2GN.ORG

It was a DIY setup by a local garage making them and installing for $200

hmm id have to see the setup in order to know what the issue may have been

Many people do not realize that when you run a car or truck on gasoline of diesel fuel, you are actually running it on hydrogen. And all we are doing is using the hydrogen from water

Flawed.

Explain to me how for every gallon of gasoline burned, nearly a gallon of water is expelled out the exhaust pipe. If the hydrogen in the water was being used, water would not be coming out of the exhaust.

Now the less serious stuff...

Please pray if you believe in Jesus Christ, as Stan did & I do.

It didn't do Stan one bit of good. I am not mocking anyone's religion, just stating the obvious.

If

God wants us to have FREE energy

He would have let Stan succeed, and we would be enjoying it already.

God doesn't give anything away for free. Except a rope(Brain). Whether we do something constructive with it, or hang ourselves is totally up to us.

Bill recently (4/06) made a Joe Cell Replica in his Ford truck, he says ran like a hotrod, but was approached by 2 men who threatened him to stop his "Free Energy" experiments, otherwise lose your Grand children. So poor Bill stopped his progress.

We are currently testing many different cell configurations. We invite you to come back and see the process.

So, why haven't two guys approached them? Or don't they care about their Grand kids?

Bottom line, until there is a way to produce mass amounts of hydrogen inexpensively, it will be a ways off in the future.

Yes, currently there are working fuel cells, but no one would pay the price, and they wouldn't daily drive the vehicle that they power.

if this stuff was so easy, we would all be doing it. There aren't enough men in black to stop something like that from happening. Take a look at a few recent governments....

hmm id have to see the setup in order to know what the issue may have been

You haven't even developed your own, to base anything off of.

When you have successfully made one, and ran the car on a dyno to show the reduced gasoline consumption, while producing the same power level, then it will be fairly well proven.

How many amps of current does this thing need, to produce enough hydrogen, to even begin to shorten the injector pulse width?

I am not knocking you, just asking questions that should be asked.
Your success is our success.

So you are using electricity from your alternator to turn water into H2 and O2, and then burning it?

Unless he plans on plugging it in to a wall outlet, and storing the hydrogen, I don't see any other way.

My next question would is how many HP is going to be used by the alternator to power the unit? Kind of like the electric superchargers...

occasional demons wrote:Unless he plans on plugging it in to a wall outlet, and storing the hydrogen, I don't see any other way.

That's what I thought. Impossible. I'll break it down simply.

You are taking mechanical energy created by your engine (which you got from burning gas). You turn it into electrical energy by spinning the alternator. Is this 100% efficient? No, there is drag from the belt and bearings in the alternator, electrical losses, in the wires.

You are then converting the electrical energy into chemical energy by breaking the h20 bonds and getting h2 and o2. This is by far not a 100% efficient reaction. Not all of the electricity breaks down the water, some just goes straight to the other electrode.

You then burn the hydrogen. Along the way energy was wasted. You are claiming a gain in energy, which is impossible. Energy can not be created nor destroyed, only converted.

I took way too many physics/chemistry classes at UW-Madison when I thought it'd be cool to be a chemical engineer and realized that job would suck.

according to what I have found, It takes 10hp per 100 amps for a alternator. A average booster uses between 20 -30 amps. it would not be much more than having your headlights on or even your heater up over half way.

I did have a prototype made for my senior project in highschool , it was enough to power a Briggs and stratton 3hp motor for 3-4 minutes with 0 gasoline consumption ( fuel shut off ) granted I had a accumulator made out of 2 2 liter bottles to collect this gas ( not recommended as the gas a mix of Oxygen and hydrogen is very combustable) ...

03_neoviper wrote:according to what I have found, It takes 10hp per 100 amps for a alternator. A average booster uses between 20 -30 amps. it would not be much more than having your headlights on or even your heater up over half way.

I did have a prototype made for my senior project in highschool , it was enough to power a Briggs and stratton 3hp motor for 3-4 minutes with 0 gasoline consumption ( fuel shut off ) granted I had a accumulator made out of 2 2 liter bottles to collect this gas ( not recommended as the gas a mix of Oxygen and hydrogen is very combustable) ...

