Have any of you guys heard of a spark plug made in the 1950 that separated water in to oxygen and hydrogen gas then injected it in to the engine for a fuel?
it wouldnt work
You dont get any gain in energy so there wouldnt be any point
what are you talking about???
Technically it is possible and already done,
...it's a minimum of 2000 times more costly than putting one of the finest Scotch in your car. :smoke:
Water is free
but combining hydrogen and oxygen is a rather unstable and dangerous process. both atoms are highly active.
Yes, water is free, but the process to cut it into hydrogen and oxygen
costs millions of dollars. It's the transforming process, not the water
price. Paying the scientists.
BTW, in Germany we have to pay a lot for water. It isn't free over here. :smoke:
Inygknok, you could explain it better! :laughing:
to split water is easy
Take two steel rods and hook them up to a battery and place them in to a glass jar as close to each other with out making them touch the water will start to bubble, the bubbles are the hydrogen gas being released. i read that in a kids sci book
thats a good one. :laughing:
America where dreams can happen
um...last I checked i live in America and water still costs money. dumbass.
get a 375 ft. well and water can be endless
forget about the water part what about the engine?
actually, i conducted such a project back when i worked in Health
Distillers. one rod is made out of aluminum, while the other one out of
still. the whole point of this process was to break down the h2o molecules
to divide the water from any other pollutants in the water and make them
visible. this process is called "IONIZATION", check dictionary.com if u
have any doubts.
anyhow, this process isnt a permanent break down of the h2o molecule, just a temporary one to make pollutants visible, and only some pollutants.
also, as "cheap and easy" as it may sound, that little apparatus, which was around 10 inches tall and could be fitted into a normal drinking glass, it still cost A LOT of cash to make. i forgot the exact amount, but it was a very expensive little thing. not to mention, a bit complicated to make. constant maintainance was required. i had to clean the rods before every single demonstration, after every single dip, and after the demonstration was over, and as soon as i got home. else, the rods would oxidize.
now that we have that clear, lets talk about water costs. first of all, pollution is found in pretty much almost everywhere in this planet, and not just that, but contamination as well. for those of u who didnt pay attention in science class, contamination is produced by nature itself, while pollution is created by us humans. its normal to go to the cleanest spot in Earth and find animal crap all over the place, and thats called contamination, but still, it makes the water dirty. lets not even mention pollution, cuz thats just plain undescribable. in order to clean water, it is a very long and sort of expensive process. most companies are required to have some sort of distillation system, as well as atleast one other process that is mandatory. there is a third process too, but its not mandatory in some places. the machines, the electricity they use up, and all the piping systems and containers and such cost alot of money. not to mention, it all gets inspected for fesces, CAL, clorox, and other materials that are harmfull to the human body, or that just plain make the water impure. this is why water is not cheap, and never will be. keep in mind another thing, fresh water reservoirs are extremely small (very sure it wasnt more than 8% of the world's total water), and rare things = $$$. cleaning salt water is an even bigger pain in the ass.
but you're still paying for the installation of the well...power for the well...etc. what is with your insistence that usable water is free? cuz its not. nothing valuable in this world is free.
shut it i don't care about that lets look in to the engine thing
Hey Guyz I am very interested in the Hydrogen Engines.
Firstly water can be free or it can not be. If u have something to catch rain water its free. If you use tap water obviously you pay for it.
This is a few websites i have found that may be of interest which are about Hydrogen on Demand systems (being built and are built) which allow you to have a water reserve in your car. Water is pumped into a generator which creates Hydrogen and Oxygen on demand.
Hydrostar is a manual which i found that has heaps of information step by step how to constuct this generator. Its 29mb so i cant upload it for you guyz but it can be found on ebay for a few $$.
This was the first website i found on this topic some plans to make the generator
Hydrogen Forum started by Daniel Dingel who actually has created one hydrogen powered car.
Hydrogen Boots for your car.
Two videos on a Skyline which has been converted to run partially on Hydrogen made on demand and Petrol. Made in New Zeland.
