Hydrogen Cell

It's not illegal, so go for it.

what is a hydrogen cell? And why would you want one?

Why would I want one:

More fuel mileage (maybe 20 to 35 percent, maybe more.

Less emission's

more power

renewable source of energy--water

Good enough for the Space Shuttle....good enough for me (maybe a smaller version)

Last but not LEAST, it is not a food source.......Ethanol is just nuts, BIG NUTS !!!!

oh, the ol' HHO scam. Send me $1000 and I'll send you plan's.

Then after you find out that it costs more and pollutes evenmore, you sell 2 sets of plans to other uneducated people and you get your money back.

I also have a device that pulls energy from the earths gravity and magnetic poles.

So why has Toyota put it in their new truck?

The toyota is sell FUEL CELLS in trucks, River Rats post implies the use in IC engines.

Hydrogen is not a fuel, its not found in nature, but we can make it. Its hard to store and even tougher to transport. The cost to make it, transport it, and store it makes it cost 3 times as much as other fuels.

Toyota is in the business to sell what customers want, not what is right.

A couple of things to note. A) hydrogen is one of the most abundant molecules in nature (maybe the most abundant), just not on this planet. B) I would contend that anything used for rocket fuel would be a fuel. We generate hydrogen from sources like coal and water, much like we might generate gasoline from a source like crude oil. It is correct that hydrogen is hard to store. It is so small that it can migrate through the matrix of compounds we use to construct walls of any tank, the best we can do is slow the leak. It is costly to generate, as it takes energy to generate it, though it is easy to generate in large masses. It can be transported much like natural gas or LOx, so cost is similar to those, you just can not store it for very long. It is extremely bouyant in our atmosphere, so there is little recovery from spills and a lot of loss in transfers (though no contamination by hydrogen from spills will ever occur, unlike gasoline).

hydrogen is not found naturally, we have to make it, not refine it, make it. Hydrogen would not be used as rocket fuel normally, it was a political move to use it on the shuttle. We send hydrogen into space as a battery, to run fuel cells and as a storage medium for water.

Hi RCE,

Sorry to chime in like this, but you're out of your league in this discussion. I'm not saying that' you're totally off base, but the politics of the H2 fueled shuttle were well documented.

The use of LH2 + LOx as a "water proxy" not storage, are also perfectly valid for spacecraft. Yes the mass is the same, but by lifting the components separately the crew gets the benefit of the chemical energy from their fuel cells and the by-product water for drinking. What they save is the mass of batteries!

I'm glad you pointed out that H2 is not 'made' but referring to water as 'ore'... well that's getting patronizing. And coal is most decidedly not a H2 ore, it's one of the few primary reducing agents available.

This thread is a bit confusing because there is absolutely nothing 'sustainable' about hydrogen and the hydrogen economy is a farce. H2 is a medium that can store energy, but as with every other storage technology, it does is at a significant cost.

There are times when that cost is worth paying; orbiting fuel cells.

There may be a time when the cost can be amortized reasonably well; H2 powered bus fleets, when an inexpensive source of primary energy e.g concentrating solar-thermal electric can be closely coupled to the H2 extraction.

And there are times when H2 is just a bad idea; Or worse a solution looking for a problem; more specifically, a political pork project, like stationary fuel cells for power production under the disguise of peak-shaving or standby power.

Peace, love & granola!

I may be off a bit with this but I think I remember Hydrogen peroxide being used by the Germans way back around circa 1940 in their rocket development and I am sure that we used it to power the Nike Ajax that had a solid fuel booster, I was in the military stationed at a Hurc. site and we used a 4 booster cluster that was previously designed for the Ajax and clustered to lift the hurc, Miss.

TMF

MILO where are you? Del-the-cat, stay in your litter box, Vicini has much better help now.

TMF

And I have a 30 gallon trash can buried in my back yard that is used to decompose stuff like many of your aggressive comments.

I find it a pleasure to have RCE as a slight skeptic that has the wherewithall to make his point with out the ignorant comments. TMF

Yes - interesting question is useful level -

Can be useful to improve combustion - curently used as a booster for an outdoor water tank system burning used motor oil. - cleans up emissions nicely -

Can improve MPG in vehicles - older non-computer cars benefit most -

interestingly some of the Flex-Fuel designs seem to work well - different algorithms used for emissions is the suspected reason the computers do not error -

DO NOT pay for plans - plenty free - Like this well replicated booster which costs about $60 to build - gave me about 30% MPG boost on my Ford 460 crew cab.

The hydrogen can be stored separately to fuel small devices ( cell-phones ) but that seems to not be popular -

Using it separately also seems to reduce the problems with computerized cars. The sensors do not respond to the hydrogen used alone with errors, though it does reduce emissions reliably.

Lots of folks here get excited on the subject - for $60 you can TEST it YOURSELF -

Skip the opinion step - REAL engineering requires TESTING - Have FUN - learn something new.

:) rcb

Save the $60, it can not improve mileage. The FTC is shutting down site that make this claim as it hasbeen proven in the lab not to improve mileage.

NEXT and most important, its dangerous,REAL ENGINEEERS cannot tell people to experiment with HHO/browns gas as they can become liable for your safety.

> The FTC is shutting down site that make this claim as it has been proven in the lab not to improve mileage.

Is this true? Do you have a reference on this?

I live near San Antonio & the hydrogen assist-type system has been getting local TV/press coverage and a highly respected local ASE shop http://www.cambridgeauto.com has been testing a system in real world conditions (not on a bench, but on the road) and they claim to be be getting 30-50% increased mileage. Also the Southwest Research Institute is conducting tests.

I'm not convinced either way - & I'm sure there are probably lots of scamers out there - but that doesn't mean the technology works or not - I just am not sure the case is closed on this & if it is I would like to see the research.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/04/energysurf2002.shtm

save yourself some grief!!

FYI - I just spoke with Cambridge Auto http://www.cambridgeauto.com and they now claim 3 vehicles working with a 60-80% mpg improvement with real world driving tests. Whatever the mechanism, their system does appear to work.

Unfortunately, the work with Southwest Research Institute broke down as they are publicly funded & wanted to publish results & Cambridge Auto has a proprietary interest in their version of the hydrogen via electrolysis assist system (I think it is mainly in the computer/sensor mods - to keep the engine from putting too much hydrocarbon fuel into the engine to compensate for the increased O2). From what I understand - they believe the hydrogen causes more complete burning of the hydrocarbons which more than compensates for the losses in the alternator & electrolysis.

SRI is going to get paid - either CASH or PUBLICITY - their quote for testing my engine is around here somewhere - :)

I REPEAT - http://www.hydrogen-boost.com AND

http://www.smacksboosters.110mb.com

have lots of units on the road -

MY system is using THEIR designs to test - SMACK design is FREE

The MPG changes are VEHICLE and thus COMPUTER dependant -

the range I consistently hear is 15 to 120%

Check out http://www.green-salon.com and GO LOOK at the devices and TALK to the folks who are designing the next wave of fuel systems.

rcb

I went all over southwest research's page, nothing on this, they have a lab set up to test irrigation on engines for lower emissions. http://www.swri.org/4org/d03/engres/gasind/home.htm

We do about $500,000 a year of research with them and I've never heard them discuss HHO.

