heat resistant resistor?

greenandclean,

I now see in your blurred schematic diagram the title "plasma spark block diagram". You are working at much higher voltages than I originally anticipated. First, I want to applaud your efforts in safely troubleshooting a system like this. Continue to treat this system with high respect. If you can, please generate a clearer diagram for our discussions to continue. (If you're worried about design proprietary concerns, e-mail me the diagram.) I've worked with several individuals troubleshooting their plasma systems for vacuum chamber cleaning and other esoteric efforts.

A few questions for you:

1. Presumably the spark gap resides inside the plasma chamber. What is the length of the spark gap?
2. What is the plasma chamber?
3. How long do you sustain the plasma? (I don't need a precise number.)
4. What gas at what pressure reside in the plasma chamber? (Not critical to know but this can be useful.)

There is no chamber. I use a spark plug spacer (anti-fouler) to direct the flame, but it does not have to be there. I also allow water vapor to flow on its own through a venturi past the spark gap. The other way is to run steam past the plug in an adapter made with a plug spacer and some stainless tubing. There is no chamber or pressure. I would love to see this under pressure, but have not figured out a viewing pressure chamber.

As to what I plan to use it for I think my ideas may offend people here due to the nature of testing. It is obvious that I am burning water with a spark plug. It would not be a stretch to think I plan to use this in an engine. I have a small 2 stroke I use to test the explosion pressure with water and plasma. Right now I can only get about a quarter turn from sparking the plug at tdc with water squirted in the cylinder. When I am able to rotate the engine and draw in water vapor I expect to get some better results.

The plasma is only maintained during spark. It is determined by dwell at the points and rpm. Any number I gave you would be a guess and yours is probably better than mine.

<...only get about a quarter turn from sparking the plug at tdc with water squirted in the cylinder...>

It's probably the expansion of the steam dissipated from the water spray and the plasma spark. The power source for the motion is the 110VAC coming from the mains. It would be much safer to use an electric motor to turn the engine instead.

Maybe.

Once again, I will study this effect as I experiment with it. Thank you for telling me to stop trying since that is what drives me.

I am not interested in theory or in people who just like saying stop trying. I am also not interested in those saying I could do that too, but why try? Maybe you could, but have you? Did you find any of the same things I found?

If anyone doubts what I say build it yourself and test it like I have. I have provided drawings to clarify a resistor load in a circuit. Most of you have the expertise and the parts lying around the garage, I did.

It is always easier to criticize a person who is trying to do something you believe to be futile. The more respectable person will be the one testing the theory rather than blindly following accepted theory. When experimentation is shunned because the idea does not coincide with theory innovation is replaced by complacency.

I want to thank those of you who have offered advice for the resistor, I have learned a lot and continue to learn daily.

The reason that both PWSlack and I are trying to discourage you is that what you are doing is not in any sense new. There are minor differences from standard methods of electrolysing water, but I can see no advantage in these. These differences are:
. that you are not separating the hydrogen and oxygen so they can be stored if desired
. also that you are using higher Voltages to drive the electrolysis than are strictly needed (which means that most of the electrical energy is converted immediately to heat rather than into chemical energy).

My class did what I'd regard as something closer to "enabling the technology" in high-school. That was to electrolyse the water using a variable calibrated DC Voltage source, measuring the current and collecting the oxygen hydrogen separately and measuring the volume of each. We started the experiment using pure water, and investigated what happened as we added electrolytes (the Voltage required for a specific current went down, but the amount of hydrogen per unit of charge remained constant**). The final part of the experiment should have been to measure the heat produced when we burned the hydrogen in the oxygen, but we didn't have time (or possibly the proper equipment) to allow this; however, as consolation we were then allowed to release some of the hydrogen into a test tube and ignite it - when it "went off" with a satisfying high-pitched pop (our teacher used the pitch of the pop in an introduction to a subsequent lesson on acoustics - but that's another matter).

I therefore don't believe that anything you are doing is in any proper sense "new". If/when you fully understand my high-school experiment, you will be in a position to judge this for yourself. You may even decide that I am wrong. But unless and until you do understand those basics there is almost no chance that anything you do will be capable of being useful - and even if it is potentially useful even less chance that you will be able to explain it sufficiently to persuade anyone to develop it to become useful.
My strong recommendation is to put your poorly controlled experiments to one side for a while, and find out what is already known on the subject. The Wikipedia articles on "Electrolysis of water" and on hydrogen are reasonable starting points - but you may need to dig rather deeper in some areas - maybe construct a Huffman electrolysis apparatus and borrow some proper equipment so you can repeat the experiment for yourself. An evening class in physics would of course be a valuable adjunct.

*In case anyone is interested enough - we weren't provided with high enough Voltages to see whether the current would limit in the purer water due to space-charge effects (I wonder why)

Do you assume I am not proficient at making HHO gas? Do you assume that I have not also had chemistry and physics? You make a lot of assumptions. I thought I was bad, lol. I may not teach science, but I understand it. What I want to know is if science already knows everything why do we have scientists? Isn't their job redundant?

My hydroxy cell uses 2 volts at each reactive surface and is capable of making a liter of hho with about 200 watts. I don't know how efficient that is, but it is good enough for my design to work flawlessly. I rarely use 1LPM of HHO in my van, but my wife's car and my son's car both like more. All of these vehicles have more than 200,000 miles and all of them get 30% or better increased fuel economy on the highway. I have happy customers with similar results.

You say your understanding of how your hydrogen experiment works is that voltage required for electrolysis went down but the amount of hydrogen per unit of charge remained constant? That should have taught you several things. One that your unit is inefficient, that you needed to see how low you could drop the voltage before hho production diminished to nothing and how many amps you draw is directly proportional to the amount of hho output, not the voltage. Even a basic inefficient electrolyzer will show this. I use minimal voltage to do the task which relates to amp draw and of course heat production. My cell stays cool because of this.

"That was to electrolyse the water using a variable calibrated DC Voltage source, measuring the current and collecting the oxygen hydrogen separately and measuring the volume of each. We started the experiment using pure water, and investigated what happened as we added electrolytes (the Voltage required for a specific current went down, but the amount of hydrogen per unit of charge remained constant."

