Why on-board hydrogen generators won't boost your mileage
by Sam Abuelsamid on Aug 4th 2008 at 11:50AM 
Historically whenever gas prices have gone up, charlatans have come out of the woodwork offering drivers all manner of devices that are claimed to provide dramatic reductions in fuel consumption. From magnets that are clamped to fuel lines, to assorted vacuum advance devices, and intake vortex generators and magical carburetors none of these have actually been demonstrated to work. Many of these old school devices can still be found, but one of the most popular new devices is the on-board hydrogen generator and injection system. The basic premise is that injecting hydrogen into the intake stream will displace some of the gasoline required, reducing both gasoline consumption and emissions. Just have hydrogen and injecting it will actually achieve this result since the hydrogen burns and produces only water and trace amounts of NOx (although much lower than gasoline or diesel engines). Burning more hydrogen means less gasoline is consumed. Easy right? Not so fast there buddy! Where does that hydrogen come from? The marketers out there are selling on-board hydrogen generators which are claimed to provide enough hydrogen to reduce gas consumption by 30-40 percent or more. Is this plausible? Not even close. Read on after the jump to find out why.
[Sources: Wikipedia, Hypertextbook.com, answers.com]
Electrolysis of water is a process that's been known for over two centuries. It's not complicated, just stick a pair of electrodes into water and pass a current through them. Oxygen bubbles will be produced on one electrode and hydrogen on the other. Unfortunately as with all such processes it isn't 100 percent efficient. Some of the electrical energy put into the system is lost as heat. The process has gotten better over the years but it is still about 70 percent efficient at best.
If you convert 1 US gallon of water to hydrogen by electrolysis it will yield 420.6 g of hydrogen (H2 gas). If the electrolysis is 100% efficient it will take 16.821 kWh of electricity to crack 1 gallon of water. That 420 g of H2 only has an energy density of 14 kWh (33.3 kWh/kg * .4206). That's 16% more energy to crack the water than you get out of it. At 70 percent efficiency that means it would take about 24 kWh of input energy to produce hydrogen with 14 kWh of energy output.
To electrolyze water on the fly means the energy has to come from the engine via the alternator. Whatever electricity the alternator produces has to come from mechanical energy to drive it via the belt from the engine. That means the 24 kWh of energy will ultimately come from the engine while only 14 kWh will get put back in. As a result of this parasitic loss, on board hydrogen generation is an energy negative process that will actually reduce the total fuel efficiency of the vehicle because the load on the engine will be increased.
The only way that the fuel consumption of the vehicle can be reduced by hydrogen injection is to produce the hydrogen outside of the vehicle and store it as a gas on board. The total energy requirement doesn't change but off board generation opens up the possibility of using renewable sources like solar and wind to power the electrolysis.
With all of those companies selling on board electrolysis systems claiming to reduce fuel consumption there have even been news reports claiming these systems work. The answer to this is cheating. Ask any veteran NASCAR mechanic about places to store extra fuel on board a car. The same thing is being done by these scam artists. They are using stored hydrogen somewhere on board to make it seem as though their systems are beneficial.
Hydrogen injection is fine as a stop-gap but the hydrogen must be produced outside the vehicle. If home electrolysis systems or hydrogen filling stations are readily available, existing cars could fairly easily be retro-fitted with injection systems to reduce gasoline consumption. In India they are already experimenting with vehicles fueled by hythane (a blend of natural gas and hydrogen) but that is produced and sold that way.
The bottom line is don't waste your money on these devices. Want to save money and use less fuel? Drive less, consolidate trips, drive less aggressively.
If you convert 1 US gallon of water to hydrogen by electrolysis it will yield 420.6 g of hydrogen (H2 gas). If the electrolysis is 100% efficient it will take 16.821 kWh of electricity to crack 1 gallon of water. That 420 g of H2 only has an energy density of 14 kWh (33.3 kWh/kg * .4206). That's 16% more energy to crack the water than you get out of it. At 70 percent efficiency that means it would take about 24 kWh of input energy to produce hydrogen with 14 kWh of energy output.
To electrolyze water on the fly means the energy has to come from the engine via the alternator. Whatever electricity the alternator produces has to come from mechanical energy to drive it via the belt from the engine. That means the 24 kWh of energy will ultimately come from the engine while only 14 kWh will get put back in. As a result of this parasitic loss, on board hydrogen generation is an energy negative process that will actually reduce the total fuel efficiency of the vehicle because the load on the engine will be increased.
The only way that the fuel consumption of the vehicle can be reduced by hydrogen injection is to produce the hydrogen outside of the vehicle and store it as a gas on board. The total energy requirement doesn't change but off board generation opens up the possibility of using renewable sources like solar and wind to power the electrolysis.
With all of those companies selling on board electrolysis systems claiming to reduce fuel consumption there have even been news reports claiming these systems work. The answer to this is cheating. Ask any veteran NASCAR mechanic about places to store extra fuel on board a car. The same thing is being done by these scam artists. They are using stored hydrogen somewhere on board to make it seem as though their systems are beneficial.
Hydrogen injection is fine as a stop-gap but the hydrogen must be produced outside the vehicle. If home electrolysis systems or hydrogen filling stations are readily available, existing cars could fairly easily be retro-fitted with injection systems to reduce gasoline consumption. In India they are already experimenting with vehicles fueled by hythane (a blend of natural gas and hydrogen) but that is produced and sold that way.
The bottom line is don't waste your money on these devices. Want to save money and use less fuel? Drive less, consolidate trips, drive less aggressively.
Reader Comments (Page 7 of 7)
Chris M 11:50PM (9/27/2008)
Wrong. The mechanical load for driving the alternator varies with the power output. When the voltage drops the regulator increases the power output from the alternator to recharge the battery, and it reduces the power output to match the electrical demand when the voltage is up and battery is fully charged.
A properly regulated alternator DOES NOT PRODUCE ANY EXCESS POWER! If it did, the battery would get damaged from overcharging.
Jim Ott 7:36PM (9/24/2008)
I've read the article and the comments and I agree with the ones who say that even the simple ones, i.e., hydrogen generators work. Obviously the author has never seen one or never tried to assemble one. Tell me Sam have you ever built one? Why not try one before you make a fool of yourself? All the best, jim from www.Tapwaterforgas.com
Reply
Adi 8:12AM (9/29/2008)
Hi folks,
Yes I am new to the forum. I would like to say that I followed a NASA diagram for a vapor injection system. For about $10.00 I added a water bottle with an aquarium air stone and a plastic shutoff valve to my son’s car. With no other adjustments his mileage went from 31 mpg to 39 mpg the first week. He does not have a "light foot". In fact we often tease him about his NASCAR potential (heh heh). I have since found the same concept on many performance auto sites. Back in the 70's there was a device called the Gas Mizer. I laughed at it then only to find out now that it is common knowledge for many race enthusist. My neighbor who races dragsters has been using it for years. Apparently the water vapor causes the gas to burn smoother which is supposed to be the equivalent of higher octane prevenying premature detonation (knocking). My son says that his car runs smoother now and has more power.
I have been researching the HHO generators. I believe that with a thorough examination of Stanley Meyer's generator many more of you may believe that a new process for generating H2 O2 may have been developed.
1. His death was very suspicious.
2. He did have government contracts to develop his system.
3. He had just completed negotiations to acquire a huge tract of land for a research facility.
4. His friends and neighbors support his cloak and dagger claims, he was often visited by men in limousines wearing turbans and robes, often shortly followed by Military vehicles.
5. Many noteworthy individuals, scientist and professors have agreed that his devices worked.
6. His patents were approved by actual testing and analysis.
7. His conviction of fraud was a highly irregular and contested case and they never disproved his case.
8. Many of the processes he described that were called bad science are now recognized as common knowledge (resonant cavities in microwave ovens, ionic wind, LC resonant circuits, etc...)
9. His system does not violate any laws, he said so himself. He has simply developed a process for extracting energy from a source. Gasoline must be processed and refined before being used as a fuel. He claims to have found a way to refine H2O into H2 and O2 with a very low power input. Not electrolysis!
