advertisement
Forums

The Forum is sponsored by 
 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
Hydrogen Fuel application, alternative fuels in general
Posted by: OWC Larry
Date: May 10, 2006 03:19PM
HHO Hybrid tech for cars... never mind the cool welding solution.


[hytechapps.com]



OWC Larry
Other World Computing
[www.macsales.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2006 06:10PM by OWC Larry.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: If really works - really hope to hear more...
Posted by: Carnos Jax
Date: May 10, 2006 03:39PM
Someone sent me a video of this earlier today. Love to see innovative and creative thinking.

I am curious though, how much energy does it take to produce the HHO? Did I hear correctly that they can go a hundred miles on 4 ounces of the stuff?

If I understand it right, it seems the key technological break through is in the electrolysis process used to create the HHO. But still, how efficient can the conversion process be?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: If really works - really hope to hear more...
Posted by: Paul F.
Date: May 10, 2006 03:50PM
Uh.. guys...
Don't get too excited..

The process of electrolysis is pretty inefficient.

You're using 220V ELECTRICITY that has to come from somewhere, to crack water into H2 and O2.
It takes considerably MORE power (energy) to separate the H2 and O2 than burning H2 creates at the other end. So you have a significant LOSS in total.

However, in some circumstances, it's enough of an advantage to carry hydrogen, rather than batteries or some other method of energy storage.
Most times, it's not.






Paul F.
-----
A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca c. 5 BC - 65 AD
----
Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision.

--

--

--
Eureka, CA
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: If really works - really hope to hear more...
Posted by: Grateful11
Date: May 10, 2006 03:54PM
If it would work in cars you won't hear much more about it.
Oil companies will come in buy them out and bury it.



Grateful11
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: If really works - really hope to hear more...
Posted by: Racer X
Date: May 10, 2006 03:57PM
Paul F. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh.. guys...
> Don't get too excited..
>
> The process of electrolysis is pretty
> inefficient.
>
> You're using 220V ELECTRICITY that has to come
> from somewhere, to crack water into H2 and O2.
> It takes considerably MORE power (energy) to
> separate the H2 and O2 than burning H2 creates at
> the other end. So you have a significant LOSS in
> total.
>
> However, in some circumstances, it's enough of an
> advantage to carry hydrogen, rather than batteries
> or some other method of energy storage.
> Most times, it's not.
>
>
>
>
> Paul F.
> -----
> Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not
> necessary for Excellence.
> Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And
> Persistence is a Decision.

we have lots of wind power and hydro up here in the Pacific Northwest, so on a regional level, it would be a great idea.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: If really works - really hope to hear more...
Posted by: JEBB
Date: May 10, 2006 04:01PM
I hear "SCAM, SCAM".
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: If really works - really hope to hear more...
Posted by: Grateful11
Date: May 10, 2006 04:07PM
Watch the Fox Video Clip at this link:

[hytechapps.com]

If it's scam I guess he's going to have to explain it to the Federal Gov't.



Grateful11
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: If really works - really hope to hear more...
Posted by: Paul F.
Date: May 10, 2006 04:15PM
<we have lots of wind power and hydro up here in the Pacific Northwest, so on a regional level, it would be a great idea.


Very true...
Where local costs of electricity are cheap, and where water is plentiful, Hydrogen can be an efficient and excellent way to move stored energy around...

But as a vehicle fuel, it has as many problems as it solves... (not the least of which is the ridiculously LOW engergy density of hydrogen compared to gasoline... cubic foot for cubic foot, hydrogen takes up a HUGE volume to do the same work as gasoline.).






Paul F.
-----
A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca c. 5 BC - 65 AD
----
Good is the enemy of Excellent. Talent is not necessary for Excellence.
Persistence is necessary for Excellence. And Persistence is a Decision.

--

--

--
Eureka, CA
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: If really works - really hope to hear more...
Posted by: OWC Larry
Date: May 10, 2006 04:39PM
Looks like that test vehicle was running Gas supplemented with HHO on the intact. And with the HHO, mileage was reported to be about 30% better than with Gas alone.

That all said - this is like a two person company.... you'd think that refined, this technology could be very promising.

