Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter


Talk:Directory:Fuel Efficiency Hydrogen Injection

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:19 am.

  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.


Go Go Green LLC includes some claims that don't add up.

Wesleybruce 23:20, 18 June 2009 (PDT)

The video on this companies site mixes up nuclear energy and bond energy while also referring to obscure cosmology that confuses 3 space volume with Einstein's 2 space membrane analogy in general relativity. The site says the process is electrolysis based. Yet the 'tracypress' report in the link talks of chemical energy. No chemical feed stocks are listed as products on the site. These need to be either aluminium, magnesium or boron powders or similar systems. In water and sodium hydroxide these do make significant volumes of hydrogen. However their design has no provision for the problems of these hydrogen on demand systems. There is no evidence that they are using this solution. I believe some HHO people are burning aluminium or chromium in their units and not knowing it. The site seems to be very poorly thought out just mechanics copying others in the field. It's probably not a scam but they don't know what their talking about in physics, chemistry and even cosmology.

Wesleybruce 23:20, 18 June 2009 (PDT)

Mythbusters and Discovery Channel

Via Bernie Vinther, Sept. 8, 2008

I told Bernie that the folks at Mythbusters never listened to Directory:Moray B King on Hydroxy generation and Zero Point Energy.


This is a bad one! I don't believe it. A few nights ago I was looking at the Mythbusters link on The Discovery Channel's (TDC) web sight trying to figure out how to send them some e-mail. And there, on their viewer's Fan sight was this big article about water4gas and similar products. The article follows. They have not tested things like water4gas. Instead, they give all of the technical reasons why they are convinced that it doesn't work. They also state that they have had so much input on this topic, that the subject is "CLOSED". But at the same time, it sounds like they might actually try it. I sure hope that if they do, they won't screw it up, don't you?

I think the J in their formulas are for "Joules".


This is posted to death, both by people advertising the sites, and curious members, so...

Water-for-gas? Let's have a look, shall we?

The standard reaction for the electrolysis of water is:

2H2O ? 2H2(g) + O2(g)

For this process, 4 moles of electrons take place, therefore the standard free energy change is:

G = -nF?

G = -4964871.229

G = -474330 J

We can expect to extract -474 kJ from the products of the electrolysis and use it to do work.

This is also borne out by looking at the approximate bond energies. 4 H-O bonds must be broken, at ?460 kJ each, but energy is released when the new bonds form. The O=O bond yields ?498 kJ and the H-H bonds yield ?433 kJ each. Our net free energy is:

-4(460000) + 2(433000) + 498000 = -476000 J

So we have to put ? 475 kJ into the system to separate the water, and we can get ? 475kJ back out in utilizing the free energy.

According to the "Oxyhydrogen" people (more on this later), burning the resulting gases gives off 576 kJ. If the TOTAL energy that can possibly be released to do work is 475 kJ, how are they magically getting 576 kJ? They're generally not.

Now, on to the electrolysis itself. The efficiencies for electrolysis of water are reported as anywhere from 50% to 94%. So, in the best case, we have to put 505 kJ in to be able to get 475 kJ out, and in the worst case we need an input of 950 kJ to be able to get 475 kJ out. Even before factoring in the other losses, we can see from the 50-94% efficiencies, that we will have a net loss of 6-50% of the energy used for electrolysis.

There are thermal losses from heat engines. From Carnot, the MAXIMUM possible efficiency from our engine is 70-75%. The real value is about 25% due to friction and the fact that the combustion is not spontaneously reversible.

So, with the maximum possible theoretical efficiency (which can NOT be obtained in practice) we are now needing anywhere from 675 kJ to 1357 kJ. Even if we allow for the inflated output numbers, and ignore the actual losses we'd encounter, you can NOT produce 576 kJ and use it to keep a process needing 675 kJ to 1357 kJ on-going. And this is before we try to extract any OTHER work from our engine -- we are solely using the output power to try and drive the input power.