Dr. Roberts has been investigating pure Hydrogen as a fuel, but he knows that it is way to expensive to use.

I wouldn't touch pure hydrogen with your hands. Pure hydrogen has been proven to power ice.s but it causes the metals to become brittle and subject to early failure. Here is a pure thought. Contaminate your Hydrogen with a little oxygen, about two parts Hydrogen to one part oxygen, but be careful to use it quickly or it will turn to water.

TMF

Watch the video from KENS 5 TV (linked on the cambridgeauto.com site) & the researcher is interviewed.

My discussions were about Engine testing - NOT fuel systems -

Engine comes out of shop about January 2009

Hmm - I EXPECT that ENGINEERS will know how to test SAFELY

The PROBLEM here seems to bee ENGINEERS who do NOT know CLAIMING knowledge

Fooey! (response to link)

The can't even tell the difference between acrylic & polycarbonate.

The higher the price of oil the more gullible folks will buy ridiculous 'solutions'.

if you try this and get injured, have your lawyers trace down rcbondsr.......

good luck

you can buy them at edmunds scientifics. make hho, put it into the fue cell and see your net loss.

CAN WE MAKE A HYDROGEN CELL FOR DOMESTIC USE?

A cell is generally looked upon as being a single unit. However if it only produces a single substance, or more substances that have a single purposeful use, I would think that it is acceptable to describe a multi-compartmental unit as a cell.

As for producing Hydrogen for domestic use, "My answer is YES!"

Regarding this issue, need will support investigative development. Don't be surprised if someone one day shows up with a little electronic device containing sensors that can determine the composition of blends of substances dissolved in H2O that cause it to conduct electrical current. And; said little device will already be programed to determined the most effective way to separate the electrolyte into useful gases like oxy-hydrogen, and will be the brainwork that permits the release of just the minimal amount of sustaining current into the fluid and; then switches on the pulsing amount of high voltage needed to fracture the water molecule into it's atomic particles, with the least amount of energy needed. And; tho we may not re-write any scientific laws regarding energy, likely we will be able to produce the gas by expending far less energy and capital than is needed to get gasoline from beneath the surface to your fuel tank. And; as this fuel-gas will release energy as the molecule re-unites itself as a single unit, from it's particulates we likely can fall back on previous inventions such as refrigeration and air conditioning that were possible to produce with just a little flame or other heat source. Never forget the relationship of mustard seeds and faith. This information is cheerfully provided to you and other forum participants by someone who survived a lightening strike that happened while on a hunting trip in Florida in 1990.

TMF

As a former chemist, I found this a bit confusing. However, I believe the idea you are trying to present may be that if the process and energy input necessary to generate hydrogen gas becomes more efficient it may offset the exploration, recovery and refining cost for petroleum fuels. I think that this could be true if you included the cost for adverse environmental impacts, since petroleum recovery, storage, processing, and fuels storage are notorious for contaminating potable surface water and groundwater resources. The total clean up costs included, you may see a cost benefit to hydrogen production. The energy cost of petroleum production is far less then the enegry gains from the recovered resource, so that is not a consideration for comparison, since the process of hydrogen production must at a minimum have enough energy input to reduce the water to get hydrogen, this is just the Redox energy alone, not process efficiencies. It is always a net loss in energy, you must always put more in then you get out. The benefit can be derived from using cheap energy to generate hydrogen and then using it to offset more expensive mobil energy sources like gasoline.

Thanks for your response! That is pretty much what I have stated all along. Simply put the cost of petroleum production must include all of the negative performances. The oxy-hydrogen fuel gas can be produced from direct energy input, so long as there is wind , water power, or solar voltaic input, the same sources can charge and recharge deep cycle storage batteries at the same time, providing an around the clock production, thus providing the energy input needed for things like air conditioning and refrigeration and even catching the excess heat thrown off to at least warm water, thus reducing the energy input needed to make it a little hotter. In an earlier forum I went into great detail describing all of the actual costs involved with obtaining the petroleum raw product through delivery to the end user. No doubt the energy input to create the oxy-hydrogen fuel gas may be greater than the energy recoverable. However when I look at the enormous expense to provide a given unit of energy recoverable from the combustion of gasoline vs the same amount of energy recovered by oxy-hyrogen used under the same circumstances, and I consider that performance difference, that is with the oxy-hydrogen being so much more powerful from less air fuel volume input, I remain convinced that using the single duct fuel blend called Oxy-hydrogen is far more productive than either hydrogen alone or gasoline and any other fuel available for possible public use.

TMF

oxidation of H-H bond actually delivers less energy per molecule than oxidation of C-C bonds. Hydrogen oxidation is not particularly a favorable energy source, as the energy density per unit volume is very much lower than that of petroleum. Since you are reducing water by input of energy into an exothermic form, the best you can achieve from hydrogen fuel is the energy out less than that you put into reducing water into hydrogen. You would still need to account for all the losses in storage and transfer at all the various stages from reduction to burning. Hydrogen as a fuel is somewhat equivalent to a leaky battery, you put energy in, and based on how long you wait to use it and system efficiencies, you get somewhat less energy out. This differs in that respect to petroleum, the energy inherent to petroleum is freely associated. We do not need to put energy in to get energy out, it is already in an exothermic form. The energy output far exceeds the energy needed to recover and refine it. So the only real benefits are the potential cost to offset some of the known environmental impacts, assuming that the enevironmental mitigations costs of hydrogen generation are not too expensive. Would the cost of the known environmental impacts of petroleum far exceed the cost benefits relative to those of hydrogen. One thing to keep in mind is that we do not know the exact cost for environmental mitigations to generate hydrogen on a large scale. You will need facilities that always have some impact that must be mitigated. I am not really sure what you really mean by oxy-hydrogen, since hydroxyl radicals are super reactive oxidizing agents they would not be suitable for fuel, and hydroxide only exists in high pH solutions, and i would not pre-mix oxygen with hydrogen before the combustion chamber. If you plan to use both oxygen and hydrogen in your vehicle, you would then need storage for both and carry more weight that must use some of the enrgy generated; additional safety measures, since hydrogen is more likely to explode in a higher oxygen environment; a means of fueling safely both materials; safe transportation and delivery of materials, etc..

For the most cogent description I know of, and which started me on the Hydroxy path,

see this link, for documentation by the inventor / designer of the Heine Water Welder of

1960's vintage - and his dispute with Yul Brown. Flame Temperature and Propagation etc. are discussed.

I am certain I defer to the originator for the history, and untill my tests disagree, This is the best information I know of.

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/academy/papers/Common_Duct_Electrolytic_OxyHydrogen/index.html

pure dribble, i love the lifting power thingy, I could not find lifting power. A true scientitific paper would have foot noted all the reference claims in acedamia protocal with page numbers.

