Hi yes im a newbie
Can you produce enough hho to run completly on it and if so how many cells and how many pulse gens would you need what is a dry cell a apposed to a wet cell in basic terms please
Dave:):cool::)
Printable View
Hi yes im a newbie
Can you produce enough hho to run completly on it and if so how many cells and how many pulse gens would you need what is a dry cell a apposed to a wet cell in basic terms please
Dave:):cool::)
You would need an immense amount of HHO to make even a small engine run solely on HHO.
This is a copy and paste I got from one source. I am not this smart, I'm not sure if this guy is, but here's what he's gotta say:
Quote:
The amount of oxyhydrogen needed to run an internal combustion engine is spectacular. Idling a small engine (e.g. 5hp) would require 500-1000 LPH (liters per hour), while idling a car engine would probably consume about 3000LPH of oxyhydrogen. Driving down the highway would probably consume 20000-30000 LPH of oxyhydrogen.
The short answer is no. Like N11634 said it would take way too much gas to run an engine entirely on HHO. The problem is we are all trying to force feed HHO down an engine that it was not designed for. While it can help combustion and give good results, it is tricky at best. To get the full potential of HHO we need to design a new engine around the fuel. But make no doubt about it HHO is a great fuel. We just don't know enough about it, help us figure it out!
A simple proof of a ballpark figure is to look at the combustion process of an internal combustion engine. Every second, the engine goes through X cycle. At idle, this "X" cycles might be 600 rotations per minute, or 10 rotations("cycles") per second. That means the engine cylinder sucks in fuel, compresses it, combusts it, and expels the exhaust. For normal 4-stroke engines, the number of cycles is actually half the rotations per second, so in this example the engine sucks in a full cylinder of fuel 5 times per second.
Now, assuming this is a small 2.0 liter engine, this means that it will suck in 2 liters of fuel mixture 5 times a second. That is 10 liters of fuel mixture per second, or 600 liters per minute.
Of course, this is an oversimplified example, but it should give you an idea of the magnitude of gas that you are wondering about. There are more complicated models involving HHO to air ratio, gas expansion at the given speed, etc. etc., but this should give an upper bound for just an idling speed - ~600 liters per minute.
The engine that we use are design to run on gasoline. It would take too much hho to run it, so don't even bother. Hho gas burn fast and powerful. To redesign the engine to run soley on hho. the piston distance of motion sould be alot shorter because hho does not continue burning like gas and diesal does and the timming short be delayed.
You know from what I have learned One Liter of water expands into 30 liters of HHO, correct? So one gallon should make 30 gallons of HHO, correct? Now Meyers already demonstrated over and over that his car was able to produce enough gas to run that Dune buggy engine off straight HHO and from his mileage he estimated 22 gallons of water could get him from LA to New York, correct? So 22 gallons X 30 = 660 gallons of HHO Now according to a conversion site "About 3.79 liters make a US gallon" so Multiple 660 gallons X 3.79 = 2501.4 liters. Some people are trying to say to run a small car engine it would take close to 150 liters per minute of HHO? so divide the 2501.4 liters by 150 liters and that means in 16.676 minutes you would have used up all of the 22 gallons of water? That does not figure right at all! There is no way you could drive from LA to New York in 16.676 minutes of HHO production according to some of the stuff I read out there. So from my simple deductive reasoning and from the fact that many scientists and people in general saw Meyer's invention work and work good I believe there is a lot of false propaganda out there on the internet trying to dissuade anyone else from working on Meyer's WFC type HHO production. The distance from LA to New York is roughly 2443.79 miles. So divide 2443.79 miles by 22 gallons and you have the miles per gallon of 111.0813636363636 MPG of water roughly and remember Meyer's motor was a 1.6 liter engine in that Dune Buggy of his is a small engine. I have a 5.0 liter engine. I would need about four of those large WFC's of Meyers at least to run that thing. If my math is wrong please enlighten me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philldpapill
Oh and from what I learned also the more SS 304 Tubes Sets you add the more efficient the WFC becomes. So adding 3 more sets of tubes would not take much more juice to power it than just the one set took.
