Talk:Hydrogen fuel enhancement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007 April 21. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Portal	This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

1 A Published Paper With Quantitative Results
2 Reliability of sources
3 Reliable Sources
4 SAE Articles
5 EPA Info
6 hythane hithane
7 Fair use rationale for Image:Efficiency.png
8 Fair use rationale for Image:Efficiency.png
9 Fraud
10 article cleanup
11 Efficiency
12 Added "cleanup" and "cleanup-jargon" tags

[edit] A Published Paper With Quantitative Results

Here is a paper that was published by the IEEE in 1989, and that gives quantitative results for hydrogen fuel enhancement of a 2310 CC gasoline engine.

Fuel consumption and emission of SI engine fueled with H2-enriched gasoline Hacohen, Y.; Sher, E. Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, 1989. IECEC-89., Proceedings of the 24th Intersociety Volume , Issue , 6-11 Aug 1989 Page(s):2485 - 2490 vol.5 Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/IECEC.1989.74823

It is interesting to note that the authors of this paper used a steam reformation type hydrogen generator to generate the hydrogen needed for their trials. The reason for this is simple - hydrolysis of water and a standard vehicle alternator will only generate a hydrogen to fuel mass ratio of a few thousandths of a percent. This paper shows that the hydrogen to fuel mass ratio must be on the order of a few percent in order to have a significant impact on fuel efficiency.

The paper concludes that fuel savings decrease as torque increases, but that engine speed is not a significant factor. For this reason it is probably useful to use Torque/Litre as a variable rather than simply Torque. I believe that this would allow the results of this paper to be scaled for larger or smaller engines.

In response to comments by Seidman and Ezinga: Yes - Hacohen's and Sher's results were based on a gasoline engine and do not apply directly to diesel engines for reasons along the lines of Seidman's comments below. That is to say, hydrogen will not enhance the performance of a diesel as much as for a gasoline engine. I have not been able to find anyone that has done similar tests on a diesel. Please post a note here if you know of any tests of this type.

I was a little hesitant to use the word "scam". Certainly the makers and marketers of the current products on the market have deceived themselves, even if they did not mean to deceive others. Comparing Hacohen's and Sher's hydrogen to fuel mass ratios to the hydrogen to fuel mass ratios that are achievable based on the water consumption figures that are quoted by typical manufacturers, I estimate that current products would need a 3 or 4 order of magnitude increase in hydrogen production to achieve any noticable results. Funny how none of the manufacturers seem to have done any of these tests themselves.

Ipsascientia (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The only purpose of the hydrogen it to facilitate the combustion of gasoline at ultra lean air/fuel ratios because gasoline does not like to remain flammable as the ratios get higher. Even a small quantity of hydrogen allows gasoline to remain flammable at relatively high air/fuel ratios (ie. greater than 30:1). Its not the energy content of the hydrogen that is of consequence, its the chemical effect it has on the combustion of gasoline. Noah Seidman (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just observing that there are fraudulent products being marketed which cite this type of legitimate research to bolster their claims. I don't have the knowledge base to run the numbers from that paper, but it looks like the energy needed to produce the hydrogen is at least one order of magnitude greater than the energy saved by the efficiency gains of running on a leaner mixture. In light of how scientific papers are abused to sell these products, I think in editing the page some separations of terms should be made. "Hydrogen Injection Scams" vs. "Hydrogen Fuel Enrichment" or something like that? Ezinga (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Ben Ezinga

I absolutely agree. I as well want to separate scam versus real. Most if not all systems are being marketed in a fraudulent way. There is definitely an underlying real aspect to the concept, even for on-demand electrolysis. And yes the academics on this page should not be used to support fraudlent systems, but they should be used to support the potential validity of a sound scientific concept.

There is a consensus on efficiency gains; they are negligible, and basically irrelevant to increasing economy. Economy can definitely be affected. The economy of an engine can be affected by modifying the ECU to run an engine under ultra lean conditions, and to allow the gasoline to remain flammable an on-demand electrolyzer is used to produce hydrogen. Enough of a performance drain will be implemented to produce enough hydrogen to allow the gasoline to remain flammable at lets say 30:1 air/fuel ratios and greater. Overall this is reasonable because the hydrogen is needed to keep the gasoline flammable, with the tradeoff being performance versus economy. Yes bottles hydrogen can be used, but I would rather sacrifice power/performance to generate it from water than to refill a hydrogen tank from an external source.

Yes the concept has considerations, like additional weight and cost. But overall the cost of retrofitting extra components is much less than purchasing a new car or doing an engine swap. I would also be willing to sacrifice 1/2 of my engines available HP to reduce my fuel consumption by 1/2. Even if I had to sacrifice 3/4 of my HP to reduce my fuel consumption of 1/4 I would still find the concept interesting and potentially marketable. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Overall in my opinion there is not one product on the market that is worthy of using these referenced publications to support claims. The way I described the concept above is not used by any of the involved companies. The most important point is that all the companies are not mentioning that there is an inversely proportional, or potentially an inverse exponential proportionality in the tradeoff between performance and economy. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of sources

We shouldn't take Wired as a reliable source in science and engineering -- especially in fields where the the snake oil vendors try to promote their cases.

IHE is another problem, but hard to pinpoint. For formal reasons you may revert my removal, but it's really fishy. Veziroğlu, as a journal editor, should typically be a respected researcher in his field. But his papers get never cited, except by himself.