For you here is a quote :

A foole and his money is soone parted.
[1587 J. Bridges Defence of Government in Church of England xv. 1294]

So where do you obtain the electrical power for electrolysis of water prior to injection. Keep in mind the energy released from the exothermic reaction of hydrogen and oxygen is always less than that put into the electrolytic separation. Then there are also the efficiency losses to account for in the steps of the process. As a means to generate a torch flame for welding this may be acceptable, since you can use the power grid, don't use much energy from the reaction, may need the higher temperatures, and other fuels used for this purpose are expensive at the point of welding. As a fuel though you must think of when we derive hydrogen from water as a battery being charged, versus petroleum, which comes already charged. So a simplified operation would look like charge the batteries, use battery power to generate hydrogen, use hydrogen to run the engine, use engine power to run the generator, the generator charges the battery. Each step uses more power then it outputs, so somewhere you will need to add power from an outside source.

The useful part is - it improves the burn of the fuel - the improvement gives more power than used to create the gas.

My batteries do not run down, and My MPG has gone up -

Explain it any way you like - My Wallet Likes This Process -

rcb

This is never true, it always (this is just thermodynamic limits to the reactions, not equipment efficiencies) takes more energy to generate the gases from water, than you get back from burning them. If you use pure hydrogen and oxygen for fuel. Mixing them with another fuel, means the other fuel is the added energy input. In this case you really only need to add the oxygen to improve the burn efficiency of other fuels, but why waste the hydrogen since you put so much energy into generating it. In this case hydrogen is not the primary fuel, it is just a waste product you can burn with you other fuel. It is the oxygen that improves the burn efficiency of the primary fuel. If you ran on pure hydrogen and oxygen, you would have a net loss in energy, if you used water in the tank. You have effectively increased the oxygen content of the air in your fuel air mixture.

Actually, those who use ONLY H - and discard the O - see very similar changes in EMISSIONS to the HOH systems -

Both systems have limits - the HOH starts to confuses the fuel SYSTEMS sooner and gets LESS results at the UPPER LIMIT !!??

Accepted THEORY among those working with these systems is the O is causing this problem.

One interesting thread here mentioned a Nitrogen separator - which would LIKELY reduce NoX in combustion !!

MY testing is aimed at using old cars as they are and increasing MPG

As long as MY pocketbook LIKES the results I will continue -

So Far - 2 things work - Hydroxy ( Rhodes Gas ) and chemical additives that CHANGE the structure of the fuel.

Testing - Testing - Testing

More news When it happens :)

rcb

First, please permit me to thank CR 4 and crew for their efforts to make this forum possible and preventing outright verbal fist to cuff events between the participants. AGAIN, THANKS RCE and others for your taking the time to go into detailed explanations regarding the various qualities and some time values of these various fuels.

RCE, in your response you state that we need not put energy in to get energy out, it's already in an exothermic form.

It seems that when ever the issue of hydrogen vs petrol surfaces, the scientists state that we must put more energy in than we can get out to create hydrogen. The remainder of our participants, by now are well aware of this fact. However; we must also initiate an input of energy into the barrel of crude oil to part out the petrols that are used in our cars, trucks, air craft, boats and any internal combustion engine.

You also mention the issues involved in storage and handling both hydrogen and petrol products.

And this is where the opposing opinions cease to follow a correct path, each creating the equasions that support their points of interest.

FOLLOW THE PATH; "the subject is not about scammers, is not about petroleum producers, and is not about the Laws of Thermodynamics." The Subject is whether or not the production of [OXY-HYDROGEN], (not stored, but produced on demand with the use of available electrical energy from an automobile alternator, distilled water and an electrolyte that does not produce environmentally harmful contaminants, is less expensive and more ECO friendly to produce and use than petroleum fuels. Remember that the use of the oxy-hydrogen fuel gas only needs the water and electrolyte, along with the electricity to be produced. Petrol on the other hand needs all of the costs from discovery to the inclusion of the dispensing fuel pump, to be included.

The only expert that I am aware of that has produced information concerning the scientific performance of single-duct oxy-hydrogen fuel gas is the original patent holder, Dr William A. Rhodes. To me references to Dr. Yull Brown's accomplishments should be set aside except where they apply.

To assist anyone with their search for this information simply

Google up= Dr. William A. Rhodes single duct oxy-hydrogen papers 1 & 2. As for the performance calcs. and production costs for gasoline, I have seen a multitude of suggestions, none of which are truly accurate unless they include the benefit from the salable value of the by-products that offset the actual costs to produce the petroleum fuels.

HYDROGEN vs GASOLINE IS NOT THE ISSUE. Single-duct Oxy-Hydrogen, produced on demand vs gasoline and diesel fuels is the issue.

TMF

The problem with generating hydrogen and oxygen on demand in the vehicle as a sole source fuel, is still that the energy input is always greater than output. So you must have an additional source of energy to compensate somewhere, other fuels have a net positive output of energy in the system. Water as a fuel would cause a great deal of environmental, social and ecological problems als as we compete for high quality water against human consumption needs and the needs of the environment. As a fuel most groundwater would have too many pollutants that would damages the system, and sea water would definitely be bad. Thus you would need to refine the water for mass use, there is one cost. Since i work in water conveyance, planning and treatment design, and have worked in geoenvironmental engineering for petroleum clients before, i realize that many cost you associate with oil also exist with water. There are exploration costs, pumping/recovery costs, refining costs, conveyance costs, environmental impacts cost. Also with water, you will find that the Us government and states are much more political over water than any other resource, water rights are a huge issue. The production of ethanol has had a huge impact of the grain markets, and we used to over produce. We know that in the western US, Australia, middle East, etc. that there are serious fights over balancing the water needs of the people, food production, ecosystem with the available water resources. Water as a fuel would in all likelyhood be much lower on the priorities for water rights assignments then these previous users, but much like ethanol it would drive the cost up forcing higher water rates for other users, making water to expensive for the poorer sectors of society. You could always refine water from seawater, but that is way more expensive than using existing high quality sources (and extemely energy consumptive). To consider for mass production, i would suggest you reasearch the process of water production for municipalities and desalination, as this would be the least adverse impact on existing consumers. A comparison will likely show that the true cost of oil production is only slightly greater than water production (however, oil is privately produced and refined, and water is typically developed, refined and conveyed by municipalities at cost, without profit). Water is a resource that is tyically very contentious, and there are far more legal fights over water rights, water pollution, ect.. than petroleum. Additionally, any electrolyte is a pollutant that would need to be disposed of somewhere in some manner. The question is where, and how bad would the impact from hundreds of millions of users be?

Wonderful background - Thanks.

One MAJOR factor is - What state must the water be in -

Stan Meyer said he could use anything -

Good News - the ASH OF COMBUSTION of O and H is -- H2O -

so it gets RECYCLED - if we can manage contaminates in the process.

In the NorthWest - we can turn our umbrella's upside down and have plenty for 7 or 8 months a year. Georgia may be more problematic.

The DISASTER of supply from ETHANOL is a great example of how to CREATE another PROBLEM while Not Solving another.

NaOH and KOH can be captured in the Bubbler ( required SAFETY device ) and will last as long as you keep them in the water ( well - ALMOST )

Water purification needs ?? how about condensed steam -?

Not my area -

NOW i am working on a fuel system for my engine, and testing it on EXISTING devices to OBSERVE what happens.

