# WOO-HOO! Ran a 230 watt welder on Hydrogen!



## Don (Dec 23, 2005)

Totally cool! Today I ran a 230 watt welder on PURE HYDROGEN! I am so excited! This puts us just that much closer to developing an engine to run solely on hydrogen! :dance:


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Interesting step one is to get it to work then get it to work efficiently. Luv to read some details!


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

What is the *motor* that powers the welder . . ??


----------



## Don (Dec 23, 2005)

Ross 
what we did was fire up the welder and let it good and warm, we made sure it was running good before we tried the HYDROGEN. we let it run out of gas as it is gravity fed, when it quit running we put the HYDROGEN line on the gas inlet. We let the HYDROGEN "GENERATOR" feed for a few seconds, then we hit the started, it fired and ran!!!! Altho it did not run good it still ran, and really this was a surprise to me,I really did not expect it to actually sit there and run. The reason I not not expect it to actually run is because of the type of carbration on the engine. we really need sumething differant, and I belive we have the answer. This will come later the answer that is. The engine is a 16 horse BRIGGS & STRATTON, this is just the start, we still have a ways to go, but GOD willing we will achive.

Don


----------



## Don (Dec 23, 2005)

sorry about the spelling in the last post just excited

Don


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

My question is where does the H2 come from?


----------



## Don (Dec 23, 2005)

Watcher,
From a small generator my partner and I build. You can read quite a lengthy discussion about it in this Alternative Energy forum, click on 'Views' to sort by number of views...it's the one with over 3,000 hits (Ross locked it up...so no one can comment further there.) But here'e the video link of a recent "Does It Work" segment of our local ABC affiliate: 
As seen on KGUN9: http://www.kgun9.com/NewsArticle/tabid/1112/xmid/15946/Default.aspx

We are doing some experimenting which will lead up to powering a Chevy 350 completely with hydrogen.


----------



## Don (Dec 23, 2005)

Oh yeah, as a side note, Charles Proctor got a *33%* increase...not 13%!


----------



## Dahc (Feb 14, 2006)

Don,

There is a small site called www.oupower.com where there may be ideas to share and they have many pictures of their projects. They have a link to their forums further down the page. There are several there who have built small scale electrolysis set-ups that they try and use for various "projects". Just thought I'd share that link. Good luck in your endeavors.

At least one has been doing something similar to what you have done here.


----------



## Don (Dec 23, 2005)

Thank You Dahc
This is great, I triedd to tell all that what I was doing was not new just differant
Don


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Don said:


> Watcher,
> From a small generator my partner and I build. You can read quite a lengthy discussion about it in this Alternative Energy forum, click on 'Views' to sort by number of views...it's the one with over 3,000 hits (Ross locked it up...so no one can comment further there.) But here'e the video link of a recent "Does It Work" segment of our local ABC affiliate:
> As seen on KGUN9: http://www.kgun9.com/NewsArticle/tabid/1112/xmid/15946/Default.aspx
> 
> We are doing some experimenting which will lead up to powering a Chevy 350 completely with hydrogen.


I'm having problems with windoze Vista so I couldn't get the link to work.

But are you saying that you used an electric generator to make H2 to burn to make electricity run a welder?


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

I think the point was getting a machine to use hydrogen not as a complete "system" although even using grid power to power a portable machine (whether it's by H2 or batteries) is a useful capability.


----------



## Don (Dec 23, 2005)

what we did was run the gas engine on a welder, on pure hydrogen, we put the HYDROGEN to the carb on the welder engine and it ran!!! you hear that it ran!!! to me that is a great big leap, it seems that most of the stuff you read on line about this is just bunk, 
I can say this because I have done the work, and done the testing, I do belive that we will over come.

Don


----------



## rambler (Jan 20, 2004)

Don said:


> Totally cool! Today I ran a 230 watt welder on PURE HYDROGEN! I am so excited! This puts us just that much closer to developing an engine to run solely on hydrogen! :dance:


You got a B&S gas engine to run on hydrogen with little modification, is what you are saying. It didn't run all that well, but it did run.

That's cool.

I hate to be a nit picker, but what use is a 230 watt welder? And why would it take a 16 hp engine to run it?

Did you actually do any welding, or just run the engine?

I understand the point - you got an engine to work with hydrogen, but the details of the subject line leave me with questions. 

