Run your car with water

coraljunky

coraljunky

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2695443
Whoa up there little buddy.
I wasn't lending my "support" to the guy being banned, just pointing out he got what he asked for. A little late to settle it in a PM once the guy called out and insulted a moderator in the thread. Hopefully it just turns into a time out.
Little and your buddy I'm not, yet
I'm simply stating that I don't support either of their actions. Just wish this never happened. Of course I reacted based that I know Grouper personally and can vouch for his character. It just seems that it got out of hand.
Respect
 
reefforbrains

reefforbrains

Active Member
I am late in posting to this thread but had some input.
It is simple to convert an engine to hydrogen. Similar to the propane conversions people do to industrial equipment. you can change the injector nozzles and retard/advance timing enough to get almost ANYTHING flamable to power an engine.
Wont be pretty, but it WILL run off hydrogen. The single biggest saftey factor in a hydrogen powered combustion engine is the storage of hydrogen. Hydrogen goes through different stages of: Inert, flamable, explosive, flamable....and back to inert again depending on the mix ratio.
Solid hydrogen is not all that dangerous. It is when it mixes or begins to disapate to the surrounding atmosphere in event of accident or tank rupture that dissaster can happen.
Hydrolosis at a rate equal to consumption requirements is the hard part to harness. This allows the engine to get the benefits of properly mixed explosive hydrogen/oxygen delivered and mixed in the intake manifold without a storage tank. In order to achieve this is requires enourmous electricity run along with special anodes and cathodes
The storage tank of hydrogen can be ruptured with a sledge hammer and you could walk up to it and light a cigarrette in roughly 100 seconds without danger. If you rupture the tank WHILE lighting the cigarrette, well then your history along with the crater your going to put in the street.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by coraljunky
http:///forum/post/2695465
Little and your buddy I'm not, yet
I'm simply stating that I don't support either of their actions. Just wish this never happened. Of course I reacted based that I know Grouper personally and can vouch for his character. It just seems that it got out of hand.
Respect


That's cool. Got a "time out" from another board my own bad self for having a temporary lapse of judgemnent
 
flricordia

flricordia

Active Member
I am not in this discussion about fuel and all, but I vouch for Grouper also. He is a great guy. The times I have talked wth him he never seemed anything but a respectful, decient person. We all can blowup at times. The ban I vote to be temp. only. If not I will never post another pic of any rics again. OK, so I fib a little, but he really is an OK guy, just had a bad day like we all do from time to time and it caught him here on this thread.
 
freeweights

freeweights

Member
I have used this homemade device on 5 of my cars starting in the fiftys. Rite up to now on my 87 Monty ss. Haven't tryed it on a fuel injected one yet. Get a gal pickle glass jar.Drill 2 small holes in the top about 1 inch apart.insert a small piece of copper tubing into the top 1 inch from the bottom of the jar and 1 inch above the top of the jar lid Solder or silicone it to the top. Next cut a another piece of pipe 1 inch below the cap of the jar.and 1 inch above the cap.Solder or silicone it also.Find a vacumn hose that goes to you'r intake manifold cut it and put a "y" in it. Hook the hose up to the "short" pipe coming out of the jar cap. fill the jar about 3 quarters full and start the car up. you will see bubbles in the jar. The engine will suck in the water vapors not the raw water. The problem is trying to find a place to put the 1 gal jar on these newer cars. You really want to tricky add a bottle of rubbing alcohol with the water.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Good ol fashioned water injection works great on carburated cars. Not sure how a computer controlled engine would react.
 
freeweights

freeweights

Member
I used to be an auto machanic a few years back and I had to go to school everytime there was a new product or revision that came out. 3 of the G.M. enginners ran test with the computer and oxygen sensors. and found that the sensors did not change resistance when detecting the water vapor. Thus no change in fuel control or timing by the computer. Ever notice how much better and smoother you'r car runs on a damp and wet nasty day? Well that is what the water injection mimicks.Also it lowers the emmisions considerably.Dont know how it would work when the weather gets freezing but i'm here in the sunshine state.Have a great day.
 
scgator

scgator

Member
There is a police department here in SC that has added them to their cars. The town is Honea Path. It was done recently so have not heard any results yet. Should be interesting though.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by freeweights
http:///forum/post/2696960
I used to be an auto machanic a few years back and I had to go to school everytime there was a new product or revision that came out. 3 of the G.M. enginners ran test with the computer and oxygen sensors. and found that the sensors did not change resistance when detecting the water vapor. Thus no change in fuel control or timing by the computer. Ever notice how much better and smoother you'r car runs on a damp and wet nasty day? Well that is what the water injection mimicks.Also it lowers the emmisions considerably.Dont know how it would work when the weather gets freezing but i'm here in the sunshine state.Have a great day.
I know on engines with some miles on them water injection helps blow out the carbon which helps a lot. The only gains I really ever saw from water injection was being able to bump the timing a little, not sure if just adding the injection would have done anything for mileage. I know someone that added it to their truck to pull their trailer and he used it to be able to run regular grade gas. Said one trip pretty much paid for the injection unit and the installation costs.
 
triga22

triga22

Active Member
I started to read the whole thread and all but I am just going to post what I think.
Build more nuclear plants, solar pannels, and run cars off of hydrogen.
 