Also Ravi was suppose to have got a high output using the small 4" tubes so using a whole bunch of those seems like it would be enough to run a car or truck as in my case on straight HHO.
One other simple deductive reasoning point. The US Patents office is reluctant to give patents to these types of inventions that produce or claim to produce 1,700% efficiency as Meyer's claims. Yet they did! The only way they would have is if he proved it beyond a reasonable doubt to that office which he did otherwise it would not have happened!
actually one litre of water decomposes to 1200 litres of hho
Your inability to perform a simple water to HHO calculation does not give you much credibility. Your assumption that the Meyer machine must work because the Patent office granted a patent, shows your naivety about patent law - a set of drawings and prior art can get you a patent. A working prototype is NOT a requirement. A patent grant does not prove your device works, it only gives the right to legally sue in a court of law.Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkNo1
Okay, then you prove to me mathematically that this is not so. I have "?" and asked for you to correct me if I am wrong. I do not see any corrections in your rude comments. So who you working for first off? What makes you the expert if you can not do the math. I am going by what I have read on the net from other HHO sites? Then I am using simple deduction. How much does a liter of water expand too in HHO? I know one thing, 1 gallon of water has more energy in it than a gallon of gasoline. If you can get 200 miles per gallon of gasoline or for the sake of argument even 100 MPG then it is easily obtainable in water to do the same once it is broken down to Hydrogen and Oxygen. So lets see the math. Put your money where your mouth is in other words. What you have been showing me so far is a bunch of bull. Show us all the truth since your are suppose to be the expert I am suppose to believe on your say so alone? Yea right. Let's see it. You saying that for over a century that all the scientist who claimed there was a inexhaustible source of power in water that is far superior in every way to gasoline is now all the sudden a myth? I want to see the math to prove it? Not the math used on electrolysis either because Meyer's did not use electrolysis. This is not electrolysis and you are not including the extra EMF coming from the shut down of electricity to the WFC or capacitor that also could be used to charge batteries and supply more energy. I took electronics and this is basic info in electronics. Show me the math? Show me how much HHO comes out of a gallon of water? I was told it was 30 times whatever the amount of water is. Show me the truth here? Correct me! Then I will recalculate it correctly if I am wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut
Also the patents office refused to patent Meyer's patent until he took the machine into the office and demonstrated his claims. They freaked when they saw he was producing HHO in the building at that volume.
The only reason Meyer's was judged as committing fraud is because the Judge was bought and paid for and his hired expert added something into the tap water which made it a electrolytic solution thus removing the properties of the experiment as it was meant to be. He appealed also and won from what I learned.
Also he was assassinated. That is more than enough to tell the truth. You do not get assassinated unless you are a threat to someone with money and power. He was!
Also if you try to use the theory of thermodynamics on this you are out in lulu land. This is more to do with electronics and how many times has the theory of thermodynamics been changed in the past 50 years? It keeps changing because it is only a theory and not a fact. Just like the theory of evolution is not a fact and they keep changing it also to fit their goal to make people think there is not a creator. They do not want to be held accountable to that creator is why. Of course that is going to happen wither they want to believe it or not.
So show me the math just for how much HHO is produced from one gallon of water? We will start from there.
In determining the size of electrolyte tank needed for a given install, I use the formula of 1 oz of water consumed per hour for each LPM of hydrogen produced. This seems to be a pretty good yardstick.Quote:
So show me the math just for how much HHO is produced from one gallon of water? We will start from there.
So, if I have a 4 LPM system to be installed in a truck that need to run for 100 hours between servicing, that means the system is going to consume 3.125 gallons of solution, so I would want at least a 5 gallon reserviour tank.
