why all "water car/hydrogen generators" are scams

[baddad457]

I've got two comments in reading all this: One is Derek's initial post. It would be more believable if he hadn't stated that in one molecule of water there's one molecule of hydrogen and 1/2 a molecule of qxygen. (I'm not a chemical major, but even I know that one molecule of water contains two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen) And as for all those PhD engineers Cummins has on the payrole: I've driven trucks (18 wheelers) with their latest creations powering them and if that's the best they can do, Cummins sure as hell isn't getting what they paid for. Their 500 hp truck engine performs about as well as their old big cam 855 300 hp motors did 25 years ago. The latest craze in these hydrogen generators shouldn't be looked at as y'all are. These are better compared to storage batteries. In any electrical energy generation, there's always excess power being generated, but unless you use this power, it's lost to the grid. Use that excess power to break down water to it's components and you've found a way to capture the wasted current generated by reintroducing it into the engine. It's kinda like the way hybrid cars work. To see this happen on a bigger scale, if you ever visit the Chattanooga area, just to the west along the Tennessee river there is a facility there that takes the excess power from the grid(during low demand) pumps water up to a storage reservoir, then when there's peak demand on the grid, the water is released back thru the generators and converted back into electricity. There's another facility like it in Colorado in the upper Arkansas river valley.

 

[krugford]

I've got two comments in reading all this: One is Derek's initial post. It would be more believable if he hadn't stated that in one molecule of water there's one molecule of hydrogen and 1/2 a molecule of qxygen. (I'm not a chemical major, but even I know that one molecule of water contains two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen)

He wasn't talking about individual molecules, he was talking about moles. His equation for splitting water into it's components is correct.

And as for all those PhD engineers Cummins has on the payrole: I've driven trucks (18 wheelers) with their latest creations powering them and if that's the best they can do, Cummins sure as hell isn't getting what they paid for. Their 500 hp truck engine performs about as well as their old big cam 855 300 hp motors did 25 years ago.

If you knew even a tenth of what goes into designing these engines to meet stricter and stricter emissions levels, higher reliability, and reduced fuel consumption, you would know how absurd that statement sounds.

The latest craze in these hydrogen generators shouldn't be looked at as y'all are. These are better compared to storage batteries. In any electrical energy generation, there's always excess power being generated, but unless you use this power, it's lost to the grid.

Yes, hydrogen is a means of energy storage, not an energy source. There is no "excess power" in electrical generation. There may be excess capacity, but that's not the same thing. You don't have electrons floating around with nothing to do. There is either a demand for the power, or there is not

Use that excess power to break down water to it's components and you've found a way to capture the wasted current generated by reintroducing it into the engine. It's kinda like the way hybrid cars work.

No you haven't and no they don't. The only place a hybrid (the ones on the road now anyways) shows a benefit is in stop and go driving. You can recover some of the energy through regenerative braking that can then be used to accelerate from a stop and reach a cruising speed. The energy that would have gone into heat in the brakes is now going into your batteries. That's the ONLY place other than the gas tank a hybrid gets it power. They're capturing energy that otherwise would have been lost on a normal vehicle. You still have to get up to speed in the first place....

To see this happen on a bigger scale, if you ever visit the Chattanooga area, just to the west along the Tennessee river there is a facility there that takes the excess power from the grid(during low demand) pumps water up to a storage reservoir, then when there's peak demand on the grid, the water is released back thru the generators and converted back into electricity. There's another facility like it in Colorado in the upper Arkansas river valley.

They're using the water as a means of energy storage to help keep up with demand during peak hours. During low demand, there is excess capacity that they are using to fill this resovoir. They can then use this to supplement normal power generators during times of high demand. They're not using free energy, they're placing a load on the system when there is low demand from outside sources.

 

[baddad457]

If you knew even a tenth of what goes into designing these engines to meet stricter and stricter emissions levels, higher reliability, and reduced fuel consumption, you would know how absurd that statement sounds.
.

And they failed at at least two of these. Reliability is no better than the older engines. And the fuel economy? What???? The fuel economy of the newer engines is no better than what was produced 25 years ago. And the new emissions diesel's fuel consumption is worse. If you had experieince n driving these trucks, you'd know how absurd your claims are. I've been driving these trucks for 31 years. 26 years ago I had an 85 Pete with an 855 series 400hp Cummins and it regularly got 6-6.5 mpg. The 500 Detroit I now drive gets the same mileage, but it's a non emissions 99 model. The emissions 500 Cummins I drove got 4.5 to 5.5 mpg and was a turd in accelleration. Your so called "engineers" sit there and design a motor, then stick it in a truck with a GVW of 40-50,000 lbs and in controlled conditions get the results they want. They don't put em to real world conditions, say like running up hill for 300 miles with a 25 mph head or cross wind. All with an 75-80,000 lb GVW.

 

[Jason]

They have to pollute less. Sometimes that costs power. Newer diesels have to burn much cleaner and there are trade-offs. Why is it so hard to understand? If they say it in CB lingo with a southern accent will you understand?

