Working on hydrogen kit 60%savings.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

Atomic weight of oxygen = 15.999
Atomic weight of 2 hydrogen molecules = 2.016

So you have a total atomic weight of just over 18, of which only 11% is actually capable of producing energy. Oxygen, being an oxidizer, has no energy potential.

A liter of HHO has the same potential energy as 1.5 wooden matches. Try running your car on that level of energy, even a liter per second would not even come close.

Thats 3600 liters an hour.

regards
mech

. . . but I can rub the sticks together real fast and in a few minutes I might be able to get the cord of wood to burn. Or I can use the match that I have in my pocket and get the fire going in no time at all.

If you want to use allegorical arguments, I am well and capable of answering in kind.

Oh and by the way, I can produce that 3600 liters per hour - on demand. Right on my truck. It's done on a regular basis.

[user removed]

And yet you have no wish to show your work to anyone unbiased and clearly demonstrate the benefits. One liter of HHO per second. I'd like to see that claim verified. And how much power does that require?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ileage/4276846

I guess the response I should expect from this link is an attack on my or their credibility, while the attackers credibility claim should be accepted without question.

Sure

regards
mech

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by birk1

Hi, I have been working on a my car with a hydrogen kit and a controller. I have managed to save 32 % fuel. The produseres claim that you can save 60% with hydrogen teknologi? Any one installed a HHO kit before?


Birk

Tell us a bit more about your vehicle, your generator and system integration as well as your testing procedures and results.

Thanks,
Rusty

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

HCCI engines which ignite all the fuel within a short time frame are markedly different from early attempts. You are correct in assuming the dwell time at or around TDC ( top dead center ) is important and juggling crank stroke and connecting rod length will be needed to maximize advantages gained from contracted ignition/combustion events. However, a smaller gain can be derived from simple elimination of ignition lead time. I think you will agree in the classic discussion of ignition lead time that less lead is more efficient. An engine, under a specific load/rpm will be more thermally efficient if it's ignition lead is smaller to produce the specified power. We had another thread, which I should revive again, where pfgpro put up some very good graphics of pressure curves for combustion. It made it clear that the pressure rise before TDC is all negative work and lost energy. If you can contract combustion and reduce lead timing, you can gain back that energy. This can be done on any engine with varying levels of success. Pfgpro has shown this with some measured runs on his modified engine and his leaky nitrous "experiment" showed us a hint of what could be gained by adding an accelerant.

Couldn't you achieve the same thing by advancing ignition timing?

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

And yet you have no wish to show your work to anyone unbiased and clearly demonstrate the benefits. One liter of HHO per second. I'd like to see that claim verified. And how much power does that require?

Water Car Test - HHO Shows Why You Can't Run Cars on Water - Popular Mechanics

I guess the response I should expect from this link is an attack on my or their credibility, while the attackers credibility claim should be accepted without question.

Sure

regards
mech

I can and will produce results. I already have done my homework. Have you?

Please attack my position on the thermochemical advantages of hydrogen seeding a combustion mixture as well as the oxidation advantage of small amounts of ozone which is a by product of the dirty electrolyte found in most HHO cells and can be a large contributing factor in the so called "effect"?

And I baited your 3600 liters per minute to state the simple fact that all hydrocarbon combustion - when taken to completion - is simply the oxidation of carbon and hydrogen as the last step. This includes the combustion in my 1 liter car or my 6.7 liter diesel. If you don't understand that combustion is a large number of pathways to that simple end, and that the addition of precursors such as ozone and hydrogen "railroads" this complex mess into a simpler more rapid course, then it is clear why you think the way you do.

Oh, I have an acquaintance who builds solid gassifiers that produce fuel gas for stationary power. His units are sold all over the world. Engines large and small, spark ignited or diesel pilot injection, run on the CO and H2 provided by his systems. I do the same thing with liquid fuels. In the milli-seconds before combustion starts, why not prepare the fuel mix so that it does not dally in the production of compounds such as acetylene and hydrazine, but moves through that to quickly form the cloud of CO and H2 which ultimately produces your thermal release and resultant pressure rise?

If any of this makes sense to you, feel free to remark and make conjecture. If not, it would be wiser to refrain from comment.

I think you should realize by now that what I am speaking of has nothing to do with "simple HHO" applications. However, HHO does carry the means to affect the above discussion. All we need to do is find out "how and how much".

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Ecky

Couldn't you achieve the same thing by advancing ignition timing?

To a degree, with modern engines - yes.

Most timing curves are compromises to emissions. However, additional delays to ignition timing results in incomplete combustion and non-ideal pressure curves. Advancing to longer timing often moves you to more efficient pressure curves at the cost of higher NOx emissions, but soon thereafter you get knock or detonation.

There are other ways to cause more rapid combustion. Several people are experimenting with the ideas of greater turbulence, pressure and higher intake/fuel temperatures as well as the idea of seeding ( HHO, ozone, etc ). This is a complex discussion that has ongoing research in a myriad number of disciplines.

[user removed]

Baited LMAO, you made a ludicrous claim you could not support with facts. Now that sounds familiar when the HHO genisues come here to sell their snake oil.

So I guess from your last post you like to come to HHO threads and make claims that have nothing to do with on board generation of HHO or reality based on real evidence. Maybe you are the one who should refrain from responding as you "advised" me to do before your tangental diversion of the topic.

"Run your car on water", BUT don't expect it to really run on water.

If you claim it support it, if you can't your posts are just thread pollution.

Don't fog up the discussion with additional claims, without facts to support them about fuel generation through other means.

Start your own thread, this one is close to being locked like the others you have threadjacked.

Try a discussion without your ego or claimed, but unproven, accomplsihments.

Time for the post ignore button. If you are the only one here with a brain, kindly enlighten us lower class beings with your brilliance, SUPPORTED WITH REAL EVIDENCE.

[user removed]

Oh and I have an acquaintence who builds cold fusion reactors in his garage.

[Hypermiler1995]

I agree with old mechanic, post proof, and quit wasting time arguing.

[Hypermiler1995]

Old mechanic, you should also test this, skeptics test info would be great!