Abstract

The problem is developing a hydrogen extractor to produce Brown’s

gas with which to run an engine. This is being done in order to test the viability of
running an engine on Brown’s gas versus running an engine on gasoline. This
experiment will determine if our design is feasible to assist the fuel economy of
an automobile.

Introduction

Hydrolysis is the described as the chemical reaction where a water

molecule is split into its hydrogen and oxygen components. The hydrolysis of a
single water molecule should yield two hydrogen cations (positively charged
ions) and one oxygen anion (negatively charged ion). This is process is very
important in advancing various technologies, but is most notable as a way to
produce hydrogen to be used as a fuel. Running a vehicle on hydrogen is
cheaper, more ecologically friendly and is a much more plentiful resource than
fossil fuel.

In order to produce hydrogen to run an engine a hydrogen fuel

extractor is used. A hydrogen extractor works by running a current through
water, supplying enough electrical energy to break the bonds between the
hydrogen and oxygen. The technique of running an electrical current through
the water to produce hydrolysis is known as the electrolysis of water. This energy
is known as the activation energy of the compound. Once the water has been
split into its two components by the electrical energy, the hydrogen collects at
the cathode (negatively charged electrode) and the oxygen collects at the
anode (positively charged electrode) of the voltage source. From here the
oxygen and hydrogen can be harvested and used fed into an engine. A very
common technique is to simply feed both the oxygen and hydrogen into the
engine as opposed to just the hydrogen. This combination of hydrogen and gas
is referred to as oxyhydrogen, or more commonly Brown’s gas.

Brown’s gas is as afore mentioned a simple combination of hydrogen

and oxygen in an approximately 2:1 molar ratio. Once Brown’s gas combusts it
yields water vapour and produces energy, approximately 286 kilojoules for every
mole of dihydrogen (H2) combusted. As mentioned above Brown’s gas is most
easily obtained through water electrolysis, which has the simple stoichiometric
equation of:
 2 H2O ↔ 2 H2 + O2

With the combustion of Brown’s gas simply being the reverse:

2 H2 + O2 ↔ 2 H2O

The electrolysis of water produces hydrogen and oxygen directly in

proportion to the current run through the water. However, the electrolysis of
pure water requires a great deal of extra energy to overcome the bonds of
water. Therefore, an electrolyte is typically added to increase the conductivity
of water, which in turn will allow greater flow of electricity. With the flow of
electricity increased more energy can obtained to separate the water
molecule. Some typical electrolytes include potassium hydroxide or sodium
hydroxide. Despite the benefits of using electrolysis on water, it does not convert
100% of the electrical energy into usable chemical energy of hydrogen. The
efficiency of the process is typically in the 50-70% range without including the
energy lost to produce the electricity.

The problem of needing more energy to overcome the bonds of pure

water is known as overpotential. The term overpotential technically refers to the
voltage difference between reduction voltage and the voltage at which the
redox reaction is determined to occur. What overpotential physically does is
reduce the current density running through the water. Overpotential occurs in
the oxygen anode in the electrolysis of water. This is because the oxidation of
oxygen is much slower than the reduction of hydrogen in the redox reaction
that occurs. The oxidation of oxygen is slow due to the molecular size of oxygen
and the amount of electrons it has in comparison to hydrogen. There are a few
ways to overcome the problem of overpotential. The material that the anode
and cathodes are made out of has a very important impact on the
overpotential. Platinum series metals have larger molecular surface areas,
meaning more activation points for the reduction of oxygen to occur and
effectively reducing the time it takes for the reduction to complete. Some
examples of metals that make good electrodes are platinum, tungsten and
nickel, although they are sensitive to impurities. Higher temperatures have less
overpotential due the added thermal energy to the water (which would help
break the bonds between the ions in water). At a temperature of 1000°C
approximately 43% less electrical energy is used then at a temperature of 25°C.
Also, pulsing current significantly reduces the overpotential associated with a
specific current density (Bagotzky, 1993).

