Hydrogen??

[Dryoo7]

I have read the thread on why Hydrogen units DON'T work. Please explane what the difference is with the new Hydrogen powered cars vrs. these units. I was thinking how a little nitro helps in a gas motor; why wouldn't a little Hydrogen help in a gas motor. Please don't bury me in theory, just plain talk.
Thanks,
Chuck

[MAKG]

Hydrogen powered vehicles are big fancy batteries, nothing more. Hydrogen is a nice way to store energy. You do NOT get as much out as you put in, which is why it can't possibly be self-contained. The hydrogen MUST be made outside the vehicle. But if you do that, there is no reason you can't use it just like any other battery.

Hydrogen powered cars are electric vehicles. They do NOT burn the hydrogen in an internal combustion engine.

And nitro is not the same as nitrous oxide. A geologist will think of nitroglycerin (active ingredient in dynamite). A racer will think of nitromethane (NOT good for a gasoline engine). And nitrous doesn't "help" in the sense that hydrogen is supposed to. It dramatically LOWERS fuel mileage; the point is to make quite a lot more power from the same engine. Which means more fuel in proportion. It also breaks stuff.

[Dryoo7]

That is very clear. Thank you.
Chuck

[thantil]

I have read the thread on why Hydrogen units DON'T work. Please explane what the difference is with the new Hydrogen powered cars vrs. these units. I was thinking how a little nitro helps in a gas motor; why wouldn't a little Hydrogen help in a gas motor. Please don't bury me in theory, just plain talk.
Thanks,
Chuck

It will work,it does work, at the moment I am getting a 20% increase in millage.
96 ranger 2.3 man trans
Hydrogen powered cars use a fuel cell fuel in (Hydrogen in this case) electricity out. The cells out out there are not fuel cells. also the gas is not pure Hydrogen
but Hydrogen and oxygen (Hydroxy) Hydrogen mixed with gasoline burns more efficiently and emissions are lower
Tom Antil
Fitchburg, ma

[AllanD]

It will work,it does work, at the moment I am getting a 20% increase in millage.
96 ranger 2.3 man trans
Hydrogen powered cars use a fuel cell fuel in (Hydrogen in this case) electricity out. The cells out out there are not fuel cells. also the gas is not pure Hydrogen
but Hydrogen and oxygen (Hydroxy) Hydrogen mixed with gasoline burns more efficiently and emissions are lower
Tom Antil
Fitchburg, ma


Not to bew the one to spill Kool-Aid on your tinfoil hat, but your 20% increase in mileage is due to a change in driving habit.

In other words: :bsflag:

[thantil]

Really? So let me get this right, you see me and you know for fact I made changes to my driving habbits?
whatever

[MAKG]

He's making a very reasonable guess as to why you might think your truck is exempt from the laws of physics (specifically, energy conservation).

He doesn't have to see you to know you're fooling yourself. He might need to in order to know exactly how, but he's right that you ARE wrong.

[Psychopete]

I was thinking how a little nitro helps in a gas motor; why wouldn't a little Hydrogen help in a gas motor. Please don't bury me in theory, just plain talk.

I am under the impression you'd like to use it like a type of boost.

Hydrogen and Nitrous Oxide are very different, nitrous oxide isn't flammable itself like Hydrogen. It adds more oxygen to the intake charge than what's in the air (21%) so that more fuel can be added to create more power. It also lowers the intake charge temperature which makes the air more denser. This is why Hyrdogen wouldn't work the same as Nitrous Oxide.

Pete

[thantil]

He's making a very reasonable guess as to why you might think your truck is exempt from the laws of physics (specifically, energy conservation).

He doesn't have to see you to know you're fooling yourself. He might need to in order to know exactly how, but he's right that you ARE wrong.

Whatever, send me to Prison I broke a law oops

[MAKG]

If you DID break that law, a bunch of physicists in Sweden will be very interested in that.

Except you didn't. You just fooled yourself.

[lifted4.0]

all of these debates go on and on...you can say you change your driving habit...but if you shift everytime at 2G-2.1G, and you get 20ish mpg...swap in some sort of "modification" and still shift at 2G-2.1G, how much of your driving habits have changed? how much you brake (ya ill give you the excuse that it will clean your engine giving you better mpg by alittle, but if thats true, the mpg saving should wear off after time..and if it doesnt..??).....come on, if you hear about mpg savings that are 5-6..with 4.0L rangers getting 26-27...HOW MANY OF US ACTUALLY can obtain that with any driving conditionss...

im in the prosses of trying it myself...and if i see 25-26 mpg, i will just laugh at all the nay sayers..and if i dont, i will laugh at myself..

if i get 25mpg will pulling a 2300lbs trailer for 1/3 of my driving, that is for sure not a stock rangers mpg..no sir

[James Denton]

thantil----Gald you see it to.It's easy to tell someone else what will work or what want when you don't have your own built.All they have to do is get off their aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasssss and build one------and that's no BS

[thantil]

Thank you, I do not want to argue. I was just making a statement.

