Hydrogen Generator Experiment

[Quezacotl]

Is'nt it better to just not to make HHO generator, and instead spray the water. Injecting water after every 4-stroke-session, making some sort of 6-stroke engine. It would cool the engine better, and save the fuel. Any thoughts?

[user removed]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I assure you, I understand much more about this subject than you realize.

Not quite, simplistic propaganda tactic Rusty, you don't like the message, kill the messenger.

I also was not aware that other members here were "enemies" (your words, previously posted on this thread).
I'm actually glad to see you have a significant understand of combustion turbulence. While that is significant you take the position that others are not nearly as "educated" (kind of arrogant).

Try sticking to impressing others with facts and evidence that supports your facts.

In your previous responses you are now talking about enhancing combustion efficiency with HHO, not improving mileage with HHO. Just another propaganda tactic.

Most HHO proponents think their knowledge is superior to those they need to "convert" to their superior understanding.

Impress me with your knowledge and evidence to support your "assumptions" (do I need to point them out for you?). If you succeed in this endeavor then you will recieve recognition of that success.

If you just want to take simplistic "shots" at people, it will bring, from me at least, an appropriate response. Such "shots" should be beneath your claimed superior knowledge, which without the ability to make your points obvious to others who may lack your supreme educational level, the same knowledge becomes useless, when wrapped in intolerance and arrogance.

regards
Mech

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

Not quite, simplistic propaganda tactic Rusty, you don't like the message, kill the messenger.

I am seeking critical analysis and discussion. If you are capable, do so. If not . . .

I also was not aware that other members here were "enemies" (your words, previously posted on this thread).

I quote an ancient Chinese proverb ( supposedly ). I quote another. You find it stings true. Look at your posts, and those of others. It is an antagonistic atmosphere towards anything HHO. I don't mind it. I have been on HHO forums and they are antagonistic towards anything scientific. The problem is when you cannot argue in science. Do so, and the antagonism is welcome.

I'm actually glad to see you have a significant understand of combustion turbulence. While that is significant you take the position that others are not nearly as "educated" (kind of arrogant).

My post was not about combustion turbulence as such. And arrogant? Is it not just as arrogant to argue about subjects beyond your understanding?

Try sticking to impressing others with facts and evidence that supports your facts.

I am building the scientific case for the possible positive use of HHO as a preamble to the build. The supporting facts and data will come then. The science will be proven or dis-proven, as it may.

In your previous responses you are now talking about enhancing combustion efficiency with HHO, not improving mileage with HHO. Just another propaganda tactic.

Look at the end of my post. I talk about the work gain. There should be a measurable gain in mileage that coincides with the measurable increase in the break mean effective pressure (BMEP).

Most HHO proponents think their knowledge is superior to those they need to "convert" to their superior understanding.

This is very true. And most opponents use basic science as the argument against HHO, but cannot argue any deeper.

Impress me with your knowledge and evidence to support your "assumptions" (do I need to point them out for you?). If you succeed in this endeavor then you will recieve recognition of that success.

Please point them out. I will flesh out my position with the science and mathematics as soon as I figure out how to post the required graphics.

If you just want to take simplistic "shots" at people, it will bring, from me at least, an appropriate response. Such "shots" should be beneath your claimed superior knowledge, which without the ability to make your points obvious to others who may lack your supreme educational level, the same knowledge becomes useless, when wrapped in intolerance and arrogance.

People who live in glass houses should not . . .

Oh that's right, you don't like these sayings.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Quezacotl

Is'nt it better to just not to make HHO generator, and instead spray the water. Injecting water after every 4-stroke-session, making some sort of 6-stroke engine. It would cool the engine better, and save the fuel. Any thoughts?

I believe on another thread, the "Crower" six stroke cycle was discussed to some lengths.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

As you can see from the description above, we are not just adding HHO, we have to juggle other parameters. But, it does result in a net energy gain via reduction of lost work.

Forgive me if I misunderstood or am over simplifying ... but your explanation read to me like you are trying to use the faster flame speed of hydrogen in order to sustain Lean Burn operation in a ICE that was not initially designed for Lean Burn Operation ... thus having a net of less unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust.

[Afrersize]

If you don't do a before test your HHO, your test's will be useless as you should know, I have hope for the results weather they're positive or negative I just want to see a thorough before and after HHO test for the first time.

[gus]

If you go back to about page 50 you will find my posts which may be of interest to you.
I also posted a couple of links of Dino. tests. They do not show fuel savings but certainly indicate in one case the emission reduction. The other shows the hp gain with the HHO operational.

For what its worth, my experience is cleaner exhaust, much more power.
As far as the fuel savings go, after a very small test I feel safe to say that maybe up to 30% savings will be achieved. I run a 1991 Toyota Hiace 2,4ltr turbo diesel. I don't have much opportunity to get a clear shot a highway driving and these vehicles are guzzlers around town.
Cheers
Gus

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Forgive me if I misunderstood or am over simplifying ... but your explanation read to me like you are trying to use the faster flame speed of hydrogen in order to sustain Lean Burn operation in a ICE that was not initially designed for Lean Burn Operation ... thus having a net of less unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust.

However, the speed of the hydrogen flame is not the fulcrum as the mass ratio of H2 that can be added via electrolysis is far below the lower flammability limit (LFL) of hydrogen. I surmise the H2 acts as a reactant that changes the fuel mix properties.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Afrersize

If you don't do a before test your HHO, your test's will be useless as you should know, I have hope for the results weather they're positive or negative I just want to see a thorough before and after HHO test for the first time.

If at all possible, I will run the A-B-A format testing.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

If at all possible, I will run the A-B-A format testing.

Since you can turn it on and off with a switch I would hope so.
Almost no one else seems to be able to do this for some reason.