Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

So,

I'm a firm believer that the hybrid car or full electric cars are dumb. This is for a few reasons;

  • Nickel mining is horrendously damaging to the environment.
  • Plastic production and disposal is damaging to the environment.
  • Electricity (for the most part) still requires burning coal (another fossil fuel)
  • Carrying all those batteries is painfully inefficient.
  • Plug-in charging can be impractical and lead to being stranded.
  • We're trading one 100+ yo technology for another 100+ yo technology.

I am a huge fan of Hydrogen and Fuel Cells though.

  • Can retain internal combustion engines
  • Self sufficient / easy - most new cells run with no input.
  • Only "emission" is drinkable water.
  • Much cleaner burn - better for engines
  • 120 octane apparently.

Its gaining momentum.

Hyundai are now delivering Fuel Cell vehicles world wide; http://www.hyundai.com.au/why-hyundai/design-and-innovation/fuel-cell

People are making Hydrogen fuel cell 'kits' for any combustion vehicle.

This is a $2500 kit from Perth;

What do you think?

Would you use one of those kits on your car?

I'm so excited by Hydrogen, it allows cars to remain cars while not forcing us to live in the pocket of big oil companies.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/460353-hydrogen-fuel-cell-availability/
Share on other sites

Nope, but if it is a breakthrough, then good on him! Manufactures have been at it for years. RX8, BMW, Benz as well I believe. Maybe Toyota? Hopefully we get something useable soon.

Still need to get dem hydrogens from somewhere.

Just remember you can go out and buy a Telsa, then drive it between Sydney and Melbourne.

Hyundai's example uses a tank pressurised to 700 bar. That's 10,290 psi.

Let's hope their tank doesn't have structural problems like their front suspension once did.

Whether you're talking high pressure stored hydrogen or splitting it on-demand (aka HHO, Browns gas or whatever stupid name you want to make up for it, it's just H2 and O2 gases mixed together after electrolysis of water) you have to put considerable energy into cracking the water molecules apart. Burning simply re-combines them to release energy, but you don't get something for nothing. For HHO/Browns that energy comes from the alternator, for industrial-scale production it is either coal or (hopefully) solar.

Burning HHO/Browns gas in a car releases the energy you have already taken from the system via the alternator. So you will see a DROP in efficiency, all other things being equal, because converting energy back and forth is never totally efficient.

There is a potential method for increasing efficiency by allowing the use of leaner mixtures, hydrogen has a VERY wide flammability range while gasoline is actually a very narrow flammability range. So you could run your engine at 20:1 and still get relatively complete combusion. Gasoline won't ignite far past 16:1, you just get a lean miss. The downside is that Hydrogen burns very hot, which means high NOx production, and this is exactly what VW is in a lot of trouble for at the moment. To make HHO/Browns gas "work" fuel-efficiency wise you have to bypass the emission controls on your car and make it run lean. To reduce the NOx emissions you have to install an additional SCR system and inject a urea solution into your exhaust to catalyse the NOx products (that's right, you have to piss into your exhaust,but the only difficulty is you need to piss into the hot end of it!)

These are all interesting concepts but none of them are a revolution because they all have considerable drawbacks. Do your research!

  • Like 1

Pretty much my thoughts too. While the process of creating then combusting hydrogen gas in a purely car based system has an efficiency penalty, if it can increase the efficiency of the petrol combustion, you may see a net gain overall.

There are people who swear by it, but I havent seen conclusive evidence.

The fact that manufacturers don use it is not necessarily an argument for me. Their priorities are different to an enthusiast who has built their own system. (ie maintenance, filling with extra fluid, emissions regulations)

  • Like 1

The fact that manufacturers don use it is not necessarily an argument for me. Their priorities are different to an enthusiast who has built their own system. (ie maintenance, filling with extra fluid, emissions regulations)

There'd be incentives for the manufacturers for sure around continuing to use petrol/diesel.

Hell ive played heaps with hydrogen generators, here is a clip of me experimenting in the early days years and years ago with only a few plates and 18 amps, running it off the GTR's battery...more plates, switching polarities at high frequencies produces a shit load more hydrogen.

The whole thing costed me less than $50 to build....some PVC piping, end caps, stainless plates and junk i had around the place......add salts to increase amps and output. (sea water if pretty abundant)

The stuff it pretty explosive too...just a little bubble to get a pretty loud bang.

Now about the mileage, sure some improvement (i didnt test on the GTR though, who would), but its questionable if the water vapor (steam) being injected that was the reason for the improvement in mileage.

Look into copper pipes being wrapped around exhaust manifolds with water in them producing steam thats injected into the intake system on youtube for better ideas, without the electronics and their results. ;)

  • Like 1

Sorry, i didn't know, unprivate now. :)

So, you ran it off the GTR instead of the Camry? :)

This is the generation of Hydrogen gas, is that right? So the creation is easy (ish) but running the car off it is a different story?

Love the little crackles when its ignited.

Yes generating hydrogen gas, its shit easy to do.

It just came to what was nearby, Camry was only there because i did a run to the hardware shop for something and happened to have parked it there when i got back, GTR was used as a test bed just for the connecting to some battery power with alternator so i could set up a ammeter and monitor the current draw with different salt levels and stainless plate setups (larger/smaller plates, more plates/less plates, more salt/less salt).

Injecting it in is not a issue, connect hose to intake and let it mix in, on boosted you could simply run it in before the turbo where there is no boost pressure.

However, how much gain was really due to water steam vapor?

As time went by i started to question the real reason for the small gain in economy.......im putting it down to water vapor injection.

My final test bed for the setup was a Ford EA wagon on LPG gas. (it was that long ago)

Edited by GTRPSI

I only got into it because i have this little nutty experimentation side.

Im the type that wont sleep at night if i know there maybe something hidden from the public by the big oil corps......had to prove it to myself.

Yes its easy enough to generate Hydrogen, it gets a little more complex circuit wise when you start switching polarities at high frequencies but still easy to do as there are heaps of circuits freely available on the web specifically for this that are not hard to build, yes doing so dramatically increases hydrogen output.

Eventually my work load pulled me away from going further, i still have all the setup tucked away in a box for when i retire so i can amuse (or blow up) myself. :)

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...