In reality, what you end up with is needing to output around 3150 kJ to keep the cycle going, but you are only producing 475 kJ. This is why water-4-gas did not work when Adam and Jamie tried it. The losses completely overwhelm any energies "created". Water is not a fuel -- it is the ashes of hydrogen that has been burned once before.

Now, I know the "newest" schemes do not try to run the car solely off the hydrogen, but call for using it in a "hydro-assist" manner. The claim is that the hydrogen makes the gasoline burn better.

The first thing to note is the losses from above. If we need 3150 kJ to produce two moles of hydrogen gas, and can only get 475 kJ back from the system, then we need to burn an ADDITIONAL 2675 kJ worth of gasoline just to break even!!

This isn't looking promising.

But, but, but... the claims are that the hydrogen is a "catalyst" and makes the gasoline burn more efficiently.

So? That claim is just wrong. We know we can't affect the thermal efficiency of the Carnot cycle by very much, so 75% is still going to be "wasted". Even if the hydrogen did act as a "catalyst", there is no more energy to be released -- 99% of the gasoline does undergo combustion. A 300% gain in efficiency would imply that we are now getting 399% of the theoretically-retrievable energy that the gasoline contains (well, actually more than 399% because we also need to cover the losses from the electrolysis).

This is just asinine and Carnot says otherwise. Energy can not be created from nothing -- the gasoline can NOT give more than 100% of what it has.

But, but, but... "it's not H2 gas that is produced, it's monatomic hydrogen!"

Ok, let's look at that. The «H2(g) ? H(g) reaction is NOT exothermic until you reach a temperature of about 4000K. At our temperatures you need to INPUT another 800 kJ (4200 kJ) to get the 2H2(g) into 4H(g). Without even considering the thermal losses from the combustion cycle, we now need an input of about 1600 kJ to our electrolysis system in order to get the claimed 576 kJ of "oxyhydrogen" back out (and that calculation was made in the 19th century and is taken from a 1911 encyclopaedic entry -- wonder why they don't use more modern sources and numbers?). I'm still seeing a major net loss, aren't you?

But, but, but... "the hydrogen DOES improve the efficiency!"

Yes, it is reported that hydrogen can increase the lean limit from 1.7 to 1.85, and it is also reported that hydrogen can reduce the no-load idle consumption of gasoline by up to 50% in small engines.

Let's look at these. First off, these are for volumes of hydrogen that can't possibly be produced by these simple cells. And, the reported lamdas of 1.7 and 1.85 are for natural gas combustion, not gasoline. The lean limit for gasoline is a lamda of about 1.2. Until you get to the lean misfire conditions, leaning your gasoline down WILL reduce consumption. But you also get rough idle and loss of power. Except when idling, your car isn't fully leaned (and even then it's not maxed out) -- in fact, the more dem and you're putting on the engine, the richer the computer (or even the carb in non-EFI engines) makes the mixture. By overriding the computer and approaching the lean limit, you can reduce consumption at idle even without hydrogen. But as you place demands on the engine, it can NOT be run this lean. The faster you go, the more engine power must be used to overcome drag, so at highway speeds, even if you are not accelerating, you are not running a lean mixture. The manufacturers do NOT lean the idle down as far as possible, because excessive leaning can burn the spark plugs and pistons and lead to detonation and preignition. Even if it was possible to reduce idle usage of gasoline by up to 50%, the long-term engine damage and the percentage of the time the engine is NOT idling dramatically reduce this savings. Plus, you STILL need extra gasoline to produce the hydrogen in the first place from all the above-mentioned losses.

"Ok, ok... so I can't get such phenomenal gains in mileage from hydro-assist.

But what about this PICC stuff?"

Ah, yes... The "pre-ignition catalytic converter". Let's take a look.