Pjacobi 18:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to rephase the one-sentence blurb cited to Wired, but I see no reason to remove the link. As I recall, the AfD argument was that journal papers don't show cultural influence, so I provided wired.com. You can't turn that around and now delete it because it's not a journal. I tried to work with the text twice now. Please do the same. Gimmetrow 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

All the scientific papers see no significant influence on fuel consumption. Only these companies (which are desperately seeking investors) do so. --Pjacobi 19:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources

Kong, Crane, Patel and Taylor, NOx Trap Regeneration with an On-Board Hydrogen Generation Device, March 2004, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper # 2004-01-0582

Hoekstra, Van Blarigan and Mulligan, University of Central Florida, Sandia National Labs and Florida Solar Energy Center, NOx Emissions and Efficiency of Hydrogen, Natural Gas, and Hydrogen/Natural Gas Blended Fuels, , May 1996, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 961103

Tunestal et al., Lund Institute of Technology and Swedish Gas Center, Hydrogen Addition For Improved Lean Burn Capability of Slow and Fast Burning Natural Gas Combustion Chambers, October 2002, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2002-01-2686

Ochoa, Dwyer, Wallace and Brodrick, University of California at Davis, Emissions from Hydrogen Enriched CHG Production Engines, October 2002, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2002-01-2687

Fontana, Galloni, Jannelli, and Minutillo, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Cassino, Performance and Fuel Consumption Estimation of a Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline Engine at Part-Load Operation, July 2002, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2002-01-2196

Tully and Heywood, General Motors and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lean-Burn Characteristics of a Gasoline Engine Enriched with Hydrogen from a Plasmatron Fuel Reformer, , March 2003, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2003-01-0630

Natkin et al., Ford Motor Company and University of California-Riverside, Hydrogen IC Engine Boosting Performance and NOx Study, SAE Technical Paper Series Paper # 2003-01-0631

Conte and Boulouchos, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Influence of Hydrogen-Rich-Gas Addition on Combustion, Pollutant Formation and Efficiency of an IC-SI Engine, March 2004 SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper # 2004-01-0972

Allgeier et al., Robert Bosch Gmbh, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and HTI Biel, Advanced Emission and Fuel Economy Concept Using Combined Injection of Gasoline and Hydrogen in SI-Engines, March 2004, SAE Technical Paper Series, Paper # 2004-01-1270

Tomita, Kawahara, Piao, Fujita, and Hamamato; Hydrogen Combustion and Exhaust Emissions Ignited with Diesel Oil in a Dual Fuel Engine, September 2001, SAE Technical

Noah Seidman 00:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SAE Articles

You can order the SAE articles directly from the SAE website. This entire article is completely verifiable. For instance here is article code (2004-01-1270) http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2004-01-1270 Noah Seidman (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EPA Info

I put the EPA information back in the text, but under "commercial products". EPA studies are certainly a valid citation. There also seemed to be some confusion. The point was that as far as I can tell, none of these devices have ever been evaluated by the EPA (they are not on the list). Prebys (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your intent has been clarified, and the material is indeed relevant and understood. Well Done. Noah Seidman (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hythane hithane

I found hithane which maybe should redirect here, and hythane is in use on hynor the stavanger station]]. Cheers Mion (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is now only about HFI, however if hythane is redirected here, it should be mentioned in the intro and a seperate section that premixing of gas with hydrogen is another used method Mion (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

hithane is now a redirect. Mion (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice addition; well done. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, well it was a minor contribution, link 12 isn't working, is there some replacement for it ? another question, i thought almost every carmaker had HFI in its program which isn't mentioned in the article, only 1 certain canadian company, ? Cheers Mion (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you add a section how the engine is adjusted to handle hydrogen embrittlement ? Mion (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And a section about another sector, hydrogen injection on boats [1] (not the best translation]. Mion (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Most car makers have had lean burn engines in their manufacturing lineup; never using hydrogen fuel enhancement. There is not much quality reference though, and it is talked about briefly on the lean page. Hydrogen embrittlement can be talked about on this page, using info from the Hydrogen embrittlement page, and the resolution, which is Brown's Gas. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to suggest a solution if hydrogen embrittlement doesn't occur Cheers Mion (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Automotive is not the only place for hydrogen fuel injection, [2]. Mion (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Efficiency.png

Image:Efficiency.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Efficiency.png

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fraud

What is clearly fraud is any company marketing an electrolyzer without air/fuel ratio modification instructions or technology. Technically if air/fuel ratio modification tech is provided there will be a performance decrease associated with the increase in gas mileage. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Any company that provides a means of changing air/fuel ratios can claim an increase in economy; therefore most likely avoiding product fraud. Scientific fraud is a whole other ballgame. What can be said is that gasoline does not burn at air/fuel ratios of 30:1. The question is can enough hydrogen be produced via electrolysis, considering efficiency loses during various stages, to allow gasoline to remain flammable at such lean ratios. This would require experimentation. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many people given the rise in gas prices that would be willing to sacrifice performance for an increase in gas mileage. Most people cannot pay for gasoline yet alone a new car, or an engine swap. Because of this there is a market for car modification tech that will alter the engines operating conditions in such a fashion. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A breakdown to help clarify points:

On demand electrolysis drains energy from the output of the engine.

Air/fuel ratio modification is required to increase gas mileage.

