Stuntin' 101

had this info on my computer for a while now.. just forgot all about it.. what the information in this site will provide you with is a simple device that anyone on here can create for a few bucks that claims will increase your gas mileage by 20%.. the original link i had saved for this device no longer works so i had to search around a bit for this one. the one i use to have, provided diagrams, but the instructions and explanations on this site are very clear and detailed.

basically, it explains how to make a simple device that will extract small amounts of hydrogen out of a container filled with a mixure of water and a small amout of battery acid. current is passed though the mixture via electrodes, therefore liberating the hydrogen, which is then brought into your intake through the cars vaccum hose.

keep in mind. this is a simple explanation on how it works, well one of the methods anyway. there are much more advanced methods that claim higner gains. the website is loaded with info and instructions. so i'll pass this along to you guys. hopefully a few will be willing to give it a try.


http://www.himacresearch.com/books/hydro1.html

CystumMax

Is that your site? do I have to buy the information? Why can'tyou just post it for us???

maX5

iTrader: (4)

Yeah, I agree, Why cant you just post it for use insterad of paying...

Crockpot

i smell

Stuntin' 101

umm.. no its not my site.. actually its not the original one that i had, so the info provided is a little different, with some things and details left out (just read the whole thing again myself).. so sorry if it doesnt give all the details i thought it originally did, but if you read threw it you get the basic idea.. with a lil resarch im sure any capable person can get whatever other info they'd want.

the reason i didnt " just post it " is cause it gives you 11 pages of introduction, background, and explanation.. jesus christ why the f--k are you askin me questions about it when u can click the damn thing a see for yourself. you wanna know more about it, but you want me to hold your hand and explain it all cause your too lazy to take 5 min to read the damn thing..

Stuntin' 101

you dont have to pay anything to read it boy wonder.. see the lil arrows on the bottom of the page? click it and itll bring you to the next page..

BlueC

iTrader: (5)

I have no patience to read the whole thing.....

Nismotic

iTrader: (25)

Tornado fuel saver is the way to go...

MaDMvD

iTrader: (16)

I skimmed through the 10 pages or so, but I'm not sure I'd want to invest on something I probably would not even know how to build. I'd be more prone to trying it if someone (a guinea pig) with more technical/mechanical skills did a write-up and/or review. Although I am not doubting this..."technology", I feel it is just not worth the hassle.

Bobo

I have a bridge for sale. More details to follow.

96GreenMax

iTrader: (2)

hmm I am not to sure how wise it is to be making hydrogen in your engine compartment. There is a reason that hydrogen cells are $100k. The idea has merit but hydrogen and oxygen are both extremly flamable. It almost sounds like a bomb waiting to explode.

dgeesaman

iTrader: (10)

It is obviously a scam. There is no way to realistically increase fuel mileage without reducing the power of the engine.

Dave

mzmtg

iTrader: (11)

That's not true. Look at the LS2 Corvette.

Anyway, how does making hydrogen help fuel economy?

Max96GLE

iTrader: (2)

hmm, I'll stick with the $3 a gallon gas. I'm not sure if anyone have the time and money to blow their own car up. If you experiment and show us the result, I'll gladly pay you to show me the setup.

dgeesaman

iTrader: (10)

As far as I'm concerned, that's a whole different car. Hybridizing a car would also help fuel economy, but again, that's a major (if not unrealistic) change.

Plus, who drives the Vette with the 1-4 block enabled, anyway? If they shifted the Vette through all gears during the EPA test, it would never rate as high, I'm told.

