Talk:Hydrogen fuel enhancement/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (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, . Mion (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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 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)

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 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) 13:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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: ) 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 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 . 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)


 * Everyone seems to think that an electrolyzer is a huge power drain on an engine. Fact is, it's not.  The average modern 4 cylinder engine produces in excess of 100 hp at highway speeds and RPM.  The average alternator is capable of producing about 600W.  For anyone interested, 1 hp equals anywhere from 735W - 746W depending on the calculation of hp from metric through Imperial Electric.  No matter how it is calculated, an average alternator at full load will draw less than 1hp from the engine's output.
 * 2- Gibb's free energy is only free if it's interpreteded correctly. There is nothing magical about it since it is nothing more than a variable to the calculation of Faraday's maximum based upon environmental heat affecting the temperature of the water.  Anyone doing electrolysis will know that excess heat will actually cause the amperage to rise, further heating the water.
 * 3- These systems do have the capability to extend the mpg usage of a car, but are insufficient to completely replace gasoline as the primary fuel. Either way, any savings is better than none, right?I55ere (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is no longer about whether the systems work or not. It is about how crappy certain systems are. Certain systems are built soo poorly to maximize profit. Certain system do not consider potentially bad repercussions on a vehicle. There is no excuse for using glass or flimsy plastic under the hood of a vehicle. The incredibly poor design of certain systems is coupled with blatantly fraudulent marketing. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * An extremely important consideration is the integrity of the piston seals. If oil is leaking into the cylinders it will mix the exhaust water. This is detrimental, and will degrade and most likely destroy many components of the engine and exhaust system. The integrity of the seals must be assured before implementing the hydrogen fuel enhancement concept.


 * Also ultra lean burn conditions can destroy the catalytic converter, therefore a bypass system must be implemented depending on air/fuel operating conditions. Many of these considerations are not dealt with in fraudulent "run your car on water" products. Noah Seidman (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Efficiency

 * 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)

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. 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;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)
 * Maybe in the mean time, missing High pressure electrolysis and Multi-stage electrochemical hydrogen compression.... anybody ? Mion (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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: 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.
 * 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".

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)
 * Hi, i removed most of the quotation marks, well about HFI, the current state of the reduction of pollution is is confirmed, but not the amount of fuel reduction, This one should be a reduction of 10 % on diesel fuel consumption remark made by the selling company http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/Hydrogen+Hybrid+Technologies+Inc.+receives+order+for+B.C.+school+buses/3723089.html the problem we have is to find good third party references on the reduction of fuel consumption. So thats why you don't find information about it yet, i made a link for stoichiometric. Cheers Mion (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Commercial products section: In the Trash
Yes, I completely removed that section. It is a magnet for a lot of people who want to fill the Wikipedia with ads for their website, product, or service. I know that I removed a section with a few references, but I am afraid that the Wired article and the me-too stuff (recent additions - see article history) were just the tip of the iceberg. A lot of companies submit press releases all over the place and what do you know? They get an article written about their stuff. Big deal. There are lots of companies making that stuff, and the one that was there was NOT notable or representative of the industry. There were even prices listed. My opinion: That is just asking for the trash bin. If you want a commercial products section, make it about the availability, marketing, the installation methods and types, but NOT about your pet brand of stuff. I like to saw logs! (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's not just your opinion, it's Wikipedia policy.  It's a commonly held belief that if something is referenced then you shouldn't delete it - but that's really not the case.  Material has to be NOTABLE as well as referenced as well as a bunch of other things.  Failing any one of those tests is a reasonable grounds for deletion if material is not appropriate.  So don't sweat it - removing commercial crap is perfectly OK - referenced or not. SteveBaker (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

or oxyhydrogen
i'm removing or oxyhydrogen, as it is not mentioned in the article, the header is a short for the rest of the article, secondly i can't find any good reference on automotive use. Mion (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * and besides the claims of it, oxyhydrogen is not a fuel enhancement, but presented as a fuel itself, so it doesn't fit in this article.Mion (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a slightly tricky decision. The term "oxyhydrogen" historically and scientifically means "a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen" - and that's what these pathetic hydrolysis units are producing.

That is not what I just read in the Wikipedia oxyhydrogen article. Rather, it means specifically a stoichiometric mix of oxygen and hydrogen gases.


 * Yes, it does mean that - but that too is what the hydrolysis unit produce. When you split water into hydrogen and oxygen, the ratios of the two resulting gasses are (obviously) in exact proportion needed to combust them back together into water. SteveBaker (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As for whether or not the hydrolysis units are 'pathetic', rather than just making that assertion, isn't the Wikipedia article supposed to help the reader see for himself why they are 'pathetic'?


 * That's tough to prove with references - you have to use science and math and then you're going to be in the realms of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. However, if you look at the amount of water these things hold (the most common version literally uses a 1 pint mason jar), the thing would be dry in minutes if it was really producing anything like enough hydrogen to provide a measurably amount of "fuel" - so it can't be that.  But if it's not providing fuel but merely improving the efficiency of the gasoline then the gains they are claiming (60% or more) would result in an engine that would be considerably more than 100% efficient...which is impossible.  So whichever way it is - fuel or improved efficiency - the things cannot POSSIBLY work.  It's quite beyond the realms of possibility. SteveBaker (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the term has been somewhat hijacked by the free energy nuts to mean roughly: "something magical you get from water when you put electricity into it in a magical way". We hear "Browns gas" and "HHO" as other terms for the exact same thing.  This makes using the word "oxyhydrogen" for a simple hydrogen/oxygen mix somewhat tricky since we do not want to endow these 'fuel enhancers' with any magical properties.

I don't see how avoiding the term completely gets anyone anywhere near this goal.