Some Company wanting to make a H2 Car
The great thing about the hydrogen on demand system is that it runs off your standard 12v battery just like your sound system and creates hydrogen as you drive so there is no need for storing alot of explosive fules onboard anymore just water :). No polution and much cheaper transportation.
Great thing is that We can stop giving out hard earned cash to those fuel companies who just keep taking from us.
Hope you guys find these sites interesting and maybe even create your own system.
if we as humans wish to keep living a easy life we have to get our sorry
lazy ass's off the couch and fix the oil problem we are going to have in
the next 30 to 40 years. Thanks for the sites dude as i will be 35-45 years
old when it happens and i want to be able to wake up and know that i have
heat in my house and fuel for my car.
Ok, separating hydrogen and oxygen from water is a fairly easy process.
More correctly, there are a NUMBER of fairly easy processes to do it, and
they are getting cheeaper all teh time. Right now a number of countries are
converting over to a hydrogen based economy. Doing so will drop the costs
Combining hydrogen and oxygen is also a failry easy process. In an internal cumbustion engine, it's a simple matter of burning it. less energy is produced than from burning gas, but the only emissions are warm water and very little else. In a fuel cell vehicle, hydrogen and oxygen are combined across a catalytic membrane, which generates electricity. The ONLY byproduct other than the electricity is room temperature PURE water.
Auto manufacturers have developed both types of hydrogen vehicles. the internal combustion version is viewed as teh easiest one to get into mass production quickly to develop the infrastructure necessary to support it (fueling stations and fuel delivery systems, most of which are in place already), with the fuel cell seen as the ultimate goal, as it doesn't create the heat pollution that the IC version does.
The point of doing this instead of pure electric cars is that the range is increased, the polluting residue (battery internals) is reduced by a HUGE factor, and the fuel can be used easier in more situations. It's the single most abundant element in teh universe, and it's renewable. Some versions of hydrogen production do still create small amounts of pollution, but it's decidedly easier to regulate, control, and eliminate pollution at centralized production facilities than at millions of individual point sources that are hard to police and maintain. Thus reducing overall pollution by an order of magnitude AND reduce dependancy on non-renewable energy sources.
Follow the links here to learn more (seriously, guys, follow the links and read them. This affects your automotive future)
and especially here: http://www.ch2bc.org/indexa3.htm
The developments in hydrogen cars are coming in great leaps. Practicality is improving by huge jumps, and costs are dropping as fast.
Thanks for the sites mate
Its good to see other people are enthusiastic about our Hydrogen powered future.
I have never heard of any such spark-plug and I don't see how any
spark-plug can do any such thing.
Yeah ive heard of a carby which was modified to do make hydrogen from water
but not a spark plug.
check out these nice cars that run on hydrogen
I know everyone loves to drive powerful cars and its good to see
Ford is bringing in the big guns with this nice Ute.
The automaker has developed a supercharged, 6.8-liter V-10 internal
combustion engine that runs on clean-burning hydrogen instead of
Its a shame about the car itself, if the engine was in a nice Sedan
or Coupe (Commodore or Monaro for you Aussies out there) it would be
This beast would be extremely nice!
Besides the price tag $149 000 it looks great. The company who makes
it also is converting Hummers and other nice cars.
Thought u guys would like these
Oh, my gawd. I saw an ad in the local paper and came across this discussion
Hate to be impolite, but you have to be a real twit to think that you can create AND consume hydrogen “on demand“ to power your car.
Here’s a simple scientific and life fact: Nothing is free and energy can’t be created from nothing.
The proposed designs and the concept that creating hydrogen “on demand” is a good idea is impossible and ludicrous in so many ways it’s difficult to know where to begin.
First you need to create the electricity for electrolysis so, using a car motor:
You start with a fuel. Then
If combustion of the fuel was 100%
AND the motor used to turn the generator was 100% efficient (impossible)
AND transmission of power from motor to generator was 100% efficient
AND generator creating the electricity used was 100% efficient (impossible)
AND transport of the electricity to the electrolysis machine was 100% efficient (impossible)
AND process of electrolysis was 100% efficient (impossible)
AND there were no losses in capturing and piping the hydrogen (impossible)
AND combustion of hydrogen was 100% (impossible)
AND the use of the combustion energy was 100% efficient (impossible)
[Milliways, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe only required you to do THREE impossible things before breakfast :rotfl:]
THEN and ONLY then would you be able to recover 1 unit of energy from the resulting hydrogen for every 1 unit of energy used to create the hydrogen.
