The Ultimate cell fuel saver

[raaizin]

http://www.euronews.com/2014/06/17/the-ultimate-fuel-and-emission-saving-device/

Saw this on a euro news channel. On tv it didnt look like it produced alot of hydrogen. I wonder if it really works....

 

[supton]

When I first read this thread title, I thought it involved the gov somehow.... either the gov giving incentives to fuel cell research or something similar.

I'm pretty sure that adding H2 to the air stream into a motor is nothing new. But that it had been thus far not shown to improve anything.

 

[kschachn]

Lmao, this thing just won't die. It keeps coming up in various incarnations over the years.

First off, since you are using the vehicle's electrical system to electrolyze water, every singe joule of energy that you get out of the very small amount of hydrogen produced you must put into the system in order to produce the hydrogen in the first place. Not only that, with inevitable efficiency losses it takes more energy than you get, so right off the bat you are at a net negative energy loss. In other words, there is no way to get around the fact that it will take you more energy to produce the hydrogen than you will get from its combustion. Anyone with even a smidgen of knowledge of thermodynamics will immediately see this in that device. And these devices produce so little hydrogen that you don't notice the increased electrical demand on the alternator (and subsequent fuel economy degradation).

Spend some time googling hydrogen ("water gas") devices. You will find two types of sites - farmer Joe types that swear by the thing and provide testimonials to their effectiveness - along with many claims how they are being suppressed by the oil companies, and those who carefully explain how this cannot help in any way.

A fuel, by definition should be something where you get more energy out of it than you put in. Water is such a thermodynamically stable compound that I really would struggle to think of something that would be worse than that.

 

[Darwin1138]

Why people think that you only need a lab coat to become a scientist???

I feel sick every time I realize how big is the scientific illiteracy in the world.

 

[Michael_P]

Forget fuel cells. If I could get cheap hydrogen, I would build a blimp. I would just stay away from power lines.

 

[hattaresguy]

Classic snake oil.

 

[SLATRON]

This product is a joke as mentioned but fuels cells in many other applications are not. The technology will advance but I don't like it when stuff like this casts a shadow on what will be very important in the future. Not in cars but in buildings, ships, trains etc.

 

[Fleetmon]

Back in the early '90's, we tried a few hydrogen generators on our 6V92 buses to increase fuel mileage. They did work and they did produce hydrogen but at a cost of many alternator failures. If I remember correctly, the company provided Delco 50DN alternators that had been modified to output more than 300 amps @ 24vdc and modified the alternator cooling system by increasing oil flow through the alt and using a fan built onto the pulley for airflow across the alternator.

It wasn't much of a fuel mileage increase and averaged around .2 MPG better...2.3 MPG to 2.5MPG on average but at 24M miles per year for the bus fleet, fuel savings would have been close to $1M dollars. It wouldn't cover the cost of very short alternator life (about 4,000 miles) let alone pay for the cost of the actual hydrogen generator and water tank plus installation.

 

[kschachn]

For the duration of your test, your results were all compensated for in terms of air temperature, atmospheric pressure, variations in fuel density and energy content per pound, right? Chevron states that for each degree in API specific gravity the fuel has a 2% energy density variation. You did measure (and compensate for) the normal specific gravity variations in the fuel that was purchased, correct?

Of course the reason you had alternator failures was because it does take a lot of energy to decompose water, as it does for most oxides. Oxygen is a tenacious oxidizer. The problem is that it takes just as much energy (actually exactly as much) to break down that water as you get in combustion. So how it it possible to observe a corresponding increase in fuel economy with this system? Especially when you factor in the combustion inefficiency of even the most modern and efficient ICE. Nature will not be cheated.

Originally Posted By: Fleetmon
Back in the early '90's, we tried a few hydrogen generators on our 6V92 buses to increase fuel mileage. They did work and they did produce hydrogen but at a cost of many alternator failures. If I remember correctly, the company provided Delco 50DN alternators that had been modified to output more than 300 amps @ 24vdc and modified the alternator cooling system by increasing oil flow through the alt and using a fan built onto the pulley for airflow across the alternator.

It wasn't much of a fuel mileage increase and averaged around .2 MPG better...2.3 MPG to 2.5MPG on average but at 24M miles per year for the bus fleet, fuel savings would have been close to $1M dollars. It wouldn't cover the cost of very short alternator life (about 4,000 miles) let alone pay for the cost of the actual hydrogen generator and water tank plus installation.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
The problem is that it takes just as much energy (actually exactly as much) to break down that water as you get in combustion. So how it it possible to observe a corresponding increase in fuel economy with this system? Especially when you factor in the combustion inefficiency of even the most modern and efficient ICE.


Are you sure about that? Fuel injectors, ECU's and electronic spark also put heavy loads onto the altenator, yet mpg's go up. Simply because the boost of having much better control makes up for the losses in electrical generation.

A supercharger can take many hp to turn yet hp out of the system goes up. [Granted that is volumetric efficency, but similar point.]

