Another win for the idiots.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

RedDevil,
You bring up the problem one runs into in research using the web. There is overwhelming data ...(snip indigestion)...
That is why I propose we do our own research. ...(snip dung)...
You must remember that science also has it's stigmas and mental pitfalls. Academia may not see the value in HHO research and that is understandable. But, there is talk of research into hydrogen seeding effects since this could be valuable to HCCI (homogenous charge compression ignition ) research. ..(etc.)...
Since academia does not provide us a clear picture of HHO, we must make our own postulations based on good, clear science and then test accordingly.

I see an overwhelming lack of data, rather.
The properties of oxyhydrogen gas are well known (see the Encyclopedia Brittannica link) and it is obvious that mixing such a highly explosive gas with the intake air does have an effect on the combustion process.

What we need is hard data proving that the benefit is stronger than the cost of separating hydrogen and oxygen.
If it is out there I could not find it. Nor can you, apparently.
Don't tell me you can, just show what you found.

Sure, science does have its pitfalls but science does its best to avoid them, so much so that the occasional glitch makes the headlines.
So science is stigmatized and therefore does not recognize the benefit of oxyhydrogen?
Scientists simply refuse to get involved with a device that can seriously reduce fuel consumption, for no reason at all?
Who would believe that?

I rather believe that scientists do understand the process and when they test it they find the expected result namely no usable positive effect.
Élaborating the obvious does not get attention, that's why it is so hard to find.
Ìf science does not cut it nothing does.

[Xist]

It is about time that I win! Finally!

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

RustyLugNut et.al. -- I refer you ALL back to the Unicorn Corral's introductory statement:

...Carl Sagan test: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

and "...trust me, I know what I'm doing..." just don't hack it.


Unsubstantiated *extraordinary evidence* is merely fodder for the Devil's Advocates among us.

All I am asking is that we be allowed to explore HHO. Is that too much to ask? Obviously to the overt reactionaries it seems that it is.

[RedDevil]

Only few of us have never had someone question our mods on our cars, or worse.
We do these things for a reason, obviously.

In my case I think my mods are helpful but I cannot prove it; too many variables, never seriously attempted to ABA test them.
There is sound reasoning behind my mods and indeed my economy has jumped.
Yet, I only say i believe or expect that they help, but I won't put a percentage on them nor consider it proven.

If you are set on experimenting with oxyhydrogen you do not need our permission.
Just don't make bold claims before the results are in.
Because that's what raising the red flags over here.
Reactionary? Just be careful with that blame game.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I see an overwhelming lack of data, rather.
The properties of oxyhydrogen gas are well known (see the Encyclopedia Brittannica link) and it is obvious that mixing such a highly explosive gas with the intake air does have an effect on the combustion process.

What we need is hard data proving that the benefit is stronger than the cost of separating hydrogen and oxygen.
If it is out there I could not find it. Nor can you, apparently.
Don't tell me you can, just show what you found.

Sure, science does have its pitfalls but science does its best to avoid them, so much so that the occasional glitch makes the headlines.
So science is stigmatized and therefore does not recognize the benefit of oxyhydrogen?
Scientists simply refuse to get involved with a device that can seriously reduce fuel consumption, for no reason at all?
Who would believe that?

I rather believe that scientists do understand the process and when they test it they find the expected result namely no usable positive effect.
Élaborating the obvious does not get attention, that's why it is so hard to find.
Ìf science does not cut it nothing does.

Those are very well known branches of science and you have ignored them in your searches.

Science research does not work on what one wants. It works on grant money. I've been there and done that. One often has to look through oblique and circuitous paths in research.

If you feel it is a dead end, then why don't you drop out of the conversation. If you just want to heap your Google research on the subject, I can't stop you. But why don't you put into Google "ozone 40ppm combustion" and see a link to Reasearchgate and download a pdf from the SAE on how small amounts of ozone measurably affect combustion. As I have said in the past. We often ignore the oxygen aspect of HHO. It is not pure. The presence of impurities in the electrolyte causes this. HCCI research is heavily dependent on chemical kinetics.

And I cannot give you a link to a hardcover book on my desk "Combustion by Glassman & Yetter". Look into the first chapter and the table 1.1 on heats of formation and the realization that the 250 KJ/mol of heat isn't just miraculously released but goes through a myriad number of pathways, some endothermic, some exothermic. Compounds such as benzene, acetylene and hydrazine are formed in the flame front, decomposed and go on and form other compounds. In this whole mix are the highly reactive radicals of H+ (free hydrogen) and OH- (Hydroxyl radical). These short lived radicals are key in the rate of reaction. Hydrogen gas is not consumed instantly as some presume. It becomes an active participant in the depolymerization of the base hydrocarbon and only fully oxidizes when all that is left is CO and H. This is not hocus pocus but well known principles of combustion.

But, what if you add enough hydrogen so that you don't have to exothermically absorb 410 kj/mol of energy ( you have to wait for that energy to develop) to cleave a H atom from the hydrocarbon? With the water that is often present in HHO systems bubblers, the 218 kj/mol to split the H2 molecule can be as low as 23 kj/mol. Now, can you see how HHO in the intake tract to a hot, turbulent combustion chamber, can change the chemical kinetics of the fuel mix even before combustion starts by virtue of providing a measure of the important H+ and OH- radicals?

If none of this makes sense to you, simply put - the addition of HHO into the intake tract of a gasoline fueled spark ignited engine can change the balance of chemical species before the onset of ignition.

The question is, can it accelerate the combustion sequence? And, by how much?

Given some time and space I can tell you.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Only few of us have never had someone question our mods on our cars, or worse.
We do these things for a reason, obviously.

In my case I think my mods are helpful but I cannot prove it; too many variables, never seriously attempted to ABA test them.
There is sound reasoning behind my mods and indeed my economy has jumped.
Yet, I only say i believe or expect that they help, but I won't put a percentage on them nor consider it proven.

If you are set on experimenting with oxyhydrogen you do not need our permission.
Just don't make bold claims before the results are in.
Because that's what raising the red flags over here.
Reactionary? Just be careful with that blame game.

I have not made bold claims. I have made reasonable claims. I have made the claim that under the right circumstances the addition off HHO can make a measurable gain in efficiency.

And I have already experimented.

I am simply looking to redo the work and present it in such a way that it meets the Sagan Test to the satisfaction of most.

Look at my posts on the science behind this. It is not out of the ordinary.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Xist

It is about time that I win! Finally!

The Wizard of Id supports this.

[Frank Lee]

I am tempted to say Blahbiddy Blah Blah Blah and leave it at that.

So Rusty is asserting that it is OUR fault HHO fails? Bwaahahaha, good one.

Nobody here is preventing anyone from making a successful HHO system.

Go ahead and do it. Then you'll get the last laugh. I won't be holding my breath though.

[niky]

Nobody here has ever debated that hydrogen injection can work.

The only question has ever been "Can you supply enough from an onboard bubbler to make an actual difference."

Not holding my breath, either.

It's very easy to show economy results. Hell... propane enrichment and water/alcohol injection (for diesels, nothing doing on gasoline cars) proponents show them all the time in the form of instrumented testing results.

But then, they're not trying to generate their own fuel on the fly...

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I am tempted to say Blahbiddy Blah Blah Blah and leave it at that.

So Rusty is asserting that it is OUR fault HHO fails? Bwaahahaha, good one.

Nobody here is preventing anyone from making a successful HHO system.

Go ahead and do it. Then you'll get the last laugh. I won't be holding my breath though.

Incorrect assertion. Interjection of intent that was never there.

Considering your total lack of understanding of various subjects, it is amazing how often you pop up and make off the cuff comments that are not even part of the discussion.

I am asserting that commentary such as you provide, keep honest inquiries into the subject matter from going very far. Got that? Do you want to continue the argument? Your continued argument proves my point.

People such as you can spew all they want on the internet because there is no recourse or penalty. Your continued secretions of the mind prove my point. You cannot talk about the subject matter at hand so you dump. Bravo.