Hydrogen Fuel Cell Conversion Kits.
01-31-2012, 07:58 PM
#11
JK Jedi Master
Back to the OP question, has anyone here tried the science on thier JK? Had a good friend in Washington state who put it on his Dodge van, 318. Said before it was T-boned he was getting 35 MPG with a homemade unit under the hood. Said the only issue was a sequence system to shut the unit down minutes before you were going to turn vehicle off to allow for moisture to be worked out of cylinders.............rust never sleeps. I am very interested to see if someone has tried it and the results.
So far sounds like tire kickers not test drivers..................data please
So far sounds like tire kickers not test drivers..................data please
I can't get past the idea that almost everyone is not doing this, even though the method has been around for decades.
02-01-2012, 01:17 AM
#13
JK Junkie
I know that this method isn't very cost effective. And there isn't an infostructure to support it. But the same thing can be said for the electric alternative for now. And the only benifit for electricity is that the research is headed in that direction. Hydrogen may not be as eco friendly as electricity. But it is the most abundant element in the universe. So probably will not be a hydrogen shortage for a few billion years.
02-01-2012, 02:40 AM
#14
JK Freak
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Independence and Lexington, KY (depends on the time of year)
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ronjenx
And then you have to ask: Does the power consumed getting the hydrogen out of the water exceed the power gained by burning the hydrogen?
02-01-2012, 02:43 AM
#15
JK Freak
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Independence and Lexington, KY (depends on the time of year)
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JK-Ford
Could someone please explain to me how hydrogen is more dangerous than gasoline?
I know that this method isn't very cost effective. And there isn't an infostructure to support it. But the same thing can be said for the electric alternative for now. And the only benifit for electricity is that the research is headed in that direction. Hydrogen may not be as eco friendly as electricity. But it is the most abundant element in the universe. So probably will not be a hydrogen shortage for a few billion years.
02-01-2012, 03:12 AM
#16
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok, ask any HS science teacher. Hydrogen is MUCH more combustible than gasoline. A tank of gasoline when ignited has the potential to take out the car beside it. A tank of hydrogen when ignited will take out a city block (why we make Hydrogen bombs and not gasoline bombs, better known as the molotov cocktail). As such, it is not feasible alone as a fuel. The new tanks for it were designed to immediately vent on impact and tests out fairly well. However, that does not alleviate the threat of someone detonating their vehicle intentionally, and with devastating effects.
So, we move on to solid fuels. A tank of hydrogen has much more energy than a single vehicle realistically needs at one time. So, the theory is, if we could make a powerplant fueled by a brick containing enough hydrogen to power the vehicle, yet not pose such an explosive hazard, you could simply recharge the vehicles and dump byproducts at the same time. That has not been cost effective to date (unless I missed the cover of Time that says we are now off oil).
As for that environmental hazard, it is NOT a toxic byproduct of burning Hydrogen. That byproduct is water, pure, clean water. The toxic threat to the environment comes from the process of seperating the H2O in the first place. There are several processes out there for doing this. Still, the primary environmental hazard is not a toxic one, but rather an explosive one as previously mentioned.
Another problem is processing Hydrogen, seperating it from oxygen, takes a massive amount of electricity, making it a zero sum gain. However, this has been accomplished with solar power. So for example, the many solar panels you have on your property in Nevada are fully devoted to processing Hydrogen for your car. However, it is not efficient enough at present to be more cost effective than plugging in your battery powered car to your solar equipped house. Hydrogen is an unnecessary step.
A "conversion kit" is not feasible. The current internal combustion engine, whether fuel or gas, was not/is not designed for that. The notion of making your fuel run leaner/richer is not applicable (nor necessary. your car's computer does a much better job at finding the optimal mix than the old man's Holley 4bbl). In theory, it could make your fuel "hotter" and potentially increase its kinetic properties, but frankly, you could also just run a "hotter" fuel that is not hydrogen. Several truckstops in Phoenix sell 97+ octane for hobby vehicles and motorsports. At the prices i've seen, this is absolutley not cost effective, nor could your JK handle that fuel for very long.
The military toys with alternative energy sources a LOT, and is probably leading R&D in the field. After the "blood for fuel" concept came out several years ago, folks started taking it very seriously. The research shows just how much human blood it costs in terms of lives lost, and the ENORMOUS cost of taking care of wounded vets for life, just to run one Tactical Operations Center for a year. The numbers are staggering, just for those associated with the delivery of fuels. If we could run bases and operations with an alternate source of energy, we could save countless lives, billions of dollars and frankly give us a HUGE tactical advantage over our adversaries. Sitting on the front lines right this second, literally, I can tell you, we aint using magic hydrogen fuel to run our operations. If this incites your political opinion about the war, or any war for that matter, keep your opinion to yourself. I use this to make a point about alternate fuels, not to debate war and politics.
Hoping this helps, if not, nbd. I hope to see the day when I can wheel my JK with something more reliable, responsive, cleaner and more efficient than petro based fuel. Until then, I will keep my Honda Civic and my bicycle handy and continue to use my JK as a dd as long as it is fiscally feasible.