People who have lost an argument often go into attack mode simply because they have nothing. The Meyer's supporters are often in attack mode simply because Meyer's work may have had some merit, but as a whole, it does not perform as they want it to. Simply give me ONE working example of the Meyer device, and I will be a true believer also. To be exact, I have investors that can bring it to market. They don't need belief, they just want it to WORK. I have reviewed literally dozens of inventions for them and that is all they seek - something that they can make money on. They didn't make their money by simply buying inventions just to shelve them. They buy tech to use their money to make MORE money! If they are so evil, and the root of all evil is the love of money, it follows that these evil money bags will do whatever they can to take a tech like Meyer's device and make money off of it! I challenge YOU. If you have a working device, let us meet, you demonstrate it, and you can save the world from the coming oil collapse while making enough money to make saving the world worthwhile. This is an honest offer I extend to anyone and all Meyers' supporters. If you have gotten hold of a working Meyers device, let's meet. I'll review the device under a NDA to determine that it does indeed work and we will have you meet with investors to negotiate a purchase of the example device.Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkNo1
Please do not send me internet links to "prove" Meyer's devices work.
Remember, it is you who needs to prove your Meyer device. Use your electronics background. Use good math. Use your electronics degree, and produce a Meyer device. That is the bottom line.
And Thermodynamics is a set of LAWS that is added to constantly. It is proven everyday in it's application. It flat out WORKS!
As to your last challenge for calculations, I'll give you the start, and you can furnish the answer as an exercise in learning.
Take one Mole of water molecules. It can be dissociated to form one mole of oxygen and two of hydrogen. Both form diatomic pairs. Run this molar mass into the gas laws at STP and you will get the volume of HHO produced from one mole of pure water ( 18.02 grams). Divide the 18.02 into a thousand to get the result from a liter stand point. It is a surprisingly large number.
By the way, I'll take a gallon of gasoline for propulsion anyday. It works. Water is one of the very ASHES of gasoline combustion.
so what's your take on this guy's video and the stepper gen one?
http://www.youtube.com/user/o2baener.../2/Iwd6ulPkXHQ
what do all ye enlightened ones thinK?
uhh.... anyone?
Not impressed by the video. On the other hand, he's doing a lot of work on his design & I hope it works well for him.
I noticed in your signature that you're pumping 2LPM with no gains. Ford's can be tough!
First off, with a 2L engine, you should only be injecting a max of 1LPM. Anything more may be just wasting amperage. If you can dial it down so it's only drawing half the amps.(12 or so), this will be less strain on the engine.
Next, the O2 extenders won't do much, if anything. Get rid of them and install a single O2 EFIE to the signal wire. This way you can control what the ECU see's and cause it to shorten the pulses to the injectors. A MAF enhancer will help, but it has to be left way-low or codes will be thrown.
Gains will be small unless you address the timing. Since your timing most likely can't be adjusted, the only way to retard it is by making the ECU think the coolant and incoming air are hotter than they really are. Run wires across both leads on the ECT to a switch connected to a 3.9 ohm resistor. This will send a false value of about 10 degrees to the ECU. Next, connect a switch and 500 ohm resistor with a 20k pot in series to the signal wire of the IAT.
Both of these will retard the timing and make the HHO do it's job properly.
thanks for the info, similar to the dualfuelhho.com site, I'm re-plumbing my gen, so thought I'd get baseline again, and then just the volo without gen. we live on top of a 1300 ft. hill so all trips go down and up the mt. so far the volo seems to be going pretty good. see signature. ??? it stalled only once throughout 2 tanks, but does seem a little more anemic on the accel and up the slopes. fair trade I suppose. I'll put the gen back and hopefully get the oomphff back,,, well it's only a 4 banger...hah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philldpapill
Good estimate, but you're forgetting something. After the throttle body, you see a vacuum. The air the engine sucks in isn't at 100% atmospheric pressure, so the amount would be less. Sometimes much less. At idle, it may be 1/20th just to pull a guess out of my head. Of course, it would go up quite a bit as the throttle opens and the rpms increase.
You can patent pretty much anything unique, doesn't mean it's functional. And do we all agree that Wikipedia can be considered the foremost source of actual facts? (you should be nodding yes) Now, look up Stan Meyers on Wikipedia.Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkNo1
Dear RustyLugNut,
I think HawkNo1 has asked you a simple question, since you seemed to be the Expert! He just wanted to know "How much HHO can be produced from 1 gallon of water?"
