Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Skyguns MKII on August 06, 2013, 12:19:01 PM
-
I considered doing it to my 05 Toyota corolla s. Almost seems too good to be true that I can turn 33 mpg into 66+ :headscratch: plus the risk (if any) of getting water into your block. There are dozens of videos however that swear by this mechanism im just not sure though. Have any of you done this to your vehicle with any results? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhgRyCHdzo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5nld6HzEjM :uhoh
-
I considered doing it to my 05 Toyota corolla s. Almost seems too good to be true that I can turn 33 mpg into 66+ :headscratch: plus the risk (if any) of getting water into your block. There are dozens of videos however that swear by this mechanism im just not sure though. Have any of you done this to your vehicle with any results? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhgRyCHdzo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5nld6HzEjM :uhoh
There was a mythbusters episode about this stuff... they said it was a hoax. But who knows, perhaps they were paid off by the oil industry!
-
:noid
Good luck with it! You know. there is a reason we don't have hydrogen powered cars.
BTW this HHO stuff has been around for years,funny how all the claims made are never confirmed. More Torque,more HP,I didn't see a dyno chart to show this.
Oh and claims of 100% efficiency....bah that defies the laws of physics,but go ahead knock yourself out and try it,doesnt cost much to make a HHO generator.
:salute
-
There was a mythbusters episode about this stuff... they said it was a hoax. But who knows, perhaps they were paid off by the oil industry!
I just did a search on that myth busters episode and apparently they did it wrong. This is what I found. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydEkV-E0mP8 :old: Extremely interesting. The water lacked electrolytes via baking soda. :rock
-
:noid
Good luck with it! You know. there is a reason we don't have hydrogen powered cars.
BTW this HHO stuff has been around for years,funny how all the claims made are never confirmed. More Torque,more HP,I didn't see a dyno chart to show this.
Oh and claims of 100% efficiency....bah that defies the laws of physics,but go ahead knock yourself out and try it,doesnt cost much to make a HHO generator.
:salute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FabKPIltISU not debating just this video has some insight I suppose. What is the reason you believe we do not have them?
-
Now this was years ago, but I remember reading that hydrogen powered vehicles had trouble
finding a storage medium that would readily release the hydrogen after storing it safely. The smallest
vehicle they could refit at the time was a city bus. They find a new method?
-
Now this was years ago, but I remember reading that hydrogen powered vehicles had trouble
finding a storage medium that would readily release the hydrogen after storing it safely. The smallest
vehicle they could refit at the time was a city bus. They find a new method?
hybrid design, mixes hydrogen with fuel via hose split
-
If you ask me, we don't have hydrogen cars because hydrogen is a weaker fuel source (at least in the forms it's easiest to store it at). Fewer molecular bonds to break (only 1 per molecule) equates to less energy upon combustion.
Thus you would need a big engine to deliver the same power as a smaller gasoline engine.
Storage of fuel is also an issue.
-
Storage of fuel is also an issue.
got plenty of trunk space, under the hood too if you want. People make there own bay for it, only takes about 2 gallons of water. as far as power, your mixing it with fuel. so I see you u mean of power loss but if any not much. People claim it evens "cleans out your engine" and saying for the first moments of running u will see unwanted composites blow out of your exhaust.
-
Read an article a couple years back about a demo car Mazda built and tested. It used the rotary engine, which they claimed could run off of either gasoline or Hydrogen without any reconfiguration, so it could switch fuel on-the-fly. The car had two separate fuel tanks for both fuels, though the H2 tank was much smaller, providing only about 50mi of range.