I have a few issues with setup, but who doesn't. mostly leaks. and effie is part woman.haha.
oh well
also I have everything on a spreadsheet.

[James Denton]

Thank you, I do not want to argue. I was just making a statement.

I have a few issues with setup, but who doesn't. mostly leaks. and effie is part woman.haha.
oh well
also I have everything on a spreadsheet.

Is it made with pvc pipe

[rboyer]

Is it made with pvc pipe

Hey now! I have seen people hold light amounts of boost using PVC pipe that was properly primed and glued. Although none of what i've seen was ever permanent, but the stuff gets the job done. As far as this whole Hydrogen thing goes, you can prove that it won't work mathematically especially if you're talking about producing the Hydrogen on board the vehicle but people still hold on to their firm beliefs that it works. If you want to sink money into something that you haven't fully researched then be my guest, but the ONLY way you're sinking money into it is if you DIDN'T do any research.

[AllanD]

It's like saying that lotteries are a tax on people who are bad at math.

I don't have to now you or see your driving habits to know that there is one basic rule which governs all others... that there is so to speak "no such thing as a free lunch"
(it's called conservation of energy)

The energy to MAKE the hydrogen is comming from SOMEWHERE, and that under real world conditions it takes between six and ten times as much energy to make hydrogen as it gives up when you burn it.

that is REALITY

So since I KNOW wha you are doing cannot possibly work
(any more than you have a trunk full of dwarves on treadmills propelling your car)
than what's left is that you:
A) have Changed your driving habits
or
B) you are an idiot that can't divide a three digit number with a two digit number and get an answer that's within 40% of reality.
or
C) I'm absolutely wrong and the Nobel comittee is about to notify you that
you are the winner for the nobel prize for either physics or Chemistry.

I'd bet everything I have (including my dick) against C.

Basically it remeinds me of the furor over "cold fusion"

This forum exsists purely to isolate these hairbrained discussions
(and the people who start them) from general discussion so they
will annoy the minimum number of people who don't have a head
full of loose screws under their tin foil head coverings.

AD

[thantil]

You do not listen well I said I was not going to arguge about it and You still push.
You are alo rude and vulgar.

[MAKG]

You are alo rude and vulgar.

You forgot "right."

Some people just don't like to be reminded that they have fallen for a scam. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be reminded. MANY of the not-very-bright interpret silence as agreement.

Allan, you and me are both old farts. The initial CF fiasco was 20 years ago. I remember it fairly well, as I was working in "hot" fusion at the time. College internship. It caused quite a stir, largely because these guys were keeping the paper secret (VERY unusual). When it came out, (leaked by a reviewer) it was obvious they had rediscovered electrochemistry (i.e., made a battery).

[Evan]

You do not listen well I said I was not going to arguge about it and You still push.
You are alo rude and vulgar.


Does your hydrogen truck also go faster than the speed of light?

[AllanD]

You forgot "right."

Some people just don't like to be reminded that they have fallen for a scam. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be reminded. MANY of the not-very-bright interpret silence as agreement.

Allan, you and me are both old farts. The initial CF fiasco was 20 years ago. I remember it fairly well, as I was working in "hot" fusion at the time. College internship. It caused quite a stir, largely because these guys were keeping the paper secret (VERY unusual). When it came out, (leaked by a reviewer) it was obvious they had rediscovered electrochemistry (i.e., made a battery).

MAKG, 20-0dd years ago I was also working on "Hot Fusion"
Or atleas the foundation for others to do so,
The early days of building TFTR at Princeton.
it's predecessor (the name escapes me at the moment)
was still active.

I was working on instrumentation
while My father was working on the power supply system for
the neutral beam.


AD

[MAKG]

We were the competition. Inertial confined fusion, LBNL and LLNL. The dopes with the Q clearances were making supersecret D-T pellets at around 1 ton TNT equivalent (that the Soviets and Germans had published in open literature -- gah!) and we were making heavy ion beams to blast them.

The Princeton weenies were doing Tokamaks, right?

[AllanD]

We were the competition. Inertial confined fusion, LBNL and LLNL. The dopes with the Q clearances were making supersecret D-T pellets at around 1 ton TNT equivalent (that the Soviets and Germans had published in open literature -- gah!) and we were making heavy ion beams to blast them.

The Princeton weenies were doing Tokamaks, right?

Yeah TFTR stands for Tokomak Fusion Test Reactor.

they eventually reached 10megawatts ouput and a peak temp
of >510million degrees:)

But they didn't fire the thing the first time until long after I left.

Later On I was working at Allied Signal on Alexandrite Lasers
They were supposed to be trying to make them just variable
enough to frequency modulate them and use the imposed
FM signal to read doppler shift.

the idea was to use the laser as a rangefinding gunsight.
Imagine for a moment what you might need a 35KW laser
as a rangefinding gunsight to shoot at...