I am also a big fan of E85. I have heard some feedback with concern about summer smog - but the only references to smog from Ethanol fuel I can find is something some EPA attorney said a decade+ ago as being a possibility from the fuel. Ok.... but is there some actual scientific study published on that? E85 looks really good... sure it takes more of it for the same energy release - but comparing miles to miles driven on the stuff, the E85 produces about 30% less greenhouse gas and a lot less pollution in general vs. Gas... and even taking energy in production (based on use of corn, which uses more energy than other sources since got to convert from the starch to suger first..) - it still results in about 11-12% less greenhouse gas production vs. end result of gas.

Personally - been considering the E85 option once there is a gas station closer... right now closest is a 40 mile round trip. Aside from being renewable, like the idea that the 85% ethanol portion means those $$$s stay in the USA too.

Anyway....



OWC Larry
Other World Computing
[www.macsales.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: If really works - really hope to hear more...
Posted by: BigGuynRusty
Date: May 10, 2006 05:53PM
OWC Larry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am also a big fan of E85. I have heard some
> feedback with concern about summer smog - but the
> only references to smog from Ethanol fuel I can
> find is something some EPA attorney said a decade+
> ago as being a possibility from the fuel. Ok....
> but is there some actual scientific study
> published on that? E85 looks really good... sure
> it takes more of it for the same energy release -
> but comparing miles to miles driven on the stuff,
> the E85 produces about 30% less greenhouse gas and
> a lot less pollution in general vs. Gas... and
> even taking energy in production (based on use of
> corn, which uses more energy than other sources
> since got to convert from the starch to suger
> first..) - it still results in about 11-12% less
> greenhouse gas production vs. end result of gas.
>
> OWC Larry
> Other World Computing
>

E85 is deadly, not because of Summer Smog, because of what isn't measured. Formaldehyde, alcohol puts out a ton of it. Too bad no current smog test measures for it.

BGnR
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: If really works - really hope to hear more...
Posted by: OWC Larry
Date: May 10, 2006 05:58PM
I'd like to read more feedback on the Formaldehyde issue...

that said - this article suggests that E85 doesn't generate that much more than gas does and is beneficial in terms of other toxic pollutants that are reduced with E85.

[www.swmcb.org]



OWC Larry
Other World Computing
[www.macsales.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: If really works - really hope to hear more...
Posted by: OWC Larry
Date: May 10, 2006 06:03PM
Couple more articles... the first of which states that modern catalytic converters effective remove the formaldehyde from the exhaust. And that was a 2003 article...

[oee.nrcan.gc.ca]

[www.cpcb.nic.in]





OWC Larry
Other World Computing
[www.macsales.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Hydrogen Fuel application, alternative fuels in general
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: May 10, 2006 10:14PM
Hydrogen as a car fuel is generally a dumb idea until there is some type of breakthrough to at least double the energy density. From what I remember it is currently more efficient to use lithium batteries than to store hydrogen to be burned in an internal combustion engine. Using batteries means that you do not need to worry about generating and storing one of the most dangerous flammable gases, or have to buy a $7,000 gas generator in addition to an uproven $10,000 storage system in the car.

An alcohol (methanol or ethanol) fuel cell is currently what I think is the most likely power source for around 2020 and beyond. Until then I think a small turbocharged bio-diesel hybrid will be the best high mileage drive system. E85 is a decent short term solution for higher performance cars.



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: If really works - really hope to hear more...
Posted by: Grateful11
Date: May 10, 2006 10:49PM
Paul F. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Very true...
> Where local costs of electricity are cheap, and
> where water is plentiful, Hydrogen can be an
> efficient and excellent way to move stored energy
> around...
>
> But as a vehicle fuel, it has as many problems as
> it solves... (not the least of which is the
> ridiculously LOW engergy density of hydrogen
> compared to gasoline... cubic foot for cubic foot,
> hydrogen takes up a HUGE volume to do the same
> work as gasoline.).

He claims he can drive his 1994 Escort 100 miles on 4 oz. of water.