This thread was started to identify a resistor and now it has turned into the same old diatribe of inuendo accusation and treachery. Reminds me a lot of an old boss I used to tolerate. He was very boistrous with the gay jokes. Several years went by and I attended college. His partner, a long time friend, asked my help for a couple of weeks. I was there on the last day finishing up when we got a call we had to help the old boss finish a roof so his framing didn't get ruined. He started in on the jokes and I immediately shut him up with a comeback he did not expect. Closet homosexuals are the biggest opponents of gay rights because they can't admit to themself they are gay so they bash gays. That is the same behavioral patern exhibited by engineers and scientists in regards to something that challenges commonly accepted theory. They must first attack the inventor then the technology and refute any proof.

All big discoveries started as blaspheme.

I think that our messages got crossed in the postings...

"That should have taught you several things. One that your unit is inefficient, that you needed to see how low you could drop the voltage before hho production diminished to nothing and how many amps you draw is directly proportional to the amount of hho output, not the voltage. Even a basic inefficient electrolyzer will show this."
Perhaps you missed my point that this was a school experiment designed to show amongst other things how the efficiency can be modified. So, of course I knew this - I just assumed that would be obvious from the context.

Returning to your work:
Your efficiency doesn't sound bad on the Voltage side - as you doubtless know the limit would be 1.23-Volts - but the information you give is not sufficient to assess efficiency on the current side: I'd need to know how long takes to make your 1-litre at the 200-Watts input level?
The existence of a previously-working system also raises the question: what is the objective for the present experiment (obviously you know it is inefficient in terms of gas production)?

Returning to what you write about HHO use, you say it is improving efficiency (presumably reducing use of other fuel) by about 30%, and that you use about 1 litre per mile. From the viewpoint of bang-per-buck, that means that you are saying that your HHO is taking your van about 0.3-miles per litre.
If we (conceptually) compress the gas to be in some way equivalent to gasoline, that would correspond to about 300-miles per litre of gasoline, which would be remarkable - so I can only assume that it is indeed improving the efficiency with which your engine burns the gasoline. Is the vehicle by any chance from the 1970s or early 1980s, because my understanding is that almost any change could improve the efficiency of engines that were crippled with the early anti-smog methods?
I can come to more meaningful conclusions once I have answers to the three questions above.

Regards

Fyz

First: The plasma has nothing to do with hydrogen production as I have stated before.

Second:I said that my cell will produce a liter per minute at 200 watts not a liter per mile. That was my mistake not clarifying LPM. We use a formula for testing efficiency which is called MMW rating. We divide Liters Per Minute (LPM) by watts to give us our MMW rating. The rating on my cell at 200 watts and 1.25 LPM is 6.25 MMW. the MMW rating goes up as the amp draw goes down. Amps are directly proportional to voltage. When the voltage drops below 2 volts at each reactive surface the amount of HHO being produced is hard to read accurately. For my cell to react at 1.23 volts I would need tighter spacing and 25% concentration of Koh or NaOh. I prefer not to use such a dangerous electrolyte concentration in vehicles for safety reasons. My cell can operate with a teaspoon of Koh to a gallon of water. In the future I would prefer tighter tolerances which would allow me to remove the electrolyte altogether.

I only hope to accomplish burning water with my plasma ignition. I feel compelled to see if water really burns or if it just flashes to steam as has been suggested. I know there is a reaction with this spark and water. I hope to identify the source of the increased bang from the addition of water to the spark. I have never witnessed anything like this. I have never seen electricity act like a gas as this appears to do. I have played with high voltage and watched others do the same. None of the voltages I witnessed would do what this does to water. If it is possible to create pressure from water exploding using a current supplied by the alternator without causing a negative charge condition and without sacrificing power then I will pursue that endeavor. Otherwise you could call this experiment a flight of fancy if you like.

I need to timewarp the flame. Anyone got a super slow mo video recorder?

By the way, it's kind of hard to see what's going on in the picture... Are you spraying water into the spark gap? If yes, you're probably just ionizing some of the water molecules - raising some of their electrons to a higher state, where they decay and give off light.

Who knows, you may have invented the water-vapor laser!

Good thinking - though not yet a laser. Would mean that greenandclean really does have a plasma as he believes?

That's pretty interesting, and may explain what Green-what's-his-name is seeing!

I just love a real citation to a scientific paper. Who ever you are you get a GA from me.

He got one from me, too!

Thank you for the citation.

I looked at the numbers and formulas and my brain just froze up.

The main problem I have with comparing what I am doing to what you cited is the medium in which the plasma is placed. My spark is done in air and in water vapor or steam under no pressure. I intend to build a clear chamber for pressure testing to verify the pressure increase from ignition. That will be a long time since I am sure it will cost a lot of money in fabrication.

Once again I appreciate the input.

I don't need the water to produce the glow in the picture.

<...It is always easier to criticize a person who is trying to do something you believe to be futile....>

All criticism is aimed at the technicalities, the utility and the safety implications of the experimental process described in these postings.

greenandclean is simply a CR4 username, and it wouldn't do for the user to go offline because of a preventable fatal accident...

lol. I have had my share of "accidents". My heart would not know how to act if it didn't get a good shock every now and then.

You are wrong about the criticism. It is very much directed at the experimenter.

<...a good shock every now and then...>

<...You are wrong about the criticism. It is very much directed at the experimenter...>

Oh.

<...not interested in theory....>

Oh.

<...not interested in theory....>

That's a shame, because in the context of international communications, it's the only common language this forum has available.

Sorry Pw, I tend to rant. I apologize to all who read that rant and please excuse my lack of knowledge.

Oh, its HHO and water electrolysis (again). That's a bit of a surprise considering the MASSIVE energy losses (in the form of heat dissipated by the resistor) created by your rig, I haven't read all the posts so I don't know if your electrolyser is in the car or if you are bottling the HHO at home.

Surprisingly no one has said that this has been covered in numerous CR4 threads over the years before (by myself and others).

Have a look at the numerous threads on CR4 regarding this and similar subjects (including the water electrolysis scams). As for "burning water", search CR4 for "Kanzius" and his salt water burning publicity stunt scam (also covered in numerous CR4 threads).

Plenty of information on CR4 regarding these subjects, and plenty more on the internet (just watch out for the free energy and pseudoscience websites).

