# Hydrogen



## krislikesmath (Apr 1, 2008)

Should it be noted that water vapor is an even worse at trapping heat than CO2? I've read that CO2 is only the catalyst for global warming and that water vapor is the true cause of severe warming


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

If you have some research or a trust able link to back it up then sure whack it in. I don't think there would be a noticable increase in water vapour levels worldwide due to h2 cars since it would probably condense back onto the road/trees etc near the car rather than going into the atmosphere but that's just a guess. The wiki is open for all members to edit so go for it.


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

i just got an email from ballard responding to a question about fuel cells and was informed that they were in the middle of a contract with GM and that under that contract they could not sell their hyrdogen fuel cells to anyone other than GM. I got that e-mail today.
now i wish i had saved it.


----------



## bad math (Apr 12, 2011)

did anyone see the PBS NOVA show on hydrogen ?
its an old show but it explains why hydrogen is a silly idea .
at pressure it crystallizes metals , leading too catastrophic fuel tank leaks , they get like glass , if the hydrogen is stored in a hydrate <spelling? its better . why not LNG >? and a http://www.vengeancepower.com/specs.aspx

down sized a bit to just 200 ft lbs max
running a 220 ++volt alternator and use the batteries for acceleration and hill climbing. short runs of 60 miles could easly be all electric the moter for long runs and heating in the frozen north east.
I like LNG as it floats up! no surprise puddles of gas if their were a leak and a cigarette smoker. a bit higher energy density than propane too along with its interstate controled price is less volitale that propaine. and I dont know how they would road tax it eather!


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

The main reason they want to sell you hydrogen that nobody will tell you is that they can keep the status quo. You still buy a very expensive car with lots of parts and you still have to go to a gas station to fill up. Not to mention the fact that hydrogen is produced with fossil fuels currently. The price for hydrogen will be just like e-85. It will mirror the cost of gasoline at the pumps.

With electric cars, I can throw solar panels or a wind turbine on my roof and make my own fuel.


----------



## Qer (May 7, 2008)

Jason Lattimer said:


> The main reason they want to sell you hydrogen that nobody will tell you is that they can keep the status quo.


Also; fuel powered cars cost a small fortune in maintenance. Oil, filters, belts, spark plugs etc etc etc has to be replaced regularly and the construction is so complex with lots of moving parts that there will have to be several repairs of the car during it's life span.

An electric car doesn't need much maintenance nor repairs since the construction lack most moving parts a fossil fuel car has. Sure, you have to maintain the brakes and the vipers will have to be replaced every now and then, but apart from a few things like that? The motor can easily outlast the rest of the car and Lithium, NiMH or other good batteri chemistry has enough cycles to last a decade or two.

A lot of todays profit is made up of the post market, ie spare parts and car shops. With electric cars that market would more or less dry up. I think that's a very big reason to why we've seen cars like the Prius etc but why for example the RAV4-EV was cancelled. The RAV4-EV was too good, too maintenance free, too durable.

We can't have that, can we?


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

No you can't. if you can only get 40 or 50 miles out of a car and you have to plug into an electric plug for 8-12 hours to get a full charge it is for sure you solar panel or turbine will not do the trick.

Yes i like the idea of electric cars, solar panels and turbines, but current technology will not let you do what you want to do. you will still have to plug in at home, still connect to the grid, still have to use the old coal buring or nuke or gas plants to get your grid charged so you can charge your car.

one way or another you are going to end up using oil and coal. how do you think they get to copper for your motor? and the tires? or forming the metal parts for you car. Can't use plastic, it uses oil too. have roads? need oil to make them. and then unless you do it all in your back yard with 17th century hand tools, you are going to have parts transported from all over the world to get that electric car built.

i understand the best batteries come from china, because they are not allowed to be made here - too dirty a process.

you can't get away from it, you need oil, coal, and transport.



Jason Lattimer said:


> With electric cars, I can throw solar panels or a wind turbine on my roof and make my own fuel.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Sorry I should have been more specific. I meant the roof of my house. What I meant to say is that with solar or wind I can make my own fuel for my car at home. That is the only fuel that is practical to do that with.


----------



## Teknichols (Jun 20, 2011)

I have been running a Hydrogen hybrid for over 3 years now in my 1992 Mitsubishi Lancer (carby model). I have done many tests of economy with and without it running and I have gone from around 8-9l/100Km without to 6.5-7.5l/100Km with it running. As well as an increase of up to 100Km range per tank, the car is much more smooth and powerful on hills.
The system I use consumes about 250ml water every 1000Km and cost me about A$50.00 to make and install.
You still use petrol /gasolene as the main fuel, but the HHO gas helps the combustion process and gives less pollution due to more complete burning. 
There are plans on the net for similar systems, just google HHO.
Doug.