--->Paul


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Good for you as an education experience but in the grand scheme what's the use? Using H2 in an ICE is a poor use of energy. As it stands there is no way to get as much energy out of the H2 as you use to make the H2.

IMO, it make more sense to rig the engine to run on methane. A lot of homesteaders could build a methane digester then they could use the methane to cook, heat, generate electricity, run an engine or many other things.


----------



## Dahc (Feb 14, 2006)

watcher said:


> Good for you as an education experience but in the grand scheme what's the use? Using H2 in an ICE is a poor use of energy. As it stands there is no way to get as much energy out of the H2 as you use to make the H2.
> 
> IMO, it make more sense to rig the engine to run on methane. A lot of homesteaders could build a methane digester then they could use the methane to cook, heat, generate electricity, run an engine or many other things.


Methane is very hard to store properly for the everyday individual as is hydrogen. I think the motive for hydrogen here is that it is possible to produce hydrogen from a running vehicle through electrolysis. This is not possible with methane. It must be stored and then used from tanks. With a small electrolyser installed right into the vehicle and a supply of water to extract the hydrogen/oxygen gases (hydroxy) from, a steady source of combustible gas can be produced from various alternators on the vehicle and be fed into the carb with any natural gas changeover kit (tweaked of course). I'm sure there are other means being employed to use a gasoline/hydrogen mix.

Methane storage of any benefit can get costly at around 3600 psi. That means, a regular propane tank which doesn't cost very much isn't really the best storage device because it can't hold liquid methane which is what you'll need for any decent amount of storage. Hydrogen gas is the same but requires even more pressure at around 6000 psi. Both would require oxygen/acetylene tanks or scuba tanks and a scuba tank compressor, or something of equal quality. This is why the ability to produce a combustible gas while you travel is the way to go for average people.

Anything else would still tie a person to a corrupt govt and corrupt businessmen who just want to control peoples spending in their own favor... Very similar to the gas nozzle sown into everyone's wallet at the moment.

In my very uneducated, unfunded and untried opinion, I think that no matter how far Don actually gets, he is on the right track.


----------



## Don (Dec 23, 2005)

Very well put, DAHC!! *Thank you!!*


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Dahc said:


> Methane is very hard to store properly for the everyday individual as is hydrogen.


I disagree, more below.




Dahc said:


> I think the motive for hydrogen here is that it is possible to produce hydrogen from a running vehicle through electrolysis. This is not possible with methane. It must be stored and then used from tanks. With a small electrolyser installed right into the vehicle and a supply of water to extract the hydrogen/oxygen gases (hydroxy) from, a steady source of combustible gas can be produced from various alternators on the vehicle and be fed into the carb with any natural gas changeover kit (tweaked of course). I'm sure there are other means being employed to use a gasoline/hydrogen mix.


Been here before. In a perfect system when you 'burned' the H2 and O2 you got from breaking down water you would get back exactly the same amount of energy you used. You could make the machine run itself. But in the real world you can't do it. Does he has a machine that he can pour water into as fuel then take off burning water or is he taking some other fuel, making H2 then adding that back into the engine? The first would make you rich in a day, the second would waste fuel. There is a small chance that adding the O2 from the water could cause the gasoline to burn better thereby giving him a boost in MPG. I'd have to talk to an organic chemist to find out.




Dahc said:


> Methane storage of any benefit can get costly at around 3600 psi. That means, a regular propane tank which doesn't cost very much isn't really the best storage device because it can't hold liquid methane which is what you'll need for any decent amount of storage. Hydrogen gas is the same but requires even more pressure at around 6000 psi. Both would require oxygen/acetylene tanks or scuba tanks and a scuba tank compressor, or something of equal quality.


Yes and no. For a homesteader wanting to heat his house, cook meals or run a stationary (to pump water, run a generator or whatever) all that is needed is a few PSI. One system uses nothing but the weight of the 'lid' on the digester to generate the pressure needed. This is 1970's tech. I have looked into it but have never had enough waste to make building a digester worth while.




Dahc said:


> This is why the ability to produce a combustible gas while you travel is the way to go for average people.


Maybe but I don't see it. Mainly because I don't see being feasible.




Dahc said:


> Anything else would still tie a person to a corrupt govt and corrupt businessmen who just want to control peoples spending in their own favor... Very similar to the gas nozzle sown into everyone's wallet at the moment.


