Hydro-4000 Hydrogen Injection System for Improved MPG

[GTAHVIT]

This one's pretty cool too. I wonder how it works in a HiPo engine. Be interesting to see how it works in Forced Induction or high Compression Ratio engines.



http://www.wptv.com/news/local/story...1-939c4bb13a28

[Camaro_Corvette]

Wicked!!

[CamaroSpike23]

first off, id like to know what kind of vehicle they put this on, how many miles on said vehicle as well. they said they changed the oil and filters, did they think to change the spark plugs? what kind of gas were they using?


1200 is a bit to be asking for this. im going to have to design something cheaper.

[COPO_Chevy]

wow, my friend just installed hydrogen onto his car just yesterday...i havent seen it yet and he said it worked and everything and found away to for it to produce hydrogen and stuff, all he had to do was put water in it. ill have to check it out now....i have no idea how he got it to work or anything, not that science savy...but i thought it was kool and now will definitly check it out.

[swazworth]

First, we needed to know how many miles to the gallon we were getting in our vehicle. So we put it on something called a dynamometer, think of it as a giant treadmill where we ran the truck for twenty minutes at 55-miles an hour on a full tank of gas.

Once done, we found that even with an oil change, clean air filter and proper tire pressure, we were averaging roughly 9.4 miles to the gallon.

We then ran our truck on the street for close to a month with the Hydro-4000 running. The owners said this would give the device time to clean out the engine. We then put our vehicle back on the dynamometer, and did the same test all over again.

And guess what? With the device on, we were now averaging 23.2 miles to the gallon. That's 61% better than the gas mileage we were previously getting.

We also road tested the device. There we averaged 16-point-one miles to the gallon, which is 58% better than before.

i'm not a math man but is that right? if you were getting 9.4 and the got 23.2 isn't that better than 61%? i'm just thinking if it got 18.8 that would be a 100% gain. double what you had before, right?

someone let me know if i'm not thinking right.

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

first off, id like to know what kind of vehicle they put this on, how many miles on said vehicle as well. they said they changed the oil and filters, did they think to change the spark plugs? what kind of gas were they using?


1200 is a bit to be asking for this. im going to have to design something cheaper.

Watch the video on the news channel site. It explains it a little better. They actually did it on two different cars. One they tested on a Dyno, the other they road tested. Both got around 60% increases.

And Yes, a ton of people are building their own kits for less then $20.00 in some cases.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/water-fuel1.htm

[Mr. Wyndham]

I wonder why manufacturers aren't installing this...I know better than to think there's some conspiracy, so I wonder what it does to your engine.....................

[GTAHVIT]

Based on the reading I've been doing today, this hydrogen from ethanol thing is all good. I have no idea why manufacturers don't offer this as an option. It seems to be a good compliment to AFM and VVT. I'm guessing there is some concern that people will forget to add distilled water to the system, or add tap water. There are significant safety concerns when the system is on without water. There would have to be all kinds of safety controls that shut the system off if there was no water, etc. I can't imagine this hasn't been considered by the big 3.

It makes sense that Ethanol is a better solution for them since the engine requires only minor mods.

[DGthe3]

I smell snake-oil. Something aint right. If it works as advertised, every automaker would be installing them. Thousands of engineers cannot be wrong, a couple here and there yes. But the majority (playing it safe, is probably an overwhelming majority) in an entire industry? Heres what I've taken notice on.

1) patent pending. Patents can only be approved if the thing does what it says. So long as they are applying for a patent, it is patent pending. That does not mean that it will work. Doesn't mean it won't work either. Just something to look out for

2) Anything that I have heard, nearly all of these systems are a scam. A select few aren't. I haven't found anything on their web page that describes how their system works. They explain about electrolysis and other things, but nothing specific to how they get such improved fuel economy. That sets off warning bells in my head.

3) Where are they getting the energy to run this thing off of? They say themselves that electrolysis is 50-70% efficient, ignore the theoretical limit stuff. That means that roughly 1/2 the energy you put in actually goes into getting hydrogen out. Then there is the pesky problem that it takes more energy to break the hydrogen-oxygen bonds in water than you get back from them when the reform under combustion, not sure of the exact numbers but I think its something like 75% but that is little more than a guess. Then, figure that the infernal combustion engine is roughly 35% efficient when burning gasoline. Finally, I think its safe to assume that the juice to run it comes from the alternator in the car, which runs at about 60% efficiency. So, for every 1000 units of electrical energy that gets put in, you can expect at most 110 units back, possibly half that. This is why hydrogen is not a fuel source! Would you believe someone that says that it is a wise investment if you get a dollar back for every 10 you put in?

Based on that, unless there is some sort of special effect of combining hydrogen with gasoline that makes the entire process more efficient (it happens with low amounts of ethanol so its possible), it is impossible for this to improve fuel economy. It merely creates a drain on the battery and alternator. I am not a combustion expert, but I would guess that this device does 1 of 2 things. It will either add oxygen, venting the hydrogen gas back to the atmosphere. That would allow for more complete combustion to take place, reducing the amount of unburned fuel as well as carbon and carbon monoxide gas levels as well as several others. I think this may be the case, not positive though.