Since it is unlikely that either I or anyone else here is able to change your views regarding HHO and water electrolysis at least have a look at previous CR4 threads on the subject where myself (and others) clearly explain HOW to scientifically prove and assess vehicle MPG, fuel efficiency and overall energy efficiency conversion (when also taking into account the electricity used by the electrolyser) properly so you yourself can accurately assess any gains or losses you are achieving. You will need some basic tools like a true RMS multimeter and oscilloscope for measuring pulse waveforms (don't even bother with the hopelessly inaccurate cheap non-RMS reading meters as they cannot read pulse waveforms properly).

Have fun, and don't electrocute or blind yourself in the process.

Is it possible that you and others are wrong? I have my proof to back up my statements. It may not be done the way you want it, but you would tear that apart anyway since that is all you do. This was a resistor thread and it turned into a mud slinging match just like all of the others dealing with something you people apparently can't comprehend. I don't throw theory around like FACT. I don't need to be convinced I am wrong, that is impossible (FACT). Come to Jarboes Mill, Md 30-31 may and see for yourself.

I guess your headlights make a "Massive Loss" too. And I have had you guys tell me a gallon of water will hurt my fuel economy. I have had you people tell me closed loop and open loop make no difference in fuel economy. I have been tolld I am wrong because your teacher says so. Who is the authority here on vaporization? You? How many vaporizers have YOU built and tested? NONE! yet you claim to be an expert on something you have no experience with and stand on theory to support YOUR claims. What is theory? Is it FACT? NO. Theories change that's why they are theories. WE all hate change, but when it smacks you upside the head you better pay attention.

HHO does work people. I can't make claims about other systems, but I know mine works. If you don't believe it see for yourself. There will be plenty of PROOF this year by me and others and hopefully by the EPA. What proof I have now is unacceptable which is why I thought CR4 could help. Now I know the underlying intention of nearly every person on CR4; To attack differing views and those who support them. This was a simple resistor thread and turned into mud slinging just by mentioning burning water and eventually HHO, both taboo subjects right now.

It is a good thing for the scientific community that thick skinned people like myself endure the personal attacks and continue testing and inventing. Eventually you will all agree and deny that you ever gave me a hard time, typical.

<...will all agree...>

CR4 isn't a conspiracy.

Tut tut. All I said is that everything I know shows that your experimental methods will not give you a direct energy return, and if that is all you are doing you should make sure that you understand the theoretical basics (most of which I have personally observed and measured) before continuing. If you have numerical measurements that shows the standard numbers are wrong that too would be of interest... I also asked if you were using this to improve combustion of other fuels, but received no answer. And I've tried to help with the resistor issues. So, please be clear with us about what you have that you are able to say "works".

But first to give you some guidance as to what you need to present, I'll be clear about what I (and most of the others who are being discouraging would expect - and what not.
. I would expect your system to produce a mixture that created a flame when sparked. I would also expect that your system would be capable of providing energy to drive a thermodynamic engine. It is also conceivable that the addition of a water-system to an internal combustion engine could under specific conditions improve the efficiency - I'm not in a position to judge that.
. I would not expect the motive output power from a pure "water-burning" system of this type to exceed 1/3 of the electrical input power. If correct, and put in its starkest terms, this would make the system dirtier than any mainstream technology - except if you were obtaining your power from an electrical source that would otherwise go to waste.

If you either have evidence that the use of your system significantly improves the efficiency of an internal combustion engine that relies on other fuels*, or that you can obtain more than half of electrical input energy as mechanical output, I am sure that we will all be happy to learn. Otherwise, an apology would not come amiss.
*You will naturally need to include input from ALL energy sources in the calculations.

How pompous can you get Physicist? While you do bring up good points you simultaneously dismiss this man's work and claim to not be an expert. I completely understand the OP distaste for how this discussion has progressed. To boast "I would not expect the motive output power from a pure "water-burning" system of this type to exceed 1/3 of the electrical input power." narrows the conditions to fit your expectations. This seems arrogant and rude to me.

I don't know how the OP intends to use this entire package. He has not completely stated the global objective, don't presume and then laugh at your presumption.

I have my own collection of ideas of what the OP is doing. Many of my ideas are ridiculous. Some of my ideas imply that the OP is unknowingly delving into well studied dead ends. But a few of my ideas of what the OP at the very least touch the realm of plausible. Yes, my last comment does raise my internal "snake oil" alarm. But the man is willing to present his results to a bona-fide review board, which we are not. It might lead him directly to disappointment. It's his prestige on the line. Don't rain on his parade.

How ad-hominem can you get, redfred? And in my view a completely travesty of what I was actually about.
I'm saying what I expect - and saying that my expectations would not provide any value for the system. I then specifically invite the OP to say "here is were I am doing better/different than your naive expectations - so it's worth looking further". Clearly, I did this to present a ready framework for the discussion, as the OP was very offended at others dismissing him, but still hadn't provided details that would allow them to do other than assume he was on a familiar and dead-end path. Maybe (just maybe) practice in marshaling his facts here will help him in front of what is likely to be a highly sceptical review board.

To be fair to the OP, he has now provided some preliminary details of what he has achieved previously. Once he can supplement these there will be something to analyse. (I've also invited him to describe the intent of the present work - but will understand if he says that that there are commercial reasons why he cannot yet share them publicly).

A final note - I believe that anyone working in this sort of area who claims that "you need new physics/chemistry to see why this works" is most likely to be deluding themselves (or, worse, applying snake oil). On the other hand, that does not necessarily mean their system does not provide advantage - only that they have yet to describe a proper physical model.

Ok Physicist?

I started this threrad about a resistor problem. Several people said they could not help until I provided more information on how the system works. I made drawings of what I have right now and submitted them. This is a terrible format to size drawings so that they are readable, but I have described each component and it's relationship to each other component. You have a block diagram to follow showing current flow and specific values for calculations. I have no power meters to use at this stage to verify voltages etc. I believe you asked for these although I may be wrong.

Now it has come to my stated purpose for the experiments. If I said this would be used to burn refuse you would not question the schematic or me about it any further. My contention is that you placed a stigma on my research because you have tried to do what I am doing and failed. Once again I am probably wrong. You stated pretty much that what I am trying to do is futile and eventually there is only one outcome and that is failure. At best I may be able to recover 1/3 of the electrical energy required to operate an internal combustion engine and my technology would be dirty.