So, we move on to solid fuels. A tank of hydrogen has much more energy than a single vehicle realistically needs at one time. So, the theory is, if we could make a powerplant fueled by a brick containing enough hydrogen to power the vehicle, yet not pose such an explosive hazard, you could simply recharge the vehicles and dump byproducts at the same time. That has not been cost effective to date (unless I missed the cover of Time that says we are now off oil).
As for that environmental hazard, it is NOT a toxic byproduct of burning Hydrogen. That byproduct is water, pure, clean water. The toxic threat to the environment comes from the process of seperating the H2O in the first place. There are several processes out there for doing this. Still, the primary environmental hazard is not a toxic one, but rather an explosive one as previously mentioned.
Another problem is processing Hydrogen, seperating it from oxygen, takes a massive amount of electricity, making it a zero sum gain. However, this has been accomplished with solar power. So for example, the many solar panels you have on your property in Nevada are fully devoted to processing Hydrogen for your car. However, it is not efficient enough at present to be more cost effective than plugging in your battery powered car to your solar equipped house. Hydrogen is an unnecessary step.
A "conversion kit" is not feasible. The current internal combustion engine, whether fuel or gas, was not/is not designed for that. The notion of making your fuel run leaner/richer is not applicable (nor necessary. your car's computer does a much better job at finding the optimal mix than the old man's Holley 4bbl). In theory, it could make your fuel "hotter" and potentially increase its kinetic properties, but frankly, you could also just run a "hotter" fuel that is not hydrogen. Several truckstops in Phoenix sell 97+ octane for hobby vehicles and motorsports. At the prices i've seen, this is absolutley not cost effective, nor could your JK handle that fuel for very long.
The military toys with alternative energy sources a LOT, and is probably leading R&D in the field. After the "blood for fuel" concept came out several years ago, folks started taking it very seriously. The research shows just how much human blood it costs in terms of lives lost, and the ENORMOUS cost of taking care of wounded vets for life, just to run one Tactical Operations Center for a year. The numbers are staggering, just for those associated with the delivery of fuels. If we could run bases and operations with an alternate source of energy, we could save countless lives, billions of dollars and frankly give us a HUGE tactical advantage over our adversaries. Sitting on the front lines right this second, literally, I can tell you, we aint using magic hydrogen fuel to run our operations. If this incites your political opinion about the war, or any war for that matter, keep your opinion to yourself. I use this to make a point about alternate fuels, not to debate war and politics.
Hoping this helps, if not, nbd. I hope to see the day when I can wheel my JK with something more reliable, responsive, cleaner and more efficient than petro based fuel. Until then, I will keep my Honda Civic and my bicycle handy and continue to use my JK as a dd as long as it is fiscally feasible.
02-01-2012, 03:36 AM
#17
JK Junkie
Hydrogen is highly reactive. I'll keep away from the chemistry, but basically if it gets near oxygen, it combusts and forms water. That's why hydrogen cars work, the combustion of the hydrogen and oxygen forming h2o releases a lot of energy, just as much, if not more than igniting gasoline.
ok, ask any HS science teacher. Hydrogen is MUCH more combustible than gasoline. A tank of gasoline when ignited has the potential to take out the car beside it. A tank of hydrogen when ignited will take out a city block (why we make Hydrogen bombs and not gasoline bombs, better known as the molotov cocktail). As such, it is not feasible alone as a fuel. The new tanks for it were designed to immediately vent on impact and tests out fairly well. However, that does not alleviate the threat of someone detonating their vehicle intentionally, and with devastating effects.
So, we move on to solid fuels. A tank of hydrogen has much more energy than a single vehicle realistically needs at one time. So, the theory is, if we could make a powerplant fueled by a brick containing enough hydrogen to power the vehicle, yet not pose such an explosive hazard, you could simply recharge the vehicles and dump byproducts at the same time. That has not been cost effective to date (unless I missed the cover of Time that says we are now off oil).
As for that environmental hazard, it is NOT a toxic byproduct of burning Hydrogen. That byproduct is water, pure, clean water. The toxic threat to the environment comes from the process of seperating the H2O in the first place. There are several processes out there for doing this. Still, the primary environmental hazard is not a toxic one, but rather an explosive one as previously mentioned.
Another problem is processing Hydrogen, seperating it from oxygen, takes a massive amount of electricity, making it a zero sum gain. However, this has been accomplished with solar power. So for example, the many solar panels you have on your property in Nevada are fully devoted to processing Hydrogen for your car. However, it is not efficient enough at present to be more cost effective than plugging in your battery powered car to your solar equipped house. Hydrogen is an unnecessary step.
A "conversion kit" is not feasible. The current internal combustion engine, whether fuel or gas, was not/is not designed for that. The notion of making your fuel run leaner/richer is not applicable (nor necessary. your car's computer does a much better job at finding the optimal mix than the old man's Holley 4bbl). In theory, it could make your fuel "hotter" and potentially increase its kinetic properties, but frankly, you could also just run a "hotter" fuel that is not hydrogen. Several truckstops in Phoenix sell 97+ octane for hobby vehicles and motorsports. At the prices i've seen, this is absolutley not cost effective, nor could your JK handle that fuel for very long.
