Converting gas engine to hydrogen

[Laiky]

It is my understanding that even at 10,000 psi, hydrogen is still a gas. Using liquid hydrogen is problematic since you need a heat source to convert it to gas, so i don't think that is even prefferred. It is also my understanding that the tanks are available and safe (carbon fiber wound alluminum) you can do well with 5000 psi tanks too. And hydrogen embrittlement (as far as i know) requires heat. If i sound optimistic, it's because i have ben researching hydrogen and the advantages are enourmous. I know from my personal experience that nothing is ever really accomplished by pessimists, so i'm taking the enthusiastic route.

[Dmaxer]

It is my understanding that even at 10,000 psi, hydrogen is still a gas. Using liquid hydrogen is problematic since you need a heat source to convert it to gas, so i don't think that is even prefferred. It is also my understanding that the tanks are available and safe (carbon fiber wound alluminum) you can do well with 5000 psi tanks too. And hydrogen embrittlement (as far as i know) requires heat. If i sound optimistic, it's because i have ben researching hydrogen and the advantages are enourmous. I know from my personal experience that nothing is ever really accomplished by pessimists, so i'm taking the enthusiastic route.

Laiky,

I understand your enthusiasm for your project and I wish you well. That you believe I'm a naysayer is understood. I've not set out to be negative, just a realist. I sincerely hope you beat the odds.

However, hydrogen embrittlement is possible without heat. Pipe bends carrying hydrogen have embrittled without heat. See http://www.springerlink.com/content/w05p47r925100275/ . Studies of tubing used in power systems reveal that tubing cracks whether heated or not, see http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=6115669 . A quote from this source says, "...hydrogen had a significant effect on processes of crack origin and propagation both in the superheater and in the unheated tubes of the boilers."

Acknowledged that lower pressure storage at 350 bar may be an alternative to the common storage at 700 bar in test vehicles, but how practical is that? Vehicles testing hydrogen fuel cell technology were minimally successful using the higher pressure tanks. A regular automotive engine would need more, not less hydrogen fuel (assuming it could be adapted at all).

I really hope you're an inventive genius. Please keep us posted.

[burninbriar]

Acknowledged that lower pressure storage at 350 bar may be an alternative to the common storage at 700 bar in test vehicles, but how practical is that? Vehicles testing hydrogen fuel cell technology were minimally successful using the higher pressure tanks. A regular automotive engine would need more, not less hydrogen fuel (assuming it could be adapted at all).

I really hope you're an inventive genius. Please keep us posted.

Hydrogen powered internal combustion engines already exist, have for some time and are in use today in Iceland as someone here corrected me when I mentioned Greenland. It may not be practical in this country to use for general transportation but its not a wild hairbrain idea.
Again, take a look at this link I posted earlier to see successful vehicles.
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/hydro...s1807-1986.htm

[mcdab]

Hey guys, on that hyrogen, it is worth it, you have to read more about it on the net. I have been doing it for 3 years, and I have friends that are diong it.One friend of mine is getting 26- 27 mpgdriving back roads and main roads, with a ford f150 pickup, that is supposed to getaround 16 highway? You do have to adjust your oxyogen censor, with a potentiometer in series, while using a scanner plugged into the port.It is all over the internet. MY welding truck with a 3208 cat diesel natural,gets an extra 30 miles more to the tank and more power. Jim