anyone tinkering with hydrogen for car?

[tambox]

Great topic, as usual the veiws differ.
From what we have found on many dyno runs, you get improvement from these "wonder products" when something else in the combustion system is not perfect. Some combustion systems need a lot of work to fix the problems, the "wonder products" help overcome the faults.
Yet again, you can't get something for nothing.
Add a litre of kereosene to your oil and you will gain 3-7kw, from dyno tests.
Another "Wonder product"?????

[Storm]

why can't people read the first post and stay on topic

If raving on or about "water for fuel" rocks your boat, go do it elsewhere.
Theres plenty of sites where you can amuse yourself on that topic.

People have stayed on topic, the issue now is how much you disagree with what is being said and how much you disapprove of it.

Water Injection also changes the nature of combustion, and in a sense could also be claimed as a fuel saving concept, because under certain conditions you use water for combustion cooling, instead of overfuelling petrol - thus saving fuel.

Totally different concept. This is COOLING the a/f mix, not adding a raw combustible product in order to increase efficiency.

you obviously show you have no idea of what your saying.

I love how people resort to Wikipeadia to prove their point. If you don't know it in your head you haven't got the knowledge to prove the point. Wikipeadia has one MAJOR flaw and that is it can be edited by anyone. It is not peer reviewed, it is not checked for authenticity, and it most certainly is not accurate in many ways.

The topic is about adding just a tiny % of H2 to the Petrol fuel mixture and the combustion will perform differently.

This is what the topic is about

Just wondering if anyone has made their own hydrogen fuel cell with intention for hooking up to their car to compliment the petrol burning.

Sure its a question whether this small %H2 is enough to produce a greater percentage improvement in the combustion. This is in no conceivable way suggesting over-unity and all that crap, or even breaking any thermodynamic laws.
This is what the units Rex is talking about do,
just to spell it out again, the petrol tank still has petrol in it.

You are over analysing this whole discussion. My point is that to compliment the combustion event, and actually make a measurable difference (and I don't mean the glutomus maximus dyno either), you will need alot more Hydrogen than 1 litre of water can provide in a week. I honestly don't see what is so difficult about that to understand. The point about a bath tub is to show how much water you will need to convert to make enough Hydrogen to have ANY measurable difference.

This calculation above also shows, if only we could get rid of the baggage:mrgreen: Oxygen or Carbon, but somehow I don't think we'll ever be allowed to use rocket fuel for mass transport:(

I disagree but hey we both knew that would happen.

[fredsub]

People have stayed on topic, the issue now is how much you disagree with what is being said and how much you disapprove of it.

well your going on about this bath tub of water:D, there are web sites that espouse running your car completely on just water, don't want to confuse this topic with that rubbish.

about the water injection, it was a bit of a risk referencing it, it is different, I was only showing that it is something else that introduces something other than fuel to the combustion, thus changing the nature of it, its purpose is for more power and a different topic.

I love how people resort to Wikipeadia to prove their point. If you don't know it in your head you haven't got the knowledge to prove the point. Wikipeadia has one MAJOR flaw and that is it can be edited by anyone. It is not peer reviewed, it is not checked for authenticity, and it most certainly is not accurate in many ways.

Except that scientific topics are pretty good on accuracy, > 90%, and scientific values/numbers > 99% accurate. Not only that, the figures I quoted in my previous reply can also be found to be identical on many other web sites.....or school text books! point is these numbers have been around for a long long time, not bleeding edge science.

You are over analysing this whole discussion. My point is that to compliment the combustion event, and actually make a measurable difference (and I don't mean the glutomus maximus dyno either), you will need alot more Hydrogen than 1 litre of water can provide in a week. I honestly don't see what is so difficult about that to understand. The point about a bath tub is to show how much water you will need to convert to make enough Hydrogen to have ANY measurable difference.

it needed some analysing, before people just dismiss things as mythical.......with your silly bath tub of water reference trying to rubbish the topic.

you will need alot more Hydrogen than 1 litre of water can provide in a week. I honestly don't see what is so difficult about that to understand.

Please explain how you got this in your head ? Just you saying it doesn't make it so:mrgreen:

Obviously my previous reply is completely over the top of your head, because I absolutely prooved your talking rubbish.

[Storm]

well your going on about this bath tub of water:D, there are web sites that espouse running your car completely on just water, don't want to confuse this topic with that rubbish.

Mate, lets start over here. It is obvious that a few people here have a bee in their bonnets, hoods in America, about certain things.

The OP was asking about using Hydrogen as an addition to Petrol. A couple of people categorically stated they have seen measurable improvements in using hydrolysis to add Hydrogen to the incoming a/f mix. Infact a 3 hp gain was clearly stated. Go and do a little research on a/f mix combustability and you will see Hydrogen can run incredibly low figures on its own BUT as an additional mixture, which we are discussing here you need more. I am sorry to tell you but 1 litre of water with electricity running through it isn't going to produce the mixture ratio needed to increase power.

about the water injection, it was a bit of a risk referencing it, it is different, I was only showing that it is something else that introduces something other than fuel to the combustion, thus changing the nature of it, its purpose is for more power and a different topic.

Well I apologise for chipping you on going off topic but hey I'm sure you'll get over it.

Except that scientific topics are pretty good on accuracy, > 90%, and scientific values/numbers > 99% accurate. Not only that, the figures I quoted in my previous reply can also be found to be identical on many other web sites.....or school text books! point is these numbers have been around for a long long time, not bleeding edge science.

Freddy freddy freddy. School text books are notoriously out of date, you really need to get with the swing of things cause your making claims that are just way of base. Any decent school teacher will get information from more than the text books that are available cause 4 years is the general figure and up to 10 years out of date is not uncommon. It takes so long for a book to be written, published, printed and then supplied that the info isn't accurate anymore cause science is moving so quickly.

it needed some analysing, before people just dismiss things as mythical.......with your silly bath tub of water reference trying to rubbish the topic.

I didn't dismiss anything as mythical, infact if your remember another discussion I was devils advocate for a wind vane fitted into the air intake of a car and people were dismissing it. I think your spending way to much time with this cause you think its so important just to prove me wrong when the reality is the Hydrolysis systems people fit to their cars are a scam, con, money making exercise etc etc etc purely because they cannot produce enough Hydrogen to be effective. IF you can show me different then please by all means do so, show me a verified and corrected dyno run completed in a neutral place so that no-one has a vested interest in fudging the figures, but until then what most people here have said is conjecture gained through the seat of their glute and reading info produced for "popular consumption".

Please explain how you got this in your head ? Just you saying it doesn't make it so:mrgreen:

Obviously my previous reply is completely over the top of your head, because I absolutely prooved your talking rubbish.

I got it into my head cause I can actually read current information, unlike reading "witch doctor" websites and websites that have no peer review so are not open to scrutiny I have access to current info that is peer reviewed and open to scrutiny.

Your previous reply is rubbish, you went off topic, you quoted figures of wikipedia which can easily be edited by complete raving idiots, and you think school text books are a good source of current and absolute fact.

Have a great Australia day Freddy.

[fredsub]

Freddy freddy freddy. School text books are notoriously out of date, you really need to get with the swing of things

cause your making claims that are just way of base. Any decent school teacher will get information from more than the

text books that are available cause 4 years is the general figure and up to 10 years out of date is not uncommon. It

takes so long for a book to be written, published, printed and then supplied that the info isn't accurate anymore

cause science is moving so quickly.
...

Your previous reply is rubbish, you went off topic, you quoted figures of wikipedia which can easily be edited by

complete raving idiots, and you think school text books are a good source of current and absolute fact.

So You think you can get condescending with me to make your argument any better, huh! you are so full of it.

off topic??? I replied about the bath tub of water, showing that litre for litre, a carbon based fuel contains about

5% more hydrogen, hardly a huge amount! thus showing up that statement as a typical jackass.

