Junior Member
ANyone seen the hybridtech plans ? They are free.
http://pesn.com/2009/11/13/9501586_H...nerator_plans/
here is a vid of the unit producing 1 litre in 12 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI1KXMepTuA
they claim to be running a generator on pure hho with it powering the hho system and have power left over.
Sheri
Junior Member
well the video clearly shows 1L in 12 seconds.
Sheri
Senior Member
The video clearly shows a bottle with a hose in it, with a gas coming up through it... It only seems logical that if someone makes outstanding claims, they would make their video as transparent as possible. Instead, they show a couple of guys with a hose(no generator to be found).
I'm HIGHLY skeptical if you can't tell...
Senior Member
Claims of over unity are usually the result of bad calculations, poor assumptions and gross over site. Throw in blind faith to cloud issues and you have a good mix to create an over unity machine.
I have personally inspected three OU devices and in all three situations, basic laws of nature still functioned. But miss-interpretation of results and the tendency to overlook basic points caused a lot of excited people a lot of disappointment later.
One inventor was canvassing a close friend for investors. He had a car that ran on one 12v starter battery and a large flywheel/generator assembly in the trunk. The car had surprising performance and range for a single battery. The inventor claimed OU! I looked at the system at the request of my friend and I came to the conclusion it was like a electric vehicle with a capacitive storage system. Very clever and efficient and certainly worth pursuing but not OU. The inventor called me close minded. I said to run it until it died. They got to about 80 miles before it stopped (still a tremendous accomplishment!) at which point the inventor changed his story a bit to say the system needed a bit more work to iron out "Bugs".
Another tinkerer called me from the Los Angeles county area and excitedly told me about his HHO set up running his 67 Valiant at idle with NO GASOLINE being used. Would I be willing to come over and look at his system ( he had actually purchased 24 individual cells from me so I felt an obligation). The car was old and smoked and sputtered when started. But once the battery of electrolysis cells got going, the idle smoothed and the engine accelerated to about 1200 rpm. The owner pulled off the fuel line to the carb after clamping it off. The car ran for about another 30 seconds then gradually slowed down to 800 rpm. And, it continued running and running for about 30 minutes while we talked and I poked around baffled by what was going on. There was nothing powering this car but the 24 electrolysis cells in the back seat! After a bit more time had passed, the owner shut the car off and said he had to add more lubricating oil to the engine as the car used the stuff like "Dean Martin drinking martinis". Bingo! I asked what weight of oil was he using and how much did he use. He was using standard 30w at the rate of almost 2 quarts every hundred miles. He said it really didn't matter as the HHO cleaned up the smoke and added power. I had him start up the car again and get it running on HHO only. I went to my truck and got out a bottle of the "No Smoke" oil additive I used in my old work truck. Once he had the Valiant running, we poured the engine oil additive into the crank case (messy deal) and sat back. Within a couple of minutes the engine started slowing down from 800 rpm. It was still running fine at a low 500 rpm when it finally coughed and died. I explained to the owner how his car was running on both HHO and engine blow by. He refused to believe my assessment and said he would continue with his work. "I'm gonna rebuild the engine first, so I can have a good baseline", he said. So that's what he did, and before he passed away a few years later, he called back to tell me I was right.
The third situation was most applicable to our forum. My neighbor had built an electro-cell-generator and asked me to look over it to see if he was missing something because it would put out "tons off HHO" for a few minutes and then it dies off to almost nothing. After looking at his system the problem became evident right away. He was using concentric pipes as his electrodes. The pipes were made of heavy galvanized steel! He said that was the only stuff that made the "tons of HHO". Of course many of this forums readers already know that zinc easily reacts to form zinc oxide and releases copious amounts of hydrogen - until there is no more zinc. Then the reaction stops.
These are just simple examples of how even the most "educated" person can be fooled into an OU claim. That is why the field of science and engineering has peer review. It helps to have people with multi-disciplined backgrounds looking over the situation to help asses and understand.
This company's claim of OU will have to withstand the peer reviews of not just those in the science and engineering fields, but the "peer review" of the open market. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on these guys.
