Okay I know the title of this post is about timing and everyone is probably asking, "did he read the sticky" on timing. Yes, and I am glad I did because it's been awhile since I had to mess with a Dist.

Okay, first let me say this before everyone start shooting me with all the negative feed back about why I am asking my question and the reason. I've applied this system to a lot of vehicles including diesel.

I am in the process of firing up this legend with my Hydrogen On Demand (HOD) onboard (the system is my own design). all my readings and research revealed, with hydrogen being induced to enhance the comubustion process timing has to be retard in order to accommodate the 60+% increase in flame speed. My taken on that is, the combustion process will take place faster (60%) before the engine even reaches the timing mark.

So, if my 1972 LT1 timing is 10 degree BTDC and I want to retard it, let say 2 degrees. The timing then should be 8 BTDC. Am I correct with that statement?

My apologies but, I did not post this question to promote any discussion on HOD, timing happens to be one of the parameters that must be address when inducing Hydrogen to a ICE.

 

Yes retarding the timing is going from 10 BTDC to 8 BTDC. That will reduce your overall timing. Going back to 0 reduces it by 10 degrees.

Sounds like an interesting project.

 

WOW, with your response verified the initial suggestion of retarding timing by total of 10 degrees. Yes, I am eager to experienced the result. This is going to revolutionized these engine, my goal to burn every ounce of fuel being induced by the big card on the engine.

Thank you.

 

Let us know how that works out!

 

What about the advance curve? Do you want to also slow that down?

 

Project is done, hydrogen on demand (HOD) is onboard the car inducing 1.5lpm. what a difference, the throtlle response is soo quick getting to 5K RPM is childs play without going to the floor on the pedal and talk about experiencing a catepault luanch. I am having it dynoed next week and having the smog check to verify just how much emission it is putting out.

I have a photo of the cell in my album and new photo of the engine bay. still have not learned how to post photo or maybe not allowed.

 

Please read

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...eage/4310717-2

Please watch

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29899191/

 

funny you answered with the same articles and news cast that cause several media personnel their job because there was a lot, lack of better word, setup to ensure the test will fail.

also, I am not going to revived any negativity about this process from this forum. Unless you spend thousands of your own money towards a research of your own, built HOD and tested them on you own cars and trucks I will not hear the negative feedback or continue to update this forum on the progress my LT1. oh yeah, it was smog today, this 1972 LT1 is producing the same amount of emission as any modern car or truck being sold today. this was tested on a state governed inspection site.

the theory tested made by NASA to reduce carbon emission. Here's some reading material for everyone.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1977016170.pdf

 

Is that a promise? Can we hold you to it?

 

One question: Have you built a "wet cell" or a "dry cell" of your own and tested it? If so, I would like to see a photo of it and show me how it is configured. What was your MMW, what percentage was the solution mixed at, what was used as the electroyte, what was the surface area, how big were the equalizing holes, how did you prevent voltage leakage, how many bipolar plates, did you produce 1 lpm per minute under 10 amps, if so you should get it patent, I am not going to ask how you did it because I can guarantee you you probably don't have the answere for that question and how did you prevent it from foaming. Answer these then you can give me negative feedback.

I will entertain any rebuttle on this subject and any subject being done to reduce emission from an ICE.

 

ttt

 

I don't need to build anything to know BS when I see it. No hydrogen generator can produce more energy than it consumes. 1.5 liter per minute production rate is less than 1% of what an engine would need just to maintain idle, never mind power a car.

You might want to take your alchemy somewhere else where people are more gullible. As in the other thread you've revived, I'm out.

 

Please reconsider. I'm rather enjoying your contributions to this thread.

 

I was going to go on an ultra-rant but remembered I'd already done it

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c3-t...eneraters.html

 

Another possibly interesting thread turned into a pizzing contest.

 

Sorry Mike, but you do not have to view this site either. If you wish not to be intreged by this, then don't look at this discussion. MOVE ON to another.
Newbie, please keep posting your thoughts and revelations. Many others on this site are interested. Al

 

After reviewing the previous thread on this subject, I see now that this is not a pizzing contest, but rather a spirited and very entertaining debate. Please continue!

 

i agree with mike. if this really worked, every major automobile manufactureer in the world would have thousands of phd engineers designing them. it reminds me of the ads in the old popular mechanics magazine that promised special spark plugs or carburator parts that would produce 85 mpg and an extra 200 hp. just send $29.95 plus shipping.

 

It's basic physics, you can't create more energy than you consume! Think cold fusion, perpetual motion, they don't exist. To power a car it would take a hydrogen generator larger than the car.

When I was in junior high school back in the mid 60's, my science teacher showed us how to separate the H and O atoms from water in what is now called a hydrogen generator. I remember when the current was applied the little bubbles coming up out of the water. This is nothing new. If there was merit to it someone would have capitalized on it decades ago.

 

Please excuse the grammar, the attempt with inducing HHO is to augment the combustion process not completely supply enough to run on hydrogen. One, your standard ICE will not sustain to operate with hydrogen, two it is beyond my ability to do so.

I want to clarify, the HOD on my 1972 LT1 is not meant to run the 350 completely on hydrogen, it is onboard to augment combustion process. The other claim made by inducing hydrogen to an ICE is clean all carbon deposit in the combustion chamber. My LT1 has registered 95K since new, I am sure you can imagine just how much carbon buid up an ICE can accumulate having that many miles and how it was maintained. I've already verified the emission is lowered, I planned on putting additional 5K miles on this engine then take the heads off for replacement with aluminum. At that time I will verify if inducing hydrogen will infact eliminate the canbon build.

I am in understanding that this process is been around awhile, not to the exact date but the first patent issued for electrolysis process is dated back in early 1800's. Using it to augment combustion cycle in an ICE also been around awhile but never really took off.

I decided to follow through it and develop my own opinion by experimenting. My question is: what can you add to your current ICE that will promote cleaner and close to complete burning of the fuel induced during combustion?

Some spend hundreds of dollars for multi spark ignition box, hotter plugs, bigger plug wire for high voltage coil, high voltage coil, plugs with multiple prone, uridium plugs. I can go on and on, bottom line is. An experiment was conducted by a reputable organization proving that inducing hydrogen to an ICE will promote better combustion and cleaner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Uztteqltw

The link above was an early stage of my experiment to prove to my kids I can make fire from water. this is also a revolutionizing for me, that you can teach an "old Dog" a new trick.

It is actually being entertained by EXXON Mobile.