The cathodic hydrogen evolution is a fundamental part of the process

of electrolysis. The equations for the reactions are:

2H+ + 2e- ↔ H2

and

2H2O +2e- ↔ H2 + 2OH-

This reaction is the main reaction in producing hydrogen through electrolysis (as
well a secondary and tertiary in the production of numerous other substances at
the cathode). The two afore mentioned steps are actually more complex and
made up of several intermediate steps which are referred to as the mechanism
of the hydrogen evolution reaction and are as follows:

H + H2O ↔ H3O +e-

2H+ + 2e- ↔ H2

H3O+ + H + e- ↔ H2 +H2O

This shows that in the intermediate steps the hydrogen and oxygen exist as
hydronium as opposed to just oxygen and hydrogen separately.

In order to determine the amount of water turned into oxygen and

hydrogen gas Gibb’s free energy equation is used:

∆G = -nFEcell

Where n is the number of electrons, F is Faraday’s constant (96485 Coulombs per

electron) and Ecell is obviously the energy of the cell. Knowing the current is
coulombs per second we can then mathematically manipulate the equation
algebraically to determine the moles per second and therefore the mass of
water lost with the corresponding running time. It should be noted however, that
a catalyst (or an electrolyte in this case) affects the number of electrons in the
equation resulting in more oxygen created and therefore more water lost.
(Bockris, 2000)

The pH value of the solution is very important in determining the speed

of the reduction and oxidization reactions which occur at the anode and
cathode. To establish what effect the pH has on the process the equilibrium
constant is used (k). The equilibrium constant is a quotient of the molarities of the
products over the molarities of the reactants. Using this constant you can
determine how much oxygen and hydrogen are produced at equilibrium of a
certain pH.

Purpose/Problem Identification

Almost all vehicles today run on gasoline, which is in limited supply and
has been proven to have a detrimental effect on the environment. Gasoline is
also very expensive, which is concern economically. With these problems in
mind we have decided to see if using a hydrogen extractor to feed an engine
Brown’s gas is a viable method to decrease gasoline use, increase fuel mileage
and decrease the cost of running a motor vehicle.

Materials

-stainless steel 316LHS wire

-water filter container

-vacuum tube

-epoxy (goop)

-stainless steel nuts and bolts

-variable voltage source

-plexiglas guide

-sodium hydroxide (catalyst)

-plastic bottle (bubbler)

-stainless steel washers

-plastic fittings

Design
 The design used a water filter to house a coil of stainless steel wire
wrapped around a plexiglass structure to prevent the wires from touching. The
wires were attached to bolts which protruded from the top of the water filter
and were used as connection points for the anode and the cathode of the
voltage source. Vacuum hose was run from the side of the water filter into a
bubbler and another hose was run from the bubbler in turn to be gravity fed into
the carburetor of the engine. The amount of hydrogen produced could be
adjusted by changing the variable current on the voltage source.

The stainless steel wire 316LHS was selected due to its quality as an
anode/cathode as well as it does not react with the hydrogen.

The water filter container was chosen for its air and water tight seal. It was
also chosen for its plastic removable cap which allowed easier access to drill
holes in or seal unwanted holes. Most importantly it provided a closed
environment to produce the hydrogen.
 The plexiglass, vacuum tube and plastic bottle were selected for their
availability and their cost effectiveness (free). The plastic bottle was also
selected for its plastic top which allowed for ease of drilling.
 The epoxy, nuts and bolts, washers and plastic fitting were all chosen
for their functionality and relative cost effectiveness.
 The variable voltage source was selected because it allowed control
over the amount of current run through the wire. This was a crucial aspect since
amount of hydrogen produced is directly related to current.

The sodium hydroxide was selected as the catalyst because sodium

has a lower electrode potential than H+ and therefore does not create any
competition for the hydrogen ions as the water dissociates.

Method

In order to test the hydrogen extractor originally the vacuum tube was
gravity fed into the carburetor of a two horse power two-stroke engine. Gas was
used to start the engine and was slowly dialled back until it was running purely
on Brown’s gas. This method was working effectively until the system
overheated.

The second test was simply running the hydrogen extractor in a fume
hood to see how much hydrogen was produced in comparison to electrical
energy used. This was done by massing the water before and after to see the
mass of water loss. Using this measurement the amount of hydrogen was
calculated. This test was repeated three times. Afterwards a titration of the
water/sodium hydroxide solution was done using hydrochloric acid and
phenolphthalein to find the molarity of the sodium hydroxide solution.