AND that’s before you add the expense and difficulty of transporting the water. :rotfl:
So, let’s be generous and say every process above is 95% efficient (and overlook the fact some of the processes are as bad as 20% or less) and ignore the fact I’ve probably overlooked some other intermediate energy losing steps. That means: Output = (1 unit of energy) x (.95)^9 = 0.63. So in some utopic dream world, for every unit of energy you spend making hydrogen, you waste 40%.
Then of course, you really need to compress the hydrogen to get it to usable density/pressure, but considering that you probably even smack the utopic possibility of how much energy output you’d get for each unit of input down by half again. :rolleyes:
The current values given for the various “water car” stupidities is in the range of 10 to 15 A from a 12V battery. That’s only 120 to 180 W, which would be enough to produce 0.24 horsepower! Think you can move a vehicle with only 0.24hp?!? The immutable laws of the universe disallow the magical creation of energy from thin air. Anybody who believes that you can create the energy you need to run a car from such a puny input believes in perpetual motion machines and cold fusion. Run off and get your head examined..
All the “inventors” with their websites and conspiracy theories are full of it. All they would have to do to get around all the elaborate conspiracies they go on about would be to go to their nearest university and demonstrate their “invention” to a couple of students and teachers involved the automotive engineering. If it worked, it would then be used in the student competition vehicles and quickly become the biggest news story ever. Heck even getting on a public radio show with a respectable car mechanic looking over the system and they would have instant riches and fame and their “invention” would spread worldwide.
If a car can be run on the minute amount of hydrogen in a few liters of water, why is it the hydrogen vehicles running on pure hydrogen require large high-pressure storage tanks and still get lousy range? If the water car concept was real, it would be possible to create a hydrogen car that could go for hundreds of miles on one tiny tank of high-pressure hydrogen.
The way that hydrogen peroxide engines/rockets work (http://science.howstuffworks.com/question159.htm), and the descriptions of “cool-running” “hydrogen on demand” or “water” cars, leads me to think that the fraud being perpetrated is that it’s not water that’s being fed to the engines but pure hydrogen peroxide. Particularly the description of the Daniel Dingel watercar generator “instantly” boiling the liquid in the reactor, which would probably be the decomposition of the hydrogen peroxide into water vapour and oxygen, not the decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Hydrogen, produced commercially, compressed, and dispensed through filling stations MAY be the future. Although, I doubt it. Where will we get the energy to produce the hydrogen? How will we overcome the huge losses in energy and the lousy energy ROI inherent in hydrogen production?
In a similar vein, an electric car in California pollutes far more than a comparable car powered by a traditional engine. Why? Electricity produced using coal and the losses in production, transport, storage, and use of that electricity.
Biofuels (Biodiesel, ethanol, methanol) have much better returns on energy investment than hydrogen and they are liquid fuels that can de delivered and sold using existing infrastructure (pipelines, transport trucks, tanks, and service stations).
Now, some websites claim that these “hydrogen on demand” injection systems aid in the “complete combustion” of gasoline/diesel and at least don’t go so far as the complete fabriaction/fiction of a water only car. But, even if that’s the case why is the technique not used in ANY manufactured form of engine or industrial installation? Wouldn’t it be easy to add a cylinder of pure compressed hydrogen to all the high mileage competition cars and lockup the win? Wouldn’t power generation companies with their trained and experienced enginners and scientists have installed such systems on large scale powerplants saving millions a year and boosting their profits from electricity sales? Wouldn’t the airline industry add hydrogen injectors to get more milage from their aircraft? Can anyone point me to an ENGINEERING study of these hydrogen systems that shows their effectiveness?