The claim is that the PICC will break the isooctane molecule of gasoline down into smaller molecules that will "burn better." Oh, really? When we looked at the energies involved in electrolysis, we noticed that breaking bonds takes energy and forming bonds releases energy. It doesn't matter what happens in-between. If our net result is 2C8H18 + 25O2 ? 16CO2 + 18H2O, then we are breaking 37 C-H bonds, 14 C-C bonds and 25 O=O bonds, but re-forming 32 C-O bonds and 36 H-O bonds. Any bonds that form and break in-between are immaterial we are left with a net change in bonds of about 37800 kJ. But, and this is important, it TAKES energy to make any smaller molecules. We have to put energy in, in order to have the higher bond energies of any smaller molecules. The net change from beginning to end, remains the same: whether you extract 37.8 MJ from the gasoline, or extract 57.8 MJ after putting 20 MJ into the bonds of smaller molecules, is immaterial -- the net change is still 37.8 MJ.

And besides, the PICC sites claim they're making a "plasma". Plasmas do not undergo normal chemical reactions. You won't get combustion in a plasma, nevermind factoring in the large energies necessary to create plasmas in the first place.

Every step of all these schemes consumes far more energy than it could possibly release. There is no magic way to get such phenomenal gains in fuel efficiency out of your existing car.

roofingguy Senior Member

Registered: 10-28-07

Engine Calculation

Reference: May 1977 NASA article

Sept. 4, 2008 Hydroxy User Group -

"I originally posted this in the "Engine Calculation" thread, but I

can't find it in there, and anyway the thread has gone into a silly

exchange about iphones:

"Thanks, BoyntonStu, for the link to the NASA report. Not easy

reading, but don't knock it, it's the best we have.

You sort of get to the point at the top of Page 11, where it explains

what's going on, and gives some numbers for mass ratio of hydrogen to

fuel+hydrogen. It uses ignition advance to lean the mixture at

constant load, for various mixtures (called equivalence ratios), to

find the leanest mixture possible, which is that where opening the

throttle doesn't give more power. It makes the point that this is

completely undrivable, so we can't use it as a yardstick for "real

driving". It's for flame speed research.

Anyway, to crunch the numbers:

An average hydrogen to fuel+hydrogen mass ratio reported seems to be

0.065. If that were applied to BoyntonStu's model vehicle with its

fuel consumption of 93.63 g/min, it would suggest a hydrogen

consumption of 6.5 g/min., which is 72 litres at standard temperature

and pressure. For that, you need 108 litres of hydroxy. Of course,

hydroxy would normally be generated at a temperature higher than

standard, so the volume required would be more.

The 7.4 litre Cadillac engine was operated at 2140 rpm, and the

hydrogen flow was 0.64kg/hr, or 10.66 g/min. That says that the

above figures are in the same ball park. Yes, the Caddy engine was

doing well on fuel consumption, but it was leaned out to 0.66 of

14.7:1, which is 21.2:1. No wonder the test condition was described

as "lower than the minimum drivability limit".

I have not been able to find any volumetric relationships in the

report, nor any value of 3%. The only hydrogen to fuel ratio given

is about 7% by mass. Sorry!

My conclusion is that the report is valuable to us, as it confirms

the ability of hydrogen to support a weaker fuel mixture and reduce

emissions, but does not offer any insight into the amount of hydroxy

to add for realistic driving conditions.

There is another insight, but it may not be valid for normal driving

conditions. Under the test conditions, the efficiency of adding

hydrogen (see Figs 10 and 11) began to exceed gasoline-only when the

AFR was increased above 0.85 of stoichiometric, i.e. 17.3:1"

Need at Least 500% Faraday's

On March 26, 2008, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Former Member:Mark Anthony Dansie wrote:

To run an engine with some usable power, you would need at least 500% Faradays..most likely 800%. The other way to approch this is to use a more efficient engine. IE the free piston engine running on Hydrogen has achieved 50% as compared with 30 to 40% for most engines. You will need around 5 to 7 litres per minute per HP of hydrogen to run an engine. There is concensus that this figure could be lowered to less than half that depending on the type of hydrogen being produced. Most of the experimentors I have talked to, or you can see on YouTube, confirm these figures. You may idle a 2 litre engine on a small ammount of hydroxy..but it might only be consumming 5 hp to do so. Some people think a 2 litre engine with 150 hp idleing is producing max power, when indeed it isn't.