 * It doesn't help that the systems for hydrogen fuel enhancement that are being sold by half a dozen companies on the net are at best quite utterly useless (the quantities of hydrogen they produce is negligable) and at worst will damage your engine and exhaust systems by introducing water where water is most definitely not desirable! So what we have are fraudsters adopting the language of earlier fraudsters.  It's very important that we don't fall into the trap of seeming to support them.  So, on balance, whilst "oxyhydrogen" is the correct word, I believe we should indeed avoid using it here. SteveBaker (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Arguable... I'd say leave it. You'll see the HHO crowd fall back on fuel enhancement as a reasoning once you've shattered their case for hydrogen as fuel.   If hydrogen enhancement works, then their products sort-of work, and if it doesnt then people looking for info about HHO, oxyhydrogen etc should find it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The free energy community wastes a lot of energy not only arguing that oxyhydrogen isn't just Oxygen and Hydrogen, but even that its various incarnations (HHO, Brown's gas, Klein's gas, etc) are somehow distinct from each other. Given that, it might even rate a short section explaining that as far as science is concerned, all of this stuff is simply an ordinary mixture of O2 and H2.Prebys (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Popular mechanics test the technology...
...with entirely predictable results: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html?series=19

This is the first independent test held by credible sources. We should find a way to work this info into the article. SteveBaker (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and obviously what Fran Giroux said is clearly the case. Increasing gas mileage requires less fuel to be injected, hence the requirement to lean the air/fuel mix. Then the pop mechanic guy says this is federal tampering to mod an OEM ECU; which is why I always recommend a replacement customizable ECU that needs professional dyno tuning. This article is excellent for identifying bogus "run your car on water" crap that says you only have to add hydrogen to increase mileage (hence the scam). For it to work the entire engine management system needs modification along with considering many other concerns such as piston seal and exhaust system integrity. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A problem is that the pop sci article uses the HHO term. This is such a messy subject as we have seen in the past. Noah Seidman (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Nseidm1 - conflict of interest.
I have reverted changes by User:Nseidm1 who works for "Water Fuel LLC" and therefore has a severe conflict of interest in editing this article. SteveBaker (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I referenced NASA. I understand if I said "Noah Seidman says hydrogen fuel enhancement rules", but I have never done anything of the sort. That would be COI, but referencing NASA is COI? Noah Seidman (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * After careful review of the WP:COI policy User:SteveBaker is out of line in reverting the most recent edit to this article. If User:SteveBaker wished to revert edits under a claim of WP:COI a third party should be called to mediate a clear ongoing dispute between himself and I. I am reverting the article to my previously edits, and am requesting an inquiry to be made on the WP:COI noticeboard. COI clearly states that a COI is not enough to say the editor in question cannot edit the article; he/she must maintain NPOV. Citing a third party reference is clearly NPOV. Noah Seidman (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The rest of the discussion can be joined here Talk:Oxyhydrogen. Mion (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Credibility and Reference Checks
This article seems to fly in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This concept purports to create more energy (and thereby increase fuel efficiency) within an internal combustion engine system by making fuel (oxy-hydrogen) with the engine's electrical system. This is the concept of the perpetual motion machine and it does not work.

The article states that hydrogen compressed natural gas stations can be found at the BC Hydrogen Highway in Canada. This is false. The Hydrogen Highway (tm) is, as yet, a concept and not a reality. There are a couple of experimental fuelling stations but no such stations for public use.

The statement that "Hydrogen fuel enhancement from electrolysis of water...is currently in use in Canada" is contradicted by the source material which is referenced:

Ref. no. 11 "Water and an onboard electrolyzer cannot be used to power a fuel cell or hydrogen ICE vehicle because of the large amount of electricity required to operate the electrolyzer." (US Dept of Transportation report, Nov 2007, cited as a reference to use of hydrogen in Canada)

Ref. no. 12, which gives the illusion of being a Canadian Government verified test, is really just a claim of performance registered with a government agency. The claim ends with this statement:

"Environment Canada, ETV Canada, and the Verification Entity provide the verification services solely on the basis of the information supplied by the applicant or vendor and assume no liability thereafter." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttoesen (talk • contribs) 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific where the claim is" This concept purports to create more energy" ? I don't see it. The only claim is 4 % on fuel efficiency if you do all the (proper) modifications (DOT), 12 also claims 4,44 % under the same condition, so whats the problem ? Mion (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think Hydrogen Fuel Injection is easily dismissable with the laws of thermodynamics. Don't get me wrong - they don't work, can't work and are sold in an exceedingly dubious manner - but the laws of thermodynamics may not be being violated.  Indeed there are (allegedly) systems that are used on big 18 wheeled trucks that does genuinely produce very small savings in fuel.  The problem is with the wild and crazy claims made by the scammers who are selling mason jars and rubber tubing for two hundred bucks a pop under claims of getting impossibly large improvements.


 * It is possible (in theory) for a significant amount of hydrogen injected into the cylinder of an ICE to improve the completeness of the burn of the gasoline - and thereby extract a LITTLE more energy from the fuel - producing a very small fuel consumption improvement - a fraction of a percent perhaps. In fact, injecting a super-fine spray of pure water into the cylinder at the exact right moment will do that.


 * So the problems with the systems that are being sold are:


 * The pathetic contraption they provide can't possibly produce enough hydrogen to make a difference. Just watch them - the number of bubbles that come out of the electrolysis cell is TINY!
 * The system they use for injecting it is ridiculously crude - there is no way it's going to work.
 * The claims they make for efficiency (40%, 60%, more) are quite utterly impossible. Gasoline engines simply don't produce that much unburned fuel or carbon monoxide.  Even if these systems worked PERFECTLY - if 100% of the gasoline was burned with the maximum possible energy extraction - the savings would be a percent or two.
 * Nobody would buy these ridiculous machines at $200 if they knew they were only saving about 4 cents per gallon! It takes around 5,000 gallons of those kinds of savings just to break even.  If you're getting 30mpg, that's 150,000 miles.  The car will probably crap out long before you've paid for the gadget...and that assumes they actually work perfectly (which they don't).
 * Big-rig truck drivers DO burn through those kinds of amounts of gasoline - so they could maybe justify using a (working) version of these gadgets...but even for them, it's very marginal.
 * There are concerns that if these machines do work, they'll damage your engine because of water getting into your engine oil and corrosion of your exhaust and exhaust manifold.
 * Without replacing the software in your engine management system, the odds are good that they'll actually WORSEN your mpg because the oxygen sensor won't read correctly in the presence of hydrogen gas in the intake manifold.