A slight increase in the air/fuel ratio, between 14.7:1 - ~22:1 will increase combustion temperature thus increasing NOx formation.

Hydrogen increases the lean burn capabilities of hydrogencarbon fuels.

At an air/fuel ratio of 30:1 hydrogencarbon combustion temperature will be substantially reduced thus mitigating NOx production. A similar effect is achieved using excess fuel to quench combustion temperature (rich air/fuel mix).

Considering efficiency losses, can enough hydrogen be produced by on-demand electrolysis to allow gasoline to remain flammable at 30:1 air/fuel ratios? Theoretically this is reasonable given enough of a performance tradeoff.

There is a performance decrease associated with an increase in gas mileage.

Considering a performance decrease is there a market for increasing gas mileage?

What are the catalytic converter requirements for an engine operating under ultra lean conditions?

We must make a clear distinction between fraud, and what can actually work; whether it is theoretical or scientifically provable. We can definitively make conclusions about fraud, and I feel this is important to incorporate into the article, but we should respect the implication of potential research.

A company that markets fuel enhancement as a means of substantially increasing efficiency is misleading. They are committing scientific fraud. If they are committing product fraud is another consideration. If the company is claiming an increase in gas mileage, and they do not provide a means of altering the engines operating conditions they are also committing product fraud. From these considerations there are many companies that have a mix of scientific fraud and product fraud, but technically their claim to increase gas mileage is not fraud if they offer air/fuel modification technology.

Noah Seidman (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] article cleanup

There is a lot of redundant information in this article. It needs reorganization and trimming. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ok I am in to this and Its not all people trying to mess around and steal money this is real science and the part about taking energy from the engine is false on your part it actually drains from the battery and a battery is only really need to start the car the battery is charged by the alternater so if you could explain how it is taking energy from car I would really like to understand how that could happen when its just hooked up to the battery and the battery is hooked up to the alternater the battery is not need to keep car running —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.160.117 (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Increasing the lean burn condition of an engine will increase gas mileage, and by injecting less fuel there will be less chemical energy available meaning less power output. With slightly lean conditions there are different considerations. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hullo - second time I've found this fairly ridiculous claim in a hydrogen enhancement related topic: That because hydrogen is involved, and it produces water, somehow there is an effect similar to water injection.

Lets make this clear: Yes, water is a by-product of hydrogen combustion. No, this does not produce the the same effect as water injection. Water vapor is a combustion product of all hydrocarbons most of us are familiar with. This includes diesel, gas, kerosene, you name it. It doesn't matter from what combustion it is produced, this water vapor is at combustion temperature.

I deleted the erroneous claim immediately upon seeing it... Holy Cannoli! Where does this stuff come from? Tjcognata (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion is not a problem. I am always learning here at Wikipedia as other editors become involved in these articles. Noah Seidman (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does this stuff come from? This stuff comes from someone who thinks, and all thoughts are not necessarily correct. There are people in this world that laugh at people that are wrong, and there are people they try and help other people learn. Noah Seidman (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not that place to practice ideas. Tjcognata concern is that if you don't grasp a the fundamentals you have no place providing information on more complex issues. There is the additional concern that much if not most of this page is original work and coming from you.--OMCV (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Cited quotations are typically accompanied by an elaboration, which is consistent with Wikipedia policies. And one erroneous statement does not entail a lack of fundamental comprehension of other phenomena. Noah Seidman (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize at my exasperation. I'm afraid, however, that the statement does show a lack of fundamental understanding in thermodynamics and in basic reaction chemistry. I had all of this very adamantly hammered upon me as an undergraduate engineer, so I hope you all understand my immediate reaction. Noah - take a little more care in these claims: if you aren't certain of something it would better be introduced into discussion first than upon the topic. Tjcognata (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to inject myself here again. A lean burn condition does not automatically mean better efficiency - lean burn methods are primarily practiced to reduce emissions. Lean conditions introduce an abundance of uncombusted gases which cause the combustion temperature to be lower. In the ideal case (carnot cycle) this amounts to a lower possible engine efficiency. The efficiency of real engines is no-where near the efficiency of a carnot engine, obviously, so improvements seen in a lean-burn engine are actually in implementations of the concept which reduce other major losses. Some examples are reduced restriction in air flow at non-peaking loads, denser air at lower temperature, control methods that apply lean-burn at idle and low load, plus a host of other things. Tjcognata (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not overly interested in efficiency as it can barely be affected in modern engines, although it is effected slightly by lean burn conditions. (See: [3]) Economy is my interest and it is directly affected by lean burn engine conditions. Less fuel injected equals less power and better mileage. A mileage increase is not dependent on efficiency improvement.Noah Seidman (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Efficiency and economy are the same thing. When speaking of cars, miles per gallon more-or-less expresses the energy efficiency of a vehicle. Miles describes the useful work done, and gallons the energy input. Its an ad-hoc efficiency, only missing time and rate to be put into engineering terms of average efficiency. Tjcognata (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood. How about this approach. By reducing the torque of the vehicle, as a result of injecting less fuel, there will be less acceleration. Since more fuel is consumed in acceleration as compared to maintaining velocity less torque results in better economy to achieve a particular veolicty. Overall by changing the ECU to provide less acceleration there is a greater system efficiency in converting potential chemical energy into resulting velocity? Noah Seidman (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a trade off between economy and power, But the reason is not straight forward. In an engine there are a variety of competing losses so that its efficiency is not constant over a range of conditions - basically there will be a peak efficiency at a certain operating condition. An engine designed for performance will have its peak efficiency at a high load. An engine designed for economy will have its peak efficiency at a low load that is close to expected driving conditions. Because the economy engine is operated closer to its highest efficiency under normal conditions the vehicle is going to have better fuel economy. Of course, when operating at peak engine efficiency the performance vehicle is also having to overcome a very high air resistance so still sees relatively poor fuel economy. Its a question of where you are on an engine's efficiency curve at normal conditions rather than how much power you produce per combustion that determines average efficiency/economy. Operating lean would probably shift the efficiency curve somewhat. This would be a lot clearer if I could show a set of efficiency curves, but hopefully I described it well enough. Tjcognata (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood. This figure [4] is the relation between a fuel reduction (efficiency improvement) as compared to the efficiency of a hydrogen reformer, while producing various amounts of torque. A comparable figure can be created detailing the use of an electrolyzer in place of the hydrogen reformer. In such a figure the following is probably the main consideration; can the torque loss be favorable compared to the effects resulting from a shift in the engines efficiency curve? Noah Seidman (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Overall the modification of a vehicles gas mileage involves attempting to keep an engines operating condition in the most efficienct region of its curve.