As we all know, the Forum is design to HELP the common folk; not to discourage or put down anybody. So, please let us be productive and help each other find answers for the HHO Community.
Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caveman2010
According to:http://www.panaceauniversity.org/Hydroxy%20Boosters.pdf
On page 329
1 US gallon of water = 1860 gallons of HHO gas.
Also most of your HHO questions can be answered on the Panacea PDF
guys i've recently seen(on u tube...other internet places) a couple of guys running their pick up on 100% hoo gas. they say - and show its hydrogen on demand, anyone seen it/verify it. in us somewhere...guess i shoulda got a link now i come to think of it...but it sure looks impressive and sorta gives me a kuta( kick up the ass) if its straight up
I'm surprised at the lack of chemical knowledge around here.
The answer is easy to find and I'll show you all the math behind it:
Water has a density of 1g/mL, so 1L = 1000g.
Water has a molar mass of 18.01g. Therefore, the number of moles of water in one liter is 1000/18.01 = 55.52 moles.
One mole of water decomposes into one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. As such, the decomposition of one mole of water yields one mole of hydrogen gas and one-half mole of oxygen gas through the following equation:
(H2O) --> (H2) + 1/2(O2) (remember that the gases are diatomic)
Subsequently, 55.52 moles of water decompose into 55.52 moles of hydrogen gas and 27.76 moles of oxygen gas.
According to the Ideal Gas Law, at standard temperature and pressure (1 atmosphere, 293.15 Kelvin), one mole of any gas will occupy 22.4 liters of volume.
One liter of water has produced 55.52 moles of H2 and 27.76 moles of O2 for a combined total of 83.28 moles of gas. Each mole of gas occupies 22.4 liters, so 22.4*83.28 = 1865.5 liters of gas.
And thus we arrive at the answer: One liter of water makes 1865.5 liters of gas.
__________________________________________________ ______________
As far as running an engine on nothing but the gas mix, generation problems aside:
The lower flammable limit of hydrogen in air is 4% by volume. Therefore, it would be theoretically possible to run an engine on a blend of oxyhydrogen and air which would amount to 4% hydrogen delivered at the manifold.
Air is a mixture of many gases, mainly nitrogen and oxygen. The average molar mass of air is 28.97. This is the average weight of 22.4 liters of air at STP.
To achieve 4% hydrogen by volume in air by adding a mix of 2:1 H2:O2 takes a bit of simple math. The equation goes like this:
(% gas A)(molar mass of gas A) + (% gas B)(molar mass of gas B) = (100%)(molar mass of mixed gases)
Therefore, we can solve for %HHO needed as long as we know the molar mass of the target gas. The target gas in this case is 4% by volume hydrogen and the rest air. Let us determine the molar mass:
1 mole of air is 28.97g and occupies 22.4 liters. 4% by volume of 22.4 = 0.896. 22.4-0.896 = 21.504. Therefore, the target gas has 21.504 liters, or (.96 moles) of air and .896 (or 0.04 moles) of hydrogen. Cumulatively, the molar mass is (.96*28.97) + (.04*2) = 27.89 grams per mole.
This makes sense because we know that adding hydrogen to air will decrease its molar mass because it is much less dense than air.
Anyway, now to find the amount of HHO needed to make air 4% hydrogen. We come back to the equation:
(%HHO)(molar mass of HHO) + (100-%HHO)(molar mass of air) = (100%)(molar mass of mixed gases)
And insert the values
(%HHO)(18.01) + (100-%HHO)(28.97) = (100%)(27.89)
and then solve for %HHO, which comes to 9.9% after a bit of algebra.
Therefore, you need to add at least 9.9% HHO to air to make it combustible.
__________________________________________________ ______________
So what does this mean? How about an example:
In a 2-liter engine at 1000RPM, you need a fuel/air intake of 1000 liters per minute. (500 2-liter intakes in 1000 rotations in one minute) 9.9%vol of the gas has to be HHO in order for combustion to take place, so 9.9% of 1000L = 99 liters.