AFAIK using H2 to boost efficency has not shown to work. IMO the premise is valid, but if it worked then everyone would be doing it. It does not seem to be that adding H2 adds anything.

 

[kschachn]

If you decompose a chemical compound it takes exactly the same energy as you get combining it back together again. But there are inevitable and inescapable efficiency losses in any system (whether it be chemical or mechanical) so in the end it takes even more energy.

If you had a tank of hydrogen that you got somewhere at a cost that is less than the energy burden required to produce it, then you would (depending on the engine design) see a net increase in fuel economy. But if you are decomposing water on-site as this system does using the alternator energy, then no way. No way, no how, nope it can't happen. Break it down using free solar energy? OK then. But using the existing ICE to do it? Well, you tell me. Just where is that decomposition energy coming from?

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: kschachn
The problem is that it takes just as much energy (actually exactly as much) to break down that water as you get in combustion. So how it it possible to observe a corresponding increase in fuel economy with this system? Especially when you factor in the combustion inefficiency of even the most modern and efficient ICE.


Are you sure about that? Fuel injectors, ECU's and electronic spark also put heavy loads onto the altenator, yet mpg's go up. Simply because the boost of having much better control makes up for the losses in electrical generation.

A supercharger can take many hp to turn yet hp out of the system goes up. [Granted that is volumetric efficency, but similar point.]

AFAIK using H2 to boost efficency has not shown to work. IMO the premise is valid, but if it worked then everyone would be doing it. It does not seem to be that adding H2 adds anything.

 

[supton]

I get what you are saying. But why does an engine run better with higher compression than with lower compression? Up until it starts pinging, it simply runs better. But it takes energy to compress the air/fuel mixture.

 

[kschachn]

You're confusing combustion efficiency with chemical thermodynamics. An ICE is not (actually cannot be) 100% efficient so there is some room for improvement. Higher compression (within limits and with a corresponding higher octane fuel) will give better efficiency. As will a higher operating temperature. As will a a lighter oil with less drag. As will a more efficient drive train. As will a lot of things. But decomposing water using the alternator and then injecting the resulting small amount of hydrogen will not.

Originally Posted By: supton
I get what you are saying. But why does an engine run better with higher compression than with lower compression? Up until it starts pinging, it simply runs better. But it takes energy to compress the air/fuel mixture.

 

[supton]

Sure, I get that. But what is efficiency anyhow? From pure math it's ratioless, but as a typical consumer I'm interested in cost/mile. If adding H2 leads to lower cost/mile then is it not more "efficient" in a practical sense?

 

[kschachn]

Uhh, what are you talking about exactly? Where are you getting the hydrogen?

Originally Posted By: supton
Sure, I get that. But what is efficiency anyhow? From pure math it's ratioless, but as a typical consumer I'm interested in cost/mile. If adding H2 leads to lower cost/mile then is it not more "efficient" in a practical sense?

 

[supton]

I get your point: you expend x units of energy to obtain zero point something units of H2 -- you can't get something for nothing. My point is, if engine out power went up by one point something units of energy, yielding more than that loss, then it'd have been worth it.

My point is, plenty of things under the hood generate waste heat (heat being energy loss). Yet mpg can go up despite those energy-wasters. Overall system efficiency can go up, despite losses in one area.

 

[hattaresguy]

You do realize that auto companies have teams of engineers and spend billions to get the best economy possible...so to put it simply if it was so good they would be doing it.

A couple percent improvement in economy is a huge thing and costs millions to achieve. With manufactures its all .05% here .03% here, maybe 1% if they get lucky somewhere.

For example BMW re designed their rear view mirrors to reduce drag, that probably cost them thousands and thousands in R&D and tooling for probably a .002% gain in fuel economy.

 

[kschachn]

I couldn't remember the number exactly (I had to look it up), but the energy you get from the combustion of hydrogen is 286 kJ per mol. The energy required to dissociate the water molecule is 286 kJ per mol.

The engine power will not go up more than the energy required to obtain the hydrogen.

 

[kschachn]

I don't know how many more ways to put it. This would be exactly like taking carbon dioxide and water vapor and synthesizing gasoline for combustion. You're taking the low energy, already oxidized combustion products and remaking the fuel. It won't work that way.

The only way it works is to take an already high-energy and essentially free energy source (solar, wind, wave, mined, etc.) and use that as your source. Use the second law of thermodynamics to your favor - reap the benefits of moving to a high entropy state, don't try and walk uphill. You aren't going to win.

 

[supton]

I understand your point: energy out cannot exceed energy in. Not arguing against that.

Look at EFI. Heavy electrical load; you lose energy converting mechanical energy to electrical and then back. Agreed? Then why do modern cars get better FE? Simple: there is an efficiency gain by having better control over the fuel. Despite the losses in the electrical system.

I'm not arguing for H2 in cars. It's been tried, and found to not work. I'm pointing out that you're dismissing it simply because of "energy in, energy out" argument.