Adding hydrogen to your car?

[TDot]

So I was messing around and came across adding hydrogen to your fuel to increase mpg. It seems to have been done...allegedly...by quite a few people. A police department in South Carolina has apparently done it with a number of their vehicles. It's not meant as a replacement, just a constant additive that is said to add about 50%mpg. These are two quick youtube vids. One news exposé on the police department and one guy who seems to swear by it. I'm nothing near and engine guy, but interested in thoughts on the subject by people here who are. What's the downside? I understand why carmakers aren't pushing this, but why isn't this better known about and people doing it if it's possible?

https://youtu.be/MUgUF5M3FTI

https://youtu.be/u5nld6HzEjM

[asoomal]

It's mostly a scam really.

Look up HHO kits online and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[Bubba1]

From the very little I've read about it, hydrogen as a fuel enhancer may or may not marginally increase gas mileage (certainly not 50%) but pollutants go way up too. Kinda like Veedub's diesel engines: Too good to be true, and do not pass EPA limits. The carmakers have been looking at hydrogen, but as a primary fuel, not an additive to fossil fuel.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Yeah I wouldn't think that electrolysis method would produce anywhere near enough hydrogen to make a difference.
A lot of the statements in math in that second video don't add up.
"You're only burning 30% of your fuel... the other 70% is coming straight out of the tail pipe". WHAT?!

[darylzero]

Yeah I wouldn't think that electrolysis method would produce anywhere near enough hydrogen to make a difference.
A lot of the statements in math in that second video don't add up.
"You're only burning 30% of your fuel... the other 70% is coming straight out of the tail pipe". WHAT?!

It's even less than 30% according to fueleconomy.gov it's between 15-30%!


I knew cars were not efficient at burning gas, but I thought it was more like 40%.

We wast between 85-70% of every gallon of gas we buy!! If someone could come up with a way to make gas 80% efficient we could drive a 1000 miles between fill ups!
Of course if someone actually came up with this oil companies would kill him/her.

[ArmedAviator]

Yep, engines are awful at efficiency. As stated above, gasoline engines are somewhere around 15-25% efficiency. The remaining energy is lost as heat - mostly through the exhaust and radiator.

Diesels do a bit better because of their much greater compression ratio.

Electric motors are the way of the future for their increased efficiency (and torque, and size, and reliability, and ease of manufacture and maintenance). However, we need a new type of battery as the precious metals used in current battery technologies are more finite than fossil fuels. It'd also be wise to charge these cars with nuclear and solar energy as much as possible (preferably molten salt reactor, being the most cost-effective method and requires the least materials).

As to the OP's post.....

All hogwash. Nothing to be gained here.

[Bubba1]

Actually, I think hydrogen fuel as a primary fuel for vehicles is a stronger possibility in the near future as it doesn't pollute, and there's even more of it. Given how big our country is and how far Americans are willing to commute/travel by car, and the variety of climates, I suspect we're farther away from a long term mass conversion to electric cars (which work best in mild climates and short mileage requirements) than hydrogen. I can see electric doing well in certain areas/circumstances, but not universally.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

I thought the video said 70% of your fuel goes unburned and right out the tailpipe, which is nonsense.
You burn almost all of it (like 99%), you just recover only 15-30% of the energy that is stored in it.

[elwesso]

Yep, engines are awful at efficiency. As stated above, gasoline engines are somewhere around 15-25% efficiency. The remaining energy is lost as heat - mostly through the exhaust and radiator.

Diesels do a bit better because of their much greater compression ratio.

Electric motors are the way of the future for their increased efficiency (and torque, and size, and reliability, and ease of manufacture and maintenance). However, we need a new type of battery as the precious metals used in current battery technologies are more finite than fossil fuels. It'd also be wise to charge these cars with nuclear and solar energy as much as possible (preferably molten salt reactor, being the most cost-effective method and requires the least materials).

As to the OP's post.....

All hogwash. Nothing to be gained here.

In all fairness an internal combustion engine isn't too bad compared to other thermal engines (steam cycles, gas turbines, etc)..