I have stated that my intention was to see if water will burn. I stated that very clearly when probed about it. This technology will also be used to burn fossil fuels, but right now I have problems with sparkplugs melting, hence the need for a better resistor or voltage control in my circuit.

I do appreciate the lesson. I am sure most people I meet from now on will challenge my character before they judge my work. So my skin thickens with the generous help of many.

I think you might be getting some things confused after re-reading your posts Physicist?

The diagram I posted is for plasma ignition. It has nothing to do with my HHO research and development. I only have RESULTS from my HHO units in the form of everyday use vehicles driven by family, friends and customers. They give me feedback about their mileage gains or any problems they encounter.

The plasma ignition is a new animal for me. I am trying to understand where all of the power comes from and how much power there is. I am looking at the increased discharge when water is added to the spark. I have no good way of measuring temperature or voltage. I think you want me to put the cart before the horse in testing the plasma, or you think I have results with the plasma in a daily driver which I do not. I have installed it one time and found some interesting changes, but they led to more designing.

Just a sidenote for anyone reading this: I only strive harder when someone tries to convince me that I can't do something. That is probably due to too much breastmilk or a deep seated fear of failure, who knows?

You are certainly misjudging me, and possibly misjudging many if not all of the others.

You say your objective is to see whether water will burn. The answer is that I give you is that water itself will nor burn in air, but that you can electrolyse it to produce hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen will of course burn - either in air or directly with the oxygen. If you mix the oxygen and the hydrogen as you produce them and set fire to the mixture immediately you produce it, it will at a distance appear to be water that is burning. This is what standard electrochemical theory predicts, and it accords exactly with what I understand that you have observed.

Now, you appear mystified by the reaction you received - I'll try to explain. The first problem you have is that there has been a long line of charlatans who have tried to sell the idea that you really can burn water and that the results would be useful. So the natural reaction was that either you were such a charlatan or that you had been duped by one. But where you really raised objections was when you apparently claimed that what you saw could not be explained by standard physics (it can, and at least in the 1950-60s when I was at high-school the experimental work and consequent theory was one afternoon's labs at age 17).

Igniting a mix of hydrogen and oxygen derived directly from water by electrolysis may be new to you, but has been done since at least the 1840s (Huffman published his chemical treatises in book form in 1866). The input and output energies are known - and you will find a brief exposition on Wikipedia.

Finally, if I were to say "you can't fly simply by jumping off a cliff and flapping sheets of wood that are attached to your arms", I hope that would not persuade you to try it. In this case, I am saying that you cannot burn water in air, although (with the expenditure of suitable amounts of electrical energy) you can make it look as if you are burning water. You may continue to try to burn the water, but only when you have set the system up so you can get numbers will you be able to confirm that all the energy comes from the electrical inputs in the first instance - that will require hard, disciplined work, and is probably best undertaken in a laboratory that is already suitably equipped (negotiate with the physics evening class?)

Good luck, and stay safe

Fyz

I am no stranger to lighting hydrogen. As a matter of fact I am an expert. You obviously never watched any of my videos.

Don't worry about me running off a cliff because you dared me, I am a little more mature now, not much.

As far as whether water will burn in air or not, I have not sufficiently exhausted all of my ideas on the subject so I will with-hold judgement until I have had sufficient time to experiment. Does this have anything to do with a resistor? Not at all. Just another ploy to HELP ME understand resistance is futile and I should return to the fold.

Sorry, I don't roll that way. I test and then after exhausting all of my ideas I make a conclusion. I do not rely on others to tell me what will and will not work. I may ask for help on some things like I did here (A RESISTOR), but I am well aware of the stigma placed on this and other technology by people who had 1 day in high school to learn all there is to know about hydrogen. Those are the people telling ME what I can do and what is impossible. Apparently I AM DOING the impossible.

Enough hydrogen bashing already people. This was a resistor thread that has turned into accusation just like all the others do. Do you think I have not heard it all already? Do you think your argument will change facts? I KNOW my system works so stop trying to convince me it doesn't. This thread has nothing to do with hydrogen other than the spark may be simultaneously making and burning hydrogen. The plasma ignition is not an HHO device. I am well aware of energy conservation, no lessons required. I am also well aware of the bias against these devices, enough said. Now can we move on or do I need to change my name again and start a new thread to keep the hydrogen bashers from following me around and attacking me? I feel like I am in grade school.

"You obviously never watched any of my videos." Did you post some links? In case I missed them a repeat would be welcome.

"Don't worry about me running off a cliff because you dared me, I am a little more mature now, not much." ROFLMAO

"Apparently I AM DOING the impossible". That's a great claim. But everything you have so far described in this thread is not only possible, but would be predicted - with one exception: if all the components in the 110-Volt side of the circuit are fully functioning and connected in the way that the circuit schenatic implies, the diode will prevent current flowing in the reverse direction, so you will get DC out while the capacitor is charging and thereafter no further flow into the resistor or into the spark plug - so the resistor would not stay hot for long. I therefore suspect either a miscommunication or that one of the components is faulty.

"by people who had 1 day in high school to learn all there is to know about hydrogen" My comments related to how much you may learn from a short period of systematic work using appropriate equipment. You may judge my qualifications and experience from other things I write (I'm not about to list them here, as I value my personal privacy). But do you wonder that you upset other people with this sort of ad hominem attack?

"Apparently I AM DOING the impossible." If you are referring to burning Brown's gas in the engine - I don't think that anyone here said it is impossible - only that more-than equivalent benefits can be obtained in other ways - and even then there are case where this may not apply (see the post I just submitted) If you are writing about burining water, I would be happy to read your reasoning. This is based on my belief that you are already aware that either AC or DC current through water in the spark plug gap would generate HHO, and also that a subsequent spark would ignite the HHO - which would give exactly the effect I thyought you had described. That implies that there is something in your observations or reasoning of which I am not aware...

"hydrogen bashers from following me around and attacking me?" I am not trying to attack you - just exchange enough information so that we can have a common understanding. Obviously you will have been sensitised if you have previously had to change your name - but please don't baste us all with the same brush.