Dave

mzmtg

iTrader: (11)

Just look at cars in general. Overall, cars today are getting more power with better fuel economy and less emissions than ever. Back in the '60s, 1 horsepower per cubic inch was seen as a big deal, and those cars got horrible mileage by todays standards.

dgeesaman

iTrader: (10)

Oh, yes, absolutely improvements are being made. In fact, it irritates me to no end that our emissions laws do a good job of encouraging engine efficiency improvements in cars, but SUVs and pickups have practically nothing to push them for improvement. Scarier yet, the bigger and more overweight the light truck is (>8000lb GVW) the more lax the standards are. As a result, millions of late-model gas-guzzlers are running on 60s and 70s vintage powerplants. For two decades now, these vehicles are primarily used for daily driving and family cars. (It's no surprise, Detroit has been very carefully marketing to affluent suburban families for years, and cultivated the testosterone-pumping, big wheel, big engine, off-road style). Very few use them for heavy-duty use or off-road. If they were designed using lightweight (and safer!) unibody frames, more refined engines, better aerodynamics (make them shorter), and better catalytics, they could reduce fuel use greatly. Fortunately, newer models are beginning to resemble the safer and more efficient version of what they really are: station wagons and minivans. The Urban Destroyer fad may finally be fading. But it's been 20 years and 2 Gulf Wars in the making. I wonder how many citizens have children at war but still drive an Excursion every day and never considered the possible connection.

I'm no dummy - when my Maxima eventually dies at 250k (about 3-4 years) I'll probably get something like a Civic hybrid. Low 20s in mpg just isn't good for my 60mi daily commute.

But as I originally said, to retrofit existing cars with anything that promises better fuel economy or emissions will either reduce the power or changing the powerplant. Any website claiming a few mods can improve the fuel economy of what's sitting is my driveway is full of s**t. I think we agree on that point.

97SEdriver

iTrader: (3)

[QUOTE=dgeesaman]Oh, yes, absolutely improvements are being made. In fact, it irritates me to no end that our emissions laws do a good job of encouraging engine efficiency improvements in cars, but SUVs and pickups have practically nothing to push them for improvement. Scarier yet, the bigger and more overweight the light truck is (>8000lb GVW) the more lax the standards are. As a result, millions of late-model gas-guzzlers are running on 60s and 70s vintage powerplants. For two decades now, these vehicles are primarily used for daily driving and family cars. (It's no surprise, Detroit has been very carefully marketing to affluent suburban families for years, and cultivated the testosterone-pumping, big wheel, big engine, off-road style). Very few use them for heavy-duty use or off-road. If they were designed using lightweight (and safer!) unibody frames, more refined engines, better aerodynamics (make them shorter), and better catalytics, they could reduce fuel use greatly. Fortunately, newer models are beginning to resemble the safer and more efficient version of what they really are: station wagons and minivans. The Urban Destroyer fad may finally be fading. But it's been 20 years and 2 Gulf Wars in the making. I wonder how many citizens have children at war but still drive an Excursion every day and never considered the possible connection.

I'm no dummy - when my Maxima eventually dies at 250k (about 3-4 years) I'lprobably get something like a Civic hybrid. Low 20s in mpg just isn't good for my 60mi daily commute.

[/l QUOTE]

Detroit had nothing to do with the current SUV fad, they WERE making station wagons, and advertising the great fuel economy back when the SUV craze started. Remember the reason the 70's muscle car fad faded? Price of gas and fuel economy. NOT safety or anything else. And the 1st SUV's were Jeep Cherokee's and Suburbans, which had a purpose, so did pickups.
No reason to get political here, the 2 gulf wars certainly had to do with oil, but not for purely political reasons, more with world economy stability issues. We only get like 2-5% of our oil from the Middle east, ours is mostly from South America and partly from the North Sea.
And driving a Civic hybrid solves nothing unless you get your electricity from Nuclear power or live by the Hoover dam, because most power plants run on fossil fuels, because of the scare of 3-mile island. So, driving that hydrid will burn fossil fuels AND contaminate the environment worse when the battery is disposed of.
Maybe you're not as old as me, but let people do what they want, like buy 4th gen maxima's with no side curtain airbags and not as stringent CAFE standards.
Also remember that polution is a classic 80/20 equation, 80% of the pollution is generated by 20% of the cars. And as time passes more and more of that 20% is replaced by the newer cars which in turn bring down the pollution. If you keep your 4th gen, one day you will be that 20% , should we then pass laws to force you to buy a newer car?