Your gas generator must produce, at minimum, 99 liters of HHO per minute. This guarantees, however, that the fuel/air entering the engine is combustible. This makes no statement as to whether the combusting mixture will release enough energy to keep the engine spinning, much less move a vehicle. That calls for a whole other set of equations.
Cheers,
ElectroNut
Assuming you people will want "That next set of equations," I've compiled them here:
We'll have to work with a practical example in this case. Let us examine again the 2-liter engine spinning at 1000 RPM. How much energy can it output running on only 4% hydrogen? This is an easy calorific equation which can be readily calculated.
We know that when hydrogen reacts to form water, a certain amount of energy is released. We also know that of the 1000 liters of air entering the engine each minute, 40L, or 4% of it, is hydrogen gas. 40L of hydrogen gas, according to the Ideal Gas Law, is equivelant to 1.786 moles.
Two moles of hydrogen react with one mole of oxygen to produce one mole of water and some heat. The heat of combustion of hydrogen and subsequent formation of water is 285.83 kilojoules per mole of hydrogen reacted. Therefore, 1.786 moles of hydrogen per minute will generate 510.49 kilojoules of energy per minute. This can be converted to horsepower since one horsepower is equivalent to 44.74 kJ/min.
As it turns out, 510.49 kilojoules per minute equates to 11.04 horsepower. This is, of course, assuming that all of the heat energy released is converted to mechanical energy. We know this to be very untrue - the efficiency of a modern internal combustion engine is around 19%. This means that just about 2.09 horsepower would be mechanical - not even enough to keep the engine spinning - while the rest would be lost as heat.
So how much HHO would it take to produce something like 50 horsepower with a 19% efficient engine? We simply run the equations backward: 50hp = 2237 kJ/min divided by 19% = 11774 kJ/min. One mole hydrogen is equivalent to 285.83kJ, so that makes 41.19 moles of hydrogen needed. In liters, 41.19 moles is 922.7 liters of hydrogen per minute.
Assuming you'd be feeding the engine pure HHO at this point, we know that half a mole of oxygen is needed for every mole of hydrogen, so 922.7 + 461.4 = 1384.1 liters of HHO per minute, or 23 liters per second. As a fun fact, if the engine displacement is 2L, it would have to spin at 1384.1 RPM while producing this 50hp.
On a last note, let's compare this to gasoline. Gasoline has a listed average energy density of 34,200,000 joules/liter when reacted with air. One liter of hydrogen (or 1/22.4th of a mole) contains (1/22.4)*285,830 = 12,760 joules per liter when reacted with air. Take 2/3 of the 12,760 to account for the oxygen in the mix and you end up with 8,507 joules per liter of HHO.
This shows that every liter of HHO is equivalent to just 0.25mL or 0.00845 fl. oz. of gasoline with respect to energy content. Conversely, one gallon of gasoline is worth 15,140 liters of HHO.
-ElectroNut
don't mean to disrespect your intelligent but you are comparing apple to oranges. The gasoline engine is not made to run on hho, it is design to run on gasoline. Maybe you should do some more research on the car that run on pure water. I believe one cup is equal to around 100 miles I might be a little off. I 've already explain many time how to run on pure hho. and I'm not gonna explain again go do your research and or check out some of my post and read them you will understand what I'm talking about. Go to youtube and check out this car made in japan and tested there.
maybe i worded my question wrong, sorry...i like yes or no answers..and i know thats not always possible, but i would have to go back to school to work out the numbers, but 1 thing i am fairly sure of is the mixture of petrol/air dos'nt equate to those numbers perhaps i'm missing something but anyway i'd still like to know if anyone has actually seen a 100%hho on demand car
starting to get the hang of your post electronut, but now my heads sore, i'll keep at it anyway cheers
Hear me out:Quote:
Originally Posted by waterbugs
You "believe" one cup is equal to 100 miles, but based on what? Something you saw on YouTube? No disrespect intended, but how is that even an equality? It's like saying a half cup of gas gets a car one mile... very ambiguous. Which car? How old is it? What is the altitude/barometric pressure? What is the temperature? What kind of road are you driving on? How full are the tires? Are you going uphill or downhill? Is the road wet? How much does the car weigh? Is there wind?
