NGINEWHOISWHAT

http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/

I'm not the smartest guy here .... but the above link is promising. I have not installed that device yet, but I plan on it. The technology has been around forty to fifty years. Hydrogen boosting is best when used with a wide cut fuel like diesel or jet fuel. You "make" your own hydrogen as you drive using an electrolysis machine and distilled water. It draws about 30 amps on your alternator, which in the big scheme of things, is not that much. You might have shorter alternator life and decreased battery life, but I suspect that would be miniscule. The only negative that I can see is supposedly hydrogen introduced into a combustion chamber over time makes metal brittle. I can't find any real evidence to support that. I don't know how combusted hydrogen would behave in the upper flight levels, but I'm sure it would be stable and predictable. Stored hydrogen is not a problem either becaused it's produced on an as needed basis. When the lav and potable water is serviced, so would the distilled water tanks. Well,
you aerospace and chemical engineering majors can tear me apart now. I think it would work ... as an added bonus, emissions are greatly decreased and the engines run cooler.

rickair7777

Combusted Hydrogen = 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O = water! Zero pollution issues there!

Hydrogen is a very small molecule, so it can easily work it's way into the crystalline structure of metals (it escapes through the walls of metal gas cyclinders)...enough of it under enough pressure might damage stuff.

The underlying principle behind this hydrogen boost looks complicated...combustion dynamics are NOT simple, especially involving multiple compounds which may have catalytic or thermal effects on the process. I can't render an opinion on this, but I would be very wary unless you can find some INDEPENDENT technical literature that addresses the underlying theory. If this idea was really that good, why hasn't detroit picked up on it? They are in a world of hurt, you'd think they would jump on on something like this (if it worked).

calcapt

Oil is priced what it is because people are willing to pay for it. I saw a guy a few days ago driving a Ford Excursion, a 9 passenger behmouth that gets pathetic gas mileage, and he was the only person in the vehicle. Look around when you drive and see how many people are alone in large inefficient vehicles and just don't care. As long as America has this thirst for oil and it's residents are unwilling to conserve a little or change their habits, nothing will change. If we were able to drop our consumption rates in the USA by 25 percent, oil prices would drop by 50 percent or more - but don't hold your breath, Americans will be at the pumps bright and early tomorrow filling up their trucks, SUVs and any other inefficient beast they can find. It's the American way!

ToiletDuck

I'm a idiot on hydrogen. All they have to do is add water? You put this system in your truck then what do you do? I'm curious. as much driving as I do it could easily be worth it. I wonder if you lose power ect.

NGINEWHOISWHAT

Well,

All you do is add distilled water to the tank or tanks. You apply 30 amps + or - to the electrolysis plates and that seperates the oxygen and hydrogen (with kill switch or tied to key). It looks like you dropped an alkaseltzer in water. You run a tube from the tank to the intake manifold, turbo, or air cleaner (whatever works best for your application) and that's it. Some people claim 50% (or more) improvement in mpg.

It's not just the hydrogen, though. Most people that install the system are self-conscience about fuel conservation. Several of the people that sell the system sell complete systems, i.e. fuel heater, light-weight synthetic oil for the gear boxes, and a treatment for the oil. The technology is proven and it does work, but until it goes "main stream" it'll just be snake oil. I'm sure the lighter weight oils won't fare well in Mattawa in January, though.

There are certain driver techniques you must use also like accelerating just enough to get to speed, coasting down hills, minimal warm ups, etc. When you think about it we already do reduced power take-offs, search for the best winds, single engine taxi. etc. There's very little that we can do as a whole. The rest is up to Boeing, G.E, Rolls Royce, etc. It's not in G.E.'s interest to use hydrogen. The hydrogen extends service intervals and usually the oil looks new 4-5 times past time for a change extending engine life. Once again, I don't know how hydrogen breaks down metal.

I heard a piece on N.P.R. a while back about how the shape of airliners has not changed since the 707 was introduced. There are new designs on the horizon that, although conventional, look like a flying wings. Supposedly, these students found that by using the majority of the a/c as a lift surace, you reduce fuel consumption by about 30%. Nothing new there. I think Boeing is making a HUGE leap forward using the composite (resin?) forward section for the 787. It's still 5K over weight, though ... Anyway, happy holidays all. It's late, I'm tired, so forgive any errors.

