M30 air intake manifold

Page 3 of 3  
On Apr 18, 1:00 pm, snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.com wrote:


That's down the line, my friend, down the line and far in the north of the country sometime after my hydrogen booster has cleaned out this old engine. I think you misunderstood what I meant by the hydrogen booster. It's a simple electrolysis unit that you can make at home for under 40 or so bucks that splits regular tap water into HHO gas and this is sucked up into the air intake such that the gasoline gets a complete burn because hydrogen burns cleaner than anything else in the universe and doesn't even require oxygen to do so. This will clear out all of the gunk and deposits in the cylinders very quickly, and I hope increase mileage by at least 25%. If you want I'll keep you posted on my progress. I envision everybody going out and scoring a great deal on an old beat up car and strapping on hydrogen boosters! Since this is a BMW, it will be all the more sweeter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18 Apr 2007 12:15:31 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Lets have the schematics and plans - I'd be very interested as the gas over here is like gold dust.......................!
email to snipped-for-privacy@h-gee.co.uk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote: <snip>

Sorry, but I'm afraid that hydrogen _does_ require oxygen to burn, though the engine will adjust the fuel mix based on the hydrogen intake as long as the adjustment falls within the maps in the ECU (else it will try as hard as it can and then light the MIL, aka check engine light). So it might or might not be necessary to add O2 to the mix to get the thing to run right if all you do is keep the H from the electrolysis.
Further, you'll have a _very_ explosive mix sitting around if you trap both the H and the O2 from electrolysis and store them together...and in perfect proportion. This is the basis of FAEs (fuel-air explosives) but using pure H and O2 goes one better since atmospheric air is only 21% or so O2.
There's no way you can collect enough of this combination of gases top be useful without compressing it, and compressing both together will be very hazardous. Not to mention having it in the car in case of an accident (assuming you even succeed in compressing it without it going bang!). I hope this isn't what you're planning. If it is, I hope I'm not near where you live or plan to operate this vehicle and that innocent people are not injured.
Moreover, the energy spent splitting water into hydrogen and O2 will not be regained in internal combustion no matter how you handle it. Unless electricity is *dirt* cheap where you live, or you're using a renewable primary energy source to generate it, you'll lose money on the deal.
JRE
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are old school, my friend. Obviously, the energy put into splitting is greater or equal to than the energy gained, and the power of hydrogen and oxygen combined is what NASA uses, but that is not how this works. There is NO onboard storage of explosive gases. It is produced as needed. The HHO or Brown's gas (there are debates as to what is being produced exactly) helps the octane to completely burn, whereas in a normal situation the octane is still burning as it leaves the exhaust and relies on the catalytic converter to finish the job. The minute amount of hydrogen is sort of like a catalyst that reduces the time it takes for the octane to ignite so it burns faster during the combustion cycle and therefore more completely resulting in more power and increased mileage. There are many companies, led by the Canadian ones who are already marketing these electrolysis units and many truckers already have been using them for over a decade.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 19, 3:13 pm, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Mythbusters did something liek this where they produced hydrogen and allowed it to be sucked into the intake along with air, instead of using gas(oline). It ran fine for a short while then the hydrogen ran out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes! It is absolutely possible and feasible to run an ICE on Hydrogen. But I won't be using hydrogen alone. I will simply be helping the octane to burn better in the engine by adding a little tiny stream of Hydrogen. Much safer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 19 Apr 2007 08:59:30 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

What exactly is OCTANE?
Octane is an Alkaline with the chemical formula CH3(CH2)6CH3. It has 18 isomers.
One of the isomers, 2,2,4-trimethylpentane or isooctane, is of major importance, as it has been selected as the 100 point on the octane rating scale, with n-heptane as the zero point. Octane ratings are ratings used to represent the anti-knock performance of petroleum-based fuels (octane is less likely to prematurely combust under pressure than heptane), given as the percentage of 2,2,4-trimethylpentane in an 2,2,4-trimethylpentane / n-heptane mixture that would have the same performance. It is an important constituent of gasoline.
Octane has 18 isomers :
Octane (n-octane) 2-Methylheptane 3-Methylheptane 4-Methylheptane 3-Ethylhexane 2,2-Dimethylhexane 2,3-Dimethylhexane 2,4-Dimethylhexane 2,5-Dimethylhexane 3,3-Dimethylhexane 3,4-Dimethylhexane 2-Methyl-3-ethylpentane 3-Methyl-3-ethylpentane 2,2,3-Trimethylpentane 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane (isooctane) 2,3,3-Trimethylpentane 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane 2,2,3,3-Tetramethylbutane
And you CAN actually distinguish the combustion of OCTANE in gasoline/petrol.
Do leave off!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 19, 1:09 pm, snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.com wrote:

You're an Einstein with a bit of a Ham-ish glitter thrown in. Wow, incredible breakdown of the constituents of gasoline, buddy. I am impressed and informed. But did I say I could distinguish? It matters not. Hydrogen helps in the combustion of all of these organic (hydrocarbon) molecules. You could even add up to 15% ethanol (or ethane if you had it on hand, but unlikely since its a gas) which contains two carbon atoms per molecule and the pistons would still love it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 19, 12:09 pm, snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.com wrote:

Octane is an ALKANE, not an ALKALINE.
Damn faux chemists ... -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; done that - as a chemist)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I claim the effing spelchecker - ALKANE is not in general usage in everyday language---------------- Oops
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 19 Apr 2007 07:13:22 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

You mean the Space Shuttle runs on WATER? By god man that's astounding!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 19, 12:54 pm, snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.com wrote:

You're a real Einstein, aren't ya? Of course the space shuttle doesn't run off of water, the booster rockets do. More specifically, the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen into water which releases more energy per unit of reactant than any other combination. That's why NASA uses it, among other reasons like...pollution. This has zero emissions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20 Apr 2007 06:13:25 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

I don't think so - they actually run on solid paraffin (kerosene) strangely enough that's why they are called "solid booster rockets"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 20, 10:43 am, snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.com wrote:

Yes, actually you are correct. I should check on my facts a little better. NASA did early experiments with liquid fuel and considered using liquid fuel to replace the more dangerous solid rocket fuel after the Challenger disaster. NASA has worked with other space programs in developing the liquid fuel, though such as Russia and with Japan and their rocket technology. Considering the dangerous nature of solid rocket fuel with the equivalent power of liquid fuel, I think the liquid fuel is a more robust choice, and NASA should switch back ASAP.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You guys are hilarious. The boosters use a mixture of potasium permanganate and aluminum, embedded in a special type of rubber.
All you have to do is read the Wikipedia entry on SRB.
FloydR
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I wondered what they did with old tyres (tires)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why I wrote "potasium permangate" when I meant "ammonium perchlorate" is beyond me.
FloydR
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well Floyd - have a cup of coffee on me!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.