Anyone ever heard of "Hydrogen on Demand"?

[Jaimecbr900]

It's being advertised as the next fuel saving alternative.

From what I understand, and if someone knows more please correct me, these types of devices convert plain ole water into hydrogen which is then injected into the engine for something like 60%+ increase in your MPG.

Do you guys know anything about this?

The science behind it makes logical sense, but I'm more interested in finding out if it works for real in cars. I've done some searching but haven't found too much being said negatively, which causes me to pause right out of the gate. I've found where allegedly news channels in different states have tried it as part of their expose's of these things and got POSITIVE results rather than negative. Some news channel in Fla. tried it on their actual news truck and went from 9 MPG to 23 MPG.....if it's true.....ummmm.....

This is but one of those kits:

http://www.h2ohybrid.org/

What do yall think? Real or hype?

Discuss.

[suprapower]

i have read on some **** like that before. i believe it, i mean havent really heard anything negative to make me think otherwise

[Kaiser]

Have not heard of anyone actually getting it to work at all, have heard the story about the florida news channel, but can't really find the piece they did on it anywhere which strikes me as odd. Plus even if SOME of them work, there ARE some out there that are cons, have seen one that claims to be for modern vehicles but when you get the instructions they're on how to convert carbs to work with it.

[Vteckidd]

COMPLETE BULLS.HIT

Heres why
FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS, or Newton's law of conservation of energy.

You can't create energy from nothing, it can't be created nor destroyed, just change forms. Heat engines are only 20% efficient, so internal combustion isn't a good way to convert energy to begin with, as 80% of it is lost as heat. On top of that, you're going to tax the alternator to break apart the water molecules into 2 H's and 1 O, using likely more energy than the hydrogen created could produce at 20% efficiency. For efficient power, basically only electric (batteries, fuel cell, motors) are the way to go... Thus a REAL hydrogen fuel cell car drives the wheels with an electric motor.

[Vteckidd]

Jaime there is a guy in GA that sells this junk. Its called MAGDRIVE and they are located in Acwrth.

YOUTUBE MAGDRIVE or MAG PRODRIVE an youll see a bunchof hilarious bulls.hit videos. Dude is redneck as hell, and his 'office" is a trailerpark.

[Jaimecbr900]

That's true about Newton, but this is not creating hydrogen out of nothing though. It's merely using electrolysis, I think, to convert plain water into usable hydrogen, which is essentially how a hydrogen celled car works.

From what I've read, the idea is that when you inject hydrogen gas....called Browns Gas or something like that....into the engine, it tricks the car into sending less regular fuel and the hydrogen (which is more efficient per volume) more than makes up for the missing amount of fuel. Kinda like trading gas for air per se. Atleast that's how I'm understanding it.

One thing I did read was that on fuel injected engines you would need some type of special adapters for it to work properly and some companies claim that "cheapo" imitation kits don't include that part.

[IDCoconut]

That's true about Newton, but this is not creating hydrogen out of nothing though. It's merely using electrolysis, I think, to convert plain water into usable hydrogen, which is essentially how a hydrogen celled car works.

I'm not going to bother reading the thread, but this quote here is exactly the problem with the system.

The theory is correct as in hydrogen will give you better mileage, BUT the amount of hydrogen that will be had given the power of ANY alternator out there today in modern cars does NOT have enough power to transform water to a considerable amount of hydrogen to make a difference. Yes it can transform a little, but not enough.

Edit: I read some posts above and I agree with Kaiser.

You have to think about what you're doing for a second. This concept has been proven to not work, everywhere.

I will get some numbers in a second...

[Vteckidd]

I'm not going to bother reading the thread, but this quote here is exactly the problem with the system.

The theory is correct as in hydrogen will give you better mileage, BUT the amount of hydrogen that will be had given the power of ANY alternator out there today in modern cars does NOT have enough power to transform water to a considerable amount of hydrogen to make a difference. Yes it can transform a little, but not enough.

Edit: I read some posts above and I agree with Kaiser.

You have to think about what you're doing for a second. This concept has been proven to not work, everywhere.

I will get some numbers in a second...

thank you

[Vteckidd]

READ

The old joke "Hydrogen is the fuel of tomorrow -- and always will be" isn't keeping Mazda from jumping on the H2 bandwagon and stuffing a dual-fuel rotary under the hood of the next RX-8. They might even dub it the RX-9.

Wankels are sweet engines that really scream at full throttle, but they get lousy fuel economy and aren't terribly green. In an effort to clean things up a bit, the next-gen production rotary reportedly will be based on the hydrogen/gasoline engine in the RX-8 Hydrogen RE (pictured).

Just make sure you aren't trying to chase down that ZR-1 under hydrogen power.

According to Auto Express, running on the most common element in the universe robs the car -- which gets 228 hp out of a 1.3-liter engine -- of 20 percent of its power, so Mazda's engineers envision owners opting for hydrogen (those who can find it, anyway) only during city driving.

Mazda's been playing with hydrogen since 1991, when it unveiled the HR-X concept at the Tokyo Motor Show. It developed the RX-8 Hydrogen RE five years ago and started road-testing it in 2004. A trunk-mounted tank holds 74 liters of gaseous hydrogen at 5,000 PSI; a direct-injection system feeds it directly into the rotor housing. "Because existing parts and production facilities are used," Mazda says, "the innovative engine can be built at relatively little cost."

But can it be sold at relatively little cost? We'll see in 2012.

[Andyturbo13]

I work with a guy that built his own kit and it getting around 34-36 mpg in his v6 jetta.

[Vteckidd]

but this is not creating hydrogen out of nothing though. It's merely using electrolysis, I think, to convert plain water into usable hydrogen, which is essentially how a hydrogen celled car works.

Thats not how a hydrogen fuel cell car works, its much more complicated than this.

This is the complete OPPOSITE of how a Hydrogen Fuel Cell car works. They use reverse electrolysis.

This crap is just a guys pipe dream to make money. Their $650 kits cost $50 in parts, and they use a bunch of fancy names to trick people into thinking it does something.

This is along the lines of ZMAX, NOS IN A CAN, etc.

[Andyturbo13]

hhoforums.com has more info on the subject.

[Andyturbo13]

the guy i work with made his own and went from 19-22 mpg to 34-36 and it only cost him a bout 75 bucks to make.

[G.C]

i saw on news while back bout this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdVevvgM3ho

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRL-Xq_R-dg

[2turbo4u]

Jaime there was a guy on Channel 2 news that done it to his car and he since been contracted to convert the military Humvee for them. He is also been talking to various automakers about this. That's the first video G.C posted.We had another thread on here about this. This is the problem with this idea to free the U.S from oil richen countries:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDHT0hBgVOw&NR=1

[Kaiser]

What I am reading from all this is not actually Hydrogen making the cars any better. The kits that seem to work seem to work by lowering AF ratio significantly. One makes your AF 15:1 or higher. I'm not seeing how this is working really, as the way HHO should work is the same as Nitrous, without really the need for more fuel, since the hydrogen is combustible anyways... I guess it's time to actually do more reading.


Actually from reading the testimonials on HHOforums.com I don't see a single one that could be really considered positive. Most of them are gaining small benefits which are more likely than not their driving habits being more energy efficient, or the fact that they are tuning their engines leaner. A couple talk about snow-white spark plugs, which to mean indicates a super-lean mixture. I'm not seeing anything that proves this Hydrogen crap does anything but convince people to actually tune their engines to be super-lean.

One guy even essentially describes his carb'd engine dieseling, though he didn't describe it negatively. I figure a gas engine should stop producing power when you let off the gas, I guess he sees it differently.

[SixSquared]

PM Mike/THEONE... he makes hydrogen kits and swears by them... I dunno how they work or don't work cause I haven't looked into it too much, but he uses them on all his vehicles.

[Vteckidd]

they are crap and its all a big scam. They do not work. Its not rocket science its principles that have been around for over 200 years.

[SixSquared]

Re-reading... I don't know if Mike's kits do the water bit or if you actually attach a hydrogen tank... *shrug* My fuel economy never bothered me enough to look into it. <3 4cyls lol

[Ruststang]

For someone to try to argue that adding a combustable gas to a computer managed combustion engine and it not improving fuel milage is MORONIC. Fact of the matter is that i have made one now and im working on my second version(fits in the engine bay better) and i saw improved milage, however not the 60% some of these site may claim. Also two of my co-workers also built the same model i did and are also seeing about 40-70 more miles out of a full tank. Its not a bad gain when you consider all it consists of is pipe,hose,washers,gromets,bolts and some barb fittings.

