Tools that run the same physics
as HYDRA OS.
The electrolyzer industry argues about numbers because nobody agrees on the language underneath them. These five tools use one shared engine — the same unit basis, the same electrochemical model, the same finance math — so a comparison you build here holds up in a room full of engineers.
Why free? Feature checklists and AI agents are becoming commodity — every foundation model vendor will hand those out for close to nothing within a year. What doesn't commoditize is the environment: a physics engine calibrated against real stack data, and the judgment to know when a number is trustworthy versus merely plausible. These tools are that engine, in the open. HYDRA OS is the same engine running continuously against your fleet instead of once against a spec sheet.
Spec Normalizer
Paste three vendor quotes in three different units and get one table back — same boundary, same basis, same pressure, with every assumption it made written down next to the number.
Polarization Curve Fitter
Paste raw I-V data, get Butler-Volmer parameters with real confidence intervals, an overpotential breakdown, and a warning when your data can't actually constrain what you're asking it to fit.
Degradation-Adjusted LCOH
Most published LCOH figures assume a stack performs identically for 20 years. This one doesn't — and shows you exactly how many $/kg that assumption was hiding.
Guarantee Test Correction
Your acceptance test ran hotter than the guarantee conditions. This corrects for it with stated uncertainty and gives you a PASS/FAIL or PASS/FAIL/INCONCLUSIVE verdict — your choice of comparison convention — you can put in a contract file.
Minimum Turndown (H₂-in-O₂)
How low can this stack really go before crossover approaches the alarm threshold? A screening calculation for the question every renewables-coupled project asks and nobody wants to eyeball.
Run this continuously, not once
These tools answer a question at a single point in time, from data you paste in by hand. HYDRA OS runs the same models continuously against live stack data — that's the Founding Pilot Cohort.
Which tool answers which question
Most people arrive here with a specific argument to settle. This is the shortest route from the argument to the tool.
| The situation you are in | Tool | What you get back |
|---|---|---|
| Three vendor quotes arrived in three different units and you cannot tell which is actually cheapest to run. | Spec Normalizer | One table, one basis, and a written ledger of every assumption applied to get there. |
| You have raw I-V data off a test bench and need kinetic parameters you can defend in a design review. | Polarization Curve Fitter | j₀, α, ASR and j_lim with 95% confidence intervals — and a warning for each parameter your data cannot actually constrain. |
| Your LCOH model assumes the stack performs identically for twenty years, and you suspect that is costing you. | Degradation-Adjusted LCOH | The naive figure and the degradation-adjusted figure side by side, plus the year each stack replacement lands in. |
| The acceptance test ran six degrees hot and the supplier says it still passed. | Guarantee Test Correction | A corrected value with a stated uncertainty band and a PASS / FAIL / INCONCLUSIVE verdict under the convention your contract specifies. |
| A renewables-coupled project needs to know how far the stack can turn down before the H₂-in-O₂ alarm trips. | Minimum Turndown | Crossover concentration against load, and the minimum load as a percentage of nameplate at your alarm and trip thresholds. |
Two of these chain together: the curve fitter reports standard errors on its fitted parameters, and the guarantee test correction accepts them, so model uncertainty from the fit propagates into the acceptance verdict instead of being quietly dropped.
Questions
Are these electrolyzer tools really free?
Yes. All five run in your browser with no signup and no payment. Nothing you enter leaves your machine — the calculations execute locally in JavaScript, there is no server round-trip and no data is stored. An optional account exists only to save your own scenarios; every tool works fully without one.
Which electrolyzer tool should I use for which problem?
Comparing vendor quotes that arrived in different units or boundaries: Spec Normalizer. Turning test bench I-V data into Butler-Volmer parameters: Polarization Curve Fitter. Putting a real number on what degradation costs a project: Degradation-Adjusted LCOH. Settling whether an acceptance test passed when it ran off reference conditions: Guarantee Test Correction. Finding how low a stack can safely turn down: Minimum Turndown / H₂-in-O₂. The table above is the longer version of this answer.
How accurate are these calculators?
They are screening tools built on published, standard models — Butler-Volmer kinetics, Fickian crossover, conventional LCOH discounting — and every default coefficient is stated on the page with its source. Each tool also carries a "what this tool deliberately does not do" section, because knowing where a model stops being trustworthy matters more than the number it prints. They are accurate enough to structure a conversation and to catch an order-of-magnitude error; they are not a substitute for a witnessed test, a vendor guarantee or a HAZOP.
Do the tools use the same engine as HYDRA OS?
They share the same electrochemical and finance model. The difference is what the model is fed: these tools run once against numbers you paste in by hand, while HYDRA OS runs the same models continuously against live telemetry from a fleet of stacks.
Can I share or cite a result from these tools?
Yes. Every tool encodes its inputs in the page URL, so a link reproduces the exact calculation for whoever opens it. Each tool page also carries a static worked example with its inputs and results written out, which can be cited without running anything.