Many scientist and inventors are ridiculed until there is a broad base of understanding to support their work.
I don't need to understand all about electricity to use my toaster oven. I don't need to understand machine language programs to surf the internet. I don't have to understand organic chemistry to eat a good meal.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the claim that HHO generators can improve mileage. I am constructing a unit now for further testing. If it works, great! If not....ok. For whatever reason it seems to be working for many people. What if they have found a true process but we just haven't discovered the actual mechanism and explanation for why it works. If it works (?) let's find out why! And share it with others.
I have a friend who is an electrical engineer. He has one on his car and tested it on a vacation from Virginia to Ohio. He has an older Toyota Camry. His mileage almost doubled. I know him well. If it is working for him, I need to try it. He is no scammer. Just a regular guy who likes to experiment.
By the way, I am a Mechanical Engineer with over 30 years experience and several degrees. I know that there are many phenomena that are odd and cannot be explained very well, like quantum physics and politics or my wife’s thinking process (smile).
Please, let's keep an open mind and investigate the phenomena we may all be in for a pleasant surprise.
After all remember this Quote by Albert Einstein?
"There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. " "Atom Energy Hope is Spiked By Einstein / Efforts at Loosing Vast Force is Called Fruitless," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (29 December 1934)
Oops got a little carried away....
Adi
Reply
Chris M 2:44AM (10/14/2008)
Lets examine those Stan Meyer claims:
- 1. His death was very suspicious.
No. The coroner did a thorough examination, death was due to a ruptured cerebral aneurism - an artery swelled up and burst in his skull, the bleeding caused pressure and damage to his brain. It is a natural cause of death. Those claiming "poison" haven't examined the body, have done no toxicology tests, have no evidence whatsoever.
- 2. He did have government contracts to develop his system.
And your evidence is? Simply because he claimed he did? Scam artists like Meyers are known for their big lies.
- 3. He had just completed negotiations to acquire a huge tract of land for a research facility.
A "huge tract of land" isn't required for research. More likely, it was a way to invest all the loot.
- 4. His friends and neighbors support his cloak and dagger claims, he was often visited by men in limousines wearing turbans and robes, often shortly followed by Military vehicles.
Again, a big lie to promote the scam. Those "friends" could be shills, or the "visits" were staged. When Arab oil officials visit the US, they usually wear neatly tailored suits, not robes.
- 5. Many noteworthy individuals, scientist and professors have agreed that his devices worked.
"Worked" as in passing electricity through water makes hydrogen that can fuel an engine - but since it takes 14 TIMES THE TOTAL ENGINE POWER OUTPUT TO PRODUCE ENOUGH HYDROGEN TO RUN THE ENGINE, it cannot even run itself, let alone power a car. It didn't work as a "water powered car".
- 6. His patents were approved by actual testing and analysis.
That's not how the patent process works. The Patent Office does not require a working model except for "perpetual motion" devices, thus does no actual testing. The analysis is to see if someone else might have patented it, and see if the design appears to be functional. Practicality is not an issue. Meyers patent assumes a battery powering his electrolysis cell to fuel the engine, which technically would work for a short time until the battery ran down. At 7% efficiency, it's a really silly idea, but still potentially patentable. His patent application does not mention his claim that it is self-powering, as that would have caused a denial of patent.
- 7. His conviction of fraud was a highly irregular and contested case and they never disproved his case.
The fraud was that he took money from developers and customers with promises to deliver the devices, and he didn't deliver. It was his customers that brought the case, they got tired of his endless excuses, and he was convicted in an open court of law. It is a straightforward breach of contract. Meyers was the one that couldn't disprove the case.
- 8. Many of the processes he described that were called bad science are now recognized as common knowledge (resonant cavities in microwave ovens, ionic wind, LC resonant circuits, etc...)
Sorry, wrong again. Resonance has a long and well known history in science, it has NEVER been considered "bad science".
- 9. His system does not violate any laws, he said so himself.
You're taking the word of a convicted fraud?