So Far My PocketBook likes the result -

Please stay engaged - You brought up a body of IMPORTANT issues.

rcb

You observations are very well put. Having lived in the west, I am aware of the water rights issues. Here in Florida and in most other states, "and countries" water is and can be a more significant issue than food.

However: WE WASTE WATER ALREADY ONCE USED, "I'll spare the details here". There is surely enough reclaimed, partially treated, water that can easily be distilled using the heat of the sun and any other wasted heat sources. The "crap" (undesirables of all varieties) must be dealt with anyway.

I have found that common white distilled vinegar makes a suitable additive for the production of Oxy-hydrogen. I realize that if everyone was to begin using this product there would be a shortage. There are certainly other additives as harmless as vinegar that can be used.

The realistic point is this. If oxy-hydrogen produced on demand can be used to improve the performance of other fuel gases or eliminate them all together, we will have gained not lost.

Consider the following, if you will as they certainly apply,

FLAME PROPAGATION RATES; butane- 60 ft. sec.; acetylene-330 ft. sec; TANK HYDROGEN- 680 ft. sec.; gasoline must be considered at the best mixed rate with the oxidant, about this opinions seem to vary. Now consider single duct Oxy-hydrogen with a flame propagation rate of, "after adjusted for all conditions" mach 7.5.

We all know that these fuel gases produce energy when ignited, however it certainly seems reasonable to me that the faster a fuel burns, and the less of it that is needed in a given volume to produce work, the more economical it can be, provided that it can be tamed enough to be useful.

I have yet to find any respondant scientist on this forum that has mentioned the above, has compared the electricity needed to produce hydrogen vs hydrogen performance against the electricity needed to produce a comparable amount of oxy-hydrogen and both against each other in the amount of work said volumes of gas can do. AND. then compare this performance against the comparable quantity of gasoline and oxidant. In other words,

"it seems that my horse can out work your horse for the same amount of feed" "either gee, haw or whoa, or git out of the way!"

TMF

flame speed means nothing for energy. Flame speed is one of several hundred variables in ICE that cause predetonation or knocking. A high flame propagation speed means the engine will knock as the compression ratio goes up. So a fast flame speed in an ICE means you have to lower compression ratio. The lower the compression ratio, the lower the efficency of the engine, hence a gasoline engine at 9:1 is lower than a diesel at 20:1.

So, faster flame speed equals lower efficency in an ICE.

To get better burning and less unburned fuel, cylinder geometry, valve timing, fuel injectors, intake and exhaust manifold design improves this. The Hemi was the biggest step change in all of these. Guess what, every car built since the 70's has a "hemi" arrangement.

Not quite accurate, I am a pretty good mechanic, and know plenty about fuel rate of burn time and its impact on performance. The explosive power of OXY-HYDROGEN, vs it's burn rate simply means that you delay the ignition to, in this case about 10 degrees after top dead center, to prevent all of the uglies you mentioned. As for the HEMI design it is older than either you or me. While it does produce lots of horse power it isn't used in many vehicles to day, and the reason has to do with exhaust scavenging needed to clear the cylinder and the costs involved with the production of the hemi design.

High flame propagation means I can burn the fuel faster and get the real work done quicker, and not having to wait for the fuel to burn and not having to risk detonation as the fuel mixture will be ignited after top dead center, not 8 degrees before that point.

I have constructed a few race cars in my lifetime.

TMF

every penny of production cost for petroleun, including environmental cost are included in the final sales price. We even add on a "supefund" clean up tax that is paying for past "sins" and there is a reserve for future sins. So untill you can beat the $4/gallon or $32/ MMBTU cost barrier, give it up. Electricity from the cheapest power source, coal, is $35/mmbtu. Coal is cheaper than PV, cheaper than the damn alternator, cheaper than wind.

There is not one govenment agency, engineering society, safety society, or group of people that would allow the transport of a stoicmetric mixture of H@ and O2

Wow - my water bottle is prohibited !!? :)

Sorry - could not resist -

That is why it is broken down ON DEMAND - no interest in blowing up the car or the garage or --

The superfund clean up is going broke - can not pay for all they have on line -

My results on MY vehicles is that COST is REDUCED

STILL - Testing - Testing - Testing

If you want a real test, invest in a fuel meter, then drive 32-100 mile course with and without your contraption, post the data, and we'll see.

It takes at least 30 data points to have a statistically verifiable measured value.

OH, and have the meter calibrated every 8th run.

Not in the BUDGET -

and I PREFER several THOUSAND mile REAL DAILY driving - No lab here, this old farm boy is plowing the daily grind.

Old cars - running as they are - change something - fill them up - change something fill them up -

MY POCKETBOOK tells me whether to continue - or do something else.

rcb

Testing - Testing - Testing

no, if it works, my company will pay you millions!!!! I'll out bid exxon.

Really -? Can you AFFORD the race startup - NO PATENTS - not VALID ones anyway

They have all expired -

BUT - there is a market - IF you have the money and are WILLING to do a RUNNING START development and SELL LOTS QUICKLY - expecting that the CAR companies WILL come in after it is POPULAR and crush the market -

We can talk - - Remember Dr Rhodes - no - but Yul Brown got his name on the gas -

Marketing -

rcb

Testing - Testing - Testing

your responce smacks of a scam.

Distilled vinegar $1.69 per gallon makes about 128 gallons of electrolyte, no taxes. Distilled water $.69 per gallon for electrolyte. I believe that is 4.oz vinegar per gallon of water that will move the average car down the road approx 100 miles. Not bad compared to gasoline at $4.00+ that will move the same vehicle, at best 25 miles. That is only about (in round numbers, as the real tests are not available) $.75 vs $18.00 to travel the same distance.

AND NO CLEAN-UP INVOLVED, ONLY CLEAN AIR AND WATER.

TMF

1 gallon of water will yield 74000 liters of gas, 100 miles at 50 miles/hour is 2 hours, thats 37,000 liters per hour. Most people talk about system making 2 or 3 liter per hour, thats going to be one big mama jamba device you got there. the amount of energy is 560,000 BTU or equal to 4 gallons of gasoline. It will take 439 kW-hrs 0r 18291 amps at 12 volts.

You always leave out the pulsed high voltage at milliamps and screw-up the math!

TMF

that darn ol flux capacitor, just how does that dohicky put out more enery than you supply it? I thought there was absolute conversion factors between joules, amps, volts the square root of 3 for 3 phase power. If you measue volts and amps and use rms, doesn't it all come out the same. With different wave forms you can pump more electrons (we call this amps) and get them to more farther with the same voltage (well this resistance) or put more pressure on them electrons (we call volts), put in the end, its all just power and the conservation of energy.