Now, one website seemed to link the injection of hydrogen with a study/report that was about hydrogen peroxide. If that’s the case they have their science all wrong, it’s got nothing to do with hydrogen. The reason hydrogen peroxide can increase power or improve combustion is the same reason that NOx injection works. It provides more OXYGEN for the fuel to combust with. Heck, that’s the same reason superchargers and turbos work. They compress the incoming air to provide more oxygen to the engine.
But, hydrogen peroxide, water, and alcohol injection ssytems all exist and DO increase engine power or decrease fuel consumption. But if you are injecting hydrogen peroxide, you’re NOT injecting hydrogen. You’re injecting water and oxygene. These effects may explain any real results observed testing/using the systems sold with fraudulent hydrogen claims.
If you REALLY want to decrease your energy usage:
- Make sure your tires are correctly inflated.
- Remove racks and exterior accessories when not in use.
- Remove the tail gate or install a cover on pickups.
- Properly maintain your engine.
- Drive with a light-foot.
These are REAL changes that won’t greatly affect your everyday habits.
Want to do more? A diesel engine will consume less than a gasoline engine. And, diesel production is less energy intensive than gasoline production meaning energy savings at the refinery and at the pump. Also, a good diesel engine will beat all hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles in mixed driving. (Hybrid is really only advantageous in start-stop driving.)
More? Tune your engine to get better efficiency (but be prepared to live with decreased performance), or install variable timing systems, etc. But, all that gets expensive and complicated.
Cutting edge, beat the gasoline producers stuff? Start blending diesel fuel with waste or virgin vegetable oil or start brewing your own biodiesel from waste or virgin vegetable oil.
Thanks for the comic relief guys. :)
You sound like a oil tycoon, you work for a oil company? You put way to
much effort into your post! Mines gonna be short and sweet :wink2:
Theres no money to make out of a water car in fueling and thats really why people have not created one.
You are just speculating on what you have read. You have nothing to prove that it doesnt work just sat on your ass spirting shit out your mouth.
Open your mind man. There are such things as higher powered alternaters, multiple batteries, Electrolytes just to name a few things. :fu:
:banghead: people like you frustrate me! Its people like you why we have a coal powered, oil fueled world. (no open minds). And I cant wait till your proven wrong.
Dont bother replying im not coming back to check.
yep, he must work for a oil company. worried about losing your job??
have you ever heard of potential energy. water is full of energy, it just needs to be relased.
Yeah, if you followed my links, you'd see that it isn't as much of a pipe
dream as he thinks. We have busses runing on hydrogen, both fuel cell and
internal combustion. We have car fleets. Some countries are in the midle of
a switch to a full hydrogen economy, getting hydrogen by using geothermal
production that doesn't use any non-natural energy. California is using
wind power and hydroelectric power.
What he misses is that hydrogen is storing energy, just like batteries or gasoline. the difference is the production of hydrogen can be quite clean, and the use of it is completely clean. That's worth the tradeoff in energy cost to start with, and as that infrastructure builds, that cost will come down.
Hydrogen is the most abundent element in the universe, and using it in fuel cells doesn't use it up.
But of course it's so inefficient that no one is trying to make it work, right? Check on Ballard energy. Stuart Energy. Ford, BMW, TOyota, Honda, GM... the US government is now spending billions on hydrogen research. All the major oil companies are heavily invested in it, so they can start making money off of it (the first Shell hydrogen refilling station recently opened near me in Washington DC for fleet vehicle use).
Sorry, it isn't a "conspiracy theory" but the product of a lot of hard work to clean up the environment while still allowing personal transportation.
Follow my links above and comment directly...
No, I don't work for the oil industry. I work for a manufacturer of mass
transit rail equipment.
Water contains NO energy. None. Zilch.
If you SPLIT water, the resulting hydrogen and oxygen have energy potential.
Problem is that by using electrolysis you have to put far more energy in than you can ever get out. That's why the watercar crap is just scammers.
But, I suppose you all think that cold fusion is possible and that's being held back by the oil industry as well... :laughing:
If this was real, people the world over would start building these miraculous water cars and the cat would be out the bag. There would be no stopping the spread of the technology.
