Hydrogen Vs. Gasoline

[rotinaj13]

If I understood right. The air fuel ratio of Hydro is a little more then twice that of gas, So a car should consume half as much Hydro as it does gasoline. So if you get 30 mile per gal. on gas, then you should get 60 mile per gal. on hydro. Correct me if I am wrong however it seems sound...

[chemelec]

[rotinaj13]

[joe]

[AlaskaStar]

ok folks, lets simplify this for you. when you have Gasoline in a container, it is a LIQUID.
When you have hydrogen in a pressurized container (non cryogenic) it is considered to be GASEOUS.

Gasoline LIQUID WILL NOT BURN. Gasoline VAPORS WILL BURN.

anyone dare to try little experiment to verify, here's how: get 5 gallons of gas in container, get a coffee can (empty of course) drill hole in bottom and put spark plug in and JB weld in place. after JB Weld cures fill can with some gasoline. now administer a high voltage spark to bottom of coffee can while can is grounded. NOTHING WILL HAPPEN. in youth times trying to blow up cars out of boredome i discovered this.
Gasoline VAPORS WILL BURN IN THE PRESENCE OF AIR. so i provoke thought with this question: IF liquid gasoline doesn't burn, then why are the automobile manufacturers setting up the Gasoline injection nozzles 1/2 inch away from the intake valve to the cylinders? i understand the "atomisation" process of the injectors, HOWEVER, the most efficient Gasiline Fuel injected engine on the market TODAY, OF THE FUEL INJECTED, 49.5% burns and 50.5% goes out the tailpipe. the "atomiser" or Injector does a fine job of making a large amount of fine LIQUID gasoline DROPLETS to be burned.

now the gas engine will run smoothly and SOMEWHAT powerful on liquid gasoline at a stochiometric ratio of AIR:FUEL of 14.72 parts of air to 1 part fuel. in other words 14.72:1 is the ratio of gasoline LIQUID to air to operate.

The gasoline that we use today has a truckload of potential. 1 gallon when PROPERLY VAPORIZED will make aproximately 6144, yes that is again 6144 CUBIC FEET of PURE GASOLINE. however that doesn't help those without the technology OR the knowhow to properly perform such a feat.

Hydrogen on the other hand, has a burn rate of 1% to 99% ratio of hydrogen to air. what i mean by this is that to rev up a hydrogen engine you add more fuel. to make an RPM drop, you lower the fuel flow so that it gets less fuel. very much the same way a diesel engine has no throttle plate and to go faster add more and to go slower add less. so hydrogen has some serious potential. the fact that once a hydrogen vehicle is up to speed, you do not need to be jamming full ratio of hydrogen, you can throttle back the hydrogen ratio and still maintain RPMS. you can find all this stuff on the Ford Model "U" Hydrogen SUV. Pioneered by Stephen Hunter, who is my half brother, that works in the Research and development end of Ford Motor Company.

the Apples and oranges are a comparison of the misleading, and the blind trying to lead the deaf and blind. so as hydrogen is a gas, and gasoline is a liquid, you have to find the common denominator of both, either convert your hydrogen to liquid and compare that way, or convert your gasoline from a liquid state to a gaseous stae and compare it that way. apples and apples are comparable, and oranges and oranges are comparable, but don't compare apples to oranges and you will do just fine.

same topic in the automotive field they do some tricky numbers for you...
a carburetor is measured in the capacity of cubic FEET and the engine is measured in the capacity of cubic INCHES. likewise for imports, the engine is measured in Litres and the fuel delivery in cubic meters. the way to convert a gas engine to Cubic FEET in America is as follows:

take a typical Chevy 350 CID motor...converts like this:

350 cubic inches displaced, divide by 1728. this will give you a decimal number and that is how many cubic feet your motor is. like the chevy 350 Cubic Inch Displacement converts to a chevy 02025 CUBIC FEET Displacement...

from this you can calculate your engine and thereby calculate how much fuel will be consumed.

by the way the "1728" number mentioned is the number of cubic inches in a cubic foot. so i imagine that an edelbrock carburetor capable of deliver 750 Cubic FEET per minute maximum calibrated fuel flow to prevent lean burn condition, would take a hell of an engine under it to use up the full potential of that carburetor. in fact it would take an engine that is aproximately 129,6000 cubic inches in displacement, and then under the stipulation that at all times the supercharger keeps the engine manifold pressure equal to that of the ambient pressure outside the vehicle, so that the engine manifold is never in a vacuum.

anyway i hope that this clears up some of the confusion out there that comes standard with every vehicle on the road.

[Ronald_raygun]

You know, about the vapor fuel system there was this guy named Tom Ogle who managed to get some 1970s Ford to hit 100+mpg.

http://www.rexresearch.com/ogle/1ogle.htm

Interesting work to say the least. There is only one problem, and that's starting the engine.

[AlaskaStar]

[Chris]

Hi Alaska,

H2O2 (Hydrogen Peroxide) is definitely not the same thing as Heavy Water...

Heavy water is Deuterium Oxide or sometimes referred to as Dideuterium Oxide ...it is represented as D2O or 2H2O. It is not to be confused with the totally different chemical H2O2 (Hydrogen Peroxide).

I think I'm going to go have a big glass of Hydrogen Hydroxide or perhaps some Hydroxylic Acid (aka Water aka H2O) ...in case anyone wishes to join me.

[johnh]

Hi Alaska,
Also I think you will find that Tritium is 3H not H3, A hydrogen atom with the addition of 2 nuetrons and not 3 atoms in a molecule as h3 would suggest.
And JADO is JATO (Jet Assisted Take Off). I think Germany used Hydrogen peroxide as an oxidizer with liquid fuel while most US attempts used solid fuel boosters.
As a recycling merchant I often have fairly large quantities of tritium in my possesion in radioactive exit signs and I have never been visited by anyone except potential buyers. There is of course some restrictions as to how it is disposed of once reclaimed and one should be fairly careful not too consume it. otherwise I know of no restrictions here.
I could go on with other posts but will refrain unless Chis thinks it is important to reply to inaccuracies in the archives.
regards
JohnH

[Chris]

Yes it is VERY important to reply to inaccuracies in posts here... Why? Because we should all be checking and validating each other's work and each other's claims.

As a model and as a RULE, I always post everything that I do on my site for the purpose of independent verification and duplication. In this way others are able to validate what I am doing and add their own observations.

We should never read information posted on research forums like this, without a critical eye and a desire to duplicate claimed results.

Here however is the challenge people. We have to temper our "critical eye" with understanding. We must recognize when people are trying to help and perhaps just made a simple mistake, as is probably the case here.

We need to learn how to NOT scare away those who are doing their best to contribute to the cause of free energy or clean energy technologies. All we can ask of anyone, is that they do their best.

We should try to focus on work that is 100% duplicatable and able to be shared fully with others. Information that can only be shared in part can often just serve to frustrate you (with all of the questions) and others, as they go nuts trying to figure things out. -It's a fine line to walk I know... but hey, no one said this was going to be easy.

We are all here of our own free will. Please don't forget that.

[Chris]

[AlaskaStar]

[Dr Dimento]