 

[thegoat4]

I've got two comments in reading all this: One is Derek's initial post. It would be more believable if he hadn't stated that in one molecule of water there's one molecule of hydrogen and 1/2 a molecule of qxygen. (I'm not a chemical major, but even I know that one molecule of water contains two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen) And as for all those PhD engineers Cummins has on the payrole: I've driven trucks (18 wheelers) with their latest creations powering them and if that's the best they can do, Cummins sure as hell isn't getting what they paid for. Their 500 hp truck engine performs about as well as their old big cam 855 300 hp motors did 25 years ago. The latest craze in these hydrogen generators shouldn't be looked at as y'all are. These are better compared to storage batteries. In any electrical energy generation, there's always excess power being generated, but unless you use this power, it's lost to the grid. Use that excess power to break down water to it's components and you've found a way to capture the wasted current generated by reintroducing it into the engine. It's kinda like the way hybrid cars work. To see this happen on a bigger scale, if you ever visit the Chattanooga area, just to the west along the Tennessee river there is a facility there that takes the excess power from the grid(during low demand) pumps water up to a storage reservoir, then when there's peak demand on the grid, the water is released back thru the generators and converted back into electricity. There's another facility like it in Colorado in the upper Arkansas river valley.

The OP's math is correct.

Cummins does know what they're doing. I've driven, repaired, overhauled many engines by many makers and the current ISC/L/M/X engines are damn nice. Most of the heavy haul trucks being built now use the ISX due to its torque curve. ie, flat as a board and 2,000 ft-lbs. And it beats the current emissions standards by a healthy margin, giving them leeway at the next adjustment.

FWIW, Caterpillar will no longer supply truck engines after some time in 2010. They could not meet the emissions standards and have chosen to give up. We've seen literally dozens of trucks returned due to the latest cat engines racking up so much downtime. Many of those trucks have since been retrofitted with Cummins engines and resold.

Detroit diesel's 60 series is dead--it will be replaced by the Mercedes DD16. Again, due to emissions.

Mack engines are gone too. Now your options are either a Volvo engine, or a Volvo engine with "Mack" written on it.

Other than using electricity and wires, the electrical system on a vehicle is not at all comparable to a municipal power grid.

 

[baddad457]

Ya'll can claim all you want as pertains to the current diesels performance and mileage, but until you've actually driven them, you ain't got a clue. Cat's 475 twin turbo is a hog though, and as long as the feds keep on with the unreasonable emissions standards, people will keep the older trucks longer. The trade-off isn't worth the price of the newer trucks. The only companies buying these new turds are the ones who settle for fresh driving school grads who're wet behind the ears and don't have the experience to drive the older trucks and make the engine perform like it should.

 

[Jason]

Ya'll can claim all you want as pertains to the current diesels performance and mileage, but until you've actually driven them, you ain't got a clue. Cat's 475 twin turbo is a hog though, and as long as the feds keep on with the unreasonable emissions standards, people will keep the older trucks longer. The trade-off isn't worth the price of the newer trucks. The only companies buying these new turds are the ones who settle for fresh driving school grads who're wet behind the ears and don't have the experience to drive the older trucks and make the engine perform like it should.

All you "old truckers" will have the new rigs too eventually. Is it so unreasonable for the world not to want to smell your nasty-ass diesel exhaust? Especially when they often seem to burn some oil too. That's yummy. If I have to keep my car and truck running perfect to pass emissions, then the truckers should too. If they don't like it, maybe it's time for a career change?

 

[krugford]

I'm not going to argue the finer points of what you or I think is a reasonable tradeoff between emissions, power, and fuel economy. The fact is, those engineers have to fight tooth and nail with their engines to meet power, emissions, AND fuel economy. Now throw in things like load acceptance, noise, and reliability and you've got a full time job for a few hundred people who run tests, perform computer simulations, crunch data, and set up more tests. They work with another hundred people who are out there running these engines on the road and in the fields to report real world performance. The real world performance gets put together with the lab data to paint a more detailed image of what exactly is going on inside an engine. FWIW, new diesels are going to be putting out only 5% of the more harmful controlled emissions as they did 10 years ago. Nowadays a puff of black or white smoke isn't a sign of a diesel running, it's the sign of a diesel running with something wrong with it.

 

[thegoat4]

Ya'll can claim all you want as pertains to the current diesels performance and mileage, but until you've actually driven them, you ain't got a clue. Cat's 475 twin turbo is a hog though, and as long as the feds keep on with the unreasonable emissions standards, people will keep the older trucks longer. The trade-off isn't worth the price of the newer trucks. The only companies buying these new turds are the ones who settle for fresh driving school grads who're wet behind the ears and don't have the experience to drive the older trucks and make the engine perform like it should.

What do you think the manufacturers are selling right now? New engines, or 35-year-old engines? Yeah, sure, you can go on and on about how great the old engines were back in the day and bla bla bla. The engineers you're trying to insult are building new engines in today's environment. Today's environment has harsh emissions standards.

The local companies around here buying trucks with these engines largely prefer experienced drivers so that they don't have to repair the trucks so often. They also prefer newer trucks because they don't have to repair them as often.