I was impressed the first day when I realized that they were
using a 10hp motor to drive the coolant circulation pump
that kept the laser from overheating...

All I did was wire a bunch of big HV capacitors together.

Sadly most of the really big work in fusion is now being done in europe.

the newest thing that everyone is sinking money into (including the US-DOE) is being built in France.

AD

[MAKG]

the idea was to use the laser as a rangefinding gunsight.
Imagine for a moment what you might need a 35KW laser
as a rangefinding gunsight to shoot at...


Gee, no idea.....

Might it have something to do with, say, really big adaptive optics telescopes and heat signatures?

[AllanD]

No it had to do with targeting a fast moving (I mean miles per second)
object at distances (several hundred miles) and it was the gunsight
for a weapon that could EASILY actually reach out and touch those
targets virtually instantaneously (Think directed energy that passes
through most things, and greatly heats those things it can't and even
if it can't actually destroy those targets any electronics inside them
gets fried reardless of how well it's builders think they shielded them.



It's energy output is on the order of several million terawatts.... for say... 5-7 nanoseconds:)

Getting any ideas?

AD

[MAKG]

Hmm, I guess I'm working in the wrong decade. Adaptive Optics is a late-90s thing. The telescope is on Haleakala (and a few other sites), and it's for spotting those same "inconvenient" bits of equipment in sub-orbit. They use kinetic weapons these days. At least that's the rumor. The problem with big stationary exawatt lasers is that they are pretty easy targets, being the size of large buildings with optics that don't like dust, grease, or vibration.

Only several hundred miles? Sounds like a reentry-stage strategy. These days, it seems boost stage is the more active target. But of course I only know what I can glean from the nonclassified literature (i.e., it may be complete misinformation).

[James Denton]

You do not listen well I said I was not going to arguge about it and You still push.
You are alo rude and vulgar.

That's right they want listen-----That's all they going to do is run,down what some of us know that will work......Just wish they take some of that time and build one.

[AllanD]

Hmm, I guess I'm working in the wrong decade. Adaptive Optics is a late-90s thing. The telescope is on Haleakala (and a few other sites), and it's for spotting those same "inconvenient" bits of equipment in sub-orbit. They use kinetic weapons these days. At least that's the rumor. The problem with big stationary exawatt lasers is that they are pretty easy targets, being the size of large buildings with optics that don't like dust, grease, or vibration.

Only several hundred miles? Sounds like a reentry-stage strategy. These days, it seems boost stage is the more active target. But of course I only know what I can glean from the nonclassified literature (i.e., it may be complete misinformation).

the Targets were warhead Bus packages or individual warheads
in the "coast" phase of their flight, ideally just prior to reentry.

Remember the Bomb-pumped X-ray Laser?

"adaptive optics"? Uhhh.... Nope.

Just a brute force approach to the physics.

Each "main" lasers could only be fired ONCE and you didn't want to be within several hundred miles of one when it did

One of my high school friends (Physics degree from Syracuse)
insisted it was "impossible".. depends on your definition of "laser"
or "coherent radiation", with the power budget involved it's
not like you needed to worry about focus....

It's like using a blunderbuss to kill houseflies at 3feet.
or Holding a claymore mine on a broom handle to get
a burglar in the next room.... not nearly as "elegant"
as a wooden club. :)

Definatly not "elegance" to make an engineer happy.
But not quite as crude as an "Omega" space drive (LOL:)

but VERY effective.

Remember while there is a limitation on how many
pulse bundles you hang on on it (weight limitations for the launch platform) if you only put a few (3-4) on an ICBM platform designed to launch nine or more RV's on an intercontintal flight path you can still have the thing reach an intercept point fairly quickly.

Then again taking Old ICBMs and replacing the warheads with
garbage pails full of lug nuts and bursting them in the path of incomming warheads would be also be frightfully effective.

and give a great light show to somebody as the nuts that don't hit anything subsequently reenter at 15,000mph:)

Hell simply launching such a "package" from somewhere in
the pacific would make a great finale to the macy's fireworks display on the 4th of july:)

Imagine the sight of several thousand man made meteors
(each the size of an acorn) burning up on their way out
over the atlantic:)

Remember that the average "shooting star" is between the size of a grain of sand and a peppercorn.


AD

[MAKG]

Hell simply launching such a "package" from somewhere in
the pacific would make a great finale to the macy's fireworks display on the 4th of july:)


While it sure would be a nice light show, I don't think the folks on ISS or any number of LEO satellites (say, KH-xx, whatever xx is these days, and especially the four LEO astronomical telescopes out there now) would be very happy with that.

Not to mention the US Space Command folks.