The other thing that may happen is the hydrogen burns hotter (or possibly cooler) allowing for a different set of reactions to take place. This would make for the lower emissions levels claimed. No idea how it improves economy.

[GTAHVIT]

My reply in Bold

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I smell snake-oil. Something aint right. If it works as advertised, every automaker would be installing them. Thousands of engineers cannot be wrong, a couple here and there yes. But the majority (playing it safe, is probably an overwhelming majority) in an entire industry? Heres what I've taken notice on.

Gees, DGthe3

Are you surprised when the sun comes up every morning???

It is possible that they are telling the truth. Not everyone is out to scam the buying public. Hydrogen has long been proven in increase performance, reduce emissions and increase efficiency.

There are more then a few reasons why manufacturers don't want to accept the risk of installing a system like this in a car. For one, who knows what the liability and engineering costs would be to safely create, store and introduce hydrogen to existing air/fuel systems.

Plus, the news station put in on a Dyno. Watch the Vid on the news page, top right hand side.

I'll admit the web page is weak at best, and there are a lot of websites selling you instruction manuals on how to build this system when the information is readily available for free on the web. Doesn't mean it doesn't work as advertised.

1) patent pending. Patents can only be approved if the thing does what it says. So long as they are applying for a patent, it is patent pending. That does not mean that it will work. Doesn't mean it won't work either. Just something to look out for

Fair point

2) Anything that I have heard, nearly all of these systems are a scam. A select few aren't. I haven't found anything on their web page that describes how their system works. They explain about electrolysis and other things, but nothing specific to how they get such improved fuel economy. That sets off warning bells in my head.

Electrolysis is how they make the Hydrogen. Which is then introduced into the Air intake. Similar to NOS but it is always on. The Hydrogen Allows the combustion chamber to burn almost 100% of the fuel vice approx 85% without the hydrogen. Hence, all the benefits.

3) Where are they getting the energy to run this thing off of? They say themselves that electrolysis is 50-70% efficient, ignore the theoretical limit stuff. That means that roughly 1/2 the energy you put in actually goes into getting hydrogen out. Then there is the pesky problem that it takes more energy to break the hydrogen-oxygen bonds in water than you get back from them when the reform under combustion, not sure of the exact numbers but I think its something like 75% but that is little more than a guess. Then, figure that the infernal combustion engine is roughly 35% efficient when burning gasoline. Finally, I think its safe to assume that the juice to run it comes from the alternator in the car, which runs at about 60% efficiency. So, for every 1000 units of electrical energy that gets put in, you can expect at most 110 units back, possibly half that. This is why hydrogen is not a fuel source! Would you believe someone that says that it is a wise investment if you get a dollar back for every 10 you put in?

Have you ever been accused of over thinking something? It's driven by the electrical system and it takes far less power then the radio. More like a few cabin lights.
Based on your interpretation of the power required vs the output of the system, the car would perform worse with this system since it takes more power to run than it creates. Watch the Vid. They proved it works. So in the end you believe them or you don't. I'm quite certain your analytical mind can grasp that if you improve efficiency you will decrease expenses over time. You will recover the cost of the system and spend less on gas as long as it never costs more to maintain and run the system then it does to buy gas.

Based on that, unless there is some sort of special effect of combining hydrogen with gasoline that makes the entire process more efficient (it happens with low amounts of ethanol so its possible), it is impossible for this to improve fuel economy. It merely creates a drain on the battery and alternator. I am not a combustion expert, but I would guess that this device does 1 of 2 things. It will either add oxygen, venting the hydrogen gas back to the atmosphere. That would allow for more complete combustion to take place, reducing the amount of unburned fuel as well as carbon and carbon monoxide gas levels as well as several others. I think this may be the case, not positive though.

You're just plain wrong here. the system is designed to remove oxygen from water so you are left with hydrogen. It injects the hydrogen into the air intake. This is what allows it to burn nearly all of the fuel in the combustion chamber.

The other thing that may happen is the hydrogen burns hotter (or possibly cooler) allowing for a different set of reactions to take place. This would make for the lower emissions levels claimed. No idea how it improves economy.

I don't know for sure. My guess is it burns hotter if it's burning more fuel in the same volume combustion chamber. However, If it burns more quickly then the engine won't have a residual heat problem.

[DGthe3]

I left the door open for them to be telling the truth. I also know that technical info isn't always posted on websites. As I said, some of the products that make similar claims are not scams, but most of them are.

Yes, I have been accused of overthinking. Not too often though, normally I'm told that I over simplify things. Anyway, the math is right. But all that it proves is that if you had a tank of water and tried to use electrolysis of that water to power your car, it would drain the battery faster than trying to run the car off that battery.