Stay on this tract as you seem to be getting the picture. First let me say that Dr. Rhodes stated also that one could not exceed the energy output vs the energy input regarding his patented Single duct fuel he termed Oxy-hydrogen as it contained both atomic parts (atoms) in a single gaseous material, and after research he also found that there was no scientific information regarding this sort of stuff, therefore he achieved the granting of the patent. He also provides the performance data regarding this gas vs others. He by the way admitted that his opinion was based on information available at that time, circa 1960's. Electronics have come a long way since then, and a couple of folks have found that the water molecule can be fractured with the combination of some volts and some amps continuously provided to electrodes and along with the added input of high voltage pulsed at around 20,000, 40,000 and 6,0000 volts/m-amps. Each Generator being adjusted accordingly as no two are exactly the same. The primary condition being to do this with the lease amount of voltage and amperage input. Believe me we dummies understand that the excess heat produced as the result of excess amps evaporates the water, so less oxy-hydrogen produced. This is the reasoning behind my thoughts of using an electrolyte that performs with out producing the sludge and un-needed heat. As I have stated before, I found vinegar ok for this use. There maybe something better available but that will be the work of interested scientist's or get lucky sudo's.

TMF

We NEED a rating flag for FUN answers -

Maybe a Smiley Face ?

Thanks

rcb

No matter what the energy consumption will still need to be the same at the molecular level to generate the 37000 L. So you will still need a lot of capacity to generate power for the electrolytic reaction. So you will need to consider all the extra weight to generate electricity at a rate that will afford generation of enough fuel for high demand period of driving. So you might want to have an engine output capacity of 150 HP. So back calculate from the amount of energy released by a stoichiometric reaction of hydrogen with oxygen, and assume some efficiency losses for friction in the engine, and inefficient burning of fuels (so maybe 80% to 90% efficiency, similar to high powered electric motors under continuous operation and load demands). You should be able to generate enough fuel for this kind of operation.

The Smack system - links scattered all over here - generates about 1.7 Liters per minute on 13 Volts and about 20 Amps - at approximately 1860 to 1 that is about 0.00053763 Liters of water per minute or about 0.0322578 Liters of water per HOUR for an output of 102 liters of common pipe gas PER HOUR

from a unit about 14 inches tall and 4 inches in diameter - made with Stainless Steel wall Plate blanks from Home Depot ( hmm most of the parts are from Home Depot )

Did I mention the plans are FREE - ( sorry ) :)

or about 0.258 Liters of water PER DAY for about 816 Liters of that gas to mix with whatever you are burning as PRIMARY fuel.

1/4 Liter is about 1 cup or 8 ounces last time I checked -

LOTS of reproductions and work-alikes on youtube - this is a slightly improved brute force system

Smack devised the stepped plate design to reduce EDDY currents -

IF we are getting 20 MPG - and drive all day - ( Road Trip !!) 8 hours at 60 mph is about 480 Miles - or 24 Gallons of fuel -

IF we increase MPG by 50% - we are getting 30 MPG and our consumption is 16 gallons - 24 - 16 = 8 gallons savings - or More than $32 at current prices

Daily drivers rarely drive that much - but may drive that much a WEEK

32 x 50 = $1600 PER YEAR for those driving 24000 Miles per Year

Plus reduced emissions -

MPG VARIES - same make and model - varies - driver varies - route varies

Many reports from people driving to work report 40 to 70 % increase in MPG

Many report MORE -

Back to Work

Testing - Testing - Testing

rcb

That is no more than 260 W of power supplied to generate fuel. If we assume 100% efficiency, you could only get a return of 260 W back or 0.35 HP. It takes about 33.5 HP (25,000 W) of power output from the engine to operate a car at constant cruising speed. Of course this does not count any of the fuel generation or combustion chamber losses. So it sounds like you may need to increase your hydrogen generation by about 100 times just to keep a car driving at cruising speed on a flat road, through hydrogen fuel alone. Now the whole hydrogen-oxygen gas injection into fuel, is a whloe different scheme. The oxygen in the fuel air mixture can improve burning efficiency, the hydrogen would actually compete with fuel for oxygen. At high temperatures the hydrogen could react in interim stage with the plasma, but i don't think it would since it is sometimes used as a carrier gas for plasma analysis. This is a scheme based on the idea of improving the burn efficiency of the fuel. It will not necessarily improve the carbon emissions much, now there would be more carbon dioxide emitted, and less fuel wasted from the engine.

GOOD - you are getting there - very few people are trying to ELIMINATE other FUELS -

Most of us are trying to REDUCE most EMISSIONS and SAVE MONEY ( well - most folks are worried about money first ) :)

The SAVINGS in fuel comes back to my pocket -

The Hydrogen does not COMPETE - the RATIO of H to O is IDEAL out of the pipe.

FACT - Emissions go DOWN and my Miles per Gallon go UP - using the smacks design AS INSTRUCTED -

The Laborotory folks can argue about WHY - Most of us USING IT have a working model and it SAVES GAS -

Keep working through - You are headed in the correct direction.

See alternative energy for a place to see it all next week

rcb

Hydrogen competes with other fuels for oxygen in the combustion chamber, out of the pipe has no real meaning since combustion has already occurred. The stoichiometric ratio of oxygen in the chamber is not necessarily perfectly balanced with the fuel and hydrogen gas. Additionally, competition during the burning process for oxygen in proximity to fuel/hydrogen always occurs in all instances of burning. Thus some fuel/hydrogen does not get burned. This is in-part why compression aids burning of fuels, it moves numerous oxidation agents in close proximity to numerous reduction agents. Much like a party, if one girl rejects you for another guy in a crowded party, if the ratio of men to women is favorable, there is another right next to her or behind you. However, if the ratio is off or the proximity is far, you may have to travel some distance out of the way to find another girl. The fact of the matter is though that you have not presented any tangible information that supports your argument, you keep commenting that you pocketbook likes it, but you have no demonstratable proof to support what you are saying. It is not uncommon for people used to dealing with strongly supported scientific theories to question unsubstantiate claims that do not present even a hint of a scientific theory. In medicine, they would call this quackery or voodoo. Just claiming to know something works without any understanding of the mechanics, means you could be misinterpreting or misperceiving your observations, and something else is occurring.

Sorry - Out of the Pipe - Meaning out of the pipe from the hoh generator = that gives ALL the O the H we are supplying needs to combust =

I should have read that again - I am used to "Preaching to the Choir" as it were - Most bards I am on already have worked through this level and are elsewhere already.

Please check out the Jarboe Mill event - details at www.green-salon.com

Several inventors and devices there - Next Week.

rcb

Testing - Testing - Testing

OK EVERYONE CLICK ON IT its about aliens teaching us how to make HHO

I clipped this from one of the deminars...

Definition: CE-5 is a term describing a fifth category of close encounters with Extraterrestrial Intelligence (ETI), characterized by mutual, bilateral communication rather than unilateral contact. The CE-5 Initiative has as its central focus bilateral ETI-human communication based on mutual respect and universal principles of exchange and contact.

Are you serving the popcorn or is this a byopc?

ask rcbondsr, he invited us to a party in the post above.

I think there was a party somewhat like that back in the 1930's, at a famous resort in N.Y.State in the Catskill Mts. The Govt. was not invited so they got P------ off and crashed it anyway. Since then I avoid parties that deliberately fail to invite the controllers of society.

TMF

Some of your numbers are high for Power required

Vehicle Research Institute did tow tests of a Ford Van - 90 something date

I recall about 11 hp at 50 MPH - old memories are subject to conflation.

