Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 73

Hydrogen Fuel Injection

This is a discussion on Hydrogen Fuel Injection within the External Engine forums, part of the LSx Technical Help Section category; Originally Posted by hurraquio i have the ebooks now, guess what i paid ten bucks for em!!!! lol, but i ...

  1. #41
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Norcal
    Age
    37
    Posts
    14

    silver
    1998 Formula

    Quote Originally Posted by hurraquio View Post
    i have the ebooks now, guess what i paid ten bucks for em!!!! lol, but i still havent had the time to figure them out. any smart genuses out there? ill tottaly comply! if you in return share the info. (hope this discussion isnt illegal!, if it is I appologize )
    Ditto on the PM, I'm kinda curious what these instructions look like.

  2. #42
    Approver of Threads SpecterGT260's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    205

    Blacked out
    '98 Trans Am

    Ok, im going to address this piece by piece. If I oversimplify or overdigress to the point that i insult your intelligence its not my intent. just trying to be very clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by gregersonke View Post
    Wait

    I went out and found this...

    #
    # "Jim Cash" wrote the following on Roadfly.com, "The Nitrogen Oxide emissions come from running a lean burn engine. This is good in that it lowers CO emissions but can cause the NO issue in the higher temperatures of a lean mixture operation. The Cats are there to clean up the NO issue

    and

    At ambient temperatures, the oxygen and nitrogen gases in air will not react with each other. In an internal combustion engine, combustion of a mixture of air and fuel produces combustion temperatures high enough to drive endothermic reactions between atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen in the flame
    This is the actual graph we were presented in class

    dark line is w/o cat, bottom with cat. its against speed, but the true independent axis would be cat temperature here.

    I cant find the exact cycle we were given, but in a nutshell I believe NOx is first reduced in the catalytic converter. This oxidizes the metal catalyst in the honey comb. Then carbon monoxide comes through and gets oxidized to CO2, which reduces the catalyst back to its original state. and the process repeats.

    as you can see, at different temps the cat is better or less able to catalyze different reactions. for CO, at higher temps you actually produce MORE CO than you would without the cat at all, this has to do with the NOx available. at higher temps the ratios are off and the metal catalyst isnt in the right state to react with the CO as much. so really, yes, a lean engine will produce more NOx, but its because of the efficiency of the cat at higher temps due to the lean condition.

    The idea I get from hydrogen and oxygen, is that they will increase the combustion of lean burn which should decrease the Nox because there will be less oxygen to react with because you are increasing the efficiency of the burn right?

    You say that hydrogen is very combustible, that combined with the lean issues of most vehicles where knock occurs. Knock is generally caused by more than one explosion occuring in the cylinder or a miss fire right?
    Knock is a PRE-detonation of the fuel. not multiple detonation. its also called dieseling and diesel motors run on this concept. basically, the fuel mixture gets hot enough that when compressed it ignites before the spark plug zaps it, if this happens BEFORE the crank has rolled over, the force will be OPPOSED to the rotation of your pistons (ie, trying to reverse the crank). 1 cyl cannot fight off 3-7 more cyls, so it still goes over, but it is incredibly hard on a motor. in older motors its easy to hear the piston rattling around in there, which is wher you get the term knock or "ping". this is an excellent way to fry pistons and destroy seals.

    hydrogen is a very very HOT burn, it would be extremely unwise to combine this in appreciable ammounts with gasoline. your motor cannot handle those temps. its kinda like running nitrous with no additional fuel. you can even melt piston heads straight through. IF burned in a controlled way it WOULD make more power, but hydrogen is not a slow burn like gasoline. this is why we use higher octane fuels. the higher octane does NOTHING except burn slower. it doesnt make more power, doesnt burn cleaner, more efficiently, it burns slower. thats all. therefore it resists knock and you are able to run more stenuous conditions in the motor.


    If hydrogen increased the combustibility of Gasoline going into the cyclinder during lean cycle. Wouldn't that increase power and let you go even leaner on the fuel burn??? It would require shortening the spark advance. Which on the ls1 is around 20-30 percent right? Least according to my obd2 scanner.
    H2 wont increase the combusability of gasoline. it itself will combust and yes, this can be used to generate power but its more energetic than your motor willl handle. once again, you will go hot, you will burn something up. H2 is also not a practical fuel source in these things because it just takes too freakin long to get it out of water.