Also, during the G.W. Bush presidency, H2-powered auto tech (either via direct combustion or H2 fuel cells) was being pushed by the Administration as the preferred "clean" technology. It has quite a few advantages over battery powered e-cars and hybrids, and several other major manufacturers were developing them. When the Administration changed, government subsidies dried up and were replace with subsidies of electric cars so the major manufacturers dropped development (or so I understand). One major advantage of H2 as a fuel source is that it can be produced ahead of time and stored indefinitely, even from other "green" sources of electrical power such as wind and solar. And H2 is actually not nearly as unstable as most people think (I might be mistaken, but I believe I read somewhere that gasoline vapor is actually more inflammable than hydrogen). Plus, filling up with H2 takes no more time than filling up your tank with gasoline, a clear advantage over pure electric cars. Finally, producing H2 is fairly simple; you could produce a system to generate and store it that would take up no more room than an ATM. Imagine having that in your garage (or at least just outside). It would take household electric current and overnight replenish the holding tank, so you always have a full tank ready at home.
-
Read an article a couple years back about a demo car Mazda built and tested. It used the rotary engine, which they claimed could run off of either gasoline or Hydrogen without any reconfiguration, so it could switch fuel on-the-fly. The car had two separate fuel tanks for both fuels, though the H2 tank was much smaller, providing only about 50mi of range.
Also, during the G.W. Bush presidency, H2-powered auto tech (either via direct combustion or H2 fuel cells) was being pushed by the Administration as the preferred "clean" technology. It has quite a few advantages over battery powered e-cars and hybrids, and several other major manufacturers were developing them. When the Administration changed, government subsidies dried up and were replace with subsidies of electric cars so the major manufacturers dropped development (or so I understand). One major advantage of H2 as a fuel source is that it can be produced ahead of time and stored indefinitely, even from other "green" sources of electrical power such as wind and solar. And H2 is actually not nearly as unstable as most people think (I might be mistaken, but I believe I read somewhere that gasoline vapor is actually more inflammable than hydrogen). Plus, filling up with H2 takes no more time than filling up your tank with gasoline, a clear advantage over pure electric cars. Finally, producing H2 is fairly simple; you could produce a system to generate and store it that would take up no more room than an ATM. Imagine having that in your garage (or at least just outside). It would take household electric current and overnight replenish the holding tank, so you always have a full tank ready at home.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3GDjVskYIs apparently hydrogen (being considered a weapons gas) cannot be bought but can be produced...
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FabKPIltISU not debating just this video has some insight I suppose. What is the reason you believe we do not have them?
There isn't a single reason but many,first and foremost is $$$$$.
If you think a quart of water holds enough hydrogen to power your car think again.
Just compare th BTU potential of gasoline compared to hydrogen and most of the answers can be found.
These HHO generators are great for amazing your friends,turn it on and wait a few seconds for some hydrogen to develop then light the output hose on fire! make water burn.... :O But as far as powering or even adding a noticeable difference in fuel economy,power or torque,I highly doubt it simply because the hydrogen isn't compressed enough to have any volume.
But hey like I said,knock yourself out,build a unit,they are easy enough to do and install,just make sure you use a desent power supply......Oh ya did you think the water turned to hydrogen on it's own?
Please let me know how it works out for you! BTW there are systems already made and for sale if you cant be bothered to make one,they don't work either.
:salute
-
There isn't a single reason but many,first and foremost is $$$$$.
If you think a quart of water holds enough hydrogen to power your car think again.
Just compare th BTU potential of gasoline compared to hydrogen and most of the answers can be found.
These HHO generators are great for amazing your friends,turn it on and wait a few seconds for some hydrogen to develop then light the output hose on fire! make water burn.... :O But as far as powering or even adding a noticeable difference in fuel economy,power or torque,I highly doubt it simply because the hydrogen isn't compressed enough to have any volume.
But hey like I said,knock yourself out,build a unit,they are easy enough to do and install,just make sure you use a desent power supply......Oh ya did you think the water turned to hydrogen on it's own?
Please let me know how it works out for you! BTW there are systems already made and for sale if you cant be bothered to make one,they don't work either.