For an electrolyzer you can make a quick comparison using the same chart. For efficiency of a vehicle based hydrogen generator you'll use a ratio of hydrogen power produced over power input from the fuel:

$\mathbf{\eta}_{H_2}=\frac {P_{H_2}}{P_{fuel}}$

The trouble with an electrolyzer in a vehicle application is really two fold. On the one hand there is a large power requirement to produce the hydrogen in a process that is not altogether efficient. On the other hand is a poor efficiency in producing the electrical power needed. The former I think is clear enough. The latter is pretty much defined by engine losses and alternator losses because the electricity must be produced by the engine. In this case the denominator would be the energy required to produce the hydrogen divided by the product of the efficiency of the alternator and the efficiency of the engine, or:

$P_{fuel}=\frac{P_{electolysis}}{\mathbf{\eta}_{alt} \cdot \mathbf{\eta}_{eng}}$

This is invariably a large number: If you assume electrolysis is 100% efficient, the alternator 80% efficient, and the engine 20% efficient, then a vehicle electrolysis hydrogen generator is at best 16% efficient. Its performance would be well to the left on the chart you linked to, perhaps vanishingly small, or perhaps detrimental. Tjcognata (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Even under impossible efficiencies at best the results will be small, and substantially less effective than using a more efficient means of hydrogen production (ie. a hydrogen reformer). In any case the added weight of the hydrogen production tech, and inevitable maintenance requirements can deem inviability as compared to avoiding system complexity. Thank you, this information is invaluable. I will approach technologies in a more realistic way now. Considering my current understanding of things I am even more frustrated with the widespread scams and misunderstanding of things on the internet. They throw around the term efficiency (mileage) like its nothing and do not consider a couple of simple equations and other things. Noah Seidman (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of limiting the throttle to prevent unnecessary acceleration. This would be a cheap modification to increase gas mileage. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This can be coupled with tuning the ECU so the engine operates at a greater efficiency at lower rather than higher RPMs. This is where a CVT transmission comes in; fixing the RPMs to the most efficient operating point, and varying the gear ratios to accelerate, rather than fixing the gear ratio and increasing power output to achieve acceleration. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

ok I am kind of new to this wikipedia and the hydrogen fuel enhancement I have been learning about a lot my father and law does it and as far as performance goes My 98 350 chevy runs great on it and I am geting about 40 or so miles to the gallon but we put the o2 sensor on a battery switch to run lean or run right depending on were i am driving city or highway or just somewhere in between my point is that I have seen these things work great and not so great its all in how much it is maintained and if you do the install yourself if the enhancer is producing a lot of gas or overheats to I think that when maybe some kind of new page or this page who ever wrote this page has done a great job but I think a section about results and maintaining and the fact that a lot of research should be done and maybe someone could make a page with a lot of information on it just the facts about what it draws off a battery maybe the fact that a lot of people are looking in to this and do not actually understand it and thats the biggest problem with it

I don't know where to start in a response to this. Noah Seidman (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

ok first it is possible to do so that should be said but it should be made very clear what it is how it works maintaining a cell for example a lot of sights say that it takes more energy than it makes well to that I say so what it saves me more money than just useing gas so I think it should be explain that the unit runs off the cars battery or alternator and depending on the amps taken by the unit the alternator can handle it in most cars also the mythbuster show where they try to run a car off one of these they did not but salt or baking soda in to the thing and they also left no place for air to get in the intake and maybe that should be explain also the thing about haveing to mess with the o2 sensor should be explained and also how people are geting ripped off should be explain I saw someone talking about how heavy a booster is should come in to your thought if to get one or not why is that they are not that heavy maybe if your a race car yeah but they shave every lbs they can —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.160.117 (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How the system functions is already explained in the article, and with regard to using an electrolyzer the results will be comparable to [5]. Because energy output of the engine is being consumed the results will be greatly diminished as compared to the numbers in the figure. Depending on the efficiency of the electrolyzer results may actually be negative, therefore the design of the electrolyzer is of the utmost importance to achieve any results whatsoever. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As so clearly pointed out above: If you assume electrolysis is 100% efficient, the alternator 80% efficient, and the engine 20% efficient, then a vehicle electrolysis hydrogen generator is at best 16% efficient. Even with impossible electrolysis efficiency the net effect is substantially limited by the efficiency of the other stages.

