoline acts as a “chemical intercooler”. Perhaps. However, I would argue that this benefit does not compensate for the heat loss in the electrolysis process.
Here’s an even simpler explanation - one that I’m quite sure you’ll reject. If this type of system really worked, why aren’t the car companies all over it? GM, Ford, and Chrysler are losing billions of dollars because they can’t sell their gas guzzling trucks and SUVs. Do you really expect me (or anyone else who’s reading this) to believe that the car companies wouldn’t be including this system in all their new vehicles?
This is the part where you say something about a conspiracy…let me guess. The oil companies and the car companies are in cahoots, right??
James Spencer | Jun 26, 2008 | Reply
Check out the address below to see BMW’s first Hydrogen burning car.
http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2006/11/72100
Jason
So, you think your 80% inefficient machine is just peachy? You’re OK with that? What I told you about the engine is not my opinion. It’s common knowledge. But you’re not the least bit bothered by those numbers? You are just going to breeze past that and attack me and my bicycle? (Whoops, I don’t have a bicycle.) The one thing you said regarding the alternator is an important concern. So let’s talk about that instead of attacking each other’s …. bicycles or whatever.
Most of the experimenter hydrolyzers are pulling about 15 to 20 amps at 12 volts (assumed - could be 13V). That’s about 240 - 250 watts. Hmmmm. Not a lot on the overall scale of things, but still too much. However, even at this inefficient level, it’s only using about 1 horsepower of the engine capacity. So the bottom line is: can the resulting Hydrogen “give back” more than one horsepower? Wellll, not if you just slap the hydrolyzer on the car and stick a hose into the air intake. You’ll get nothing. The engine is not set to burn Hydrogen. The O2 sensor will sense that there is less O2 in the exhaust (burning lean) and increase the pulse length to the injectors. That will increase the amount of gasoline consumed. Not good. And the timing is all wrong.
Bruce
1) “Flourine is an inert gas and will NOT combine with any other element.” All Highschool and College chemistry taught that as an immutable law of chemistry. Then came Carbon Tetraflouride otherwise know as “Teflon.” Ooooops! Oh well….
2) The burn speed of H2 is much slower than the 40,000 figure. That was a typo.The burning speed of hydrogen at 8.7–10.7 ft/s (2.65–3.25 m/s) is nearly an order of magnitude higher than that of methane or gasoline (at stoichiometric conditions). Hydrogen also burns closer to the cylinder walls than gasoline. So it just gets things going really quickly. It actually lowers the Octane. And if you know the definition of Octane, you know that it is a measure of RESISTANCE to detonation and that water has the highest octane of all. I will describe the characterization more fully below.
My attitude toward the automobile began to change when I visited with the top mechanic for General Motors, retired due to poor health, which was the result of job pressure. The papers and many photos of his career were on the wall of his repair shop in rural Oklahoma. His current repair accounts included all of the local work for UPS in Oklahoma
He told me many things in 1989. He had patented a fuel processing system in 1980 which would make all cars operate much more efficiently. He showed me a letter from General Motors which stated “if you can get this device certified by the EPA, we will put it in every car we make.”
He showed me the device itself. He had one on his wife’s Ford SUV ( a Bronco, I think). She was getting about 50 miles per gallon. The dynamotor showed 160% power from the engine. He proudly stated: “now you can say you have seen one.”
He took his request to the EPA. They scoffed at him and presented him with paperwork 24″ tall and printed on both sides. He took that to his attorney. The attorney was astonished. The next day, the attorney told him the following: “it will take 10 years in time and $1,000,000 in money and at the end of that time (and money), there is no guarantee you will be certified.” So he said “to hell with it.” He hoped his kids might be able to benefit from it.
The experience of meeting with this person happened to me, not you. I don’t expect you to change anything about how you believe or view things.
The initial high speed ignition of the gasoline by the hydrogen requires that the timing be retarded to “almost top dead center.” This totally changes the efficiency for the better.
Because the explosion occurs at TDC, the entire process is dedicated to the downward stroke of the piston. The engine operates cooler and there is less wear because you don’t have that “horrible moment” when the piston is upward bound, and ignition occurs before it is all the way up. It’s not rocket science. During that horrible moment, you have the piston trying to go up, but the explosion is trying to push it down. The piston is shoved off to one side or another and ring wear takes place. Also some “blow-by” (gasses that make it past the rings into the oil pan.) The lubricating oil in the upper cylinder is vaporized. The downward vector puts the largest force on the crankshaft bearings at this moment. The head gaskets are being pressed outward, super-hot gasses are temporarily trapped and are being compressed. Enormous heat is squeezed out of the exploding gasses through the thermodynamic law that as the volume decreases the pressure and temperature increase. Then comes TDC and the piston starts moving downward. It has won the battle and now retreats gracefully, but the price has been paid in wear and tear, excessive heat, and poor efficiency.