:salute
well il let you know if I make one and it does work. there just seems to be a lot of evidence that it works from multiple sources I don't think a quart of water has enough to power a car but im talking hybrid. hydrogen, gas, pros cons sure. You can make a hydrogen generator and fill tanks however as shown above. But im just considering making a hybrid unit just to play at first. If output seems enough, il do some testing. :cheers:
-
I'll also note that Honda has been running a pilot program in a city in CA for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. All the advantages of electric cars, but the fast-refill capability of conventional fuel cars. Honda leased the cars to the participating individuals, and placed a number of refueling stations. See http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/ for more details.
-
if it was that simple to make and it actually worked then we would have a lot of local mechanics offering it. but this sounds more like the "big cure" pharma companies dont want you to know.
semp
-
This company has it all figured out.
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm
They moved their operation from NM to Flint, MI to take advantage of the labor pool. Their only problem is rare earth. They need rare earth for the hydride tanks and as soon as they moved to flint, all mining and production of rare earth stopped except for China. Go figure. The cost went up 600% and made the system too expensive. They seem close to a work around.
Their main page
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/
-
This company has it all figured out.
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm
They moved their operation from NM to Flint, MI to take advantage of the labor pool. Their only problem is rare earth. They need rare earth for the hydride tanks and as soon as they moved to flint, all mining and production of rare earth stopped except for China. Go figure. The cost went up 600% and made the system too expensive. They seem close to a work around.
Their main page
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/
which rare earth element are they missing? had to look them up as it's been a long time since i took chemistry in middle school. there's 17 of them
another edit: most rare elements are plentiful with the exception of radioactive promethium. but then again it's wikipedia, what do they know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element
semp
edit: at the risk of sounding old. there was only like 11 when i was in school :rofl
-
one more thing. really from NM to MI to take advantage of the labor pool? not enough minimum wage workers in NM? that's a first.
semp
-
crap one more warning post. if a site has a link to warn people that they're the real thing unlike the other scammers. send me 10$ and I'll explain why.
semp
-
Electricity is used to split water into H2 and O. The electricity is taken from the battery. The gasoline engine produces the power to recharge the battery. There is no gain in this whatsoever, only loss.
-
Yeah, sky guns, it's physically impossible for a unit using water, and converting it to H2 on the spot to add fuel efficiency. And I mean this literally; you would have to violate the laws of physics for it to work.
You want some quick magic solution to your problem. Don't let them tell you what you want to hear; they'll gladly take your money, and waste even more of your gas.
-
Electricity is used to split water into H2 and O. The electricity is taken from the battery. The gasoline engine produces the power to recharge the battery. There is no gain in this whatsoever, only loss.
that's is a point but is the outtake truely more than the intake?. To make it clear to ALL im not endorsing them yet. I might just make my own for test purposes and a hobby if anything.
-
Yeah, sky guns, it's physically impossible for a unit using water, and converting it to H2 on the spot to add fuel efficiency. And I mean this literally; you would have to violate the laws of physics for it to work.
You want some quick magic solution to your problem. Don't let them tell you what you want to hear; they'll gladly take your money, and waste even more of your gas.
how do you think industrial hydrogen generators work? its on the spot just not hooked up to a engine but can actualy work once stored in great volume. The idea is not making a hydrogen car only a hydrogen gas hybrid. Hydrogen mixes with the fuel making for a hybrid. if I decide to do this its on my own. making my own device for my own hobbyish kicks. not buying from anybody..
-
(http://www.hp-gramatke.de/pictures/perpet/magnet_car1.jpg)
-
that's is a point but is the outtake truely more than the intake?. To make it clear to ALL im not endorsing them yet. I might just make my own for test purposes and a hobby if anything.
The energy needed to split the water molecule is the same as the energy you get from combining it again. If you gain some mgp out of it it is because you're running your battery down to make hydrogen. You'll get less loss of energy if you just put an electric motor in the drive train and hook it up to the battery, but still you'll ultimately lose fuel since the engine has to recharge the battery at some point.
