hydrogen conversion for cars?

[Skyguns MKII]

Ever notice the vendors of these things never provide any empirical data to show that these things work. That's a huge BS flag right there. I mean surely while they were doing the research and development they had to keep a record of the numbers and data right? Otherwise how would they know it works? All they have to backup their claims is anecdotal reports. The demonstrations I've seen for these things are laughable. A video of some guy filling up his car, driving from point A to point B, filling up the tank again and literally using the numbers from the gas pump to make comparisons. I mean these guys invent a supposedly revolutionary, ingenious product and these are the best, most precise scientific methods that they can come up with to prove their product? lol.

I find it funny too, There's no question you can make a hydrogen genny, but does it truly work on a car? that's the question I have. That I hope to figure out. I wanna play around with one in my workshop for a while. Probably blow a few things up for fun. Then figure it out.

[Skyguns MKII]

Don't forget to put in the crystals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LHAlcrTRA

  don't make me feel bad now 

[eagl]

Buy the kit/plans/whatever, put it in your car, and report the results.  

My brother got a water injection system for his old 1969 (maybe 1971?) buick skylark, with the Carter-years massively de-tuned 350 V8 because it was built in a year where the car ran best on leaded fuel but would also run ok on unleaded, but then had to be de-tuned even more due to detonation.  Using a simple water injection system that ran off of carb vacuum and a not very smart computer, he could keep the leaded tune but run 85 octane unleaded without wrecking the motor from detonation.  It worked great until the computer failed and filled a few cylinders with water while we were at school.  We were too stupid to know how to fix that (pull all the spark plugs and crank the motor while the water splashed out the plug holes and exhaust valves) so we cranked it against the water pressure.  Luckily we didn't destroy the motor but we squeezed a bunch of water past the rings and had to do an oil change right away.  It was such a durable engine, it ran fine for years after that little bit of ignorance and stupidity.  I think doing that with a modern motor (filling cylinders with water and cranking it) would wreck it.

But that injection system was designed to solve a real problem with real physics, ie. cooling down the cylinder charge to reduce detonation.  A mild nitrous boost might actually do the same thing.  But it only affected fuel economy because we could lean out the motor and advance the timing to run well on lower octane gas, when it had been designed to run on higher octane leaded fuel.  With water injection we'd get 14-16 mpg, without it we'd get around 12 due to the crummy tune required.  Does that count as a magic "free" 30% mpg improvement by "burning water"?  Not really, no.  Plus we almost lost the motor when the injection computer failed.

[Skyguns MKII]

Buy the kit/plans/whatever, put it in your car, and report the results.  

My brother got a water injection system for his old 1969 (maybe 1971?) buick skylark, with the Carter-years massively de-tuned 350 V8 because it was built in a year where the car ran best on leaded fuel but would also run ok on unleaded, but then had to be de-tuned even more due to detonation.  Using a simple water injection system that ran off of carb vacuum and a not very smart computer, he could keep the leaded tune but run 85 octane unleaded without wrecking the motor from detonation.  It worked great until the computer failed and filled a few cylinders with water while we were at school.  We were too stupid to know how to fix that (pull all the spark plugs and crank the motor while the water splashed out the plug holes and exhaust valves) so we cranked it against the water pressure.  Luckily we didn't destroy the motor but we squeezed a bunch of water past the rings and had to do an oil change right away.  It was such a durable engine, it ran fine for years after that little bit of ignorance and stupidity.  I think doing that with a modern motor (filling cylinders with water and cranking it) would wreck it.

But that injection system was designed to solve a real problem with real physics, ie. cooling down the cylinder charge to reduce detonation.  A mild nitrous boost might actually do the same thing.  But it only affected fuel economy because we could lean out the motor and advance the timing to run well on lower octane gas, when it had been designed to run on higher octane leaded fuel.  With water injection we'd get 14-16 mpg, without it we'd get around 12 due to the crummy tune required.  Does that count as a magic "free" 30% mpg improvement by "burning water"?  Not really, no.  Plus we almost lost the motor when the injection computer failed.