With skilled drivers, I've seen ISX-equipped trucks get 7-8mpg while putting out 500+ horsepower. In fact, many of our customers start to complain about poor fuel economy anywhere below 6.5. Brand-new engines, not broken in yet, are posting in the high sixes. I hear the new DD16 is even better, but we're not likely to see any of those through our shop.

You know, you can't drive the modern engines like the old ones. The old engines, you let them lug down a little, they'll start pumping out higher torque than rated. Makes 'em feel really strong. Newer engines all have torque limiting and will not let you get away with lugging them even a little. When some yahoo gets ahold of a computer and manages to turn off torque limiting (a.k.a. powertrain protection) you'll start seeing center plates ripped out of clutches, input shafts twisted off, u-joints blown up, keys beat off the transmission countershafts, you name it. The engines are more than capable of tearing apart the rest of the vehicle. In every case where the powertrain protection was turned off and the truck got damaged, the engine was completely unharmed.

Most drivers who come to our shop complaining about the engines being weak are trying to drive the trucks abusively and are being stopped by the software.

Now, if you want to go debating how reasonable/unreasonable the emissions standards are these days, that's cool. But those standards are not created by the engineers at Cummins or any other manufacturer.

 

[almostclueless]

I'm drinking right now, but there's a coupld of things I didn't see anyone consider here....

1. So do those energy calculations include the effect of expanding steam in a cylinder?

2. The vehicle is propelled by an engine fueled by gasoline and hydrogen. The alternator is driven by the engine. The hydrogen is obtained from WATER. Water is cheap compared to gasoline.

3. Hydrogen from electrolysis is gaseous. No vaporization required.

4. You can't argue with real folks who report their honest gasoline consumption/MPG.

 

[almostclueless]

Let me finish.....


I am not a scientist. But let me pose a thought.


A simple metric. Will an engine drive a vehicle fueled only by hydrogen? It doesn't matter if it takes 2 gallons of water to drive a mile, only that the engine can be supplied with enough hydrogen from electrolysis to drive and produce more hydrogen at the same time.


Can a electrolysis device, produce enough H2 to power an engine, be driven only by the alternator?

Alternators are driven by small belts. There's no way an alternator is using over 100 horsepower.

So if an alternator can produce enough energy to power a device that can produce enough H2 to fuel an engine, an alternators can be entirely driven off of a belt, is it possible that the engine can also drive the vehicle?

 

[thegoat4]

Let me finish.....


I am not a scientist. But let me pose a thought.


A simple metric. Will an engine drive a vehicle fueled only by hydrogen? It doesn't matter if it takes 2 gallons of water to drive a mile, only that the engine can be supplied with enough hydrogen from electrolysis to drive and produce more hydrogen at the same time.


Can a electrolysis device, produce enough H2 to power an engine, be driven only by the alternator?

Alternators are driven by small belts. There's no way an alternator is using over 100 horsepower.

So if an alternator can produce enough energy to power a device that can produce enough H2 to fuel an engine, an alternators can be entirely driven off of a belt, is it possible that the engine can also drive the vehicle?

The point that everyone keeps repeating is that the HHO systems cause a reaction, then reverse it later. Losing energy to waste heat along the way.

If your alternator pulls only a piddly amount of power to break down the water, then "burning" the resulting gasses will give you only a piddly amount of power by the time you run out of those gasses. Minus the losses.

It takes a shitload of electricity to break an appreciable amount of water into H and O. Recombining those gasses will give you a shitload of energy, but not as much as you had to put in to begin with.

 

[MAKG]

Alternators are driven by small belts. There's no way an alternator is using over 100 horsepower.

It HAS to for what you want it to do.

Energy is not free.

Burning a liter of hydrogen produces X amount of energy, combining oxygen into water. You need the exact same X amount of energy to break the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Chemical reactions are reversible in this manner. Always. But of course there are losses along the way, so you NEVER produce enough energy to run the vehicle without an outside energy input.

Using a reversible reaction to get more energy than is put in is called a "perpetual motion machine," and that BY ITSELF makes it garbage. No one has ever created a working perpetual motion machine, though there are more than a hundred years worth of scams. Nor can they.

 

[superdave1984]

You don't produce as much water. You burn some of the hydrogen and have to add water eventually. It isn't a perpetual motion machine at all. And it takes only about 2 amps to get hydrogen from water. Not a lot, but you can do it with that low an amperage.

 

[MAKG]

You don't produce as much water. You burn some of the hydrogen and have to add water eventually. It isn't a perpetual motion machine at all. And it takes only about 2 amps to get hydrogen from water. Not a lot, but you can do it with that low an amperage.

Umm, think about this for a moment.

Consider the water you consumed. It contained a certain amount of energy; call it "X." You break it into hydrogen and oxygen. You then recombine it back into water. How much energy did you get from that?

It is ABSOLUTELY a perpetual motion machine. Consuming water is not the issue. Consuming energy is.

And STOP until you understand that. Credibility depends upon it.

Exercise -- assuming perfect efficiency, how much power can you generate in the engine, given that you use 2A to make the hydrogen? It's a very easy calculation.