-
The energy needed to split the water molecule is the same as the energy you get from combining it again. If you gain some mgp out of it it is because you're running your battery down to make hydrogen. You'll get less loss of energy if you just put an electric motor in the drive train and hook it up to the battery, but still you'll ultimately lose fuel since the engine has to recharge the battery at some point.
Uhh, plug in the battery charger - a poor mans hybrid! :x
-
Uhh, plug in the battery charger - a poor mans hybrid! :x
Or just use a really long extension cord. :D
-
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.
-
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.
Even better an old diesel Mercedes, the C200/E200 diesels get awesome mpg while having merc comfort and relatively good performance at 160ish hp.
-
Not to mention making your own diesel fuel out of used frying oil available maybe even for free at the local hamburger bar. That's something I'd like to experiment with but I doubt it wouldn't work too well in wintertime.
-
Not to mention making your own diesel fuel out of used frying oil available maybe even for free at the local hamburger bar. That's something I'd like to experiment with but I doubt it wouldn't work too well in wintertime.
In the US you have to be careful making your own fuel out of used oil. Not because of anything inherently wrong with the process or oil but because the DOT still wants their tax money. If the vehicle is used on the road then you must pay the associated taxes that goes with that fuel be it gas, diesel, vegetable, or bio-diesel.
-
The energy needed to split the water molecule is the same as the energy you get from combining it again. If you gain some mgp out of it it is because you're running your battery down to make hydrogen. You'll get less loss of energy if you just put an electric motor in the drive train and hook it up to the battery, but still you'll ultimately lose fuel since the engine has to recharge the battery at some point.
says it requires about 29 amps for some. People seem to hook them up straight up to the alternator. if that's an output issue. Il just use a higher output alternator or attach a pully so a secondary. No loss
-
The alternator draws power (hp) from the engine to create the electricity to charge the battery. There is no such thing as free energy. You have to spend energy to split the water molecules, and that procedure incurs efficiency losses. You then get the same energy back through combustion in the engine, but again you incur efficiency losses in the conversion process. All in all you'll get worse fuel efficiency. There is no way you can split a molecule(H2O into H2 and O) and put it back together (H2 and O into H2O) and gain energy.
-
says it requires about 29 amps for some. People seem to hook them up straight up to the alternator. if that's an output issue. Il just use a higher output alternator or attach a pully so a secondary. No loss
False, that is a physical impossibility. There can never be 100% efficiency, just as you can never get more power than you put in to a system.
Energy WILL be lost in the form of heat, and thus you will actually be losing both fuel efficiency and power in the long run.
-
The alternator draws power (hp) from the engine to create the electricity to charge the battery. There is no such thing as free energy. You have to spend energy to split the water molecules, and that procedure incurs efficiency losses. You then get the same energy back through combustion in the engine, but again you incur efficiency losses in the conversion process. All in all you'll get worse fuel efficiency. There is no way you can split a molecule(H2O into H2 and O) and put it back together (H2 and O into H2O) and gain energy.
I already understand the concept of no free energy, Iv made a home made turbine with the ability to charge battery banks to power a house for days when done right. Efficiency is all you need. A more efficient alternator or mech that powers a separate alternator without drawing too much horsepower from your engine (could use pully torq on my side too by changing ratios). The more efficient your electrical producer the less power is requires by your engine. Also how you make this device is important too as far as efficiency. I could use the suns energy if I really wanted to by ripping off a solar panel off the roof im under and bolt it to my car. and get my power from that and not my engine for all I cared. IE a 3 way hybrid. efficiency = better output than required input. that's not free energy that distribution of proper energy. :rock
-
Skyguns, you clearly have it in your head that this will work, and are going to do it anyway. Don't bother wasting server space if you just want to be told what you want to hear.
-
False, that is a physical impossibility. There can never be 100% efficiency, just as you can never get more power than you put in to a system.