The best you can do is say its off topic! and throw aspertions on Wikipedia. I already replied sufficiently about that, but again you choose to ignore it.
Do you even know how it works? especially about readily verifiable facts and figures.
But of course, you know better.....

You apparently seem to have more knowledge than texts books do on subjects also.
I would have thought that working out molar mass and quantities is a fairly old subject, pretty hard for
a text book to get that wrong, but no, you know better, and seem to have some other "current information" which you fail to specify or reference........

didn't dismiss anything as mythical, infact if your remember another discussion I was devils advocate for a wind vane

fitted into the air intake of a car and people were dismissing it. I think your spending way to much time with this

cause you think its so important just to prove me wrong when the reality is the Hydrolysis systems people fit to

their cars are a scam, con, money making exercise etc etc etc purely because they cannot produce enough Hydrogen to

be effective. IF you can show me different then please by all means do so, show me a verified and corrected dyno run

completed in a neutral place so that no-one has a vested interest in fudging the figures, but until then what most

people here have said is conjecture gained through the seat of their glute and reading info produced for "popular

consumption".

You have tried your best to dismiss and de-rail this topic with nonsense statements.
My post of Tue 20th January 2009, 10:49 PM appears to upset you, because it showed you up.
Well no one else cares if you can't get over it, its a flaw in your character.

another example...

Originally Posted by Xtreme_RX
I totally agree with White_Lightning_Rex. These systems DO work.
Full dyno proof. On paper proof. Total undeniable evidence..

Well there are plenty of people saying otherwise.

What plenty of people? who ?
Theres 2 actual people posting about their facts in this forum.

Energy Polarisor anyone?

Trying to associate the topic with something already discredited and totally unrelated.



As for "this cause " . I've got no cause or vested interest to push with this topic. I've played with OxyHydrogen generators, still got the vacuum pump i used somewhere....
but it was nothing to do with putting it in a car or anything like that - I
don't think i would've liked to with my experiments, because sufficient alkali salts get carried along with the

mixture, perhaps some sort of filter could help.....

So I find it interesting that 2 posters report using such a device and getting some result, personally I'd like to
hear and know more about it.

My view on it is that free Hydrogen added is not acting "pound for pound" as a fuel per se, but is changing the
nature of the existing combustion of petroleum fuel to be more efficient. And apparently it appears you don't need a lot of this free hydrogen in the fuel mixture to have an effect.


But it certainly gets up my nose when people with a "know it all attitude" make jackass statements with no facts to
back it up to push their view. If I can counter it with some real facts discrediting those i'm all the more happy for it.
And it allows the topic discussion which is undeniably at "a bleeding edge" to continue without people thinking its foolish.

A bit like ~1616+, Galileo supports the earth rotates around the sun, when everybody else "knows" the earth is the centre of the universe, to say otherwise is heresy......

[Jimmy G]

"A bit like ~1616+, Galileo supports the earth rotates around the sun, when everybody else "knows" the earth is the centre of the universe, to say otherwise is heresy......"

Actually, as we are pontificating, what you stated is a common fallacy .... like Edison inventing the light globe, Wright Bros inventing the aeroplane, Columbus proving the earth was round...all myths

[Storm]

So You think you can get condescending with me to make your argument any better, huh! you are so full of it.

Your not the first person to say this, good thing I know that everyone else has fallen flat on their ass after trying to prove me wrong.

off topic??? I replied about the bath tub of water, showing that litre for litre, a carbon based fuel contains about

Yes off topic. The bath tub of water was to show how much you need to benefit the system.

5% more hydrogen, hardly a huge amount! thus showing up that statement as a typical jackass.

Jackass? well I'm sure YOU KNOW that if you add a combustible substance to the mix you need to remove a corresponding amount from the original substance so if you add 5% combustible mix (assuming it has the same burn ratios) you need to remove 5% Petrol from the mix other wise your going to overfuel and run rich. Have you done this? I doubt it.

The best you can do is say its off topic! and throw aspertions on Wikipedia. I already replied sufficiently about that, but again you choose to ignore it.
Do you even know how it works? especially about readily verifiable facts and figures.
But of course, you know better.....