Out,
RustyLugNut
Senior Member
Sheri, All that video shows is that those guys can dump a bottle of water into a tank in 12 seconds. I have been doing this a long time. As Shane said they would be lucky if that is 1 LPM.Originally Posted by sheri
Larry
2008 Nissan Frontier 4X4 Nismo. 12 MPG baseline with my normal commute and heavy stop and go daily driving. Generator installed and working on 3/29/2009
Up to 14.5 MPG with no enhancers. Still testing the effects of lots of HHO and no electronic enhancers.
Senior Member
theres alot of back pressure in that hose before they flop it over in that bucket. Hell I could do the same thing with mine and have it show double OU if I did it that way. maybe I could sell more of my albums that way
this is a post from www.nicksrealm.com
On Nov. 24, 2009, New Energy Congress member, Francis Giroux wrote: Only about 80% Efficient
Inaccurate Water Displacement Test of HHO Production using Hybrid Tech Energy’s Video
Water displacement is a good way to measure HHO gas production if it is done correctly. First I will give simple instructions for a water displacement measurement setup and then I will point out the obvious errors of the setup in the video claiming 200% efficiency in their HHO cell.
Simple instructions I usually give to an experimenter for water displacement measurement of gas production are as follows.
Take a two liter bottle full of water and turn it upside down in a bucket of water without spilling out any water (a one liter bottle will work just as well).
Take your gas hose from your electrolyzer and run it down into the bucket and up into the upside down bottle. Then turn on your electrolyzer and time how long it takes to empty the bottle of water by replacing it with gas.
More precise instructions would include efforts to keep the end of the hose and the open end of the bottle as close to the water surface in the bucket as possible and a measurement of the atmospheric pressure in the room, as well as voltage and amperage measurements on the electrolyzer.
Before we look carefully at their protocol let me say that being very familiar with the bubbling of gas out of a hose at two liters per minute makes it easy for me to see that the gas production was very similar to that of our electrolyzer running at that current.
Now let’s look at the apparatus in the video to see what varies from this protocol. First of all the gas hose is coming from a reservoir/foam separator that is half full of foam and the container appears to be 2-5 gallons. This would be meaningless if the above instructions were followed but they are not. The instructions above would not be as critical if the gas hose was coming directly from an electrolyzer with virtually no reservoir of gas space inside.
Now let’s look at how the protocol varies from my instructions. Before they start their timer (watch) they have the gas hose bubbling into the bottom of a one liter bottle full of water. Without exact measurement of the height of that bottle I will have to guess that the one liter bottle is 9 inches tall and the hose is inserted 9 inches below the water level. So what? The pressure on the end of that hose is 9 inches of water column, or roughly 0.375 psi. This would not matter so much if the gas hose came from an electrolyzer with virtually no gas reservoir inside, but here we have upwards to 2 and a half gallons or ten liters of compressed gas in the reservoir at 0.375 psi or 9” water column or 0.025 Atmospheres.
Now when the clock is started the bottle is inverted into the bucket of water and the hose is under a vacuum roughly equivalent to the pressure it had before because the water in the bottle is now pulling down and causing a vacuum at the end of the gas hose. During the timing of the test the vacuum dissipates as the water level inside the bottle goes down. However the equivalent total vacuum during the test will be roughly half the maximum vacuum of 0.025 Atmospheres. So the differential effective pressure difference before and during the test will be 0.025 + ½(0.025) = 0.0375 atmospheres during the test.
Using the gas law PV/T=PV/T we can figure out the amount of gas that went into the bottle coming from the reservoir and NOT from the electrolyzer. The gas hose was certainly big enough to dissipate any pressure in 12 seconds so we can say with assurance that the ending pressure was 1 atmosphere. The effective beginning pressure was 1.0375 atmospheres. The volume before was ten liters inside the reservoir. The volume after was ten liters inside the reservoir and X liters inside the test bottle. That is what we are trying to figure out. Temperature before and after were the same. So we can ignore temperature and our equation becomes 1.0375 x 10 = 1.000 x (10+X) Solving this equation for x we get X=0.375 liters of gas transferred from the reservoir into the bottle during the test that was not produced by the electrolyzer.