HHO is an interesting idea, but probably not worth it especially considering it's a somewhat dangerous thing to be messing with for the DIYer...

Molten salt reactor is interesting but there's still a lot of engineering questions to be worked out there... Every flavor of that I've seen is using fluoride based salts, which are noticeably corrosive. The breeder reactors I've heard of uses fluorine to process/regenerate the salt and carry out the fission products. Conceptually the whole thing is pretty good, but there's noticeable challenges particularly on the materials side..

Actually, I think hydrogen fuel as a primary fuel for vehicles is a stronger possibility in the near future as it doesn't pollute, and there's even more of it. Given how big our country is and how far Americans are willing to commute/travel by car, and the variety of climates, I suspect we're farther away from a long term mass conversion to electric cars (which work best in mild climates and short mileage requirements) than hydrogen. I can see electric doing well in certain areas/circumstances, but not universally.

The only problem with hydrogen is that at best it's energy neutral, meaning it takes as much energy to create it as it then can create. Not to mention since it's not easily condensed, you're stuck with high pressure tanks which people tend to frown upon. Natural gas is probably a better source of fuel if you're talking gasses that are difficult to condense into liquid.

Overall, I don't think we'll ever completely get away from liquid based fuels for transportation. We may be able to eliminate it in some areas, but you've got airplanes, boats, and heavy equipment that are by nature larger energy users which makes the challenge exponentially more difficult. Fact of the matter is liquid fuel is easy to transport, the infrastructure is already there, and pretty energy dense for what it is.

[ArmedAviator]

I wonder how a hybrid car would fare with a small turbine engine driving a generator to power the wheels. Turbine engines are most efficient at their maximum RPM despite load. Run a turbine engine at max RPM continuously to keep a battery charged and an electric motor and you should have a very good range and efficiency with all of the benefits of electric power.

Basically a small APU in your trunk. Chrysler had their "turbine car" pretty quiet. I'm sure a smaller turbine that runs at a constant RPM can be muffled to be just as quiet and more efficient and run on diesel, Jet A and other fuels.

[elwesso]

I'm not sure you'd be able to make a turbine more efficient than a piston engine, however you would likely be able to make it noticeably smaller/less HP. Sort of the same concept as the chevy volt.

[ArmedAviator]

I'm not sure you'd be able to make a turbine more efficient than a piston engine, however you would likely be able to make it noticeably smaller/less HP. Sort of the same concept as the chevy volt.

Have you ever noticed that many power stations and sub-stations have backup/supplementary generators? None of them are diesel reciprocating engines. They are all gas-turbine. Most of them are in the 50% efficiency range these days. That is significant over reciprocating engines' max of about 35%. Combined-cycle turbine engines are doing even better, around 60%, but is still a newer technology and needs to be scaled way down.

And by being smaller/lighter/less moving parts you end up with a cheaper alternative in the long run.

[float_6969]

Turbine engine's aren't particularly efficient in the small sizes we're talking about for automotive applications, even with the most modern materials and designs used. That's why you almost exclusively see them in large applications like power generation, airplanes, etc. They are also very "peaky" in their efficiency range. They like to run at one RPM, outside of that, efficiency falls off quickly.

Single RPM power supply's don't work well in automotive applications. They CAN be used in a hybrid setup to be coupled with a generator. A few manufacturers have done this. It will likely never be implemented though. The first reason is as stated, when you make turbine engines small, the efficiency drops. The second is noise. They're not quiet, and have a VERY distinct sound that many people find off-putting. And as said before, to get the most out of them, you'd have to cycle them on an off, which adds to the problem.

[the converted]

I work with hydrogen a little for work. That is all nonsense.

Hydrogen is still way to resource demanding to produce to really be of any benefit. To give you an idea in a fuel cell application a POUND of hydrogen has about the same energy potential as a gallon of gasoline. That pound of hydrogen costs about $6 to make in medium scale. That pound also takes up about a cubic foot at a few thousand psi.

It's cool stuff, just don't think it's really ready for prime time. This application smells scammy.