Show me these readily available facts and figures. Provide proof from a peer reviewed journal or some other scientific medium that isn't produced for popular consumption .

You apparently seem to have more knowledge than texts books do on subjects also.
I would have thought that working out molar mass and quantities is a fairly old subject, pretty hard for
a text book to get that wrong, but no, you know better, and seem to have some other "current information" which you fail to specify or reference........

I'm a teacher, a university tutor, and a motor mechanic. I use textbooks for a living but I never rely on them for up to date facts.

You have tried your best to dismiss and de-rail this topic with nonsense statements.
My post of Tue 20th January 2009, 10:49 PM appears to upset you, because it showed you up.
Well no one else cares if you can't get over it, its a flaw in your character.

Well haven't you gotten all snotty about this? I have added an opposing side, I have derailed anything, although I must say your current diatribe has effectively shown you resort to getting rude when you get upset. Now who is it that derailed a discussion?

What plenty of people? who ?
Theres 2 actual people posting about their facts in this forum.

Lol I ike this. Freddy, have you noticed that 99% of people who post here are backyarders? Hardly scientific giants, nice people but scholars of international repute? I dont think so somehow.

Trying to associate the topic with something already discredited and totally unrelated.

IT WAS A JOKE, get over it.

As for "this cause " . I've got no cause or vested interest to push with this topic. I've played with OxyHydrogen generators, still got the vacuum pump i used somewhere....
but it was nothing to do with putting it in a car or anything like that - I
don't think i would've liked to with my experiments, because sufficient alkali salts get carried along with the

Actually you do have a vested interest now cause you have got so agro about it you HAVE to prove yourself correct.

So I find it interesting that 2 posters report using such a device and getting some result, personally I'd like to
hear and know more about it.

and so would I, but please dont tell it its science when these same people, fine gentlemen all the same, can't even give a corrected dyno test yet claim a hp improvement.

My view on it is that free Hydrogen added is not acting "pound for pound" as a fuel per se, but is changing the
nature of the existing combustion of petroleum fuel to be more efficient. And apparently it appears you don't need a lot of this free hydrogen in the fuel mixture to have an effect.

I am glad you have your view, now may I suggest you run a few scientific tests and prove it so you can stop your conjecture.

But it certainly gets up my nose when people with a "know it all attitude" make jackass statements with no facts to
back it up to push their view. If I can counter it with some real facts discrediting those i'm all the more happy for it.
And it allows the topic discussion which is undeniably at "a bleeding edge" to continue without people thinking its foolish.

Your nose has been out of joint for a while, you just dont like it when people disagree with you.

A bit like ~1616+, Galileo supports the earth rotates around the sun, when everybody else "knows" the earth is the centre of the universe, to say otherwise is heresy......

Hey the difference here is the old Galileo personally had irrefutable proof you don't and until you personally run the tests you never will.

[Wilbur]

Storm, some great inventions started in the backyard, front yard, with some half baked idea. If we all sat back and said it wouldn't work we'd be still sitting in a cave eating raw meat.

Obviously with your superior and vast interlect you can now set about telling how the world to solve 99% of their problems. I'll look foward to it.

I wish I had moderator status, this topic would have been closed long ago.

[Storm]

Rex, I never once claimed a vast intellect, and I wasn't knocking backyarders with my comments either, you may notice I also said things like good people at the same time. A question was asked and I like many others have commented. If you feel the need to styful peoples comments then please feel free to do so.

With regards to your inventions comment you may know that people have been playing with this idea for an extremely long time and still there is no viable and useful outcome. People demand proof yet don't supply any of their own, people demand links yet can't really supply any of their own (except of course for the famous wikipedia). I hope you all have fun with your coke bottles of water and electric currents running through them. When someone has a patented idea I may start changing my mind, until then I'll listen to the people who work with this type of thing for a living.

[Gannon]

I wish I had moderator status, this topic would have been closed long ago.

Agreed.

Otherwise somebodys feelings are gonna get hurt

[Ben]

Play nice kiddies...