@All, I would imagine that there would be more localized information about using hydrogen in your internal combustion engine, so I start this thread and maybe some ideas will land here.  I find myself somewhat skeptical of the nature of these systems.

Simple electrolysis causes particulate matter to become suspended in electrolysis chambers when using unconventional electrodes ( stainless steel will indeed rust, the coined phrase is due to its marketing potential and not its physical properties ).  I prefer the idea of carbon-graphite electrodes over stainless steel - I believe they don't create the messy iron oxide deposits that stainless systems involve.

As for Internal Combustion Engines ( ICE's ), how is it that using hydrogen supplements or fuel - HHO mixtures don't degrade the engine components?  Increasing the presence of water in the exhaust of an engine increases the liklihood of rusting in the exhaust paths.  Pure hydrogen oxygen mixture are what they use in rockets, the timing on the engine must be changed to comensate for the explosive nature of the mixture.

There are a few methods and there are a few experimental methods.

One notion would be to mix water vapor with Brown's gas from electrolysis and create the fuel air mixture this way - this doesn't solve the corrosion problems i mentioned earlier.  Additionally, the engine will still need oil, and the likelihood of combustion components reacting with the oil is also still and issue.  Especially whith higher concentration of HHO.

Supplementing the present fuel for a more combustion rich mixture is also an option - but how great are the benefits when weighed with the production.  Most of the suplemental system I've encountered involve production of HHO at a steady pace - unless a generator is directly tied to the output of the engine, then the delta-curves of the most efficient use of the supplemented HHO are nominal only in / at a certain range in the RPMs of the engine ( which can be good, I notice that mostly my RPM's are between 1800 and 2200 ) - so this can be comped for.

As for water arc energy systems - we have to take into consideration the possibility that plasma arcs in the presence of water - electricity arcing from one electrode to another - should create corrosion at an accelerated rate on the spark plug for the same reason the stainless steel or copper electrodes (spark plugs) degrade over time.  Unless their platinum coated - or are pure platinum, some of the metal will vaporize and react with the air and degrade the electrodes.

Some additional thoughts:  Wouldn't it be more wise to use equipment similar to NOS injection for HHO injection?

Considering these few things, the idea of adding HHO for a car seems more like an experiment to be performed on a vehicle of poor standing - the last resort upgrade?

I agree. I do not like the thought of the production of hydrogen. Neither alternative fuels like ethanol. I think we in a greater extent should exploit the natural energy reserves - those that are already there and can be exploited directly - at least with as few intermediaries as possible. In Norway, we have mainly hydropower to supply electricity to homes and buildings in general. However, there are a few power plants based on gas (Do not ask why - since Norway mainly consists of mountains and waterfalls).
The making of hydrogen, is to consume energy to create it. What is the point of hydrogen as a fuel in any case?

Br.

Vidar

First;

Hydrogen is not a source of energy in the same way as fossil fuels are. Hydrogen is
simply a vehicle for energy distribution in mobile applications the same way electricity
and wire networks are a distribution system for fixed energy applications. Hydrogen is
a liquid/gaseous fuel sans carbon, which burns to undesirable carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.

Second;

Hydrogen by admission has many engineering application problems that will need
to be solved one by one before it can replace natural gas or liquid hydrocarbons
in nearly all applications. So engine components will often need to be reimplemented
in different materials before they will work directly in hydrogen fueled environment.


---

But what would you suggests is a better fuel, if one wants to keep carbon
exhaust out of our atmosphere but still have an exhaust? Batteries are a competitor
and don't have any exhaust. This is both a strength and a weakness. I don't
think hydrogen storage is something that beginners would want to tackle,
and really needs to be done by commercial enterprises.

Also Note;

There are a couple of positive aspects to hydrogen fuel that are not often considered;

a) It is possible to generate hydrogen fuel, over time, directly from humidified air
with no other physical inputs other than energy. This makes things like standalone
vending machines possible.

b) Hydrogen is at the base of the cold fusion process, that makes what appears
to be on the surface, energy amplification possible. HHO etc.

I think these above two things will lead to the success of hydrogen fuel applications.



:S:MarkSCoffman

Quote from: mscoffman on February 25, 2009, 11:21:38 AM
First;

Hydrogen is not a source of energy in the same way as fossil fuels are. Hydrogen is
simply a vehicle for energy distribution in mobile applications the same way electricity
and wire networks are a distribution system for fixed energy applications. Hydrogen is
a liquid/gaseous fuel sans carbon, which burns to undesirable carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.

Second;

Hydrogen by admission has many engineering application problems that will need
to be solved one by one before it can replace natural gas or liquid hydrocarbons
in nearly all applications. So engine components will often need to be reimplemented
in different materials before they will work directly in hydrogen fueled environment.