 * But none of those concerns relate to the laws of thermodynamics. What you have here is a concept that could just about - MAYBE be borderline useful - IF it was well-engineered.  The problem is that they are being oversold by unscrupulous retailers with unsubstantiated claims of impossible performance levels.  It's a scam with just enough science behind it to make it sound plausible to the uneducated motorist.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will concede that my knowledge of Newton's Laws may be a little sketchy (not as sketchy as the people selling these contraptions, though) but let's just change our fuel scheme in this problem.

Let's say you had a container on the back of your rig that injected diesel fuel into your diesel engine. If every 100 litres of diesel you injected from this container saved you 100 litres of fuel from your fuel tank would you call that a fuel saving?

From a thermodynamic perspective, the marketers of these hydrogen generators are claiming that you can use the energy from your diesel engine to make fuel which you then burn in the engine to create even more energy than you started with. Ttoesen 10:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No - they really aren't (or at least, most of them aren't - most of the time - they are kinda slippery characters!!) They are saying that when you burn gasoline containing X amount of energy, it doesn't all burn efficiently.  So you get less than X amount of energy out of your engine, call that Y.  Then (they claim) by using much less than (X-Y) amount of energy, you can make a small amount of hydrogen (containing MUCH less than (X-Y) energy).  All of this is thermodynamically quite reasonable.  Then they claim that the injection of the hydrogen increases the efficiency of the engine so that X amount of gasoline produces X amount of energy.  The energy contributed by the hydrogen is (typically) considered to be negligable.  The claimed benefit of the system is that somehow, someway, the presence of a small amount of hydrogen in the cylinder somehow improves the burning of the gasoline such that it's burned more efficiently.   That increase of efficiency is enough to generate the extra electricity needed to recharge the battery under the slightly increased load of the electrolyser.  Again, this is not implausible...and indeed, it's claimed that this actually works for very large diesel engines (like in ships).


 * The problem is not one of thermodynamics per-se. It's that car engines simply don't waste gasoline to the extent they claim.  Most of the inefficiencies are due to heat generated and friction.  The loss (if any) due to incomplete combustions is tiny - so the scope for improvement (even if this worked) is far too small to be useful - and VASTLY too small to reach the inflated claims they make for MPG improvement.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/atv.shtml gives a nice overview of where the energy goes, I just havent found a good source for a breakdown of thne engine losses 62.4%, as to how much is 'unburned fuel' and how much 'ICE engine engine converting fuel to torque' Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a test of an actual production unit automotive oxyhydrogen "enhancement" device performed by Environment Canada in 2004. I used quotations because the results do not show any enhancement either to fuel economy or emissions. The engineer, who, one would hope, was impartial in this matter, examines the matter from several perspectives. How efficient is a diesel engine (many people confuse efficiency at the axle with engine efficiency and engine improvements will not solve transmission inefficiencies)? Very efficient, as it turns out. How much energy can be extracted and re-used from a liter of water? Not very much. How much energy does it take to extract that hydrogen from the water? Quite a bit more than it produces.

I've posted this report in pdf format on a free file server here: http://ttoes.fileave.com/JetStar_reportERMD%202004-32_v2_final.pdf If there are no sound objections I would like to make this a reference on the page.Ttoesen (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to satisfy Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources. The link provided gives us no indication that the report was published by a reliable source.  In this case, the most appropriate source would be a peer reviewed journal.  It is not necessary that this source be linked.  A journal name, date, page, title and author would suffice.  Rklawton (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

NACA Technical Note No. 133
The beginning of the whole Hydrogen Enhanced Combustion research started in Germany after the 1st WW and was later transfered to the US. One ofthe first publications on this issue is the following: "Disturbing effect of free hydrogen on fuel combustion in internal combustion engines. A. Riedler (initially published in Technische Berichte, Vol 3 No2), NACA Technical Note No. 133"

The article should be corrected in order to add all these historically significant information!! 217.7.198.210 (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

James Randi
Some of the claims in the article equivocal, obviously due to bias in favor of the "water as fuel" devices that crooks sell to gullible idiots. Hydrogen injection to augment gasoline is a completely different subject than the worthless "HHO booster" devices. The sellers and promoters of these devices refuse to have them properly tested in EPA-certified testing facilities; they also refuse to take my Water car Challenge.

The damn few valid tests of these devices I've seen show results from a small decrease in miles-per-gallon up to about a 4% MPG increase--- results that can validly be explained by the advent of humid air being introduced into the engine's combustion chambers. One can get the same result by adding a fish tank aerator to a jar of water, skipping the oxyhydrogen part altogether.

The effect of these "HHO boosters" are so tiny, the effects they have on automobiles get lost in the data as insignificant.

James Randi, of the James Randi Educational Foundation, has said that many of the claims "HHO booster" sellers make qualify their devices of the JREF One Million Dollar Challenge. Sellers and promoters of these devices refuse to step forward and take that money even when told about it.

Please, someone, add to the main article a section about the JREF's million dollar prize.

Note that NBC "Dateline" tested one of the most expensive "HHO Booster" devices and found it to be worthless. The Federal Trade Commission is prosecuting the seller of the worthless device, and I see in the news that several of his victims have stepped forward demanding their money back and testifying against him. --Desertphile (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hydrogen injection


The hydrogen is mixed inside the engine with conventional fuel, making the conversion not emissionless, aldough emissions are significantly reduced when compared to regular combustion (without hydrogen).