    I remember, a researcher who was experimenting with natural gas injection. Not to say that everything on discovery is real. But he was able to increase the combustion efficiency of ICE up to 80 percent.
    hydrogen is not natural gas. natural gas fuels are things like propane and kerosine. We looked at those too.... if i remember right they ARE much more efficient than gasoline (and much less than H2 fuel cells for that matter) I think that was more of a cost of production issue.



    As for videos, I was commenting that you can learn how to make the basic design and even use the electricity to build your own Generator.

    http://youtube.com/user/ZeroFossilFuel
    You can learn most of that through this guy and thinking about it a little. It's really not rocket science.

    I'm commenting that its not difficult to make your own HHO generator. While the above video may be a rather advanced version. Its gives you an idea of what the basic process is.

    As for the vacuum that the guy was commenting about. Hydrogen like water when it first starts to boil likes to stay in the water like little bubbles. Using the vacuum from the engine would make the water more likely to boil that out. Much like water boiling easier at higher elevations requiring the use of a pressure cooker.
    maybe this isnt what ur saying... but getting hydrogen from water is not a matter of boiling it. the system he had, at 1.4V will draw such little grams H2/sec that he really wasnt accomplishing anything. i breezed through that vid, but the fact that his car drew a higher vac through those tubes on throttle is a no brainer. that video was similar to billy maze on late night infomercials showing you how amazing oxyclean is with a digitized swipe of the camera and OMFGWTF its clean! pretty much gimmick



    Most people usually use distilled or filtered water combined with baking soda for use with HHO. Not every method is perfect.

    If you could go 20 percent leaner and only had to expend 40-50 percent of that on electricity generation wouldn't you be ahead?

    Though, I dunno if I'd try it on my ls1. I'm happy that it has always has and still continues to get 24-25mpg with an autotragic no less. All stock and proud of it. 120 thousand miles on it and still doesn't burn oil between the 10k synthetic oil changes.

    But on my daily driver Honda and its mad 1.5L of raw power. I'd consider it just for the challenge and fun of the project that would probably take a weekend and be fun to do. Also, see HHO bombs, cool videos on Youtube.
    one last thing:
    HHO was developed for use in plasma cutters and industrial purposes. that alone should tell you something about its properties and make you raise an eyebrow before pumping it into ur engine on the advice of youtube. its kinda like that vaporized alcohol thing with CO2. not a complete hoax, but a complete waste of time

  3. #43
    Senior Member GULLETT17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Muncie, IN
    Posts
    2,554

    00 TA PWTR, 98 VertTA NBM
    80 TA BLK, 80 Formula NBM

    awesome feedback on this subject guys! im learning a lot about the scientific and sometimes debateable (sp?) facts about this process, which was definately the main purpose that I originally started this thread! with all the "positive" info i found, its good to hear the "real" affects, negatives, and the actual science involved here.
    Last edited by GULLETT17; 05-22-2008 at 12:00 PM.

  4. #44
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Norcal
    Age
    37
    Posts
    14

    silver
    1998 Formula

    at 1.4V ya that would be a complete waste of time. However, at 14volts with 25-35amps. You'd be producing several liters a minute more than enough to supplement a larger engine inefficient combustion.

    http://www.hydrogen.org/Knowledge/w-...giew-eng2.html


    H2 wont increase the combusability of gasoline. it itself will combust and yes, this can be used to generate power but its more energetic than your motor willl handle. once again, you will go hot, you will burn something up. H2 is also not a practical fuel source in these things because it just takes too freakin long to get it out of water
    Doesn't hydrogen have 112 octane rating? According to the sources, hydrogen has a Auto-ignition temperature of 570 ˚C temperature. Where as Gasoline has a 282 ˚C auto ignition temperature. Diesel is supposedly even less than that. Using fuel as the catalyst to ignite small amounts of h2 for increased energy seems like a decent idea when you think about it. You are right in that the timing will need to be adjusted due to the higher flame front speed from Hydrogen.