dgeesaman

iTrader: (10)

Ah, its more complicated than that. The muscle car fad did fade due to gas shortages and prices, but the commercial light truck market remained independent of it. The market was harsh indeed during the 60s and 70s, such that Washington gave breaks to products made by Jeep so they could survive. When CAFE was enacted, Washington left them out, and it wasn't a big deal then since Jeep was very small and rather alone. It wasn't until the mid-80s when Jeep Cherokees and Chevy Suburbans became popular for personal use and daily driving. It started with people who used them for both daily driving as well as hauling loads and mild off-roading, but Detroit et al quickly recognized that they were becoming stylish. In addition, since they fell under the emissions/economy exemptions given to Jeep, Detroit could make them very cheaply using old platforms and sell them at high prices. Detroit SPECIFICALLY marketed them to families.

Quoting directly from the book High and Mighty, The Dangerous Rise of the SUV:
"Who has been buying SUVs since automakers turned them into family vehicles? They tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They often lack self confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interest in their neighbors or communities.
"No, that's not a cynic talking - that's the auto industry's own market researchers and executives."

And again:
"'SUVs are about image... the only time those SUVs are going to be off-road is when they miss the driveway at 3am'" J. C. Collins, Ford marketing manager (minvans and SUVs)

Minivans were seen as weak and feeble cars, and station wagons were old 70s gas guzzlers. SUVs had aggressive offroad appearance that was rarely used.

Detroit and the UAW made damn sure that CAFE and other emissions regulations didn't curb the SUV craze - these were the most profitable vehicles the US automakers had, since they were cheap and easy to make, and they didn't have the massive engineering costs of lowering weight and improving the powerplants like a unibody car. Plus, Washington had little trouble castrating any emissions acts since the foreign automakers had been cut out of the SUV market by 40 year old tariff that was originally aimed at Volkwagen brand small pickups.

So basically, the incredible demand of the populace for SUVs has taken a very small and insignificant market and grown it immensely. The little loopholes that Washington made (both democrat and republican over the years, regardless of their supposed environmental policy) have stretched into gaping holes.

I'm not trying to draw a direct connection here and make this political. But economically, the fact remains that our oil usage is massive and inflexible due to our reliance on our personal vehicles. OPEC is largely controlled by middle eastern countries that have many political oppositions to the US, and they control the world's oil prices and availability. The US has its ***** tied by a string, much more than other countries that have more public transportation in place.

I think you're unclear on the workings of a hybrid. It only eats gasoline, you don't plug it in. It diverts things like braking energy into a battery, and uses the electric motor to supplement the smaller piston engine. Hence, the relatively similar city and highway ratings. It's simply an efficiency improvement on a standard combustion powerplant.

A pure electric car would have the issue of the power source. I work in the power generation industry, and frankly, I would prefer to see powerplants making the energy using nuclear or hydro instead of burning fossil fuels. If electric cars were practical, they would have that advantage.

Converting to hydrogen is a waste. Until that process approaches the efficiency of nuclear and hydro, I will never support it.

Yes, and you should keep in mind a bigger picture yet. The 80/20 rule doesn't just apply to cars: it includes any personal vehicle such as an offroad pickup or SUV. SUVs pollute over 4x as much per mile and burn 2x as much fuel as a comparably-seating car. And I'm talking about 2005 models. Since I rarely see an SUV loaded with cargo, it's a fair comparison. The pollution and economy of SUVs has been consistently awful for 2 decades, and without laws to encourage otherwise, it won't change. Consumers simply won't motivate it (consider again how Detroit views this group of consumers).

