Jerry W. Decker wrote:
> Hi Folks!
>
> I found this in the sci.hydrogen DejaNews;
> -------------------------
> I have been researching the process of splitting water (H2O) into its
> components, Hydrogen and Oxygen, to be re-mixed and burned as fuel
> since '66.
>
> I have noticed many questions from novices regarding auto conversion to
> hydrogen. Here are a few bits of info that should help. Hopefully, you
> won't have to pay any "non-profit" groups just for information on this
> low -polluting fuel [when burned with air, 78% Nitrogen, there is
> Nitrogen Oxide emissions (smog)].
>
> The conversion of a vehicle to hydrogen is relatively simple and
> inexpensive, using an older car before fuel injection. It is very
> similar to a propane conversion, costing about $500.
>
> The main parts needed are an Impco model CA300 type carburetor, an Impco
> low pressure regulator, a hydrogen storage tank, and the hydrogen, (try
> Linde Co).
>
> Because hydrogen burns very hot (it will burn a hole through a normal
> piston) some use plastic polymer coated pistons or sodium filled valves
> (expensive). Most solve this problem by mixing in some of the water as
> (steam) vapor to cool the combustion at the expense of loss of power.
>
> Since hydrogen has 2.5 times the power of gasoline, it doesn't matter
> much. You can still keep up with a supercharged race car... Because of
> the rapid combustion, the ignition gap has to be very small, like .001
> inch.
>
> One of the vehicles ERDA reviewed way back in '74 used oxygen instead of
> air, to burn the hydrogen. The Perris Smogless Automobile Association
> from UCLA was using a Model "A" Ford as one of their hydrogen fueled
> test engines that carried a tank of compressed hydrogen and a tank of
> compressed oxygen.
>
> This was mixed together in an "oxybureter" (a closed carburater)and then
> ignited in the cylinders, as is gasoline. The exhaust was pure hydrogen
> and oxygen.
>
> This exhaust was rerouted back to the fuel tank to be used again as
> fuel. Unfortunately, many took this to be a perpetual motion device, and
> dismissed it without any real consideration. It performed beautifully,
> as did their next Hydrogen-Oxygen powered the vehicle, without
> pollution, and did not have the relatively weak power compared with an
> electric vehicle, such as the Fuel Cell type vehicles use. No matter how
> efficient the Fuel Cell, they still use an electric motor.
>
> In the last 20 years, I have seen little change published regarding
> hydrogen power processes. New "electrolysers" are being patented using
> the same old electrolysis processes, using higher pressures &
> temperature, and achieving more efficient electric power with newer,
> expensive electrolytes.
>
> A few novel approaches noted included forcing electron leakage to
> seperate molecules by high voltage, or using "resonant cavities" to
> boost and re-boost the power to achieve the necessary decomposition
> energy for water.
>
> Most of these processes use the same principle of using electrochemical
> energy to decompose the water, taking a long time to do it, and still
> dealing with clumsy storage processes. While these may or may not work
> (the patent attorneys don't care), the processes require constant input
> energy, and also take too long to generate onboard fuel.
>
> There is an ongoing debate that a hydrogen-oxygen engine as a closed
> system could not work because it is a violation of one of the laws of
> thermodynamics - it could not put out more energy than was put into it.
>
> In other words, it would take more energy to split the water into its
> components than it would get out of the hydrogen oxygen combustion.
>
> One needs to step out of the bounds of chemistry to justify this
> self-sustaining chain reaction process. Remember that old concept of
> E=MC squared?
>
> Matter is Energy! Hydrogen and oxygen molecules are energy "packets".
> Water molecules are being used up as energy, which balances an energy
> equation, when the mass=energy is factored in.
>
> A Water-Splitting chain reaction is needed, decomposing water into
> Hydrogen and oxygen to be used as a non-polluting fuel - if not already
> discovered and put away until the fossil fuels are used up.
>
> My first attempt at a web page still under construction describes a
> process to achieve a water-splitting chain reaction.
>
> http://home.pacbell.net/coop88.waterasfuel3.htm
>
> To skip the preliminaries, click on "water splitting" to the red lined
> part. Sorry I haven't completed my sub/sup scripts in the formulas.
> BCNU, Coop
> ----------------------
> >From another inventor who has been working on it since 1968 and achieved
> what I think is major success (8 amps in for hydrogen production, then
> 15 amps out with a generator attached to a lawnmower engine that burns
> the hydrogen with air)..he is working on his own web page with full
> details....he is the closest I know to Dad Garretts success in Dallas in
> 1935.......he says;
> ----------------------
> I use the mixture and run it into the intake with atmospheric air. I
> know this creates some oxides of nitrogen, but so does gasoline and
> nobody seems to give a damn about that, so neither do I!
>
> I have built steam engines powered by hydroxy. I have had the idea to
> use the vacuum-forming capabilities of hydroxy to let the atmosphere
> expand in the cylinders of a rankin-cycle steam engine instead of
> steam--but I have never built the machinery.
>
> If you compress pure hydroxy--it forms water. No good.
>
> If you inject the mixture into a cylinder and then close the intake
> valve and continue to crank for 20 degrees or so--it expands the mixture
> and sort of dries it out.
>
> I detonate at about 20 to 45 degrees past tdc (top dead center of the
> piston stroke) and I get a hell-of-a-blast-power-stroke. Because the
> hydrogen goes off so fast, you don't need to have it "burn" for the
> entire 180 degrees as in a gasoline or diesel engine.
>
> I use the exhaust stroke open for 180 degrees. This sort of makes the
> engine run like a two-stroke--modified.
>
> When you start using water as fuel, you have to sort of throw out the
> rule book. The rules change.
> --
> Jerry W. Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com
> http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science"
> Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501
> KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187