# H2, Browns Gas



## Blu3duk (Jun 2, 2002)

Anyone else experimenting with homebuilt devices for extending mileage on their rigs? or for using H2 to power a genset?

I never did get the pictures my friend took at John Lorenzon's Woodward Iowa farm back in the late 1980's-early 1990's, that fella had Edison batteries and used 3 wind generators to make H2 and compressed it into propane tanks.... And he ran a F150 with a 300 inline 6 *totally * on H2 generated in the truck [according to my friend from New York, it took a couple minutes of waiting to generate enough fuel to get the rig going, but once going it was generating its own required fuel. Lorenzon acquired his farm in 1926 at age 15 and never hooked into the grid, it was profiled by Peter jennings in 1990 in TV interview and was in part profiled without pictures in the book "Fuel From Water" Michael A. Peavey available at Lindsay Books for $25 plus shipping [a buck and half if it aint went up] The book itself is not very helpful, but from a technical point it has some decent information to consider. Project Pheonix has a pdf file with a little more information on Lorenzon, aand somewhere They have the video clip from the Jennings interview and also another 45 minute video according to the pdf file. I also have the Convert wood into Charcoal and Electricity by Richard H. Buxton also purchased thru Lindsay Technical Books, the gas it talks about is also considered producer gas, which in a nutshell the burnable part is H2 like all producer or woodgas.

A couple years back i couldnt quite grasp the idea so i bought a unit from off the biggest yard sale in the world and paid $85 to get it here so i could see how the fella suggested it be hooked up, after looking it over and figuring it would not do much at all [claim was 20-35% increase in mileage] I built my own unit using a stainless fire extinguisher and stainless rods poked into holes drilled in the five gallon unit and then nickel rod welded into place. Creatively using some scrounged devices to capture the gas, i ran it from the back of the little ranger test rig into the front and dumped it into the air intake. The rig was getting around 28 mpg and increased to about 46 or a little less on the same terrain [very hilly] no appreciable change in HP either [disappointment as i had hoped for a slight increase using the combustible gas and dumping purer oxygen going in the intake]

Anyhow i know it can work i just have not fooled around with it much since letting the test unit stay on over the weekend and getting a build up on the electrodes that made the need to disassemble to clean it obvious, and the motivation to do other things was present.....I recently downloaded a Roy McCalister video clip that is an hour long profiling H2 production..... and was wondering if anyone was tinkering with H2 or Browns gas 

William
Central Idaho


----------



## WisJim (Jan 14, 2004)

Can't help you on the hydrogen, but I remember John Lorenzen. We visited him back in the 1970s before we put up our first wind generator. I must have photos around some where but they would be hard to locate. Roland Colson was another interesting fellow in the area--he's the one who introduced us to John, and he was working on some larger sized wind generators, methane, and hydrogen storage when he was killed in a plane crash. 

Boy, this brings back lots of memories of visiting some of the old wind energy enthusiasts. It sure is a lot easier today to learn the basics of alternative energy.

Jim


----------



## d37fan (Dec 22, 2004)

A buddy of mine put a unit like this on his road tractor, it is supposed to increase mpg by 15%. They sold a cheap amp gauge with it and he had some problems keeping the amperage where it was to be. So the first week and a half were a waste. He mixes some chem. with it, can't remember what. Will report back when it is running right.
Dale


----------



## d37fan (Dec 22, 2004)

Update: The hydrogen unit has been removed and sent back for a refund. The truck was put on a dyno and the proof is it gets .5 mile per gal. less when in operation. Pulls to many amps. Therefore it was a bust.


----------



## Blu3duk (Jun 2, 2002)

interesting..... when fuel is rumoured to go higher people start talking about these contraptions again, and ive been asked about them a couple times in the past week alone.... doing more research i find this thread 5th down on a search on gobbly "goog" "L"....

Prompted search was a result of finding out popular science has now opened up its entire 137 year archives for free..... not yet searchable by specific date they are working on it to make it that way.

MEN did a story on John Lorenzen March 1980 which is interesting as i totally missed that in the archives back a couple years ago.... 

N E how this added link is better than just a "bump".

William 
Idaho


----------



## byexample (Aug 28, 2009)

d37fan said:


> Update: The hydrogen unit has been removed and sent back for a refund. The truck was put on a dyno and the proof is it gets .5 mile per gal. less when in operation. Pulls to many amps. Therefore it was a bust.


Having been a student of physics at one time in the distant past this is exactly what I would expect from one of these devices.

The power required to split water into hydrogen and oxygen has to come from somewhere... and that's the vehicle's electrical system. That system generates power via the alternator which is driven by the vehicle's motor which is powered by gasoline. If you put a greater power demand on the alternator then it, in turn, puts a higher demand onto the engine. Which causes the engine to burn more gasoline... cause that energy has to come from somewhere.

*Energy can neither be created nor destroyed... only changed in form.*

It's just never made sense to me that you could hook something up to a car's electrical system and then feed the resulting hydrogen back into the car's combustion system and at the same time increase the car's fuel efficiency. Especially when one considers how inefficient electrolysis is.

To make matters worse I only ever hear people talking about their friends having a friend who did it and it works. I've never actually met anyone who themselves had an electrolizer installed and could attest that they got a significant increase in fuel efficiency. It's always been a bit like the stuff of urban legend... just like every other odd-ball, snake-oil product that claims to dramatically increase fuel efficiency.


----------



## artificer (Feb 26, 2007)

byexample said:


> It's just never made sense to me that you could hook something up to a car's electrical system and then feed the resulting hydrogen back into the car's combustion system and at the same time increase the car's fuel efficiency. Especially when one considers how inefficient electrolysis is.
> 
> To make matters worse I only ever hear people talking about their friends having a friend who did it and it works. I've never actually met anyone who themselves had an electrolizer installed and could attest that they got a significant increase in fuel efficiency. It's always been a bit like the stuff of urban legend... just like every other odd-ball, snake-oil product that claims to dramatically increase fuel efficiency.


About the only way these things work is as a gas that increases combustion efficiency. Like propane in a diesel engine, they MIGHT do something. I haven't seen any documentation or proof.

Probaby the way it works is like a placebo. Add this to the car, then drive sedatley. Look at all the money you save.  Its probably just wishful thinking.

Michael


----------



## Michael Kawalek (Jun 21, 2007)

Here's a quote from Wikipedia on Brown's gas.

_Oxyhydrogen is often mentioned in conjunction with devices that claim to operate a vehicle using water as a fuel, or that burn the gas in torches for welding and cutting at outlandish temperatures, sometimes under the name "Brown's Gas" after fraudster Yull Brown who advocated such devices, or "HHO gas" after the claims of fringe physicist Ruggero Santilli.

The most common and decisive counter-argument against using the gas as a fuel is that the energy required to split water molecules exceeds the energy recouped by burning it, and these devices reduce, rather than improve fuel efficiency. This arguement stands in sharp contrast to the false assertions that a) the energy released when hydrogen and oxygen combine to form a water molecule is still stored as potential energy, and that b) most of the energy used to split the water molecule is just excess energy produced by the alternator. [10]_

This pretty much sums up what I think of this "technology".
I can imagine a stationary unit, supplied with it's own power source, can produce Brown's gas that could be used for practical applications, like welding or whatever. Anyone however that thinks that Brown's gas can be produced on the fly while going down the road is simply a silly old fool that has no clue what he's doing. The best you can do is smile, be polite, and occasionally wipe the dribble coming out of his mouth.


----------