Yeah, the H2 also has problems, and there are a lot of scam artists out there trying to make a fast buck. They just make things a whole lot worse.
But I stand by the original point that the ICE is a rolling disaster. It really strikes home when you start thinking about the 85% efficient electric motor. No oil, antifreeze, gasoline fumes. Just tons and tons of good ol’ battery acid.
James Spencer | Jun 27, 2008 | Reply
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9406E7D7163EF936A2575BC0A9679C8B63
Bruce: the Flourine gas example is not correct. So before you jump all over that statement, consider it to be retracted. However, the concept is correct. Many so-called “inert” gases are now combined and the statement had to be amended that they do not combine naturally. The NY Times website at the top of this also describes an ongoing debate about certain “immutable laws” concerning the attraction of electrons.
I am also not certain about the specific conditions for which the speed at which H2 burns has been presented. I’m getting conflicting information from credible sources on this figure.
In a pipeline 8 miles long containing - say - 25 percent H2, one source would say the ignition would travel the distance in 1 second and another source would say it takes over an hour.
My bet is on the shorter time. I think there are typos all over the place on this figure. A lot of the reference material on this simply says it burns “really fast.” Wow, that’s helpful.
Here is a good explanation for the confusion, by Kevin Cameron:
“There are two basic forms of combustion, deflagration and detonation. In deflagration, the propagation of combustion is carried out by simple convection; the hot combustion gas heats what is ahead of it, raising its temperature to the ignition point. Because this process of heating what lies ahead takes time, it is relatively slow. The burning of a quiescent gasoline air vapor is in fact slow only a foot or so per second. Combustion in an engine cylinder is much faster than this because of turbulence, which so wrinkles the flame front that its area becomes hugely enlarged. This area, multiplied times the slow quiescent combustion speed, computes out to a very large volume combustion rate.
Detonation is a different animal, and not all gaseous mixtures will support detonation. It is a form of combustion in which the unburned material is heated to ignition at least partly by shock compression, as the detonation wave moves at the local speed of sound through the medium.
This has to happen very quickly, so fuels with simple molecules or those with low stability lend themselves to this form of combustion.”
==========================================
My take on this last part is that H2 REALLY “lends itself to this” - being the simplest molecule there is.
Jason | Jun 27, 2008 | Reply
James - Sorry for the personal attack. I guess I just don’t get it. Saying that the ICE is an in-efficient disaster is like saying Democracy is a flawed form of government.
Sure - its’ true that ICE is a fairly wasteful process. It’s also true that Democracy is a wasteful form of government. The problem is that they’re the both the best option we have - at least right now.
Perhaps when electric battery technology advances to the point that a person can travel 300-400 miles without a re-charge, we’ll have something. The other problem is that batteries need hours to re-charge. Not a huge problem min you, but good luck traveling cross-country with an electric car. Good luck using one to deliver parts or flowers or packages or whatever.
Electric cars are a good idea, and I’m 100% for them. But this post is about the scam artists that are bilking poor dumb saps out of millions of dollars telling them “I can run your car on water.” That’s what gives me the proverbial “red-ass”.
Thanks for the comments - this has been fun.
Joao c Lucovich | Sep 15, 2008 | Reply
The only system to be proof to work is the addition of water in the air intake. Sound’s nuts? During the second world war, England used Spit-Fire airplane against Me-109(German. When Germany increase the horse power of their engines, left English pilots at a peril. Since the high temperatures of combustion changes water spray to steam and steam has a higher expansion ratios than ideal gas. Thia only works for a few minutes until the engine temperature cools down. It was proof to increase the horse power from 900 to near 1800.
SKIP | Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
If this hydrogen generator idea works so well why not take it a step further. Reduce the gasoline consumption to zero. Then have the engine make all the hydrogen it needs to run. My personal opinion here is that it will not work. This would be the definition of perpetual motion machine. The law of energy conservation says it is not possible despite the fact that there is an incredible amt. of energy in a tsp of water, (e=mc2). we simply have no efficient way of extracting it. Car alternators do not cut it. Now if we were to build small nuclear power plant under the hoods of our cars it might be do-able(probably not a good idea)!
Jason | Oct 8, 2008 | Reply
Right on Skip.