 * Any evidence of this baseless advertising claim? EPA values of NOx emissions?  The chemistry and the physics says that while CO and HC emissions MIGHT be slightly reduced if it actually worked as advertised, which is generally considered dubious by the engineering world, the NOx emissions will be increased.  Care to offer several independent examples of NOx emissions being "significantly" reduced through hydrogen enhancement? 216.138.230.98 (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Major reworking
This article was full of trivia, repetitive presentation of information, information from improperly weighted sources, use of unnecessary headers to make it look like there was more evidence, and other issues. I've done a drastic pruning in an attempt to solve these problems. I realize work related to these systems vary from authentic research to blatant scams. I've tried to represent this fairly with a concise summary of the field but it might take some more work. If an editor wants to re-add significant portion of the deleted material I suggest we discuss it here. I mentioned most of my concerns in edit summaries. Let me know if there are any issues.--OMCV (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ArvinMeritor
I am certainly no expert on automotive fuel systems although I have a general technical background and a B.S. degree in chemistry. My addition to the article is a simple statement of facts. But you see a reformer technology, (which IMHO is equivalent to HHO electrolytic technology) promising 20-30% improvement in gas mileage. A couple of years later, it sort of seems like they sell out for the tidy sum of $310 million. If all of this is a useless fraud, it seems rather strange that a New York equity investment firm would valuate the division at $310 million. (Entropy7 (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC))


 * How exactly is reformer technology equivalent? AM's reformer takes diesel fuel and produces hydrogen from it which is then used to regenerate the NOx traps in the diesel emissions systems (which needs to be done on a regular basis).  It doesn't make the diesel burn any differently -- it just cleans up the aftermath of burning diesel to meet current emissions standards. 216.138.230.98 (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone installs an HHO generator on a modern vehicle (having an OBD II interface) they really need a professional consultant using a laptop with an OBD II interface to verify that all engine systems are properly optimized for the HHO cell. Injecting oxyhydrogen gas into the intake manifold changes the output of oxygen sensor to indicate that the fuel ratio is leaner than it actually is. The computer compensates by increasing fuel injection rate. The result: no net improvement in mileage.


 * Is there anything to back up this claim you're making? It seems to me that since the devices claim to cause the isooctane to "burn better" (despite Hess' law in chemistry saying that from the same starting point and the same ending point it doesn't matter what route you take, i.e. if you start with isooctane and oxygen and end with carbon dioxide and water, that the exact same amount of energy will always be released, whether it's done in one step, or in several smaller steps with a "catalyst").  The "HHO", as you call it (which is suspect enough) should not alter the stoichiometry... after "catalyzing", the hydrogen mixes back with the oxygen, and there's no net change to the emissions (other than the extra H2O molecule).  For the O2 sensor in the exhaust to be reading "too much" oxygen, the device simply CAN'T be causing even the same level of complete combustion as in a non-HHO engine.  Either their advertising claim that the gasoline "burns better" is actually correct, and there would be LESS oxygen present in the exhaust, and the ECU would lean the engine down on its own, and the oxygen sensor would not need to be "tricked" (which constitutes a federal tampering violation), OR the device is working opposite to its claims, and the combustion is less complete, and the ECU would dump extra fuel to hover the O2 output around the stoichiometric point for the catalytic converter to work properly.  What is the exact chemistry of having a better combustion of the isooctane AND having TOO MUCH oxygen at the exhaust, since you seem to be writing as an expert?  Which is the lie?  That the HHO causes the gasoline to burn better, and not worse?  Or that the O2 sensor reads the "wrong amount" once the HHO has been injected?  Either way, using a fudged O2sensor signal to calculate your new "mileage" is dubious.  Why not actually use dyno runs and not just admittedly altered ScanGauge-type readings? 216.138.230.98 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The oxygen sensor signal has to be modified so that the ECU computer regulates at a lower threshold. Hydrogen enhanced combustion (HEC) enables optimal engine performance with a leaner fuel/air ratio baseline. This results in an additional improvement in mileage.


 * Well duh! If you lean the engine down, you use less gas.  That's a no-brainer.  The reason that engines hover around the stoichiometric point, is not for fuel savings, but for emissions -- for the catalytic converter to run properly, the engine must be run momentarily rich and then momentarily lean, hovering around the stoichiometric point.  If you merely lean the engine down, then the NOx doesn't get reduced, and your engine no longer meets its certified state and is in federal violation.  Engine manufacturers have known for years that lean-burning engines will use far less fuel than one hovering around the stoichiometric point, but their difficulty has always been in trying to build a lean-burning engine that meets current and future emissions standards.  Just adding the fudged O2 signal on its own without the HHO cell would show the same (or better) savings in fuel, at the expense of being in violation of federal law and having higher NOx emissions.  In what way does modifying the O2 sensor signal NOT constitute altering the engine and ECU and emissions controls away from their certified state? 216.138.230.98 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most websites selling HHO generators do not bother with such technical details. Also, it does not seem as though any of the so-called consumer watchdog groups attempting evaluations of HHO technologies troubled themselves with such details. Perhaps, in time through trade associations such as the International HHO Institute (http://www.ihhoi.org/) anyone can hire a knowledgeable professional, for a reasonable fee, to optimize the performance of their vehicle with an HHO cell.(Entropy7 (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC))