- - - -

On March 27, 2008, dieoffree wrote:

I'm not sure where you get 5 Lt/MinHp. I've heard you need around 4%

mixture of hydrogen, possibly the same for H-H-O, in an engine. I you

are working a 2Lt four stroke engine at 3000RPM, I would think you

need around 2Lt/sec of hydrogen (or H-H-O)

- - - -

On March 27, 2008, stepen3ci wrote:

Smaller engine around 1.3-5L u can idle on that low amount of H.H.O

but it has to be H.H.O, not a week hydrogen which is mainly produced

by these so called boosters running + and - from the top of

electrolyser ...


On March 27, 2008, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Member:Nicholas Testad wrote:

These guys have been on my website for a while:

The most important fact upon which our discussion will be based is that it takes 237.13 kJ (237,130 joules) per mole of electrical energy to synthesize hydrogen by electrolysis of water, regardless of the applied voltage or the net efficiency of the cell. Not surprisingly, a fuel cell is essentially just the reverse of an electrolytic cell: whereas electricity is used to decompose water into its constituent gases in the electrolytic cell, in a fuel cell water and electricity are generated by the direct recombination of hydrogen and oxygen. For an excellent - if somewhat technical - description of these two processes, a visit to the website is recommended.

[It's important to realize that the environment at typical ambient temperature contributes thermal energy equal to 48.7 kJ per mole to the hydrogen electrolytic process, as shown in the material presented via the preceding link.]

My own calculation:

Electrolysis achieves 100% efficiency @ 0.06587 kWh/mol H2

At approximately 82% efficiency, electrolyzing 1 kg H2 requires 40 kWh.

- - - -

On March 27, 2008, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Former Member:Mark Anthony Dansie wrote:

If you work on 2.4 watts per litre per hour for hydroxy your near faradays. Most units are 3 watts plus per litre per hour.

Hydroxy = Boom Gas

On March 26, 2008, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Member:Tai Robinson of wrote:

The theoretical maximum efficiency to produce hydrogen from water using electrolysis would take 40kWh of electricity to make one kilo of hydrogen. Right now, the best electrolyzers available to us to make a home hydrogen filling station to fill tanks on vehilces, or provide pure hydrogen for heating, cooking, etc. are requiring about 60kWh of electricity to make one kilo of hydrogen.

Godd luck doing better than that.

Any engine running pure hydrogen is going to increase efficiency. There is a big mechanical efficiency increase and thermal efficiency has been documented at 49%. This is all with engines that were designed to run on gasoline. Optimizing an engine for hydrogen will produce even better results. Designing an engine specifically for hydrogen would be great, but Nicholas Otto already did that in the 1870's, it is called the Otto cycle 4-stroke internal combustion engine!

An engine idling on hydrogen barely uses any hydrogen at all. Hydrogen burns in such a wide range with oxygen that you can run it extremely lean if you do not need to produce power and you want the cleanest emissions. To maximize power you need to run rich, but this produces unacceptable levels of NOx and uses gobs and gobs of hydrogen for fuel.

The consumption of hydrogen fuel being burned by an engine depends on the fuel/air mixture you have and what you are trying to accomplish. You can use very little hydrogen and get clean emissions and very low power. Or you can use a LOT of hydrogen and get a lot of power and a lot of NOx.

The optimal mixture is just barely lean to get OK power and low NOx. Kepping that mixture is difficult, especially if you ar not metering the hydrogen into the engine, and almost imposible if you are producing HHO, hydroxy, browns gas, what ever you want to call it, but H2 and O2 in a perfect stochiometric mix is very dangerous and you will not get teh proper mix for the engine for best combustion.

So good luck all you "Boom" Gas makers. I know what does work and it is pure hydrogen in the proper mixture. And you are not going to get that just by chance when you are collecting hydrogen and oxygen from a single point from an electrolyzer. Be safe.