You mention oxygen sensor modification. A positive offset voltage can be applied to a narrowband oxygen sensor signal to force the engine to operate slightly leaner than normal. A positive offset voltage forces the signal from the oxygen sensor to be lower, which is the lean direction for narrowband oxygen sensors. Much leaner conditions, consistent with the purpose of a hydrogen fuel enhancement system, require ECU modification or replacement. If the signal from the oxygen sensor is forced too low the ECU will enter "open loop" mode and no longer use the oxygen sensor to vary the air/fuel ratios. There are pro and cons to working with the OEM design of the ECU. Also in open loop mode there are a variety of modifications to other sensors that can vary the air/fuel ratios further. Although in open loop mode a vehicle with an OBD2 system will not pass EPA emissions inspection, which is a major drawback of operating a vehicle in open loop mode. Overall ECU modification or replacement is the best course of action to achieve maximum results.

I have a car that went from geting 18 mpg to 62 mpg and I run a on off switch on mine for the o2 sensor and I think its spupid that I obd2 system will not pass when it is getting better emissions I know your right that it wont pass but its still stupid thats why i have a on off I just want to know one thing why do you say its only 16% at best a car amp with a radio will eat more juice than this thing my point is that its free energy to the person driving its useing what you have to your benefit your alternator is already running. so its energy already being used —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.135.66 (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Increasing gas mileage is about attempting to keep an engine in its most efficient state of operation. Also the alternator produces different amounts of current based on the load placed upon it; in turn requiring increased quantities of energy to turn it. Otherwise I cannot comment further for lack of a clear point in your statement. Also periods "." are helpful in segmenting sentences from one another :) Noah Seidman (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On another note "free" and "energy" never belong in the same sentence. Even if someone is paying your electric bill for you, its still not free ;) Noah Seidman (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Gibbs free energy is a very common term used when discussing chemical energy. Chemical energy such as the obtained from a hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuel. Just letting you know the free energy can be used properly even if it wasn't here.--OMCV (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Free with regard to economics. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Efficiency

To add to this point the electrolysis could be at most 70% efficient if the cathode was made of platinum and the anode made of a platinum alloy. In reality the efficiency is much lower add to this that making these electrodes of any other known material will result in a much lower efficiency. I don't know what materials they use for the electrodes in most of these HFE systems but I expect its much less expensive than platinum. In all likely hood these systems are lucky if they get around 20% efficiency. So using Tjcognata's other numbers, system such as this could get maybe 3% efficiency, but that is very optimistic.

In some ways thats a good thing. If these systems really did what they claim it would be greatly detrimental to the engine efficiency. First, the fuel/engine are designed to burn at specific rates. Traditionally the challenge has been to slow down the fuels burn rate to prevent engine knocking. If a faster burn was desired the formula of gasoline could be easily modified. Second a cooler burning engine is less efficient as described by the Carnot cycle. Most research towards raising efficiency in piston driven engines is to find materials that can withstand higher temperatures than steel, such as ceramics.

Again Noah it would be good if you didn't make so many small edits. Think about what your going to say and then make a single edit. This will allows Tjcognata and other to assist in achieving an educated consensus. As it stands you are editing this page as you see fit without collaboration in a way that is difficult to follow.--OMCV (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I will remove any reference to use of an electrolyzer until more can be discussed and a general consensus reached. Noah Seidman (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding electrolyzer efficiencies. A 20% efficient electrolyzer has been designed poorly, and definitely neglects important design considerations. I detail the equations for a series cell electrolyzer on my user page. I also discuss an analysis of the equations. There is no reason an electrolyzer should operate at 20% efficiency. The main efficiency loss is temperature resulting from the reaction. By reducing the power delivered to each cell, as prescribed in the equations, the temperature of the reaction can be substantially mitigated. The addition of subsequent cells can be implemented to maintain required gas production. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus there is an interesting phenomena that occurs in series cell electrolyzer using a capacitor to limit current. Considerations of this are discussed. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Platinum can be used for the plates, in addition to nano technology solutions to increase surface area. In either case the rate of the reaction is improved, but neither will resolve the greatest area of efficiency loss (temperature). Also an electrolyzer designed using electrodes is detrimentally antiquated. Noah Seidman (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

When you mention reformulating gasoline, or different materials for the engine you are considering a design perspective. Aftermarket components are designed to modify existing technology considering existing fuels that are available. Since a complete re-design is decided upon from within corporate boardrooms this is a moot point to discuss here. Aftermarket technology is a big market, with much room for new products that are designed efficiently, and effectively to achieve particular results. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

