TeamSwift

Home of the Suzuki mini-compacts ! Your Home for all things Suzuki Swift, Geo Metro, Holden Barina, Chevy Sprint, Pontiac Firefly, and Suzuki Cultus. TeamSwift is a technical performance oriented community!
It is currently Fri Oct 20, 2017 1:26 pm

Underbody braces, turbos and more!

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:37 pm 
Offline
Suzuki Elder
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:47 pm
Posts: 11669
Location: columbus, ohio
and the thread comes to a sudden stop! :lol:

i was hoping to stimulate discussion and to get you guys to think outside the box.

apply some chemistry, apply some electronics, increase the cell's efficiency, generate lot's more hho, compress it and meter it's injection for a proper afr. use a throttle body to regulate engine speed and the get o2 sensor to respond with global feedback for a true representation of excess oxygen, target a stoichiometric combustion.

delete the gasoline and run the whole thing on hydrogen gas. it works, i've seen it in action.

nothing in the rule book says that you can't generate and compress the gas and leave it in storage while the car isn't running. power the generation process with a battery charger running on 120 volts ac while the car is in the garage. if you can't get a unity gain and beat the law of conservation of energy, change the paradigm and use shore power to your advantage. :D

_________________
1991 Blue Geo Metro Convertible highly modified 1.0L Turbo3 5 spd. - 1991 Red Geo Metro Convertible customized with a Twincam 5 spd.

My Turbo3 Project
My Cardomain Page -Ol' Blue
My YouTube Channel
My Photo Gallery
SAAB Sonett II


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:52 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Utah
This is why these conversations get so silly and why things never go anywhere. Everyone is discussing different technology.
First, do these "improve your gas mileage by splitting water in to hydrogen and oxygen on the fly and burning it with gas" work? In my opinion, no. Can you electrolyse water from the electricity generated in an automobile? Yes. Can you burn the resulting gas in an engine? Yes. Does the combination of this gas and petroleum fuel burn "better" than straight petroleum? Perhaps. Does running this system create more drag on the motor thru the alternator? Yes. So is the extra power you MIGHT get out more than the drag added? NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. This violates basic, universally accepted(well, almost universally, except for you yahoos) laws of physics.
Stepping back, can you run an internal combustion engine on hydrogen and oxygen alone? Of course! Could you use mains power to generate the gas and store it and then run your car on it? Of course! Are there better ways to use hydrogen to power an automobile than an internal combustion engine? Of COURSE!
So, if we're really serious about hydrogen as a fuel, don't try to generate it onboard, it's just not going to work. Don't burn it in an internal combustion engine, put it in a fuel cell stack and generate electricity w/ much much greater efficiency, and run electric motors at much much much greater efficiency. Back this up w/ some ultracapacitors or something and you have a really nice electric car. The problem? You'd need a Hindenburg's worth of hydrogen to get you the range of a tank of petrolium....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:09 pm
Posts: 4998
Location: Palm Springs: Too hot from June to Oct.!
This thread has pointed me in a positive direction.
Prior to it, I had no idea it was possible.

Regarding the stainless, I have seen some video which specifies a certain stainless.
However, the other precious metals usefulness is noted.

There seems to be this talk of 'resonance' as if a certain 'wavelength' is useful for the splitting of the liquid.

The "Stan" model I saw used less than 2 volts of juice to produce what I considered a sufficient quantity of gas.

So far, I haven't seen it duplicated, or bested.

_________________
DIY Broken Bolt Removal: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=41042
DIY Clutch Adjustment: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=48281
DIY Wheel Bearings: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29003
DIY Shocks: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=45483
DIY Wheel Align: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=42479
Once you get the cars dialed-in (compression, leaks, bearings, alignment, brakes) swap in new rubber and glass, you've got something which should last for years!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:15 am
Posts: 36
Location: ALABAMA
Well i still think it is worth trying, :) If monitored , i dont see why the system should pull more amprage from my battery and charging system than my audio system, around 15-20 amps is what i am aiming for, Even a small production of hho gas should be possible to get a clearer burn of the fuel already going into the engine., less going out the exuast pipe. Just shooting for more efficent.

I do not see running the car completly on HHo at this time, i will leave that for other to figure out lol. I also dont think i am going to attach a jar of water and baking soda to my engine and get 80mpg lol. Just my 2 cents

304 grade or better SS is recomended*


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:52 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Utah
TANSTAAFL.
Plain and simple. You CANNOT get more power out of a system than you put in, which is what all of these people and systems purport to do.
Prove me wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:09 pm
Posts: 4998
Location: Palm Springs: Too hot from June to Oct.!
mrbell321 wrote:
TANSTAAFL.
Plain and simple. You CANNOT get more power out of a system than you put in, which is what all of these people and systems purport to do.
Prove me wrong.


Yes, that the gist of one of my first posts to your thread.

If you take the time to look at some of the you tube videos, you can see some systems in action.

We are using your thread to point out that this approach 'HHO' needs some refinement.

Address several issues:

Amp consumption
Gas storage
Proper mix prior to induction
Safety
Size

And we will be visiting you in the Hall of Fame.

Check out the 'Tracker' set-up. It would seem he is going in the right direction, eh?

When you started this thread, I thought: 'burn water...impossible'

Now I realize this is not a system which purports to 'burn water'.

This is an electrolytic cell which as yet hasn't been fine tuned.

I did see a system which ran on 2 volts...you tube.
It is not smoke and mirrors. However, it appears he used a combination of electricity and 'resonance' to produce the needed combustion gases.
If we could 'crack' that system, and make the knowledge available, then you and I would have those supplemental systems on our cars.
Our alternators can produce electricity for the electrolytic cells without too much trouble once the resonance issue is explained, as such an electrolytic cell will not draw much juice:
think 'pulse'...
Supposing we have mostly on board LED lighting in the future, what will be the use of the alternator, anyway? It is needed, but moving one step closer to obsolescence.
These systems can be made currently (bad pun) to draw 15 amps.
As time goes on, I would think they can be improved tremendously.
Might be similar to the Model T with it's jute/lead packed water pump...now obsolescent.
Modern water pumps seal using close-tolerance machined parts.


Try and keep an open mind...or at least say: "Maybe it's possible."
The benefits would be tremendous.

_________________
DIY Broken Bolt Removal: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=41042
DIY Clutch Adjustment: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=48281
DIY Wheel Bearings: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29003
DIY Shocks: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=45483
DIY Wheel Align: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=42479
Once you get the cars dialed-in (compression, leaks, bearings, alignment, brakes) swap in new rubber and glass, you've got something which should last for years!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:46 pm
Posts: 1099
Location: Abbotsford, BC
the site's dead. :alien:

_________________
1995 Firefly 1.3 SOHC 8VALVE MANUAL
2000 Firefly 1.3 SOHC 16VALVE AUTO. Goals: full restoration, achieve stock MPG and HP or higher, finished look should be 'stealthy' and unassuming. Engine will need to be rebuilt later on to restore compression levels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:52 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Utah
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter how efficient you make the system or what tricks you use. Here's a good article
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/08/04/why-on-board-hydrogen-generators-wont-boost-your-mileage/
Barring any catalyst effect of the hydrogen(which has never been shown or indicated), on-board hydrogen generation is a losing proposition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:52 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Utah
How about this one. MIT is working on ways to make hydrogen more efficiently and they still aren't making enough to make these "supplement your car w/ water" systems work...
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/08/06/mit-researchers-develop-inexpensive-new-catalyst-for-hydrogen-pr/

No matter which splice it(the water molecule), it comes down to efficiency. It just takes more energy to rip water apart than you can get from recombining them, regardless of what you do w/ the fuel. If you disagree, you clearly do not understand the problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:40 pm
Posts: 11
Location: Chatham Co., NC / USA
00Metro wrote:
You can power a house with panels easily.


"Power your house"... On DC? If you invert the DC to AC ( as in fridge, some heaters, lights, TV, etc., etc.) you have massive losses to contend with. When it rains for days on end...will the sun ever come out? At night, you can spend a few hours refilling those thirsty battery cells.
Sure, power your house on DC ... if your full-time hobby is your solar house. -Ted


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:40 pm
Posts: 11
Location: Chatham Co., NC / USA
mrbell321 wrote:
This is why these conversations get so silly and why things never go anywhere. Everyone is discussing different technology.
First, do these "improve your gas mileage by splitting water in to hydrogen and oxygen on the fly and burning it with gas" work? In my opinion, no. Can you electrolyse water from the electricity generated in an automobile? Yes. Can you burn the resulting gas in an engine? Yes. Does the combination of this gas and petroleum fuel burn "better" than straight petroleum? Perhaps. Does running this system create more drag on the motor thru the alternator? Yes. So is the extra power you MIGHT get out more than the drag added? NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. This violates basic, universally accepted(well, almost universally, except for you yahoos) laws of physics.
Stepping back, can you run an internal combustion engine on hydrogen and oxygen alone? Of course! Could you use mains power to generate the gas and store it and then run your car on it? Of course! Are there better ways to use hydrogen to power an automobile than an internal combustion engine? Of COURSE!
So, if we're really serious about hydrogen as a fuel, don't try to generate it onboard, it's just not going to work. Don't burn it in an internal combustion engine, put it in a fuel cell stack and generate electricity w/ much much greater efficiency, and run electric motors at much much much greater efficiency. Back this up w/ some ultracapacitors or something and you have a really nice electric car. The problem? You'd need a Hindenburg's worth of hydrogen to get you the range of a tank of petrolium....


I do not wish to start an argument, here or anywhere else. I will say, however, you're missing the whole point of conservation of energy. "Cracking" H2 from H2O while on-board a moving gasoline-fueled vehicle is looked upon as energy imbalanced. <youtube.com> is full of H2 generators (HHO, oxyhydrogen, Brown's Gas, HOH...oops! :roll: That's water...) , which is all well and good, EXCEPT not enough H2 is liberated to do any good. These people are selling fizz & bubbles & pop...and they have no idea how much "pop" it takes to move thousands of pounds (kilos?) of vehicle at highway speeds. None!

Since we're talking a mixture of H2 and gasoline vapors ( not the entire volume of liquid water or gasoline consumed) IN the combustion chamber, what % of each would be required to manifest itself in these enormous MPG increases? Has anyone ever seen such an analysis?
This is quite enough typing for now.... Later. -Ted


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:52 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Utah
It doesn't matter how much H2 and O2 is "liberated" from water because it will ALWAYS take more energy to do that than it you can get back by burning it(even w/ lean gasoline vapors) to turn an alternator under the load you are imposing by electrolysing water.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:40 pm
Posts: 11
Location: Chatham Co., NC / USA
mrbell321 wrote:
It doesn't matter how much H2 and O2 is "liberated" from water because it will ALWAYS take more energy to do that than it you can get back by burning it(even w/ lean gasoline vapors) to turn an alternator under the load you are imposing by electrolysing water.


Hi, Mr. Bell-

You are quite right, of course...providing you make it clear you are talking alternators and HHO bubblers. Hydrogen is abundant somewhere else other than a little liquid water + baking soda. Or, sodium hydroxide. Or, potassium hydroxide. These are band-aids. The water I'm referring to hasn't even been made, yet. The combustion of gasoline forms lots of water vapor. Lots! Did you ever hold your hand at the exhaust pipe exit of a cold-starting gas engine & feel all that damp , warm water? This content can be captured up in the chamber...and "split" with chemistry. Sound crazy? The US Air Force used a "ton" of demineralized water per flight ( F-105 Thunderchief ) in SEA for the daily bomb runs from Thailand...the switch in the cockpit labeled "water injection" was flipped on take-off - just to get each bird off the ground when loaded with bombs. I know, I was there.

I also hold two US Patents on this process I'm referring to... I found out, as I was developing this concept, I needed a third patent (because of the way "it" was evolving). I also needed R&D money, time & materials, and additional personnel to help with this venture. After years of looking for a source of funds...I'm taking a break ( it feels so good when you stop beating your head against a wall!); I've got other things on my agenda. 8) Besides, I've found another way to chemically modify gasoline,,, to alter the flame front velocity. My test mule ( '02 Nissan Sentra, 1.8 liter, 5 speed, etc.) loves this diet! -Ted


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:52 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Utah
When you say "Split with chemistry" I assume there is something consumable(or maybe some rare catalyst... I don't know of any catalysts that decompose water easily, but that doesn't meant they don't exist) other than water in this process? Well, I think we've hit the nail on the head. Sure you can boost fuel economy by supplementing with hydrogen. I've never argued otherwise. Good, cheap, clean sources of hydrogen are very difficult to find. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe I believe, but it's rare to find it on earth because it reacts VERY readily w/ oxygen and pretty much everything.
I just don't want people wasting their money on silly gadgets that cannot work. If you are adding something to the water which, for example binds w/ the oxygen leaving h2 + *O? (and then maybe the *O? decomposes into X? + O2), then sure, but that energy isn't coming from the alternator and the process isn't sustainable solely on water(which is exactly what these "run your car on water" gadgets propose to do).
At this point I don't know why I care. I'm getting the same way about everything. Why am I trying to save people from themselves?
I think I give up...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:40 pm
Posts: 11
Location: Chatham Co., NC / USA
mrbell321 wrote:
When you say "Split with chemistry" I assume there is something consumable(or maybe some rare catalyst...

Good, cheap, clean sources of hydrogen are very difficult to find. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe I believe, but it's rare to find it on earth ....

I just don't want people wasting their money on silly gadgets that cannot work.

At this point I don't know why I care. I'm getting the same way about everything. Why am I trying to save people from themselves?
I think I give up...


You are correct insofar as you go...but you are not seeing the whole picture. Since this is a public forum ( and since many others have seen both our postings) I will say your "good, cheap,clean sources of hydrogen are very difficult to find" statement is a good example of your not focusing on the energy picture. Whenever you pump gasoline into your tank, are you aware you are pumping in many, many atoms of hydrogen? Each molecule of
gasoline (2,2,4- trimethylpentane) is 8 atoms of carbon and 18 atoms of hydrogen. Each molecule! Admittedly, there are more different kinds of molecules in gas...but we won't go there. This is the best form of cheap, clean hydrogen I'm aware of... except for rain, rivers, and oceans. Ocean water even has electrolytes ( salts) in it.

"People wasting their money"? "On silly gadgets"? What are you referring to? I don't make "silly gadgets"! What money? I'm not finished with the R&D, yet.

I don't know why you care, either. Just don't " don't care" on a public forum, OK? PMs I can delete...but it's difficult to delete the readings of others. Thank you. -Ted


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:52 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Utah
Sorry, the silly gadget remark wasn't directed at your work. It's the $50 "run your car on water" websites that started this thread.

Let's get back to the no good cheap clean sources of hydrogen. I still stand by that remark. Yes, gasoline has millions of hydrogen atoms, and gasoline, even at $5/gal is relatively cheap. Clean? No. It has all of the complications of burning gas. Yes, it can be done cleaner and all pollutants contained, but that's significantly less easy and convenient than hydrogen that exists in molecular form(which is what I meant, and what we really need).
Water has hydrogen, and it could be clean, and it's cheap. But as we keep going over and over and over and over and over... it's not easy, and therefore not likely to be clean. I don't know what your process is, but whatever you are doing to get hydrogen out of water is using some process which ultimately consumes some exotic thing in the process. This is very likely to be expensive and I'd bet that it's not even clean. I could be wrong. I have always been open to that possibility. I am not an expert, I am not a chemist, I am not a battery/fuel cell/etc engineer. I am also not an idiot and I know at least the basics of how to apply reasoning to a problem and so far, tho, no one has given any good evidence that has made me think "You know, there could be something to this". Everything I have seen is extraordinarily suspicious. Snake oil to cure malaria is much more plausible.

PS: again, I am not directly talking about your project. I don't know anything about it. I am talking about on-board electrolysers purported to be "run your car on water" and give fuel economy improvements of "X%". I say X, because the number doesn't matter unless it's negative...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:24 pm
Posts: 61
Location: Deer Lodge, Montana
You could run a Metro on hydrogen and carbon monoxide from biomass using this biomass gasifier; http://allpowerlabs.org/gasification/gek/index.html

It's even the right size and it's running tar free. I'm hoping to install one on a 1985 Sprint... we'll see if time and money allow it. While I can expect to spend around $3000 to get it operational, people's reaction to my running a car on firewood, roadkill, etc would be priceless.

Jeremiah

_________________
55 MPG daily driver


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:40 pm
Posts: 11
Location: Chatham Co., NC / USA
jsenner wrote:
You could run a Metro on hydrogen and carbon monoxide from biomass using this biomass gasifier; http://allpowerlabs.org/gasification/gek/index.html

It's even the right size and it's running tar free. I'm hoping to install one on a 1985 Sprint... we'll see if time and money allow it. While I can expect to spend around $3000 to get it operational, people's reaction to my running a car on firewood, roadkill, etc would be priceless.

Jeremiah


What is the energy density of roadkill? Firewood?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:40 pm
Posts: 11
Location: Chatham Co., NC / USA
t3 ragtop wrote:
and the thread comes to a sudden stop! :lol:

...and the get o2 sensor to respond with global feedback for a true representation of excess oxygen, target a stoichiometric combustion.



nothing in the rule book says that you can't generate and compress the gas and leave it in storage while the car isn't running. power the generation process with a battery charger running on 120 volts ac while the car is in the garage.


And the thread goes on ... and on....
To address your statements above...the O2 sensor just LOVES the different burn of H2; it "tells" the ECU computer to change the A/F ratio. The right way?

There is one thing in your book which tells you "Thou shalt not generate and compress H2 gas and leave it (pressurized?) in storage while the car isn't running." This is in the other chapter, written as OSHA safety directives / "hazmat" procedures, EPA air quality guidelines, and possibly others written / approved by Congress to make the country safer, cleaner, and "more secure". The homeland security police will frown on this "hydrogen bomb" you have tucked away in your garage! I guarantee you!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:24 pm
Posts: 61
Location: Deer Lodge, Montana
chembustion wrote:
What is the energy density of roadkill? Firewood?


Roadkill I'm not sure. With firewood, the Metro or Sprint would get somewhere between 2-5 miles per pound of wood at 15-20% moisture content. 3 miles per pound is my best guess. You can run only about 10% roadkill to 90% firewood. You can pour used engine oil on the firewood, veg oil, etc. Probably small amounts of plastic could be burned, I'm not sure.

With all the gasses passing though an area that runs at 1100 degrees C, everything is broken down to hydrogen and CO, then it's filtered and burned in the engine to produce quite clean emissions.

Jeremiah

_________________
55 MPG daily driver


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:38 pm
Posts: 131
Location: Upstate NY
I guess I am resurrecting the thread.

As I just found out about all this stuff only about a month ago. Have any of you tried testing the HHO on demand method in your vehicle? I kept telling my brother that it was "stupid and wouldn't work" for about three months. He finally quit talking about it and then somehow I got all fired up about one night reading and watching youtube and now I have build my second cell (which now I see some mistakes that I have made) and hope to try it this weekend in a 1600 mile test. The cell that I have in my car is producing on average 1.7 liters per minute with a consumption of 12.3 volts and 29-30 amps. This give my cell a mediocre MMW of 4.60. I have installed a new alternator in my sprint turbo (115-120 amp) and have probably made almost every mistake possible in getting this all together. I have spent more than I originally intended and have found that if I could have just spent a little more time reading and watching and learning and thinking. There really seems to be some good information out there.

One interesting find is that in Japan they have unveiled a car taht does run just on water. They don't charge it at night or add anything else to it. the Company is called "GenePax"

Any way I just wondered if anyone on here has done anything with it. I hope to post some honest results next week as I make my trip. Otto


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:52 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Utah
GenePax does not use the same sort of thing this thread has discussed. I know wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, but it sums it up the best in this case:
In June 2008, Japanese company Genepax unveiled a car which it claims runs on only water and air,[21] and many news outlets dubbed the vehicle a "water-fuel car".[22] The company says it "cannot [reveal] the core part of this invention,” yet,[23] but it has disclosed that the system uses an onboard energy generator (a "membrane electrode assembly") to extract the hydrogen using a "mechanism which is similar to the method in which hydrogen is produced by a reaction of metal hydride and water".[24] The hydrogen is then used to generate energy to run the car. This has led to speculation that the metal hydride is consumed in the process and is the ultimate source of the car's energy, making the car a hydride-fuelled "hydrogen on demand" vehicle, rather than water-fuelled as claimed.[25][26][27] On the company's website the energy source is explained only with the words "Chemical reaction".[28] The science and technology magazine Popular Mechanics has described Genepax's claims as "Rubbish."[29]

I still stand by my earlier statement: This stuff does not work.

Prove me wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:38 pm
Posts: 131
Location: Upstate NY
Well I ran my HHO cell on my way down to NC and then on further to Atlanta GA, and at that point decided to turn it off as I wasn't getting any increase in mileage. The car ran just about the same as when I didn't have the HHO cell turned on. I will be doing a lot of thinking and "tweaking" on things over this winter and hope to atleast give it a few more tries in the spring.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 2:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:56 pm
Posts: 91
Location: Dallas, TX
Well I believe we’re on the right track. We didn’t just build a rocket and go to the moon. You first make it and see if it works, then make it better. Show it to someone and they might make it a little better and on and on and on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:56 pm
Posts: 91
Location: Dallas, TX
I found this web site on some poelpe that are making it work, and he explains the math. Smple:

web site: http://alt-nrg.org

Simple Math for the "experts"

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 electrolysys today has been pushed to about 85% Faraday.

Note: Based on the caloric 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 suppliment to gasoline, then yes; Conservation of energy applies.

HOWEVER!

HHO as an additive does more than return 85% of the energy we put in to create it. It's 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...

4) Let's say we're able to translate just 10% more of the total system energy to mechanical energy. We have still not violated conservation of energy, only raised the total system efficiency 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. And it works. The reality is some are getting even more, up to 35% mechanical efficiency, 94% gain, -15% to create the HHO, 79% total net gain. That's 54 MPG on a car that started out at 30. People are doing this. It is working. The move is on and there is no stopping it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group