[Kaiser]

For someone to try to argue that adding a combustable gas to a computer managed combustion engine and it not improving fuel milage is MORONIC. Fact of the matter is that i have made one now and im working on my second version(fits in the engine bay better) and i saw improved milage, however not the 60% some of these site may claim. Also two of my co-workers also built the same model i did and are also seeing about 40-70 more miles out of a full tank. Its not a bad gain when you consider all it consists of is pipe,hose,washers,gromets,bolts and some barb fittings.

Ok, the problems here is the generation of explosive gas via Electrolysis from water inside the vehicle as it moves. This means not having to find a pressurized hydrogen fill-up point. Keep that in mind.

Next, let's think about this: The creation of the gas by breaking VERY STABLE IONIC BONDS requires a pretty hefty amount of electricity. ALOT OF THIS ELECTRICITY IS WASTED AS HEAT. All that heat creates water vapor along with the "H-H-O" that is supposedly required by the site. After making all this water-vapor and "H-H-O" the owners run it in their engines and TUNE THEIR CARS TO BE LEANER.

Uh. This to me sounds distinctly like they are getting better gas mileage by tuning their engine to use leaner AF's, and if the H-H-O and water vapor are doing anything at all, it might be quench, to minimize knock and add more oxygen to make the fuel even leaner, but alot of them are already describing typical problems with overlean fuel mixtures, and their fuel-mileage results are really only coming up to prove that if you replace all relevant parts (Air cleaner, spark plugs, clean the system) drive less like an idiot and tune the engine to be lean, you'll get better gas mileage. This is all common sense. It doesn't prove anything.

Oh, and the only really moronic thing is the idea that you can just throw EXPLOSIVE materials into an engine and have it run better. Gas fumes ignited by a spark don't EXPLODE they actually BURN. Explosions are BAD for engines. Hydrogen doesn't so much BURN as EXPLODE. Big difference. Hydrogen in a controlled environment that is metered and injected with a spark and proper timing set could be used. In a regular gas engine, it's just going to explode.

[Vteckidd]

Ok, the problems here is the generation of explosive gas via Electrolysis from water inside the vehicle as it moves. This means not having to find a pressurized hydrogen fill-up point. Keep that in mind.

Next, let's think about this: The creation of the gas by breaking VERY STABLE IONIC BONDS requires a pretty hefty amount of electricity. ALOT OF THIS ELECTRICITY IS WASTED AS HEAT. All that heat creates water vapor along with the "H-H-O" that is supposedly required by the site. After making all this water-vapor and "H-H-O" the owners run it in their engines and TUNE THEIR CARS TO BE LEANER.

Uh. This to me sounds distinctly like they are getting better gas mileage by tuning their engine to use leaner AF's, and if the H-H-O and water vapor are doing anything at all, it might be quench, to minimize knock and add more oxygen to make the fuel even leaner, but alot of them are already describing typical problems with overlean fuel mixtures, and their fuel-mileage results are really only coming up to prove that if you replace all relevant parts (Air cleaner, spark plugs, clean the system) drive less like an idiot and tune the engine to be lean, you'll get better gas mileage. This is all common sense. It doesn't prove anything.

Oh, and the only really moronic thing is the idea that you can just throw EXPLOSIVE materials into an engine and have it run better. Gas fumes ignited by a spark don't EXPLODE they actually BURN. Explosions are BAD for engines. Hydrogen doesn't so much BURN as EXPLODE. Big difference. Hydrogen in a controlled environment that is metered and injected with a spark and proper timing set could be used. In a regular gas engine, it's just going to explode.

PLUS ONE

[Vteckidd]

Its simple science people, look it up.

IT TAKES MORE ENERGY TO DO ELECTROLYSIS THAN IT CREATES

You think this technology is new? If this was some great new invention that really worked dont you think we would have heard about it all over the news, TV, on new cars , etc?

I mean we are talking about contraptions that cost $50 or less to make, and a process thats at least 50 years old.

Again, the amount it may help is barely worth mentioning. This is someones made up contraption to make a buck. People THINK it works when in reality, it does little to nothing for your fuel efficiency. ALl it will do is wear your alternator out at an incredibly faster rate than normal.