 * HHO generators (from water) require more energy than they produce. Therefore, claims for increased efficiency are fraudulent - and have been found so several times by various courts.  These water-based systems are entirely unrelated to the plasma fuel reformer developed by ArvinMeritor.  The plasma fuel reformer doesn't produce hydrogen from water, it produces hydrogen from fuel (gas), and unlike water-fueled systems, doesn't claim to produce its own fuel as a byproduct.  Rklawton (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see that the basic concept is any different. They are two different approaches to the same concept of hydrogen enhanced combustion. Plus, HHO is not using any fuel mass and also tends to be very efficient. I am not sure what "courts" you are referring too. And as I have already stated, a modern vehicle is a rather complex computer-based system. Many so-called evaluations of HHO systems fail to take into account the way modern computer-based automotive systems operate. (Entropy7 (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC))


 * I'm talking about the very specific case where the vehicle's engine produces the electricity required to split water into H2 and O2. In this case, the energy used is greater than the energy re-captured.  Is is claims to the contrary that courts have found fraudulent.  Rklawton (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am very open to the possibility that HHO generators are a big fraud. You seem to be referring an evaluation that was done, but I am not sure what you are referring to. Is there something like an systematic evaluation of an HHO system that is publicly available? The links on the article to so-called debunking of HHO system leave a lot of questions unanswered. In no case, does it seem like anyone ran a vehicle over a test route multiple times, with the HHO engaged and disengaged, showing statistical characteristics of the raw data and an analysis thereof also giving reasonable indication that fuel injection control issues had been properly addressed. I am looking for something like a formal report, not the video fluff bits that were referred to at the end of the article.


 * If you're looking for a formal report, why don't any of the manufacturers of any of these systems (not just the specific one you're choosing to promote) submit them for 511 testing, or testing from any other independent lab, for that matter? We consumers have been asking them for years for EPA511 results, and they refuse over and over and over, instead relying merely on bogus "testimonials".  Perhaps the manufacturers know that the oxygen sensor fudging is a Federal Offense?  Perhaps they know that their devices are scams and don't work as advertised?  Perhaps they don't think "Verified by the EPA to decrease fuel consumption by over ___%" in their advertising would be worth its weight in gold?  The answer is always "buy it and try it yourself" and/or "read these testimonials."  ANY independent testing (done by others, not done at the manufacturers' request) has always shown the devices not to work.  Other than baseless internet claims and cheesy videos, is there any concrete, independently-verified evidence of any of the claims made by any of the advertisers of these things being even close to accurate?  Oh, right... there isn't -- hence Texas indicting Ozzie Freedom for fraud. 216.138.230.98 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

An HHO cell uses 200-500 watts. An alternator does not really put out all that much power. Yet conservative estimates of HEC are 5-10% improvement in efficiency. The engine of a car running 60 mph is probably putting out about 25 kW. It is NOT a matter of increasing latent energy of the fuel mixture. HEC affects the dynamics of fuel combustion. The studies of HEC cited in this article indicate that to be the case. To say we get more energy out than what we put in is misdirected.


 * Again, the same mistake of expecting us to think that the electricity from the alternator is "free" or "extra". As you draw more electricity, you put more load.  More load on the engine = more fuel used.  Even if it's a small amount of electricity, there's still a fuel cost.  With the relevant efficiencies, it takes about 10 watts for every watt produced.  Therefore, 2kW-5kW of extra gasoline must be combusted to run the cell. 216.138.230.98 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

For example, you increase compression ratio, you get greater overall efficiency. It takes more energy to compress the fuel/air mixture, but the increased efficiency more than makes up for this additional cost. It would be just as misdirected to say that increasing compression ratio cannot improve efficiency because you get more out than what you put in. (67.176.199.104 (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC))
 * As you say, you can't get out more than you put in - and that should be sufficient. If the subject interests you, Mythbusters did a show about improving mileage and they tried a variety of methods - with zero success.  Rklawton (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In that episode of Mythbusters they were trying to get a car to run on nothing BUT water. That is totally different from what we are talking about here which is the use of hydrogen to increase efficiency of combustion of petrol or diesel fuels. Perhaps a more definitive way of evaluating this concept is to take an engine, put it on a dynamometer test stand and measure efficiency under various loads at different speeds. In one such test, http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/August%202008.html at done at Fox Valley Technical College in Appleton, Wisconsin speed and load tests were done with and without hydrogen enhancement on a diesel engine. For one speed/load combinations, there was as much as a 26.4% increase in efficiency. I have seen other tests of this kind done mostly on diesels. HHO generators seem to be of interest mostly to truckers because they use so much fuel and even a 10% improvement in efficiency can have a big effect on their bottom line. (Entropy7 (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC))

I thinK that hydrogen might affect the Diesel cycle more than the Otto cycle because of the higher pressures typical of a Diesel cycle. (67.176.199.104 (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Take a look at reference 13 on the article about an evaluation done at a college automotive technology center. As soon as they turned it on, it seemed to effect the engine. But they saw no improvement in mileage when they did road tests. In reference 1 of the Wikipedia article, Table 11 on page 32 show how thermal efficiency of an engine is affected by the equivalence ratio. Equivalence ratio is the "ratio of the fuel/air ratio to the stoichiometric fuel/air ratio". An equivalence ratio of 1 is stoichiometric, less than 1 would be referred to as a "lean" mixture, more than 1 would be referred to as a "rich" mixture.

This table was derived from Figure 11:

If you set the ratio to about 0.7, the thermal efficiency for hydrogen enhancement is almost 32% compared to 28.85% at a ratio = 1 for gasoline alone. That is a 10% improvement at this particular speed and load. If you leave the equivalence ratio set at 1, though, hydrogen changes thermal efficiency changes very little. In fact, it goes down a bit. On a modern gasoline engine, with computer controlled fuel injection, changing the ratio is not so simple. The computer control uses the signal from an oxygen sensor in the exhaust stream to regulate the fuel ratio. Adding an HHO generator will make the mixture seem a little leaner than it actually is. The computer compensates by increasing the injection rate so you are actually using more fuel, not less.