But, the scammers who say that they've worked out how to make these contraptions work for some reason can't show it to anybody who is remotely qualified to determine if it's actually working as claimed. :screwy:
ChrisV, fuelcells and hydrogen power are real and probably have a future.
Problem is that until gasoline hits 5$ a gallon, hydrogen will be primarily
produced by reforming hydrocarbons. And, in that scenario the pollution
caused is greater than the pollution caused by using gasoline (or the
unreformed natural gas) directly in a car.
Seeing as biodiesel and ethanol can be used in current motors and can start selling for a profit around 2$ a gallon, that's where I put my bet as a future energy source.
cynic, your very right in the fact that using electrolysis results in more energy being consumed then produced. but we are not talking about using electrolysis. every compound has a resonance frequency that if vibrating at the compound will break down into its elements. its takes little effort to get water to vibrate at its frequency. the reason why this info is not known by the general public is because there is no profit in it so its being supressed by those who will lose money from it
Apparently you STILL didn't follow my links on where the hydrogen was
coming from, if you think that is't still just coming from hydrocarbons.
And no, even with hydrocarbons making hydrogen, teh pollution is far less. Why? it's easier to regulate and keep clean on central source of polutants than millions of individual point sources. That being said, most hydrogen is NOT being generated from hydrocarbons, and virtually none of the hydrogen being used in fleets today is coming from there. Wind generators, biological methods, etc are being used in greater numbers. For example, Ford combined with Stuart Energy to make individual point generators for hydrogen using simple wind power.
Seriously, follow the links and then comment on the information contained. Until you do that, we're not going to have a meaningful point of reference to continue the conversation.
Again, getting hydrogen from water, and then recombining the hydrogen and oxygen across a membrane (in a fuel cell) or by combustion (in an IC engine) is not "scamming." It's a way of storing energy, just as gasoline is, or batteries are. It provides more efficient energy storage than batteries, but less than gasoline, thoiugh pollutes vastly less than gasoline an is renewable. Two major points in it's favor over the slightly superior energy from gasoline.
As with anything, you generate the energy in one location, then use a storage medium to use that energy in many small point locations. In this case, you generate the electricity, use it to split the hydrogen and oxygen, which imparts a potential in teh hydrogen. letting it combine again with oxygen releases that stored potential electricity as if it were coming from batteries, but without the mass of batteries, or the pollution of battery creation and disposal, with longer range and quicker "refueling." Again, these are the advantages. It's not a scam, at all, as you are mistaken in the way you are perceiving it.
Are you nuts?!?!
The resonant frequency of an object or structure doesn't reduce the energy required to break the bonds. All that happens is at the resonant frequency each subsequent addition of energy completely adds to the effect.
The tacoma narrows bridge (or an army walking instep) didn't fall down because a small amount of energy created a terrific result. It happened because each successive wave added to the cumulative effect of those previous.
So even if you've beaten all the scientists and the greatest minds on the planet (after all wouldn't this beat nuclear fission and fusion?) and can split molecules with "frequency resonance" it would still take you quite a bit more energy to break the bonds than was containted in the bonds and then when you recombine them you'll caputure quite a bit less than was released by the creation of the bonds.
Perpetual motion is against the laws of the universe. Surely even the worst nut job can understand that principle.
If it's so damn simple to split water, somebody would be doing it RIGHT NOW! But seeing as all the hydrogen producers are either using massive quantities of natural gas or enormous amounts of electricity I guess none of them have figured out this hidden secret. :screwy:
If this cheap hydrogen process exists, a company could patent it and become rich beyond their wildest dreams. What's the incentive to hide it?
Unless you believe everyone ever involved was killed....
Guess you better keep watching any grassy knolls you pass. :laughing:
First of all, I don't work for the oil industry, and I drive a stock diesel
(Golf TDI) that gets close to 50 MPG and runs on 100% biodiesel. :thumbs:
Next, I think that The Cynic is basically right on several major points:
1) It's unlikely that dabblers (myself included) are going to solve engineering problems that highly trained scientists have not.
2) I can't believe that technology which would replace or drastically reduce the need for petroleum is being intentionally suppressed on a large scale. Sure, Ford doesn't want to retool their factories and the petrol industry is pretty much dictating U.S. policy - but there's no reason on earth why Japanese companies wouldn't be running on water if they could. And there are a lot of clever engineers in Japan.
