M30 air intake manifold

On Apr 19, 1:09 pm, wrote:
> On 19 Apr 2007 08:59:30 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 19, 11:33 am, adder1969 > wrote:
> >> On Apr 19, 3:13 pm, wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 18, 5:58 pm, JRE > wrote:
>
> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> > > <snip>> It's a simple electrolysis unit that you can make at home
> >> > > > for under 40 or so bucks that splits regular tap water into HHO gas
> >> > > > and this is sucked up into theairintakesuch that the gasoline gets
> >> > > > a complete burn because hydrogen burns cleaner than anything else in
> >> > > > the universe and doesn't even require oxygen to do so.
>
> >> > > <snip>
>
> >> > > Sorry, but I'm afraid that hydrogen _does_ require oxygen to burn,
> >> > > though the engine will adjust the fuel mix based on the hydrogenintake
> >> > > as long as the adjustment falls within the maps in the ECU (else it will
> >> > > try as hard as it can and then light the MIL, aka check engine light).
> >> > > So it might or might not be necessary to add O2 to the mix to get the
> >> > > thing to run right if all you do is keep the H from the electrolysis.
>
> >> > > Further, you'll have a _very_ explosive mix sitting around if you trap
> >> > > both the H and the O2 from electrolysis and store them together...and in
> >> > > perfect proportion. This is the basis of FAEs (fuel-airexplosives) but
> >> > > using pure H and O2 goes one better since atmosphericairis only 21% or
> >> > > so O2.
>
> >> > > There's no way you can collect enough of this combination of gases top
> >> > > be useful without compressing it, and compressing both together will be
> >> > > very hazardous. Not to mention having it in the car in case of an
> >> > > accident (assuming you even succeed in compressing it without it going
> >> > > bang!). I hope this isn't what you're planning. If it is, I hope I'm
> >> > > not near where you live or plan to operate this vehicle and that
> >> > > innocent people are not injured.
>
> >> > > Moreover, the energy spent splitting water into hydrogen and O2 will not
> >> > > be regained in internal combustion no matter how you handle it. Unless
> >> > > electricity is *dirt* cheap where you live, or you're using a renewable
> >> > > primary energy source to generate it, you'll lose money on the deal.
>
> >> > > JRE
>
> >> > You are old school, my friend. Obviously, the energy put into
> >> > splitting is greater or equal to than the energy gained, and the power
> >> > of hydrogen and oxygen combined is what NASA uses, but that is not how
> >> > this works. There is NO onboard storage of explosive gases. It is
> >> > produced as needed. The HHO or Brown's gas (there are debates as to
> >> > what is being produced exactly) helps the octane to completely burn,
> >> > whereas in a normal situation the octane is still burning as it leaves
> >> > the exhaust and relies on the catalytic converter to finish the job.
> >> > The minute amount of hydrogen is sort of like a catalyst that reduces
> >> > the time it takes for the octane to ignite so it burns faster during
> >> > the combustion cycle and therefore more completely resulting in more
> >> > power and increased mileage. There are many companies, led by the
> >> > Canadian ones who are already marketing these electrolysis units and
> >> > many truckers already have been using them for over a decade.-
>
> >> Mythbusters did something liek this where they produced hydrogen and
> >> allowed it to be sucked into theintakealong withair, instead of
> >> using gas(oline). It ran fine for a short while then the hydrogen ran
> >> out.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Yes! It is absolutely possible and feasible to run an ICE on
> >Hydrogen. But I won't be using hydrogen alone. I will simply be
> >helping the octane to burn better in the engine by adding a little
> >tiny stream of Hydrogen. Much safer.
>
> What exactly is OCTANE?
>
> Octane is an Alkaline with the chemical formula CH3(CH2)6CH3. It has 18 isomers.
>
> One of the isomers, 2,2,4-trimethylpentane or isooctane, is of major importance,
> as it has been selected as the 100 point on the octane rating scale, with
> n-heptane as the zero point. Octane ratings are ratings used to represent the
> anti-knock performance of petroleum-based fuels (octane is less likely to
> prematurely combust under pressure than heptane), given as the percentage of
> 2,2,4-trimethylpentane in an 2,2,4-trimethylpentane / n-heptane mixture that
> would have the same performance. It is an important constituent of gasoline.
>
> Octane has 18 isomers :
>
> Octane (n-octane)
> 2-Methylheptane
> 3-Methylheptane
> 4-Methylheptane
> 3-Ethylhexane
> 2,2-Dimethylhexane
> 2,3-Dimethylhexane
> 2,4-Dimethylhexane
> 2,5-Dimethylhexane
> 3,3-Dimethylhexane
> 3,4-Dimethylhexane
> 2-Methyl-3-ethylpentane
> 3-Methyl-3-ethylpentane
> 2,2,3-Trimethylpentane
> 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane (isooctane)
> 2,3,3-Trimethylpentane
> 2,3,4-Trimethylpentane
> 2,2,3,3-Tetramethylbutane
>
> And you CAN actually distinguish the combustion of OCTANE in gasoline/petrol.
>
> Do leave off!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You're an Einstein with a bit of a Ham-ish glitter thrown in. Wow,
incredible breakdown of the constituents of gasoline, buddy. I am
impressed and informed. But did I say I could distinguish? It
matters not. Hydrogen helps in the combustion of all of these organic
(hydrocarbon) molecules. You could even add up to 15% ethanol (or
ethane if you had it on hand, but unlikely since its a gas) which
contains two carbon atoms per molecule and the pistons would still
love it.

