Has anyone asked about hydrogen embrittlerment yet? I’ve been reading lots of posts and haven’t seen anything on it yet?
Last edited:
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
water for fuel
- Thread starter MA87K5
- Start date
Yes, don't run high pressure Hydrogen through anything made of steel. But I don't think you would need high pressure hydrogen if you are producing it on-board. Of course you can't viably produce it from water, but you could produce it from Methane or Methanol.
IMHO there is no safe practical way to carry high pressure Hydrogen on board vehicles. At some point there will be a crash hard enough to rupture any practical Hydrogen tank........
Oh, the humanity....
IMHO there is no safe practical way to carry high pressure Hydrogen on board vehicles. At some point there will be a crash hard enough to rupture any practical Hydrogen tank........
Oh, the humanity....
4by4bygod
1/2 ton status
It's not nice to imply my customers are delusional..
that's ok, they're the ones solving the issues, and getting on with living long and prospering. Just so you know, I've got nothing against proper application of science or testing, and I have a better view of how additives and different technologies are perceived in the market than most.. which is why I mentioned NETL and southwest research institute in my post..you know who those guys are right?
And I see your point too - I'm sure you get a lot of crap sent your way to test, and every additive out there is a mix of kerosene, metals and solvents.. the only difference between them is the color of the bottle.. so when you say you've seen nothing that lives up to its claims, you are speaking from experience.
I hear the same thing you posted all the time myself - that if a miracle existed, they bringer of that miracle would be rich.. well, while we are growing, there are also mindsets, politics, and biases to be overcome..also, as everyone knows, there's a lot of crap out there being pushed as the one true thing, and people are sick of being lied to and having their money taken..all of that adds up to some strong initial resistance..
so we're just winning the world one fleet ( or in this case, one blazer ) at a time, and to us, the fight is worth it..
anyway, I didn't mean for this to go beyond my original post, but my point still stands.. if the water as fuel and the HHO stuff doesn't pan out, there's no need for pessimism.. there's something already here and ready to go.. with no re - engineering required to use it..
Hey you stupid ****, I never said Oxygen burns. I said it promotes combustion. Why don't you go to school and get a 3rd grade education to learn that!!!!I have lived in Kentucky for about two and a half years. Before that I lived in Michigan for 5 years, and before that I lived in California. They tell me that the civil war is over, but we are still at war with Mexico, right?
Whatever you do, don't eat salt. It is made from Sodium (a metal that reacts exothermally with water) and Chlorine (a gas which is toxic). You could get a nasty burn in your mouth and then die.
Also, to be technically correct, oxygen does not burn. It is not a fuel, it is an oxidant that promotes combustion with other fuels.
NARROW MINDED??????????????? I'm the one looking towards the future and open to new Idea's DIP$HIT, I never said it is 100% now, I just said it does work and needs refining, take your head out of your a$$ and look at what is possible, open your shallow mind to new idea's. We're ar not ostrich's, get your head out of the sand. Oh yea, you wanna put your 2nd grade education,(reading comprehension), against my master's degree in Science?They're apparently breeding some prize-winning narrow minded hillbillies in Wisconsin these days!Maybe your reading comprehension skills need a little work.
I didn't think the H had to be at high pressure? In the past we used low pressure H to embrittle titanium. It does affect some other metals like Cu and to a lesser extext Al but not sure how much or how long it would take to wipe out a piston, ring or valve.
At the risk of belaboring a point that you are so eloquently making all by yourself....
Master's degree in Science? Never heard of it, that is an awfully broad field. Usually people get advanced degrees in specific things like Geology, Biology, or Physics.
So where did you go to school and what field is your Master's degree in? It must be something that does not include Chemistry or Thermodynamics, or the use of data to prove a point. And how does somebody with a Master's degree in "Science" become a jet engine mechanic? Shouldn't you be designing jet engines or something?
Last edited:
Moving on...
True Hydrogen does not have to be at pressure to cause embrittlement, it is just more dangerous at pressure in a brittle container. I wasn't even thinking of internal engine components.
I know internal combustion engines have been run on pure Hydrogen before, but I never heard if it effected durability.
True Hydrogen does not have to be at pressure to cause embrittlement, it is just more dangerous at pressure in a brittle container. I wasn't even thinking of internal engine components.
I know internal combustion engines have been run on pure Hydrogen before, but I never heard if it effected durability.
Sure, that's how well-educated people talk, I hear it all the time!
Good show loser, you're around 10yo or is it 11?