Results

Table 1: Experimental Data

 Trail Time (min) Voltage (V) Current (A) Grams H2O
Lost
1 20 10.0 10.0 1.66
2 20 10.0 10.0 1.84
3 30 10.0 10.0 2.38

Table 2: Calculated Results

Trail H2 O2 Combustion Power (W) Efficiency

Produced Produced Energy (kJ) (%)
1 (moles)
0.092 (moles)
0.046 52.7 43.9 43.9
2 0.102 0.051 58.4 48.7 48.7
3 0.132 0.066 75.6 42.0 42.0

Discussion

The first two trials were performed for twenty minutes with trial two
being performed while the solution was still warm from trial one. The purpose of
this was to determine if temperature had an impact on hydrogen produced.
The third trial was performed with a room temperature mixture, but for ten
minutes longer to see if time had an impact on hydrogen produced as well.

Trial 2 produced slightly more hydrogen and oxygen then trial 1, while
trial 3 produced more than either of the first two trials. This makes logical sense
as the trial 3 was run for ten minutes longer then the other two trials; therefore
hydrogen was produced for ten minutes more then the other trials. It’s worth
noting that the slightly warmer trial produced more hydrogen and oxygen then
the base trial which is due to the thermal energy in the warm solution lowering
the activation energy of the molecular bonds.

When comparing the combustion energy and power of the trials the
same pattern was noticed as when comparing total amount of hydrogen and
oxygen produced. Trial 1 produced the least, trial 2 produced slightly more and
trial 3 produced the most. This is due to the fact that combustion energy and
power are directly proportional to the amount of hydrogen and oxygen
produced.

The efficiencies of the trials followed a different order then the previous
comparisons. Trial 3 was actually the least efficient, while trial 2 was the most
efficient. This is mostly likely because the warmer water lowered the activation
energy of the molecular bonds, which meant the same amount of electrical
energy yielded more hydrogen. Less electrical energy and more hydrogen
produced means more combustion energy produced which in turns yields a
greater efficiency.

Conclusions

From the results it was determined that the hydrogen fuel extractor we
designed is not a viable method to run an engine in a vehicle. An engine was
run almost entirely on Brown`s gas for a brief period of time. This was due to
some design issues. In the design of the extractor (using a coil of wire) the wires
became so hot that they melted through the plexiglass guide so that the anode
and cathode touched. This problem could have been avoided by insulating the
wire above the water level to prevent overheating. In further tests it was also
found that after running the electrolyser for long periods of time (over an hour)
the hydrogen gas produced was hot enough to melt the epoxy and ruin it s
airtight integrity. This effectively means the hydrogen extractor we designed is
viable as a testing device, but not viable to run a motor with. If a more suitable
sealant which could stand up to the temperatures produced when operating
for long periods was used, the design we used could applied as a fuel assist to a
combustion engine.

Ways to improve the efficiency of the extractor are to use hot water in
the reaction as this lowers the activation energy of water. Also, if the surface
area of the wire or discs is increased more hydrogen can be produced due to
the more activation points on the stainless steel surface. More current or
improvements of current density through a pulse current are also viable ways to
improve the hydrogen extractor.
Appendix

Power Input

Power Input = Voltage x Current = 10.0 V x 10.0A

Power Input = 100 W

Power Output
2H2 + O2 ↔ 2H2O (∆H = -572 kJ)

Moles H2 = 1.66g (2H2 + O2) x 1 mol (2H2 + O2) x 2 mol H2 . = 0.092 moles H2
36.03 g 1 mol (2H2 + O2)

Moles O2 = 0.092 moles H2 x 1 mol O2 = 0.046 moles O2

2 moles H2

Combustion Energy = 0.092 moles H2 x (-572 kJ) = 52.7 kJ released

Power Output = 52.7 kJ x 1 . x 1 min . = 43.9 W

30 min 60 sec

Efficiency

Efficiency = Power Input = 43.9 W . = 43.9%

Power Output 100.0 W
Bibliography

Bagotzky, V (1993). Fundamentals of Electrochemistry. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Bockris , J (2000). Modern Electrochemistry 2B. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Shriver, D (1999). Inorganic Chemistry. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Srinivasan, S (2006). Fuel Cells. New York, NY: Springer Science.