When you say "these systems" you are referring to the scams. The scams are using scientific language to manipulate a concept that has realistic scientific underpinnings. We are on the same page regarding the scams, but my purpose is to establish the scientific foundation for what will work versus fraudulent marketing. Even if using an electrolyzer cannot increase gas mileage, or is detrimental to gas mileage, there still is potential application for pollution mitigation. Running an engine ultra lean has a variety of pollution mitigating effects that are typically dealt with using a catalytic converter to establish vehicle simplicity. Vehicle simplicity is considerable regarding maintenance requirements, but from an aftermarket perspective there are many consumers that purchase technologies that increase the complexity of their vehicle in exchange for achieving a particluar result. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Overall from what I am learning here, an excellent aftermarket fuel enhancement system would include hydrogen reformer, water injection, and ECU modification technologies. The combination of these three components, combined with professional installation, and ECU tuning will have a marked effect on a vehicles fuel economy (efficiency). Also using a fuel vaporization system instead of injectors or a carburetter, combined with direct injection could further increase the potential mileage of a quantity of fuel. These concepts, considering published research, can be marketed as an aftermarket fuel enhancement system in a non fraudulent way. Fuel enhancement is not fraud, but it is invoked often in fraudulent marketing tactics. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My point was not for you to remove the discussion of electrolysis but to talk about it in a realistic way. You still don't understand the efficiency of electrolysis very well. The DOE 2010 goal for the efficiency of water electrolysis without platinum is 75% at 1 A/cm². This goal has not been meet in a academic research setting let alone a commercial technological setting. I don't know what the efficiencies of commercial systems in use now are, but I suspect 20% was generous.

It worth distinguishing current efficiency (what you call Current Analysis) form potential efficiency (what you call Voltage Analysis). These systems have very high current efficiency since every electron that goes in takes part in the reaction, this is not true for all electrolysis reactions. The electrolysis has significance losses in potential efficiencies which means the electrons used have a higher energy than the thermodynamic reduction potentials of the reaction dictate they should. This sort of loss is called an overpotential, which can be described as the solution displaying increased resistance and thus heating the solution. The greatest loss in the electrolysis of water causes the heating of the solution, it is not caused by the heating of the solution. It would be useful for you to learn the nature of electrochemical overpotential if you are interested in this subject since that is the standard language to discuss these losses. The voltage analysis discussion you have on your page deals only with solution resistance overpotential but none of the other overpotentials the cell experiences are discussed. Here is a brief discussion to hopefully provide a clearer pictures of how things work.

Limiting current as you suggest won't help since current is proportional to electrons which is proportional to the amount of hydrogen produced. It desirable to pass a lot of current and pass it well. Its true raising the current density (A/cm²) reduces efficiency by a several different forms overpotential most notably a concentration overpotential and solution resistance overpotential. The first can be partially but not completely mitigated by stirring the solution while the second can be partially but not completely mitigated with an effective electrolyte. It worth repeating that every time I say overpotential it means extra voltage applied to the cell that doesn't result in the desired reaction but rather heating of the cell. Heating the cell raises the solution resistance overpotetial but that is by no means the greatest loss. The greatest loss relates to the platinum electrodes I mentioned. The platinum effects the rate of the reaction as well as the potential at which it occurs by acting as an electrocatalyst and reducing the reaction overpotential. The electrolysis of water is notorious for having a high reaction overpotential for all known electrode metrials. Since electrodes used in most if not all commercial systems won't use platinum, platinum on carbon, nanostructured materials, they are relegated to using less efficient materials. As a result the reaction overpotential will result in a cell efficiency well below 70% before all the other overpotentials in the system are considered, all of which heat the solution.

I would be greatly entertained if you could describe an electrolysis device that doesn't have electrodes, antiquated as they are.

Finally wikipedia is not the place for you synthesis ideas and come up with your ideal after market engine modification. You can put the full "list of devices tested under EPA Gas Saving and Emission Reduction Devices Evaluation" on an engine and I'm sure it would be "excellent" but this isn't the place for that.--OMCV (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Description of an electrolysis device that does not have electrodes: Overpotential is mitigated by utilizing large banks of series cells. voltage division occurs, reducing the individual voltage across each cell. By adding more cells the voltage across each individual cell is linearly reduced. A voltage drop results in less Electric power delivered to the cell mitigating the reaction rate. By implemented a series cell arrangement power can be consumed in a controlled fashion mitigating heat. The whole point is the addition and subtraction of cells varies the voltage across each individual cell, and a capacitor can be used in series to vary current flow; this makes the system tunable. There is more control over the reaction in a series cell arrangement as compared to alternatives. Such a design provides precise control of the electrolytic reaction, thus minimizing heat production while maximizing the gas production of each individual cell. If the quantity of cells is large enough the temperature of the reaction can become relatively low. The history of the series cell arrangement is discussed briefly in the oxyhydrogen article. My synthesis of ideas ends here for now.

As for the article I have removed some more unreferenced material to improve NPOV. Also, while I appreciate Wikipedia for the articles themselves another benefit I appreciate is writing on the talk pages for reasons of the license agreement posted on my User Page. Noah Seidman (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear every cell is comprised of two electrodes an anode and cathode. What you describe is a system with many electrodes rather than the minimum two electrodes. The proposal that the voltage is linearly reduced is impossible past a certain point. That point is the fundamental reduction potential required to electrolyze water or a voltage difference of 1.23 V between the anode(s) and cathode(s). Actually the potential difference is even greater than that due to overpotentials discussed above. Your series system will reduce some solution resistance overpotential but its not clear if that will be a linear effect. Your confusion might stem from the fact that when a fuel cell is put in series as a "stack" the potential increases in increments of 1.23 V (minus overpotentials) for every cell added. This is due to the fundamental reduction potential of the reverse reaction, the oxidation of hydrogen.

Potential is another word for voltage, therefore over potential is applying too much voltage.