NGINEWHOISWHAT

You gain power, also. About 30-50 horse power. In certain applications, you can turn down your fuel pressure because the hydrogen combusts so much better than the nitrogen rich air. You science types be easy with the flames!!!

KZ1000Shaft

So you live in Texas too?

ryane946

But how do you get H2?? It is the most abundant element in the universe. But it is so reactive that pure H2 cannot be found on earth. It must be created through electrolysis by running the reverse reaction (2 h2o --> 2 h2 + o2), and that takes electricity. So hydrogen fuel is essentially an energy storage method. And given the complexity/reactivity of H2, it is not as practical as just electricity itself. And even if hydrogen fuel was deemed the ideal fuel, H2 would have to be created by electricity which would need to be created by...
Solar power!

Plain and simple. Batteries and solar power. That is the future.

rickair7777

I was not suggesting naturally occuring H2 as a source of energy. It is somewhat rare in elemental (H2) form on earth. It is NOT at all rare in outer space.

You arre absolutely correct that H2 is an energy delivery mechanism, not an energy source.

The problem with chemical batteries is that they are near their theoretical max capacity...at great expense, we can squeeze a few more percentage points of capacity out of them, and probably use them for pax surface vehicles. In order to be practical for large trucks you would need 1 or 2 orders of magnitude improvement. To be used on airliners, batteries would need a 1000-fold improvement (3 OOM)...not going to happen any time soon.

The big problem with solar is that most of our civilizations which use power are not located in the latitudes and climates most suitable for massive solar production. Solar can be used locally on a micro scale to make a dent in gross energy demand, but electricty can't be "shipped" more than about 1000 miles, so unless you live near a vast desert don't expect solar to run your whole city... Maybe someday we can build space-based collectors and transmit the juice down via laser/microwave.


Energy Sources:
Fossil Fuels
Wood
Nuclear
Fusion
Solar Wind
Tidal
Geothermal
Hydro


Delivery Mechanisms
Fossil Fuels
Artificial hydrocarbon fuels
H2
Wood
Electricity
Batteries
Gyros
microwave/laser beams
anti-matter

Rightseat Ballast

There is no simple, single solution for a new energy source in the US. We are too large of a nation. Even now, power is supplied by many different types of processes. The future will be no different.

Solar will work in sunny climates, but not as a total replacement source. if every building in a city put solar cells on their rooftops and along the southern exposures of upper levels, there would be a noticeable decrease in demand put on the city power grid. Less power on the city grid means less fossil fuels burned at the coal fired and oil fired plants that supply most of this nation with electricity.

Ethanol will be a good fuel alternative in corn growing regions, especially outside large cities. We don't need E85 in Seattle... transportation of the fuel will erase any gains created. But farmers in kansas would benefit greatly from a locally produced and locally traded/available fuel.

Wind power is also great for smaller towns in certain regions of the country. Colorado can have plenty of windfarms... doesn't mean that we need a federal inititative that requires Florida to have them as well.

Coal will always be here because it is abundant. Lets just work on cleaning the emissions.

Everyone seems to fight over which one source of energy will power us in the future. There will never be a single solution, and any politician that says they have a single answer should be disregarded as the liar he/she is. Lets look individually at what works for our hometown, and lets stop discounting good ideas because they don't work in every circumstance.

petroleum fuels will be here for a while. For national transportation systems, we need to rely on current infrastructure. In order to reduce oil needs, we need to cut it out at local levels when possible. Lets replace our oil-burning power plants with something better in our locale. Lets reduce the oil consumed at our oil burning power plants by SUPPLEMENTING the power generation with solar/wind/hydro-electric/nuclear as it makes sense locally.
New fuels will take time to become viable. But it takes use of these infant technologies to spurn new research and improvement. So please stop shelving ideas now because they are not perfect right out the lab.

And as for 100mpg autos... our average fuel economy would be a lot higher if we didn't all insist on high horsepower cars for everyday use. Remember when BMW's had 140hp (my 1984 3 series did). now they have 325 hp engines. Nissans had 110hp motors, and now they are putting 260 everywhere they can. If we can get 25mpg out of these monsters, then surely we can go back to 100-150hp motors and see mpg go up to 50+ with no change in fuel source. My old BMW got 30mpg highway 22 years ago. My 12 year old civic gets 35mpg. New civics don;t even do that well. We need to suck it up and deal with slower acceleration, keep it under 90mph, and then we can watch fuel economy go way up. If 30mpg was possible 20 years ago, then surely we can do better now.