The article about FORD and NASA is crap. First off yes it does burn at a much faster rate than gasoline and that's why when running solely on hydrogen you set ignition timing at 0 degrees so retards like the one who wrote that article don't bend thier rods. Secondly thier method of creating hydrogen gas in the vehicle was total BS. They never mentioned electolysis which is the current method most people using to generate hydrogen and oxygen. Third, they make lightweight carbon fiber storage tanks IF you really want to keep a tank in your car. Hydrogen evaportates at a very rapid rate and if there is a leak like you worry about it will immediately be evaporated into the air which makes it safer than say a puddle of gasoline ready to ignite.

As promised here are links upon links of hydrogen being produced and run on vehicles. The first link will help you understand hydrogen leaks. The second link is to YouTube where you can watch some 60 videos on this The third link is to something that's probably way over most peoples heads on this forum but the basis of it is running on hydroegen extracted from pretty much anything including soda pop through the GEET system created by Paul Pantone. I've tossed in a few videos of people creating hydrogen gass through electrolysis and even one of a man that runs straight hydrogen created by a generator in his vehicle. These are only VIDEOS. There are pages upon pages of written material and websites on this subject of which i have added a few links to at after the videos:

VIDEO LINKS:
(Hydrogen leakage) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdV98...elated&search=

(60 random Hydrogen Vids) http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=srawofni

(GEET Paul Pantone) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjLqFSlHWcs

(Filipino Inventor)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBTQH69j0t4

(Old News)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6yRn4IAsrU

(60 MPG ESCORT WAGON) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFGhZNxdyDY

(Just a geek messing with hydrogen) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfr-YXNEN0g

(The Man)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stApCmxYEM

WEBSITE LINKS TO THE HYDROGEN COMMUNITY:

http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/index.asp

http://www.geetfriends.net/

http://www.biosmeanslife.com/solution.html

http://www.hasslberger.com/tecno/hydrogen.html

AND A LITTLE TREAT FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO READ THIS FAR:

(50 HP WANKEL KART ENGINE) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKayagHUCw8

 

That's all fine and dandy but it's still a crap fuel for an internal combustion engine. You can not change that fact. It will never be superior to gasoline in terms of power and economy. Only emissions will be the sole benefit of it.

 

Clearly cold fusion is the only answer...

 

you just revealed mazda's secret with the 16X...

 

This is why the evo will never be able to beat teh crossfire...

Creating a blackhole to fold time/space for power is the only answer...

 

You can clearly see that when an automaker publishes their making of a hydrogen vehicle, which is a bmw with a v12, that only puts out 260 horse. I have said this before, and i agree with RG on this, cause a bmw v12 on gasoline would put out more than double that. Obviously hydrogen is a shitty fuel. Just look at the Hindenburg, that massive thing burnt so fast. how is that beneficial to a internal combustion engine. I think propane is a much better fuel, and it is sythetic, so we arent limited as much by the availablity of it.

 

First car to be delivered summer 2008 to Stavanger, Norway

 

ack!! 2 times in one day? Hindenberg was NOT a hydrogen fire

 

i just watched mythbusters on it. while it was technically a thermite fire, the hindenburg did use hydrogen for the lift. You couldnt tell that the hydrogen was on fire because the hydrogen's flame is clear, or if you put it through a bunsen burner, it is red.

 

Yeah I know that H2 has less energy for a given volume than gasoline/air, but for the life of me I cannot understand why having a lightning-fast flame speed--in and of itself--would be a bad thing. With a conventional engine, you have to actually fire the spark plug before top dead center, in order to give the mixture time to burn. Running off of H2, you can actually fire it at or slightly after TDC, reducing engine stress. Running partial or full H2 should give you less engine stress, not more. Also, I wonder if the NASA "engineers" who couldn't figure out that you're supposed to retard the timing for a fast-burning fuel are the same ones who crashed that one billion-dollar satellite because they forgot to convert metric units to imperial units.

Okay aside from that, I do think H2 is mostly stupid. Gasoline isn't that scarce yet; it's mainly expensive because the US dollar is tanking. Metals are expensive too, it's not just gasoline. Second, the whole premise behind all this is that global warming is man-made, which...well, the less said there the better.

And finally, H2 does not make any sort of sense as a primary fuel. Not without 5 or 6 BIG breakthroughs in storage, electrolysis, containment, etc. Running a car on compressed air is probably more feasible, in all seriousness. The only thing that makes sense is, using H2 as a supplement to increase efficiency, and to reduce pollution, particularly in low-grade fuels that normally wouldn't cut it. H2 can improve thier combustion characteristics (for example, low grade ethanol. a lot of the cost of ethanol is getting rid of the last 10% water--that's why you never see 200 proof alcohol.)

But again, the extra cost of the hydrogen doesn't make sense unless gasoline is around $10/gallon, and you're carrying around a high pressure tank anyway (to burn CNG or propane, because you can't afford gasoline). Then, it makes sense--as a supplement, around 5~10% of your mixture, as India is doing:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006...to_introd.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007...e_owner_a.html

 

And you are wrong twice! Go watch the mythbusters episode on the Hindenberg. It was not paint related.

 

OK hold on there. If you just watched the episode then you should clearly realize that it was not a thermite fire as there was no thermite on the ship. The concentrations were all wrong. They did make true thermite by mixing it properly and only then did it burn twice as fast.

 

ohhh yea, you are right, damn i love that show, i watch it every day after work. but it was a hydrogen fire, because as i said before, hydrogen burns clear, so of course you couldnt see the flame, so they automatically thought it was the aluminum shell burning, because there was some type of flammable stuff on there, i just dont remember what it was, RG?

 

I don't understand how hydrogen is expensive? It's cheap and cheap to make. I still also don't understand why you guys think that it's a shitty fuel. Don't let an automakers claim of weak horsepower numbers be your basis on this. Like I said, research before you start flaming....here is a link of your so called shitty fuel powering everyday vehicles with high horsepower numbers. #1 the common automakers are way behind in hydrogen technology compared to independent companies and individuals who have spent the last 30 years researching and developing hydrogen technologies. #2 The common automakers also needs to make hydrogen vehicles run in a way that we will have to fill up at a pump so the government gets thier cut. The government won't let it happen if they can't get a cut....PERIOD.

http://www.energyindependencenow.org/vehiclesignup.html

 

The fact that it's unlimited in quantity and absolutely clean burning make it wonderful for use as a fuel. The fact that it burns so fast and makes horrible power compared to alternatives make it a terrible choice for a fuel. It's got good and bad points. In my eyes the bad points don't come close to outweighing the goods.

I'd like to know how they made hydrogen give that much power as none of the big name companies can come close to doing it.

 

Hydrogen fuel offers great promise. As someone else mentioned so does cold fusion. The difference is Hydrogen fuel for combustion is slightly more likely to occur first.

The biggest obstacle to hydrogen fuel is the lack of infrastructure, followed by many other not-so-trivial challenges. Storage, dealing with accidents (safety), are among them.

If Hydrogen really were practical it would almost certainly be coupled to a PEM fuel cell running at 50% efficiency to drive a rare earth PM synchonous motor running at 90% + efficiency yielding a net efficiency of 45% - rather then in an internal combustion motor running 25% on the best day of the year.

Time may change those things not to mention a couple hundred billion dollars investment. In the mean time we'll see some token hydrogen powered cars here and there about like elecrtic cars were a decade or two ago.

While the potential for power from hydrogen is greater then gasoline, RG is correct, no one has demonstarted a working model of that yet.

 

+1

the enginneers at mercedes, and bmw know how to pull every hp they can out of an engine.

 

The point of hydrogen burning fast should not be a concern as it is just a matter of changing ignition timing. Pound per pound hydrogen kicks gasolines *** as far as energy emitted. Most manufacturers are still using a throttle body in conjunction with thier hydrogen cars becuase they are making hybrid engines that need to run on gasoline also. A true hydrogen vehicle does not use a throttle body. Airflow is free flowing and power is added by controlling the amount of hydrogen allowed to enter the combustion chamber. This is just one of the reasons why the hp numbers are way down. It would be like slapping a throttle body on a deisel and expecting it to run at full efficiency.

Like I stated before....the big name auto companies started tooling around with hydrogen in the mid 90's and never took it seriously until recently. Independent guys have spent day and night on the subject for 30 years or more. Who do you think would be further along in technological advancements? The only reason the big automakers are going at it full blown now is because #1 they realize other companies are starting to profit from hydrogen and #2 they realize it's an impressive fuel with a great future that when marketed right and can produce 0 emissions so the consumer is happy, can be taxed so the government is happy and can be produced for pennys on the dollar making the gas companies happy and keeping them in business.

If you want to blind yourselves from the future of hydrogen in the automotive market go right ahead, but hydrogen will soon be sold and used by the big auto makers within the next 5-10 years. And I'll be nice enough to not say, 'I told you so' when it comes.

 

Changing ignition timing has a greater effect on power than compression ratio does. You are saying to adjust timing to compensate. This means it runs really retarded which makes zip for power. The other option to avoid this is to run a lower compression ratio with a higher total timing advance. Better but the lower compression ratio makes less power. You are proving me correct!

 

No actually becuase hydrogen burns at such a high rate you want to ignite it further to, at or after top dead center. The only reason we advance timing with gasoline is because it takes longer to burn so by the time it actually ignites and creates a flame front the piston is on it's way back down. With hydrogen you can actually greatly INCREASE compression ratio because of the fact that it's octane rating is so high.

 

Octane isn't as important as flame travel speed. Look at diesel as an example. You can advance it compared to an octane level that would be equal to that of gasoline but it's still not enough to make up for the fact that your fuel burns too fast to be truly useful in an internal combustion engine.

If hydrogen were really that good, it would already be the current fuel and not some fantasy fuel that we'll never see gain popularity with anyone other than Prius lovers.

 

well i think that even if you do retard the timing and up the comp ratio, the power blast energy still wouldnt be the same as gasoline.

 

Lets not go that far in saying that octane isn't as important as flame travel speed. In the case of hyrdrogen it's not the flame speed to be worried about, it's actually the amount of heat(energy) produced by it. Now combine a internal combustion engine that has a high compression, short stroke with a high speed burn burning fuel such as.....you guessed it, hydrogen.

 

Try running an engine on gun powder if you think flame front isn't something to worry about.

At the end of the day, Hydrogen is crap. It'll always be crap and you can't change that. You also can't convince me otherwise as it's a fact. It sucks!

 

I never said flame front wasn't something to worry about....but it isn't the end all, be all.

Listen guys, I'm not trying to be an ***. I just like all of you at one point in time were a non-believer of hydrogen also. In fact I thought it was the stupedist and most dangerous fuel to try and use in a motor. But then one day I read an article that peaked my curiosity. I desided to RESEARCH and learn about the subject and found out how much promise it holds.

It's kinda like the kid in school that you despised and then one day you duked it out. After kicking each others asses you become best friends. That's the only way I can describe my feelings towards hydrogen.

You guys can fight it as long as you want, but one day when you fully understand it, you will learn to embrace it.....I guarantee it.