While something launched from an ICBM would be suborbital, it still would be rather fast, especially compared to things coming the other way or in orbital paths. Thousands of MPH should never be underestimated. It scares the crap out of the manned-spaceflight folks.

[AllanD]

Yeah, and considering that a typical ICBM has an apogee
of ~800miles, it'd definatly be flying past the orbital path
of most LEO stuff.

But imagine how upset the manned spaceflight people would
be to have a warhead trans-stage carrying three RV's go
wizzing past on it's way to apogee or the three RV's and the suborbital
"space junk" trans stage (or spent third stage booster) comming back down
from it's 800 mile apogee...

If THOSE things start flying nobody will be worried about what
might get taken out as "collateral dammage by interceptor platforms...
everyone will have bigger worries.

how does the total cost of Hubble compare to say... NYC, LA or Atlanta?

AD


AD

[68fbjjz109]

Has any on here tried to inject gaseous hydrogen? After reading about Hydrogen injected biodesiels built by John Goodwin and his impressive results a friend of mine and i decided to try it with my ranger.

We went to the local Gas Supplier rented a large tank of hydrogen, placed a argon regulator on the tank from my buddies welder, ran a tube from the regulator to a non used vacum line on my ranger. My ranger is a 89 2.9 lifted 8 inches with 36'' TSL's, with 3.73's. When we opened the regulator the motor was at idle and increased some 500 RPM's, and the exhuast smelled very sweet almost as if was burning coolant. (from what i have read hydrogen reduces emissions when mixed with gasoline). My ranger typically gets around 12 mpg on the highway. I filled my truck with gas and my buddy and i drove about 100 miles and the gas station to Cabelas in Hamburg at approximately 60-65mph. Upon returning the the gas station and filling back up to comfirm the apparent improve in fuel mileage, my ranger average 19 mpg. My ranger would continually provide the same results on the high way.

I think thats a pretty significant improvemnt seeing it was a hasty experiment.

Though what interests me the most is my buddies 4.0 explorer ran (rough) and drove on just hydrogen. I would like to convert my mustang to run on just hydrogen or hydrogen and natural gas.

[superdave1984]

The problem in your logic lies in the fact that while you may have gotten more miles per gallon of GASOLINE, you still used a bunch of hydrogen. And I don't know how much hydrogen costs, but I am betting you did not come out financially ahead. on your experiment.

[MAKG]

It also burns hotter (which is WHY it affects gasoline consumption), so if the exhaust smells like coolant, it might really have coolant in it...let's hope not.

I suspect it may increase NOx emissions.

[68fbjjz109]

It cost 13 dollars to get the hydrogen filled, 40 total to rent the tank, it lasted about a week. So it did offset my costs when driving my ranger, and my buddies F -250, and again this was a very hasty and crude method to inject it into the motor. A nitrious type injection system would suit it better I believe. That coupled with tunning the motor to take further advantage of the hydrogen would yield more impressive results in regards to themileage and theefficent use of the hydrogen. Once I come back from Iraq my buddy and I will persue this further.

Yes depending on certain factor hydrogen can increase emissions, here is a good article which can explain much better then i can.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/tech_validation/pdfs/fcm03r0.pdf

Its about running either blends or pure hydrogen in a regular internal combust engine, the pro and cons, and how to over come them.

My goal is to running my vehicles either on or supplemented with hydrogen for the emissions factor. With the possibility of building a fill station at our garage so we cam make hydrogen as efficentlty as possible. I feel my Turbo Mustang and next project ranger will make ideal platforms. My goal is to have both my 550rwhp Mustang, and Lifted Desiel ranger that get respectable mileage with little to no emissions. I feel this is not only responsible thing to do, given the slightly excessive but very capable nature of the vehicles. In addition i feel the projects will have a pretty high cool factor as well.

Fortunately for me the motor didn't and doesnt not burn coolant, 195,000 miles and still going.

[MAKG]

You are BURNING hydrogen. That is not a fuel cell. A hydrogen fuel cell is a rechargeable battery.

[anupaum]

I've been very reluctant to join this conversation because it seems like both sides essentially have their minds made up about the issue. I USED TO BE a hydrogen enthusiast, and for many years I was a member of the American Hydrogen Association.

Internal combustion engines CAN be made to run on hydrogen. A number of people have done so, but this shouldn't be surprising. Internal combustion engines can run on a wide variety of fuels, but calling hydrogen a fuel isn't entirely accurate. It's better described as an energy carrier because we have no terrestrial source of free hydrogen to use. The vast majority of industrial hydrogen comes from natural gas.

As a member of the AHA, I've actually seen RUNNING vehicles that burn hydrogen. In general, one kilogram of hydrogen worked out to about the same fuel economy as a gallon of gasoline. This shouldn't be surprising because the energy is about the same for both using those measurements.

