Magnetic (Ruskin) Filter

[Madsceintist]

Many of your posts are highly questionable. This one borders on mad! I highly doubt you have performed this so called experiment. Someone is going to try this and get hurt!

This is HIGHLY DANGEROUS! I have ignited 1 liter plastic bottles filled with HHO. It is like firing a shotgun. And you propose to encase it in a PVC pipe? I have seen HHO cannons, made from PVC, shatter from firing.

HHO is a stoichiometric mix of oxygen & hydrogen. In an enclosed space, the combustion flame front can be left far behind by the detonation front which can exceed the speed of sound.

Explain yourself more fully with drawings, descriptions and purpose.

One; I doubt that anyone else would do this, BUT yes I did. The pint is filled NOT THE WHOLE TUBE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's encased with 2x10 wood all around it except for the top. It hasn't blown up yet and I've detonated probably 30 pints in it. The length helps it NOT to rupture, any shorter and it might!
WHY DO YOU THINK I USE THE NAME "MADSCEINTIST", its what my friends and family say I am.

I've detonated a 1 gallon Hawaiian punch bottle as well! That was like a cannon going off! THAT I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND FOR ANYONE.

I'm very aware of what I am doing thank you! But just to cover this for YOU.


ANYONE EXPERIMENTING WITH HHO OR HYDROGEN SHOULD NOT DO ANY RISKY BUSINESS, AND DO USE GOGGLES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[myoldyourgold]

I have been extremely busy and have just barely had time to follow this thread much less take part. I must complement all who have participated. I think that everyone is really on the same track even though there is some possible misunderstandings. Science sometimes is not that easy to apply to practical experiments especially ones that are not performed in a controlled lab. Those of us who do not have this luxury have to press on just the same. RustyLugNut, Bio, Madscientist D.O.G. and others together make for a valuable resource to test, explain, and verify various results in this field which is so full of false and misapplied information that one has to be very careful.

I am not going to rehash what has already been said by going over point by point or getting into an argument with anyone because without evidence that is verifiable, duplicated and under the same test conditions, will the actual facts be able to be proven or disproved. The basics are in agreement as far as the advantage of ortho over para. I have not seen any tests that shows that all types of HHO reactors/generators produce under the same conditions(STP) 75% ortho. Not being able to test this myself but doing many tests have concluded that not all HHO reactors make the same gas. This is one of many possible reason the results of the Ruskin or similar device can very. RustyLugNut have you had the gas you produced tested for ortho/para content? You might be the only one who can afford to verify this or have the facility. I have some test evidence that in most cases the gas most reactors are producing is not at the standard ratio at (STP) or at least of poor quality even after dried and cooled. Exactly why and how this is even possible needs to tested by others and verified but as you know it is expensive.

Simply said, it doesn't matter. In the presence of oxygen, under the heat and turbulence of compression, most H2 has broken up to form short lived species such as H+, OH-, HOOH, and so forth. Simple, very reactive combustion intermediaries that form when the flame front is formed. These species help in the thermal de-polymerization of the relatively long chain fuels. Like high speed bullets, they help cut apart and disassemble the carbon chains. A simplification of classical theory, but workable for our needs.

What I am surmising is that, our addition of H2 before the combustion flame is even started, results in the formation of some of these reactive sub species. Even during the compression stroke in a spark ignited engine, I think the small addition of H2 results in some of that H2, if not all, forming up with oxygen to get our reactive subspecies going during the compression stroke. The "de-polymerization" of our fuel carbon chains may already be going on during compression freeing up even more hydrogen to join the process in a domino effect, effectively conditioning the fuel before combustion. The above is, again, a simplification, but it should give you an understanding of how HHO may affect our spark ignited engines. The substantial gains some members of this forum are reporting even with relatively small influx of HHO may be due to the above happening. A "perfect storm of variables" may be allowing them to hit the domino effect early in the compression stroke providing a substantially pre-conditioned fuel mixture at the initiation of the spark event.