Other inaccuracies in their protocol was the turning of the bottle upside down into the bucket and how much water spilled out during this operation, and lastly the voltage that was used by the electrolyzer. Using a twelve volt battery charger is using at least 14.2 volts as would be using the alternator of a car. So figuring out electrolyzer efficiency with the proper voltage, which could have easily been measured with a voltmeter during the test, is essential. Also the video showed no bubble of HHO gas coming out the neck of the bottle before the stop watch was stopped and by watching the water level going down at the end of the test (which was very obviously slower than at the beginning of the test (when there was both vacuum inside the bottle and pressure on the gas inside the hose caused by the pressure in the reservoir). The video also didn’t show the stop watch being started (the watch and finger were off the screen). I timed the test myself while watching the video at 15 seconds.
I estimate that the inverting operation lost one ounce of water or 0.03125 liters. The pressure/vacuum caused 0.375 liters to come from the reservoir. That leaves 0.59375 liters of gas produced by the electrolyzer with 14.2 volts and 23.6 amps (assuming their ammeter was accurate) in 15 seconds. All these errors combined bring their 200% efficient electrolyzer to an efficiency of only 80% which is typical for a six cell unit running at 14 volts, which is what our Hydrogen Boost unit is.
All this calculating only confirms my estimate of the amount of gas coming out the end of the gas hose when they had it in the bottle of water.
Sorry for the dashed hopes but this is just another example of poor measurement
The way I see it, if you're gonna build a time machine into a car, why not do it with some style?
www.hhounderground.com
Junior Member
As far as I can see nothing has been proved for disproved.
The cell is using a new type of construction and physics, so unlike the many of the nay sayers on this thread I'm going to keep an open mind.
Until one of you has built one then your opinion doesn't really mean anything.
Sheri
Junior Member
Wow were do i begin chopping this one up? The construction and the physics are NOT new. A few of us have tried and are still trying different designs. The old pipes as a wet cell, (Zzzzzz sry fell asleep jk hate wet designs) has currant leakage all over it,
no electrolyte???? ok it can be done but "spacing between the anode
and cathode is only 1/32” ". 5lpm worth of gas with that spacing would leave less room for water to make more HHO." Section dividers are .010 Poly styrene" will also restrict it flow.
The vid tells us info but shows next to nothing. I can make a vid that shows more info and produce better results, but it would all be fictional.
can and will that item produce hho? yes. With all the testing in done, you(sheri) or there info has not shown me any ground breaking info to support there claims.
Prove me wrong Sheri. I wish you will. Till then i will continue on me quest forward not back.
Senior Member
Hmmm, Phil I'm surprised you haven't come in on this...
We here on the HHO forum do things by hypothesis, theory & experimentation
Thus:
Observations:
#1 Why should we have to build it to disprove your beliefs? Did you build it?
#2 New member, 3 posts, all under the same and only thread.
#3 Member strongly endorses this new technology without any convincing argument.
Conclusions:
#1 Member is actually product owner trying to gain recognition
#2 Member is actually associated with product owner
#3 Member want others to build system at our expense before they spend their own time & resources. hence using forum members. (we've seen this ploy before.)
I'll leave the final determination to the forum members.
Senior Member
That cell may be the best cell ever, but the test in the video is horrible.
The test in that video is even worst than Helz post says, the pressure difference is closer to 18" of water not 9". It starts out with a positive "back" pressure of about 9" then he turns it over to a negative pressure of 9". The differential pressure is 18". Like mentioned before if there was not a tank full of Gases connected to it that would have only had a minimum effect on the results. But when they connect to another tank full of gases, the Gas Laws would show the first second or two is gas equalization of gases not production of gases.
Second thing is timing, IMO they need to use bigger bottles to get an accurate test. (this goes for most of us testing high output cells) When using a 1 litter bottle to measure 4-5 LPM the plus or minus tolerances could be 5 -15%. If they used a used a 2 litter bottle instead the plus or minus tolerances would have been half that 2.5 -7.5%, and 4 litter bottle, half that 1-3%, and so on. IMO to get accurate test your bottle should take 1 minute to fill.
If it truly a great cell it is worth doing the test correctly. Hopefully they will do the test over again the right way. FWIW, There is a independent testing group that will test it 99.999% accurately. I think it cost $400.
Is it a highly efficient cell? maybe, really we dont know.
Now this I would like to see! This would be proof IMO.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote