[Oberon]

Okay... I’m as aware of the Laws of Thermodynamics as the next guy, and I understand that they cannot be broken. I understand that if you burn hydrogen, in doing so you can only release as much energy as it took to originally electrolyze the hydrogen from the oxygen in the first place, less a chunk for inefficiency. So, if you were hoping to fuel an engine that would drive a generator that would electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen which you would then burn in the engine, of course you could never achieve a self-sustaining system. The engine wouldn’t run.

But let’s do a little thought experiment here. Let’s discount the thread’s title for a moment, because the device described in the article isn’t the sole fuel source for the cars it’s installed in. “Fueled by H20” isn’t quite accurate.

So we know that the Otto cycle engine is in its own right relatively inefficient at extracting mechanical energy from gasoline, correct? What if the addition of hydrogen into the combustion chamber along with the gasoline fuel charge wasn’t just adding the BTUs from the hydrogen to the mix, but was also promoting a more efficient burn of the gasoline?

From a thermodynamic point of view, it is not impossible that introduction of hydrogen into the combustion chamber could increase the efficiency of the engine at burning gasoline, thereby scavenging energy from the gasoline that would have otherwise been blown out the manifold with the exhaust. It’s likewise not impossible that the quantity of energy scavenged from the gasoline through a better, cleaner burn might exceed the quantity of the energy initially required to electrolyze the hydrogen from the water.

I’m not saying I endorse the guy’s invention. I’m just presenting it for the sake of argument. Maybe the guy’s not absolutely stupid.

[LegendHasIt]

"From a thermodynamic point of view, it is not impossible that introduction of hydrogen into the combustion chamber could increase the efficiency of the engine at burning gasoline, thereby scavenging energy from the gasoline that would have otherwise been blown out the manifold with the exhaust. It’s likewise not impossible that the quantity of energy scavenged from the gasoline through a better, cleaner burn might exceed the quantity of the energy initially required to electrolyze the hydrogen from the water."

Adding the hydrogen isn't going to make more efficient... For more efficient combustion, you would want to inject the oxygen, not the hydrogen.... And unfortunately, that would take twice as much electrical energy to produce the same volume of oxygen as hydrogen..

[Sudetenland]

1. If you burn the hydrogen you produced, you will not come close to recovering the energy required to produce it..."you can't break even."

Let's assume that the addition of the small amount of hydrogen you are capable of producing by electrolysis does "promote the efficiency of the burn" as you say. You are still talking about an engine that is maybe 30-35%. That means you would have to increase the efficiency of the engine by enough to

• generate enough electricity to maintain the battery charge and energy being consumed by the electrolysis.
• Generate enough excess energy to increase the mileage by 60% as well.

Since we already know that the electrolysis is consuming more energy that it is producing in hydrogen combustion, you just can't get there from here. The engine itself is only capable of turning 35% of the energy consumed into kinetic energy (motion).

Another way of looking at it is that you have an energy sink (the electrolysis unit) hooked up to another energy sink (the engine) and claiming to get more energy than was put in. Sorry, can't be done. A negative plus a negative gives you a higher negative, not a positive.

[count-your-change]

What does it take to combust hydrogen? Oxygen. Where does
the oxygen come from? The fuel/air mixture already entering
the cylinder. Unless there is an excess of oxygen to combine with the hydrogen, won't the other fuel/air mixture be fuel enriched and thus less efficient?

If the introduction of hydrogen makes the fuel/air mixture more efficient then adjustments to the fuel or engine could accomplish the same thing, no?

[ecomcon]

Gasoline has more hydrogen in it than liquid hydrogen. Further, gaseous hydrogen introduced to the combustion air isn’t going to get you anywhere, as you are displacing oxygen.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnYE4doj9Js

[Prophet in the wilderness]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FozmG9PzTQ&feature=PlayList&p=D4F9E4112B678706&index=26

[Rocky]

From a thermodynamic point of view, it is not impossible that introduction of hydrogen into the combustion chamber could increase the efficiency of the engine at burning gasoline, thereby scavenging energy from the gasoline that would have otherwise been blown out the manifold with the exhaust. It’s likewise not impossible that the quantity of energy scavenged from the gasoline through a better, cleaner burn might exceed the quantity of the energy initially required to electrolyze the hydrogen from the water.

I think you make a valid point. The title of the article is misleading and deliberately provocative. It causes people who have a technical background to scoff, and it doesn't give the idea a serious audience. Everyone posting on this thread knows that you can't hydrolize water and then burn it and come out ahead, if hydrogen is all you're burning. But this guy is using a mixed fuel of hydrogen and gasoline. I am skeptical, but would like to know more.

[Humble Servant]

Time to check the old BS meter in for a little go-over. Methinks it’s a little bit busted.

[FunkyZero]

I'm a skeptic, but you have the right attitude. Stomping these guys down does nothing, we just need to make sure they aren't selling snake oil.

for instance, a std automobile is extremely inefficient. Most of the energy produced by the comustion is wasted in friction and heat. I've heard numbers as low as 10%, 90% waste.

At any rate, the waste energy will be the key here. There will be no vehicle that powers itself by generating it's own fuel. Gasoline or alcohol are here to stay. However, if you can recapture the waste energy and use THAT to produce more energy to feed back into the vehicle, you are moving in the right direction. I'm certain that ratio will never hit 100%, but with the right meduim of racapture and low complexity, doubling vehicle efficiency should be attainable.

Question is, will it be affordable... Paying 100G for a rolling combine contraption so it will get 75mpg in between repairs, maint and breakdowns doesn't sound very attractive to anyone.

[juliano]

Critics of the “energy-from-water” hydrogen extraction concept are quick to cite the first law of thermodynamics, stating that a perpetual-motion machine is not possible. But they fail to note that no claim to such a machine is being made.

In insisting that hydrogen generators can’t work in cars, a false assumption is at work; that the existing car engine is an efficient closed energy loop - input equals output - with no spare energy for the electrolysis process. Since mileage improvement with hydrogen generators has already been observed, and since not all such improvements can be attributed to altered driving habits, the only possibility is that, with the alternator whirring away, the charging system can produce excess electrical energy, more than the engine needs. The hydrogen generator is merely using some of that available energy for electrolysis. Additionally, the resulting hydrogen in this case is supplementing gasoline, not replacing it; perhaps even improving gasoline combustion. No perpetual motion claim here.

So, yes, these devices do not (yet) violate the laws of thermodynamics. And, yes, they aren’t perfect. But it is finally time for a complete shift in thinking on the hydrogen issue.

Rob Juliano