Theory must follow practice - in this case - emissions go DOWN -

Keep Thinking

rcb

Testing - Testing - Testing

I think you are off by about 20 to 30 mph for cruising speed on the highway. Not sure where they drove 50 mph ever.

math and coversion factors wrong. From the NIST site, 1 liter of water will give 1314.38 liters of H2 + 1/2O2 gas. This gas will contain 190 watts of energy. At 20 amps and 13 volts, that 260 watts. So you have just lost 70/260 or 26%. During combustion, you cannot get the 190 watts of energy, because the 190 watts is the delta H from 60 F through combustion and back to 60F. Since the exhaust is 500 F, you lose another 30%, down to 56% loss. The 190 watts assumes everything at 14.696 psi, oops, we compress to 100 psia and that compression costs 15%, so we are at 71% loss.

run this through your experts and see if less than 1% of the fuel at a 29% efficency can increase the other 99% of the fuel to go from 33% to 66% efficency.

As Dr. Demming would say, show me the data to supprt. How can we trust you info when your posted conversion factors are wrong.

Wonderful Post - Thank You

One problem is that the original formulas were NOT symmetrical - Lorenz changed them at the behest of ( and with financial support from ) others.

The idea that we are REPLACING fuel is another problem - the hydrogen is being used to improve the burn of the fuel - the oxygen MAY help - or get in the way.

" The Subject is whether or not the production of [OXY-HYDROGEN], (not stored, but produced on demand with the use of available electrical energy from an automobile alternator, distilled water and an electrolyte that does not produce environmentally harmful contaminants, is less expensive and more ECO friendly to produce and use than petroleum fuels. Remember that the use of the oxy-hydrogen fuel gas only needs the water and electrolyte, along with the electricity to be produced. "

My experience is that HOH -produced as above - DOES improve combustion and REDUCE the amount of OTHER FUEL that goes in MY TANK -

Dr Rhodes device was used to launch a successful company - Yul Brown should NOT have gotten a Patent based on Rhodes existing patent. Marketing Won - That is an important point.

Single Duct HOH as an additive WORKS in MY TESTING on OLD vehicles - to REDUCE my COST PER MILE -

Meyer's device was DEMONSTRATED in the Patent Office because he had to DEMONSTRATE that it WORKED -

At least 3 people have DEMONSTRATED reproductions or VERY similar RESULTS.

POLITICALLY to many people have an interest in GAS Profits and TAXES -

and the OLD formula's are not taught anymore.

Thanks TMF -

Testing - Testing - Testing

rcb

a higher oxygen content in the air gets in the way? So would pure oxygen stop combustion or just drastically reduce it?

I review reply 67 vs post 39 and I believe that RCE has collected an opportunity to correct with a smile; what 39 though he said is not what he presumed to say and 67 heard it, and would like an explanation. This is also an opportunity to re address Vicini's comments regarding flame propagation. I choose to do this for the benefit of non-participants who are finding the forum entertaining if not educational.

No two forms of matter can occupy the same space, and that includes gasoline, hydrogen and oxygen that are the present subjects being addressed. Regarding the uses of these fuels and oxidant and blending them in an ICE so as to improve the fuel economy. I ask that you all consider the following. The electrical energy that is needed for the electrolysis is being produced by an on board alternator being driven by an already running engine, therefore a full effort is not needed by the engine to incorporate production of the additional amps needed to cause electrolysis to occur. As we are making a oxy-hydrogen fuel gas, too much amperage is not desirable as it only increases the temp. so much that water vapor is the end result. The object is to produce the fuel gas with minimal energy input. This means that a single cell only produces enough fuel gas to assist in a smaller quantity. To increase the quantity out put, one must add cells, up to 6 at a time, has been found to work best, and approx. 15 amps has been found to be sufficient, at 12 volts input. Divided accordingly each cell will need only 2 volts and 2.5 amps to perform as needed. The produced fuel gas is then accessed into the air fuel intake system of the car. To make this all work with an engine found in pre "brained" cars most efficiently, one needs to be able to adjust the ignition timing just like a small air craft engine, an older tractor or even a model A ford. The reason for this is that, as the flame propagation rate of the oxygen/hydrogen blend is much faster there the oxy-hydrogen fuel gas burns much faster than gasoline and air mixed, therefore retarding the ignition time later than when set for gasoline alone will provide better performance.

Later model cars with electronic fuel control that work by analizing the exhaust particulates and gases vs the temp., moisture, and oxygen content in the intake air to determine the correct amount of gasoline to add will need other gadgets added. These small additional electronics will work together to fool the "brain" into reducing the fuel flow to the throttle body or rack fuel injection delivery systems in use today.

Adding the oxy-hydrogen fuel gas simply replaces some of the oxygen and air mixture. It does not act like a water injected system. While the WIJTCD system may also add a little oxygen to the mix, it mostly just increases the compression in the cylinder as the droplets of water are not compressed.

Therefore; a single cell oxy-hydrogen generator will help, but a multi celled generator will help much more, as fuel gas production increases.

TMF

you are off base with the alternator, if there is a load on it, the engine kicks in and throttle opens more and more fuel added. Its that simple, there is no free power from an alternator, the engine doesn't give up energy while just sitting there. Try putting a 12 volt motor on the alternator clamp a load to the motor, you'll hear it bog down.

In your theory, lets go big time, lets go to a natural gas engine running a generator, hook up you magic bullet and make electricity for free. There is electronics, the governor senses that the generator speed drops when you cell is turned on and the governor will open the throttle.

Actually I am right on! I know that loads added to the system will require more effort from the engine but as the alternator is already in motion it doesn't require very much more load. I use standby generators regularly. They are actually small ICE's with alternators attached. It takes a certain amount of energy just to spin the alternator, and that is exactly what I have referred to, the additional loads for power tools depend on the amp draw if said tool. Adding a oxy-hydrogen generator places very little additional load on an already running engine. Instead of disecting the system, look at it as a whole thing, and you will realize that your head lights will add more of a load than the ox-hy gen.

TMF

By the way your natural gas idea only works where it is available but why not look into it with the attitude that it will work if you can just find a way around Thermo's law.

Vicini has stated the point i have been trying to make the whole time. There is no free-energy. Additionally, water at STP in our environment has no available stored energy to use. Thus you must put energy in to get energy out of water (whether you hydrolyze it or heat it or whatever). This guy is making an oxygen enriched mixture then injecting it to the air-fuel mixture. The enrichment by oxygen will definitely improve the burn efficiency of the fuel. There are many more girls to dance with. The idea that the energy from the alternator is free is ludicrous, in order to get 260 watts out of a alternator you have to put in 260 watts plus some extra power (about 90 % efficiency at constant speed and demand). So you need to put in at least 286 watts to get 260 to run your system, to get the 190 watts of power shown above from the burning of hydrogen and oxygen. Then you have the efficiency losses for transferring the energy from the combustion chamber to the alternator (battery and electrical system losses, belts, pulleys, seals, bearings & shafts, etc..). While I don't want to spend the time estimating all the efficiency losses, in the end you are probably going to need 500 watts (or more) to generate enough fuel to provide 190 watts. Then with the 29% efficiencies Vicini put the effort into calculating, you get out about 55 watts. I am not sure you really gain much here, unless you improve the burning efficiency of the cars primary fuel by enough to compensate for the energy lost plus some gains. I really just suspect this is another energy scheme looking for a market. Much like that energy scheme from that Batman movie where they introduce the penguin. At least with ethanol, you retrieve some of the stored energy captured by the plants from the sun.