On Apr 19, 3:31 pm, "Bill" > wrote:
> >I hope the oil leak isn't too
> > much of a problem...
>
> Can you determine where the leak is originating from? MAybe spray some
> engine cleaner, soak about 30 minutes, pressure wash off. Run engine to
> operating temp to dry off. I used a car wash for $2 and did mine before
> finding the front crank seal was leaking. Quick and easy. I know of several
> locations and possible quick fixes. Please let us know where it is.
>
> Bill in Omaha
> '86 535i

Thanks, Bill. I will do exactly this. I'll keep you posted. Here is
a photo of the car.
http://www.livedeal.ca/ShowItemDetail?id=768083

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 19, 3:31 pm, "Bill" > wrote:
> > >I hope the oil leak isn't too
> > > much of a problem...
> >
> > Can you determine where the leak is originating from? MAybe spray some
> > engine cleaner, soak about 30 minutes, pressure wash off. Run engine to
> > operating temp to dry off. I used a car wash for $2 and did mine before
> > finding the front crank seal was leaking. Quick and easy. I know of
several
> > locations and possible quick fixes. Please let us know where it is.
> >
> > Bill in Omaha
> > '86 535i
>
> Thanks, Bill. I will do exactly this. I'll keep you posted. Here is
> a photo of the car.
> http://www.livedeal.ca/ShowItemDetail?id=768083
>

Looks ok. You might consider a transmission fluid and filter change, too.
You'll only be able to change half of the fluid due to half being in the
torque converter, but it will make a difference. Considering the price of a
new trans plus labor, you decide. I did my '98 528i in about an hour. You're
lucky in that you have a fluid dip stick, the 528i did not. It shouldn't
need special fluid either.

Bill in Omaha
'86 535i

On 20 Apr 2007 06:13:25 -0700, wrote:

>On Apr 19, 12:54 pm, wrote:
>> On 19 Apr 2007 07:13:22 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 18, 5:58 pm, JRE > wrote:
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> <snip>> It's a simple electrolysis unit that you can make at home
>> >> > for under 40 or so bucks that splits regular tap water into HHO gas
>> >> > and this is sucked up into theairintakesuch that the gasoline gets
>> >> > a complete burn because hydrogen burns cleaner than anything else in
>> >> > the universe and doesn't even require oxygen to do so.
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> Sorry, but I'm afraid that hydrogen _does_ require oxygen to burn,
>> >> though the engine will adjust the fuel mix based on the hydrogenintake
>> >> as long as the adjustment falls within the maps in the ECU (else it will
>> >> try as hard as it can and then light the MIL, aka check engine light).
>> >> So it might or might not be necessary to add O2 to the mix to get the
>> >> thing to run right if all you do is keep the H from the electrolysis.
>>
>> >> Further, you'll have a _very_ explosive mix sitting around if you trap
>> >> both the H and the O2 from electrolysis and store them together...and in
>> >> perfect proportion. This is the basis of FAEs (fuel-airexplosives) but
>> >> using pure H and O2 goes one better since atmosphericairis only 21% or
>> >> so O2.
>>
>> >> There's no way you can collect enough of this combination of gases top
>> >> be useful without compressing it, and compressing both together will be
>> >> very hazardous. Not to mention having it in the car in case of an
>> >> accident (assuming you even succeed in compressing it without it going
>> >> bang!). I hope this isn't what you're planning. If it is, I hope I'm
>> >> not near where you live or plan to operate this vehicle and that
>> >> innocent people are not injured.
>>
>> >> Moreover, the energy spent splitting water into hydrogen and O2 will not
>> >> be regained in internal combustion no matter how you handle it. Unless
>> >> electricity is *dirt* cheap where you live, or you're using a renewable
>> >> primary energy source to generate it, you'll lose money on the deal.
>>
>> >> JRE
>>
>> >You are old school, my friend. Obviously, the energy put into
>> >splitting is greater or equal to than the energy gained, and the power
>> >of hydrogen and oxygen combined is what NASA uses
>>
>> You mean the Space Shuttle runs on WATER? By god man that's astounding!
>>
>>
>>
>> > but that is not how
>> >this works. There is NO onboard storage of explosive gases. It is
>> >produced as needed. The HHO or Brown's gas (there are debates as to
>> >what is being produced exactly) helps the octane to completely burn,
>> >whereas in a normal situation the octane is still burning as it leaves
>> >the exhaust and relies on the catalytic converter to finish the job.
>> >The minute amount of hydrogen is sort of like a catalyst that reduces
>> >the time it takes for the octane to ignite so it burns faster during
>> >the combustion cycle and therefore more completely resulting in more
>> >power and increased mileage. There are many companies, led by the
>> >Canadian ones who are already marketing these electrolysis units and
>> >many truckers already have been using them for over a decade.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>You're a real Einstein, aren't ya? Of course the space shuttle
>doesn't run off of water, the booster rockets do.

