Found this while trolling for other things , who's going to be the first to try it on their mini ......
http://netmar.com/~maat/archive/feb2/carplans_doc.htm

_________________

Definatly makes you think!

You would have to get the head ceramic coated if doing a Mini, as it would rust, too.

Could it be something worth while playing with, who knows? Maybe I should get some old Corolla and go MAD!

_________________

Your private Hindenburg.

Yep, PVC tube is not exactly pressure piping....

_________________
DrMini- 1970 wasaMatic 1360, Mk1S crank, 86.6HP (ATW) =~125 @ crank, 45 Dellorto (38 chokes), RE282 sprint cam, 1.5 rockers, 11.0:1 C/R.

been working on one with some friends - well, they're working on it, and I'm nosing around.... the HHO isn't stored under pressure, it's produced in the chamber and used immediately

there are setup you can buy (http://www.fuelfromh2o.com/index.html) which the creators have put a lot of effort into the materials that generate electrolysis - the issue is the efficiency of it - can you make enough to supply as much as the car needs.

The scientists all say it's impossible - you can't get out more than you put in - but there are ways to make it work better than just a couple of bits of wire in a jar... http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTab ... ies/001.1/

_________________
did I tell you that I won a trophy?

I've read a fair bit of research too that piston motor's don't go too good on hydrogen , but rotaries love it due to the "longer" compression stroke ......

_________________

I don't see how this is possible as the reaction for burning hydrogen will create water. The reaction is:

H2 + O2 ---> H2O + Heat

(taken from http://www2.asd.k12.ak.us/hauser/curriculum/html/IS9/Chemistry/Unit%206%20Chemical%20Reactions/Notes%20and%20Handouts/Chemical_Reactions_reading.htm)

So essentially it is saying that by breaking water apart then joining it together again you are going to get a net energy gain. Even if both processes are 100% efficient which they aren't you would have a net energy gain/loss of 0.

If it was all as easy as they say then we would have been running our cars on water instead of petrol for the past 100 years.

Everything I've read to date say's it's possible , but very very difficult to produce enough oxygen and hydrogen on demand without having something the size of the old wood gas/charcoal burner (world war 2 petrol rationing technology .....) mounted on the back of the car to provide the fuel . Possible yes , practical , not yet . the manufacturers have engines that run happily on it but gas production or storage (how about driving around with oxygen and hydrogen cylinders in your car , any takers ......) are the problems .

_________________

If you have a separate energy source such as a fire to provide the energy to electrolyse the water it would work, but then you are using the fire to provide the energy required as the electrolysis and hydrogen burning provides and energy loss.

but if you are going to have a fire you may as well just cut your losses and run it off wood gas as sports850 mentioned

This would be true in a closed system, but as the electrolysis could occur via an external power source such as a battery, it could work.

So if the seperation occured via battery, which could recharged via an alternator and the difference topped up by a powerpoint recharge, then you could run the thing. It would consue more power than it would produce, but the aim is cheap fuel not perpetual motion.

Petrol engines equally ineffiicent and liberate stuff all energy from petrol. The difference is that the energy input happend millions of years ago, not in the engine bay.

I know the answer nuclear powered minis, but I stilll havent overcome the accident issue.

Yeah, a battery could be used like this to provide the extra energy required, but there is no point. If you assume that electrolysis and the burning of the hydrogen oxygen mix are 75% efficient (probably a bit generous) then you would get a combined efficiency of 56%. Compare that to the efficiency of an electric motor at around 90% and you can see that you are far better off simply replacing the engine with an electric motor.

Also, an alternator would not be very useful as it is making the engine work harder and use more fuel and energy to charge the battery. Half of this energy is coming from the battery anyway because of the energy deficit so it is pointless to try to charge the battery in this way.

True , but as blokeinamoke pointed out , efficient no , cheaper possibly . I'm sure somewhere in the near future we'll be using it , just got to get the production and or storage of the gases figured out .

_________________

And for those wondering what we're talking about with wood gas , have a look here ,
http://ww2.whidbey.net/jameslux/woodgas.htm
or find "A son of the red center" by Kurt G Johanson , he gives a lot of details about his various versions of the "mulga express" , the later one in the book was a V8 fairlane wagon kitted out as a camper he droive everywhere .

_________________

Yeah, i agree that we will probably be running our cars on Hydrogen in the future, but it is unlikely that we would be creating the hydrogen ourselves. it is more likely that we will simply have a similar set-up to what gas powered cars have now. it probably wouldn't be worth installing the extra batteries and electrolysis equipment in every car when petrol companies can mass produce hydrogen a lot cheaper.

True , I wonder though if we'll get to the stage of having solar powered hydrogen producers at home , leave it running during the day and refuel the car at night , could be feasable I guess but would be expensive to setup first .

_________________