You can splice something they call an "electronic fuel injection enhancer" into the wires between the O2 sensor and the computer module. One supplier is http://www.fuelsaver-mpg.com/store/which-efie-do-i-need. That offsets the the signal so the computer is setting the mixture much leaner than it would normally. So I still think it is likely that HHO generators do work, but it is not nearly as simple as a lot of marketers suggest.

One minor point about the NASA study of reference 1: they give the hydrogen feed rate supplied by bottled hydrogen at 1.42 lbs/hr. That is a lot of hydrogen! I have never seen a study of the effect of feed rate on enhancement but it seems like it does not take much hydrogen to affect the combustion process of a modern car engine.


 * One other minor point about the 1977 NASA article. It does NOT account for modern emissions standards.  Sure, adding hydrogen can prevent lean misfire as you lean down an idling engine, but an engine UNDER LOAD is something altogether different, and today's emission requirements are altogether different.  The NASA article has never had any applicability to modern engines, and the scammers know this.  It just sounds like a good thing to quote and is all scientific-looking.  Every SAE engineer has stated repeatedly that its not in any way applicable, but that hasn't stopped the scam artists from treating it like a Holy Bible that "proves" they're right. 216.138.230.98 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of putting an engine on a dynamometer is to run it under a controlled load. The NASA test was done at 2160 RPM and 36 bhp output on an engine dynamometer. I am not sure why they chose that particular speed/load combination - perhaps it was the point of maximum effect. It serves as a good baseline for the effect of hydrogen on the Otto cycle engine. In fact, the results of this test indicate that hydrogen fuel enhancement should NOT work. You get a yield of only 15 kJ per gram of hydrogen injected. It would require at least 115 kJ to produce a gram of hydrogen regardless of the method used. Therefore, according to this test, hydrogen fuel enhancement does not even come close to breaking even. However, that contradicts other tests which seem to indicate an average of 6.5 megajoule per gram of hydrogen in the case HHO. It is hard to find good quality dynamometer tests of HHO. Here is a white paper that gives more information about this analysis: www.hho-research.org/wp13.pdf. This would probably be considered independent research so I don't propose using it as a reference to the article. (Entropy7 (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Referring back to tests done on diesel, there is always an excess of air in a diesel which would be equivalent to a lean mixture in an Otto cycle engine. Air/fuel ratio is not really meaningful on a diesel because there is no actual flow of an air/fuel mixture to regulate. A set amount of fuel is injected into the cylinder at some point past top dead center. (Entropy7 (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC))

Hydrogen Embrittlement
One other question about hydrogen enhancement is the question of hydrogen embrittlement. Hydrogen ruins many steels. This is why over a hundred years ago they looked for other gasses for cutting and welding... hydrogen was readily available and burned hot enough, but it ruined the steel being worked on -- they ended up generally settling on acetylene. Modern engines that are designed to run on hydrogen (or on a selective choice of hydrogen or gasoline) are just that -- designed to run on hydrogen. You can't just start pumping a hydrogen/oxygen mixture into a standard ICE and expect the thing to last -- it wasn't designed for it. A hydrogen engine has different alloys and usually strengthened parts -- it's one reason why they cost far more than a standard gasoline-burning ICE. There is no evidence that pumping hydrogen into an engine not designed for hydrogen won't eventually ruin it as the hydrogen attacks the steels and the steels fail. 216.138.230.98 (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You might be right - but the hydrogen fuel enhancement kits that are actually on sale produce an utterly pathetically, negligable amount of the stuff - so they are unlikely to do any measurable amount of damage. Note that there are similar concerns over ethanol added to gasoline (it can directly corrode iron components - and it's aldehyde combustion by-products are fairly acidic and can slowly corrode metal components in the exhaust manifold and tailpipe) - but that doesn't stop many countries from switching to E10 fuels.  Small amounts of this kind of effect is generally considered negligable compared to normal wear-and tear.


 * Of course if some seller of these ridiculous systems actually does claim to produce a significant amount of hydrogen - then it would be fair to have them explain why it won't wreck your engine. But the practical reason that they don't cause embrittlement problems is that they quite simply don't work.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, I don't believe they work either, but I was thinking in a more welding-oriented context. Welding processes generally create a flux cloud around the weld so that a few stray hydrogen atoms dissociated from water vapour in the air don't cause problems.  It doesn't really seem like the tiny bit dissociated from the air during arc welding or acetylene welding is several orders of magnitude different than the trickle of hydrogen being produced by these "cells".  Sure, with the welding, it's a "better safe than sorry" matter and one or two atoms generally won't cause any more problems than the other flaws inherent in the steel, but it doesn't take very much hydrogen to impregnate the steel for the steel to begin to be compromised.  On the other hand, embrittlement proceeds faster at high temperatures (like when the steel is molten), but it does still happen at low temperatures, and it's not like engine parts would be considered "cold".  But, since many of the ads for these devices explicitly claim that it doesn't harm the engine, it just seems to me that it would be up to these manufacturers to prove that no embrittlement takes place over an extended time, or else they're making (even more) fradulent claims. 216.138.230.98 (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

AGREED, Thanks. GNANO23 (talk)GNANO23GNANO23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC).

Second Paragraph
The article reads:


 * There has been a great deal of research into fuel mixtures, such as gasoline and nitrous oxide injection. Mixtures of hydrogen and hydrocarbons are no exception. These sources suggest fuel efficiency increases as well as reduced emissions through the addition of hydrogen to conventional fuels. For example, one research project added hydrogen to an automobile engine to run the engine leaner:


 * Lean-mixture-ratio combustion in internal-combustion engines has the potential of producing low emissions and higher thermal efficiency for several reasons. First, excess oxygen in the charge further oxidizes unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Second, excess oxygen lowers the peak combustion temperatures, which inhibits the formation of oxides of nitrogen. Third, the lower combustion temperatures increase the mixture specific heat ratio by decreasing the net dissociation losses. Fourth, as the specific heat ratio increases, the cycle thermal efficiency also increases, which gives the potential for better fuel economy.