[hytechapps.com]

Watch the Fox News video





Grateful11
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Hydrogen Fuel application, alternative fuels in general
Posted by: macone
Date: May 10, 2006 11:06PM
I believe in the near future, the internal combustion engine as we now know it will provide the best combination of efficency and price. You must appreciate how much more efficent and cleaner the newer designed engines are compared with engines designed just 10 years ago. Some gas engines rival hybirds for the amount of emissions. Also, I would not be suprised to see really clean diesels in the future. I do not believe what currently is being forcasted for the fuel or energy source of the future will prevail. Either too costly to produce, inefficent, or insufficent supply. The only exceptions are E85 or bio diesels as some one else has mentioned. Probably good short term solutions.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: If really works - really hope to hear more...
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: May 10, 2006 11:59PM
Grateful11 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He claims he can drive his 1994 Escort 100 miles
> on 4 oz. of water.
>
> Watch the Fox News video
>

Sorry, I do not have time to download a 120 MB file at the moment. I think it would be questionable to get even the most efficient Solar Challenge vehicle to go 100 miles from just the energy in 4 oz of water, let alone a 2,300 lb car.

macone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You must appreciate how much more efficent and
> cleaner the newer designed engines are compared
> with engines designed just 10 years ago.
>

Then why did Detroit make such a ruckus after Bush commented on raising the CAFE standards this week?



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Hydrogen Fuel application, alternative fuels in general
Posted by: macone
Date: May 11, 2006 12:38AM
macone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You must appreciate how much more efficent and
> cleaner the newer designed engines are compared
> with engines designed just 10 years ago.
>

Filliam H. Muffman wrote:

>Then why did Detroit make such a ruckus after Bush >commented on raising the CAFE standards this week?

The fact still stands newer designed engines are cleaner and more efficent. The CAFE standards are just a way for politicians to look like they are doing something. The greatest factor in fuel economy is weight. Until this current cycle of gas prices, consumers were demanding bigger and more powerful SUVs. CAFE standards penalise manufactures for producing what consumers wanted. The article I read stated the Auto Manufacturers Association was against it. Which includes almost every manufacturer in the world. Even some that are not imported here. Since you singled out Detroit, compare similar SUVs from all manufacturers around the world (Engine Size, Fuel Type, Number of Cylinders, Size of vehicle and weight)and you will see similar MPG ratings for comparable vehicles.

Only the public's buying habits will have an effect on the average mpg.

My original point was even though the internal combustion engine is considered old technology, it is amazing how much it has been improved over the years. I am sure there is still more to come.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Hydrogen Fuel application, alternative fuels in general
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: May 11, 2006 02:50AM
Well if engines have been improved so much over the past ten years like you have said, why are manufacturers complaining about higher CAFE standards? Why can't they just start using these new amazing engines to meet both the higher mileage and emissions standards while putting out the power that consumers want today? I think the reality is that there might be some great new concepts being developed but that they are many years away from mass production, like the BMW Turbosteamer. [www.popsci.com]

I just saw a story on the news about a woman that quit her job because she said the commute was costing her $450 a month in gasoline. It did not seem like it was a consideration to buy a car that got better mileage or to start carpooling. Paradigm shift? I don't understand what you are getting at...



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: If really works - really hope to hear more...
Posted by: Grateful11
Date: May 11, 2006 08:42AM
Filliam H. Muffman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Grateful11 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He claims he can drive his 1994 Escort 100
> miles
> > on 4 oz. of water.
> >
> > Watch the Fox News video
> >
>
> Sorry, I do not have time to download a 120 MB
> file at the moment. I think it would be
> questionable to get even the most efficient Solar
> Challenge vehicle to go 100 miles from just the
> energy in 4 oz of water, let alone a 2,300 lb
> car.
>

It's not a download on my computer it is streaming starting instanteously.

I went to that page and clicked on the Aquygen Video link and hit
your space bar and it will go to the next page where the Fox
video is if you have pop-ups blocked otherwise it trys to
download the big video. I tried to get a direct link to the
page but can't, it won't work. Otherwise if I were as
interested in it as you are I'd make time and try to get all
the facts.

>I just saw a story on the news about a woman that quit her >job because she said the commute was costing her $450 a >month in gasoline. It did not seem like it was a >consideration to buy a car that got better mileage or to >start carpooling. Paradigm shift? I don't understand what >you are getting at...

Guess she's never hear of a Honda Insight, which I'm going
to look seriously at down the road if they keep making it.





Grateful11




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2006 08:44AM by Grateful11.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Hydrogen Fuel application, alternative fuels in general
Posted by: macone
Date: May 11, 2006 11:51PM
Muffman,

Read what I wrote not what what you think I wrote. The engines are already in production. You just need to compare engines designed recently and put into current production with engines designed and produced 10 years ago. Very simple comparision.