Based on some research I have to agree with this except for the fact that it makes no difference. Until it can be confirmed or denied that most gas is not at 75/25 percent respectably or some is and some is not coming from the average reactor. Because of the various chemical reaction in the reactor itself based on plate material and the type of conditioning, electrolyte etc just to mention a few, makes me feel that there is enough evidence of a difference in the composition of the HHO coming out of the reactor especially when coupled with a gas conditioner like Ruskins or a variation. This difference is much larger than most have experienced. Some on this forum know what I am talking about. If you do not then I can assure you I am not going there in a public forum. LOL It is personal. Some of the necessary chemical reactions have to start in the reactor, so when the gas is subjected to compression and other chemical reactions in the pre combustion process, conditions change enough to give an increase in usable energy. I am not remotely suggesting that I understand this process but have read and done enough tests to confirm to my satisfaction it does take place and the results have been seen by more than myself.

I do not think that the Ruskin patent as published is the final answer. I suspect that even he has held back something. If you think about the time the gas is subjected to the field and the field's strength you will come possibly to the same conclusion. This is in reference to gas that is already at the 75% to 25% ratio to start with. Lacking the ability to test gas in an acceptable scientific method, I well error on the conservative side until some proof is there that to increase ortho to more than 75% to 25% ratio using his method as in the patent is not possible. Now with some variance all bets could be are off.

It is my opinion which is based on some results that have not been confirmed or duplicated by others that the ortho content in regards to its additional energy plays a very small part if any, compared to what more ortho does in the compression stroke, thus effecting the thermodynamics, combustion process, and resulting in more usable energy. Of course that is a very simplistic explanation and when done wrong works in reverse or not at all. This is going to take a number of highly qualified people in chemistry, physics, etc. with complete knowledge and understanding of the ICE who can work together and understand each other to solve this based on acceptable science. This is yet to happen and might never.

[RustyLugNut]

I didn't make it clear in my discussion when I said " it doesn't matter" in reference to the HHO going into the combustion event. I made it sound that none if it mattered!

I did mean to emphasize that, even though the H2 is dissociated and reacted negating spin, there may be reactions going on before the introduction of the spark event. This is where I continued with the postulation of possible reactivity before combustion.

Yesterday, I was with my father at the park listening to a free concert by a big band. Before and between Tommy Dorsey hits, we talked. We usually don't talk shop as his science background is in Biology, specifically Microbiology. But when I mentioned spin isomers, he perked up and blabbed out some stuff I've never even heard of! To make things even more interesting, the fellow in front of us overheard the conversation and turned around to throw in his 2 bucks worth of pennies. Turned out he is a young astrophysicist, and hydrogen spin isomers is important to them. I was even more lost with his outpouring of wisdom.

Humbled and a bit tentative to join in, I was able to ask about the effect of spin isomers of hydrogen having chemical advantages in reactions and how to measure the ortho/para ratio (OPR). Turns out the quick and dirty way to measure OPR is simply to take advantage of the change in heat capacity between the 2 isomers. If you can separate the hydrogen from the oxygen since the oxy can make it "messy". Other gasses are often allowed in the mix and accounted for but oxygen, they thought was too reactive. As to the reactivity difference, they thought there was essentially none for our situation ( industrial chemical ). There are implications on the quantum level of course, and some chemical reactions are blocked and altered on the very subtle micro level, but in an engine, there would be no advantage for one or the other.

I briefly explained what we were doing here on this forum and in other places and the young astrophysicist, simply said " not because of the ortho para differences. Check for something else. It might be some of the mono atomic hydrogen is making it into the combustion chamber. Mono atomic hydrogen is obviously very reactive. That's why you don't see it in nature except in the far reaches of space."

The concert ended but now I had a whole slew of questions.

myold, myself and others have been essentially saying the hydrogen we are adding is pre-conditioning the fuel mix before the spark event allowing a faster heat release in a crank range that is more advantageous to making power.

However, we may be barking up the wrong tree here with this whole magnetic filter business.

