Hydrogen Booster Discussion

This is the place to ask questions about your engine components like cams, valves, pistons… just anything that is generally "engine" specific. This also includes questions about exhaust systems such as exhaust manifolds, piping size, mufflers, ect...
Hudson_Neon
2GN Member
Posts: 3371
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:50 pm

Post by Hudson_Neon » Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:35 pm


User avatar
JeffM
2GN Member
Posts: 3588
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Vermont

Post by JeffM » Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:47 pm

The best way to save on gas is to not drive. If we're so concerned about our decade old cars getting only 30-40mpg, then perhaps walking would suit us better.
Image

occasional demons
Junior Admin
Posts: 20067
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:14 pm
Location: Ashland Ohio

Post by occasional demons » Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:00 pm

Racer12306 wrote:On the same table, propane is noted as being rated at 105 (a quick peek at wiki shows this being the AKI). Going on the more octane equals better fuel economy theory, pure propane would be an even better option than mixing a little hydrogen into the combustion process. It's much more feasable too. However, I'm pretty sure people do not cite a significant increase in fuel economy when switching over to propane.
Propane has less energy than gasoline; kind of like running E85. So no, you will not see better fuel mileage. But when boosted, it can make decent power, due to the octane, like E85.

The hydrogen, if it worked would still not increase economy, it just would use less gasoline, due to the hydrogen off setting it. Much like propane use in diesel engines. They get better power, and use less diesel, but not really less fuel. But me thinks propane in diesels has far better benefits than hydrogen in a gasoline engine.
Bill
Probably shouldn't listen to anything your penis says, that guy's a dick.
Patience, of course, is a very powerful weapon, but sometimes I start to regret that it is not a firearm.
Too much time spent here is a sign of a bad case of Ownaneonvirus.

2000 Neon MTX swap with '02 R/T PCM
1999 neon coupe 2.4 swap

User avatar
dblsg
2GN Veteran
Posts: 10719
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 3:20 am
Location: Aurora, IL
Contact:

Post by dblsg » Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:43 pm

:rofl:

i meant 100 miles per tank :tardbang:
Image Sam-I-Am
Image
Official "I'm Going to Drive My Neon till it Dies" Club #000046
Diablo0 wrote: "eh... your opinion doesn't matter... I'm doing what I want..."

ZeroChad
2009 Gold Contributor
Posts: 3165
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:08 pm
Location: Austin, Tx
Contact:

Post by ZeroChad » Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:03 am

This really boils down to a system of inefficiencies. Energy must be conserved in any reaction. Essentially, you are using engine power (via electricity) to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. Then producing engine power by joining the two again. There is no way to gain energy via this process, only to loose it.

Any mpg increases that people see from these products are simply from throwing a bunch of crap on their car that tricks the sensors into making the engine run lean.....which may or may not create better mpg. This effect could easily be done by modifying 02 signals.

But by using a pulse width you can use frequencies to seperate the molecules with less power input . molecules all have a resonating frequency, when finding that it takes less power to reach a higher efficiency
The number of harmonics in the frequency domain from a square wave makes this statement seem fishy to me. Anyway, its not like you're using electromagentic radiation to exite the water like in a microwave, its just pure electrical energy.
Old Neon Log | Feedback

2000 - Corvette Coupe
2002 - Neon SE Fully Built (scrapped)

racer12306
Junior Admin
Posts: 16015
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD
Contact:

Post by racer12306 » Fri Jan 20, 2012 5:44 am

Donkeypuncher wrote:Tornado fuel saver FTW
Call me crazy, but I will say that these do work in certain applications.

I noticed a couple MPG increase on my Monte SS (carbureted 305) but when I tried it on the Neon I got nothing. In hind site it makes sense. Modern engines have pretty efficient induction paths compared to the engines of yesteryear.

occasional demons wrote:
Racer12306 wrote:On the same table, propane is noted as being rated at 105 (a quick peek at wiki shows this being the AKI). Going on the more octane equals better fuel economy theory, pure propane would be an even better option than mixing a little hydrogen into the combustion process. It's much more feasable too. However, I'm pretty sure people do not cite a significant increase in fuel economy when switching over to propane.
Propane has less energy than gasoline; kind of like running E85. So no, you will not see better fuel mileage. But when boosted, it can make decent power, due to the octane, like E85.

The hydrogen, if it worked would still not increase economy, it just would use less gasoline, due to the hydrogen off setting it. Much like propane use in diesel engines. They get better power, and use less diesel, but not really less fuel. But me thinks propane in diesels has far better benefits than hydrogen in a gasoline engine.
I didn't think to take energy density into consideration. According to the published paper I linked above, hydrogen has a very poor energy density. It has about 25% the density of gasoline when in liquid form and just a mere .034% the density of gasoline at 0 bar. Energy density does increase as pressure increases but it's still pathetic.

However we are talking about octane only here. Octane is the sole contributing factor to fuel economy.

Nothing else matters ;)
-Frank
Member of Spork Racing
Forum issues: racer12306@2gn.org
Forum Behavior
Support your favorite forum, DONATE!

racer12306
Junior Admin
Posts: 16015
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD
Contact:

Post by racer12306 » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:07 am

Son of a bitch. I totally missed this thread.

Goes to merge some posts into this one
-Frank
Member of Spork Racing
Forum issues: racer12306@2gn.org
Forum Behavior
Support your favorite forum, DONATE!

chipdogg
2GN Member
Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 10:10 pm
Location: Muscoda, WI

Post by chipdogg » Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:27 am

occasional demons wrote:
Many people do not realize that when you run a car or truck on gasoline of diesel fuel, you are actually running it on hydrogen. And all we are doing is using the hydrogen from water
Flawed.

Explain to me how for every gallon of gasoline burned, nearly a gallon of water is expelled out the exhaust pipe. If the hydrogen in the water was being used, water would not be coming out of the exhaust.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

A statement like this cracks me up. You have no idea how chemistry works, do you? You don't "use" molecules/atoms. They get shuffled around and end up as a product.

And someone went all nuts on this thread and mixed a bunch together. :slap:
dblsg wrote::rofl:

i meant 100 miles per tank :tardbang:
So is he still using it?
COME TO MY NEXT NEON MEET!!!

April 6th, 2013

viewtopic.php?t=64866

racer12306
Junior Admin
Posts: 16015
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:53 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD
Contact:

Post by racer12306 » Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:19 am

Yeah, this thread was the result of a discussion in another thread. I thought it was appropriate to combine them.

It's all about the same principle.
-Frank
Member of Spork Racing
Forum issues: racer12306@2gn.org
Forum Behavior
Support your favorite forum, DONATE!

User avatar
trojmn
2GN Member
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:04 pm
Location: Central IL

Post by trojmn » Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:04 pm

racer12306 wrote:It's all about the same principle.
MPG tomfoolery?
03 SRT
Now building for GS ;-)

Hudson_Neon
2GN Member
Posts: 3371
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 4:50 pm

Post by Hudson_Neon » Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:24 pm

:withstupid:

Post Reply

Return to “Engine”