Hy-boost, injecting a small amount of hydrogen into a gasoline engine (less than 5% by weight), CAN result in a 5 - 10% increase in fuel economy in certain situations. (Please note the caveat.) Most of the research done on hy-boost occurred prior to the 1980's, BEFORE EFI was common. Computerized fuel injection has taken much of the hy-boost advantage away.

So I'm skeptical of any claim that hy-boost will radically increase the fuel economy of a modern, computer-controlled engine. But there's a part of me that would like to try it out, just for the sake of my own curiosity. I've built several electrolyzers, so it would be well within my capability to do so.

Trouble is, though, I don't have a lot of room left under the hood of my truck . . .

[beyonder]

Though what interests me the most is my buddies 4.0 explorer ran (rough) and drove on just hydrogen

This is caused by your O2 sensor. It is giving an incorrect reading. You need to install a bypass module to correct the reading ( simular to runing E85 in a non flex fuel vehicle ).
Run it to long like this and the vehicle will go into limp mode ( happened on 7 out of 10 vehicles we tested when working with hydrogen )

My goal is to running my vehicles either on or supplemented with hydrogen for the emissions factor. With the possibility of building a fill station at our garage so we cam make hydrogen as efficentlty as possible. I feel my Turbo Mustang and next project ranger will make ideal platforms. My goal is to have both my 550rwhp Mustang, and Lifted Desiel ranger that get respectable mileage with little to no emissions. I feel this is not only responsible thing to do, given the slightly excessive but very capable nature of the vehicles. In addition i feel the projects will have a pretty high cool factor as well.

Well...when you blow yourself into orbit you'll be very "cool"...
Not to rain on your parade, but I don't think you've done your research. Depending on the cost of electricity where you live production of the hydrogen to the cost of gas factor is almost identical.
Secondly, good luck on getting a permit to store hydrogen. There is a reason fuel cell vehicles are not taking over the roads today, simply because "SAFE" storage for the hydrogen has not been developed. I don't know about the states, however here in Canada production of hydrogen in large quantities is illegal and hands you a nice fine and jail term.
Do you know how you plan to make it? Algae...cow shit....etc? Again, both need permits and are strictly governed.

Simpler yet...build a still and make eth, put a conversion kit in to make your non flex-fuel vehicle flex fuel ( or reprogram the computer to do so ) and you'll save. For your diesel...go to your favorite fast food restaurant and get all the used oil you can ( most will give it to you for free as they pay to have it hauled away ) and convert it to biodiesel. Leave the hydrogen to the people who know what there doing and have the facilities to work with it safely.

[beyonder]

I've been very reluctant to join this conversation because it seems like both sides essentially have their minds made up about the issue. I USED TO BE a hydrogen enthusiast, and for many years I was a member of the American Hydrogen Association.

Internal combustion engines CAN be made to run on hydrogen. A number of people have done so, but this shouldn't be surprising. Internal combustion engines can run on a wide variety of fuels, but calling hydrogen a fuel isn't entirely accurate. It's better described as an energy carrier because we have no terrestrial source of free hydrogen to use. The vast majority of industrial hydrogen comes from natural gas.

As a member of the AHA, I've actually seen RUNNING vehicles that burn hydrogen. In general, one kilogram of hydrogen worked out to about the same fuel economy as a gallon of gasoline. This shouldn't be surprising because the energy is about the same for both using those measurements.

Hy-boost, injecting a small amount of hydrogen into a gasoline engine (less than 5% by weight), CAN result in a 5 - 10% increase in fuel economy in certain situations. (Please note the caveat.) Most of the research done on hy-boost occurred prior to the 1980's, BEFORE EFI was common. Computerized fuel injection has taken much of the hy-boost advantage away.

So I'm skeptical of any claim that hy-boost will radically increase the fuel economy of a modern, computer-controlled engine. But there's a part of me that would like to try it out, just for the sake of my own curiosity. I've built several electrolyzers, so it would be well within my capability to do so.

Trouble is, though, I don't have a lot of room left under the hood of my truck . . .

You'd be better to convert your truck to flex fuel and make your own ethanol. Safer, and easier to get through the red tape ( here in canada at least )

[anupaum]

You'd be better to convert your truck to flex fuel and make your own ethanol. Safer, and easier to get through the red tape ( here in canada at least )

Individuals can't distill their own ethanol in Canada. The law doesn't even contemplate this, and when I looked into getting a permit for a distillation device, the provincial authorities kept giving me the run around. Eventually, I was told: "No, you can't do this."

[beyonder]

Individuals can't distill their own ethanol in Canada. The law doesn't even contemplate this, and when I looked into getting a permit for a distillation device, the provincial authorities kept giving me the run around. Eventually, I was told: "No, you can't do this."