Regarding Browns Gas and such, I am not even sure how you really plan to recover that electrical energy when it is released in a combustion chamber, if you are talking about epanded water.

NOTE - THIS IS THE POINT

unless you improve the burning efficiency of the cars primary fuel by enough to compensate for the energy lost plus some gains.

That is EXACTLY what is happening -

Yes there are DETAILS - but it WORKS for MANY people out of the box.

rcb

Testing - Testing - Testing

according to the Climate Registry, the group trying to stop global warming and cut energy use, there is less than 300 PPM unburned fuel in 2005 + cars and 1800 ppm in 1984 to 1983 model years. CO an NO can be as high as 1500 ppm, but the amount of energy they contain is almost nil. So what extra energy is available? less than .8% to 5% of the original energy, so at 100% efficency of burning, you could get 5% better milage on an old car. Subtract the energy cost and an efficency factor, yep 2% on an older car, .2% on a newer. IF you can improve fuel burning. Again, its all in the engine designs, not the fuel.

Today I us VVTL-i and the effiecency will bring down the unburned fuel to .2%.

So -- somebody who still has access to a lab should find out - WHERE is the EXTRA MPG coming from - EMISSIONS reliably go DOWN - usually with INCREASED miles per gallon I am personally interested in BOTH results - but REALLY want to know WHY- Someone on this list should have the ABILITY to find that ANSWER rcb Testing - Testing - Testing

For just one moment, would you and Vicini come down from your perfect world and into the real world. No one is challenging your math. The particular generator that I mentioned will run for right at 6 hours on 3 gallons of gasoline. It is rated for a continuous duty cycle of 4500 watts out put 5500 maxed load. When the last hurricanes passed through the area I live in we were with out grid power for 6 days. I calculated the loads that I would be needing to meet from the generator. I turned off all breakers that would exceed 5200 watts as a maxed out load if everything was in demand at the same time. I looked at my clock when I started the generator up. It was 6 am. When the generator stopped it was 11:23 am. I know because the clock stopped when the generator stopped. There was no way that I was going to be able to monitor the exact wattage that was used for a total count. However, I have things like lights, fans, tv's etc that were in continuous use. It only cost me 32 minutes of fuel to use all of the watts of power. I have a huge refrigerator, two twenty cu ft freezers, microwaves and toaster ovens and an irrigation well pump that were all put into use during this time. To provide all of this energy it only cost me 1/2 gal of gasoline. The long and short of this point is that gasoline engines are not as efficient as alternators. So if the engine is running anyway, and is able to produce a fuel gas that is maybe 10 or more times more powerful than gasoline, then it will need less of said fuel to do the necessary work, therefore when added to the fuel delivery system there is less needed, to do the work that must be done. AND; this is where the fuel propagation rate comes into play. The ox-hy fuel burns at such a fast rate that the ignition timing must be delayed until after tdc. The fuel /heat source thus does not cause as much heat to be imparted into the engine and therefore there is less HEAT/ENERGY wasted to do the same work. Remember that gasoline is such a sorry producer of energy and burns at such a slow rate that it must be ignited before the piston reaches tdc and therefore the engine is fighting to compress already exploding fuel, and this heat remains in contact with the metal parts longer and that is why ICE's must use additional fuel to cool these parts. This wasted fuel does no work.

I'm sure that if you look at the wasted fuel needed to cool the engine and exhaust system vs the efficiency of using OX-hy fuel gas to to the same volume of work your #'s will change. I am not challenging your statements, only the fact that you leave out some very important parts to the equasion. The math doesn't lie, but if you want a correct answer, you must add all of the numbers together, not just the ones that you chose to include at the expense of leaving out the others, just to prove your point.

TMF

Thank you - Much better engineering speak than I do these days.

ADDED note -- a large fraction of hydroxy users REPORT LOWER Exhaust TEMPEPERATURE

???? makes my brain cells curl - BUT - better THERMAL conversion could be causing some of the confusion for the folks who are trying to figure out the engineering part-

??? any body want to suggest any TEST that AVERAGE mechanics can do to ADD to the KNOWLEDGE --- NOT speculation

any takers ?

rcb

Testing - Testing - Testing

Xogen -

Here is one company that folded after they were found out as a fraud.

THE IDEA THAT THE ENERGY FROM THE ALTERNATOR IS FREE IS LUDICROUS!

None of us are saying that this is free energy, only that it is less expensive to produce than gasoline, even though we begin with gasoline that is combusted and with gasoline that is wasted in the effort to cool this engine and its exhaust. The fact that the ultimate fuel blend is so much more efficient than the gasoline alone " is what it is". If I found that drizziling a cup of coffee down the carb. would improve my fuel mileage, and adding the coffee was less expensive than using the gasoline alone, why shouldn't I do it.

TMF

However, you are using the gasoline powered engine to drive the alternator to produce the electricity. So you have the efficiency of the engine, the power transfer from the engine to the alternator, the alternator, and then the electrical system all compounded, and every step is a loss. This is the same way we evaluate any compound energy delivery system like a pump. We consider the efficiency of the motor and the pump to derive the energy drawn from the electrical supply that is transferred to moving water. The best you can really gain is improve the efficiency of the engine enough to compensate for the all the other losses plus a little more. As a test, you need to determine how much you improve engine efficiencies based on curves of the additive concentration in fuel first thing. Then determine how much engine energy it takes to derive the additive. No matter what you can never expect to improve the efficiency of the system above that of the alternator, the alternator drive system, the engine and the electrical system compounded. So it must always be way less than 100%. We do not actually waste gasoline to cool the engine, we try to control the operating temperatures to maintain the mecahnical components, but engines operate on the heat differential. So far though you have not been able to substantiate your claims, or even tried to overcome your apparent original statement violations of thermodynamics. You can not violate the laws of Thermodynamics, therefore you need to explain how it would work using Thermodynamics. Snake oil salesman used to sell junk to people based on similar claims, but also did not have the theory supported by reproduceable experimental research to validate their claims. You need to come up with theory that calculates, and a reproduceable test method to validate the theory, the energy gains incorporating the related energy losses. If you can demonstrate an actual net energy output gained, then present it for peer review by the scientific community. If you can rebuke all the valid peer comments by scientific experimentation (designed to disprove your theory), then you have a reasonable theory, and the system might be acceptable. However, I suspect that you will find no substantial net energy gains, and having discovered you wasted money on research that disproved your concept, then lose the research and continue to make unvalidated claims. This is pretty common actually from business people, the Tobacco industry is an exceptional example.