Interesting experience bad I feel bad for that car 

[pembquist]

I would say that in theory you could use energy from a heat engine to make the engine run more efficiently up to a point. (For example using energy to power the electric fuel pump, injectors and computer of electronic fuel injection vs a carb, or the energy to run 4 valves vs 2.) But This hydrogen stuff just seems silly, IC engines are getting pretty complex with electronic valves and changing combustion volumes and such, it seems like common sense would tell you that if all you had to do to increase efficiency was add an electrolysis unit that it would have been done a long time ago. I think you should tinker with trying to extract work from the difference in temp of the exhaust and ambient air.  Also see if you can reduce the frictional losses external to the engine, electric radiator fan? Lower friction drive of accessories, higher tire pressure. What point on the curve of the engine is it at its most efficient?  Aerodynamics? Etc.

[morfiend]

I find it funny too, There's no question you can make a hydrogen genny, but does it truly work on a car? that's the question I have. That I hope to figure out. I wanna play around with one in my workshop for a while. Probably blow a few things up for fun. Then figure it out.

  you don't need to make it complex,wiring up to the alt,IMO is complex!  A simple deep cycle battery will supply the power you need to separate the H2 from the H2O.

   Keep it simple to start and once you are making hydrogen then find an easy way to get it to the engine. A small adapter into the air intake will work.


   Hmm sound almost like I tried this before...... Actually a friend bought a system a couple of years ago that did just this,IIRC it was around 500 bucks and that was if you did the work.   Net result,only way he got better milage was to keep his foot off the gas pedal as much as possible and keep speeds around 50 mph.

  For 500 bucks he could have filled his tank about 10 times......DOH.....


   

[Babalonian]

Sell your gas car and get a used diesel VW.  Cheapest way to turn a 30 mpg car into a 50 mpg car.

My uncle in Denmark has a small diesel station wagon.  I drove it about 8 years ago.  About 1.5L turbo diesel, the size of a Subaru outback, drives like any other car including plenty of power, and he gets around 50 mpg.  Impressive, but US diesel gas still isn't good enough quality to import.  There's your conspiracy, why we have high sulfur low quality diesel when Europe has had much cleaner burning diesel for well over a decade.  Our answer is small displacement direct injection turbocharged gasoline motors, but they're still behind the latest diesel motors in terms of efficiency.  And we still don't have them, because our diesel fuel quality isn't where it needs to be, so those diesel motors can only be imported if they have additional expensive tech to clean up the exhaust.

There's a conspiracy theory you can chase around all week, if you like   It isn't very popular though, because people seem to agree on the basic facts which make it a rather boring, even if true, conspiracy.

No conspiracy to it, just eth numbers.  A decae or two ago, who were the biggest consumers (or political advocates and lobying group) for high-quality low-sulfer diesel in the EU? Who is (and has been since I'm guessing 1946 or 47) the biggest consumers of the American high-sulfer low-grade ("cheap") diesel? 

"It's all about the numbers stupid" - It makes perfect sence for the EU where the people wanting it, asking for it, and ultimatley willing to pay for it and get what they want.  But as a carbon-copy for America, it will never happen - not so long as Trucking and Transportation remains a billion-gallon sipping, mega-job-employing, and billion-dollar GDPing gorilla.

[Babalonian]

  you don't need to make it complex,wiring up to the alt,IMO is complex!  A simple deep cycle battery will supply the power you need to separate the H2 from the H2O.

   Keep it simple to start and once you are making hydrogen then find an easy way to get it to the engine. A small adapter into the air intake will work.


   Hmm sound almost like I tried this before...... Actually a friend bought a system a couple of years ago that did just this,IIRC it was around 500 bucks and that was if you did the work.   Net result,only way he got better milage was to keep his foot off the gas pedal as much as possible and keep speeds around 50 mph.

  For 500 bucks he could have filled his tank about 10 times......DOH.....


   

He got swindled, cruising at 50 in any stock vehicle will net you peak efficiency.

[Megalodon]

I posted about this a couple years ago ...there were/are allot of hoops to jump through

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,310868.msg4023456.html#msg4023456

here they are today

July 29th they passed the air quality tests .....etc....

http://hydrogenenergycalifornia.com/

[eagl]

No conspiracy to it...

*snip*

...not so long as Trucking and Transportation remains a billion-gallon sipping, mega-job-employing, and billion-dollar GDPing gorilla.

Well, there's your conspiracy theory   

[Skyguns MKII]

  For 500 bucks he could have filled his tank about 10 times......DOH.....


   

 

[vorticon]

more effective to just drive a little slower.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Buy the kit/plans/whatever, put it in your car, and report the results.  