Capitalism at work.




Dahc said:


> In my very uneducated, unfunded and untried opinion, I think that no matter how far Don actually gets, he is on the right track.


Unless he has made a break through in physics he'd not. Making H2 only to 'burn' it is an energy losing game. Anyone with a bit of education, a few tools and the time can make an ICE that will run on H2. Its really not that much different than making one run on propane or natural gas. Making an H2 injection system shouldn't be that much harder than an N20 injection system. The problem is that all the H2 on earth is the 'ash' left over after it has already been 'burned'.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

I think the H2 science is ground covered and recovered; however, if no-one looks at things from a different angle society will lose a useful application for hydrogen energy. Don may find a way to harvest hydrogen from lost energy or a way to power portable tools more efficiently or he may discover a way to grow carrots on the moon.......... I don't think we know a fraction of the things we could.


----------



## Don (Dec 23, 2005)

Don't worry, Ross, ain't going there again...he can just read all the discussions in the other thread: http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=209129


----------



## Dahc (Feb 14, 2006)

Ross said:


> I think the H2 science is ground covered and recovered; however, if no-one looks at things from a different angle society will lose a useful application for hydrogen energy. Don may find a way to harvest hydrogen from lost energy or a way to power portable tools more efficiently or he may discover a way to grow carrots on the moon.......... I don't think we know a fraction of the things we could.


I agree. We don't know a fraction of what we could know. We also don't know a fraction of what we "think" we know now. In school, we were all taught that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb which is hogwash. Edison actually just refined the findings of Joseph Swan and Humphry Davy and they got their ideas from Nikola Tesla. The only thing he really could take true credit for was the carbon filament he perfected which helped to commercialize light bulbs.

On top of that, we know now that the Egyptians had light bulbs over 5000 years ago and the Egyptians AND the Persians had electro-chemical cells (batteries) 5000 years ago also.










The depiction is obviously a light bulb with wiring leading to a canister. This would surely be the electo-chemical cells recovered by archaeologists. These were simple devices any of us can make, and I have made some myself. From a 6" long piece of 1/2" copper pipe, with a 1/4" x 6" piece of steel rod stuck in the center resting in an electrolyte (salt water, wine, vinegar, bleach...etc...), I got 1.2v. You can make a 12v even using a water tight container 8" wide, 4" deep and 7" tall. You just need to add electrolyte. It is low amperage but can easily run any 12v LED array for lighting.

All this says to me that we have pretty much reached a stalling point on energy and it's sources and applications. It is necessity that is the mother of invention, not industrialized production of technologies well over 100 years old (internal combustion, gasoline powered engines). As it becomes harder and harder for the common man to obtain the fuel to power his automobile, necessity is once again baring it's fangs and forcing the common man back into the workshop. The idea that there are better equipped, more highly educated people "working on it" is quickly losing it's credibility as knowledge is swallowed up by commercial entities. Knowledge that is not made to work for the good of a nation but rather used to make money.

There are just too many readers and learners and not enough tinkerers left but what's being read and learned is stuff that's 100 years old. The incandescent light bulb was "invented" in 1874... why is it that just now, when electricity is becoming more or more expensive to produce, those light bulbs are all of a sudden very important? Carbon filament bulbs should have been trashed as obsolete somewhere around the turn of the century but they weren't. Why? Commerce, that's why. CF bulbs have sold well for 100 years... why stop now?

I think those who bash the idea of hydrogen powered cars (not fuel cells) are trained by commercialized education to think within certain parameters. I can show several patents on different "inventions" in which the the sections that describe how they are made (materials...etc) are conspicuously not present. Things like a super efficient permanent magnet alternator with coils as thin as paper. You can find almost every detail of it's structure and purpose but nowhere will you find the alloys listed that make up these coils. Another one is the self-igniting spark plug. You can see the drawing of it and read about it's operation but the inner workings and materials used have been removed or omitted. I assure you all, this is not how patents work and yet, with certain items, that's how it goes.

I enjoy surfing through and reading patents on various things. It's amazing how many of the descriptions come up short on what is used to make the items and sometimes the method of operation itself. So, while the powers that be are purposefully hiding established knowledge, others are using their time to bash folks and give all sorts of negative input on ideas that they themselves have never actually tried. Input beginning with phrases like "the laws of physics say"... and "it's unlikely that"... and "it's not possible to...".

