nivaman wrote:I posted the link for general interest and to show the item concerned was not suppressed.
Granted the hydrogen was from methanol but hydrogen is hydrogen no matter where it comes from.
NASA proved that hydrogen improved the burn characteristic of petrol.
They are using hydrogen to allow petrol engines to run leaner than they otherwise can. The applications of this are extremely limited and the gas volumes required are far beyond what any of these guys with their water jars are ever going to produce.
You'll note that paper was published in 1977. What were impressive results then are now yawn worthy.
The emissions levels they speak of in that report are easily surpassed by modern production EFI engines.
You'll note the energy input into their test engine did not change. They didn't manage to increase the efficiency of their engine by burning hydrogen. Check out the table on page 27 of the pdf (report page 25) and do the efficiency sums.
There is nothing in either of those sites that I would call "research".
It doesn't matter how much wire you put in a jar of water, the hydrogen produced is a function of the electrical energy in. Electrolysis is well understood and painfully slow. It also takes a whole lot more energy to split hydrogen out than you ever get back.
nivaman wrote:The way i see it internal combustion engines are only about 20% efficient and people who tinker with hydrogen are at least trying to (1), improve the efficiency even if a small amount (2) save them selves money at the pump (3), probably having fun and getting enjoyment out of their research/ learning different things.
Even the ancient caddilac engine used in that nasa paper made 30% efficiency. The prius engines hit high 30's at their most efficient points. Good diesels top 40%.
nivaman wrote:What about the fact that petrol is a hydrocarbon, hydro means water.
No it doesn't. The Hydro in Hydrocarbon is "hydrogen".
nivaman wrote:Have you built one to do your own tests?
Have you seen one operating ?
Have you gone on the web and seen what is being developed?
Of interesting note too is the fact that we've used water injection to control detonation in racing engines (hi-compression engines) for decades, yet I'm sure someone could get science to tell us this can't work either. We also poured water into a running engine to de-coke them too.
I've used electrolysis in exactly the same manner to derust steel parts, so yes I know exactly how much gas is produced and how much electricity it requires. As put by a very wise man, you can fart a lot more a lot more often. No-one has proven a jar with wires from your battery works to improve fuel economy and a vast number of people have proven it doesn't work.
nivaman wrote:A few years ago, everyone "knew" that a diesel engine couldn't run on LPG, yet we now have diesel engines running up to 30 - 40% LPG injected, with 10 - 30% power increase, and 10 - 20% reduction in fuel consumption. There are diesel engines running on pure LPG;- not all that successfully as yet, but they are running.
He who says it cannot be done is often interrupted by he who is doing it.
Nope, check your facts.
There are no diesel engines running pure lpg, but there are purpose built engines (spark ignited) which are made by diesel engine manufacturers that burn lpg.
You don't reduce total fuel consumption by substituting lpg unless you forget to count the lpg (which many people do).
You can't run 30-40% lpg into a diesel engine without damaging it severely. I have a video of my engine detonating audibly with 0.4% lpg fumigation.
but fortunatly my little max's only have about that for a fuel tank 