Your parents should be paying more attention to what you're doing on the computer.
blazindorito
1/2 ton status
That there is funny Throttle. Street lights are on he should go to bed.
MaxPF
1/2 ton status
A Masters Degree in "Science"? Well, that is a pretty broad field. I've never heard of anyone having a single degree which covers all of the fields that constitute "Science". That's amazing. So, you know everything from botany to bioengineering, quantum physics to nanotechnology, metallurgy to medicine, etc. I'm impressed
If you really did have any kind of a degree in a scientific field you would be well acquainted with the laws of thermodynamics and entropy, and you would realize why you're being foolish.
You would also probably realize that it's a bad idea to try to bull$hit people who are way smarter than you are
cdoggwsu
1/2 ton status
At the risk of further fueling the fire I'm not going to comment on previous statements, but I think we can all agree on a few things here.
1) Hydrogen burns......Oxygen may or may not...
2) Current technology cannot provide an economical method of removing Hydrogen from water on-board a vehicle, so at this time it isn't feasible. Perhaps in the future...
3) Regardless of the method we all want better fuel efficiency.
4) Alternative methods aside, nothing beats the sound of a throaty V8.
People have brought up good points on both sides but forgive most of us for being a little skeptical in the wake of quick fixes, Mythbusting, "too good to be true" claims and generally skewed information.
On the other hand, 4by4bygod would you care to elaborate a little more (without giving up trade secrets of course!) on the focus of your research. For example, what exactly are adding to our rigs and why are we doing it? Normally I wouldn't bait off-topic posts but it seems relevant to this conversation.
1) Hydrogen burns......Oxygen may or may not...
2) Current technology cannot provide an economical method of removing Hydrogen from water on-board a vehicle, so at this time it isn't feasible. Perhaps in the future...
3) Regardless of the method we all want better fuel efficiency.
4) Alternative methods aside, nothing beats the sound of a throaty V8.
People have brought up good points on both sides but forgive most of us for being a little skeptical in the wake of quick fixes, Mythbusting, "too good to be true" claims and generally skewed information.
On the other hand, 4by4bygod would you care to elaborate a little more (without giving up trade secrets of course!) on the focus of your research. For example, what exactly are adding to our rigs and why are we doing it? Normally I wouldn't bait off-topic posts but it seems relevant to this conversation.
Alright , I do apologize to any and who I offended or attacked in this thread this week. Just felt attacked myself and went on the defensive/offensive. Oh, by the way, I forgot a word,POLITICAL Science. Doesn't ad up to two bits of crap anyway. Just had a very horrible week of personal BS and I took it out on the wrong people. Once again I do apologize to all of you. Sorry!
Now THAT's Funny.
They teach you to say "Do you want fries with that, sir?" On a more serious note, I do hope your personal BS gets cleared up. Good luck.
I have resisted posting in this thread, but have been subscribed since page 1, just to see where it went.
I spend a good amount of time just reading up on different fuels and technologies.
One of the things that gets me in this debate (and every other one just like it) is that people want a new, end-all, be-all fuel that'll run in an existing engine/vehicle that, in no specific order:
A) is cheaper than gas
B) does no harm to the engine
C) has less emissions (either to get the Enviro-Nazis off our backs, or because they actually care themselves--no politics guys)
D) has better performance characteristics
E) has a well-developed distribution architecture already in place
F) reduces or eliminated our dependence on foreign oil
G) has no affect on other industries (like raising the prices of foods, etc...)
H) preferably creates new jobs or at least brings them back stateside
And if I hadn't just woken up (it's Saturday, and teh womenz is at work, cut me some slack ) I could probably extend that list all the way to "Z" and beyond.
Thing is, I don't believe that's going to happen...ever. Forget everything else...for the sake of discussion, let's just stick with Hydrogen. By the time the technology has the kinks worked out to where it's economical to "produce" (extract) Hydrogen, there will likely be MANY more cars on the road that are electric/ hybrid/ fuel cell, including trucks (electric motors have a LOT more torque per pound of engine weight). Yeah, V8's sound cool, but how much are you willing to pay to keep that sound?
Additives... So far, Aces (the stuff that 4by4bygod sells) is the only product I've seen that has real customers, several of whom we interact with here daily, using it that have put up any real numbers to prove its worth. I haven't used it personally (yet), but I think the product is great if it does as everyone claims it does.
But, in the end we're still talking about engines that, even in modern trim, even with computers, even with additives, or even with alternate fuels, are highly inefficient at turning energy (fuel) into rotational force. The only long term solution is a different type of powerplant.