----------



## T1 Terry (Jan 29, 2011)

Hi Doug,
Do you charge a battery each day to power the electrolyser? Please don't say it's powered from the alternator, I think I'll crack if I hear that nonsense again. Simply, you can't produce electrical energy through a unit that's at best 70% efficient (alternator) but powered by the crankshaft, then feed it into a unit that is at best 25% efficient (electrolyser) to produce fuel for the engine that you are dragging the power out of, it would require free energy and you need anti matter feed into a flux capacitor to produce it and the Deloraine got wrecked by the train. 
If you had a bank of lithium batteries you could power the electrolyser without robbing energy from the crank and recharge the batteries each night. Then if you bank the money you save on fuel you can finally convert to a full electric vehicle and save even more money.

T1 Terry


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

Teknichols said:


> I have been running a Hydrogen hybrid for over 3 years now in my 1992 Mitsubishi Lancer (carby model). I have done many tests of economy with and without it running and I have gone from around 8-9l/100Km without to 6.5-7.5l/100Km with it running. As well as an increase of up to 100Km range per tank, the car is much more smooth and powerful on hills.
> The system I use consumes about 250ml water every 1000Km and cost me about A$50.00 to make and install.
> You still use petrol /gasolene as the main fuel, but the HHO gas helps the combustion process and gives less pollution due to more complete burning.
> There are plans on the net for similar systems, just google HHO.
> Doug.


*Complete BS. *

There are many organizations just waiting for you to prove it. When proved you will receive a $1,000,000 reward, and patents which will lead to you being the richest man in the world. To date no one has come forward because it is BS. You obviously failed all your science and math classes, and passed political science majoring in BS


----------



## Teknichols (Jun 20, 2011)

You all seem to be missing the main theory behind this use of hydrogen!
First of all I have this running in my everyday use car - I welcome anyone to come and see it for themselves! (Sydney, Australia).
The hydrogen is only used to assist the petrol burning in the cylinder. not to run the entire motor! My system uses 15A 12V at cold and goes up to about 25A 12V when hot. (Ok from a 55A alternator!) and generates about 0.75 - 1.0 litre of HHO / minute.
There are systems available commercially that inject LPG into a diesel engine to increase the burn efficiency of the diesel fuel. I am doing a similar thing but with hydrogen and a petrol engine.
Note that if you add hydrogen system to a EFI motor you also need to modify some of the sensor signals to the computer, as it will sense a leaning of the mixture and try to add more fuel. but this is simple to overcome.
Send me a msg if you want pics or if in Sydney you want to see my system.
It really works!


----------



## T1 Terry (Jan 29, 2011)

Just a tad harsh Sunking, the concept of adding hydrogen to the combustion process does improve the overall efficiency of an ICE but not enough to equal the energy required to create it. If you google the subject and sort through tons of BS stuff there are videos of small engines running on pure water gas, the hydrogen/oxygen mix derived from electrolytically splitting water to it's gasses. An interesting read is Gimes, Varghese and Rajan's “Light, Water, Hydrogen” and the age old "The Solar-Hydrogen Alternative" by J O'M. Bockris of the Finders University of South Australia. Some real eye opening genuine information from repeatable experiments in those 2 books and some open ended experiments begging for funding into mass hydrogen generation.

T1 Terry


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

T1 Terry said:


> Just a tad harsh Sunking, [/QUOTE]
> 
> Perhaps but HHO is junk science. Like I said there are many scientific organizations with $1,000,000 reward money for the first person to come forward with a working system. No takers so far. First person who does it is the next Bill Gates and gets a Law of Physics named after then plus a Noble Peace Prize.


----------



## PZigouras (Jun 5, 2010)

Teknichols said:


> You all seem to be missing the main theory behind this use of hydrogen!
> First of all I have this running in my everyday use car - I welcome anyone to come and see it for themselves! (Sydney, Australia).
> The hydrogen is only used to assist the petrol burning in the cylinder. not to run the entire motor! My system uses 15A 12V at cold and goes up to about 25A 12V when hot. (Ok from a 55A alternator!) and generates about 0.75 - 1.0 litre of HHO / minute.
> There are systems available commercially that inject LPG into a diesel engine to increase the burn efficiency of the diesel fuel. I am doing a similar thing but with hydrogen and a petrol engine.
> ...



Since your car is a 1992 and it has a carb, I could see how the faster burn time of the hydrogen/oxygen would help a little... it's rare that a carb'ed engine ever burns all the fuel each cycle. I've tested many older cars, and there was a slight improvement in combustion when a fast-burning fuel was added in (like hydrogen).

But I also tested these systems on several newer cars, and unfortunately, there was noting to be gained. At lower RPMs, most 2009-up cars burn over 98% of the fuel that enters the combustion chamber, and the rest is reserved for the catalytic converter. Best possible case, if given enough H2+O2, you may burn up the extra 2% -- but you would not see any difference in fuel economy. 

There was a time when fast-burning gaseous fuels like natural gas, hydrogen, and naptha really helped the combustions process.... but those days are long gone. With today's technology, virtually nothing leaves the tailpipe unburned -- even when using heavy, liquid fuels.


----------



## Teknichols (Jun 20, 2011)

Three years ago, I was a sceptic like you, but I was open minded and first of all built a proof of concept electrolizer - it worked so well I reduced my fuel consumption from 8.5l/100km to 5.5l/100km (measured over 1000km).
I have refined my system and limited the current to about 20A.
I would be sceptical still, but I actually use this and can feel the difference in power with it running.
I have plans on building an electric conversion soon, but in the meantime while I save my pennies, I have to drive my old car - and getting 100Km more per tank of fuel is not worth ignoring.
I agree that newer vehicles are more efficient, but can't afford the luxury yet as I was out of work for a while. 
So I drive a 'recycled' '92 car which owes me nothing, has minimal mechanical problems and costs me the same to run as a modern car!
You may think this system is all ***, I don't have to convince you! I'll just keep on saving at the bowser and driving my little car, satisfied that I have improved my fuel economy, increased power and reduced emissions.
-Almost as good as 'the EV grin'!


----------



## PZigouras (Jun 5, 2010)

I didn't say that I disagree your are saving fuel... like I said, I've tried this both on vehicles, and on the dyno (with an EGA hooked up). A properly built hydrogen+oxidizer system will show more complete combustion on engines that have poor atomization and/or incomplete combustion (such as your carb'ed engine).

Here in the US, most of the cars on the road are 2001 and up, which is why this technology is not being used. If a late-model OBDII car shows anything under 97% fuel combustion, the check engine lights will turn on and light up your dash board like a christmas tree... so you know for a fact you are burning virtually every drop of gas that goes into the engine. 

Until just recently, diesel engines benefited greatly from the addition of hydrogen. But now, with the new 36,000+ PSI fuel injection rails, the atomization and burn quality is so good, they no longer really need help burning the fuel. I would recommend a nice hydrogen or propane system for the older diesels, but if you have a 2007-up engine, I would not bother with it. I have witnessed many, many, many tests and these are the results I've seen.


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

Good for you. Glad you like what you are doing. My only comment is that your choice is your choice, don't think even for one second, that you have the right to force YOUR choice onto someone else.




Teknichols said:


> Three years ago, I was a sceptic like you, but I was open minded and first of all built a proof of concept electrolizer - it worked so well I reduced my fuel consumption from 8.5l/100km to 5.5l/100km (measured over 1000km).


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

PZigouras said:


> I didn't say that I disagree your are saving fuel... like I said, I've tried this both on vehicles, and on the dyno (with an EGA hooked up). A properly built hydrogen+oxidizer system will show more complete combustion on engines that have poor atomization and/or incomplete combustion (such as your carb'ed engine).
> 
> Here in the US, most of the cars on the road are 2001 and up, which is why this technology is not being used. If a late-model OBDII car shows anything under 97% fuel combustion, the check engine lights will turn on and light up your dash board like a christmas tree... so you know for a fact you are burning virtually every drop of gas that goes into the engine.
> 
> Until just recently, diesel engines benefited greatly from the addition of hydrogen. But now, with the new 36,000+ PSI fuel injection rails, the atomization and burn quality is so good, they no longer really need help burning the fuel. I would recommend a nice hydrogen or propane system for the older diesels, but if you have a 2007-up engine, I would not bother with it. I have witnessed many, many, many tests and these are the results I've seen.


this make good sense to me .; I would think these later engines could still benefit but would need greatly increased hydrogen quantity . if ueria is electorized it takes 10% of the energy that water does to get hydrogen split . We all make lots of that .


----------



## Sunking (Aug 10, 2009)

To buy into the fantasy you have to completely ignore the Law of Thermal Dynamics, I mean rewrite the Law. If you can prove it you are rich and a Nobel Peace Prize winner

So why are not you the richest man on earth with a Noble Peace Prize? It would be the greatest discovery since dynamite and TNT.

This SCAM started back in WWII when gas was rationed. Reappeared again in the late 70's early 80's during the oil embargo, and every time since when petroleum prices spike. All you have to do to discover the secret is buy my book for $50 to tell you how, and about $20 in materials and chemicals from you local hardware store. 

Send Money Orders and/or Checks to:

[email protected]&Howe.com


----------



## infantry11b (Feb 6, 2010)

You are being very negative.
Don't you realize the energy this man has to expend carrying around those huge brass balls he has to have just to post that crap?

If you check his ip address I bet it is Nigeria or ivory coast.




Sunking said:


> To buy into the fantasy you have to completely ignore the Law of Thermal Dynamics, err rewrite the Law. If you can prove it you are rich and a Nobel Peace Prize winner
> 
> So why are not you the richest man on earth with a Noble Peace Prize? It would be the greatest discovery since dynamite and TNT.
> 
> ...


----------