So, some questions to look into:

How much more reactive is mono atomic hydrogen than the paired H2?

How long is the residence time of mono H once it is evolved in an electrolysis generator?

Do some generator configurations favor more mono H creation and retention?

I have more questions, but these seem crucial to our cause.

Just had to add one more question in edit mode:

Do our Ruskin Filters aid the transmission or creation of mono H?

Have at it.

[D.O.G]

Well, that's an interesting twist to the theory.
I freely admit this is quickly getting over my head, but ....


"Just had to add one more question in edit mode:

Do our Ruskin Filters aid the transmission or creation of mono H?"

A couple of quotes that seem to say that it's possible.

"The presence of a radiation field results in the generation of free hydrogen atoms and ions,"

"Also, electromagnetic radiation above about 11 eV[citation needed] can be absorbed by H2 and lead to its dissociation."

[RustyLugNut]

Well, that's an interesting twist to the theory.
I freely admit this is quickly getting over my head, but ....


"Just had to add one more question in edit mode:

Do our Ruskin Filters aid the transmission or creation of mono H?"

A couple of quotes that seem to say that it's possible.

"The presence of a radiation field results in the generation of free hydrogen atoms and ions,"

"Also, electromagnetic radiation above about 11 eV[citation needed] can be absorbed by H2 and lead to its dissociation."

I only got half a days work done today thinking about this. Thanks for collecting some clues.

Can anyone else help us out?

[myoldyourgold]

myold, myself and others have been essentially saying the hydrogen we are adding is pre-conditioning the fuel mix before the spark event allowing a faster heat release in a crank range that is more advantageous to making power.

However, we may be barking up the wrong tree here with this whole magnetic filter business.

So, some questions to look into:

How much more reactive is mono atomic hydrogen than the paired H2?

How long is the residence time of mono H once it is evolved in an electrolysis generator?

Do some generator configurations favor more mono H creation and retention?

I have more questions, but these seem crucial to our cause.

Just had to add one more question in edit mode:

Do our Ruskin Filters aid the transmission or creation of mono H?

I think that there is much more to this and we might be looking at this in to narrow of a view. If the engine is leaned out the burn rate of the gasoline is reduced and causes more heat. By adding enough HHO it speeds things back up reducing the heat and maintaining HP or in some case actually increasing it. This results in more energy (heat) being used to push the piston down if this takes place at the right crank angle.

What happens without a lean condition and if there is a change in the gas make up in the compression stroke or if there are changes to the gas makeup in the reactor is very difficult to prove except maybe in a lab with the right equipment which none of us known to me have. Many have stated that ortho bonds itself to the hydrocarbon molecule and if that is true then that is one change taking place in the compression stroke. I am not a chemist and really have no idea but do see better results with better quality gas than with poor quality but without testing the gas can not confirm that it is really more ortho or not. There is also possibly energy released as ortho changes to para in the compression stroke. Exactly how, when and even if this happens is beyond by ability to test but could be another source of energy if captured and used. The exact balance of many things is what I think is what give the best results and is why you see large gains in some vehicles and less in others of the same model.

I have seen some data that other gases that are much more active are formed in some reactors and contribute to the whole process. Again impossible for me to test but could explain why the results are better in some cases. It is easy to speculate but that does not give you real answers even if right.

Because of the many variables both in the compression stroke, combustion and in the reactor itself, I am still not convinced that there is nothing happening in both cases that promotes a better situation. I need more information before I could make any move from this position based on tests I have done.

The mono H topic I leave by choice at this moment. I will say that it has an important role but am not willing to get into it right know. There is some aspects of this topic that cause a lot of controversy, misunderstanding and my lack of understanding of the science prevents me from explaining results I have seen attributed to mono H, so will pass. It is a realm that needs a lot more investigation in my opinion for me to discus. Most of this is above my pay rate already. LOL

[RustyLugNut]

Well, I did find a few Pdf papers filed away on the DOE (Department of Energy) website.

Several references of monatomic H being produced at high temperatures in a plasma flame made it very clear that they didn't stay single more than a few micro seconds as the monatomic H is so reactive.

Another paper studies the possibility of decomposing water at high temperatures (>2100 deg K) and using centrifugal separation. However, the energy and entropy states must be such that the monatomic H becomes H2 within micro or nano seconds of cooling (<2100 deg K).

Another proposal for nuclear space propulsion outlined the nuclear heating of hydrogen gas at 5 and 60 atmospheres to dissociate the H2 molecule and accelerate it as a monatomic particle to provide long burn, low thrust propulsion in space. It made it clear that the mona H recombined just as it left the nozzle in the vacuum. At particle velocities of 5 to 6 km per second, this was a very rapid recombination.

A basic study of the heating effects of micro waves (electromagnetic radiation at 2.45 GHz) had water as the base comparison. At boiling, the steam can contain O, O2, H, H2 as well as ions such as OH-, etc. However, most monatomic H and O recombined instantly to paired molecules and quickly became water with just a bit of cooling.

These studies referenced dozens of papers from government and academia labs.

It is fundamentally clear the monatomic hydrogen molecule cannot be part of the production of our HHO electrolysis generators. Even if our plate configurations as well as our metal choices or frequency pulsing of our power, produces monatomic H, it would instantly recombine to H2, or the presence of oxygen would mean the high reactivity of monatomic hydrogen would be evident in rapid oxidation (combustion) which does not happen in our generators.

Our Ruskin Filters could produce it with enough gas velocity but the resultant gas stream would still fall quickly back to diatomic gases before it passed into the intake manifolds of our vehicles.

This pretty much means a dead end for this postulation that monatomic hydrogen is the active reactant in pre-conditioning our fuel mix before the spark event.

If anyone has some good science to add to this discussion, feel free to jump in.

In summary:

The addition of HHO works to pre-condition the fuel mix to promote a more advantageous combustion event.

Ortho hydrogen versus para hydrogen is seen as a non factor in our combustion process.

Monatomic hydrogen cannot exist long enough to be a part of our combustion chamber effects.


But, don't despair. I point the reader to other places in the forums where people are finding success in applying their HHO generators and in some instances, their Ruskin Type Filters. Something is working, albeit with a wide range of variability and not a few failures.

I seek to know Why this works and how, so that the engineering can move forward to consistently execute a successful system no matter the ICE type.

I probably should start a new thread . . . we are far beyond the original discussion.

[RustyLugNut]

I think that there is much more to this and we might be looking at this in to narrow of a view. If the engine is leaned out the burn rate of the gasoline is reduced and causes more heat. By adding enough HHO it speeds things back up reducing the heat and maintaining HP or in some case actually increasing it. This results in more energy (heat) being used to push the piston down if this takes place at the right crank angle.

I just want to clarify what you are saying. At lean limits, classic combustion theory tells us that the flame front becomes slower and more erratic. More fuel is lost to the exhaust due to incomplete combustion. The addition of hydrogen gas to the lean mixture increases the flammability limit while increasing the flame stability and speed. The fuel can be burned in the useful crank angle range providing more available power than otherwise. The exhaust temperature should actually drop as less wasted heat and wasted fuel is passed to the exhaust manifolding.

What happens without a lean condition and if there is a change in the gas make up in the compression stroke or if there are changes to the gas makeup in the reactor is very difficult to prove except maybe in a lab with the right equipment which none of us known to me have. Many have stated that ortho bonds itself to the hydrocarbon molecule and if that is true then that is one change taking place in the compression stroke. I am not a chemist and really have no idea but do see better results with better quality gas than with poor quality but without testing the gas can not confirm that it is really more ortho or not. There is also possibly energy released as ortho changes to para in the compression stroke. Exactly how, when and even if this happens is beyond by ability to test but could be another source of energy if captured and used. The exact balance of many things is what I think is what give the best results and is why you see large gains in some vehicles and less in others of the same model.