What province are you from? Its 75.00 here in BC. You need a microbrewery permit I believe its called ( that's what I was told anyways when i looked into it ..that goes back about 6 yrs tho).
however permit or no permit, the equipment and books are sold in stores. Process is similar,etc Just don't tell them your making ethanol, lol.
You could always convert to methane, find a farmer who's willing to part with his cow shit and build yourself a digester and away you go...( a little more complex but you get the idea )....Incidently you can extract hydrogen from this to...( I'm not suggesting you attempt it however ).

[anupaum]

What province are you from? Its 75.00 here in BC. You need a microbrewery permit I believe its called ( that's what I was told anyways when i looked into it ..that goes back about 6 yrs tho).
however permit or no permit, the equipment and books are sold in stores. Process is similar,etc Just don't tell them your making ethanol, lol.
You could always convert to methane, find a farmer who's willing to part with his cow shit and build yourself a digester and away you go...( a little more complex but you get the idea )....Incidently you can extract hydrogen from this to...( I'm not suggesting you attempt it however ).

You can ferment, but you CANNOT distill. If you get caught, the government has the right to confiscate your property--which means if you do it at home, you can lose your house.

I'm a guest in this country. I have no intention of running afoul of the law.

Methane is a pain . . . It's bulky, fickle, and unless you've got fields to spread the slurry over, you'll wind up with a HUGE waste disposal problem.

[bobbywalter]

It cost 13 dollars to get the hydrogen filled, 40 total to rent the tank, it lasted about a week. So it did offset my costs when driving my ranger, and my buddies F -250, and again this was a very hasty and crude method to inject it into the motor. A nitrious type injection system would suit it better I believe. That coupled with tunning the motor to take further advantage of the hydrogen would yield more impressive results in regards to themileage and theefficent use of the hydrogen. Once I come back from Iraq my buddy and I will persue this further.

Yes depending on certain factor hydrogen can increase emissions, here is a good article which can explain much better then i can.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/tech_validation/pdfs/fcm03r0.pdf

Its about running either blends or pure hydrogen in a regular internal combust engine, the pro and cons, and how to over come them.

My goal is to running my vehicles either on or supplemented with hydrogen for the emissions factor. With the possibility of building a fill station at our garage so we cam make hydrogen as efficentlty as possible. I feel my Turbo Mustang and next project ranger will make ideal platforms. My goal is to have both my 550rwhp Mustang, and Lifted Desiel ranger that get respectable mileage with little to no emissions. I feel this is not only responsible thing to do, given the slightly excessive but very capable nature of the vehicles. In addition i feel the projects will have a pretty high cool factor as well.

Fortunately for me the motor didn't and doesnt not burn coolant, 195,000 miles and still going.



hydride storage is key. the trade off is cost and weight. to run my escort on hydrogen i will expect engine life to max around 30-60k and just myself be able to ride in it with the 800 pounds of shit i will have to run it on just hydro for 400 miles.

i still cant afford it at this time...or i would have been using it already for the last 7 years. the tranfer efficiency is still pretty bad but doable. 4000 watts of solar panels and 2 tons of hydride would give a guy a good supply of hydrogen that would allow 2-400 miles a day..


till you price it.


one of the reasons i installed a diesel in my ranger is in hoping to get a better reaction out of some sort of hho device. i dont think of them as adding energy as much as causing a different reaction in the combustion events. i been screwing around with them for years and have not seen any real merit in them on the gassers.

using a non dot bottle hydrogen in a tank (which is illegal to have as a open fuel source in a motor vehicle last i knew) works pretty good with proper tuning, but you lose effeciency especially when tuning the nox out, that is why its nice to go with a turbo...especially with a turbo diesel

[BEEFKING69]

Thantil dont worry bout people like that man they just think they know but really they dont i also thought it was bs when i first saw and ad for water 4 gas but then i started researching it and then i built my own hho gen. i have a 95 F-150 with 266000 miles on it and it was only getting 10 MPG at 65 with 31-10.5's on it but after building a hho gen and getting it setup right i avg 25 and it has got 30 a few times so to hell with the people who think they know but really dont know what works and what dont. if i make anybody mad 2 bad im tired of idiots saying that home made hho gens dont work but i will agree that 99% of the gens on ebay are complete trash and scams cause u cand build them urself for half the price if not cheaper. also older cars and truck see more gains beccause they dont have a ton of computer bullshit. so unless u build one urself and a good one at that dont say it dont work cause u make urself look so stupid

[fastpakr]

Thantil dont worry bout people like that man they just think they know but really they dont i also thought it was bs when i first saw and ad for water 4 gas but then i started researching it and then i built my own hho gen. i have a 95 F-150 with 266000 miles on it and it was only getting 10 MPG at 65 with 31-10.5's on it but after building a hho gen and getting it setup right i avg 25 and it has got 30 a few times so to hell with the people who think they know but really dont know what works and what dont. if i make anybody mad 2 bad im tired of idiots saying that home made hho gens dont work but i will agree that 99% of the gens on ebay are complete trash and scams cause u cand build them urself for half the price if not cheaper. also older cars and truck see more gains beccause they dont have a ton of computer bullshit. so unless u build one urself and a good one at that dont say it dont work cause u make urself look so stupid