---

But what would you suggests is a better fuel, if one wants to keep carbon
exhaust out of our atmosphere but still have an exhaust? Batteries are a competitor
and don't have any exhaust. This is both a strength and a weakness. I don't
think hydrogen storage is something that beginners would want to tackle,
and really needs to be done by commercial enterprises.

Also Note;

There are a couple of positive aspects to hydrogen fuel that are not often considered;

a) It is possible to generate hydrogen fuel, over time, directly from humidified air
with no other physical inputs other than energy. This makes things like standalone
vending machines possible.

b) Hydrogen is at the base of the cold fusion process, that makes what appears
to be on the surface, energy amplification possible. HHO etc.

I think these above two things will lead to the success of hydrogen fuel applications.



:S:MarkSCoffman

I do not think it is that complicated to store hydrogen. Scientists and engineers know so much about hydrogen that it should not be a problem to solve any problem related to hydrogen fuel.
The problem lays more in the "excuse" for high taxes. In Norway there is approx 70% tax on gasoline and diesel. The explanation why is that it is polluting. Burning hydrogen does not. So where should then a country take the taxes from? Pollution is no longer an excuse for milking money out of you. Those money is too important. So to offer more time for research on hudrogen fuel is basicly taken from our own pocket - not profitable, hence no development.

On the other hand, to make enough hydrogen fuel to be able to drive anyones car anywhere, as much as they want, requires a more quick production. Waiting for nature to do the job will take too much time. My opinion however.

Battery power is as far I can see, the best way of solving the problem in practice even if engines based on high pressure air tanks is an even cleaner technology than batteries. In fact NiMh batteries do store hydrogen as the fuel to run the batteries - the keyword is metal hydride, Mh. A metal powder that absobs hydrogen, and release energy on demand. Almost all 1.2V rechargable batteries is made of these components. Some says that storing energy this way is the most efficient way to store energy such as hydrogen, as the process to make a battery like that requires very small amout of energy. Yet you can use hydro- power to recharge those batteries a few thousand times.

Br.

Vidar

Quote from: mscoffman on February 25, 2009, 11:21:38 AM
But what would you suggests is a better fuel, if one wants to keep carbon
exhaust out of our atmosphere but still have an exhaust? Batteries are a competitor
and don't have any exhaust. This is both a strength and a weakness. I don't
think hydrogen storage is something that beginners would want to tackle,
and really needs to be done by commercial enterprises.

Carbon pollution isn't going away anytime soon - not without a gun fight a  fire and some sort of witch hunt. - all of which cause more carbon pollution anyway.  Even the idea of using electricity simply outsources the production to some facility which itself is creating carbon pollution unless it's hydrothermal, etc.

Even if we started creating devices that were 1000% more efficient, the rate of growth would still overcome.  In fact, I think that a single eruption of a volcano dwarfs industrial pollution - there is a comparable value between the two.

I have no solution to those problems - the Georgia guidestones do though.  But it's best left alone.  I think planting more wide-leafed grasses in places where trees cannot grow is a more simplistic acceptable solution than some of the radical solutions.  Al Gore's hockey stick representation of the carbon emissions over time from the industrial revolution to the pressent are a serious indicator that we have problems.  Carbon is heavy - it likes to linger here in the part of the atmosphere where we breath - and it's often tainted.

I believe that these trees that are grown for wood aren't really all that great for their environmental benefits - I'll say it again - wide-leaf grasses are the most friendly solution to the green problem.  Some sort of alternating seedings, some that grow in all seasons.  It sounds silly, but it's highly manageable.

Quote from: Low-Q on February 25, 2009, 01:30:44 PM
I do not think it is that complicated to store hydrogen. Scientists and engineers know so much about hydrogen that it should not be a problem to solve any problem related to hydrogen fuel.
The problem lays more in the "excuse" for high taxes. In Norway there is approx 70% tax on gasoline and diesel. The explanation why is that it is polluting. Burning hydrogen does not. So where should then a country take the taxes from? Pollution is no longer an excuse for milking money out of you. Those money is too important. So to offer more time for research on hudrogen fuel is basicly taken from our own pocket - not profitable, hence no development.

When a government taxes something, it is an attempt to control it.  To let it go untaxed is therefore an obvious back-turning to the activities of what would be taxed.  Everything is taxed - directly or indirectly ( by proxy ).  When a government raises taxes so high on something that people won't stop buying even with the high taxes, it is an action taken which becomes a direct financial subsidy to that government - that government will come to depend on that tax revenue and it effectively becomes addicted to that which it is taxing.  It then sees little reason to alter it's own tactics.

As for energy though, we can count on scientists having a solution, and governments creating a tax profile for it to boot.  There won't be any way of going about it any differently with the way governments currently work.

- - - - -

The general idea, also, is to point out that even if an ICE did run directly off of hydrogen and oxygen then it would still require oil for lubrication.