JK-Ford

So, is a tank of H any more dangerous than a tank of propane? I think that the "stigma" of H is mostly the deciding factor for why the research isn't pursued.

WhosUrBuddiee

Also at SEMA this year, there was a company XTREME POWER that had bolt on hybrid conversion kits for the Jeep Wrangler, claimed over 40 mph and an additional 340 ft-lbs tq. Their Jeep was pretty crazy, they even did a custom 2 panel sunroof in the freedom top.

It may not be my taste, but the amount of work that went into that Jeep is astounding.
www. wrangler forum.com/f118/awesome-jeep-jk-build-114518-10.html

http://translogic.aolautos.com/2011/...-81-sema-2011/

battleshot

Your not using it to be an additive to gasoline, hydrogen is more volatile than air, hence why you need less gasoline to achieve approximately the same amount of combustion as a regular fuel to air ratio. Your not influencing the crankshaft or pistons as someone previously stated either, the only problem I could see is if you could produce enough HHO in order for it to make a noticeable difference in which you could actually lean the amount of fuel being used. Although this poses other issues, such as the engine heating up due to less fuel ect..

JK-Ford

Yes, I was talking about a pure hydrogen engine. And in referance to that, I think that everyone has aggread that hydrogen has more potential energy than gas. Therefore fuel economy isn't the issue. The method for makeing the hydrogen is the problem.

AV8RS3V3RN

My brother and I experimented on this for about a year with his Cavalier...YES, it does improve your MPG's. I think my brother BEFORE the installation was getting in the lower 30's, after installation and tuning he was consistently in the upper 40's. Whether it is worth it or not is a whole other story.

His design didnt store hydrogen, but used it right away so there wasn't a Hydrogen bomb sitting in the car, but the chance of the back explosion into the production chamber was quite high. We opted to put the chamber in his trunk enclosed in a steel box with fans built in to reduce heat.

Essentially, when it's all said and done. It's a neat experiment, but honestly I don't think the technology is quite where it needs to be for the concept to actually be super beneficial. We spent about a years worth of gas money on the project and were only able to safely use it for 9-10 months at most. I'd say wait a few more years to see if there are any huge breakthroughs, and in all seriousness, understand every detail about how the machine works and know it like the back of your hand. It's pretty dangerous stuff!

battleshot

Check this out (below) , its a way to make hydrogen (I did the same concept in my chemsitry class), its easy and just requires electricity. What I'm wondering is if it produces enough HHO to make a difference.What I'm trying to evaluate is the regular volumetric intake per minute of a stock air intake on a jeep, combined with the amount of HHO that this will produce in a minute, which in this kit is 6.5 liters per minute. From here, I'm tyring to look at the combustion rate of air to fuel, and repalce a portion of this with HHO and calculate the difference in combustion per this given amount of HHO. Gotta pull out my thermodynamics book for this bad boy.

http://www.hhoconnection.com/gfh20_p...1PlateKit.html

JK-Ford

Thanks for the link. This technology looks very promising. To bad it is left up to people like us to develop it. I personaly think that this resource has great potential. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't believe that this is any more dangerous than using gasoline or propane. Sure that development is dangerous. I'm sure that the development of gasoline was dangerous. Along with the development of other dangerous things. I only have a vage understanding of how all this stuff works. It's been many years since my last chemistry class. But what I do know is that it currently takes a lot of electricity to make it. Does an automotive electrical system make enough?

ronjenx

It's not as simple as that. It seems you can't carry enough compressed hydrogen gas to even come close to the driving range of gasoline.
I haven't quite figured it out yet, but I have found this out:

Hydrogen = 227,850 Btu/ft³ (8,491,000 kJ/m³); liquid
Gasoline = 836,000 Btu/ft³ (31,150,000 kJ/m³); liquid

Comparing it to diesel fuel:

A 132-gal (500-L) diesel tank containing 880 lb (400 kg) of fuel is equivalent on an energy basis to a 2110 gal (8000 L) volume of hydrogen gas at 3600 psi (250 barg). This is a 16 times increase in volume, although the weight of the hydrogen is only 330 lb (150 kg), representing a decrease in fuel weight by a factor of about 2.8.

The same diesel tank is equivalent to a 550-gal (2100-L) tank of liquid hydrogen. This is a 4.2 times increase in volume.

If hydrogen is stored as a metal hydride, every kilogram of diesel fuel is replaced by approximately 4.5 kg of metal hydride to maintain the same hydrogen/diesel energy equivalence. Thus the same 132 gal (500 L) diesel tank containing 880 lb (400 kg) of fuel would have to be re-placed with a hydride tank containing 3800 lb (1725 kg) of “fuel” mass.

ref: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/tech_validation/pdfs/fcm01r0.pdf

ThreadHijacker

I don't know anything about how well it works but do you really want to burn something that will introduce tiny drops water in the cylinders of an engine which people already complain about durability with. Is it worth it for a few extra miles/gallon to get water mixed in to the oil and engine components? I don't think the savings would out-weigh the engine damage costs over time. Besides you are using gas to charge the battery to make hydrogen anyway so is it really saving you?

ronjenx

Burning gasoline produces lots of water in the cylinders, too. You can see it dripping from the tail pipe before it warms up.