- He has simply developed a process for extracting energy from a source. Gasoline must be processed and refined before being used as a fuel. He claims to have found a way to refine H2O into H2 and O2 with a very low power input. Not electrolysis!
Using an electrical current to split chemical bonds is "electrolysis", whether it is DC or pulsed DC or AC doesn't matter, it IS electrolysis. Refining oil is simply a process of separation of a mixture of already flammable substance, no chemical bonds need to be broken. Splitting water molecules is not a simple separation, the chemical bonds between H and O must be broken, and that takes a lot of energy, 14 times more energy than can be recovered by burning in an internal combustion engine. Meyers cell produced a large volume of gas with a low power input, but that is only because hydrogen is a very low density "lighter than air" gas. A full gallon of that "electrolysis gas", uncompressed, is the energy equivalent of just a droplet of gasoline.
"Improving fuel economy" was not Meyers claim, he claimed to run without any fuel but water.
The fuel economy improvements reported by HHO enthusiasts are due to reduced performance and the placebo effect.
Adi 8:11AM (9/29/2008)
Just another quick thought...
Does anyone here really believe that our governmant and business leaders. especially car companies are really telling us the whole story? Does anyone really believe that they are not witholding information? Does anyone really believe that automotive manufacturers are making cars as fuel efficient as they can?
If so I think that you are either very naive, or do not understand business economics at all. Companies will do only what they can percieve will result in profit. The government will do what it has to to maintain power.
Honestly, if you want to understand basic human nature, read the paper or watch the news. Sadly too many people are basically selfish, self centered, envious, greedy or ambivalent. We see it all around us every day everywhere we look.
Oh, by the way, I have a bridge for sale, some watches, and some prime development property....heh heh heh
Adi
Reply
knowsnothing 7:58PM (9/27/2008)
if this article is correct then putting a high output stero system in your car or truck would lower your gas miliage as well. because the stero would be drawing more energy, which then would put more of a strain on the engine.. and i know for a fact that it doesn't effect your gas milliage so why couldn't you put an hho generator on your car?
Reply
Jason 4:11PM (10/08/2008)
Isn't a hydogen cell the same as a cold air intake system for a vehicle? The reason why I ask that is because that all these websites say that you have to keep it away from the engine heat.
Reply
Chris M 1:41AM (10/14/2008)
The electrolysis cells being promoted are not part of the cold air intake, but they do connect to it and put the hydrogen and oxygen in there. The reason why they should be kept away from heat is that hydrogen is very easy to ignite, and some of these electrolysis cells have plastic parts that can be damaged by excessive heat.
Sean Morris 5:35AM (10/09/2008)
The argument seems flawed in that the belt (engine-to-alternator) that spins the mechanism (presumably magnets around or within a coil) and thereby manufactures the electricity inside the alternator is rotating the same regardless of the electrical drain. Therefore mechanical energy really isn't a factor. Granted the extra stress from on-demand hydrogen will increase demand on the flow of electricity and thereby reduce the life of your alternator but this can be managed with a simple amplitude control circuit (pulse width modulator). Internal combustion engines run on fuel and spark not so much on electricity. The alternator may work harder to produce electricity but not your engine... As to the weight of such units - Well, I bet most of us have three or four times the same weight worth of useless junk in our cars at any given time...
Reply
Chris M 1:12AM (10/14/2008)
A car alternator doesn't use permanent magnets, the rotor is a multipole electromagnet. Applying power produces an magnetic field, rotated by the engine, which induces an AC output in the stator coils, which is rectified into DC to power the car devices and recharge the battery if needed. The voltage regulator adjusts the electrical power to the rotor, which adjusts the magnetic field and the power output. No excess power is produced or wasted. The mechanical drag on the engine is proportional to the electrical power produced.
No, there is no "wasted power" to be put to use by these HHO cells. The fuel economy improvement is balanced by a decrease in performance.
Brian 6:35PM (10/10/2008)
The person who started this was wrong I have a hho gen system on my car I built it myself did not buy from anyone and I do not sell them. What I can tell you I is I record how much I put in the tank each fill up along with miles on the trip odometer .
and the math says I went from 17.5 mpg to 26 mpg and math does not lie.
