Hydrogen Generator Experiment

[UFO]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

You seem to imply that you know all there is to know about the subject.
That NASA study was limited in it's scope. Much more recent work in oblique but related research shows that this is not Voodoo.

I am always open to new information and quality research. But I just enveloped all this silly experimentation with scientific fact, so good luck getting out of that box without a whole new theory of energy.

[UFO]

gus, I wish you had started your own thread. Now this one needs to get moved to the Unicorn Corral.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by UFO

I am always open to new information and quality research. But I just enveloped all this silly experimentation with scientific fact, so good luck getting out of that box without a whole new theory of energy.

Just new applications of the old. No, not the extremes of HHO pros and cons, but honest appraisal of the how it works and how it can be applied to benefit.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Just new applications of the old. No, not the extremes of HHO pros and cons, but honest appraisal of the how it works and how it can be applied to benefit.

There have been no documented "benefits", just claims claims claims. Seems like every new kid to come along thinks they know more than all previous experimenters, but the explanations and arguments are all the same. It's all subject to first law of thermodynamics, so there is no practical use for these devices. They are just curiosities and distractions, they have been for 100 years, and undoubtedly will continue until we don't operate combustion engines.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by UFO

There have been no documented "benefits", just claims claims claims. Seems like every new kid to come along thinks they know more than all previous experimenters, but the explanations and arguments are all the same. It's all subject to first law of thermodynamics, so there is no practical use for these devices. They are just curiosities and distractions, they have been for 100 years, and undoubtedly will continue until we don't operate combustion engines.

And in the box, I find pathways that allow for the beneficial application of HHO to internal combustion engines ( ICE's). You throw out thermodynamics as the only applicable bit of science. And you wield it like a sledge hammer.

Gus's experiments you may call phooey, but they do bring up a point. If HHO applied to an old poorly maintained diesel ( as pointed out as a possibility by Old Mech) results in a smoke reduction, then something is happening in the combustion process from the addition of HHO in quantities that seem inconsequential. I will be interested to see how his particulate readings turn out once he takes it in for an emissions check. I will not be surprised if there is a reduction.

[wmjinman]

Same here. Although I have serious doubts, given the energy needed to split water, I'm always excited to be "surprised" by something, especially if it's something "good". I was much less excited to find out that fender skirts don't seem to help my car's mileage, but hey - you never know unless you test it, right? The "trick" especially if it's to detect a small change, is to make the test sensitive enough to actually detect it.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by gus

I believe the loop was 48km.

Thanks.
Now how was that 48 km distance determined? ... a car in dash trip meter , google maps , rough shoot from the hip guess ... ???

Originally Posted by gus

I hope you don't expect me to tell you that I ran the distance locked onto that speed.

I'm not expecting you to have done anything ... you asked in post #500 for explanations... I'm just trying to better understand what did and did not happen in order to offer those requested explanations.

and you also asked what else people would want to know ... which also fits well into my asking questions about what did and did not happen.

As for the speed ... locked into a set speed +/- 1 kpm or so is not needed ... it much simpler and easier than that ... Distance / Time = Average Speed.

If it took you 30 minutes to travel 48 km than you had an average speed of 96 kph.

Ideally we would include any +/- from the accuracy of the measuring devices ... so if you could have been 47km or 49km that would be a +/- range of 1km on the distance ... if your time measurement could have been 29 minutes or 31 minutes that is a +/- range of 1 minute ... meaning you would have a speed accuracy range of a window ... as slow as ~91 kph ... to as fast as ~101 kph ... a +/- of about 10 kph just from being +/- 1 minute and +/- 1 km.

What the average speed was for each trip can have a significant influence on the energy used ... the slower you travel the less energy it takes... thus the less fuel it takes.

Originally Posted by gus

Temp: My gauge only reads operating temp or lower.

Did both runs have the engine equally warmed up into its preferred operating temperature window?

It is well known that a colder engine is less efficient than one that is warmed up into its operating window.

Originally Posted by gus

That then creates the problem of Amps, where do you get them from.

Nail on the head.
That is the elephant in the room for many people.

Originally Posted by gus

I made no claims other than what I experienced after installing this system

And why the question becomes as you wrote in post #500 about what is the cause ... as Old Mechanic listed some of the possibilities of it as an alternative to other maintenance and tuning ... If the results are no better than the tune up and such that he recommended than it just becomes a comparison between the two options ... which is easier, cheaper, more durable, etc?

You did make claims about experiencing a change in your fuel economy from 8.8 km per L to 6.2 km per L ... and you seemed to be atributing that change to the HHO system.

I still haven't read how you determined the amount of L of fuel used over those 48 km ... ??? ... that is another potential answer for you.

For example ... The OEM fuel tank capacity of my car is 10.6 US Gallons ... but there have been people who have put over 13 US Gallons into that OEM tank ... if I were only using a gas station topped the tank off as a method of measuring how much gas had been used ... I would have to keep in mind that there is a significant potential for very poor accuracy from that approach.

- - - - - - - - -

To sum up ... in regard to the question you asked in post #500 about what else we might want:

I would still like to know the method of determining the 48 km?
What is a reasonable +/- confidence in that 48 km?
What was the average travel speed for each trip?
What is a reasonable +/- confidence in that speed?
Was the engine equally warmed up for each trip?
How was the quantity of Liters of Fuel measured for the 48 km trip?
What is a reasonable +/- confidence in that Liters of fuel measured?

- - - - - - -

To sum up for you request for explanations about what happened ... You already have some potential explanations for the results ... and with more details ( like those still open questions above ) ... other potential explanations can also be offered.

[user removed]

Well, this thread has to be the closest thing to a perpetual motion machine I have yet seen. 4.5 years old and still we post. You would have thought the world wouldn't even need oil anymore, since we can all run our cars on water. That is what they tried to tell me, probably before this thread began. Supposed to improve my mileage by 50%. My response was if that was the case why not just add enough "generators" and stop using gasoline altogether.

Of course the true answer is "because it can't be done". Not because they did not do it right. All of the "tweaks" to the emissions system are also FELONIES people, with a $2500fine from the Feds, if they ever get wise enough to stop you.

That is why they were focusing on old diesel cars, NO BRAINER, so their arses would not be taken to court for conspiracy to violate emissions requirements.

regards
Mech

[UFO]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

And in the box, I find pathways that allow for the beneficial application of HHO to internal combustion engines ( ICE's). You throw out thermodynamics as the only applicable bit of science. And you wield it like a sledge hammer.

Really? I must have missed the report you posted. I will go back and look if it's here. Seriously. But if you disagree that combustion science needs to follow thermodynamics, don't bother. It is a sledge hammer, I am glad you recognize that, because it is why these phony little "HHO" experiments will NEVER improve fuel mileage.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Gus's experiments you may call phooey, but they do bring up a point. If HHO applied to an old poorly maintained diesel ( as pointed out as a possibility by Old Mech) results in a smoke reduction, then something is happening in the combustion process from the addition of HHO in quantities that seem inconsequential. I will be interested to see how his particulate readings turn out once he takes it in for an emissions check. I will not be surprised if there is a reduction.

Big if there. There are so many uncontrolled variables described my head was spinning as I tried to make sense of it. But I'm sure that's just me and my order-craving mind.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by UFO

Really? I must have missed the report you posted. I will go back and look if it's here. Seriously. But if you disagree that combustion science needs to follow thermodynamics, don't bother. It is a sledge hammer, I am glad you recognize that, because it is why these phony little "HHO" experiments will NEVER improve fuel mileage.

No, I haven't posted a serious reply. I think it would be better if something was built and brought to you to test. You seem to have a graduate level understanding of combustion theory - chemical kinematics and branching and such. So you would be well placed to test such combustion engines. Of course, if such engine gained even a fraction of a percent in efficiency, you would have to report as such. And since you used the word "NEVER", you would have to leave yourself discredited on these forums. Are you willing to take such a challenge? I am willing. We could run the buildup over the winter and build up the drama. All the HHO "Nuts" against you the "Sheriff of Science". Meet on the 4th of July, at high noon in your neck of the woods.

Big if there. There are so many uncontrolled variables described my head was spinning as I tried to make sense of it. But I'm sure that's just me and my order-craving mind.

Let's have an Ecomodder meet where HHO aficionados as well as other Modders meet for a weekend where they are tested and timed over a closed loop. GPS distance and fuel is measured via weight. Our own mini Xprize get-together if you will. And we can run it in an orderly fashion.