Yes but where did you get the electricity from? How much did you use?

Here's a site that breaks down the efficiency of electrolosys:

The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely. The efficiency is a measure of what fraction of electrical energy used is actually contained within the hydrogen. Some of the electrical energy is converted to heat, a useless by-product. Some reports quote efficiencies between 50% and 70%[1] This efficiency is based on the Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen. The Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen is total thermal energy released when hydrogen is combusted minus the latent heat of vaporisation of the water. This does not represent the total amount of energy within the hydrogen, hence the efficiency is lower than a more strict definition. Other reports quote the theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis as being between 80% and 94%. The theoretical maximum considers the total amount of energy absorbed by both the hydrogen and oxygen. These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency is more likely to be between 25% and 40%

Site:

http://www.theionspa.com/page/569/electrolysis

Basically if it's even 50% efficient, you are only getting out half the electrical energy you put in, which isn't even 100% efficient when you spin the alternator.

These magical electrolysis devices are just ways for companies to steal money from uneducated suckers like you.

A average booster uses between 20 -30 amps. it would not be much more than having your headlights on or even your heater up over half way.

Headlamps do not consume 20 to 30 amps. Try about 8. (I have checked doing past diagnostics)

The total amp draw on my neon with everything running is about 60ish amps. Even the rear defroster.

But by using a pulse width you can use frequencies to seperate the molecules with less power input . molecules all have a resonating frequency, when finding that it takes less power to reach a higher efficiency

Edit : I do apologize for my mistaken post about vehicle amperage draw comparison .... this number still seems low as I am used to high end stereo equipment and its amp draws

03_neoviper wrote:But by using a pulse width you can use frequencies to seperate the molecules with less power input . molecules all have a resonating frequency, when finding that it takes less power to reach a higher efficiency

Source?

But you said it took 20 to 30 amps. It will still be the same amout of current, regardless.

A constant extra 20 to 30 amp draw is going to do some damage to overall fuel economy. Plus shorten the life of your alternator. Those hidden cost will eat away at w/e savings you get.

The reality is, a 5 speed swap in an ATX will net more gains than this. And once it's installed, the operational cost is extremely cheap.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Report:Rob ... t_Addition


http://waterfuelforall.com/waterfuel-booster-faq.htm

Apparently a Pulse Wave Modulator (PWM) enhances the throughput of hydrogen by knocking off the adhesion of bubbles on the plates by rapid on-off of current to the plates. Personally, I see so much hydrogen being generated with the current unit installed, that I don't see this as being a problem. The PWM really controls amperage, nothing more. "It is understood that a pulse width modulator (PWM) in a brute force DC design will not increase the amount of gas produced. It will in fact produce less gas as the current will be limited by the duty cycles on and off times. However experiments where the duty cycle fluctuates between 50%-70% and 100% can be experimented with to give an “averaged out" practical result

22. Can I add a PWM to my booster and what would be the benefit?
Yes, you can add a Pulse Width Modulator (PWM) to your booster. Adding a PWM will allow you to manually control the amp flow as you like, but note that you will not have any improvement in efficiency.
The gas production will merely increase/decrease as amp flow increase/decrease, for example, if your unit is drawing 25A and producing 2.5lpm hydroxy and you now add a PWM and adjust the PWM so that it limits the current to 15A, you will only get 1.5lpm
A PWM is a necessity for boosters that quickly overheats. While the WaterfuelForAll booster does not overheat (as long as you do not add too much lye!), a PWM is only is "nice to have" especially if you are only going to drive up to 3 hours at a time. However, if you are frequently going to drive for more than 3 hours continuously, then adding a PWM will make your unit more user friendly. An even better solution is to order the WaterfuelForAll Current limiter that will automatically limit the current to a level set by yourself. Thus you would not have to worry about the lye concentration being mixed too strong.

Your quote specifically says "It is understood that a pulse width modulator (PWM) in a brute force DC design will not increase the amount of gas produced. It will in fact produce less gas as the current will be limited by the duty cycles on and off times."

So it doesn't make more hydrogen, it helps knock the bubbles off the electrodes so you can collect it.

Either way, you are trying to create energy, which is impossible.

Honestly if it were so easy to produce hydrogen, companies wouldn't spend millions of dollars researching hydrogen fuel cells. The company I work for (Crown Equipment Corp/Crown Lift Trucks) spends millions each year on research for fuel cells and some companies have fuel cells in their forklifts. Somehow they need to get the hydrogen for the fuel cells, if it were so simple as hooking up some wires to this kit, everyone would have it.

Everything after the first sentence contradicts it. Not a very supporting quote, IMHO. But at least you were open about it.


Edit:
Those bubble don't need any help. When I played with this 30 years ago, with just some pencil lead attached to my model railroad transformer, they didn't exactly stick to the electrode. Seems the popped off and went to the surface quite readily.

It doesn't matter what the electrode is made out of, this isn't like bubbles in a stagnant pond. Heck, just look inside an old school battery while it is charging...

I may contridict the statements sometimes but im not going to 1 side the facts... I never stated i was creating energy. But if you can supplement a alternative fuel for a % of your gasoline for the same output would that still not net better fuel economy ?

It would not since you are creating the hydrogen using gasoline.

Once I get my neon fixed I will drive a month without a booster same trip daily record mileage and then a month with the booster and record mileage per tank ... If I fail I will admit it .... If I succeed with even 2 mpg increase then i consider it a success

Or a little different spin...

No one said you were creating energy, you are merely attempting to generate one fuel, to displace the other.

But can you generate the substitute fuel efficiently enough. using the base fuel, to reduce consumption of said base fuel?

Because you are using gasoline to make the electricity to generate the hydrogen. whether or not the hydrogen produced is sufficient enough to more than offset the gasoline used, remains to be seen.

Go for it, although I'd prefer a more controlled environment than driving, I can get 2 mpg better on the same route by driving differently.

But I just know it's scientifically impossible to increase fuel economy by using your alternator for electrolysis of water to burn the hydrogen. Too many places for energy loss, and an inefficient process to start with. Hydrogen and oxygen naturally want to be together, which is why water is a very stable molecule and hydrogen/oxygen mixture release lots of energy (during combustion for example) to combine. You have to pump energy into water to convert it out, and some h2 and o2 naturally will combine back together to form water molecules.

03_neoviper wrote:Once I get my neon fixed I will drive a month without a booster same trip daily record mileage and then a month with the booster and record mileage per tank ... If I fail I will admit it .... If I succeed with even 2 mpg increase then i consider it a success

Too many variables to prove anything. Like I said before, dyno it. Once the hydrogen unit is switched on, the lbs of fuel per hour should drop, increase, or remain the same. No way to have any error.

Chip you arepartially correct... there will be losses ...but hydrogen and oxygen do exist in our atmosphere in a individualized state.

But Demon is correct in saying

But can you generate the substitute fuel efficiently enough. using the base fuel, to reduce consumption of said base fuel?

Because you are using gasoline to make the electricity to generate the hydrogen. whether or not the hydrogen produced is sufficient enough to more than offset the gasoline used, remains to be seen.

Demon, How long should it take the NGC PCM to adjust for the added fuel? should it be at WOT or at a cruise speed?

Yes they do, mostly oxygen. It's ~20% of our atmosphere. Hydrogen exists at about 1 ppm, so there isn't much out there. Especially compared to how much hydrogen is in water.

Go ahead and try it, you'll throw it in the trash like everyone else that's actually tried it in this configuration.

Also, your device says it puts out 2l/min of hydrogen. That's almost nothing. At idle (800 rpm), your 2.0L engine displaces 800 liters of air. The hydrogen produced is a fart in a hurricane.

my brother did this a few years ago, back when gas prices had skyrocketed. he swore that he was getting way more mph... talking about an extra 100 miles per galon. this was on a pt cruiser.

So he could go 1200 miles on a tank of gas?

Is it still in there?

I'm still not seeing how an increased octane rating will drastically increase fuel economy. If that were the case there would be a noticable difference in economy when switching from 87 octane to 100 octane.


This quote is from wiki so I don't know the true validity of the statement, but the paper linked below backs up the 130 RON rating.