Reply
Eagle Ashcroft 4:23PM (10/14/2008)
The author doesn't even know what he or she is talking about as you do not store the hydrogen, you burn it as you drive along with the gasoline increasing your gasoline fuel milage by 40 to 60% as I have a friend who builds them of stainless steel and sells the kits for $300 complete and he uses them on his own car where he tests them first. He went from 30 miles per gallon gas to 55 miles per gallon highway and from 20 city to 32 city stop and go driving. His engine runs cleaner and there is no emissions coming from his tail pipe other than hot air. It seems a lot of people just assume things don't work without even testing their theories. I guaranteed anyone anywhere they work as I have seen them work over and over again.
Reply
Ernest 9:00PM (10/13/2008)
In my opinion the person who wrote this is way behind the times and is only familiar with text book theories and truly has no real hands on knowledge. Very expensive cars are currently being built using HHO on demand (generated on board) with great mpg success. To the author, do your self a favor and check out the following and tell these businesses they are full of BS.
www.Browngas.com
www.eagle-research.com
www.Oxy-hydrogen.com
www.hytechapps.com
Fantastic information site www.brownsgas.com
Off subject but of great interest, how about a generator that requires no fuel, no moving parts????? Yes it is real!!!!! Check out the business that is selling these now and building two new manufacturing plants to produce these units. www.magnacoaster.com
Reply
Chris M 1:37AM (10/14/2008)
A generator that requires no fuel and no moving parts is called a "solar cell".
The "magnacoaster" website, on the other hand, is pushing yet another variation on the old "free energy" scam. Anyone foolish enough to invest or buy dealerships or put money down as a deposit will never get a fully functioning device, as it cannot do what the promoter claims, thanks to a little known phenomenon called "hysteresis". Of course, the promoter will have endless excuses for non-delivery, will spin wild conspiracy stories, and if arrested for fraud will claim that is part of the conspiracy to suppress the "wonderful new technology".
Ernest 10:30AM (10/14/2008)
Chris M it is obvious you reply using what you believe or what your brain has been taught. Why don't you drive to Cambridge Ontario and view for yourself or call the University that verified that it works. By the way you can’t invest in his company nor can you get the rights to build them or become a distributor. This company will be building it’s own business so the only theory you have left is he is selling worthless units and building manufacturing facilities to rip people off, how interesting never thought of it that way, what a great way to sell something that doesn’t work build manufacturing plants to sell unworkable product how igneous. Do you have lights in your cave yet????? By the way the smaller versions are already being sold and used. No surppression here.
Chris M 3:36AM (10/18/2008)
Earnest, it is obvious that you reply using what you believe, you lack understanding of the scientific method, and are prone to wishful thinking.
I've studied a dismayingly long list of scam artists, their techniques, their spiels, and how some people are so very vulnerable to being taken in, and thats why I immediately identified "magnacoaster" as a scam. The "good ole boy" running it is following the David Lee formula, starting out talking about all the good it will do and pulling a few simple parlor tricks to bedazzle the gullible, but the real goal is to get people to plunk down their money for a promised device that will never arrive. Of course, there will be endless excuses for non-delivery! (David Lee said he wouldn't start deliveries until he'd signed up a million people, and that has kept his scam going for decades! )
David Lee also started out refusing investments, but after his scam got big and successful he added selling "dealerships" and "investment opportunities" to his portfolio. Of course, with his bogus devices selling for $4,700 to $15,000 the Magnecoaster guy doesn't really need to sell investments, just get a steady stream of wealthy fools that flunked basic science.
The "devices being sold and used"? Nah, only shills working for the scammer telling you what you want to hear. After all, how many people would part with several thousand dollars for the gizmo if he said there weren't any working anywhere? Better for the scam to lie and say some had already been sold to satisfied customers, and have a shill posing as a "satisfied customer".