But that's enough questions! I understand that these are averages. You told me you could be a little off, so I'm about to find out.
Pretend you have a car that gets 25mpg on gasoline. You want to go 100 miles. Thus, you'll need 4 gallons of gas to do it. A gallon of gasoline contains around 129,276,000 joules of energy, so the whole trip used 517,104,000 joules.
Your car's engine is about 19% efficient. Let us see how much of that gas went to actually getting you there and not out the exhaust as heat. 0.19*517,104,000 = 98,249,760 J. So, if your engine were 100% chemical energy-to-mechanical energy efficient, you would use 98,249,760/129,276,000 = .76 gallons of gasoline. This is 131.5mpg - as you can clearly see, 100% efficiency is absurd. Hang in there; there is a point to all this jabber.
Let us now examine how much energy is in a cup of water. First of all, the water has to be split into HHO. I will ignore this step because physics says it takes exactly the amount of energy to split the water as will be released when it burns, completely ruining the need to generate HHO at all. Therefore, let us pretend that we can split the water using no energy whatsoever.
One cup of water is 237mL and contains 13.2 moles of water since water is 18g/mole. Each mole of water decomposes to a half mole of oxygen and one mole of hydrogen, leaving you with 13.2 moles of hydrogen and 6.6 moles of oxygen. When one mole of hydrogen reacts with one half mole of oxygen to form water, 285.83kJ of energy is released. Therefore, 13.2 moles would produce 3,772,956 joules of energy. We now know how much energy is made when re-forming one cup of water from HHO.
Now plug this into the 100% efficient car model. We eliminated engine efficiency since, as you thoughtfully mentioned, "gas engines are not designed to run on HHO." Therefore we will pretend we have an HHO engine which is 100% efficient - the best-case scenario. It takes 98,249,760 J of energy to get the car 100 miles when engine efficiency is not taken into account. How much water is this? The cup of water had 3,772,956 J, so it would get you 100*(3,772,956/98,249,760) = 3.84 miles.
Yes. If your engine was 100% efficient AND it took no power to make your HHO, a cup of water would get you 3.84 miles in the typical 25mpg-sized car. (I use this 25mpg model since Stan's dune buggy would probably get about 25mpg if it ran on gasoline)
Even the most efficient heat engines found in power plants in the form of rankine-cycle turbines only barely approach 43% efficiency. Now we're down to 1.54 miles, assuming you've also come up with some magic HHO engine which is top-of-modern-technology efficient. Is your engine about as efficient as a petrol engine, 19%? Try 0.73 miles, or a bit short of 4000 feet.
Don't forget to account for the energy it would take to make the HHO in the first place, assuming you could break the laws of physics and make it with less energy that you'd eventually get out of it.
See my point?
Anyway, as for the "yes or no" answer:
Yes if you believe you can make HHO with less energy than you get out of it. Much less.
No if the laws of physics mean something to you.
Sorry if I stepped on any toes. Math gets rather impersonal sometimes. As a side note, I really hope I can open some eyes here and perhaps direct amateur research toward less-futile ends.
Cheers,
-ElectroNut
Electronut>> Really, really good posts! You've explained things very well in easy terminology.
There are so many people that think that running an ICE on HHO is economically feasible, it's crazy.
I believe that 99.999% of us that understand this technology at all realize that the induction of oxyhydrogen is merely a catalyst used to promote a more complete burn in the combustion chamber.
Kudo's to you!;)
Thank you. It's great that you mention the part about the catalysis.
I have been working on an expression to determine the feasibility of that very process. Unfortunately, it's very involved and I still need to do a whole lot of research.