My brother got a water injection system for his old 1969 (maybe 1971?) buick skylark, with the Carter-years massively de-tuned 350 V8 because it was built in a year where the car ran best on leaded fuel but would also run ok on unleaded, but then had to be de-tuned even more due to detonation.  Using a simple water injection system that ran off of carb vacuum and a not very smart computer, he could keep the leaded tune but run 85 octane unleaded without wrecking the motor from detonation.  It worked great until the computer failed and filled a few cylinders with water while we were at school.  We were too stupid to know how to fix that (pull all the spark plugs and crank the motor while the water splashed out the plug holes and exhaust valves) so we cranked it against the water pressure.  Luckily we didn't destroy the motor but we squeezed a bunch of water past the rings and had to do an oil change right away.  It was such a durable engine, it ran fine for years after that little bit of ignorance and stupidity.  I think doing that with a modern motor (filling cylinders with water and cranking it) would wreck it.

But that injection system was designed to solve a real problem with real physics, ie. cooling down the cylinder charge to reduce detonation.  A mild nitrous boost might actually do the same thing.  But it only affected fuel economy because we could lean out the motor and advance the timing to run well on lower octane gas, when it had been designed to run on higher octane leaded fuel.  With water injection we'd get 14-16 mpg, without it we'd get around 12 due to the crummy tune required.  Does that count as a magic "free" 30% mpg improvement by "burning water"?  Not really, no.  Plus we almost lost the motor when the injection computer failed.

Cool story, the only thing that left me wondering was how exactly did you figure out you had cylinders full of water after the school - before trying to crank it up?

[eagl]

Cool story, the only thing that left me wondering was how exactly did you figure out you had cylinders full of water after the school - before trying to crank it up?

It wouldn't crank, but we could hear the starter motor straining.  We tried a jump start and got the same results.  At some point we saw the water reservoir was empty but didn't fully understand what that meant.  We knew the water went somewhere, probably into the cylinders, but didn't understand what cranking it around would do to the motor.  With another car providing more power via jumper cables, we saw that the engine would turn very very slowly when the starter was engaged, so we cranked it a little bit at a time to avoid overheating the starter motor and also helped the engine turn by pulling on the accessory belts a bit.  After it turned over twice very slowly, it suddenly turned freely and fired right up.  Some water then splashed out of the exhaust and we realized what had happened but still didn't understand what we had just done to the motor.  After we got home we discussed it with Dad and another mechanic and he said we were lucky we didn't destroy the valve train or bend a connecting rod, since water is incompressible (we knew that, didn't apply the knowledge though).  On their advice we changed the oil immediately and it was a little foamy but not too bad, so I figured some of the water ended up getting past the rings into the oil pan (and it probably boiled out during the drive home from school) and the rest of it ended up sloshing out the exhaust valves when it finally fired up.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

It wouldn't crank, but we could hear the starter motor straining.  We tried a jump start and got the same results.  At some point we saw the water reservoir was empty but didn't fully understand what that meant.  We knew the water went somewhere, probably into the cylinders, but didn't understand what cranking it around would do to the motor.  With another car providing more power via jumper cables, we saw that the engine would turn very very slowly when the starter was engaged, so we cranked it a little bit at a time to avoid overheating the starter motor and also helped the engine turn by pulling on the accessory belts a bit.  After it turned over twice very slowly, it suddenly turned freely and fired right up.  Some water then splashed out of the exhaust and we realized what had happened but still didn't understand what we had just done to the motor.  After we got home we discussed it with Dad and another mechanic and he said we were lucky we didn't destroy the valve train or bend a connecting rod, since water is incompressible (we knew that, didn't apply the knowledge though).  On their advice we changed the oil immediately and it was a little foamy but not too bad, so I figured some of the water ended up getting past the rings into the oil pan (and it probably boiled out during the drive home from school) and the rest of it ended up sloshing out the exhaust valves when it finally fired up.

Right.. Your original text left the impression that you had some Jedi intuition that the cylinders were flooded before trying to crank it

I think what saved your engine was that you had evenly distributed water in the block. If the engine would have managed to fire up with only 1 cylinder jammed it would have cracked the block or bend the shaft probably. Porsche 911 was / is notorious for this problem as it has a design flaw in the head which can result in one cylinder wall chipping off and coolant leaking in the chamber.