:icon_rofl::shok:

[Beanmachine7000]

Thantil dont worry bout people like that man they just think they know but really they dont i also thought it was bs when i first saw and ad for water 4 gas but then i started researching it and then i built my own hho gen. i have a 95 F-150 with 266000 miles on it and it was only getting 10 MPG at 65 with 31-10.5's on it but after building a hho gen and getting it setup right i avg 25 and it has got 30 a few times so to hell with the people who think they know but really dont know what works and what dont. if i make anybody mad 2 bad im tired of idiots saying that home made hho gens dont work but i will agree that 99% of the gens on ebay are complete trash and scams cause u cand build them urself for half the price if not cheaper. also older cars and truck see more gains beccause they dont have a ton of computer bullshit. so unless u build one urself and a good one at that dont say it dont work cause u make urself look so stupid

Seriously? Come on guys, it's been proven a million and one times they don't work... There was even a guy that did the stoichiometry on it... If your thing works you need to let someone know, because that's Nobel Prize stuff right there, I mean, you just broke the Laws of Thermodynamics (which is impossible)

[BEEFKING69]

thats the thing its not breaking any laws because im not running the truck on hho it just helps the gas burn more complete which is what causes the better milage and of course the results vary from person to person so like i said unless u try it urself dont say it dont work. here is a video of a guys machine that truly breaks what yall call laws but he clearly explains how it works http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1610087835473512086&hl=en

[fastpakr]

That's the thing about laws. They don't break. They're simply rules about how things work based on scientific methods. Your hydrogen system doesn't break them because it's not possible. You can't create more energy than you put in, so you can't improve efficiency with an HHO system - by design, it would have to create energy where none exists.

There's a sucker born every minute.

[BEEFKING69]

ok man whatever helps u sleep at night. here mabey this will open ur small eyes up just a bit. http://aquauto.com/blogs/that0n3guy/why-skeptics-are-sure-hydroxy-boosting-doesnt-work-pt-1


http://aquauto.com/blogs/that0n3guy/why-skeptics-are-sure-hydroxy-boosting-doesnt-work-pt-2

[Beanmachine7000]

Ok, say you have something you need to burn 1L (gasoline) and you burn it in your car... You use 100% of that energy (about 15-20% will go to work, the other 80%ish will go to heat)... You add said "HHO generator", the only thing that changes is you burn more than 1L of gas and "HHO gas"... Meaning you did absolutely nothing... Do you believe everything you read on the internet? I don't... What do I believe? My chemistry textbook written by SEVERAL people that have spent more than half their lifetime doing exactly the stuff they are writing about, and that had to prove to SEVERAL people that they knew absolutely everything about what they are writing about... Therefore, the odds are against me to find something incorrect in the book... The odds are VERY good that you can find MULTIPLE things incorrect in any article on the internet...

BTW - Read the quote in my signature... My microbiology professor once said that ignorance is not a bad thing, unless you either refuse to admit, or refuse to change it... Pick one...

[BEEFKING69]

ok then tell me how i get 25 mpg with hho and 10 mpg without it

[Beanmachine7000]

ok then tell me how i get 25 mpg with hho and 10 mpg without it

1.) Something was screwed up and when you added your HHO Generator you fixed it... (Vacuum line perhaps?)
2.) You changed how you drive...
3.) Your math is screwed up...
4.) You don't actually get 25mpg with your HHO Generator and 10mpg without it, you made it up...
5.) It's a combination of all of these things (most likely)...

[Rangerdave73]

1.) Something was screwed up and when you added your HHO Generator you fixed it... (Vacuum line perhaps?)
2.) You changed how you drive...
3.) Your math is screwed up...
4.) You don't actually get 25mpg with your HHO Generator and 10mpg without it, you made it up...
5.) It's a combination of all of these things (most likely)...
and you have the right to be a hard headed "know it all" - the guy is not trying to make anything off you if he says it works for him what is his gain for lying? the only gain I see would be that you must have stock in oil and will do your best to disprove the idea so you don't lose $$$:dunno:

[Psychopete]

the guy is not trying to make anything off you if he says it works for him what is his gain for lying?

I agree in that sense, but I don't know if it's just me; but for the amount of hydrogen that gets created, I just can't rationally think that one would gain double or even close to tripple the fuel economy.

Pete

[Bubba Bob]

I haven't read this whole thread, but Im sure the same old arguments against HHO have been presented, so here goes...

Laws of thermodynamics don't apply here. The old 'you can't have a net gain in energy" arguement is bunk since you're changing what the energy is stored in. It's not that the HHO adds energy, it's that the energy is stored in a more efficient state.