I don't think so - they actually run on solid paraffin (kerosene) strangely
enough that's why they are called "solid booster rockets"

> More specifically,
>the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen into water which releases
>more energy per unit of reactant than any other combination. That's
>why NASA uses it, among other reasons like...pollution. This has zero
>emissions.

On Apr 20, 10:43 am, wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2007 06:13:25 -0700, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 19, 12:54 pm, wrote:
> >> On 19 Apr 2007 07:13:22 -0700, wrote:
>
> >> >On Apr 18, 5:58 pm, JRE > wrote:
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> <snip>> It's a simple electrolysis unit that you can make at home
> >> >> > for under 40 or so bucks that splits regular tap water into HHO gas
> >> >> > and this is sucked up into theairintakesuch that the gasoline gets
> >> >> > a complete burn because hydrogen burns cleaner than anything else in
> >> >> > the universe and doesn't even require oxygen to do so.
>
> >> >> <snip>
>
> >> >> Sorry, but I'm afraid that hydrogen _does_ require oxygen to burn,
> >> >> though the engine will adjust the fuel mix based on the hydrogenintake
> >> >> as long as the adjustment falls within the maps in the ECU (else it will
> >> >> try as hard as it can and then light the MIL, aka check engine light).
> >> >> So it might or might not be necessary to add O2 to the mix to get the
> >> >> thing to run right if all you do is keep the H from the electrolysis.
>
> >> >> Further, you'll have a _very_ explosive mix sitting around if you trap
> >> >> both the H and the O2 from electrolysis and store them together...and in
> >> >> perfect proportion. This is the basis of FAEs (fuel-airexplosives) but
> >> >> using pure H and O2 goes one better since atmosphericairis only 21% or
> >> >> so O2.
>
> >> >> There's no way you can collect enough of this combination of gases top
> >> >> be useful without compressing it, and compressing both together will be
> >> >> very hazardous. Not to mention having it in the car in case of an
> >> >> accident (assuming you even succeed in compressing it without it going
> >> >> bang!). I hope this isn't what you're planning. If it is, I hope I'm
> >> >> not near where you live or plan to operate this vehicle and that
> >> >> innocent people are not injured.
>
> >> >> Moreover, the energy spent splitting water into hydrogen and O2 will not
> >> >> be regained in internal combustion no matter how you handle it. Unless
> >> >> electricity is *dirt* cheap where you live, or you're using a renewable
> >> >> primary energy source to generate it, you'll lose money on the deal.
>
> >> >> JRE
>
> >> >You are old school, my friend. Obviously, the energy put into
> >> >splitting is greater or equal to than the energy gained, and the power
> >> >of hydrogen and oxygen combined is what NASA uses
>
> >> You mean the Space Shuttle runs on WATER? By god man that's astounding!
>
> >> > but that is not how
> >> >this works. There is NO onboard storage of explosive gases. It is
> >> >produced as needed. The HHO or Brown's gas (there are debates as to
> >> >what is being produced exactly) helps the octane to completely burn,
> >> >whereas in a normal situation the octane is still burning as it leaves
> >> >the exhaust and relies on the catalytic converter to finish the job.
> >> >The minute amount of hydrogen is sort of like a catalyst that reduces
> >> >the time it takes for the octane to ignite so it burns faster during
> >> >the combustion cycle and therefore more completely resulting in more
> >> >power and increased mileage. There are many companies, led by the
> >> >Canadian ones who are already marketing these electrolysis units and
> >> >many truckers already have been using them for over a decade.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >You're a real Einstein, aren't ya? Of course the space shuttle
> >doesn't run off of water, the booster rockets do.
>
> I don't think so - they actually run on solid paraffin (kerosene) strangely
> enough that's why they are called "solid booster rockets"
>
>
>
> > More specifically,
> >the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen into water which releases
> >more energy per unit of reactant than any other combination. That's
> >why NASA uses it, among other reasons like...pollution. This has zero
> >emissions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, actually you are correct. I should check on my facts a little
better. NASA did early experiments with liquid fuel and considered
using liquid fuel to replace the more dangerous solid rocket fuel
after the Challenger disaster. NASA has worked with other space
programs in developing the liquid fuel, though such as Russia and with
Japan and their rocket technology. Considering the dangerous nature
of solid rocket fuel with the equivalent power of liquid fuel, I think
the liquid fuel is a more robust choice, and NASA should switch back
ASAP.

> wrote
> On 20 Apr 2007 06:13:25 -0700, wrote:

>>You're a real Einstein, aren't ya? Of course the space shuttle
>>doesn't run off of water, the booster rockets do.
>
> I don't think so - they actually run on solid paraffin (kerosene)
> strangely
> enough that's why they are called "solid booster rockets"

You guys are hilarious. The boosters use a mixture of potasium permanganate
and aluminum, embedded in a special type of rubber.

All you have to do is read the Wikipedia entry on SRB.

FloydR

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:57:15 -0700, "Floyd Rogers" >
wrote:

> wrote
>> On 20 Apr 2007 06:13:25 -0700, wrote:
>
>>>You're a real Einstein, aren't ya? Of course the space shuttle
>>>doesn't run off of water, the booster rockets do.
>>
>> I don't think so - they actually run on solid paraffin (kerosene)
>> strangely
>> enough that's why they are called "solid booster rockets"
>
>You guys are hilarious. The boosters use a mixture of potasium permanganate
>and aluminum, embedded in a special type of rubber.
>
>All you have to do is read the Wikipedia entry on SRB.
>
>FloydR
>

I wondered what they did with old tyres (tires)

"Floyd Rogers" > wrote
> > wrote
>> On 20 Apr 2007 06:13:25 -0700, wrote:
>
>>>You're a real Einstein, aren't ya? Of course the space shuttle
>>>doesn't run off of water, the booster rockets do.
>>
>> I don't think so - they actually run on solid paraffin (kerosene)
>> strangely
>> enough that's why they are called "solid booster rockets"
>
> You guys are hilarious. The boosters use a mixture of potasium
> permanganate
> and aluminum, embedded in a special type of rubber.
>
> All you have to do is read the Wikipedia entry on SRB.

Why I wrote "potasium permangate" when I meant "ammonium perchlorate"
is beyond me.

FloydR

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:18:35 -0700, "Floyd Rogers" >
wrote:

>"Floyd Rogers" > wrote
>> > wrote
>>> On 20 Apr 2007 06:13:25 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>>>You're a real Einstein, aren't ya? Of course the space shuttle
>>>>doesn't run off of water, the booster rockets do.
>>>
>>> I don't think so - they actually run on solid paraffin (kerosene)
>>> strangely
>>> enough that's why they are called "solid booster rockets"
>>
>> You guys are hilarious. The boosters use a mixture of potasium
>> permanganate
>> and aluminum, embedded in a special type of rubber.
>>
>> All you have to do is read the Wikipedia entry on SRB.
>
>Why I wrote "potasium permangate" when I meant "ammonium perchlorate"
>is beyond me.
>
>FloydR
>

Well Floyd - have a cup of coffee on me!

On Apr 20, 9:44 am, "Bill" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 3:31 pm, "Bill" > wrote:
> > > >I hope the oil leak isn't too
> > > > much of a problem...
>
> > > Can you determine where the leak is originating from? MAybe spray some
> > > engine cleaner, soak about 30 minutes, pressure wash off. Run engine to
> > > operating temp to dry off. I used a car wash for $2 and did mine before
> > > finding the front crank seal was leaking. Quick and easy. I know of
> several
> > > locations and possible quick fixes. Please let us know where it is.
>
> > > Bill in Omaha
> > > '86535i
>
> > Thanks, Bill. I will do exactly this. I'll keep you posted. Here is
> > a photo of the car.
> >http://www.livedeal.ca/ShowItemDetail?id=768083
>
> Looks ok. You might consider a transmission fluid and filter change, too.
> You'll only be able to change half of the fluid due to half being in the
> torque converter, but it will make a difference. Considering the price of a
> new trans plus labor, you decide. I did my '98 528i in about an hour. You're
> lucky in that you have a fluid dip stick, the 528i did not. It shouldn't
> need special fluid either.
>
> Bill in Omaha
> '86535i- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I noticed that there is a timing belt missing. It connects from the
main rotating mass which houses all of the belts to the rotating mass
at the bottom right front of the engine. I am guessing that this runs
the a/c unit because there are hoses with deteriorated foam casings on
this side of the engine, and the a/c controls inside the cockpit are
not functional. If I simply put this belt on and let 'er rip, what
would happen?