    Actually, I found a resource that mixed natural gas and hydrogen to get the best emissions.
    http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/serv...cvips&gifs=yes

    You'll have to use your school research database or local large library to get access to the full report.

    But the Gist of it by adding 10 percent hydrogen to the mix they achieved significant gains in efficiency. at 15 percent they saw even more. At 20 percent they didn't see any gains. They also discovered that the optimum timing advance was reduced because of the faster flame fronts of hydrogen.

    You can get a fair amount of hydrogen out of Water electrolysis. You can't get enough to fully supplement the cars gas. But, according to theory, you can increase the optimum combustion efficiency.

  5. #45
    Approver of Threads SpecterGT260's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    205

    Blacked out
    '98 Trans Am

    were running circles. H2 contains no hydrocarbons. therefore no octane rating. u may be confused with E85 which is in the 110 octane range.

    it is much hotter and more explosive than gasoline. yes, it sounds like a good idea.... but so does the turbonator.

    you need to keep in mind your total system. you are burning hydrogen, which burns HOT (in fact, hot enough to sustain its own autocombustion temps for further injection thus perpetuating knock... but ive got a better reason...) it burns well over hot enough to autocombust gasoline. you have gasoline and H2 mixed together, you only need one of them to ignite to cause a problem.

    to ur first statement:
    14 volts at any amperage is not going to produce liters a minute. In the lab i work in we regularly run electrophoresis and one of the things that occurs is the sparation of water into its elements. its not a part of the process, but being able to see the bubbles as an indicator the apparatus is working is pretty nifty. we typically run between 80-90 volts and 30-40 amps for our experiments. they last about a half hour to hour depending on what were doing. we use less than 250mL of fluid. we cannot easily measure the liquid volume lost, its very small (not that we would anyways, its irrelevant). The ammount of gas released is directly proportional to the surface are of the electrode. with a hip-shot estimate I would say you would need over a mile of wire coiled into your apparatus in order to produce liters per minute in the power levels you are talking about. Its a VERY slow process: which brings me back to my main point. A water jug in your car is by NO means a reasonable way to go about doing this. another point is that you are, once again, going from water, to elements, to water. a circular process CANNOT produce net energy as oulined by the laws of thermodynamics. this is why we turn to fuel cells, which do not use electrolysis and combustion, but rather redox reactions and produce electricity. this is not a circular process, and the waste product is still water.

    to your link:
    Engine. A Crusader T7400 spark ignited engine (based on the
    GM 454 engine, best known as the Chevrolet Big Block) was
    adapted for gaseous fuels.
    they are not using gasoline. Hythane (a commercial name) is the fuel formed when reacting hydrogen with natural gas, usually taken to mean methane, but can also be propane and kerosine (probably methane in this case though since theyd o not elaborate in the article). the ironic thing is that gasoline is not a gaseous fuel this motor has been adapted to run in the conditions present. their schematic also shows a series of large hydrogen tanks, also not something you would want to lug around in your car, used to achieve the desired mixtures.

    with the exception of my first post which i promptly ammended, ive been saying that there is a lot of energy in hydrogen. this does not mean that pumping it into your gasoline engine is at all a good idea or will yeild ANY positive results.

    this article is useful for research but almost completely inappropriate for this discussion. they are using a different fuel source, an engine modified for the conditions of hydrogen (and lets face it, nat gas is just as harsh as H2), and they are using volumes of hydrogen that are just unreasonable for any consumer to posess.