Tony Ive 5:41PM (10/17/2008)
It's very strange. I have an old Volvo 740 estate. On a good weather day I drive maybe 300 miles at the best possible speed I can safely drive. I get about 34 miles to the Imp: gallon. I can drive the same route when its pouring down with rain, I have the heater on and I have to use my headlights. I get about 34 miles to the Imp: gallon.
Now according to some of the comments I have read, that's impossible because my alternator is working overtime with a resultant loss in MPG.
Wasn't it the scientists who said bumble bees couldn't fly.
The writer who made all those adverse comments about scammers should be extremely careful. There is a strict law about slander in the UK. Make sure the claimant cannot prove their product before you make the counter claim. It's sometimes better to make sure the brain is firmly in gear before operating the mouth. You are at best only stating an opinion. In my opinion your comments are uninformed and as such are worthless.
Reply
Chris M 3:48AM (10/18/2008)
Sounds like you've discovered that lights and windshield wipers don't use that much power, thus don't have a big effect on fuel economy. A few MPG difference could be due to any number of factors, and minor variations caused by low power devices are usually ignored.
Scientists never said "bumble bees can't fly", they just didn't know how they flew. Eventually, with careful study and research, they did figure it out, and that knowlege was very useful in developing new types of aircraft and helicopters.
I'm well aware of the laws against slander, which is why I am careful with my words and don't call something a "scam" unless it is quite obvious that it is a scam. If you check my past posts, you will note that I never considered selling "browns gas generators" for fuel economy improvement as a scam, just that the claims were dubious. But Stan Meyers, well, he was proven in a court of law to be a scammer, so it is hardly slanderous to state what has already been proven!
Tony Ive 8:16AM (10/18/2008)
Hi Chris. I think your comment re lights etc proves the point I was making in that on board standard electrics really do not strain the alternator or reduce MPG.
The greatest load on the standard electrics is surely at starting and pre-heating.
The latest electronic devices take a nominal 13.6 volts at about 3 amps and convert it to 4.5 volts at 30 amps. Plenty of hydrogen without the power demand.
I do agree that there is some rubbish being offered out there. But, there is some good stuff also. It's a case of the buyer beware I'm afraid.
I don't really know much about Stan Meyers so I won't get involved in that argument.
As far as cost is concerned.The cheap ones are really cheap and that includes all the materials they are made from. They don't include any of the items that are sometimes needed to make a hydrogen generator operate to the best advantage. Some of them will in fact decrease the MPG due to the on board computor system. (ECU). Some of the more expensive ones are value for money and can save fuel to a lesser or greater degree. These are in fact the cheapest. Other more expensive units are well overpriced and rely on additional fuel additives, magnets, fuel heaters, vortex installations and other equipment that really have nothing to do with Hydrogen, in order to make their claims. In my book this is misrepresentation.
Chris 12:38AM (10/18/2008)
Respectfully the author of this article only understands half the science he should.
Check out www.hy-drive.com section on Science for a beautiful explanation of how hydrogen injection improves speed of burn propogation in internal combustion engines.
The addition of the hydrogen and oxygen to the intake stream does nothing to "displace" fuel. And yes there are no perpetual motion machines.
How this works is that a combustion engine is a horribly inefficient machine. By adding a small amout of hydrogen to the intake, you now have a brand new ball game. What your doing is improving the burn in the cylinder of the fuel charge going in. This is a very scientificaly sound and well documented, tested, and proven. The slight addition of pure hydrogen affects how the fuel charge burns, in other words more bang for you buck. In actual fact there are limits to how much you can add to optimize the energy from the fuel charge going in. See no secret, no black magic. Just a simple improvement in the thermodynamics of the engine.
So you could use a can of pressurized hydrogen to get the same effect. It's just that the amount of hydrogen you need to improve the burn is so small, that you can generate onboard the hydrogen you need to get this improvement in performance.
So please no hocus pocus scaming of telling the public it doesn't work with only half baked understanding of what is really happening in hydrogen injection to internal combustion engines.
The Real Question is how well these aftermarket kits work in the real world. I suspect their performance is the same as the EPA fuel mileage rating on new vehicles,,,, read all the fine print!
Reply