Sure would like to hear how a H2 fuel works in an IC engine !!

I really like old Elon Musk butt........can't see me in one of his rides.
H2 just seems to make better sense to me.
I guess it just doesn't have the politics behind it like 'lecterk.
6sal6

Hydrogen is a combustible fuel, so you are just mixing H2 with air and igniting it.  The best thing is they produce zero emissions other than water vapor.  The fuel is in turn made from water.

The downside is that hydrogen contains less energy than gas or Diesel does, but lost power can be regained by traditional strategies to improve power output (forced induction, etc.).

Another benefit is that hydrogen can be used in fuel cells to produce electricity.  This way, when we either exhaust the Earth's supply of lithium or it becomes incredibly expensive, otherwise worthless electric vehicles with dead battery packs can be converted to hydrogen fuel cells instead of being scrapped. 

Without a doubt hydrogen is our only viable hope for clean vehicle emissions.  Its not politics; its science.  The problem is that politicians are in bed with the Elon Musks of the world and keep pushing this EV agenda which is terrible for the planet (EVs have produced 100,000 miles of gas engine emissions the day they are built due to mining, etc.) and unsustainable in the long run. 

Its funny, but Schwarzenegger knew all of this when he was governor of CA.  He's had a hydrogen powered Hummer for almost 2 decades and created a bill to get the infrastructure moving in CA, but once he left office it was basically abandoned. 

We are being led down a path of feel good sentiment which enriches a tiny minority at the expense of our future.  I'd advise everyone to contact your representatives at the State and Federal level and encourage them to stop subsidizing EVs and invest in hydrogen infrastructure. 
 

Can anyone give me the rub on the details of how they get the coyote engine to run on hydrogen? They claim no fuel cell and there is direct injection involved.
Apparently it has more power and it sounds just like an internal combustion engine.
Are we talking some sort of bolt on EFI type system (looks like the Autolite carb will be retired)?

TKOPerformance wrote:

You wouldn't use a fuel cell.  A fuel cell is for converting hydrogen into electricity.  Here's some info on those if you're interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

This is just an internal combustion engine that's been converted to run on hydrogen.  Its hard to find specifics on the conversion, but from what I've read direct injection is the best method for producing power and preventing issues in a fairly simple conversion.  Basically you replace the fuel tank with a tank that holds hydrogen.  You need a valve to reduce tank pressure down to a reasonable injection pressure.  You need a valve to control injection into the cylinders, and nozzles to inject it.  All of this is controlled by a computer and the appropriate tuning.  What the success and power output of this particular engine shows is the technical understanding and ability of the people who did the conversion.  There are some issues specific to hydrogen that probably required extensive testing to resolve.  Hydrogen has a higher effective octane rating than gasoline, but is also prone to ignition from hot spots.  Direct injection is best because the valves are already closed and the hydrogen is trapped.  If you use port injection the hydrogen tends to flow backwards into the intake.  There's some good, albeit pretty technical, info here:

file:///C:/Users/Tom/Downloads/ASEE_2012_Conference-Hydrogen_Engine_Paper-Revised_Final_Copy_3-12-2012.pdf
 

So this is a genuine prospective fuel source then...
Makes me wonder why this is not more mainstream.
I've already been in touch with my elected Government Representatives about this.

Toploader wrote:

TKOPerformance wrote:

You wouldn't use a fuel cell.  A fuel cell is for converting hydrogen into electricity.  Here's some info on those if you're interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

This is just an internal combustion engine that's been converted to run on hydrogen.  Its hard to find specifics on the conversion, but from what I've read direct injection is the best method for producing power and preventing issues in a fairly simple conversion.  Basically you replace the fuel tank with a tank that holds hydrogen.  You need a valve to reduce tank pressure down to a reasonable injection pressure.  You need a valve to control injection into the cylinders, and nozzles to inject it.  All of this is controlled by a computer and the appropriate tuning.  What the success and power output of this particular engine shows is the technical understanding and ability of the people who did the conversion.  There are some issues specific to hydrogen that probably required extensive testing to resolve.  Hydrogen has a higher effective octane rating than gasoline, but is also prone to ignition from hot spots.  Direct injection is best because the valves are already closed and the hydrogen is trapped.  If you use port injection the hydrogen tends to flow backwards into the intake.  There's some good, albeit pretty technical, info here:

file:///C:/Users/Tom/Downloads/ASEE_2012_Conference-Hydrogen_Engine_Paper-Revised_Final_Copy_3-12-2012.pdf
 

So this is a genuine prospective fuel source then...
Makes me wonder why this is not more mainstream.
I've already been in touch with my elected Government Representatives about this.

In my opinion its simply dirty politics.  There's a claim that the infrastructure will take too long to build, and that we are 40 years from being able to use cleanly made hydrogen as a replacement fuel for gasoline and Diesel.  Well, sure, if they keep allowing the infrastructure to be built at a glacial pace and fail to provide funding and subsidies that's probably true.  If they simply stopped subsidizing EVs it seems both problems would be solved in short order.  Meanwhile each EV they build dumps 100k miles worth of gas car pollution into the atmosphere in one day, to say nothing of the other environmental and societal costs of mining (erosion, habitat loss, water pollution, child labor, etc.).  Its also pretty clear that electric is simply never going to be a replacement for most of the pollution created by vehicles because its not going to replace Diesel due to various issues making it completely infeasible (lack of range, weight of batteries, lack of ability to refuel quickly).  After considerable research I've come to the conclusion that if we are going to clean up vehicle emissions the only real solution is hydrogen.  The longer we keep traveling down the EV road, which is a dead end, the more we are hurting the environment and the father we push the inevitable switch to hydrogen power.  The problem is a good segment of the population has been duped and the politicians have been bought by the Elon Musks of the world. 