Besides, if it is impossible to transfer energy using the alternator and gain gas milage, someone please explain how the hell a hybrid works? Or are those scams also?

[Beanmachine7000]

Laws of thermodynamics don't apply here.

Oh, really? Hahaha... Bubba, the Laws of Thermodynamics apply to EVERYTHING...

Hybrids don't use the alternator to produce eletrical energy... They use a regenerative braking system, converting that energy into electrical energy...

[Bubba Bob]

LOL - Should have specified - Not the laws usually quoted (twisted and distorted as I should say)

[Beanmachine7000]

LOL - Should have specified - Not the laws usually quoted (twisted and distorted as I should say)

So, basically you're saying that the argument that you cannot create energy, only transform it is incorrect? I don't know what you are thinking is twisted and distorted... I know that I know the laws of thermodynamics by heart...

1.) Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed in it's form...
2.) Every energy transfer or transformation increases the entropy of the universe (All energy transformations are inefficient)...

You are correct that you are not creating energy, you are transforming it... BUT, since all energy transformations are inefficient (not 100%) that means you are losing energy as heat... There is NO argument here... Only the understanding of science vs the ignorance of science...

[Jay FX4]

I read every post in this thread, and I have a 100% unbiased opinion. I'm just going to state some facts about things I have observed.

It seems like every forum has a thread about hydrogen power. And there is ALWAYS a heated debate. Out of all the people who've tried these systems, I have not seen one single person say it does not work. Results may vary, but everyone says it improves fuel economy to a certain extent.

Out of all the people who say they do not work, I have not heard of anyone who's actually tried it.

Everyone always becomes polarized into one of two groups. Those who use a lot of long technical words, with references to science and physics, claim they cannot work. And those who actually install a hydrogen system in their vehicle say they do in fact work.

Based on these observations, either there is a conspiracy amongst those who believe in hydrogen systems to blatantly and intentionally lie and say they work when they do not work at all, or they actually do work to a degree.

Who is right? Who is wrong? Don't know, don't care. Everyone can draw their own conclusions. I'm not taking sides and I'm not trying to fan the flames. I'm just observing.....

[Rangerdave73]

I read every post in this thread, and I have a 100% unbiased opinion. I'm just going to state some facts about things I have observed.

It seems like every forum has a thread about hydrogen power. And there is ALWAYS a heated debate. Out of all the people who've tried these systems, I have not seen one single person say it does not work. Results may vary, but everyone says it improves fuel economy to a certain extent.

Out of all the people who say they do not work, I have not heard of anyone who's actually tried it.

Everyone always becomes polarized into one of two groups. Those who use a lot of long technical words, with references to science and physics, claim they cannot work. And those who actually install a hydrogen system in their vehicle say they do in fact work.

Based on these observations, either there is a conspiracy amongst those who believe in hydrogen systems to blatantly and intentionally lie and say they work when they do not work at all, or they actually do work to a degree.

Who is right? Who is wrong? Don't know, don't care. Everyone can draw their own conclusions. I'm not taking sides and I'm not trying to fan the flames. I'm just observing.....
I agree 100% with your observation:icon_cheers:

[superdave1984]

I read every post in this thread, and I have a 100% unbiased opinion. I'm just going to state some facts about things I have observed.

It seems like every forum has a thread about hydrogen power. And there is ALWAYS a heated debate. Out of all the people who've tried these systems, I have not seen one single person say it does not work. Results may vary, but everyone says it improves fuel economy to a certain extent.

Out of all the people who say they do not work, I have not heard of anyone who's actually tried it.

Everyone always becomes polarized into one of two groups. Those who use a lot of long technical words, with references to science and physics, claim they cannot work. And those who actually install a hydrogen system in their vehicle say they do in fact work.

Based on these observations, either there is a conspiracy amongst those who believe in hydrogen systems to blatantly and intentionally lie and say they work when they do not work at all, or they actually do work to a degree.

Who is right? Who is wrong? Don't know, don't care. Everyone can draw their own conclusions. I'm not taking sides and I'm not trying to fan the flames. I'm just observing.....

Me and a buddy made one and installed it on his 2005 Escape. It simply did not live up to the hype. Not even close. We did solid testing with the thing and without. With the HHO we got 26 MPG highway, without it we got 24. We filled up the tank at the same gas pump and when it clicked off we stopped. Both times. Then hit the same exact stretch of highway. Did both tests on the same day. The tests were each 104 miles. For the difference in MPG it simply isn't worth the trouble.

[James Denton]

BEEFKING69------Don't worry what they say about the hho----I built 3 and I know what they will do to they work great they give me the same hard time they giving you but I don't pay them any mine.----I been on this site sinces back in 2004 or longer---I won Street Truck of the month in November 2004---With a 1984 Ranger----I built a 4 bbl intake for the 2,8 in my truck--and they said the same about the intake and it worked to-Check it out for your self and see what you think.