Hydrogen Engine

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Lethedethius

I think what I was hoping for was... Yea I did it and it worked, Yea I tried it and it was absolute failure, car blew up! Something around that area... The problem with talking about something when you don't have the experience in dealing with it is well, you don't have experience.

A math genius can talk all the equations in the world about the pidgins but will never be able to get it absolutely right. Even Einstein didn't get everything right, it took experiences to learn from which are getting us closer to the truth *Not that einstein is ANYTHING short of a absolute genius*.

Usually the way math/science/chemistry starts out is an experiment, that experiment succeeds or fails and then you try to explain it. But without having that experiment you are doing nothing but making an educated guess which would unproven and unsubstantiated unless you had valid proof to prove your theory.

Not to belittle anyone here as you all seem very smart, I'm just a guy who knows a lot and how to improvise, something about brain and sponge... I'm not sure what they're talking about. But when someone wants to lower their drag on the car, they don't plop the stuff on and haul butt off into the sunset, they do scientific test taking into consideration wind speed/direction, and rather they are behind another vehicle or going up a hill, rain factors, etc. Dig me?

Having a mathematical/scientific background is not only useful in running and quantifying experiments and results, it gives a great intuitive guide as to what to try and what you know will never work. It's not the "box" ad-hoc inventors like to claim one needs to work outside of.

[IamIan]

Get comfy this is a bit long.

If you want anything more explained ... by all means ask ... I did not add more detail to this post because it is already a bit excessively long.

Originally Posted by Lethedethius

I think what I was hoping for was... Yea I did it and it worked, Yea I tried it and it was absolute failure, car blew up! Something around that area...

If you want to know what personal experience I have had related to this:

I have done every individual step of the process in controlled conditions... and I have done a variety of variations of each of those steps.

I have run ICEs on Hydrogen alone.

I have measured the changes the converted ICEs performance from what it was on gasoline vs what it was on hydrogen.

I have produced hydrogen from electrolysis.

I have stored and measured how much hydrogen was produced.

I have measured the amount of electricity used for the electrolysis.

I have produced hydrogen from a variety of chemical reactions... some being chemical reactions with water and some not with water.

I have used a Hydrogen / Gasoline mix in a converted ICE.

I have measured the change in performance prior to and after the conversion , and at different mix ratios , engine timing , Air to Fuel Ratios , etc.

I have used fuel cells, to convert Water into Hydrogen and Oxygen , and to convert Hydrogen and Oxygen to water.

I have measured the performance of the fuel cell... chemical consumption and production and electrical consumption and production.

I have built some basic / crude fuel cells myself.

I have been in college labs with scientists who work on state of fuel cell designs ... who work their asses off to try and squeeze 0.1% more efficiency out of a fuel cell ... The ones I spoke to had no influence from oil companies, and they understand fuel cells better than most of the people who build them ... and they are honest about what technical challenges there are to get over 50% efficiency , or 60% efficiency , etc.

etc .... etc.

But I would also say ... what I have done is next to irrelevant ... I do NOT want anyone to just accept things from me or from others based 'reputation' ... If Einstein himself said something I disagreed with ... I'd ask him to explain himself and provide proof... even if Einstein himself reputation is not enough.

Originally Posted by Lethedethius

A math genius can talk all the equations in the world about the pidgins but will never be able to get it absolutely right. Even Einstein didn't get everything right, it took experiences to learn from which are getting us closer to the truth *Not that einstein is ANYTHING short of a absolute genius*.

Usually the way math/science/chemistry starts out is an experiment, that experiment succeeds or fails and then you try to explain it. But without having that experiment you are doing nothing but making an educated guess which would unproven and unsubstantiated unless you had valid proof to prove your theory.

Not to belittle anyone here as you all seem very smart, I'm just a guy who knows a lot and how to improvise, something about brain and sponge... I'm not sure what they're talking about. But when someone wants to lower their drag on the car, they don't plop the stuff on and haul butt off into the sunset, they do scientific test taking into consideration wind speed/direction, and rather they are behind another vehicle or going up a hill, rain factors, etc. Dig me?

Exactly ... I 100% agree... and thankfully humans have been doing detailed , transparent publicly available tests for thousands of years... available to look up and read in detail for those willing to do the research.

Many many people had done many many of these test in order to define how chemistry works ... what the binding energy is in water ... the different types of chemical bonds in it ... how those different types of bonds work ... different methods of breaking those chemical bonds... etc. etc.

Some of these include work on the effects of different pressures ... different temperatures ... AC vs DC electrical current ... different AC frequencies ... etc ... etc.

And just as you wrote ... all of these scientific works require careful testing ... that ALWAYS includes careful measurements of the conditions ... and careful measurements of the results ... and transparency of all those careful measurements and methods.

This transparency is how they learned about the mistakes made in the researchers who years ago announced they had successfully achieved cold fusion.

It is this transparency that allows science to have 3rd party verification of results.

We already know as I posted in my first post in this thread ... that hydrogen can be used in a ICE.

We already know that the faster flame speed of hydrogen allows a gasoline ICE to run more efficiently in a lean burn air to fuel ratio ... and as I already post in my first post of this thread ... this method of producing / supporting lean burn in an ICE is less effective and less efficient that the method of efficient lean burn that Honda and others have used that does not use water or hydrogen... and due to the meticulous work people have done we know why, and we know how it works ... and all that data and work is publicly available for those who are willing to put the effort and work into going through the technical details and math.