A series cell arrangement is modeled by resistors in series and is described by standard electrical circuit analysis. The addition of subsequent cells must reduce the voltage across each individual cell according to voltage division. The linear reduction of voltage is a result of simplifying the voltage division equations as I show explicitly on my user page. In a series cell arrangement the main voltage potential is applied across the entire stack of cells (outer two plates), this results in a voltage drop across each cell (resistor) producing "virtual grounds" where one side of the plate behaves as the cathode and the other side of the plate behaves as the anode. From published research 3 volts is the optimal voltage, rather than 1.23 as described by the chemical analysis of hydrogen and oxygen. In electrolyzers the voltage is applied rather than produced, therefore the voltage can be varied depending on the considerations discussed above.

A fuel cell is a whole other ballgame. The addition of cells will obviously increase voltage because fuel cells produce voltage as a result of the chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen. You probably know more about fuel cells than I. Fuel cell analysis is not applicable to electrolyzer design as it is a distinct technology, and the reaction is opposite resulting in different considerations that are dealt with nicely by Ballard Power Systems.

This is the intersection of electrical engineering (or physics) and chemistry. For example a good water electrolysis systems requires a variety of op-amps to operate. I don't know how op-amps work well enough to talk about them on wikipedia so I don't talk about them. Its enough for me to know their output so I can talk about what I do understand which is the electrode solution interface. I'm not sure how much chemistry you have taken but the material I've discussed is briefly covered in most college level general chemistry courses. To discuss the subject as you are doing it might be worth while to not only get a foundation in general chemistry but take a more advanced electrochemistry class.--OMCV (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and I agree regarding additional chemistry classes; although the knowledge required to analyze electrolyzers was provided thoroughly in my Undergraduate Electrical Engineering studies. To elaborate on the electrode solution interface: the most important thing is preventing hydrogen and oxygen bubbles from attaching themselves to the plates because of their charge. When the bubbles attach themselves to the plates the surface area of plate is reduced thus diminishing the rate of reaction. By making the plate spacing large enough, lets say 3/4 of an inch, bubble attachment is mitigated. Also by using a small frequency, 60 hertz is the easiest, the bubbles have a period of time to depart from the plates and rise from the solution. A small frequency and proper plate spacing will effectively keep the reaction from unnecessarily diminishing.

Overall because the power delivered to each cell can be controlled, heat production can be controlled. Therefore efficiency can be controlled. To generate increased quantities of gas more series cell arrangements are implemented. Since standard electrode arrangements do not have this control, even with sophisticated circuitry, the series cell design is increasingly versatile, and substantially easier to achieve particular efficiencies by having complete control of heat production.

You say "For example a good water electrolysis systems requires a variety of op-amps to operate." In industry op-amps are a crucial component in circuits designed to control power delivery. These circuits are unnecessary with regard to the series cell design. Power is not controlled by circuitry, but rather by the physical properties of capacitors, and the electrical circuit theory of voltage division. Efficient electrolyzer design is my specialty, which I studied when I was still in school, and discussed in great length with my Engineering and other course professors. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Since chemistry is the study of reactions, the only chemical consideration in an electrolyzer is the materials used. The rest of an electrolyzer is electrical engineering, circuit theory, and power management. If the DOE or industry cannot achieve over 75%, without platinum, they are using the wrong design. Heat production is completely controllable in series cell electrolyzers, therefore efficiency can be maximized. In a properly designed series cell electrolyzer temperature production is relatively small: over room temperature, but no where near 212 Fahrenheit. I have worked with and have two commercial grade electrolyzers that operate at 160 degree Fahrenheit, without use of a cooling system. From an engineering perspective I see no reason a series cell electrolyzer cannot be designed to operate slightly above room temperature. With proper power management, achieved in the designing of a series cell electrolyzer, overpotentials can be controlled. The goal of any good engineering design is to have as much control as possible. Noah Seidman (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize your idea is based on the resistor model what you don't realize is that that model brakes down in this situation for the reasons I've already described. I don't know where you got that value that electrolysis of water operate best at 3.0 V but if that is the case then there is an additional 1.77 V being added that isn't required for the electrolysis of water. That means the process is 41% efficient and 59% of that 3.0 V ends up as heat and nothing you described minimizes that. Your series arrangement doesn't take care of this resistance since its not resulting form a phenomenon similar to a resistor but rather a reaction overpotential that behaves very differently. Half reactions are not resistors they are in someways similar to a semiconductors with no leakage. Between the two half reactions 1.23 V needs to be applied or no current can be passed. Sadly this not the whole story these PN junctions need extra voltage to be applied before they pass current, this extra voltage is a part of this so called PN junction but is lost as heat. This extra current is mostly reaction overpotential. This analogy isn't perfect I'm just trying to find something that you might understand.

I was referring to 3 volts for an electrolyzer not a fuel cell; too little voltage and no current flows, to much and there is overpotential losses. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Over extending an idea is a common folly. Remember that there is a half reaction at each electrode that is very much chemistry and that is why you are dumping in an extra 1.67 V for the reasons I already described. Clearly your EE did not cover solution phenomenon well or we wouldn't be have this exchange. The "heat production" you mention is resulting from various overpotentials a subject you have clearly never studied. Your misapplying what you know, hit the books and do some learning.