Why are we doing this? Don and others are doing these things without prompting from the public and without prompting from commercial entities. His work isn't costing any of you a dime so why all the negative input? If you doubt, that's fine but why do you try and get him to doubt too? It makes no sense to me why others aren't behind him on this and at very minimum, watching to see how far he gets without negative input.

Watcher: I can back up every statement in my post you commented on but that would take a great deal of time. I'm not sure I'm willing to do that here. I have also "been here before" concerning methane and it's production and storage even going so far as to design a farming system which was 70-90% self supporting using grain and seed oils, ethanol and methane production as fuel sources and animal feed. Of course, the 70-90% doesn't cover start-up costs. Unfortunately, for farm uses, the fuels are best used for stationary engines only such as generators and workhorse engines. Not moving vehicles. For a moving vehicle, you only have three options for a regular guy in the US. Either compress it shy of becoming a liquid (reduced volume, cheap) and use an affordable propane tank, invest in the equipment to compress and store it at over 3600psi (maximum volume, maximum cost) or drag a 50' long gas bag behind you car.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Please note I edited Dahc's original only to save space.



Dahc said:


> I agree. We don't know a fraction of what we could know. We also don't know a fraction of what we "think" we know now. In school, we were all taught that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb which is hogwash. Edison actually just refined the findings of Joseph Swan and Humphry Davy and they got their ideas from Nikola Tesla.
> .
> .
> .
> ...



None of the examples you gave nor no invention has ever changed the laws of chemistry or physics. Things have been discovered that we didn't know or had never done, fusion is a great example. And I'm sure there are things out there we will find in the future but some things are not going to change. I personally think that if humanity last long enough we will come up with some type of anti-gravity system but it will not change how gravity works. The wife thinks I'm off the deep end when I tell her that I think that we will one day be able to change/travel through time. So I'm not a stick in the mud, man will never fly type.




Dahc said:


> Why are we doing this? Don and others are doing these things without prompting from the public and without prompting from commercial entities. His work isn't costing any of you a dime so why all the negative input? If you doubt, that's fine but why do you try and get him to doubt too? It makes no sense to me why others aren't behind him on this and at very minimum, watching to see how far he gets without negative input.


I have no problem with anyone spending their time or money any way they want. I just don't want people to read what Don has posted and then take off demanding that the government pour my money into trying to make H2 a replacement for oil. There is already too much of this out there. People who read that H2 is the best thing out there because when you use it all you get as exhaust is water and we can use that water to make more H2. Then they start spouting what they have heard even though it is bunk! When you try to explain to them that it makes more energy to make the H2 than you get back they think you are just in the pocket of 'big oil'. 

Also I have an engineering/scientific background. Big claims demand big proofs. In the other thread Don was saying how much his H2 system helped his MPG. Great but how about some good scientific data to back it up. Not that hard nor that expensive to do. Put a fuel flow meter on a car. Then keep track of the fuel flow as you make several runs along a route with the system working. Do the same thing with the system off. Repeat this and you have data showing it works or not. If it works for him have other people do the same thing and if it works for them then you have proof it works. Until then I look at the same way as the cold fusion 'discovery' years ago. I want it to be true, I hope it is true but I doubt it until I see proof.

What he has been doing is tracking how many gallons he needs to fill a tank after so many miles on the odometer. This is fine to get a rough idea of you MPG but there are so many variables that the data is useless. Even 'big oil' will tell you that a cool gallon of gas has more energy in it than a hot gallon and that the formula for gasoline changes throughout the year changing the amount of energy per gallon. When you add in different tire pressures, differences in drag due to air densities and many other things you can see what I mean.

He may have the next big break through in the automotive industry. If so I hope he's not a vidictive person or forgets all about me  AAMOF, personally I hope he does and makes so much money he makes Bill Gates look like a homeless guy. That's the American dream.




Dahc said:


> Watcher: I can back up every statement in my post you commented on but that would take a great deal of time. I'm not sure I'm willing to do that here. I have also "been here before" concerning methane and it's production and storage even going so far as to design a farming system which was 70-90% self supporting using grain and seed oils, ethanol and methane production as fuel sources and animal feed. Of course, the 70-90% doesn't cover start-up costs. Unfortunately, for farm uses, the fuels are best used for stationary engines only such as generators and workhorse engines. Not moving vehicles. For a moving vehicle, you only have three options for a regular guy in the US. Either compress it shy of becoming a liquid (reduced volume, cheap) and use an affordable propane tank, invest in the equipment to compress and store it at over 3600psi (maximum volume, maximum cost) or drag a 50' long gas bag behind you car.