I have seen some data that other gases that are much more active are formed in some reactors and contribute to the whole process. Again impossible for me to test but could explain why the results are better in some cases. It is easy to speculate but that does not give you real answers even if right.

Because of the many variables both in the compression stroke, combustion and in the reactor itself, I am still not convinced that there is nothing happening in both cases that promotes a better situation. I need more information before I could make any move from this position based on tests I have done.

The mono H topic I leave by choice at this moment. I will say that it has an important role but am not willing to get into it right know. There is some aspects of this topic that cause a lot of controversy, misunderstanding and my lack of understanding of the science prevents me from explaining results I have seen attributed to mono H, so will pass. It is a realm that needs a lot more investigation in my opinion for me to discus. Most of this is above my pay rate already. LOL

I beg to differ in the effects of monatomic hydrogen and the ortho/para hydrogen twins. Initial research is often a process of elimination. "We stand on the shoulders of giants", is a paraphrase that is often used in science, and we should not abandon the work that has gone before us.

The fact that monatomic hydrogen (mono H) cannot exist long in the conditions of pressure and temperature found in our generators and engines means it can be eliminated from the discussion. I discuss this in my next post.

The small energy differential between room temperature ortho/para hydrogen means the energy gained by converting from one to the other is trivial at the molar rates of production of our electrolysis units. Chasing down their reactivities and seeing as they are equal on the chemical level, we can eliminate them as a cause of any gains in efficiency and power. I discussed this in the above (previous posts).

However, regular H2, be it ortho or para, does split into free radicals. Those radicals are the reactive pre-cursors to complete combustion. I touched on this in the above previous posts.

I believe the secret lies in the creation of free radicals. There may be enough created in our generators or magnetic filters to pre-condition our fuel/air mix for improved combustion at the spark event. Maybe they have a long enough lifetime to make the transit, or there is a carrier mechanism that allows them to survive to enter the combustion chamber.

[myoldyourgold]

Ruty, I would have thought that you would have commented on this:

Many have stated that ortho bonds itself to the hydrocarbon molecule and if that is true then that is one change taking place in the compression stroke.

I should have added that it is also claimed that para does not. You seem to be equipped to make this fact of fiction.

"We stand on the shoulders of giants", is a paraphrase that is often used in science, and we should not abandon the work that has gone before us.

Well IMHO this is where science some times goes wrong. By standing on the shoulders of giants they some times tend to miss new discoveries made by the simple experimenters due to the fact there heads are in the clouds. LOL Science can not be ignored but it also should not be keeping you from seeing what is below the clouds. I only say this because a very good friend who has more then one sheep skin on his wall and is considerd a leader in his field told me that adding HHO to the combustion could not and would not yield any gain in fact a loss in efficiency. Loves to use the Myth Busters as an example. He refused to change his mind when I proved differently. He is still trying to figure out how I somehow was able to fool him with my demonstration. He has spent hours and the results are still the same. He finds no tricks and it has become an obsession with him to find something in my demistration that will prove me wrong. LOL He just can not get his head out of the clouds yet. I hope with all his efforts, even through they are misdirected, he might actually come up with some valuable information on why it works like it does. Time will tell. I have not been holding my breath though.

Some good stuff Rusty and we just have to all keep an open mind that on the practical side of things we might not always find a easy explanation the fits an existing science model. To many variables and to many tests being done that are not in a finely controlled lab situation make it very difficult.

[hhofox]

It is sad, but there are some people who can only see things one way, and one way only -even if the truth is laid out plainly before them. It is an utter waste of time to argue with such ones, as they rarely ever change their ways. To show the severity of this dilemma -even God has no use for people like those since they refuse to show humility. (Note that he does not force anyone to serve him, and it's their loss if they do not.)
"The first pig to squeal is the one that got hit." = "Who the cap fits, let them wear it."

Anyhow, can we get back to posting info, without all the bickering, please?

BTW...this goes for BOTH the Octane and Ruskin Filter threads.