Once again Physicist? There are 2 technologies we are talking about here and you apparently can't see that. The resistor is for the plasma ignition not the HHO cell.

Right now the plasma is just a drawing and experiment on my work bench.

The HHO cell is working fine and it is the thing that causes the controversy. You say this stuff has all been covered and well understood, I disagree. If this was well understood I would not have built what I did. If I could have just bought one it would have been a lot easier.

For information purposes and so you can get caught up my videos are here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/onecraftydude

http://www.energyshowandtell.wetpaint.com onecraftydude page

I had understood perfectly that there were two things, and I had hoped that was clear from what I wrote.

I am not surprised that a lot of the available HHO cells are done rather badly - and probably by people who do not understand what they are doing. That is not the same as saying that "the technology is not understood". What it means is that either the people who understand what is needed are not participating - or that you have not found them. There could be several reasons why people who would understand how to make more efficient HHO generators are not doing so.

Thanks for the links - I have followed the one that was easy. I now understand where you are coming from, and post my reply under your other posting that is more directly related to that topic.

Regarding the "plasma cell" - I've seen the pictures, and I still believe that this is just generating and burning HHO. You evidently do not, but as yet I have no idea of your reasons. If you will explain them, I will either respond why it could still be HHO - or admit it if I don't think I can see what is happening.

I don't doubt that the plasma is making hydrogen and burning it. I doubt there is enough hydrogen from the spark to accomplish combustion no matter how much water i throw into the cylinder. I have other ideas for that.

The hydrogen cell may be well understood as to design and efficiency. What is not understood is how to use it effectively. If that were understood there would be no question here that it works. I also understand how to make my cell very efficient and I have very efficient cells for testing, but my cell is a compromise between price and efficiency keeping in mind ease of assembly and installation.

I am glad we are clear that there are two different experiments going on here. I plan to incorporate all of the systems I have designed into one unit later this year. First I need to stabilize my plasma circuit so I have optimal control of the spark with plenty of variability for different fuels etc. I also need to design and build some spark plugs that can withstand the full spark for some length of time to allow for testing.

What do you think about brass electrodes for the plasma? Any chance brass will hold up? The rarer metals seem to cavitate and blast apart.

Did you watch the vaporizer videos? I have been told that is bogus too.

On using the hydrogen mix effectively: assuming that we are in agreement that the main function of the hydrogen mix is to optimise the gasoline flame propagation in the engine - I still think that there are people working in the automotive industry who would know how to do this.
But they will be working on new systems that optimise the flame propagation without the need for the hydrogen addition. The reason for this choice is doubtless a matter of overall cost.

This brings me back to your note that your system is able to improve the economy of new vehicles. Actually, I can believe that some companies are still manufacturing engines that are way sub-optimal; what I suspect they have been doing is to leave old designs unchanged as they work their way through their product ranges. (We have to remember how expensive it is to retool; even so, I can think of a number of one-time major manufacturers who are likely to go out of business because they have left this too long.)

That means that (based on what you have indicated), you probably have a useful product for the medium term. Whether it has a contribution to make to new engine designs depends on whether is is able to improve the overall economy of an engine beyond what is achieved by best-practice using gasoline. I'm inclined to doubt it, but it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

Following on from the above, have you prepared any marketing data for the web?
What I'm thinking of would not want to be technical in the sense of showing how what you do is different from other people.
In fact, what I think people would respond to is case studies using data that you have available - mpg for specified vehicles before and after fitting. If it includes figures that correspond with at least some semi-standard conditions so much the better (unfortunately, the official figures tend to be created under conditions that are horribly artificial - so I'd be happy to see mpg at some constant speed instead - say 55mph? Disclaimers about other variable are probably a good idea)

While on the subject of marketing: because the technology you espouse has been dominated by a mix of not-very-competent and not-very-honest entrepreneurs, you should expect the sort of reaction you got in this thread; the way you responded is almost guaranteed to have most people categorise you in the "not-very-competent" group. The effect will be quite different if you are able to indicate that you understand the scepticism, and then present an example of what you have achieved and a link to an easily-accessed site that gives a wider range of examples (absolutely NO sign-in or cookies)

Regarding what you call the plasma - I watched a couple of the videos. Personally, I don't see why it can't be done the way you say - what escapes me at the moment is the "why?" for your wanting to do this.

Regarding electrodes- I think brass would be a poor choice, because the zinc and copper would almost certainly react electrochemically problems under use, resulting in a porous surface after quite a short time. I'd be inclined to follow automotive practice and use a copper for the electron emitter and high-nickel steel for the target. I'm not certain what scale you are working at in your experiments, but if space allows I think I would use pipes at right-angles to each other and water-cool them.

A final note: I took another look at your schematic and made some guesses. I suspect (hope) that the guesses are wrong. However, I'm letting you know what they were and what their consequences would be - just in case some aspect of them is correct.
The spark generator: I assume that this is an automotive-style coil, and that there is a breaker at the top (in the orientation of the diagram as posted), and that the spark gap is connected around the breaker. If this is correct, the coil will continue to drive current from positive to negative, and the diode will conduct during the peak potential (I had assumed the purpose of the diode was to block the spark).
The capacitor Voltage requirement (ignoring the spark): With 110V AC, rectification will mean that the peak Voltage on the capacitor rises to just over 300-Volts.
The capacitor Voltage requirement - if the diode is in the incorrect direction: the Voltage across the capacitor will rise to 300 Volts greater than the spark potential.

People in the automotive industry may know more about HHO) than they admit. The oil industry may also know more than they will admit. I have no way of knowing WHAT they know. I don't CARE what they know or how smart they are. I know that HHO improves mileage and power as well as reducing emissions. I will not debate why it works without proper research and equipment. The auto industry has shown what they are all about by ignoring mandates from Clinton to produce fuel efficient vehicles. Engines have not gotten more efficient even though they have improved a lot of things about the engine. They protect their warranty by running as rich as possible. The ecu averages richest settings during driving. Injectors are far better than carburization, but still not the best way to utilize fuel in an engine. The auto industry deserves what they get.

