Post Reply 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Author Message
rickmay Offline

Posts: 8
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 0
Post: #1
[/color][/b][b][color=#1E90FF]I like your forum, but there is so much diversity in posts, it still makes me wonder about the technology.

A guy named Wulfrum was said to be getting 100 MPG. I doubt this, and suggest that he be removed if he cannot verify such a claim.

Also, if I am correct, a hydrogen car puts water out the tail pipe as a byproduct. In using a hydrogen or Brown's gas generator, is there added water put into the exhaust? If so, would that not negate any savings with people having modest performance increases when they have to replace the exhaust system more often?

I have only found one person who has a car similar to mine on the forum. I have a 1983 Mercedes Benz, 240D, a 2.4l four cylinder diesel engine. It would seem ideal for this conversion. It has an EGR, and the valve cover vents into an oil separator, which then goes directly into the side of the intake manifold. The engine has mechanical injection of the fuel, and the air intake is through a K&N filter in the filter housing which enters the intake manifold through a fuel free carburetor, essentially an air flap controlled by the linkage. There are no oxygen sensors or computer to deal with.

It would seem interesting to not use the air scoop to introduce the hydrogen, but to do the following:

1. divert the engine vent from the oil separator, and vent it to the ground like they used to do.

2. run a hose to the rubber fitting that currently goes from the oil separator to the intake manifold, so that the hydrogen goes directly into the intake manifold which essentially travels about a foot before going into the engine.

I emailed Mr. Oates who has a 300 turbo diesel, as he never posted results. I, also, do not want to screw up my like new classic car, which already is getting much better mileage than my Nissan Versa SL. I recently drove from Door County Wisconsin to Chicago and was disappointed to only get 35 MPG. This, with a 3,300 pound car, fully loaded with three adults, tools and parts for repairs, food, coolers with ice, luggage, putting the total weight with a full tank of gas, at somewhere between 4,300 and 4,500 pounds. Air-cond. not on, not working, hopefully, next year.

I would be interested in hearing from others, and particularly from early Mercedes diesel owners who have done this conversion, and I am also wondering about the added water that would probably come out the tail pipe. I also wonder about the fact that this thirty year old car has three times the compression (or more) than most gasoline engines. I wouldn't want the added 'efficiency' to pop my head thru the hood.
(This post was last modified: 08-23-2011 10:05 AM by rickmay.)
08-23-2011 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mike Offline
Senior Member

Posts: 2,020
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation: 7
Post: #2
The primary by product of the combustion of petroleum fuel is water. The amount of water that will result when the HHO combines is actually negligible when compared to it. I don't think the increase would even be measurable. However, the HHO will make the petroleum fuel burn more completely, and that will make a definite increase in the water. But the increase will be an increase per gallon of fuel consumed. If the electronics are handled correctly so that less gas is given to the engine, you will get and increase in fuel mileage (less gas per mile), and theoretically you'll get the same amount of water as you were producing before. But less gas is burned to get it.

Basically the water production should work out to be the same before and after HHO production.

I'm just addressing the water issue in your post.

[Image: signature.gif]
Visit Our Documents Page
08-23-2011 10:09 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 

Forum Jump:

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)