  6. #46
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Norcal
    Age
    37
    Posts
    14

    silver
    1998 Formula

    Quote Originally Posted by SpecterGT260 View Post
    were running circles. H2 contains no hydrocarbons. therefore no octane rating. u may be confused with E85 which is in the 110 octane range.

    it is much hotter and more explosive than gasoline. yes, it sounds like a good idea.... but so does the turbonator.

    you need to keep in mind your total system. you are burning hydrogen, which burns HOT (in fact, hot enough to sustain its own autocombustion temps for further injection thus perpetuating knock... but ive got a better reason...) it burns well over hot enough to autocombust gasoline. you have gasoline and H2 mixed together, you only need one of them to ignite to cause a problem.
    If you watch a number of the videos by ZeroFossilfuel on the Youtube link. He details out some rather large coil packs that are capable of absorbing 100 amps of current at 14 volts once they get up to temperature. Water mixed with baking soda as you know does increase conductivity with temperature. More conductivity, means that it will absorb more current. When you run an HHO generator it will gain temperature. Optimum production seems to be right under boiling point.

    There is a patent out there that puts it under pressure and does this process at significantly higher temps. But in a car, I wouldn't want that much steam anywhere.

    If you were running 250ml of water I'm willing to bet that while you may have been trying to pump that much power into it your water certainly wasn't absorbing it unless you had it at a rather high temp and managed to fill the water with something that made it very conductive towards the production of hydrogen. You could use salt but then you'd be making chlorine gas along with the H2.

    Look up more of the videos posted under the zerofossilfuel user on Youtube he even shows how much production he's getting at different temperatures. Very interesting.

    Also type in hydrogen for youtube there are a number of cool hydrogen generators out there just from video.

  7. #47
    Approver of Threads SpecterGT260's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    205

    Blacked out
    '98 Trans Am

    electrophoresis doesnt work unless you have an electrolyte present to carry the charge across the electrodes. so i hope ur willing to bet that, because im broke right now and would love to take that bet.
    nowhere did i say these things cannot be done. what i have been saying is that the application to consumer automobiles is just absurd. no tests being performed, in a way that can at all be deemed credible, has used a gasoline engine. the method for obtaining hydrogen requires excessively large space or excessively large ammounts of power. Im sorry, but your youtube guy is is a starry eyed thinker who is missing some very essential peices of this puzzle. conductivity in liquids is directly related to ion concentration. with temperature you only drive the bicarb eq toward ionization but this effect is finite.

    this has nothing to do with absorbing current. in any cell, the electrolyte does nothing but carry current from one electrode to the other. this current does nothing but replenish electrons lost by the oxidized species to perpetuate the reaction. at the anode side water is oxidized yeilding oxygen gas and H+, at the cathode the H+ is reduced to hydrogen gas. water itself will, to an extremely small degree, form a stable equilibrium in the absense of electricity. the reason the reaction stops is because after O^2- gives up electrons, there is noting left to accept them. in electrolysis the anode takes them away. they are brought back around to react with hydronium. in this way, no electricity is absorbed, electrons are just shuttled around and the process is very much catalytic.


    we are talking about, not about the ability to produce hydrogen, but the viability of doing it in a vehicle by zapping water. it is not a reasonable approach. youtube is not a reliable source of information on any level, and the MOST important fact that we keep ignoring is that:
    THIS PROCESS IS THERMODYNAMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! you are attempting to take a substance, input energy to transform it, and then let it spontaneously react in such a way to produce net energy. This is impossible. i believe its the 2nd law... but i dotn know the laws in order off the top of my head. basically no real process is 100% efficient, therefore in a circular process such as this there will always be a net loss of power. this is then similar to the mythbusters perpetual energy special.... they had one where they used a motor and tried to use its own momentum to charge a batter to keep it going. it eventually will wind down. so basically, the water, to gas, to water process has a net cost of energy, coupling this with gasoline burn will not make a gasoline engine more efficient. 3-1 does not equal 4.

    fuel cells use the fact that the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen is an energetically favorable when catalyzed. Nobody is even considering starting from water for the reason stated above. but there are non-aqueous solutions that are very hydrogen rich which can be used as reasonable storage for hydrogen with a positive net yeild of energy. fuel cells use the redox couple of hydrogen and oxygen to create a potential and carry a charge. this charge is the thermodynamic equivelant of igniting hydrogen. its just in the form of electricity.

  8. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SATX
    Posts
    847

    Pewter
    2000 Trans Am

    Quote Originally Posted by TedsB4Csled View Post
    PM me I'll bite.