I pulled up a Wikipedia article I'd read some time back, and I ran it by 4by4bygod via email. He seemed to think it was as neat as I do. He brought up some technical concerns, that would probably have to be addressed before long-term reliability data could be established. This is essentially a standard 4-cycle engine that was converted...
However, technical challenges aside, this is actually a good idea. The kinks could be worked out, (it kind of goes back to the whole thing about replacing lead with ethanol...the engines adapted and run fine without it) and it could be made to work reliably.
It'll still run on diesel (although the concept would work for gas motors too) and it uses water for an additional power stroke which serves to keep the motor cool (eliminating the cooling system) and increasing efficiency quite a bit.
VERY cool idea here...check it out. The Crower 6-cycle engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crower_six_stroke
I'm not saying this is THE solution, but it could be a very good stepping stone toward it...
I spend a good amount of time just reading up on different fuels and technologies.
One of the things that gets me in this debate (and every other one just like it) is that people want a new, end-all, be-all fuel that'll run in an existing engine/vehicle that, in no specific order:
A) is cheaper than gas
B) does no harm to the engine
C) has less emissions (either to get the Enviro-Nazis off our backs, or because they actually care themselves--no politics guys)
D) has better performance characteristics
E) has a well-developed distribution architecture already in place
F) reduces or eliminated our dependence on foreign oil
G) has no affect on other industries (like raising the prices of foods, etc...)
H) preferably creates new jobs or at least brings them back stateside
And if I hadn't just woken up (it's Saturday, and teh womenz is at work, cut me some slack
) I could probably extend that list all the way to "Z" and beyond.Thing is, I don't believe that's going to happen...ever. Forget everything else...for the sake of discussion, let's just stick with Hydrogen. By the time the technology has the kinks worked out to where it's economical to "produce" (extract) Hydrogen, there will likely be MANY more cars on the road that are electric/ hybrid/ fuel cell, including trucks (electric motors have a LOT more torque per pound of engine weight). Yeah, V8's sound cool, but how much are you willing to pay to keep that sound?
Additives... So far, Aces (the stuff that 4by4bygod sells) is the only product I've seen that has real customers, several of whom we interact with here daily, using it that have put up any real numbers to prove its worth. I haven't used it personally (yet), but I think the product is great if it does as everyone claims it does.
But, in the end we're still talking about engines that, even in modern trim, even with computers, even with additives, or even with alternate fuels, are highly inefficient at turning energy (fuel) into rotational force. The only long term solution is a different type of powerplant.
I pulled up a Wikipedia article I'd read some time back, and I ran it by 4by4bygod via email. He seemed to think it was as neat as I do. He brought up some technical concerns, that would probably have to be addressed before long-term reliability data could be established. This is essentially a standard 4-cycle engine that was converted...
However, technical challenges aside, this is actually a good idea. The kinks could be worked out, (it kind of goes back to the whole thing about replacing lead with ethanol...the engines adapted and run fine without it) and it could be made to work reliably.
It'll still run on diesel (although the concept would work for gas motors too) and it uses water for an additional power stroke which serves to keep the motor cool (eliminating the cooling system) and increasing efficiency quite a bit.
VERY cool idea here...check it out. The Crower 6-cycle engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crower_six_stroke
I'm not saying this is THE solution, but it could be a very good stepping stone toward it...
I am glad you were man enough to apologize. We can debate back and forth all day, but leave the unfounded personal attacks on Pirate.
I did not mean my original post as an attack on you specifically, but as a response to the "water as fuel" theme of the post generally. Water cannot viably be used as a fuel or a source for fuel according to the world's current understanding of science.
I am tired of the Oil Company/Big Three conspiracy theories and unproved "this guy I know" statements about improving fuel economy. Don't get me wrong, I'd love for some new magic breakthrough to solve all our fuel and emissions problems, but pseudoscience and snake oil don't help the cause. Until then I do what I know works. I'll drive less.
That if very cool, I hadn't seen that before. And it's based on viable technology, as long as the lubrication issues can be overcome.
Yeah, 4by4bygod mentioned to me that the steaming action, while being good at keeping the combustion chambers clean, would likely strip off residual oil needed for the upstroke of the piston.
Friction coatings would help... I'm sure this can be addressed. I'd love to get one of Crower's cams and drop it in a 6.5T and see what happens.
In the meantime, I'm still shopping for a 292 straight six. Turbo + water/meth would make it a monster of an all-arounder in my otherwise stock K5 with 31" tires and 3.73 gears.