3) Hydrogen and oxygen like to bond. It takes energy to separate them (no matter how it's done), and the energy you get by recombining them into water cannot be recaptured with 100% efficiency. At best, separating water into hydrogen and oxygen is a good way to turn electricity into a portable fuel - which again, CANNOT be converted back into energy without a loss. If you pull two magnets apart, they will not come back together with more force than it took to separate them.
The only free lunch here is solar, which is only a free lunch because the Sun is burning itself out very slowly.
Okay, now I'm going to be a dabbler and contradict myself. There is another free lunch - waste heat. Internal combustion engines generate so much waste heat that they require a cooling system. Why not use Stirling engines or thermocouples or something of that ilk to attempt to recoup some of that energy? Or is it not enough energy to be worth the trouble?
well, if your energy is "free" then you dont need to be 100% effiecent. I
know some people who work for IEC micron who make really big wind turbine
blades. 60 meters+ per blade! thats one big mother.
As chrisv says the point of hydrogen is that its a way of storing energy. there are ways of producing 100% renewable energy powersources.
you use solar panels duing the day to provide your electricity and to pump water to an elevated level duing the night you drain the water though turbines to produce electricity. it isnt 100% efficent but considering that a internal combustion engine is only about 14% effiecent and a coal fired powerstation is only about 30% efficent then there is alot of energy that we waste.
Coming back to the point on cars, I think that the use of biomas and biogas are very good potential sources of energy as it also goes some way to solving other issues that developed countries face inrelation to there agricultural industrys. Bear in mind that last year alone, us congress gave farmers subsadies that would have wiped out 3rd world debt 3 times over. If those farmers rather than producing excess food produced fuel then it might solve 2 problems at once. Although it wouldnt be posible to grow all thefuel required even if fuel mixes 50/50 or 60/40 then imagine how much less oil would need to be imported and burnt. The great advantage of the biomas is that it could be distributed though existing infrastructure, tankers, pumps etc.
That is one of the majour drawbacks of the hydrogen based system, becuase liquifed hydrogen is under so much presure and so cold you have to have a robot to fill your car up for you. the car has to be grounded etc so that the tanks dont explode during fueling etc.
One of the issues with the biomas systems is that it is difficult to persuade goverments to give up the tax revenues that they enjoy from fossil hydrocarbons as these would suffer dramatically if biomas was used on a large scale. In the UK there is also aditional problems with plant based alcohol as it would be taxed as a drinking spirit which is very very high.
I am unsure if americans would be willing to
1. use compression(diesel) engines
2. pay ~$2.50 a gallon for there fuel.
My view is a bit more bleak.
Frankly, even though I again use biodiesel (at a cost of $3.60 per gallon offset by my 50 MPG car), I have a hard time seeing biofuel replacing gasoline. We use so much fossil fuel (which is itself ancient biomass), that if we devoted all of our arable land to growing fuel, we wouldn't have enough at the current rates.
Not to mention that global warming and the loss of topsoil and dwindling supplies of fresh water are going to seriously disrupt our agricultural output.
Currently it takes something like 10 calories of petroleum to grow and deliver one calorie of food. Driving is likely to be the least of our worries when we do run out of oil.
Frankly, I think we're screwed. Too many people, too much reliance on a resource that took hundreds of millions of years to form. However, technology can help soften the crash. And efficiency is KEY to this. If we can do the same work on half the oil, we've effectively doubled our supply.
The other half of the oil could be used to build those wind turbines and so on (it takes a lot of energy to build those huge blades). But the energy they produce has to be used more wisely, because there just won't be as much of it. I also cringe a bit to think at what slowing down wind and tidal currents would do to the planet on this kind of grand scale.
Fossil fuel is just biofuel that took hundreds of millions of years to form. Sustainability means that we don't take more energy today than we can produce today. This will NEVER be possible without decreasing our rate of consumption.