TKOPerformance wrote:

Greg B wrote:

Great! Now the price of peroxide will go through the roof when its now sold in all the stores as a fuel boost! Which will in turn skyrocket the cost of medical care!

The man will never win.

Its been used to boost cetane rating in Diesel fuel for years.  Sssh!  Don't tell anyone else. 
 

Remember the old hydrogen peroxide racers? 

https://www.draglist.com/stories/SOD%20Mar%202002/SOD-031402.htm

https://bangshift.com/bangshift1320/fantastic-1970s-video-neatest-vintage-hydrogen-peroxide-rocket-dragster-footage-ever-seen/

https://www.dragzine.com/news/flashback-friday-sammy-millers-hydrogen-peroxide-powered-dragster/


 

6sally6 wrote:

TKOPerformance wrote:

Toploader wrote:

So this is a genuine prospective fuel source then...
Makes me wonder why this is not more mainstream.
I've already been in touch with my elected Government Representatives about this.

In my opinion its simply dirty politics.  There's a claim that the infrastructure will take too long to build, and that we are 40 years from being able to use cleanly made hydrogen as a replacement fuel for gasoline and Diesel.  Well, sure, if they keep allowing the infrastructure to be built at a glacial pace and fail to provide funding and subsidies that's probably true.  If they simply stopped subsidizing EVs it seems both problems would be solved in short order.  Meanwhile each EV they build dumps 100k miles worth of gas car pollution into the atmosphere in one day, to say nothing of the other environmental and societal costs of mining (erosion, habitat loss, water pollution, child labor, etc.).  Its also pretty clear that electric is simply never going to be a replacement for most of the pollution created by vehicles because its not going to replace Diesel due to various issues making it completely infeasible (lack of range, weight of batteries, lack of ability to refuel quickly).  After considerable research I've come to the conclusion that if we are going to clean up vehicle emissions the only real solution is hydrogen.  The longer we keep traveling down the EV road, which is a dead end, the more we are hurting the environment and the father we push the inevitable switch to hydrogen power.  The problem is a good segment of the population has been duped and the politicians have been bought by the Elon Musks of the world. 

So true-true-true...
IF we could get Elon Musk to develop/market a Hydrogen powered Tesla....prolly be on the market in 6 months !!!
6sal6 

The issue is that he's the one most responsible for suppressing the technology. 
 

Rudi wrote:

TKOPerformance wrote:

6sally6 wrote:

So true-true-true...
IF we could get Elon Musk to develop/market a Hydrogen powered Tesla....prolly be on the market in 6 months !!!
6sal6 

The issue is that he's the one most responsible for suppressing the technology. 
 

 
When you are a nail manufacturer you don’t want your engineers developing screws.

Yep, pretty much. 
 

Oh, I respect what the guy has accomplished for sure, and part of business is creating barriers to competition or even trying to destroy your competition.  I keep telling him I'll gladly fight Zuckerberg for him too.  I just want $1 billion when I win. 

Hydrogen is not a clean option for cars, just as electric is not a clean option for cars.  YES the actual car emissions are clean but producing the power required to charge an EV takes fossil fuels unless coming from a nuclear power plant which has its own challenges.  Hydrogen requires that same electricity to convert water into hydrogen and the energy required to convert water into hydrogen is greater than the energy produced by burning the hydrogen.  The emissions upside to EV and hydrogen over gasoline is collective efficiency.  The carbon footprint of the power plants making the power that is used to charge EVs and to make hydrogen is lower per mile (once it is translated to the vehicle) than burning gas directly in a car.  Saying that EVs or hydrogen powered vehicles are emission free is like saying  "I'm debt free" after refinancing your home from a 10% interest rate to a 3% interest rate.  Yes you may save $100,000 over the life of the loan but you sill have to pay the principle and remaining interest.

Don't even get me started on how electric vehicles might actually be worse for the environment because once their batteries fail you are looking at 30K to replace them. not just because of the cost of the batteries but also because the car has to be completely disassembled to get to the batteries and massive amounts of ENERGY are required to recycle the materials in the batteries to make new batteries plus all the emissions created mining the battery components like lithium in the first place. EVs are a terrible idea, I think when over all environmental impact is taken into account from raw materials, life of the vehicle and then recycling at the end they are a step back from hybrids and as bad if not worse than gasoline powered cars.  At least with the hybrid we were maximizing efficiency and reducing the fuels burned. 

My other question with hydrogen is what is the range? The ratio of liquid to gaseous hydrogen is 1:848.  the only way to get it into a liquid from is massive pressure or extreme cold temperatures.  I would be willing to bet that miles per gallon are way way less for hydrogen then gasoline which is a liquid at room temperature and with no pressure..

And then there are the safety concerns.  If you take a small cup of gasoline and light it it doesn't explode like you would expect it to or like the movies would lead us to believe it just burns kind of like an aggressive candle because as a liquid at room temperature it is not mixing with enough oxygen to instantly burn off completely only the surface has access to the required oxygen.  That is why atomization is so important inside an engine.  Add a little heat and turn liquid gasoline into vapor and suddenly you have a massive instant explosion.  Hydrogen however is a gas at anything warmer than -423º F that means any leak any where on this planet will be vapor and will have plenty of oxygen around it for instant combustion.  People were worried about Mustangs exploding because of the trunk floor gas tank, lets multiply that by 1000 with hydrogen.

Laws should be in place for the ev makers to be responsible for the recycling of their batteries.
A more likely scenario is that taxpayers will have to fund private enterprises to do that.

With humongous grants and subsidies the Ontario and Canadien governments a local factory is being built to manufacture the cast aluminum base units for ev batteries.
Looking at the amount of money given to them would make your eyes bleed.
Unlike the batteries,  aluminum can be easily recycled .