It basically comes down to an emissions problem. In the perfect combustion of a hydrocarbon, the only products are water and carbon dioxide. In the real world, we know that many things like carbon monoxide, methanol, formaldehyde, nitrogen oxides, etc. are produced during normal combustion of a hydrocarbon in air, especially under compression. What I need to find is a reliable assay of the content of exhaust gas for several engines under different load conditions. From there, the chemistry is easy. It takes energy to break chemical bonds and energy is usually released when they re-form. If I can re-arrange all the unburned and partially reacted stuff from the exhaust into CO2, H2O, and N2, I can find out how much extra energy those re-formations will produce.
If the HHO can catalyze these reactions to completion in the cylinder, the engine's performance will benefit corresponding to that amount of energy. I really have no clue as to how much energy this really is. However, I know that catalytic converters are designed to re-arrange around 90% of unburned hydrocarbons and CO, according to the wikipedia article (not reliable, but good enough for preliminary research). This means that a lot of this unused energy is expended at the catalytic converter instead of the engine. This would raise the temperature of the catalyst as well as post-converter exhaust significantly. In fact, wikipedia states that "Any condition that causes abnormally high levels of unburned hydrocarbons — raw or partially burnt fuel — to reach the converter will tend to significantly elevate its temperature, bringing the risk of a meltdown of the substrate and resultant catalytic deactivation and severe exhaust restriction."
Catalytic converter elements don't usually get significantly heated during operation, so I'm already a bit skeptical as to how much extra energy you could really extract from a more complete burn. I cannot make a prediction at this point; the math will have to do the talking.
The other difficult part is finding the load of the cell on the engine and whether the catalysis extracts enough energy from the gasoline to be beneficial. This will require an efficiency value for the alternator, the power draw of the cell, and the gas output. The gas is burned and therefore adds its energy back to the system less the efficiencies of generation, another bonus. All of this will correspond to an engine load value in "raw crank horsepower" which is mechanical energy and can be compared to the gain from the more completely-burned fuel.
Of course, none of all that takes into account the possible effect on, for example, the oxygen sensor. A study will have to be performed to determine whether the more completely burned fuel eats up extra oxygen (probable) and how less O2 in the exhaust would correspond to the ECM possibly leaning out the injectors.
Food for thought. If anyone can find pre-catalytic converter exhaust emission profiles for engines under load, I'd really appreciate them!
-ElectroNut
okey Im gonna explain this how you run on pure water. On vacuum stroke about 1/4 way down water, yes water mist is spray into cylinder a split second right after hho is ignited, this will turn water in stream and pushes the cylinder. this is how the pure hho motor work, check it out on youtube how a pure hho engine work. Remember about just less than a quarter way on vacuum stroke it get ignited not like the old four strokes where vacuum than compress than ignite without water mist. You know we all gonna be running on pure water and generating electricity on pure water soon, thanks to youtube.
just because it's not available to us does not means that it does not exist. All of us here on the forum are decades behinds. We are just ordinary people here trying to make hho we are not government or big corporation with paid scientist with large funds. What we are doing here on the forum is kindergarten stuff compare to them. But I do love this forum.
electronut, ur some kind of genius, i need headache tablets to stay with you.
keep at it!
Electronut, as much as I respect your mathematical prowess, you are missing a fundamental point in your calculations.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectroNut
When you say 1L of HHO gas produces only 12670 J, you are forgetting that 1L of WATER Produces approximately ****1866 LITERS **** of HHO Gas !!!!
This shows that the energy in 1L of water is at least 23642220 J
Not Bad for stuff that falls from the sky.
All the mathematical comprehension in the world cant help you if haven't got your numbers straight in the first place.
enough brown nosing, just because you don't follow the calculations does not mean they are correct or valuableQuote:
Originally Posted by farmer
Electronut, if you think you have the universe worked out, how do explian dark matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectroNut
Einstein says that matter is energy and energy is matter so this huge proportion of the universe being dark matter that we cant seem to interact with is just flying around all over the place for all we know. This forum is about forward thinking, not restraining our thoughts to the very conventions that are being used to suppress us ie the law of thermodynamics.
for instance look at The Heat Pump, by calculation has more than 100% efficiency, why? because there is energy EVERYWHERE. The Heat Pump takes air, compresses it which basically squeezes the energy out of it like water from a sponge and it takes less energy to compress it than is squeezed out of it.