    PM me your email! i hope you can understad them all they talk about is how much money youre gonna save and dont get to the designs. I'm more of a do work by the pictures guy than reading it out really lol

  9. #49
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Norcal
    Age
    37
    Posts
    14

    silver
    1998 Formula

    Quote Originally Posted by SpecterGT260 View Post
    THIS PROCESS IS THERMODYNAMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE! you are attempting to take a substance, input energy to transform it, and then let it spontaneously react in such a way to produce net energy. This is impossible. i believe its the 2nd law... but i dotn know the laws in order off the top of my head. basically no real process is 100% efficient, therefore in a circular process such as this there will always be a net loss of power. this is then similar to the mythbusters perpetual energy special.... they had one where they used a motor and tried to use its own momentum to charge a batter to keep it going. it eventually will wind down. so basically, the water, to gas, to water process has a net cost of energy, coupling this with gasoline burn will not make a gasoline engine more efficient. 3-1 does not equal 4.

    fuel cells use the fact that the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen is an energetically favorable when catalyzed. Nobody is even considering starting from water for the reason stated above. but there are non-aqueous solutions that are very hydrogen rich which can be used as reasonable storage for hydrogen with a positive net yeild of energy. fuel cells use the redox couple of hydrogen and oxygen to create a potential and carry a charge. this charge is the thermodynamic equivelant of igniting hydrogen. its just in the form of electricity.
    We aren't talking about producing everything an engine needs. We are talking about producing only 10 to 15 percent. You are 100 percent correct in that a 1 to 1 ratio of hydrogen burning to hydrogen production will lose power. What we are going after, is that huge gap in percentage where gasoline is burning at its most inefficient state and increasing that. Typical ICE engine runs around 25 to 30 percent. If we get that up to 40 or 50 before power generation costs we should be ahead. Hydrogen more readily mixes with air which should make it more readily mix with gasoline.

    Water injection would be different, because it would be increasing the amount of water given based on the load/rpm of the engine. HHO production which is producing O2 and H2 at a constant or variable rate based on how much current you give it. Theoretically should work for those us who drive 30k plus a year and spend most of our time at cruising speed.

  10. #50
    Approver of Threads SpecterGT260's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    205

    Blacked out
    '98 Trans Am

    why would the mixing of 2 gasses affect the mixing with a liquid? hydrogen has no special affinity for air. If it did, it would be pulled out of the gas phase and disolve well before it would "help" oxygen mix with the gasoline.

    to get back onto topic, yes, hydrogen may in theory increase efficiency of a fuel burning engine. but it is not in any way, shape, and/or form increasing the efficiency of the fuel burn. its supplying its own energy, consuming its own oxygen.

    In order to make any use of this you need a readily available source of hydrogen. tanks are out of the question, you can run down a barrel of pressurized hydrogen in a car in a few miles. you need something hydrogen rich stored in liquid form.

    water is not it. I dont know how many times I have to tell you, 2%, 5%, 90%, Kobe Briant's 110%, any process with a net loss of power will not supplement another. you have to show that the energy that the engine is required to put into the aparatus to obtain your fuel is made up by burning the fuel, and that there is excess power remaining to perform some work. you are attempting to link 2 processes. they may seem, logically, to coincide but they DO NOT.


    process 1: burning hydrogen in an engine increases the engines efficiency
    this is true to a point. but you are not increasing fuel burn efficiency, you are increading engine output per unit fuel consumed. this does not take into account bulk hydrogen consumed.

    process 2: hydrogen can be created from water, which, unless figi, is cheap as free.

    the key problem with linking these:
    your cost of fuel will go down because you are using less fuel to make similar ammounts of power. but are you making enough of your substitute fuel per energy input to make this worthwhile? no. no, you are not. hydrogen production vs combustion has a net loss of energy, and as stated above it does NOTHING to affect the oxygen/gasoline burn stoichiometrics. it is simply providing its own energy to the overall system.

    since hydrogen production and burn results in a net loss of power, youre fuel burning engine must make up this gap.

    its like if i were to add 5 gallons of kerosine to my engine and 5 gallons of gasoline. i went 300 miles on this take where on 10 gal of gasoline I went 200. more efficient? well, tell me how much you paid for kerosine first... then we will decide if you increased efficiency.