As to increasing efficiency of existing technologies, I see two methods:
1) Producing less waste heat
2) Recapturing waste heat
Cars are a really bad technology for the environment, but there we are. Fuel cells and electric engines are much more efficient and less polluting, and will eventuallly replace IC engines. However, my question was about recapturing waste heat from existing IC engines - this would be a huge win, if possible.
So, anyone care to field that question?
Actually according to the Bush administration's National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap 90% of all hydrogen is being refined from oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels.
What would you do with the heat ? it's stored in the cooling system b/c engine need to run near a certain temp for max efficiency. if you want to waste less heat get a custom built engine out of something that doesn't transfer heat well, ie some exotic alloy or ceramic, then more of the energy would go to forcing the piston down.
lets get back on the topic of how the engine works with hydrogen in terms
of internal combustion. Yeah, several automakers, namely BMW's 750HL (or
something like that) which had 8 copies made. They drove them around
Germany and built refuleing stations for them as a way of showing off what
they did. The thing is though, hydrogen is very touchy with static
electricity. They have alot of problems with the moving parts backfiring
the H2 even as far as the valves and intake system. Granted some of the
things have been firgured out but it is still a new technology.
Mazda made several rotary based H2 motors and they worked better than the piston versions. Backfiring was at a minium and it generally was more efficent. THe H2 Rotary miata (which is sweet) at the same displacement as the petrol miata generated only 10 less Hp. Seeing it is new in concept, that isnt half bad.
There is no way for the car to produce its own H2 fuel. it isnt possible. It takes a considerable amount of energy to produce it but more restricting is the time it takes to make the fuel. The amount of H2 that would be made from say an hour of electrolysis at say 12v (automotive standard) well hell even 120V would maybe be enough fuel to start the motor. But i doubt it becuase most the fuel would be shot out the exhaust piping on the start up.
So that is why they use specially desgined fuel tanks. Which might i add are safier than your regular gas tank. If you dont believe me, google it.
Also, it is not going to be only water coming out the tailpipe. There will be more NO gas than H2O. The reason being is that the atmosphere (not H3 but in terms of what we breathe) that we would be sucking in to mix with the H2 consists of at least 60% Nitrogen. So, as with a petrol motor, the heat produced in firing the motor would bond much of the nitrogen to the oxygen. meaning a small amount of O2 would mix with the H2 and chemically speaking, lord knows what else with be bonded together, making it not something you want to be breathing. (im sure all of us have failed NO before at the e-check). Better than that, the whole combustion process losses effieceny because the H2 has nothing else to bond with. (for a reminder you need oxygen or something to supplement it in orde for H2 to burn.)
Which is why I posted links to actual facts. before you state something, please follow those links.
Not that new. As early as the late '60s, there were hydrogen powered ICE
cars at places like MIT.
Vance Zanardelli, manager of Strategic Powertrain Technology at Ford, says a hydrogen engine can run at a higher compression ratio than gas engines, meaning it can direct additional energy toward powering the car rather than heating the engine. And because hydrogen ignites so efficiently, less energy is lost during combustion. "It's a fraction of the cost, it's a fraction of the complexity, and yet it gets you 99% of the environmental benefit of a fuel cell." The basic design is the same as that of gasoline engines. So a gasoline engine factory could crank out hydrogen-fueled V-8s without a lot of retooling. Hydrogen-powered piston cars can go up to 25% farther on any given amount of fuel (measured in Btu) than gasoline-powered piston cars.
Ford is big on hydrogen ICE setups, saying inexpensive hydrogen ICEs will spur development of cheap refueling stations. they've got a hydrogen powered bus fleet running on hydrogen fueld V10s. they recently built a hydrogen F350: http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0409/07/b01-265187.htm
And they also recently introduced a cleaner running hydrogen ICE:
"SHANGHAI, China, Oct. 13, 2004 -- The world’s cleanest internal combustion engine was unveiled today in China at the 2004 Challenge Bibendum.
“We’re excited about participating in this environmental challenge which is taking place for the first time in Asia -- a market that is exceedingly important to Ford," said Sue Cischke, vice president, Environmental and Safety Engineering.