There is also a full spectrum of EM waves contantly resonating through the universe which is an endless tap of energy.
Take E=mc2, im not a maths genius but i can clearly see that this means the energy in the universe is equal to all the mass in the universe times The Speed of Light SQUARED ffs!!!!!!
Basically what im tryin to say is if you are only interested in showing off your mastery of calculation then get lost,
I realise your understanding is that it takes just as much energy to split the water as can be harness from combusting the resulting gas which is understandable but theres a whole myriad of possibilities like those arising from resonant natural frequencies such as the works of Nikola Tesla.
I advise you look up the great Nikola Tesla (you know, the guy who built the Wardenclyff Tower for endless, wirelessly transmitted electricity for all) and then come back and see if your so sure you know everything about energy and the universe...
Cheers
-Macca-
short answer is yes and no. yes you can run an engine entirely on hho, you would need to pregenerate the hho and store it in a tank. however you CAN NOT produce enough hho using an on demand technology like most folks do here to run the engine solely on hho. simply because physics say no.Quote:
Originally Posted by davebarny59
Pure good HHO is very dangerous to store. It can explode with static electricity or to much pressure. Separated HHO, H and O can be stored separately safely. Do not get confused. Stored H which runs BMW's test car and other car manufactures test cars are just only H. Even in an on board system you want to limit the amount the best you can, that is in your bubbler or reservoir. It can very easily go BOOM. Static electricity is in good supply in a moving car!!
In my 12L diesel engine, I figured out I need between 680 and 1000 LPM to keep it running! So, instead of pulling just one 53 ft dry box I will have to pull two - one with an HHO generator (weighing for about 30000 lb) and my load. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectroNut
There is no known tests that I have been able to find that actually tested good dry HHO's HP. 1 liter of known HHO gas moves a known mass over what distance. ElectroNut posted a calculation in another thread but I have not seen any actual physical test or report on one that confirms this. I think this is part of the missing link to really know how much it takes to run a vehicle. The other part is the gas its self. The whole discussion about para/ortho and other possible gases in the mix based on some other types of electrolyte. There is a lot of testing going on in this respect but no published breakthrough results.
Actually, your demonstration has ONLY a mistake (well not a mistake, a bit of more explanation, but just a bit): on an 2L engine running at 1000 RPM, every 2 RPMs the whole displacement is moved on a 4 stroke ICE, meaning that at 1000 RPMs, only 500rpm * 2 liters are moved in a minute. Every 2 turns, the whole displacement is moved half upwards and half downwards....Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectroNut
Your demonstration is SUPERB, by the way.
I would like to ask, how much the fuel consumption can be lowered (or increased the MPG, as you'd like) ?
I guess that with the solution given by lhazleton, it can be done as much as you can produce HHO:
But I foresee a problem with it, and actually a very bad one, which is playing around with the temperature sensors or being more accurate with what the ECU think about what is the current water temperature, meaning that the ICE (in case of gasoline engine, I recall that diesels runs 3-6 celsius lower) the temperature should be between 86 and 106 celsius and because of that the thermostat (yes, this is mainly mechanic but depending on the MY of your car, can be ECU driven) should activate the electro-fan to cooling down faster the coolant. If by any mean, you set a working temperature lower than 86ºC (or mocking the ECU about it), you might be potentially damaging your engine: higher resistances on the chamber, oil temperature lower and less lubrication (additionally in case of turbo engines can shorten the turbo lifespan as coolant and/or oil for cooling them)...Quote:
Originally Posted by lhazleton
Isn't there any way to adjust the timing using OBDII tweaks? I mean: entering on the system a command to adjust the timing? Does the Volo act/react in this way?
Thanks Buddies! :)
I really love to learn from you....