Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 50

Thread: Is it realy possible to make enough hho to run 100%hho

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    los angeles , california
    Posts
    66
    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.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    derry
    Posts
    24

    tablets....

    electronut, ur some kind of genius, i need headache tablets to stay with you.
    keep at it!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by ElectroNut View Post
    Hear me out:

    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, as much as I respect your mathematical prowess, you are missing a fundamental point in your calculations.

    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.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by farmer View Post
    electronut, ur some kind of genius, i need headache tablets to stay with you.
    keep at it!
    enough brown nosing, just because you don't follow the calculations does not mean they are correct or valuable

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by ElectroNut View Post
    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
    Electronut, if you think you have the universe worked out, how do explian dark matter?
    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-

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by davebarny59 View Post
    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
    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.
    hang loose,

    charlie

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,418
    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!!
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb."

    ONE Liter per minute per 10 amps which just isn't possible Ha Ha .

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Steinbach, MB, Canada
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by ElectroNut View Post
    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
    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.
    VOLVO VNL 670 '04, 12L D12D engine, ODO beyond 1.1M miles. Stock 6.0 MPG. Managing up to 7.3 MPG w/o HHO Cell, w/ straight flow muffler, EGRs OFF, AirTabs, ...
    SMART HHO Dry Cell in progress: 10"x12" #20 316L 66 plates unipolar 6 stack, 200 AMP PWM, Fully monitored & controlled by .NETMF Platform. 7.33LPM @ 102A

    My Youtube vIdiotics.
    FUEL ECONOMY CONVERSION TABLE & FUEL EFFICIENCY FACTORS Cheat Sheet for Truck Drivers
    CHEMICAL RESISTANCE GUIDE FOR PLASTIC AND METAL VALVES AND FITTINGS

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,418
    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.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb."

    ONE Liter per minute per 10 amps which just isn't possible Ha Ha .

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by ElectroNut View Post
    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.
    ...

    Cheers,

    ElectroNut
    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....

    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by lhazleton View Post
    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.
    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)...

    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....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •