# Hydrogen Generators for Cars



## Czech (Jun 25, 2008)

Wasn't sure if this belonged here, in the DIY, or Ashcan? Anyone have an experience with these? Do they work and are they worth it, or are they bunk? Just curious. Thanks.


----------



## dolmen (Jun 25, 2008)

I'm looking at whats gonna be next, and I think it will be all electric plug in's, the present hybrids are not plug in's so I'm not interested.

Have a look here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSZrpTb2_4I

Cheers

;-)


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jun 25, 2008)

If you mean the hydrolysis based ones that you hook inline- last I heard you may see a little tiny (couple mpg) boost, or you may see nothing.  Neat little gadgety idea, but it doesn't look practical.


----------



## Todd (Jun 25, 2008)

Are you talking about something like this? 

www.carwaterkit.com


----------



## MishMouse (Jun 25, 2008)

Or something along the lines of the Honda FCX Clarity?

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/


----------



## Czech (Jun 25, 2008)

Todd, like that. I'm a lab guy, the idea looks like something fun to try on my Yukon that has 225000 miles on it, I don't expect the mileage claims tho. I'm more interested in a fun 'see how it works' project than anything. I would diy it rather than buy a kit. Just wondering if anyone has actual experience with these. If you could push some O2 and H2 into the throttle body, I can see it doing some good, just can't believe it could too much good. At my mileage, at least I don't have to worry about voiding the warranty! Thanks for the replies.


----------



## Wet1 (Jun 26, 2008)

I've heard they are bunk.


----------



## cousinles (Jun 26, 2008)

These do work quite well, but you have to bypass your oxygen sensor to trick your computer or else your you oxygen sensor detects the extra oxygen from the fuel cell and reads that it is running lean and injects more gas into the engine. They are not free power they just make your gas burn more efficiently. I have seen people get a 30% increase in gas mileage with one of these. They work the best in the old carbureted engines. There have been plenty of claims on people running a car 100% on water and Oil Company’s buying them out or murdering them when they refuse to take there offer, but these are just conspiracy theories I think. Search Stanley Meyers.


----------



## Czech (Jun 26, 2008)

My O2 sensors are already coding since I drilled thru the cats, they are doing their thing still, but code because the fronts and backs read the same (ie the cats aren't doing anything). For what that matters, the truck is getting better mileage since I did that months ago, and performing better (and it smells better too!). As far as I know, the truck reads the front O2 first, feeds rich and lean very quick on start up, if the post cat O2 reads the same as the pre cat O2, it codes. That's all, it does engine management from the pre cat O2 only. Someone jump in if I'm wrong please? I'm thinking now, but I don't want to get killed quite yet......


----------



## cousinles (Jun 26, 2008)

I dont know if you checked youtube but there is all kinds of info and people building home made cells and puting them in there cars. these are my favorates

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=ZeroFossilFuel

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=johnaarons


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jun 26, 2008)

"There have been plenty of claims on people running a car 100% on water and Oil Company’s buying them out or murdering them when they refuse to take there offer"


It is impossible.  You have to put energy into the water to extract hydrogen and oxygen.  You then react the H2 and O2 to get energy out.  The laws of thermodynamics say that you need to put more energy IN to the water than you get OUT.


----------



## cousinles (Jun 26, 2008)

I agree with you on the law of thermodynamics and I believe it can’t be done with the research that I have done on it but these people claim that if you have the right frequency and voltage than the H2 and O2 molecules will separate on there own. If you read about Stanley Meyers he really was offered money from an oil company, refused to take it and ended up dead. It just make me wonder if it was a hoax why did he not take the money and shut up, but I don’t know there are a lot of conspiracy theories on the web.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jun 26, 2008)

"these people claim that if you have the right frequency and voltage than the H2 and O2 molecules will separate on there own."

They are trying to use some sort of vibrational coupling: even if possible- that is ENERGY that has to come from somewhere (frequency is a property of a wave- that wave must be created, and its energy must be supplied to create it).  You will need to use more energy than you will get out.  There is simply a certain amount of energy that must be overcome to disassemble the water molecule, and that does not change when you use one method or another to put that energy in.

People have all sorts of new more efficient systems for extracting H2 and O2 from water- but nothing gets around thermodynamics.  They just approach the case where they put in the theoretical amount of energy required with less wasted heat.  They gloss over it in the pieces you see on this.


----------



## Telco (Jun 26, 2008)

GotzTheHotz said:
			
		

> My O2 sensors are already coding since I drilled thru the cats, they are doing their thing still, but code because the fronts and backs read the same (ie the cats aren't doing anything). For what that matters, the truck is getting better mileage since I did that months ago, and performing better (and it smells better too!). As far as I know, the truck reads the front O2 first, feeds rich and lean very quick on start up, if the post cat O2 reads the same as the pre cat O2, it codes. That's all, it does engine management from the pre cat O2 only. Someone jump in if I'm wrong please? I'm thinking now, but I don't want to get killed quite yet......



Had a discussion about this on a performance board I frequent, said that the rear O2s actually do have a hand in fine tuning the fuel/air mix, and the person that supplied that info got it from a GM fueling engineer.  Course, on the last truck I tuned I disabled the entire rear O2 setup and did some other tuning, and got more power and better mileage as a result.  If they do fine tune, it's apparently only noticeable to an emissions testing machine.  If your vehicle is a GM product you can use EFI Live to get rid of the rear O2 issue, and tune better, if not a GM I have no idea what you might use.


----------



## Highbeam (Jun 26, 2008)

They make "O2 sensor simulators" to plug in in place of the rear O2 sensors and stop the SES light from coming on. The rear sensors are only for emissions verification. They have to be since the cats would bastardize the exhaust into something unrelated to engine management.


----------



## Czech (Jun 26, 2008)

Wow, the stuff you learn here! Highbeam, do you have any specifcs on the simulators? I've been the codes read every month or so just to be sure I'm not missing anything, it is always cats. It would be nice to not have the light on. Thanks. It's a 97 GMC Yukon 5.7L btw.


----------



## Czech (Jun 26, 2008)

Telco, EFI Live??


----------



## Wet1 (Jun 26, 2008)

EFI Live is a prorgram that allows you to tap into, and control, the GM ECU. You can pretty much modify any settings the factory ECU controls with it, from tuning, to alarm settings.  Google it for more info.


----------



## mikeathens (Jun 26, 2008)

OK, I personally believe the whole "brown's gas generator" for automotive fuel economy improvement is total BS.  Current into water, generate hydroxy gas.  More strain on the alternator = more drag on the engine.  More energy in than out (hey, sounds familiar- biofuels???) I have an office mate that thought this was the answer to everyhting, and I started looking into it a bit more.  What I found was that you had to mess with O2 sensors and EMU, leaning the mixture way down.  BUT, if you do this without the little mason jar under the hood, you get the same results (better mileage, reduced engine life).

I'd like to see someone credible try this and show some results.  I think this is a case of someone thinking they are doing something that they're not.

Why isn't this in NY Times?  Why isn't this huge news in maninstream media?  Where the Science journal article from university research?

I'm not buyin' it.  But, if someone wants to take a chance with their car and document results, I'd be interested.


----------



## Wet1 (Jun 26, 2008)

Like I said, it's bunk.  You'll never generate enough hydrogen efficiently to aid in any significant mileage increases.  Don't you think if adding this silly little contraption under the hood would yield 30% mileage increases (or even 5% for that matter), wouldn't the auto manufactures be doing it?????????????


----------



## Telco (Jun 26, 2008)

Wet1 said:
			
		

> Like I said, it's bunk.  You'll never generate enough hydrogen efficiently to aid in any significant mileage increases.  Don't you think if adding this silly little contraption under the hood would yield 30% mileage increases (or even 5% for that matter), wouldn't the auto manufactures be doing it?????????????