If people would leave their SUV in the driveway and used it occasionally over 20 years instead of daily for 2 years, and drove a more appropriately sized car for daily use, they would save a lot of money and dump a lot less overall pollution. Those owners would probably cut their fuel usage in half. And that's a big portion of the US population.

My Maxima is currently getting between 21 and 28mpg. I figure when I'm done paying for my RX-7 in two years, even if the Maxima is running well I'll get something more efficient. Grandfathering vehicles is the only way to go.

Really though, the issue of emissions is broader. Volcanic eruptions, cars in other countries, lawnmowers and other 2-stroke engine tools, boats, and commericial trucks dump much larger amounts of pollution onto our globe. And that sucks.

I strongly recommend that book, it's well-grounded (and I'm a PITA engineer who likes to point out ****ty reasoning) and so far its the authoritative discussion of the subject. If you can share a source of different point of view, I welcome that.

Dave

mattmax

right now it takes more petro based energy to produce hydrogen than it is worth to run hydrogen cars (like you would get 20 miles of driving with the gasoline it would take to produce enough hydrogen to drive 15 miles) so I doubt that this thing really works..

MaDMvD

iTrader: (16)

If I could fit that on a bumper sticker, I would have one custom-made and slap it right on my Maxima. That is, hands down, the utter truth, and it happens to be the exact same point of view I share.

MaxGordon7

iTrader: (36)

Damn dave im on your side all the way

Jeff92se

iTrader: (82)

I got a RX300 suv for my wife. Anyone got a problem with that??

CystumMax

What kind of gas mileage do you get with your vehicle? Did you know there are a few simple things that you can do to increase your mileage? Each one may only give you a little improvement but if you do all of them, you can increase your gas savings significantly - maybe by even as much as $500 a year.
So here they are!


Watch your speed. Traveling speed has a large affect on fuel consumption. Traveling at 65 mph (105kph) instead of 55 mph (88 kps) can use up to 17 percent more fuel.


Use cruise control whenever you can, especially on highways. By maintaining a steady speed, you will improve your gas mileage.


Check your tires on a regular basis and keep them properly inflated. If they are under-inflated, it can shorten the life of your tires as well as reduce your mileage (up to 4 percent for every 5 pounds of under-inflation). Be careful not to over-inflate your tires, either; you will get premature and uneven tire wear and have to replace them much sooner.


Clean out your back seat and trunk by removing unnecessary items from the car. All the extra weight reduces your mileage.


Do you ever stop for more than 60 seconds while your engine is idling? If so, turn it off. It takes more fuel to idle longer than a minute than for you to start your car.


The next time you are in the market for tires, consider radial tires. They can cut your fuel bill by 2 or 3 percent.


Use your air conditioner as sparingly as possible, because your engine uses extra energy to power the air conditioner compressor. Fuel consumption can be increased by up to 10 percent on the highway and up to 15 percent in the city when you don't use your air conditioner.


Avoid driving with an open sunroof or open windows at highway speeds; this increases drag and uses additional fuel. It is best to use your air vents to provide fresh air inside the car.


Have you check your filters and catalytic converter recently? They should be kept clean. Dirty filters increase fuel consumption by as much as 10 percent.


Use premium multi-grade oils to save on your fuel consumption and be sure to change your oil every 3,000 miles.

So, for the sake of the environment AND your pocket book, take a moment to assess your vehicle for optimum gas mileage.



http://www.stretcher.com/stories/00/000320m.cfm

Once prices hit around 3.00 Bucks this stuff comes handy. LOL

mzmtg

iTrader: (11)

How old is that list?

CystumMax

Back in the day when there was shortage on Oil. I think it is happening agian?

Jeff92se

iTrader: (82)

My biasplys are the bomb yo!

dgeesaman

iTrader: (10)

Anyone who owns a car and isn't aware of this stuff should be slapped.

Dave

MaDMvD

iTrader: (16)

Hmm, I've heard the exact opposite. I heard that on a 4-cylinder, every ~10 minutes idling = 1 startup, and on a V6, it's ~6 minutes. Can anyone truly prove or disprove this theory? Everytime I go to the store for a quick stop, I leave the engine running now.

CystumMax

no Idea it got me..

dgeesaman

iTrader: (10)

Well perhaps someone with an ECU that shows injector duty cycles, and a data capturing software could test it to find out. I dunno Maxima ECU options, but on RX-7s this may be possible with a PowerFC and Datalogit.

Dave

Jeff92se

iTrader: (82)

An OBDII scan tool/sensor monitor might get it. Auterra for example. Not 100% though

97SEdriver

iTrader: (3)

I liked your response, however, for those of us how let our wives buy SUV's because THEY want to go camping (offroad) and skiing in new snow (probably more dangerous than offroad), it probably negates these points. I do like that you didn't let either political party off the hook.
I just don't understand the seemingly blind back-lash. If you all race your maximas, (or your RX-7's) like me, at some point you will be hauling the car to the track. So SUV's or pickups are still both commercially and recreationally necessary, even $1500 rusted pickups.
I used to work in Environmental Engineering and fondly remember being in 4-low getting across a job-site to take possible contamination samples where someone is going to put their house. I sometimes woud use half a tank to get there in a '95 F150, it was necessary, but it was also a blast.

PS You didn't specify what type of hybrid you were speaking of, any battery related power source doesn't last indefinetly, so it will have to be disposed of, creating more waste. Fuel cell technology is unlikely to be applicable in cars in an effcient manner in the near future, for buildings and such it can be (less space limitations).
PPS you forgot forest fires, which is #2 after volcanoes.

I had an RX-7 for 9 years, it was great, but got sick of no trunk and no back seat, not as fuel efficient as my max either.

I might be an exception, but our SUV sees dirt, snow and 4-low about once a month. Also 4-high flying down some dirt road is really, really fun, and it doesn't eat up your tires like road racing does.
The Lexus RX300 is on a camry platform, I wouldn't consider that really an SUV. Volvo turbo station wagons, btw, are incredibly fun to drive.

MaDMvD

iTrader: (16)

I don't think anyone considers that..thing..an SUV. In my opinion, your comment = :attention...

dgeesaman

iTrader: (10)

1) most SUV owners never see off-road. I did not accuse you or anyone of being the in that majority, I hope you realize that. But the fact remains it is a majority, and this group racks up tremendous on-road miles in an off-road vehicle.

2) The RX300 is a weenie SUV, to be honest. It falls into that crossover category, and IMO it's basically a tall Subaru wagon. In other words, it's actually not the pig vehicle that many SUVs are. The H2s, Excursion (aka Excretion), Suburban, etc are truly pigs.

3) many SUV owners rationalize the cost of 4wd with snow and winter driving, and yet they really don't need it. Snow tires on a FWD vehicle will carry through the vast majority of these owners needs and then some. Very few actually drive in unplowed snow more than 1 hour per year, where the 4wd is really most helpful. If you use your RX300 in deep snow at least once a year, you're in a minority. (driving down a driveway doesn't count - any idiot without a 4wd vehicle could figure out to leave the car at the end of the walk before it snows).

Personally, I would never buy an SUV for daily driving. I drive too many miles and would use the towing capabilities too infrequently. I would buy a used SUV and a cheaper car for daily driving, and choose depending on my needs. I can't change what I've bought, and I'm not childish enough to think 'have a problem' with someone else because my stated opinion may call them out.

My RX-7 is a fun/racing car, my Maxima is a daily driver. I bought the Maxima well before I decided I wanted a 7, and so the Maxima is a compromise of sporty and practical. Now that I have a 7, the Maxima could be less sporty and more economical.

Dave

Stuntin' 101

well this has certainly deviated from the origianl post and turned into quite a debate. just to make a quick comment though. the production of such small amounts of hydrogen, as described in this simple device, is far from " a bomb ". its like comparing the propane tank for your barbaque to a nuclear warhead. the idea seems viable, and safe.
anyway, as far as oil and the production of gasoline goes. you will never see the disappearence of gasoline as a primary fuel in your lifetime. probably not even your grandkids. no matter what the benefits of alternate fuel souces may be, the simple fact remains that there are too many people in high places that make ALOT of money from the oil business. these are the same people that control the market. not only in the u.s., but worldwide. there are DOZENS of alternate fuel sources that have been proven to be effeicient. Hell, ive even seen cars with gasoline engines that have been modified to run off of kitchen grease.. i kid you not. there is too much money invested, and alot more to be made off the oil business. when the source is depleated dangerously low, thats when "out of nowhere", a new technology will emerge. if and when that does happen, i will guarantee that source is already controlled be people in high places.

its just like how a town or safety organization require certain traffic safety standards.. they will dictate " orange cones with reflective strips must be place every 10 feet" . low and behold, the mayor that created the law, owns a compnay that makes them.. sadly, this is how the world works with everything. bottom line, if the rite people arent gonna be the ones making the money, the idea will never come to be know.

anyway, i didnt post the info from that website in here in hopes of creating an all out war in here over the use of suv's. i just think that sometimes it pays to think outside the box. if someone has the intrest and courage to explore this further than so be it, if not, the opportunity was here..

Jeff92se

iTrader: (82)

I doubt you can get a gasoline engine to run off of grease. Now a deisel can be modded run off of vegatable oil. So given that, I don't know how valid this hydrogen suggestion is.

Fulltone74

Nearly 50% of all the energy used in the United States is strictly for heating and cooling of residential and commerical buildings.

You might find that odd, but think about this. Average person runs their A/C or heater 12-24 hours per day. Average person only drives about 1-2 hours per day. The heating/cooling system of a house burns energy at a much lower rate than a car, but is running virtually all the time.

As for the hydrogen thing, Hydrogen has a lower energy content than gasoline. However, its effective octane rating would be at least 110.
BMW can tune their Hydrogen 7-series to run with almost as much power as a gasoline version. But running hydrogen in an engine tuned for gasoline is useless.

97SEdriver

iTrader: (3)

I know you weren't accusing me, but just like all those people with automatic corvettes, they give the rest of us a bad reputation. The SUV is basically a truck with extra seats, before they were making trucks with extra seats.

I was commmenting on the previous person commenting on his ownership of the RX300, I own a 4runner. Having been in situations where these true pigs are necessary, there is no substitute for them, they work. However it is silly to be driving an Excursion around most of the time by yourself.

I will admit this, even with the 4runner in 4 wheel drive, I spun out on I-476 north right after we had that 20 inch dump of powder in the poconos. But the skiing we did that day was the best skiing I have ever done in the East, and getting there may have been dangerous in anything else.
And again, if you have never driven in 4-high flying down some dirt road, try it, it is so much fun.

There are lots of fuels already available, the biggest problem right now is safety, Methanol burns great and is more efficient. However if you pour MeOH (or Ethanol) on the ground, and then light it, it looks the same as if you just poured it there. When they figure out what to cut MeOH with to solve that and not interfere with it's combustion efficiency, there is your next fuel. Hardly anything will have to be changed, you can still use your car. And farmers may most benefit from that. The infrastructure and safety concerns are the biggest hurdle at this point.
Hydrogen is great, but who wants a compressed H2 bottle the car with you? That thing goes off, it's is literally like a missle, especially if it's compressed to a liquid. However for other things, buildings, HVAC and such, fuel cells solar panels and Hydrogen would probably be fine. But then you get power companies involved, which involves the government, which makes it complicated. It's not simple.
But hey, I enjoyed the debate.

Scott LaRock

iTrader: (5)

agreed, I always thought that stuff was crap.