S

saltycrab

Guest
The fuel cell holding the liquid hydrogen will have to be extremely well built or I am not going to go near it. Can you imagine being rear ended by a F-350 going 50 miles an hour when you are sitting at a red light with 20 gallons of liquid hydrogen in the fuel tank? They might find your teeth if they are lucky
. I guess if they can build containers to transport nuclear waste they can do it for hydrogen.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by SaltyCrab
http:///forum/post/2713280
The fuel cell holding the liquid hydrogen will have to be extremely well built or I am not going to go near it. Can you imagine being rear ended by a F-350 going 50 miles an hour when you are sitting at a red light with 20 gallons of liquid hydrogen in the fuel tank? They might find your teeth if they are lucky
. I guess if they can build containers to transport nuclear waste they can do it for hydrogen.
That is part of the reason they are sooo expensive.
 
scopus tang

scopus tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by TriGa22
http:///forum/post/2697453
I started to read the whole thread and all but I am just going to post what I think.
Build more nuclear plants, solar pannels, and run cars off of hydrogen.
Seriously, I don't understand how you folks can support nuclear power plants. The notion that they are "green and ecofriendly" is a bunch of political BS. Look up how much radioactive waste is produced by a single plant, than ask yourself what they are doing with all that waste. Just cause we're dumping it in the ocean or burying it somewhere doesn't mean that it isn't effecting the environment. And what about when they go bad and there's a meltdown? I personally think that all you people who support them ought to have to move to Chernobyl, and live there for awhile. What we need is a long term substanable energy source (like fussion), and until we discover or find it, we need to be developing alternative energy sources; not walking blindly down a road which is only going to make things worse.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Scopus Tang
http:///forum/post/2714199
Seriously, I don't understand how you folks can support nuclear power plants. The notion that they are "green and ecofriendly" is a bunch of political BS. Look up how much radioactive waste is produced by a single plant, than ask yourself what they are doing with all that waste. Just cause we're dumping it in the ocean or burying it somewhere doesn't mean that it isn't effecting the environment. And what about when they go bad and there's a meltdown? I personally think that all you people who support them ought to have to move to Chernobyl, and live there for awhile. What we need is a long term substanable energy source (like fussion), and until we discover or find it, we need to be developing alternative energy sources; not walking blindly down a road which is only going to make things worse.
What percentage of France's electricity would you suppose comes from nuclear power? I don't seem to remember hearing how their country is glowing in the dark from all the accidents and spills
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Scopus Tang
http:///forum/post/2714199
Seriously, I don't understand how you folks can support nuclear power plants. The notion that they are "green and ecofriendly" is a bunch of political BS. Look up how much radioactive waste is produced by a single plant, than ask yourself what they are doing with all that waste. Just cause we're dumping it in the ocean or burying it somewhere doesn't mean that it isn't effecting the environment. And what about when they go bad and there's a meltdown? I personally think that all you people who support them ought to have to move to Chernobyl, and live there for awhile. What we need is a long term substanable energy source (like fussion), and until we discover or find it, we need to be developing alternative energy sources; not walking blindly down a road which is only going to make things worse.
How many power plants actually have had a melt down?
 
scopus tang

scopus tang

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2714227
What percentage of France's electricity would you suppose comes from nuclear power? I don't seem to remember hearing how their country is glowing in the dark from all the accidents and spills
Don't know nor do I care; the better question is what are they doing with all the toxic waste? Where is it being dumped? Folks are upset because coral species are being declared endangered and other species are disappearing, but by all means lets keep dumping crap like this in our oceans, cause it isn't having any effect. What kind of world are you leaving behind for your children to grow up in? One that is covered in dead oceans and full of toxic waste because we can't find a better solution?
Don't get me wrong, I'm no tree hugger, nor do I agree with a lot of the "eco-hype" that goes on, but I don't buy into this. You live in Aurora (I assume Colorado), ever been to the waste dump site outside Denver where they are hauling radioactive soil in by the semitruck load and burying it in concrete, rubber-lined bunkers; knowing full well that in the next 50 to 100 years those bunkers will be busted open and all that toxic soil will come spilling out ~ there's a good solution for you! Or how about participating in the discussion that involves taking southern Utah and Wyoming and turning them into a dump site for the U.S.'s toxic waste from the nuclear powerplants we already have, because we don't have anywhere else to put it, and nobody lives there anyway ~ yet another brilliant solution.
 
aquaknight

aquaknight

Active Member
Originally Posted by SaltyCrab
http:///forum/post/2713280
The fuel cell holding the liquid hydrogen will have to be extremely well built or I am not going to go near it. Can you imagine being rear ended by a F-350 going 50 miles an hour when you are sitting at a red light with 20 gallons of liquid hydrogen in the fuel tank? They might find your teeth if they are lucky
. I guess if they can build containers to transport nuclear waste they can do it for hydrogen.
Funny you mention being rear-ended by a F-350. Here's a car that was rear-ended, sitting at a stop-light by a raised F-250 supposedly going 75mph. It was on one of my buddies forums (BonnevilleClub). One of those nuclear waste containers would have a hard time surviving this, considering the hydrogen tank would typically be placed about where the spare tire is.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top