Not if the auto manufacturers had a lot of money invested in the oil companies  :lol:  ;-)


----------



## mikeathens (Jun 26, 2008)

Telco said:
			
		

> Not if the auto manufacturers had a lot of money invested in the oil companies  :lol:  ;-)



I think they would if it meant that their sales would go through the roof (which they would right now - I never used to see MPG ratings in ads, now it's plastered across the screen in the commercials).


----------



## cousinles (Jun 26, 2008)

> Like I said, it’s bunk.  You’ll never generate enough hydrogen efficiently to aid in any significant mileage increases.  Don’t you think if adding this silly little contraption under the hood would yield 30% mileage increases (or even 5% for that matter), wouldn’t the auto manufactures be doing it?????????????



Nope I dont there are a ton of alternative energy sources and we still use oil, that is what are government wants.


----------



## cousinles (Jun 26, 2008)

.


----------



## Wet1 (Jun 27, 2008)

ooPk said:
			
		

> bunk is knub? bs =sb!
> did i say that right?


No Pook is kooP.  ooPk = okPo. or kPoo = koPo.  It might B Poko; Pkoo, ookP... oiNk


----------



## Czech (Jun 27, 2008)

Wet1, you just posted the equation for cold fusion! OMG! Now we're all saved! Thanks Pook, or kOOp, or poop, or whatever! Wow.


----------



## Telco (Jun 27, 2008)

Hey, on the O2 sims they may no longer be available.  Was also reading articles about the manufacturer being stung by the EPA for selling them, and they were being forced to recall unsold stock.

If you are going to delete the rear O2s, then EFI Live is the way to go, or any other program that allows you to manipulate the computer directly.


----------



## Czech (Jun 27, 2008)

Thanks all, I'll look into EFI Live. I didn't totally remove the cats, just popped a couple holes in them and remounted. They were stuffed up and causing performance issues. There was some talk earlier about thermodynamics regarding energy in and energy out. Considering the H2 unit on a car would be powered indirectly off the alternator and that alternators put out power whether used or not (correct?), is it possible that there would be a net gain? I'm still not buying it, just curious.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jun 27, 2008)

Most of the energy produced by combustion in an engine goes to waste (look at how much effort goes into cooling it!).  

A strain on the electrical system effects mileage- so there is some extra gas being used to generate hydrogen if using the alternator.  Only if the engine somehow directs some waste energy into the electrical system that would otherwise have gone to waste heat should you have any possible efficiency gain.  On top of that- the use of that hydrogen is not going to be super efficient either, and much energy is lost as heat in exhaust and engine parts.

So- Energy from gas > energy in the form of H2 and O2 > Energy from H2/O2 combustion.

Does the H2 and O2 introduction somehow also make gasoline combustion more efficient?  I have no idea.


----------



## Jags (Jun 27, 2008)

GotzTheHotz said:
			
		

> Thanks all, I'll look into EFI Live. I didn't totally remove the cats, just popped a couple holes in them and remounted. They were stuffed up and causing performance issues. There was some talk earlier about thermodynamics regarding energy in and energy out. Considering the H2 unit on a car would be powered indirectly off the alternator and that alternators put out power whether used or not (correct?), is it possible that there would be a net gain? I'm still not buying it, just curious.



Hey Gotz, as the electricity needs of your auto increases (lights, fan motors, hydrogen generator) the drag of the alternator is increased (inductance), and more hp is required to turn it = more fuel.


----------



## Czech (Jun 27, 2008)

Thanks guys, makes sense. Adios, some of the documentation I saw stipulates that yes, it helps improve combustion. Funny, there's a guy doing these upgrades locally for hundreds of dollars, that's why I first looked into it. If I could just convert the truck to those plutonium pellets, that would be great. Paging Hog!


----------