    Now, to address these youtube videos. nobody is producing hydrogen large scale. even the HHO machine is hose fed and highly pressurizes the hydrogen it makes to make it last, its shoots out a very very small jet stream of hydrogen and oxygen. it is not producting liters per minute. that sort of production would require massive surface area and a very large water source. the videos we see are producing trace ammounts of hydrogen gas... and not even injecting it, using vacuum to pull it off to where they are
    probably getting more water vapor than anything else.




    to the OP:
    there is no way to make a practical hydrogen burning system in a gasoline engine because of:
    the size necessary to produce sufficient ammounts of hydrogen
    the energy cost of trying to convert hydrogen from water
    the temperatures involved in the process will kill a gasoline engine.

  11. #51
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Norcal
    Age
    37
    Posts
    14

    silver
    1998 Formula

    I don't know where you are getting such low production numbers. Even the guy I posted was pushing about two liters per minute at 98 degrees F on his system. Showed it on video as a test even after going through a water bubbler and no vacuum. Even posted his results 1.76 LPM HHO at 382W or 13.19V, 29amps, 382W, 4.61 ml/min/watt. Work from there and see what you get.

    http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9DFE7E11652346B3 is a list of all his tests.

    I'm kinda curious, how you guys were using 250Ml worth of water with such a massive amount of current and the water wasn't boiling outright. I'm quite surprised you didn't make it explode because 90 volts is enough to spark if the electrodes were close enough in conductive water. I could see that much current working for maybe 25L. I'm also kind of curious how big your transformer was if you were pumping that kind of DC power into it. The conversion cost of going from a/c to d/c then into a gas would be prohibitively expensive

    Regardless, even if everything on Youtube isn't true, I'm willing to try it. I've seen enough positive results to give it a shot. Plus, I want to be able to make HHO balloon bombs at parties and what not. Just fill em, tie em hang em around the party and then when you want to liven up the party. Boom, boom, boom.

  12. #52
    Approver of Threads SpecterGT260's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    205

    Blacked out
    '98 Trans Am

    its standard electrophoresis..... simple agar gel suspended in a tris base solution..... there are thousands of these performed daily..... im sorry man, but you dont seem to understand the input required to separate massive ammounts of gas. its entirely impractical

  13. #53
    Approver of Threads SpecterGT260's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    205

    Blacked out
    '98 Trans Am

    i watched his record video. he is running the gasses together. he is producing 3 moles of gas per unit volume. 2 of those are hydrogen. 1 is oxygen. 2/3s of what he gained was actual hydrogen. and when you said "liters" i was taking at as a unit of measure more than well.... 2.... i guess technically that is "liters per minute" but i was taking it to mean at least 10. think about it though, in an engine displacing at MINIMUM 1.8L (just typical honda motor for comparative reasons) at 1000rpm its displacing 1800 liters in each minute. he had 1.8 liters of gas produced per minute, 2/3s of that are hydrogen, the other 1/3 is oxygen (which 1/3 is roughly atmospheric concentration as well, which is convenient) so at any given cylce at anything above idle (ie, when ur actually moving) he is making 0.1% hydrogen for his mixture. how exactly can you argue that he is doing anything at all to affect the performance of that motor? .1% is trace levels. theres already hydrogen in the atmosphere in levels slightly lower than that.........

  14. #54
    Member TedsB4Csled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    475

    white
    2002 B4C

    What are your thoughts on this; http://ashevillecamaroclub.hostsnake.com/pvc.html

    nothing to do with H2, but still...

  15. #55
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Norcal
    Age
    37
    Posts
    14

    silver
    1998 Formula

    Wait, let me convert that into cubic feet, then into gallons. Something isn't adding up correctly. Even using my old auto shop teachers calculation of 10,000 gallons of air for every gallon of gas. That would be 1 gallon of fuel for every 21 minutes on a 1.8 liter engine. Even at cruising speeds that doesn't fit the bill.