Hydrogen does not fit well into the normal definitions of octane number. It has a very high RON and a low MON, so that it has low knock resistance in practice, due to its low ignition energy (primarily due to its low dissociation energy) and extremely high flame speed. These traits are highly desirable in rocket engines, but undesirable in Otto-cycle engines. However, as a minor blending component (e.g. in a bi-fuel vehicle), hydrogen raises overall knock resistance. Flame speed is limited by the rest of the component species; hydrogen may reduce knock because of its high thermal conductivity

The wiki site for "octane rating" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating is claiming a higher than 130 RON rating but a very low MON rating. If you take that into consideration and say that "very low" is around 10, that will put the R+M/2 (aka AKI, Anti-Knock Index) rating (the number you see at the pump) at 70 which is actually lower than normal regular unleaded. Even if "very low" means 50 that only puts your AKI rating of hydrogen at 90 which would give a similar effect as running a mix of 89 and 91, and going along with higher octane results in better efficiency you would be better off using straight 91 octane. At least then you wouldn't have a bomb riding around in your car.

Yes, I know wiki isn't always reliable, but there are some cited sources.

In addition, since you have an 03+ seeing 40mpg is not a stretch. 03+ Neons have an optimized computer and a deeper 5th gear. I myself have seen 40mpg and upper 30s on a regular basis on highway trips.




I did find this article from the government:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenand ... cm01r0.pdf

But I am disappointed in table 1-7, found on page 27 of the document (page 1-21 in the header), in that they reference the RON rating of some fuels, but the AKI number of others.

On the same table, propane is noted as being rated at 105 (a quick peek at wiki shows this being the AKI). Going on the more octane equals better fuel economy theory, pure propane would be an even better option than mixing a little hydrogen into the combustion process. It's much more feasable too. However, I'm pretty sure people do not cite a significant increase in fuel economy when switching over to propane.

This pretty much sums it up from a previous "discusion" on the subject.

trojmn wrote:I think your biggest mileage problem is... that you are using a 25% {est} odd efficient power plant to make electricity so you can convert h2o into h2 + o2 so that you can then immediately recombine h2 + o2 back into h2o using that same 25% efficient power plant in hopes of making MORE electricity to make MORE h2 +o2 from the water...

in short you're chasing perpetual motion.

Troj

trojmn wrote: h2 GAS is a completely impractical fuel source. Its energy density is about the worst of any fuel, its highly reactive which is why you it’s not found in nature, its expensive because as I just said, its not found naturally on earth.... hydrocarbon fuels however are not any of those.

A very informative link why hydrogen gas is so horrible as a fuel. http://mb-soft.com/public2/hydrogen.htmlj

Its not hard to grasp the problem of getting less energy out than you are putting in. If your contraption is yielding better MPG it is certainly not becuase of the engergy content of the hydrogen.

trojmn wrote:The fact is if there is "extra oxygen in the exhaust stream" not being burnt yes you are running lean and that's not exactly terrible. most aLL exhaust has free oxygen in it and oxidized fuel for that matter, hence the need for a catalytic converter.

I don't understand how breaking h2o into h2 and o2 with energy and recombining the same ratios back into water helps. If all this efficiency is being "gained" by just displacing normal cylinder charge ala egr ~ish <at least EGR is inert!!> ... you ought to get the same efficiency by using less fuel in the first place >> lean it out.

trojmn wrote:There is no net energy benefit. Breaking h2o into gas will always consume energy. You will never get the same amount of work back out of recombining the two back into water. Otherwise that would be 100% efficient. There will always,always, always be waste energy HEAT going SOMEWHERE. And you say the engine is not only producing the energy to create the fuel but also supposed to benefit from that same work by consuming its self produced fuel THAT IS perpetual motion.

So again, get off of the "energy" benefit that cannot and does not exist.

Whatever benefit you are seeing [if any] is from something else. And I’m very doubtful about that.

trojmn wrote:no one is concerned with the electrical current required. that’s not the point of that critique, the point is that the energy is not free and any gains from this contraption is not from what you think it is.

7% is less than what can be gained from using a leaner cruise AFRs by itself. Im really starting to think you can get your gain a LOT easier. EDIT>> and thats all this HHO tomfoolery is... slightly better MPG by from leaner gasoline ratios through "o2 sensor tuning".

eff-it i'm done.

Tornado fuel saver FTW