I agree but at least with methane you are not wasting fuel to make a fuel that has a lower return when used. Its true when you are talking about compressing methane (above a few PSI) your efficiency starts to stink. IIRC, you are better off using low pressure methane to run a generator to charge batteries and using electric motors.

The process of decomposing water has been very well studied and none of the processes can give you more energy than you put in.

Heck, if you want H2 you'd probably be better off to make methane then strip the H2 off rather. That's the way H2 is made for commercially.


----------



## Dahc (Feb 14, 2006)

watcher said:


> ...
> Great but how about some good scientific data to back it up.


But he's not a scientist, he's a man trying to make a small unit to suppliment, then replace his fuel costs/consumption. Let's leave the numbers up to the numbers people and let the tinkerers tinker. He doesn't need to produce data, he just needs to make it work. 



> I agree but at least with methane you are not wasting fuel to make a fuel that has a lower return when used.


If he can produce the fuel he needs from the movement of the vehicle, he isn't wasting anything. I realize that statement wants to make one think of the over unity concept but that's not what I'm saying. I'm not talking about free energy, I'm talking about utilizing un-used energy we didn't realize was there with different ideas and more efficient equipment.



> Its true when you are talking about compressing methane (above a few PSI) your efficiency starts to stink. IIRC, you are better off using low pressure methane to run a generator to charge batteries and using electric motors.


I think electric cars are a great idea.



> The process of decomposing water has been very well studied and none of the processes can give you more energy than you put in.


Different ideas, more efficient methods and equipment. Same thing here.

The whole post wasn't directed at you by the way. Just the last paragraph. The first 90 paragraphs was just me babbling.


----------



## Don (Dec 23, 2005)

Watcher

I am not that interested in money, not that I do not need any, but this thing with the HYDROGEN is something that I believe in more than you believe in what you are saying. I also think that it is time that we as a NATION get off our butts and start doing as we did 50 or 60 years ago, and that is do things for ourselves, and stop letting the nay sayers lead us down the primrose path. You say I can test without much expense...I say you're wrong. Here is my proposal: I will put you up in my home, feed you, help you in any way you need...all you have to do is buy what ever you say I need and I will install it on my car, and we will test your way and if you're right and I'm wrong, then I will come back on here and tell everyone that very thing. *But* if you're wrong. I expect you to do the same. OK? DEAL OR NO DEAL? There it is...if you're not willing to do this, then do me and the rest of the readers out there, a favor and lay off the "will not work" stuff, because I'm willing to put my invention on the line.
Try this on for size: let's say you have a 350 horse power motor, and just for discussing things, I tell you that I can use 100 of those horses to run the 250 horses, and do it without any Gasoline, but on PURE HYDROGEN, which means you do not have to go to a filling station to gas up any more, now just how much has this cost you? 100 horses you say...well la-tee-da, you only need what you need to move down the highway. Right?? Ok, so now tell me the cost and who would really care as long as you don't have to buy any fuel!?!?!?!?

Don


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

I read about a Chrysler V-8 running on Hyrdrogen created by electrolysis, if I remember right I think it was in a 60's era Road and Track magazine. It ran but it had to be plugged into a wall to do it. I am with Watcher on this one. I just don't think one can break the laws of physics. I do think it is entirely feasible to have a 16 horse gas engine run a hydrogen generator and then use the hydrogen in a much larger engine. One could even run the gas engine on wood gas created by a gasifier if the goal was to have a completely free way of running a vehicle. But I am sure we will never see everyday vehicles running on hydrogen created only by the power of its own engine with any outside energy input.


----------



## Don (Dec 23, 2005)

You all know what...? I just don't care any more. It is a sad thing that the so-called every day people of this country have been so miss-educated. Nothing is impossible! The only thing that stops you from _doing_, is the lack of imagination, and the desire to find out for your self.
Bye, ya'll...


----------



## Don (Dec 23, 2005)

One more thing

My Wife and I wish you all the best CHRISTMAS EVER. I PRAY that all your dreams and desires that you have are fullfilled for you all.


----------