(italics added for emphasis)

The problem is that that simply isn't true. The linked Wikipedia page about leaning engines explicitly states:


 * The main drawback of lean burning is that a complex catalytic converter system is required to reduce NOx emissions. Lean burn engines do not work well with modern 3-way catalytic converter—which require a pollutant balance at the exhaust port so they can carry out oxidation and reduction reactions—so most modern engines run at or near the stoichiometric point. Alternatively, ultra-lean ratios can reduce NOx emissions.

The part in italics is taken from a section on heavy-duty natural gas and LPG engines (not gasoline) which states:


 * Heavy-duty lean burn gas engines admit as much as 75% more air than theoretically needed for complete combustion into the combustion chambers. The extremely weak air-fuel mixtures lead to lower combustion temperatures and therefore lower NOx formation. While lean-burn gas engines offer higher theoretical thermal efficiencies, transient response and performance may be compromised in certain situations. Lean burn gas engines are almost always turbocharged, resulting high power and torque figures not achieveable with stoichiometric engines due to high combustion temperatures. 216.138.230.98 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The second paragraph of this Hydrogen Fuel Enhancement article is simply wrong. The indented section has almost nothing to do with leaning down a stock gasoline-burning engine. Yes, excess oxygen can reduce the amount of HC and CO produced, and having the throttle more fully open can reduce pumping losses and increase efficiency, but the other quoted claims essentially don't apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.230.98 (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, once you get into "ultra-lean" territory, you can produce less NOx, but simply leaning the mixture down not only does NOT prevent NOx from being formed (it actually increases), but it DOES prevent the NOx from being reduced at the catalytic converter, thus increasing the emissions even further. A lean burning engine (or an ultra-lean burning engine) has to be designed to run lean in order to reap the benefits of the lean burn -- you can't just lean down a stock engine with stock emissions controls. That's exactly why the auto manufacturers don't just run their engines leaner (although they do dabble with lean and ultra-lean engines).

Again from the "Lean Burn" Wikipedia page, in regards to Honda's efforts:


 * One of the newest lean-burn technologies available in automobiles currently in production uses very precise control of fuel injection, a strong air-fuel swirl created in the combustion chamber, a new linear air-fuel sensor (LAF type O2 sensor) and a lean-burn NOx catalyst to further reduce the resulting NOx emissions that increase under "lean-burn" conditions and meet NOx emissions requirements.

(again, italics added for emphasis)

Until you get into "ultra-lean" territory, NOx is INCREASED with leaning. And lean conditions prevent the reduction of the NOx in a standard catalytic converter.216.138.230.98 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hythane redirected to "hydrogen fuel enhancement"
Searching for Hythane I was redirected to "Hydrogen fuel enhancement" which I consider correct. However, on-board hydrogen production by means of home-made electrolysers should not be included in the same topic.

While the latter is considered dubious, Hythane proposal is still being scientifically studied by many (see a few references below), specially to mitigate emissions of pollutants and CO2.

Therefore, I consider the article misleading.

REFS.: Akansu, S. O., and M. Bayrak. 2011. “Experimental Study on a Spark Ignition Engine Fueled by CH(4)/H(2) (70/30) and LPG.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 36: 9260–9266. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.04.043.

Akansu, S. O., Z. Dulger, N. Kahraman, and T. N. Veziroglu. 2004. “Internal Combustion Engines Fueled by Natural Gas - Hydrogen Mixtures.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 29: 1527–1539. doi:Article.

Akansu, S. O., N. Kahraman, and B. Ceper. 2007. “Experimental Study on a Spark Ignition Engine Fuelled by Methane-hydrogen Mixtures.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32: 4279–4284. doi:Article.

Amrouche, F., A. Benzaoui, P. Erickson, B. Mahmah, F. Herouadi, and M. Belhamel. 2011. “Toward Hydrogen Enriched Natural Gas ‘HCNG’ Fuel on the Algerian Road.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 36: 4094–4102. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.07.042.

Aslam, M. U., H. H. Masjuki, M. A. Kalam, H. Abdesselam, T. M. I. Mahlia, and M. A. Amalina. 2006. “An Experimental Investigation of CNG as an Alternative Fuel for a Retrofitted Gasoline Vehicle.” Fuel 85: 717–724. doi:Article.

Bauer, C. G., and T. W. Forest. 2001a. “Effect of Hydrogen Addition on the Performance of Methane-fueled Vehicles. Part II: Driving Cycle Simulations.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 26: 71–90.

———. 2001b. “Effect of Hydrogen Addition on the Performance of Methane-fueled Vehicles. Part I: Effect on SI Engine Performance.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 26: 55–70.

Bysveen, M. 2007. “Engine Characteristics of Emissions and Performance Using Mixtures of Natural Gas and Hydrogen.” Energy 32: 482–489. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2006.07.032.

Ceper, B. A., S. O. Akansu, and N. Kahraman. 2009. “Investigation of Cylinder Pressure for H2/CH4 Mixtures at Different Loads.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34: 4855–4861. doi:Article.

Das, L. M., R. Gulati, and P. K. Gupta. 2000. “A Comparative Evaluation of the Performance Characteristics of a Spark Ignition Engine Using Hydrogen and Compressed Natural Gas as Alternative Fuels.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 25: 783–793. doi:10.1016/s0360-3199(99)00103-2.

Demirbas, A. 2006. “Alternative Fuels for Transportation.” Energy Exploration & Exploitation 24: 45–54. doi:Article.

Deng, J., F. H. Ma, S. Li, Y. T. He, M. Y. Wang, L. Jiang, and S. L. Zhao. 2011. “Experimental Study on Combustion and Emission Characteristics of a Hydrogen-enriched Compressed Natural Gas Engine Under Idling Condition.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 36: 13150–13157. doi:Article.