Also, on the person who quit her job because it was costing her $450 a month to commute. You did not provide enough information to judge her. How many miles did she travel in a month? With the cost of housing here in the San Francisco Bay area it is not unheard of people commuting over 100 miles each direction.

It is sort of funny you post a link to Popular Science about a new type of engine configuration for the future. In the early nineties they had an article about a hydrogen powered BMW 7 series for the future.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Hydrogen Fuel application, alternative fuels in general
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: May 12, 2006 01:28PM
macone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Muffman,
>
> Read what I wrote not what what you think I wrote.
> The engines are already in production. You just
> need to compare engines designed recently and put
> into current production with engines designed and
> produced 10 years ago. Very simple comparision.
>

Care to list some of these wonder vehicles? The 1997 Honda Civic HX has a 1.6l engine and has a listed EPA highway mileage of 38 MPG. The closest model to it today is the 2007 Honda Fit. It has a 1.5l engine and has an EPA highway mileage of... 38 MPG.



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Hydrogen Fuel application, alternative fuels in general
Posted by: macone
Date: May 12, 2006 05:59PM
Muffman,

You must have worked hard to come up with that comparison. Technically it does not meet my original criteria. However it would be too easy for me to dismiss the comparison on that fact alone.

So let us see what you are comparing here. You are comparing the highest mileage Civic Coupe HX which the design criteria was to get the highest possible MPG and if I remember correctly it also used a CVT transmission or was an option . Also, if I remember correctly it was sold at a premium price compared to the bread and butter Civics. You are comparing this to Honda's new for 2007 price leader car.

I am going to suggest we make a much more radical comparison. Lets compare the 1997 Civic Coupe HX to the 2006 bread and better Civic Coupe.

1997 Civic Coupe 1.6L 115 HP Torque 110 38 MPG Weight 2200 (APPROX)
2006 Civic Coupe 1.8L 140HP Torque 128 40 MPG Weight 2654

So let us see the 2006 Civic has more power, torque and weight. It is considered a ULEV. Yet delivers slightly more mileage. My numbers above came from www.honda.com for the 2006. autos.msn.com for the 1997.

By the way according to Honda, that Fit weighs in at 2471.


So here is a larger engine with more power, weighs less(engine), put into a heavier car produces better mileage and less emissions. I think there has been an improvement. And the 1997 Civic did not even fit my original criteria. Just imagine if you compared to the bread and butter Civic of 1996. I'll let you do the research on that.

Also, in my posts I never used the word "wonder".

When I say efficiency I mean HP & Emissions. Your mileage will vary depending on the aero dynamics and the weight of the car you put it into.

I do not know what in my original post set you off? Are you trying to say engines have not improved over the years?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Hydrogen Fuel application, alternative fuels in general
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: May 12, 2006 11:12PM
macone,

"You must appreciate how much more efficent and cleaner the newer designed engines are compared with engines designed just 10 years ago." I thought you made it sound like there were very significant engineering advances in the last 10 years, hence "wonder." I used Autotrader to compare models so it was very little work to find that comparison. [www.autotrader.com] The reason I chose the Honda Fit was because I just started seeing commercials for it. I figured that since it was a new model, that it might have a new state of the art motor. Then I looked for the smallest 10 year old Honda with the closest size motor.

The weight of the 1997 HX on Autotrader is listed as 2324 lb with a 5 speed manual, about 200 lb lighter. Of course the 2006 Civic makes a lot more power, it has a larger engine. It also has a higher compression ratio--10.4 for 2006, 9.4 for 1997--which explains the slightly higher HP per liter. The only advance I see is that they were able to run a higher compression ratio and make it run a little cleaner. I do not see what you are talking about WRT the 1996 Civic. I just compared the 1996 Civic EX to the 2006 EX. 140 HP from a 1.8l engine, 77.8 HP per liter and 40 MPG, versus 127 HP from a 1.6l, 79.4 HP per liter and 35 MPG. I thought about using the 1993 Civic CX with a rating of 46 MPG but it was significantly lighter than the 1997 model and with a 5,000 RPM limit it has no chance of making the same peak HP but I remember it was a very clean motor for its era.

