Re: HH0 "numbers"

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Drayden7937, Apr 23, 2009.

  1. Drayden7937

    Thread Starter New Member

    Apr 23, 2009
    3
    0
    Beenthere,
    I love how you guys scrutinize all the "HHO" claims out there and I'd love to know your take on this.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKjUzsNj8NM

    This guy seems to be earnest about what he is doing, doesn't make extraordinary claims. He seems to be trying to produce experimental data for everyone to look at. I'm not hearing any pie in the sky claims. Still I don't have near the knowledge to scrutinize. I'd like to know what you guys think.

    The latest thread on Stanley Meyers may have been frustrating to the experienced members here, but the reading has been an invaluable resource for me. I've learned more from that one thread than two years of researching on my own. To all of you.
    THANK YOU!!!

    I joined this forum solely for the latest thread on Stan Meyers. I'm fascinated by anything that pertains to resonance, standing waves and the like. I've read and read till by eyes bleed, about HHO, PM generators. You know, all the unrealistic spooky weird science! I'm a sceptic in so much as I can see all the hype out there, all the claims that obviously violate the laws of physics. I also believe that "if" it is possible to do what Stanley Meyers claims, then he simply stumbled onto a way of activating a naturally occurring energy to help do the work. Only God can create energy, the rest of us have to convert energy. At a loss of course.

    I think that is why we keep hearing about resonance. Problem is, snake oil salesmen take a well understood concept such as mechanical resonance (everyone has seen the lady break the crystal with her voice) and make it seem like it's the same thing as a resonant circuit.

    I've heard it all. The nay sayers and the heads in the cloud folks. I gotta say that the general tone coming from this forum is so refreshing! The discussions here seem to be open minded yet grounded. I'm not hearing it "can't" be done. Just facts about what is not being, or able to be done and a challenge to show real proof. Backed by experimental data, and details of how to recreate the phenomena. So that others can duplicate the process. You know, real experimental science.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you, for the brutally honest debate! Although I love the "idea" of Stan's, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!
     
  2. Drayden7937

    Thread Starter New Member

    Apr 23, 2009
    3
    0
    Here is a quote from his web site. Does this sound feasible to anyone?





    "Q: Aren't you violating Conservation of Energy?
    A:
    No.

    Here's the simple math I use to stuff it in the face of "the experts" when they say we're attempting to violate the "Laws" of conservation of energy. Please feel free to use it to stuff it to them too.
    1) The best I.C.E. is 18% efficient, 20% on a good day.
    2) The process of brute force electrolysis today has been pushed to about 85% efficiency.

    Note: Based on the energy available from burning Hydrogen, by using Faraday's "Law" to translate from electrical energy it is estimated that 100% efficient hydrogen electrolysis is achieved by creating somewhere between 5.5-7.5 milliliters of gas per minute per watt of energy consumed. Members of our research group have run the numbers several ways which all seem to point to around 7.0 m/m/w or mmw for short. Many of our cells have operated as high as 6mmw or roughly 85% efficient
    3) The product of electrolysis is HHO which has it's own energy value, up to 85% of what we put in.
    If all we considered was the return of energy value when we inject the HHO as a supplement to gasoline, then yes; Conservation of energy applies.
    HOWEVER!
    We believe HHO as an additive does more than return 85% of the energy we put in to create it. We believe its properties enhance the slow burning gasoline, speeding up the rate of combustion, causing much more of the total combustion process to be translated into mechanical energy rather than being lost as waste heat out the tail pipe, raising the efficiency of the total system. Returning to the simple math...
    Let's say we're able to translate just 10% more of the total system energy to mechanical energy. Seems like a reasonable goal. We have still not violated conservation of energy, only raised the total system efficiency from 18% to 28%. But that's an increase of 55%!!! Now deduct the energy loss of 15% to create the HHO that made this possible and you still end up with a total net gain of 40%!
    This is not rocket science. It's simple math. I intend to validate the hypothesis and help others with their own experiments by releasing my designs into the public domain and selling accessories such as the PWM for those who do not possess the technical skills to build them."




    This guy has his circuits, layout and parts list posted and are available for free. He is encouraging people to good experimental science. Stating theories, constructing prototypes, conducting experiments and posting results. He even has 18 videos of a MIT roundtable discussing all of these "over unity" devices. Fascinating discussion! I hope everyone enjoys them.

    Are you going to run you car on water? Probably not. Is it possible to increase the efficiency and get bette gas mileage? In the 70's a man by the name of Pat Goodman in Winchester Virginia was featured on a 60 mins episode. They ran a story about different guys selling water injection plans to get better gas milage. 60 mins shows up to three of shops (Pat's being one of them) and dropped off a new Ford Fiesta with a challenge to prove that their plans worked. The other two guys actually made things worse. To the surprise of 60 mins, Pat not only improved the milage by a usable amount, he actually increased the horse power! What was the secret? He increased the compression ratio to 14:1. Then added a water injector to the base of the carb and routed the valve to inject a water mist when the smog pump cycled on. This small amount of water mist reduced the combustion temp just enough to prevent detonation so he could run low octane pump gas at high compression. Thus increasing efficiency. The gas crises died, cars started changing to injection demand for the plans waned.

    Anyone interested in any of these Alt-energy designs that want to try them out should beware of all the outlandish claims, snake oil salesman and scam artist. If your truly going to increase your gas mileage (efficiency) it'll involve a lot of work and experimentation. The first thing to do is take off the rose coloured glasses. Ask hard questions and not fall for the BS. This web site would be a good place to start:

    http://www.alt-nrg.org/index.shtml

    and here to listen to what the MIT scientist have to say about the subject.

    http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=ZeroFossilFuel&view=videos




    To all the conspiracy theorists: The real reason Stan was taken out was not because Big Oil was afraid of competition. He inadvertently discovered a scientific law that is too powerful for us humans to have possession of. So the aliens got him:eek:


     
  3. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,765
    2,536
    Here we go again, Water is the ash from burning hydrogen, you can not get more energy out than you put in to free up the hydrogen. This is the Law of Conservation of Energy in a nutshell. What is so hard to understand?
     
  4. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Sure he sounds earnest. Snake oil salesmen always do.

    Error #1: An electrolytic cell is not a capacitor.

    Error #2: Electrolytic cells do not operate by dielectric failure.

    Will his oscillator work as an oscillator? Probably. Will it generate more gas in a given amount of time? Maybe. Will it generate more gas per unit input energy than Faraday? Only if the user is farting into the same tube.
     
  5. HarveyH42

    Active Member

    Jul 22, 2007
    425
    5
    Just curious... Does the electrolysis cell immediately start producing max volume when you flip the switch, or is there a small delay before it starts? From High School chemistry, I remember it took a few seconds before the gases started to bubble off. Wondering if efficiency is calculated from the time power is applied, or later, when the gasses are separated.
     
  6. AlexR

    Well-Known Member

    Jan 16, 2008
    735
    54
    Its not really important. I don't know where he pulled those figures from but is sure wasn't from doing careful measurements.

    Your average commercial electrolysis cell operating at room temperatures and pressures commonly has an efficiency of between 20% and 40%.

    High pressure electrolyzers operating at 100 - 200 atmospheres can achieve 70% - 80% efficiency

    If I was getting 80%+ efficiencies from an electrolysis cell at room temperature and pressure I wouldn't worry about converting the car. The sale of the cell design to an electrolyizer manufacture would pay for several lifetimes of fuel use.
     
  7. BoyntonStu

    Active Member

    Apr 18, 2009
    52
    0
    Hydrogen and Oxygen (HHO) at a 2:1 ratio burns much quicker than a 14.7: air/gasoline mixture.

    Improvement is MPG is NOT being claimed by substituting the inefficiently made HHO fuel for gasoline.

    What is claimed is that a mixture of gasoline and HHO will together burn differently than just gasoline.

    About 1 LPM per 1,000 CC of ICE displacement appears to some experimenters to yield about 15% more MPG.

    Many emissions tests have demonstrated that by adding HHO absolutely changes the emissions to cleaner values.

    I will post on another thread how my ZX2 Ford went from 28 MPG to 32 MPG with the addition of a small piece of duct tape to restrict the air and to fool the computer into thinking that the car is at high altitude.
     
  8. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    It's your car, so do what you want with it. You might, however, want to type the words "lean fuel mixture symptoms" into your favorite search engine.
     
  9. BoyntonStu

    Active Member

    Apr 18, 2009
    52
    0

    My car has a ECU and it maintains 14.7:1 at all altitudes.

    Does your car adjust for altitude?

    Would it become lean in Denver?


    Is the ECU designed to lean the mixture or does it maintain a constant AF ratio?

    BoyntonStu
     
  10. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Explain, please, how thinner air makes the fuel mix more lean.

    Also, please explain the chemistry behind gasoline burning more efficiently when HHO is mixed in.
     
  11. BoyntonStu

    Active Member

    Apr 18, 2009
    52
    0


    Explain, please, how thinner air makes the fuel mix more lean. NOT!

    At altitude the air is thinner and the MAP or MAF sensor notices it.

    To keep the 14.7:1 the ECU reduces the gas to compensate for the thinner air.

    The mixture does NOT go lean, say 15:1, it stays at 14.7:1.

    -----------------

    Gasoline and HHO can be sparked later than gas alone, due to the faster flame speed of HHO. Instead of 10* BTC for example, the spark can come closer to ATD.

    I have not the slightest idea of the chemistry but the exhaust pollutants are lower with HHO.

    BoyntonStu
     
  12. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Can you provide documentation of these alleged lower pollutant levels?
     
  13. BoyntonStu

    Active Member

    Apr 18, 2009
    52
    0
    First, can you provide documentation of your alleged leaning of an ECU controlled ICE at altitude?

    BoyntonStu
     
  14. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    I have made no such allegation.
     
  15. recca02

    Senior Member

    Apr 2, 2007
    1,211
    0
    This topic is somewhat new to me. Can someone tell me is HHO same as water here or is it H2 and O contained in different containers to be made to react later?

    If HHO is indeed water,
    Then going by this analogy CO should have burnt more readily than Carbon? Instead CO to CO2 conversion is endothermic. Am I missing something?
    I know of gas turbines' ignition chamber using water for cooling which gives more output but at reduced efficiency. And even here the water does not burn but is converted into steam.
     
  16. BoyntonStu

    Active Member

    Apr 18, 2009
    52
    0

    "You might, however, want to type the words "lean fuel mixture symptoms" into your favorite search engine."

    Who wrote this and what was its implication?

    BoyntonStu
     
  17. thatoneguy

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 19, 2009
    6,357
    718
    The oxygen sensors are not meant to be water sensors, and thus the ECU/PCM sees the engine running too rich. The ECU in turn reduces fuel until the O2 sensors show a "normal" reading.

    This alone will save a few mpg, but the engine will usually need a rebuild within a year or two from burnt valves and/or corrosion.


    In addition to internal mechanical damages, alternators sap 2-5 HP, and need frequent replacement under heavy loads. Kilowatt range Mobile audio systems that pull a peak of 50+ Amps use several Farads of capacitors to assist the electrical system during peaks. Adding a 30+ Amp continual load, in addition to powering all the other systems (radio, computers, lighting, etc) is not what a stock alternator is designed for.

    Another way to look at HHO: A current production BMW Hydrogen car with 30 gallons of liquid Hydrogen, and can go 120 miles at highway speed = 4 mpg of Liquid H2. 1 Gallon of Liquid H2 is about 9 ounces/0.268kg. When the H2 is at 25C, it has a volume over 1,000 liters. No currently existing onboard system can can come even close to creating 1% of that amount at the rate needed. That exact same car (BMW Hydrogen 7) gets 15 mpg on liquid gasoline.

    Since BMW designed a vehicle from the ground up to run on both Hydrogen and gasoline, with their best results not quite reaching "average" on either fuel, why would one think that adding hydrogen to a gasoline ICE would help?
     
  18. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    It is obvious who wrote it. The implication is equally obvious: burning lean = bad.

    Now, your turn: You've claimed HHO+gasoline = good. We have your claim, thus far, and nothing more. You will not be able to prove yourself by attempting to discredit me. Let's have that documentation, if it does indeed exist.
     
  19. BoyntonStu

    Active Member

    Apr 18, 2009
    52
    0
    The ECU in turn reduces fuel until the O2 sensors show a "normal" reading.

    When the fuel is reduced to maintain the 14.7:1 ratio, the temperature if anything will be reduced, not increased.

    The mixture is NOT lean.

    BoyntonStu
     
  20. thatoneguy

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 19, 2009
    6,357
    718
    You missed the "Important Part": The oxygen sensors are not meant to be water sensors, and thus the ECU/PCM sees the engine runnin, too rich.

    O2 Sensors are designed to give a value relative to the combustion efficiency running on the fuel the vehicle was designed for, it is a closed loop system (Airflow, throttle, injectors, and exhaust measurement) .

    Altering the fuel the vehicle was designed for causes the ECU to think the engine is running too rich, based on faulty data received from the oxygen sensors. The feedback loop is broken, and the engine runs lean.

    I notice you did not address the point of about the car getting only 4 mpg of liquid Hydrogen. It isn't an efficient fuel for an internal combustion engine.

    --ETA: If this were not the case, there would be no "O2 sensor modifications" promoted within the HHO communities.
     
Loading...