Dickinson, R. R., D. L. Battye, V. M. Linton, P. J. Ashman, and G. J. Nathan. 2010. “Alternative Carriers for Remote Renewable Energy Sources Using Existing CNG Infrastructure.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35: 1321–1329. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.11.052.

Dimopoulos, P., C. Rechsteiner, P. Soltic, C. Laemmle, and K. Boulouchos. 2007. “Increase of Passenger Car Engine Efficiency with Low Engine-out Emissions Using Hydrogen-natural Gas Mixtures: A Thermodynamic Analysis.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32: 3073–3083. doi:Article.

Huang, Z. H., B. Liu, K. Zeng, Y. Y. Huang, D. M. Jiang, X. B. Wang, and H. Y. Miao. 2006. “Experimental Study on Engine Performance and Emissions for an Engine Fueled with Natural Gas-hydrogen Mixtures.” Energy & Fuels 20: 2131–2136. doi:Article.

Karner, Don, and James Francfort. 2003. Hydrogen/CNG Blended Fuels Performance Testing in a Ford F-150. Idaho Falls, Idaho: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory - Transportation Technology and Infrastructure Department.

Raju, Avsr, A. Ramesh, and B. Nagalingam. 2000. “Effect of Hydrogen Induction on the Performance of a Natural-gas-fuelled Lean-burn SI Engine.” Journal of the Institute of Energy 73: 143–148. doi:Article.

Sierens, R., and E. Rosseel. 2000. “Variable Composition Hydrogen/natural Gas Mixtures for Increased Engine Efficiency and Decreased Emissions.” Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power-Transactions of the Asme 122: 135–140. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cspinto (talk • contribs) 00:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hythane seems to be a registered trademark for a mixture of 20% by volume hydrogen and and 80% natural gas. If the decision is made that it is appropriate to include a mention of it in this article I would suggest that the section be called something like Hydrogen/natural gas mixtures and perhaps Hythane might be mentioned in the article as a trade name for a mixture of hydrogen and natural gas. This site includes some information about hydrogen/natural gas mixtures for use as fuel: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Hythane --Davefoc (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * PesWiki is notoriously unreliable - and it's overrun by the shysters who are attempting to dupe the general public into buying their useless/expensive kits. We can't use it as a source of information for anything whatever. SteveBaker (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you may have misunderstood my intent. I didn't mean to encourage anybody to go grab a PESwiki article as a source for this article. I wanted to know what hythane is so I looked it up and I was just making a comment about whether an entry on hythane would be appropriate for this article. FWIW, I'm a hydrogen economy skeptic and I suspect that whatever the advantages of hythane the cost of the hydrogen is going to prevent the use of hydrogen/methane fuel mixes. So if I was writing the section I'd be looking for serious sources on whether this technology has any potential or not. Perhaps there is something in one of the sources listed above, but I doubt it. --Davefoc (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever PesWiki is, Hythane and/HCNG should not be considered scam such as small amateur electrolysis systems on-board vehicles. Here it is another reference of serious work on the subject: http://www.crf.it/en-US/Sfide/Environment/Pages/miscelemetano-idrogeno.aspx

Although I do not know the company Hythane, here is part of the history on hydrogen and natural gas blends for ICE vehicles: http://hythane.net/hythane-fuel/hythane-fuel-history/ As far as I know, it is accurate. I suggest removing the mechanism that redirects Hythane to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_enhancement and redirect it to HCNG page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCNG). This last page lacks a lot of information, but it is more accurate than the Hydrogen Fuel Enhancement page. Cspinto (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah - I agree. I've changed the Hythane redirect to point at HCNG. SteveBaker (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Several facts still missing
The article still does not include the fact that all of the "hho" devices lower fuel economy and offer zero benefits to the victims who build or buy them and put their in their automobiles. The article also failed to mention the many tests performed that show these devices do not work; the article failed to mention the USA laws against putting these devices in automobiles; the article failed to mention the fact that the USA Department of Justice, the EPA, the DoT, and the DoE all have indicted and convicted sellers of these devices; finally, the article failed to mention the fact that there are money prizes still waiting uncollected for the first person to step forward and produce evidence that "hho" devices perform as the sellers and promoters claim. --Desertphile (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Those are things that we could add to the article - but unless there are solid references available for these facts, we really can't. SteveBaker (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The intro correctly points out that the EPA has never tested one of these devices because no one has ever submitted one for testing, and I made a tiny punctuation change that makes that a little clearer.  I added a link to an EPA publication which warns that the installation of these devices generally involves illegally tampering with a car's emissions control system.  The court cases would be good, and I recommend you provide some references.  Most of the ones I'm familiar with involve cars that that claim to run on water, and are already included in the Water-fuelled car article.Prebys (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Right...for a car that is claimed to run on water alone, that would have to be classified as an experimental vehicle - and probably wouldn't be legal on public roads and for mass production until the EPA wrote entirely new rules for it...which, since these things can't possibly work - won't ever happen. But the "HHO"/Oxyhydrogen fuel enhancement contraptions, there are certainly EPA issues that would make the installation of them count as illegal tampering - unless the scammers who sold them could somehow make them totally unobtrusive by not connecting them to anything.  For example, those magnets that are supposed to improve fuel economy when you clamp them onto your fuel line clearly aren't illegal, even though they don't do anything.  But certainly if you make a hydrolysis unit and put the output into the carburettor or fuel injector - that has the potential (if it worked) to mess with your oxygen sensor because you're injecting oxygen from the Oxyhydrogen...so the EPA would certainly want ten yards of paperwork and testing before they could approve it...and since that ain't gonna happen because none of the scammers want to be revealed as charlatans, installing one of these things in your car is certainly illegal.  However, this is all WP:SYNTH - we need some references before we can write about it. SteveBaker (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)