I proposed that it runs based on injecting oxygen (which is more similar to adding nitrous oxide than adding hydrogen would be) because I understand that portion of the chemistry. More oxgen=more complete combustion, which is part of their claim. It also creates a greater volume of gas which increases the 'bang for the buck', resulting in better fuel economy or more power depending on tuning. I did the math and it is possible for the required levels of oxygen to be produced, miligrams/rev. So unless I am wrong with my chemistry, adding oxygen would lead to the claims that they propose. No idea what sort of numbers it would give though.

The claim that hydrogen makes it burn more efficiently doesnt make sense to me. hydrogen needs oxygen to burn, and it take the oxygen before the gasoline does (based on reactivity). So, unless both the oxygen an hydrogen are introduced together (already in the perfect stoich ratio) it would lead to more incomplete combustion, unless more air is introduced as well. That could very well be the case, I don't know but I don't think that the system does that.

Both of those ideas say nothing about the potential 'special properties' of burning hydrogen and gasoline together. I simply don't know anything about what happens, if it happens, so I cannot comment. And if it turns out that this is how it works, thats fine by me. I am not a chemistry guy so I have no problems being told that I am wrong when Im out of my field. As I said, something similar hapens with ethanol in moderate amounts so it is possible that it could happen with hydrogen.

[GTAHVIT]

In Bold

Originally Posted by DGthe3

I left the door open for them to be telling the truth. I also know that technical info isn't always posted on websites. As I said, some of the products that make similar claims are not scams, but most of them are.

Yes, I have been accused of overthinking. Not too often though, normally I'm told that I over simplify things. Anyway, the math is right. But all that it proves is that if you had a tank of water and tried to use electrolysis of that water to power your car, it would drain the battery faster than trying to run the car off that battery.

It doesn't run off the battery solely. It runs off the alternator while the engine is running. It won't put that much drain on the electrical system that the alternator can't keep the battery charged.

I proposed that it runs based on injecting oxygen (which is more similar to adding nitrous oxide than adding hydrogen would be) because I understand that portion of the chemistry. More oxgen=more complete combustion, which is part of their claim. It also creates a greater volume of gas which increases the 'bang for the buck', resulting in better fuel economy or more power depending on tuning. I did the math and it is possible for the required levels of oxygen to be produced, miligrams/rev. So unless I am wrong with my chemistry, adding oxygen would lead to the claims that they propose. No idea what sort of numbers it would give though.


The claim that hydrogen makes it burn more efficiently doesnt make sense to me. hydrogen needs oxygen to burn, and it take the oxygen before the gasoline does (based on reactivity). So, unless both the oxygen an hydrogen are introduced together (already in the perfect stoich ratio) it would lead to more incomplete combustion, unless more air is introduced as well. That could very well be the case, I don't know but I don't think that the system does that.

Well, my simplified answer is that the oxygen is already part of the air getting sucked into the engine. Unless you are talking about 100% O2. Which will certainly burn better than outside air. I think the reason chemicals like Hydrogen and NOS are used because they are much more stable and safe to store than pure O2, which is extremely flammable.


Both of those ideas say nothing about the potential 'special properties' of burning hydrogen and gasoline together. I simply don't know anything about what happens, if it happens, so I cannot comment. And if it turns out that this is how it works, thats fine by me. I am not a chemistry guy so I have no problems being told that I am wrong when Im out of my field. As I said, something similar hapens with ethanol in moderate amounts so it is possible that it could happen with hydrogen.

[Mythic]

I think the reason chemicals like Hydrogen and NOS are used because they are much more stable and safe to store than pure O2, which is extremely flammable.

??? H2 go BOOM
Hydrogen has one of the highest gravimetric energy densities of all available fuels, which means it has very high energy content per unit mass (143 MJ/kg, 40 percent more than other rocket fuels)

Hydrogen is quite difficult to store. It burns with a very high temperature. It requires very little energy to ingnite which is noted by its low octane rating. In single ignition jet/rocket engines this is a plus. In an ICE not so much.

Hydrogen can also corrupt the structure of metals in which it comes into contact - see Hydrogen Embrittlement

[GTAHVIT]

Originally Posted by Mythic

??? H2 go BOOM
Hydrogen has one of the highest gravimetric energy densities of all available fuels, which means it has very high energy content per unit mass (143 MJ/kg, 40 percent more than other rocket fuels)

Hydrogen is quite difficult to store. It burns with a very high temperature. It requires very little energy to ingnite which is noted by its low octane rating. In single ignition jet/rocket engines this is a plus. In an ICE not so much.

Hydrogen can also corrupt the structure of metals in which it comes into contact - see Hydrogen Embrittlement

That's awesome information, thank you. Hopefully it was obvious that I was speculating as to why one chemical is used over another.

So, what is your take on the hydrogen injection stuff? I'm very interested to know.

I haven't bought into the hydrogen thing just yet. But the MPG numbers are hard to argue with. On the surface, anyway.