Another win for the idiots.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

Out of curiosity I checked rusty's recent posts. Outside of this thread a few on the super truck thread, and that's about it for the last 6 months, outside of the 60% fuel savings HHO thread.

Not much to lean and not much sharing of any factual information.

regards
mech

My build into the HHO inquiry will successfully conclude well before your tri-wheeler will be completed.

And just because I do not feel the need to make several posts a day and selectively choose the topics I do post to, I am seen as less than? And because you cannot participate in the subject matter that is thermochemistry and chemical kinetics, and do not understand the trucking industry, you feel it your right to berate my participation?

You sir, are the poster child of the Ecomodder world. You are capable and intelligent and selfless in your contributions, and yet . . . you feel it necessary to walk over to the corral and kick the animals that reside there in.

You are far better than this.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

RLN likes to dance but I want dinner too.

RLN is working on something- that's great! Really! It takes time and it isn't ready for prime time- that is something we can all appreciate as well.

Perhaps his purposes would be better served either by biding his time until his project is mature enough to publicize, or publicize it's development progress. This in-between nonsense doesn't seem productive in any way, shape, or form.

But, I did lay the groundwork for the theory behind how HHO could work. You seem to think my lack of revelation must mean a lack of actual production. You don't seem to realize there is a methodology to my madness. Your response, and others like it are all part of the plan.

(Ok, it doesn't have the same effect just typed out. You have to imagine me in my lab , shoulders hunched and rubbing my hands together).

[pgfpro]

I wish everyone one on this forum could get along.

Why can't we keep a open mind? Rusty hasn't made any crazy claims?

Combustion theory has a lot of unknowns. I still don't understand why we can't have a open discussion?

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

You ask for some decorum in treating HHO posters while lashing out at others?

You attract attention from many this way.
Frank Lee is not alone in this.

No, Frank wrote YOU did not refute his posts.
You should at least put effort in referring correctly.

And I do care.
I do care about errors because I want to know the truth.
I'd rather see HHO addition to present car engines work than not.
I just think the chances that it could work are very small, so I won't test it.
I would love to be proven wrong on that.
But all we get is more words.

I started this thread to rant. I also used it to put out the theory on how HHO might work. Just because it is a theory does not mean it has no value. It is based on solid everyday science that is taught at a university level all across the globe. And the errors Frank Lee refers to have no impact on the viability of that science.

[2000mc]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

But, I did lay the groundwork for the theory behind how HHO could work.

only a century late? http://empirehydrogen.com/docs/FrazerPatent.pdf
But seriously, I think the idea of "multiple independent discovery" should have kicked in by now. My wife knows she can't shelve research paper ideas for long, because she'll get scooped. Maybe hho will take a multi million dollar effort before it will bear fruit, but if RLN is on a project like that, I don't understand what is here for him

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

It could work, under perfect conditions that are normally not reproducible.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by pgfpro

I wish everyone one on this forum could get along.

Why can't we keep a open mind? Rusty hasn't made any crazy claims?

Combustion theory has a lot of unknowns. I still don't understand why we can't have a open discussion?

I have done some groundwork into HHO and have a good idea what it is and is not. I certainly would not build a business plan around it, but it is worthy of at least an honest look to see it's limits and provide the groundwork for others to use. The work I did in passing almost 2 decades ago was not extensive. The information is also owned by the development group I currently work for. I received permission last November to openly discuss the gasoline portion of our work just as long as I don't use certain data they own. Consequently, I will have to recreate some of the work and find a way around the need for an EPA qualified lab.

But, this much I can say. At 15Kw absorbed power to the rolling dyno, the four gasoline vehicles tested showed a change in indicated BSFC of -2, 0, 5 and 9 % with a resolution of 0.5% for calculated BSFC. The engine sizes ranged from 993cc to 5.2 L. Other than a basic tune, no adjustments were made to the engines. The electrolysis cells were powered by the vehicle charging system. Only the 5.2 L was an OBDII (1996). The rest were OBDI with the 2.2 L engine a carbureted feedback.

Because of time constraints, only the 993 cc engine was tested in lean-burn at 15 Kw absorbed power. This is really the only place I can see HHO having any value as the engine struggled to provide the requisite power at 20:1 AFR, but could easily do so at 22:1 AFR with the addition of HHO. At 7 Kw absorbed power, the little engine could smoothly run to the limits of the instrumentation - 28:1 AFR. That was the limit of the wide-band O2 sensor. Leaner mixtures could be calculated from the fuel flow meters spliced into the fuel feed/return lines and the air speed-density calculations. But, I ran out of time. I would really like to explore the possibilities more fully.

This is all I can reveal, but it gives you enough to chew on even without the rpm, temperature and augmented gas volumes, etc.

As you can see, there was nothing for an investor to get excited about, so they pulled the plug on anything HHO and they moved to other solutions.

I will reiterate these findings and comment further when I start the build thread.

I am at the point of finalizing my testing protocol and collecting/building some of the instrumentation. But, with the day job and family demands, that can take time. Hopefully, I can start sooner than later.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by 2000mc

only a century late? http://empirehydrogen.com/docs/FrazerPatent.pdf
But seriously, I think the idea of "multiple independent discovery" should have kicked in by now. My wife knows she can't shelve research paper ideas for long, because she'll get scooped. Maybe hho will take a multi million dollar effort before it will bear fruit, but if RLN is on a project like that, I don't understand what is here for him

And the science is out there for anyone with the desire and wherewithal to dive into. I suggest Combustion, Fourth Edition, by Glassman and Yetter, as a start.

And my day job is a million dollar effort that may or may not bear fruit, as is the case with these "Big Ideas". But, it has little or nothing to do with HHO and mason jars.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I started this thread to rant. I also used it to put out the theory on how HHO might work. Just because it is a theory does not mean it has no value. It is based on solid everyday science that is taught at a university level all across the globe. And the errors Frank Lee refers to have no impact on the viability of that science.

So you just wanted to rant?
To accomplish what?

Your courteous lashing involved references to cancer and the digestive process.
I don't recall much of that from other posters.

We have been going over the science thing before.
You don't really back up your science claims.
In the end there only was a document about a completely different engine design with specific problems that under special conditions could benefit from hydrogen seeding.
Nothing indicates it would have that effect on a well running conventional engine.
You just combined a few things and drew conclusions, but to do it scientifically you have to describe all the steps you took and thoroughly try to disprove them yourself; if anything it would help as preparation for the scrutiny you'd get from your peers.

I'll give you an example of how combining ideas can get you carried away.

Do you know the green flash after sunset? Watching the last phase of the setting sun, you can sometimes see a green flash. It is notoriously hard to catch on camera, and it has often been suggested that it is imaginary or just a counterimage from looking at the red sun.
But those who have seen it are certain that it is real.

Then I read that we can actually see infrared light.
We do not see the color 'infra-red' as such. It appears green to the eye...
(You can find a more scientific reference here.)

So I had a brilliant idea.
What if the green flash is in fact an infra-red flash?
As the sun sets the short wave length light get filtered out until only red remains. But it will no doubt also contain a good deal of infra red light, with an even longer wavelength than red.
I put these things together with an amazing result.

Further analysis shows however that it is highly unlikely that the green flash is infrared.
Infrared light must be abundant in the sunset, and we can apparently see it but not like that; the IR photons will not be consistently paired like in laser light. And there are other reasons which I will no further delve in.
I won't get the Nobel prize for unraveling the green flash mystery.

It is easy to get carried away when you start combining scientific findings.
While great discoveries can be made by doing so, it is essential to get it right; like verifying that the conditions are compatible.

It is obvious that any kind of proof that the green flash is in fact infrared light perceived green by the human eye should involve a spectral analysis of the light at sunset, recreating the conditions in the lab and reproducing the result by it.

Maybe your ideas have not met the same strictness of analysis, and while you wave the flag for science you do not meet its minimal requirements.

In fact, you don't need to; if you can prove it works it works, whether it matches theory or not.
We rather see the result and theorise on what causes it than just theorise.
But I suspect you will just send out more words.

[2000mc]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

And the science is out there for anyone with the desire and wherewithal to dive into.

That's what I meant, the ground work has been laid, and people have been trying to leverage hho to improve effieciency of cars for a century. How could the solution seem to escape everyone for so long, while nobels are increasingly given to 2 or 3, than an individual