I'm 66 yr. old. Have been working on automotive engines off and on since I was 12. I have seen improvements in exhaust systems that make less noise, and produce more power, rather than reducing it by restriction of the flow of the gases. I have seen radical improvements in the ignition process, "I spare the lengthy discussion here". I have seen almost unbelievable improvements and changes in the designs of the fuel/air delivery systems. Engines to day must have the cooling system pressurized significantly to prevent boil over of the liquid coolant. I have constructed and raced cars in the desert, on ovals and drag strips. I know a little more about engines than the average rabbit.

So it will always be less than 100%. No doubt, there is "no" conflict with that statement, the only question here is whether or not the added oxy-hydrogen fuel gas will improve the already lack of efficiency of the gasoline fuel enough to off set it's production cost, and post a gain in doing it. Vicini denys it outright, you seem to be open to it, provided the math works, and we don't violate the law doing it. I suggest that the improvements to the ICE over the years have been supported by the necessity to improve mileage using gasoline along with reducing emissions because gasoline is the primary source of auto fuels. Now the price of gasoline, "a product that was outrightly hated by the producers before and around the turn of the last century", until it was discovered that it could used as a CHEAP motor fuel, has increased dramatically, and this is the sole reason that more economic improvements must be found. Millions of dollars have been invested in developing and re-developing the workings of the ICE to make it acceptable as a transportation power source.

In todays world it is, in my opinion no longer an asset, as it exists, It is to me just another piece of discovery to be relegated to the salvage yard. Unless of course we can find a more economical way to fuel it.

We do not waste "Gasoline"! Any time any fuel is passed through an engine that doesn't produce an absolute maximum of power, it is being wasted. Using fuel for lubricating and cooling valves and other things like cylinder walls and pistons, is an absolute necessity, and makes it possible to function, but does NO work. Therefore as an energy producer, this part is a necessary waste.

"You cannot violate the laws of Thermodynamics." We cannot violate Carnot's law either , nor the law of gravity, but there are conditions in which these laws do not apply, so therefore there may be conditions where the 1st law of thermodynamics do not apply either. If you expect to find the answer, looking for it is better than waiting to get lucky.

"SNAKE OIL" I have nothing for sale. I don't promote anyones version of an oxy-hydrogen generator, nor do I agree with anyones performance statements. I believe that snake oil should be only used for lubricating snakes. But I think it would be useful for aiding scientific efforts to slip around the 1st Law of thermo. just enough to find that it may not always apply. After all we once believed that light could only travel in a straight line. Now we know that it can snake through a little fiber, no matter how many times it gets bent, and we can separate it into many colors, an so on.

You need to come up with a theory! First we get an idea, then we create a theory, and then we investigate, and then we conclude. All of this means nothing, if you fail to consider all things possible in your theory, no matter how remotely associated with the idea. Walling one's self in with fore gone conclusions regarding suspected impossibilities closes an open mind.

My theory regarding the HHO issue is that though the fuel gas is a reasonable late comer in that it was patented only 40/50 years ago. However that is almost a lifetime when compared with the mini electronics improvements on going daily. These same mini electronics make it possible to control today's version of the ICE's performance. And I believe that, the use of this technology can unlock restrictions that we have scientifically attached to the single duct oxy-hydrogen fuel gas. Tunnel visioned folks are subjected to being blind sided.

Thank you for your response!

TMF

This goes in the Chemical thread - but is REPRESENTATIVE of my EXPERIENCE

Patent http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5266082.pdf gives the patent for

the chemical that gave me 33 % increase in MY vehicles -

Tested by state agencies etc - all on website -

READ the patent -

EXPLAIN - please -

My EXPERIENCE is that I SAVE MONEY -

rcb

that patent only claimed a reduction in CO and NOx. The you claim a state agency declared it good, what did we miss her?

I saw a patent for this 6637447, does it work or this 5175571.

You can patent a new way to get to the moon, but it doesn't mean its right or it will work.

patents can make claims but do not have to prove anything. GOT, no proven scientific evidence required.

The patent covers a series of very expensive catalyst added to a 90% kerosene base. The cataylst reduce the amount of Nitrous compounds and carbon monoxide. Its like putting the catalytic converter in the cylinder, not on the exhaust.

From NASA for the engineers

NASA Notes from 1977
EMISSIONS AND TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF A MULTICYLINDER PISTON
ENGINE RUNNING ON GASOLINE AND A HYDROGEN-GASOLINE MIXTURE

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf

Heres what they did in laymans terms. They pumped 375 liters per minute from either a bottle of a methanol reformer using a catalyst operating at 600F into a n engine operating at 36 HP running 96 octane gasoline (which you can not buy). One could argue that the 7.4 liter engine is bigger, but it doesn't matter, it was turning at a low rpm throttled to make 36 HP, the same your car will be making running down the raod.

So, are you making 375 liters/minute, 2 is more like it. The apparent increase in efficiency of the enigine did.t take into account the energy require to make the H2. The onboard catalytic conversion of methanol used was heat in the exhaust, but it consumed methanol which costs a whole lot more than gasoline. They recommened a way to get 96 otane fuel was to blend in methanol to you 91 octane fuel.

No on has ever said that adding H2 would not lower NOx and CO, that data is as old as the hills and twices dusty, just like this 1977 paper.

In table III the lowest energy input was under pure gasoline and with H2 added at .69 ratio. The value was 118 Kw. The wose for each was 131 for gasoline and 126 for the H2 injection. This means at best at best there was a 0% to 4% gain in efficency, before subtracting off the energy require to make the H2.

Thank you for the paper, it proves my point all along and if you want to see what it costs to run pure H2 read this http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/renewablesForum/pdf/wind_moulthrop.pdf

The conversion facto is 1.25 KG per gallon of gasoline. In the table it is costing $12.50 per gallon to make H2, that doen't include taxes, dealer markup or compression into tour tank. So keep hunting that dog.

your experince, do you have a high speed camera in a cuell chamber. Have you modled using FEA??????

Or is it just you gut reaction

MY EXPERIENCE is that the ENGINE thinks the FUEL is different - and must be adjusted for LARGER ratios of Hydroxy-

Modeling something the software does not know about can be fun - I no longer have the large compute clusters and 30 odd Terrabytes to run fun projects on - but one could model the interaction of "common" fuels with hydrogen - and with hydroxy - Which Professor Rhodes believed to be different in "Interesting" ways.

Dr Rhodes invention built a company AND an industry that is still running - I expect he was MORE correct than those who talk about it with out TESTING-

The large laboratory and workshop will be mine to use again soon -

I will NOT model the inner workings UNTIL the first one RUNS.

Then I will Measure and TEST and Modify and TEST and model and -----

rcb

Testing - Testing - Testing

rcbondsr, and toomuchfun, can you pm me your emails, I would like to exchange information with you.

Brendan,

There is some some fascinating research happening at ETH Zurich with solar-energy derived fuels. Check out:

http://www.prec.ethz.ch/research/solar-fuels.html

I wouldn't totally pooh-pooh the idea of hydrogen as an energy carrier altogether. Much research is yet to be done...

its not research on solar fuels, its advanced chemical batteries research. Store power for use at night. The competition would be hydro storage, compressed air storage, lead acid batteries.