Honda made the Civic Si-R in 1992 that made 168 HP from a 1.6l motor (105 HP per liter). The current Civic Si has a 2.0l motor that makes 197 HP (98.5 HP per liter). I list those two because they have about the same redline, over 8,000 RPM. The 2006 Si motor is cleaner though. It is gratifying to see the advances they made but I would not make as big a deal of it as you did.



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Hydrogen Fuel application, alternative fuels in general
Posted by: macone
Date: May 13, 2006 02:00AM
Muffman Wrote:

"Honda made the Civic Si-R in 1992 that made 168 HP from a 1.6l motor (105 HP per liter). The current Civic Si has a 2.0l motor that makes 197 HP (98.5 HP per liter). I list those two because they have about the same redline, over 8,000 RPM. The 2006 Si motor is cleaner though. It is gratifying to see the advances they made but I would not make as big a deal of it as you did."


I maybe wrong, but as I recall that 1.6L motor was never certified in the USA. Also I believe that horsepower rating is using the Japanese horsepower measurement. I recall seeing a review of the Civic Si-R in the British magazine Car and it had a rating of 155din. Like I said this is from what I recall and the numbers may not be exact. The 2006 Si horsepower numbers are correct and it meets LEV-2 standards. So considering the HP/L number and the engine meets LEV-2 exhaust emissions, I would say that is a significant improvement.

You are leaving out two significant parameters. Weight and emissions.. That 2006 Civic is a just an average Civic these days. It is not Honda’s super mileage model. It is heavier, provides more power and is rated as a ULEV. It also compares favorably with the emissions of a Hybrid. Which means it has significantly lower emissions than the older cars being compared. Also, that increase in compression ratio is significant. Usually a higher compression results in higher emissions. However, with the better emission technology today it is actually able to produce lower emissions. The cars you mention above are relativity dirty compared to today’s standards.

The newer engines have more horsepower and lower emissions. Which are two parameters that work against each other. Unfortunately, these engines are being put in heavier cars, so the true advancement in engine technology is not seen in mileage. However, the newer cars are safer and more comfortable.

I say that is a significant advancement in engine technology considering how these results are difficult to achieve. When you factor in the hybrid's cost and the enviormental impact of the batteries, todays engines do not compare that bad with Hybirds.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Hydrogen Fuel application, alternative fuels in general
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: May 13, 2006 09:30AM
To make an absolute comparison between different Civic models is not really possible today because of modle creep. The current Civic is bigger and heavier than the Accord from 1989.

I think the reason the 1992 Si-R was not certified in the US was because Honda could not get it certified in California with their more stringent emissions. So over 14 years Honda took a factory tuner motor from not quite passing California emissions to being a ULEV. It is incremental steps.

Better emissions with a higher compression ratio is a single advancement. You are talking around it like it is actually several advancments at once.

As for mileage improvements, a lot of it comes from more than just engine advancements. It is tire technology, aerodynamics, drivetrain advances, computer controls, etc. I think that if Honda took the 1992 Si-R engine and put it into todays Civic that it would pass emissions and get better mileage. I am sure the people designing the 1992 engine would have loved to have the computer controls in the 2006 model.

Chevrolet did make a very significant advancement with one of their models. In just one year they raised the power and efficiency about 30%. What was this significant advancement? They put in a Honda motor.



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Hydrogen Fuel application, alternative fuels in general
Posted by: macone
Date: May 13, 2006 12:32PM
Muffman wrote:

"Better emissions with a higher compression ratio is a single advancement. You are talking around it like it is actually several advancments at once."

It is more than a single advancement. That single change in engine specification causes changes in the complete calibration and requirements of the fuel, ignition and exhaust system.

What allowed this increase in compression ratio? Improvements in fuel injection systems. Improvement in air flow metering devices. Improvement in exhaust sensors (oxygen). Improvements in catalytic converters. The advancement of complete computer control of engine parameters which continually controls ignition timing,air/fuel ratio, cam timing, EGR, & exhaust output. And of course these advances provided improvement to the overall efficiency.

These improvements have also been seen in diesel engines and multi-fuel engines.

As for that 1992 Civic engine made to meet ULEV standards, it would take a complete re-working.

At least we agree about what actually effects the MPG.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 93
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020