The new 2.3 liter hydrogen engine with Lean NOx Trap (LNT) aftertreatment, meets the stringent SULEV-Bin 2 emissions standards. Ford engineers are in the process of optimizing its calibration to obtain performance similar to a gasoline-powered engine. According to Cischke, production for real-world use could come within 12 months to 24 months.
Ford’s first test of the new hydrogen engine with LNT aftertreatment produced nitrogen oxide results below the SULEV or Tier 2-Bin 2 standard, which is the world’s cleanest standard. Subsequent tests have been just as promising. Ford's target is to meet these challenging emissions requirements, produce virtually no CO2 and deliver gasoline-like performance.
“This is exciting news because no company has ever demonstrated a hydrogen internal combustion engine that can meet these standards and have near zero carbon dioxide emissions -- another important chapter in environmental history has been written,” said Cischke."
HHICE will provide 99% of the emission reduction benefits of a fuel cell system at a fraction of the cost,
Hell, even private individuals have been building succesful hydrogen ICE vehicles. Check out this hydrogen powered Shelby Cobra: http://www.ch2bc.org/Movies/Cobra/cobra1.mov
And you can buy your own version of that car: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-0 8-2004/0002189186&EDATE=
Actually, the levels are so low that you can drink the water coming out of the tailpipe. Seen it done. The NOx levels are 99% lower than a gasoline ICE.
I wish people would check out the links
any one here ever check out the LP conversions? Thats been around forever and a day but a cool concept. granted it will not revovlutionize the automotive industry but still, a good idea for off roading jeeps and such.
for those interested in
water powered car using hydrogen on demand generator which imo would be the most practical and safest way of using H,not to mention cheapest
oil companies will just love this..
heres a link to the site describing how to build it,looks bit crude and I cant vouch for its authenticity or if it works as claimed,
still if someone wanted to experiment and make their car run on water,
this explains how to build such generator
hey dudes im doing it im making one im only 14 years old but i know its
possible and simple but im doing some research on it and im going to make a
successful one has anyone got any good ideas about how to make them.
Can someone send me a copy of a normal engine and ill work it from there.
Please visit my website and listen to our music.
i've come up with an idea to add a hood scoop and wind turbine under the hood and recover power from the turbine and braking to recharge the battery system on my ev, it would concievably add more power to the solar array on my roof :clap:
i'm sure most of you science buffs know that hydrogen in and of itself contains more energy than gasoline, or any other hydrocarbon based compound for that matter.(the hydrogen is the source of energy in gasoline duh!) isn't it just common sense and science that pure hydrogen would contain the necessary combustive energy to power most common automobiles. notice i said "combustive" energy. collecting H2 to power automobiles from simple water electrolysis is very conceivable. it's not only assanine but impossible to say that because you can't harness the necessary energy from the chemical reaction that you cant get the same results from the explosive power of hydrogen. :screwy: 3.5x more energy is released from the explosive properties of H2 than from the electrochemical reactivity of fuel cell technology.problem is while H2 has more energy per .lb of gasoline it has only 1/10 the density when the H2 is in a liquid form and very much less when it is stored as a compressed gas. there are many examples of hydrogen fuel cars available today. the only issue is the constant refueling because a water tank large enough to contain enough necessary hydro would be very large(roughly 6 times the size of an average gas tank) but since water is abundant and not as expensive as petro per gallon it is still a feasable idea. i also read that as of recently with newer h-cell technology, 1 gallon of water can achieve gas mileage equal or close to 1 gallon of gasoline.the only drawback is WHAT DO WE DO WHEN WE USE UP ALL THE H2 FROM WATER? daimler chrysler just gave the US Military a truck that runs on 2 fuel cells and a water tank. go figure.......
What do you mean "use it up?" None of the methods of powering engines or
vehicles with hydrogen actually "use up" the hydrogen. When you burn
hydrogen in an internal combustion engine, you oxidize it, which adds
oxygen to it. That leaves you with...water, ready to have teh hydrogen
separated from it again. When you use hydrogen in a fuel cell, you are
combining it with oxygen across a membrane, which leaves you yet again
You never use up the hydrogen, you merely change it's use.