As to using HHO on new engines there is no foreseeable problem in the future. I expect engines to remain inefficient for quite some time. I also for-see the need for HHO in the future for running more efficient designs in place of fossil fuels. Right now HHO is proven to run an engine. When these HHO generators are improved the gas will flow with less cost in terms of power. I believe HHO is the fuel of the future. I expect to have paid oil and auto manufacturer people dismiss my work and even try and discredit it or threaten me. Such is the world we live in. When this is mainstream there will be no stopping the manufacturing advances as seen with computers.

Marketing will come later when we are ready to present it to the public. I expect to have many installations by then and university studies done as well As third party testing. When we start to market this to the general public it will have a very sound track record. The first installations will be fleet vehicles and over the road trucks.

Plasma in a tube is useless other than looking cool. What if the plasma is inside a cylinder combined with water vapor and HHO? Plasma is misunderstood just like HHO. I realize you doubt the use of plasma for igniting fuel, but I do not. Plasma will be a useful and probably indispensable part of future engine technology. Plasma can create electrochemical reaction with water allowing excess hydrogen and oxygen to form in the cylinder added to the incoming HHO making a fuel source that is powerful enough to push the piston back down. The first engine may be a piece of crap, but who cares? Even a miserably inefficient engine running on water is better than the nasty smog producing dirty engines we use today.

You lost me on the final note. My plasma device works fine the way it is in the drawing. The drawing is accurate and there is no power draw or shorting or other problems with it. I can turn it on and it works until I short the spark gap and burn a fuse. I don't know if the capacitor is overcharging like you say even though it shouldn't be. The purpose of the diode is to block the high voltage like I explained before. The spark gap is not connected across a breaker. I assume you are using the term BREAKER to mean an interrupter of power. If so, that would cause a short when the a/c power is turned on and kick the breaker every time. The diode is not for blocking the spark, that would be silly since the whole purpose is to create spark.

You still have not grasped the overall picture yet. I am planning to use HHO, water, proprietary lubricants and plasma ignition to run an engine. If the engine runs on this and puts out usable work it is worth the effort no matter what criticism is received from industry. Like so many other technologies USA may drive the inventors to other countries to continue their work and the other countries will be the progenitors of successful products. When the other countries begin selling the technology to the US and people ask why we didn't think of it first the knowledge will be unearthed that we DID have the technology and ran the inventors off so we could continue to operate the way we have for 100 years.

<...don't doubt that the plasma is making hydrogen and burning it....>

Wow! And without theory too.

<...never watched any of my videos...>

Without URL reference to them, that would be difficult...

There are plenty of url references to my videos. I am

onecraftydude on youtube and energyshowandtell.wetpaint.com

If you're looking for tougher electrodes, you're probably going to have to go with platinum or tungston... This might get really expensive.

On the other hand, you could probably purchase all of the measuring equipment you need on eBay for real cheap.

Just a little advice... There have been many who have passed through CR4 that claim that they can burn water just like burning gasoline. Also, many others that have claimed to have achieved over-unity energy systems using this and other techniques. I think it's become somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to meet anyone referring to such technology with suspicion.

I have tungsten in the water vapor venturi. It gets red hot under heavy use and the ends melt into a ball which protects it to some extent. I have had luck with ball bearings in place of the ground electrode, but it is a bitch to weld with a crappy wire feed. The other problem with spark plugs is the resistor. I have to get rid of the resistor or get non-resistor which must be ordered. I burn up too many stock non-resistors without a good resistor. I suppose the voltage needs to be reduced, but I would prefer to utilize what I have and not try and diminish it.

Where can I get tungsten ball bearings?

I hope to have a shop soon with proper gear.

Did you look at the picture of the plasma flame? There are some interesting things going on in there. I see it firsthand and can tell you that you need eye protection. Welding goggles at full speed and at least sunglasses under intermittent spark.

Can you really blame the real engineers and scientists here (many of which have seen this all before).

Have a look at previous threads and posts on CR4 as myself and others have covered this. I have assessed the HHO technology (among others) and have not found anything worthwhile or any real evidence to backup the extraordinary claims (many of which break numerous existing and well proven laws).

Sorry but part of my job is research and development. Power research and development. Even with an open mind I have yet to see any convincing evidence. Do you have any for us or did you just find the design on a free energy website?

Eventually you will all agree and deny that you ever gave me a hard time, typical.

Let us know if you get some, and don't forget the numerous people here (including myself) that actually answered your original questions.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

I assume you have taken the time to LOOK at my design?

Have you seen or tested any like it?

How many amps did theirs pull?

How hot did it get?

How long was it run?

How much gas was being put out per minute?

All of these factors are important if the system is to work for any period of time. I have a video explaining everything about using HHO. It is posted on my youtube page. I explain that you need less than 1 LPM (liter per min) to affect gas mileage on most vehicles. Some vehicles will sense the extra O2 and go into open loop requiring the O2 sensor voltage to be brought back into tolerance for the ecu to operate efficiently, otherwise your mileage gets worse as you would expect from running the rich fuel map.

An inefficient design will not work very long for multiple reasons, but to assume your system is the best ever and it did not work for you might be a stretch. Several people here have said they tried it and it did not work. I think they gave up too early. I was very frustrated for the first year, but I was determined to find out why my results were so intermittent. I formed a cause and effect relationship and did my best to find solutions through design. I believe I have achieved that since my system works. I cannot speak for every system.

By the way, those free energy websites are great places to get IDEAS. I use several. One of the sites is energyshowandtell.wetpaint.com. The technology has come a long way in a couple of years. When industry gets ahold of the technology it will advance even further and faster still.

This is what a kit looks like.

Have you seen or tested any like it?

Have a look at my previous comments in similar threads (please, there is a lot there and I don't want to repeat myself here). The only scientifically proven developments in this field that I could find were with regard to adding small amounts of hydrogen to assist combustion. Water electrolysis has been around for years and is WELL proven and documented. In the end while adding small amounts of hydrogen to an internal combustion engine has shown some small gains (see other CR4 threads), the overall energy conversion efficiency (converting electricity to hydrogen) is so poor as to ALWAYS result in an overall system loss, meaning you lose more energy than you gain. Your system is incredibly inefficient with huge heat losses, sure you can create small amounts of hydrogen but not efficiently.

Also bear in mind that unlike some other real engineers and scientists here on CR4 I still listen and try to help backyard inventors, because you never know what developments might eventuate from even a failed experiment or idea. Unfortunately sometimes a dead end is just a dead end, and no amount of trial and error will override the laws of electricity and energy conservation.

Sorry but I have seen this all before (the Hydra-tek product is similar to other water electrolysers I have assessed. It also uses hopelessly inefficient stainless steel electrodes <cringe>). These products have been scientifically proven not to work and are at the worst scams designed to take the money of others.

By no means take my word for it, perform your own experiments and arrive at your own conclusions, I am here after all to help and offer advise to others (and to learn from others also) not judge or put others down. Just try to have an open mind when others offer criticism on things that are obvious to them but perhaps not to you.

So what your saying is that theoretically these system do not work. You are also saying you have no experience building or using them. You summarily dismiss them on the basis of theory. So I will take your OPINION with a grain of salt.

How about telling me why my system is horribly inefficient and where this massive amount of heat you seem to think I am making comes from?

Did I mention this is a RESISTOR thread?

Go bash HHO at one of the HHO threads.

As I keep saying, have a look my previous posts on this thread.

How about telling me why my system is horribly inefficient and where this massive amount of heat you seem to think I am making comes from?

From post #85 I answered

that's a bit of a surprise considering the MASSIVE energy losses (in the form of heat dissipated by the resistor) created by your rig

And again in post #113

Your system is incredibly inefficient with huge heat losses.

The heat losses are from the resistor (of which this thread is actually about).

Did I mention this is a RESISTOR thread?

See post #1, #4, #25 and #29 for the answers to your original question.

Go bash HHO at one of the HHO threads.

I posted once in post #85 regarding this, my followup posts have be answering questions you have been asking me (such as this one). If you don't want to listen that's fine, but don't jump up and down at me because I have posted something that you don't like.

So what your saying is that theoretically these system do not work. You are also saying you have no experience building or using them. You summarily dismiss them on the basis of theory. So I will take your OPINION with a grain of salt.

Yes that is my opinion and I base that on my engineering qualifications and my years of experience in the power transmission, distribution and generation field (along with years of experience at two electrical testing laboratories). I have assessed this technology for my self (including your design you are using), and it won't work (in part) due to the massive losses. I am answering basic questions on ohms law for you and you are not even able to measure the current waveform. We are just not on the same page as the saying goes, and I doubt that you would listen even if I bothered to go into an in depth analysis of the theory including ways you could actually prove or disprove the energy efficiency and technology you are working with.

<sigh> What more do you want me to say that hasn't been said either here in previous threads on the subject.

Lets move on (no more talk of HHO from me). Getting back to the original purpose of this thread, do you have an adequate answer to your original question? Post #25 seemed to answer your question and although the resistance is not going to be exactly 8 ohms, it should be an acceptable, safe and ruggedly reliable solution for your application (just be careful where you point the heat radiater).

Oh another one of THOSE.

You were confused about what this plasma rig does. It is not an HHO cell even though it probably produces a small amount. I realize it is inefficient and I realize it is theoretically impossible to do what I am attempting.

The HHO is proven. If you investigated a HHO unit like mine before you failed. I did not.

This resistor thread has been very helpful and insightful. I wish I could have kept the HHO out of it and the stigma attached to it.

No, he's not saying that they don't work. He's saying that the cost (energy in) is higher than the return (energy out). He's probably measuring 'energy in' in terms of fuel at the power station) or input to the engine if that is how you are supplying the energy for electrolysis.

I'm fairly certain that what he says is correct when conditions of combustion are optimised for efficiency for both cases (i.e. with and without Brown's). However, that does not necessarily mean that you yourself are not seeing benefit from the use of Brown's gas - and there could be two types of reasons for this:

Reason 1 is that there can be be conditions where (for various reasons) the default engine conditions are not optimised. In this case you can indeed see an overall improvement in efficiency by adding Brown's. (And in some cases the basic engine configuration actually prevents optimisation via conventional means)

Reason 2 is that there are situations where you personally will see economic benefit even if the global energy balance is not favourable. This could be due to tax being higher on motive fuels than on those used for generating electricity, as in most of Europe; or, it could be where electricity costs are low because of the combination of local hydroelectric power and regulation, as in Canada. However, even in the case of Canada the net energy effect is unfavourable, because local use reduces the amount available to substitute for standard power generation on the US side of the border.

I will certainly be interested in your comment on the above. I will also continue to try to help with the resistor issue should you have further questions (always assuming that I am in a position to do so).

I got a good laugh Physicist?

If my system works off of the alternator it must use more power than it puts out. I am not going to argue theory. My system works off of the alternator producing HHO

(I think). The amount is small, under 1 liter per minute. I have been told by nearly everyone that my results are theoretically impossible. You are not the first or the last. I prove my results to people like you all the time and they run like scared schoolgirls back to the safety of their lab. My investor in the beginning told me if I proved it we would have contracts the next day. When I proved it he avoided me for a week. He couldn't figure out how I "Tricked Him". There is no trick. Either the theory is wrong or the cell does something not yet understood. Either way denying it exists is not a very good idea.

I hear a lot here that people are always bringing up HHO again. What a pain in the ass these people are. Why do they keep saying the stuff works? Maybe there was something to it? I proved it to many people myself and I have acquaintances who do the same thing. What does that say about the Dateline show? I have personally invited dateline to interview me and test my systems already installed on several vehicles. I am not alone there as others I know have done the same thing.

As far as your 2 reasons for WHY it should work, I see no merit in either one. I have installed this system on brand new vehicles as well as old vehicles (like mine). The new vehicles improved more than mine.

Your second reason is beyond my understanding apparently. How does the cost of energy affect my mileage? I am sure you understand cost and effect relationships and that was clearly not related or I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Either way I know my system works and how to make it work on multiple types of vehicles. I have plenty of support with my network of inventors and we as a group figure out solutions to problems. We have all been broke for the last 2 years working our tails off to try and get some recognition. But it's tough when almost everyone tells you it can't be done, stop working on it, it is futile, it's already been done, Mythbusters did it, etc. Whatever. It works, or at least mine works. Can we move on now?

Testing will be forthcoming when I have money to get the proper gear and pay "Respectable" people to do third party testing. The only reason I will post the data here is because of the few people who did NOT attack me and actually helped me.

I hope everyone understands if I don't reply to the people accusing me of witchcraft from now on.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/35580

This is a picture of the new resistor that self induces.

Here is a pic of the resistor I made. The white wire will glow in the dark while operating.

This is a wide view of the plasma test aparatus.

G&C

I didn't notice anybody else commenting on this, excuse me if this has already been commented on. The red and white wire component is not a resistor. You've fabricated an air core inductor. Careful winding of the coil to buck the inductance can make a spool of wire approach being a simple resistor, but the natural way of spooling wire will not do this. The top picture is a high power low inductance resistor. This is the fundamental difference in your circuit performance. To simplify capacitor and inductor basics, a capacitor briefly stores voltage, an inductor stores current. Combining these two together makes a resonant tank circuit. Power quickly moves back and forth from the capacitor to the inductor. The low inductance resistor does not store anything. To maintain your spark I think you want an inductor in your circuit. What you've made in essence is a modified ignition system.

You are probably right, but what you don't see is the 1/2 lb of 18 ga wire under the telephone wire. When used as a resistor the ground leg is removed from the coil. The white wire is connected to the copper wire under it. When I hook up ground to the red wire it becomes an inductor.

You recognized the resistor as a high power resistor. I thought it would be perfect for the application to keep the plug from frying. I was right except for the self inductace it causes. I am still guess about what it's called, but the plug glows like it is running at 10kHz. The only way to stop the glow at the spark gap is to kill a/c power. When I remove the resistor my spark is normal again. I noticed this type of reaction before as one of my ceramic resistor was burning out, but it only lasted for a couple of seconds.

Your 10 KHz estimate is probably pretty close... I've seen this effect of light glowing through a wire's insulation before. Usually happens when the frequency (and voltage) is rather high.

I was not talking about the wire glowing. What I was saying about the high power resistor self inducing after an initial spark was that the a/c voltage produced a spark glow at the sparkplug gap until the a/c was shut off.

What I have found during subsequent testing with this resistor is that a resonant tank circuit is being produced between the capacitor and the 12 volt coil. The coil winding must be breaking down and the resistor just happens to be the right resistance to cause the tank circuit. It eventually burned the resistor in 2 during testing.

I identified the coil winding breakdown through careful observation of spark characteristics in past experiments with other resistors of known value and type. I substituted these in the circuit and replaced the high voltage resistor to see if the effect would happen. The same thing happened with resistors that had not previously done this. I removed all parts of the circuit until it was the basic setup and isolated the problem to the coil.

The wire glowing is probably what Redfred was saying though I am unaware of any studies done on the phenomenon. I first noticed the glowing while searching in the dark for a short on one of my first circuits. When all of the lights are off you can see the wire going to the sparkplug on the a/c leg glow purple. I touched and then held the wire while this was glowing and felt no heat. That is a #28 ga wire so it will not tollerate resistance heating. I had never seen this before or heard of anyone else seeing it which sparked my interest in the phenomenon. I subsequently made a sign with my company name and use it for a display at shows sometimes. I suppose it is similar to neon lighting except that it is in atmosphere instead of a gas tube.

Thank you for your input.

What does the electric power drill in the third photo do?

HEY!!! What happened to "greenandclean???"

Zapped, probably.

Was "onecraftydude", then changed his name to "greenandclean", now calling himself "Someguy".

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/403114

It appears the site moderators got a little sick of his antics and started removing new threads on HHO he tried to create. It's not like many of us didn't warn him.

And now it is Pushover.

Thank you for your help kind sir.

He was removed again.

I suppose I did something wrong although I have never gotten a message to say what it was. I wish they would tell me what it is that so bad so I don't have to keep making new accounts.

Just FYI, I intend to keep my comments as respectful as possible even when under attack.

Thank you for your support.

Generally the moderators will close down a link with a message giving the reason, if this hasn't been done in your case it may be that it is because the reasons are obvious to the real engineers and scientists on this engineering discussing site. Since the reasons may not be obvious to you I will try and explain.

There is one main reason and a few minor reasons.

Main reason 1 (the BIG one) - Pseudoscience. This is the main reason, and as many of us have tried to explain (both here and referencing previous threads where a LOT of time and effort has been expended) Pseudoscience is not real science. There is no bashing pseudoscience, it is simply not real and has been dis proven by the engineering and scientific community so many times since electricity was first discovered that you would think people would learn. They don't, and why - the reasons are numerous but mainly its that people want to believe in impossible things (perpetual motion, over unity, etc) and its easier to believe in a video on UTube or a scam or than it is to learn about advanced electricity and magnetic theory (which takes a lot of time and is quite complex).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Minor reason 1 - Abusive behaviour in the face of criticism. Arguing with real scientists and engineers when you clearly don't understand even the basics of electricity (ohms law, magnetic and plasma field theory) as indicated by your post content and even stated by yourself! This is classic pseudoscience backyard engineering (and free energy scam) behaviour. Remember this is an Engineering discussion forum (not googlegroups, usernet, or other open forums). Many of us are real scientists and engineers, we have respected jobs, advanced levels of academic training and lots of real world experience designing and building things from electronics smaller than the eye can see thru to power stations, etc.

There is being stubborn and not listening to new ideas (the "bah what does this kid know, he isn't even a real scientist") but then there is the inexperienced person tinkering with things he doesn't fully understand trying to convince people how do understand what he is seeing (the "bah what do those scientists know, I don't know what exactly I am seeing but I have something physical in front of me that proves what I believe").

Some posters have got a little excessive in their responses, but that is mostly (I believe) because they have had this discussion numerous times in other threads on similar subjects (see Main reason 1, Minor reason 1 above).

I hope this clears things up for you. I know its difficult, especially when you have spent so much time on something only to find out that so many people tell you your wasting your time.

In conclusion, see my (and others) previous posts (both here and on similar threads) on how to improve your electrical knowledge and education so you have a better understanding of what you are seeing AND so that you can learn how to make proper measurements and analysis of what you are seeing. This will allow you to not only prove to yourself what we have been saying but also help you develop and direct your existing work in a different direction that may be of some use or generate a new discovery.

Remember, being wrong is not a reason to give up, its a good (if not annoying) learning experience.

Bravo, Amen & GA