The military toys with alternative energy sources a LOT, and is probably leading R&D in the field. After the "blood for fuel" concept came out several years ago, folks started taking it very seriously. The research shows just how much human blood it costs in terms of lives lost, and the ENORMOUS cost of taking care of wounded vets for life, just to run one Tactical Operations Center for a year. The numbers are staggering, just for those associated with the delivery of fuels. If we could run bases and operations with an alternate source of energy, we could save countless lives, billions of dollars and frankly give us a HUGE tactical advantage over our adversaries. Sitting on the front lines right this second, literally, I can tell you, we aint using magic hydrogen fuel to run our operations. If this incites your political opinion about the war, or any war for that matter, keep your opinion to yourself. I use this to make a point about alternate fuels, not to debate war and politics.
Hoping this helps, if not, nbd. I hope to see the day when I can wheel my JK with something more reliable, responsive, cleaner and more efficient than petro based fuel. Until then, I will keep my Honda Civic and my bicycle handy and continue to use my JK as a dd as long as it is fiscally feasible.
So, we move on to solid fuels. A tank of hydrogen has much more energy than a single vehicle realistically needs at one time. So, the theory is, if we could make a powerplant fueled by a brick containing enough hydrogen to power the vehicle, yet not pose such an explosive hazard, you could simply recharge the vehicles and dump byproducts at the same time. That has not been cost effective to date (unless I missed the cover of Time that says we are now off oil).
As for that environmental hazard, it is NOT a toxic byproduct of burning Hydrogen. That byproduct is water, pure, clean water. The toxic threat to the environment comes from the process of seperating the H2O in the first place. There are several processes out there for doing this. Still, the primary environmental hazard is not a toxic one, but rather an explosive one as previously mentioned.
Another problem is processing Hydrogen, seperating it from oxygen, takes a massive amount of electricity, making it a zero sum gain. However, this has been accomplished with solar power. So for example, the many solar panels you have on your property in Nevada are fully devoted to processing Hydrogen for your car. However, it is not efficient enough at present to be more cost effective than plugging in your battery powered car to your solar equipped house. Hydrogen is an unnecessary step.
A "conversion kit" is not feasible. The current internal combustion engine, whether fuel or gas, was not/is not designed for that. The notion of making your fuel run leaner/richer is not applicable (nor necessary. your car's computer does a much better job at finding the optimal mix than the old man's Holley 4bbl). In theory, it could make your fuel "hotter" and potentially increase its kinetic properties, but frankly, you could also just run a "hotter" fuel that is not hydrogen. Several truckstops in Phoenix sell 97+ octane for hobby vehicles and motorsports. At the prices i've seen, this is absolutley not cost effective, nor could your JK handle that fuel for very long.
The military toys with alternative energy sources a LOT, and is probably leading R&D in the field. After the "blood for fuel" concept came out several years ago, folks started taking it very seriously. The research shows just how much human blood it costs in terms of lives lost, and the ENORMOUS cost of taking care of wounded vets for life, just to run one Tactical Operations Center for a year. The numbers are staggering, just for those associated with the delivery of fuels. If we could run bases and operations with an alternate source of energy, we could save countless lives, billions of dollars and frankly give us a HUGE tactical advantage over our adversaries. Sitting on the front lines right this second, literally, I can tell you, we aint using magic hydrogen fuel to run our operations. If this incites your political opinion about the war, or any war for that matter, keep your opinion to yourself. I use this to make a point about alternate fuels, not to debate war and politics.
Hoping this helps, if not, nbd. I hope to see the day when I can wheel my JK with something more reliable, responsive, cleaner and more efficient than petro based fuel. Until then, I will keep my Honda Civic and my bicycle handy and continue to use my JK as a dd as long as it is fiscally feasible.
02-01-2012, 03:58 AM
#18
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK. Now I know why people "THINK" that hydrogen is more dangerous than gas. I'm pretty sure that hydrogen does not combust when exposed to O2
WOW. Except for the hydrogen bomb remark ( lets face the facts, we are talking about seperating molecules. Not splitting atoms ), you said pretty much what I implied.
WOW. Except for the hydrogen bomb remark ( lets face the facts, we are talking about seperating molecules. Not splitting atoms ), you said pretty much what I implied.
02-01-2012, 04:11 AM
#19
JK Enthusiast
Mythbusters did a gas savings episode once. Pretty sure the only 'real' way to up your mpg's was to tailgate a semi. Probably not the safest! But they definitely busted the hydrogen bottle, fuel additives, intake cyclone, etc. Not to say they won't help in other ways, but from an mpg standpoint they didn't help.
02-01-2012, 04:15 AM
#20
JK Enthusiast
You could call this guy too. He converts Jeeps to electric vehicals.
http://www.revconversions.com/electr...ducts-jeep.htm
http://www.revconversions.com/electr...ducts-jeep.htm