Your right surface area is the name of the game and thus current density is described with an area component, A/cm². The series cells you are describing hardly new and have been around since the beginning of galvanic and electrolytic cells. Your description of bubbles at electrodes, their bonding, and the reaction rates is all described incorrectly leaving me with no way to respond.

I would beg to say that the good people at DOE and in industry have a very good understanding of their trade. It might be worth learning what others know before offering a solution that was considered a long time ago. Please contact your professors and test you ideas with them and then contact the chemists at you university and check you ideas with them. Don't use wikipedia as a platform to express or substantiate your original untested ideas.

Fuel cells are very relevant to electrolysis since the half reactions are the microscopic reverse of each other. A fuel cell anode catalyst makes a good cathode in water electrolysis and a water electrolysis anode catalyst makes for a good cathode catalyst in a fuel cell.

As for your use of "...capacitors, and the electrical circuit theory of voltage division." Op-Amps are little more than a special combination of capacitors, resistors, grounds, and what not. Your design may simplify some of this but it doesn't change the same basic fundamental design. More importantly this isn't the place to talk about your design for the reason I just mentioned.--OMCV (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This was an interesting debate. Also this is Yull Brown's design not my own. My description of a series cell electrolyzer was merely for your entertainment. The ensuing discussion was a repercussion of your comments. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Phew - this page sort of exploded. Noah - OMCV does have a few good points. I'm not an electrical engineer, so I am not going to weigh upon technical details. I will say this however - and you should take it as generally useful, not as a rebuke or any such thing. All people have a very strong tendency to marry an idea to themselves. This leads one to be very single-minded and defensive. It is more practical to approach an idea critically: you apply concepts and technology more efficiently by understanding their limitations and can save yourself from unnecessary journeys down dead ends. Ah - I can bring in a nice classical analogy to illustrate this too. :). I have read Frankenstein many many times, and I've done so because there is a lesson there for me that I need to be reminded of rather often. Single-mindedness is blinding - of consequences and of shortcomings. Tjcognata (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I am relatively diversified and do not marry myself to one particular technology. My primary interest is open source software (Linux ect..), and website design. Although I do find hydrogen a fascinating subject. I am aware of the shortcoming of electrolysis, and consider other more efficient means of production in most of my concepts. I agree that a balanced approach to things is important. Also, instead of concluding a technology is inviable because of shortcomings I prefer to contemplate the circumstances in which a technology remains viable considering the shortcomings. Noah Seidman (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh - there is also research which produces and separates hydrogen from water using a fuel cell. I read about this interesting work a few weeks ago. I forget whether there are claims of better efficiency, but certainly membrane separation of hydrogen from oxygen is extraordinarily useful. I'll drop in a link if I can find it online. Tjcognata (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added "cleanup" and "cleanup-jargon" tags

This article needs some serious work, so I added the {{cleanup}} and {{cleanup-jargon}} tags. There are problems all over this article, so allow me to use one paragraph as an example of the broader problems:

Under most loads near stoichiometric air/fuel mixtures are still required for normal acceleration, although under idle conditions, reduced loads, and moderate acceleration Hydrogen "addition" in combination with lean burn engine conditions "can guarantee a regular running" of the engine "with many advantages in terms of emissions levels and fuel consumption".^[1]

Yes, that appears to be one whole sentence. I guess there's either supposed to be a period before the word "Hydrogen", which would make the previous part a sentence fragment, or there's supposed to be a comma before the word "Hydrogen", which means it's incorrectly capitalized.
Also, there is an excessive use of quotation marks throughout the article. I suppose the quoted text in the example above comes from the reference, but there is no good reason for quoting it that way so it just looks odd and confusingly unnecessary. The text in the article should be based on the references and only use direct quotes when necessary.
More importantly, jargon like "stoichiometric air/fuel mixtures" needs to be clarified. The layman will not know what that means. The wording could be clearer too. At first glance it looks like it's saying, "Under most loads that are near stoichiometric (etc...)", but I think what is meant is, "Under most loads, near-stoichiometric (etc...)", correct?
And worse yet, there is no summary explanation of what that paragraph means in layman's terms. Honestly, most of the "Hydrogen injection" section after the first paragraph, with the possible exception of the final paragraph, seems unimportant and unnecessary; though I can't tell if that's because it really is unimportant or if it's simply written poorly and thus does not make the importance clear.
And that's just one paragraph in one section. Much of the rest of the article suffers from the same problems. Honestly, I was hoping the article would tell me a bit about the current state of science in hydrogen fuel enhancement and how practical it is. Instead I found a rambling collection of oddly inserted and poorly connected quotes. The article was hard to read and not particularly informative, IMO. Hopefully you will take this as constructive criticism that is meant to improve the article. I would try to correct it myself, but this is not one of my areas of expertise.
Oh, and one side note, I put back the "Government" section which was supposedly removed for "NPOV" reasons, but I didn't see anything "POV" about it and the information looked relevant, so I undid the removal. -- Hi Ev 15:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Start-Class Environment articles

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

Talk:Hydrogen fuel enhancement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A Published Paper With Quantitative Results

[edit] Reliability of sources

[edit] Reliable Sources

[edit] SAE Articles

[edit] EPA Info

[edit] hythane hithane

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Efficiency.png

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Efficiency.png

[edit] Fraud

[edit] article cleanup

[edit] Efficiency

[edit] Added "cleanup" and "cleanup-jargon" tags

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search