Energy WILL be lost in the form of heat, and thus you will actually be losing both fuel efficiency and power in the long run.
a bit quick to claim no loss on my part that's of course not true nor what I meant. Simply saying that for the fact of efficiency, not claiming 100% efficiency
-
Skyguns, you clearly have it in your head that this will work, and are going to do it anyway. Don't bother wasting server space if you just want to be told what you want to hear.
:lol dude like I said, not endorsing this one bit and if I am only for hobby or test use. I do however enjoy a intellectual conversation and/or debate :cheers: don't be rude now I learn from conversations like these :rolleyes: :salute
-
Skyguns, you clearly have it in your head that this will work, and are going to do it anyway. Don't bother wasting server space if you just want to be told what you want to hear.
also understand young skywalker that when I talk to people about this topic. (That im not endorsing :rolleyes:) I simply want people opinions and facts they have to offer (such as yours) because they make for good variables in testing. I do this for a hobby man. :P
-
Then learn. Don't try to find some clever solution around what we're saying, cause I guarantee most of us have thought of these things at one point or another.
The solar panel would completely screw with the aerodynamics of your car. You might easily drop your fuel economy below the 30mpg mark with such a setup. The only way for a hydrogen hybrid system to increase fuel efficiency is to use already gaseous hydrogen, and increase the air in the mixture so it has something to burn. And then of course you'd have to go through the process of finding the stoichiometric ratio that will give you the most fuel efficiency with your new fuel mixture, etc.
-
Use that turbine of yours to make the hydrogen at home, then put it in your car. Don't blow up your house...
-
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.
-
Then learn. Don't try to find some clever solution around what we're saying, cause I guarantee most of us have thought of these things at one point or another.
The solar panel would completely screw with the aerodynamics of your car. You might easily drop your fuel economy below the 30mpg mark with such a setup. The only way for a hydrogen hybrid system to increase fuel efficiency is to use already gaseous hydrogen, and increase the air in the mixture so it has something to burn. And then of course you'd have to go through the process of finding the stoichiometric ratio that will give you the most fuel efficiency with your new fuel mixture, etc.
Am learning :aok from the community. Need to understand that with every idea shot down is the spawn of a alternative perhaps even more efficient one. So if I came off as a know it all then for that il apologize ;) but not what im trying to achieve. Simply trying to learn all negative factors from individuals such as yourself at this point to learn my options. Ever been in a think tank? The solar idea was kinda a joke though, I realize that. Im addicted to building stuff and finding a way :lol
-
Use that turbine of yours to make the hydrogen at home, then put it in your car. Don't blow up your house...
its already been done though :(
-
Don't forget to put in the crystals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LHAlcrTRA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LHAlcrTRA)
-
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.
-
Don't forget to put in the crystals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LHAlcrTRA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3LHAlcrTRA)
:rofl don't make me feel bad now ;)
-
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.
-
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 :uhoh
-
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.
-
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.....
:salute
-
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.
-
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.....
:salute
He got swindled, cruising at 50 in any stock vehicle will net you peak efficiency.
-
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 (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/ (http://hydrogenenergycalifornia.com/)
-
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 :x
-
For 500 bucks he could have filled his tank about 10 times......DOH.....
:salute
:bhead
-
more effective to just drive a little slower.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
He got swindled, cruising at 50 in any stock vehicle will net you peak efficiency.
You think??
Of course he did,he was trying to get me to install a system on my work truck!
I know that you get best mileage at about 50 mph,that why I said the only way he got improved mileage was but keeping his foot off the gas pedal and cruising at about 50.
If you really want great mileage get a direct injected diesel,connect it to 2 battery packs and use the diesel to charge the batteries. Then use an electric motor to drive the wheels. You could get close to 150 mpg with this type of system,it's used on buses in some parts of the world,they get about 90 mpg while carrying about 50 people.
We could have this in place now but then what would we do with all that oil we have instorage,just incase...... :huh
Hybreds are a joke,sure they give ok mileage around town but on the hiway.... you can get better mileage with a jetta diesel or even the new Mazda's are getting 50 mpg
:salute