    I think I found the problem we have to also look at pressure in the intake manifold. Because an engine isn't going to always consume it's maximum capacity worth of air unless at WOT and even then, its limited by the flow capacity of the intake manifold. Then, you need to divide that by the 14.6 times mass air for the 1 part fuel ratio

    However, I think it is safe to say that it would be easier to work from fuel consumption backwards to figure out how much air a vehicle is consuming. Rather than guessing from the size of the engine, rpm, intake manifold flow, and pressure in the intake manifold.

    Lets take something along the lines of a typical 1.5L engine to make things simple. Lets say 35mpg at 70mph. This would equate to 1 gallon of fuel being used every 30 minutes during which time we would make roughly 30 liters of oxygen and 60 liters of hydrogen to be injected into the system with a ratio of 2:1 mixed in whatever calculation we get for air. Now, part the reason I didn't go down the science route is because my memorization of math formulas sucks. I remember some of the chemistry stuff like moles and little about stoic, but its a faded memory of so long ago. So I'll leave it to you to be fair on this one..

    Have a good nite.. I'm enjoying the learning.

  16. #56
    Member TedsB4Csled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    475

    white
    2002 B4C

    We have a winner! Yes, a car that runs on water!!! I did not believe it, but it's true. It's called a boat! Get it!

    C'mon made you smile!?

  17. #57
    Approver of Threads SpecterGT260's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    205

    Blacked out
    '98 Trans Am

    greg, rpm aside, a motor will displace nearly its total volume regardless of conditions. also, the hydrogen is competing for space just like the normal air, so any flow restrictions will affect both equally. Even IF we say the motor is only pulling half its volume per sweep, .9L x 1000rpm is 900 liters of total volume displaced in a minute. 15/16ths, or more precisely 14.7/15.7ths at cruising afr, of this is not fuel (you dont devide by 14.7, you multiply by the ratio of air to total mixture volume) so we lose a little over 50 liters in that minute that is comprised of vaporized fuel (this is EXTREMELY rough estimation). you then increased your hydrogen percentage to 1.8lpm /840 lpm which is 0.21% hydrogen factoring in lost volume to gasoline and assuming the motor "inhales" only half its displacement per cycle

    in reality functional displaced volume is pretty close to actual motor displacement.


    this whole thing is a nice theory... but there are severe problems with the application.

  18. #58
    Member FUELS94's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Cheney Wa.
    Posts
    154

    red
    1996

    Quote Originally Posted by hurraquio View Post
    i have the ebooks now, guess what i paid ten bucks for em!!!! lol, but i still havent had the time to figure them out. any smart genuses out there? ill tottaly comply! if you in return share the info. (hope this discussion isnt illegal!, if it is I appologize )

    hurraquio if you don't mine emailing me a copy of that so I can take a look at it myself. Might try it out on my truck. muentesv@lha1.navy.mil
    1996 Z28 LT-1 (with basic bolt-on)

  19. #59
    Junior Member wildbanshee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    68

    pewter
    2000 camaro

    Just read St. Lucie County Police is putting two of the hydro4000 units on two vehicles to see if it works....if i see something in the paper ill pop in the article.

  20. #60
    Member FUELS94's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Cheney Wa.
    Posts
    154

    red
    1996

    Quote Originally Posted by wildbanshee View Post
    Just read St. Lucie County Police is putting two of the hydro4000 units on two vehicles to see if it works....if i see something in the paper ill pop in the article.

    Keep us updated....Thanks

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

LinkBacks (?)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. EZ EFI Fuel Injection System - Fuel-Injection Interjection
    By Ed Blown Vert in forum Firebird / WS6
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-06-2013, 07:20 PM
  2. Fuel Injection or Carb?
    By 99LsOne in forum External Engine
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-04-2009, 11:59 AM
  3. Fuel Injection System - New-Age 455
    By Ed Blown Vert in forum Firebird / WS6
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2007, 04:20 AM
  4. Carburretor vs. Fuel injection
    By Trev in forum External Engine
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-25-2006, 10:47 AM
  5. FS: Fuel injection 86 camaro TPI
    By 83stroker in forum Parts For Sale / Trade
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-01-2005, 10:21 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •