Why don't you demand courtesy from any and all topics?
 

I say this to the mods and the long time members of this forum.

The fact that HHO scammers deal in Unicorn Stuff doesn't mean the topic in and of itself is utterly without value.

The fact that any mention of HHO results in the right to bash a poster or sidetrack a thread makes it difficult to even lay the groundwork to show there is merit in limited applications. If I want to pursue investigation into those limited applications I don't need the thread filled with the continuous arguments that do not apply. Arguments such as "you can't run on water", "you will never make enough HHO to run your vehicle" or "you can't make enough HHO to fuel your car", are not even the points in discussion but, they continue to cascade down flooding the logic of the thread. If I say there is basic chemical pathways to make it work on a limited basis, then please discuss the chemistry and not demand numbers for numbers sake or some such.

Other topics such as tribology of nano lubricants gets smothered because there are salesmen pitching them. But they do have merit and are worth looking into. But they have much the same stigma and thus get the same treatment as such and thus no posters even consider them.

These areas become holes in the ecomodder knowledge base.

I am not without fault when it comes to these arguments, but frustration is pretty much the norm with the usual outcomes if one tries to even broach such subjects on these forums.

I get that I don't "have pictures and logs". Is that the basis to be entered into the gentleman's club? If that is the case, I can provide pictures and logs. I have doubts that, that will be enough for some. Thus, my offer to meet at the Green Grand Prix.

With regard to treating members with courtesy, with regard to a given topic: You, RustyLugNut, burned that bridge with me two years ago.

You, RustyLugNut, treated my topic of EGR with tactics that you claimed that people treat anything regarding HHO.

You, RustyLugNut, deliberately misconstrued my data and drew false conclusions, and littered my EGR thread with them.

You, RustyLugNut, appeared not to listen to anything I had to say on the matter of EGR, but you did do a fine job of doing personal attacks.

You, RustyLugNut, even mentioned as much with your supposed "apology" thread. Here, let me quote it for you:

The point is, RustyLugNut, is that you did all of the behaviors you claimed to abhor, then you fall back on "victim status" when things don't go your way.

I do also like the fact, RustyLugNut, that you deleted your crap posts out of my thread, in a dishonest attempt to cover your tracks. However, you will of course notice that you can't delete the material I quoted.

Let's get one thing clear: The meaningful discussion and exchange of ideas to improve fuel economy is harmed by all of the behaviors that YOU YOURSELF, RustyLugNut, exhibited.

For reference, here is your "apology" thread, RustyLugNut -> EcoModder.Com: This is in reference to the EGR build that T Vago was presenting.

And here's my thread that you shat all over -> EcoModder.Com: EGR experiment (Increase EGR flow for fuel economy)

Goodness.
 

I OFFERED myself as the example of such horrid behavior. Do you not understand that? I chose your thread because you do an excellent job of producing valuable information. I expected you to be miffed and stand your ground and it should have been a perfect example of bad behavior in a valuable thread. People did learn from it and there was considerably less buffoonery. I do not apologize for that. I do apologize for using you as an example. Your work is admirable, and if you do not know that in your own being, I can't help that.

But, maybe I should follow in the footsteps of pgfPro and step away from this forum. Cutting edge topics was what this forum used to be about at it's inception. This forum has lost it's focus what with the low cost of fuel and the failure of the AutoXprize. I can always disseminate my work in another format. But, this forum has lost, and will lose valuable members if there continues to be a knee jerk reaction to certain topics only because it has proven to be volatile in the past. Our membership has shrunk to only the most avid of hobbyists, but that should not stop us from at least placing the offending topic in the Coral and kindly telling the poster to have at it. I do not consider thermochemistry a coral topic, but if electro-mechanical proof is needed then, there it stays until I bring you that proof. I offer to experiment and show firsthand the work. Along the way, I expect enough restraint from the opposition such that the information can be disseminated in a logical manner.

It takes a big man to take a blow. It takes a bigger man to forgive the blow. What kind of man are you?

HHO believers are cancer to the DIY fuel economy improvement community.

The mods are right, it is like a political fight.
 

However, all I'm asking is the right to produce a logical discussion without the interjection of the rabble. I am willing to prove that HHO does NOT work as the salesmen claim as well as any small gains that can be found in specific applications. Is that not worth some discussion?

Otherwise, you are relegating this forum to the dark ages mentality that all there is to know is known.

Keep it in the coral if you must, but be open enough to admit honest research and questioning. Otherwise, we have what we see repeatedly in any HHO related thread . . . nothing of value.

I put out the basic chemical reality that a small seeding of hydrogen and oxygen can affect the combustion profile ( water vapor too). If you have anything to say about that, please reply on topic whether you are for or against or maybe. If you don't have the chemistry background then don't post. Simple. Once we have established that possibility, ChazInMT's question about producing it on board via electrolysis from the alternator becomes relevant. Can an exceedingly small volume of electrolytically produced gas affect the combustion? I say it can as I have done some work in the past that shows it is possible with certain caveats. 140 watts maximum. Less power than some folks car stereos. And as the engine warms, some of the wasted engine heat in the coolant can be used to reduce that wattage to the electrolysis device. Now, all I have to do is redo the work I did almost 20 years ago and do a proof on a gasoline powered vehicle. This will take time and effort for no reason other than to prove how HHO will not work, and how it can work in a narrow way.

Now, when the HHO scammers come trotting in, or some visitor with an honest inquiry to the subject, then we as a forum have an answer that is definite and authoritative. Otherwise, it stays a political issue instead of a technical. It should be a technical answer. It either doesn't work, does, or kinda does.

That is all I am offering and all I require is some semblance of order when the topic arises.

I think you're onto something. It's about low fuel prices, and electric cars, and new vehicles that are actually decently engineered- well enough that the home mechanic can't improve much without going too extreme.

You consistently have proven yourself incapable of logical discussion because you refuse to answer questions directly. How is a person supposed to have a logical discussion with someone that does not provide the information asked? I would like to understand how your system is supposed to work but you only speak the language of pseudoscience. This is why you raise the ire of those of us here.

Pseudoscience?
 

It is of such a basic nature and the words are such I CANNOT make it any more simple!

A very small amount of HHO can affect combustion. That HHO may not be created in an efficient manner, but it can help contract the combustion curve and net more power than is lost in it's creation. There is nothing untoward in what I have said. Can you not see that the LOSSES in an engine is where the net "energy" is coming from?

You even stated that hydrocarbons are full of hydrogen! All thermochemistry tells us is, a small seeding amount of hydrogen and oxygen can cause a domino effect and release that hydrogen so that classic hydrogen research in the 4% range becomes viable. Go pull up numerous papers on the subject . They are all over the internet. Yes, they can be boring and very technical, but you can just go to the summaries. Hydrogen is fast burning because it does not get trapped in side reactions. It can't. Carbon can. Even the simplest fuel, CH4 is almost an order of magnitude slower in flame propagation because it starts to get sidetracked and produces compounds. Depending on your flame test, CH4 will burn at a rate of 30 cm per second while hydrogen does so at 300 cm per second. But, the minuscule amount H2 is not burning at an accelerated rate! It is chopping up the CH4 and preventing much of the compound formations that would sidetrack the thermodynamics of the combustion. The Carbon can oxidize and form CO2 more rapidly. It may only accelerate that flame front from 30 cm per second to 35 cm per sec, but it is enough to take a few degrees ignition lead away while producing more torque.

Look at a classic ignition/pressure curve. That pressure rise BEFORE top dead center (TDC) is lost work. Reducing that area by faster burn NETS you that lost work by moving it into the area AFTER TDC. This is a basic concept of internal combustion engines. Nothing is pseudoscience. Engine designers strive for this. Thus we have high swirl ports and squish and tumble. These all accelerate and move that flame front along reducing the need for ignition lead. This is why HHO will fail in most modern vehicles that already have accelerated combustion capable cylinder heads.

I introduced the idea of brake mean effective pressure (BMEP) and did a calculation that showed how just a few PSI gain can net several horsepower. The average passenger car engine cruises at peak pressures of a few hundred PSI with BMEP at a less than 100 PSI. Shifting any pressure losses from the negative to the positive nets you the few PSI gain needed to produce more power with the same amount of fuel. This is such a basic concept of mechanical engineering, I don't know how to make it even more understandable.

Well, now you say, the electrolysis efficiency is too low to net any gains. True, if you are just using gobs of electricity to produce that HHO gas. But, if you have an engine that already likes to knock ( older iron head, iron block with high compression ) a very small amount of HHO is needed. I used the number 230 cc per minute. That is not all gas as I explained as a large amount is also steam. But, 140 Watts using Coulombic calcs gives us enough hydrogen to start the domino effect going. The amount of gas needed to start the pre-combustion depolymerization of the hydrocarbon fuel is dependent on the energy of the combustion mix (temperature, pressure, kinetic energy - swirl and tumble). Some engines need a relatively small amount. Some engines are so insensitive, you cannot produce enough HHO without bogging the engine down with alternator load. I use 303/304 Stainless steel in my electrolyzer only because there is a ton of it in the scrap pile out back of the shop. It has a large over-voltage. That is the voltage needed to get any useful electrolysis going. It needs about 2.5v per cell to get my 230 cc/min. But, configuring the cells to have a water jacket with hot water running through it at 80 deg C, reduces the voltage to 1.7V to get the same volume of electrolytic gasses. That gain in efficiency comes from the heat lost in the engine coolant. This actually allows us to stack not 4, but 6 cells in the series. We could get 50% more gas output for the same power. But, that is not necessarily needed. Just play with your engine design and the parameters of operation. PfgPro's engine would have been ideal for this. He can add heat, and compression via a change in boost pressure at cruise as he showed he could do. He could reduce his ignition lead via a "leaky N2O2 injector". HHO will not have as large an effect but with some juggling of intake heat as well as cruise boost, you could see some measurable changes, I predict. Again, since the ignition lead in a lean burn engine is quite long, reducing this lead nets more torque for the same amount of fuel used.

Now the area of real interest to the DIY ecomodder is the lean burn range. Most of us can simply look to the threads of the Honda crowd and see they run at 22:1 AFR and with some tweaking they can run up to about 24:1 AFR. At that point, misfire and partial combustion become prevalent and torque drops. PgfPro could run at 28:1 AFR and above! With his "leaky N2O2" he had calculated AFRs in the 30:1 range with torque enough to drive on. Again, his leaky Nitrous valve provides an affect greater than HHO can, but it underlines the fact that classic studies support what he was doing by the introduction of compounds that easily form active radicals. HHO is one of those compounds since the energy of decomposition of the diatomic hydrogen molecule is relatively low and H+ and OH- radicals can be formed before ignition is started, not after.

So, where is the pseudoscience in all of the above? There is none! I dare you to take the above to ANY tech school or university. It violates none of the classic sciences.

Will we see 50% or 100% more fuel economy? Of course not! I've never said that and the science does not support it. In an engine running at stoichiometry, very little gain is expected - if any at all as the fast burn at stoichiometry for modern engines negates any effect HHO can have. In an older engine design, there may be a gain in the single digits. Lean burn is where gains of value can be made. We all know pumping losses at cruise can approach 15% because of throttling. By opening up the throttle and leaning out the mix, we can gain back some of that lost pumping efficiency. But, by using lean burn, we lose some efficiency back because of the exceedingly long lead times needed as mentioned above. The Honda lean burn can net 7-10% more thermal efficiency (TE). If you can extend the AFR while producing the same torque, you can net even more of that 15% and go beyond. At 30:1 AFR, will you net 50% thermal efficiency since you are using only half the fuel at 14.7:1 AFR? No, it's not that simple. But, you can probably see 15-20% increase in thermal efficiency. What does this mean in a practical sense? It just means your average 30% TE engine can climb up to 34.5% TE or so. About the same as the engine found in the Toyota Prius.

All the above is not pseudoscience. JrMichner posted briefly. I don't think he read the thread. He just posted the usual anti HHO answer. I challenge any of the engineering types to discuss the above. It is not without it's holes and opinions but it is real science.

Again, if you don't understand the above, don't post! You just junk up the thread. I'll answer questions if they are germane to the subject.

Chaz, the fact you didn't know that protons reside in your drinking water means you really need to think before posting.

I have to run. The CO2 laser isn't behaving. Yes, I have lasers! No sea bass, but I have lasers!

This is true.
 

For the average person.

But, ecomodders are different. We have to fool with things. We have a natural inquisitiveness that makes us what we are. If we weren't fooling with ecomodding our cars, we would find something else.

The next generation may be more equipped to deal with modern cars. I just met a young man in my son's band. He is a mechanic by day. He talks about programming and electronics like he was an EE. I was impressed at his breath of knowledge until I realized, he grew up in this environment. I took classes for a degree in EE back 30 years ago. He grew up with it! He claims most any car can be re-tuned for better performance and economy. I'm going to have to take him up on that claim.

Sure, but why not?
 

Almost none of the aero-mods are legal "by the book" definitions. I've been stopped for having zip ties holding my license plate in place.

You can get exemptions for research vehicles used on-road. Schools and universities get it all the time. I have several such vehicles. Perfectly legal if you file your paperwork properly and state your work goals and procedures. Locally, we deal with the AQMD which supersedes the EPA office. Your locality may have a different set of official loops to jump through.

And thanks for that good post. Posts such as this is all I ask.

I could really care less about HHHH.
But I am bothered by your tone...
"And thanks for that good post. Posts such as this is all I ask."

Explain to me why you have a right to ask for anything? No one else here does!
If we want to be narrow minded ....we can!
THe mods are clear on what can be posted and what can't.
you seem to want to create rules that apply to you and your 'needs'.
I have a GREAT idea.....start your own forum!!!
see how many people you attract with your rules.
What you seem to be missing in your myopic focus on "HHHH and OUR behavior", is the notion of "FORUMS". The tend to be a living breathing organism with a life of their own. Each one is different, based on the subject matter, advertising, design, composition and members.
I have seen some with a 8th grade vocabulary and others, (like ecomodder) with a much higher vocabulary. I have seen very aggressive and very passive. Over Modded and under Modded.
the point is....your constant 'requsts' for us to alter our behavior are falling on deaf ears.

About flame speed...

From wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_speed
That has to do with turbulent versus laminar flame speed, as you can imagine in a cylinder head with swirling air and a spray of gas from the injectors the flame front won't be laminar for long.
The flame speed you described was based on laminar burn.
Even so, hydrogen does burn considerably faster.

When the pressure builds up the mixture starts to explode or even detonate, propagating the explosion front at speeds close to or surpassing the speed of sound.
In that too hydrogen will increase the speed.

I see no reason why a tiny amount of hydrogen should increase the flame speed by much, but it may lower the explosion treshold somewhat, which can be troublesome.

In water one in ten million hydrogen atom will be a loose ion because of the polar properties of water molecules but in a gaseous state almost all hydrogen will be in molecular form; H2. These need to be broken up in the burn before anything happens. Protons in water are irrelevant for the burn process.

When you heat up the electrolytic cells to 80°C and you feed it to the intake it will contain a large amount of water vapour. If you feed it in behind the throttle plate and the engine is at low load the vacuum may be strong enough to make the water in your cells boil by itself.
Adding steam may reduce pumping losses and therefore help the engine tick over, improving efficiency.

I'm running out of time here but you see, there are some loose ends in your story. Science is about tying them all together, proving that every step inevitably leads to the next. Scepticism is the tool to look for weak points in a theory; if there are viable alternate explanations then the theory loses credibility.
Scientists will first try to falsificate their own theories before they put them out in the open; such a shame to put your name on it if it can be blown away, a simple oversight maybe.

If you do science you should have your answers ready for proper criticism.
This is no science lab so there will be criticism that is not properly formulated or reasonable.
That unfortunately is a given. Take it with dignity, explain it away once and link to the explanation whenever the same point comes up again.

But most of all, stick to the topic. This explanation of yours is your best yet. It should be in its own thread instead of a discussion about etiquette. Now it sidelines that discussion.

Without digging into the question of whether HHO is a valid technology to discuss on this forum, let alone pursue, I do have one question:

Obviously the topic is met with serious skepticism at the very least on this forum. The discussion generally devolves into a pie fight challenging testing methods, the inefficiencies surrounding the generation of HHO, etc. With these facts in mind, why do you even bother discussing the topic in this venue where it is so clearly unwelcome?

When the topic automatically lands in a category that cannot but call out obvious prejudice - "The Unicorn Corral" - why do you insist on sowing seed on such inhospitable ground? Do you really enjoy the fight that much?

There are other forums out there that are, no doubt, much more receptive to your discussion. I'm not telling you to go away, that's completely beyond my purview and in fact we are all here at the forbearance of the moderators. But I am asking, without calling you names or questioning your methods and ideas: why do you stay?

Highlighted are the pseudoscience sorta things I'm talking about.

Provide definitions of these things....

The blue highlight is where I really see an issue. You are correlating the effects of 4% H2 enrichment to something which I figure is .143% HHO Enrichment. I'm figuring 230CC per minute in an engine inhaling what I roughly figure is 2,400 Liters per minute of air and at 15:1, 160 Liters of Fuel Vapor per minute. So when I divide the 160L by 230CC I get about 700. When I divide 1 by 700, I get .143% HHO enrichment.

I Just can't in my head figure out how a 700:1 ratio of something is going to be able to do much "Domino Effecting" and make an engine 10% more efficient.

And sorry, but in the Non Lug World, a proton with its electron attached is called Hydrogen, if it has a neutron stuck on there, we call it Deuterium which is an isotope of Hydrogen. If there happen to be 2 neutrons stuck to the proton, well that's Tritium. A proton zipping about is called radiation. You are the one choosing to call Hydrogen a proton. What's Oxygen? Octproton? Link for ya

I don't mind your criticism.
 

I have always welcomed discussion, not this demand to keep proving to people that I am not a "true believer" or a snake oil salesman. Asking me to show them calculations about electrolytic hydrogen as a fuel is missing the point of my discussion but was ignored. Thus the calls to make calculations that I did not need to make.



I understand what you said. I do not try to falsify my thoughts or science. I am open to discussion.

I fully understand the difference between the flame speed of a combustion chamber and that of a flame tube at standard temperature and pressure, end capped or open ended. It was used as an illustration of the difference in flame speeds not an indication of the actual.

And my electrolysis generator runs under 1 atm. of pressure. It is released through a solenoid valve much like a digital injector ( it is a modified injector as found in natural gas applications). Also, the volumes of gasses we are talking about are so small as to be insignificant to the overall volumetric efficiency of the engine. Think 1 part in hundreds or even thousands. 230 cc per minute in an engine ingesting 750 L of air in that time span for the 2.4 L engine I had used as an example. The displacement of the air by the steam is exceedingly small.

And remember, at these small additional volumes, hydrogen cannot burn. It needs to be at 4% by volume or above to ignite. So why does it affect and accelerate combustion if it is in a sub combustible mix? Glassman & Yetter, in Combustion, 4th edition, say it is because of radical interaction.

You ask for links. I often don't have links. I have white papers and textbooks that are worn and dog eared and a lifetime of experience between my ears. Sorry if I am old enough to get a discount at the local buffet without getting carded. But my education is not an internet degree.

And I will attempt to start a thread that will have more structure. I have in the past but family needs intervened and so did the usual characters. I will learn how to post pictures and charts and calculations from MathCad or from my hand notes. I know, I can program MicroPic controllers in machine code and I can't do the internet. I have my failures and I admit it.

I have to redo and extend the work I did almost two decades ago without the money and resources ( dynamometer ). I cannot reveal the data collected at that time. It is owned by those who paid for it. I was allowed to reveal the results and I have. They are not exciting. They are what would be expected for vehicles 1996 and earlier as that is what was tested. I am working on someway to make the addition of HHO visual.

I was hoping to drag my old smokey Mercedes diesel over to Ogden, but my wife refuses to go if that is the case as the car is stripped down to two seats, is slow and uncomfortable. That car is a visual indicator of HHO at work as simply turning the generator on and off is followed by the smoke from the tail pipe going off and on in response. She won't let me tow it either because it means she must ride in the big bouncy Dodge Cummins 3500 which I tow the flatbed with. It looks like I'll be doing something to one of the gasoline cars in the stable. But, how to make it a visual test? I have some ideas.

You keep insisting don't you. But it is a valid question.
 

Why don't you go ask a chemist? I have chemists on staff. They call the H+ a proton because, by definition, it is. Hydrogen is just a proton and an electron. In an aqueous solution that electron is often lost and the H+ ion is formed. I know you have a background in the nuclear field, but if chemists use proton as a slang, I can't help them. I just communicate with them.

And the exceedingly small amount of HHO can be effective ( note the word "can") if the conditions are in place to dissociate that hydrogen and cause it to run amok . The H+ ion is called a radical. Other radicals are formed if water is present. Which it is if there is some steam and EGR. That allows the formation of OH- radicals and others such as the famed (in combustion science at least) HOOH radical which was postulated decades ago and has only been detected in recent years using modern detection techniques. These radicals can crash into a carbon chain causing the release of other smaller compounds and more free radicals from the loosed hydrogen. If you look at the Arrhenius rate equation that is used to predict rates of reactions of aqueous solutions ( acid/base reactions) you see a parallel to what is happening in a combustion chamber. The hotter the mix gets, the faster reactions become. If you have certain compounds in the mix, these compounds act as accelerators. Much the same occurs in the engines combustion chamber. It is an INTERACTION. It is not hydrogen as a fuel. You can never make enough hydrogen via on-board electrolysis to fuel a vehicle. But, you can knock off enough hydrogen from the fuel source and start your combustion primed with enough to accelerate said combustion. If conditions are right, these reaction happen in billionths of a second. Repeatedly. Over and over.

Again, the hydrogen to accelerate the combustion comes from the fuel. But, that H is not available until combustion starts. By adding some H2 ahead of time, and in such a conditions that it dissociates and starts reacting, we can be way ahead and see the accelerated combustion we seek.

I stumbled upon this and related threads last night. I'll offer my 2 cents. Why is hho blending not held in the same regard as ethanol blending? Isn't the effect relatively similar?

Because I was here at the start. Under a team name.
 

And I have seen value in this forum.

And you miss the mark when you invite me to join other forums. I have been invited by people scared off from this forum to join them. Most are forums that you would call "weird science". I am not that.

I am also part of more educated forums and they agree on the plausibility of the ideas I have but they are not "hands on" and see no need to forward research. The Higgs Bosun was far more exciting to them.

And I do have a dark side. I do want to sell a real product to everyone and anyone based on the theories I have learned from playing with HHO devices and extending them. Not really. But there is real possibilities here that are being ignored by both the highly educated and the DIY types found on this forum. I find it easier to get a DIY guy to see an idea and run with it than get a physicist to use a chop saw ( trust me, they are a dangerous mix ).

HHO as a fuel in itself is a dead end. I don't have to tell you that. But, it can lead to some interesting applications that I haven't even thought of yet. I get pms and emails from those that stumble upon this forum. They come up with some crazy ideas, and some are worth while!

The fact is, only a handful of people on this forum find my presence offensive. I have no issue with the rest. Do they not deserve an answer to the HHO question?

The solar panel on my van roof does nothing when once the battery is charged, so I do wonder about using HHO generation as a form of chemical battery. If the HHO is free, then any gain is a bonus. :D

I also realise I'd be better of killing the alt before parking, but with CANBUS and no shop manual, that might be problematic without wrecking something.

No, not even remotely. And I say that with due respect.
 

With ethanol, you are blending a fuel with a fuel. As a hydrocarbon fuel, it poses the same limitations as the octane it is blended with. It will not de-polymerize ( break apart ) under conditions found pre-ignition. It can change the octane. It can change vapor pressure, but it will not cause the possible creation of active radicals before ignition. There has been research in the past to use ethanol in very high ( think diesel like ) compression engines. The possibility to thermally decompose exists there. I am not sure if there was a contraction of the combustion curve.

Again, the ethanol blended at percentages is a fuel mix.

There is far too little HHO produced by on board electrolysis generators to be effective as a fuel mixer. Thus it must be applied only under specific conditions.

I could turn this argument right around and ask the same of you.
 

The mods are very clear. All I ask is that the rules that are already in place be applied even in the Corral. Is that too much to ask?

And being narrow minded is NOT the aim of the majority of people in this forum. You may stand alone in that regard.

I'll post what's in the Wiki Link I put there earlier.

"The hydron (a completely free or "naked" hydrogen atomic nucleus) is too reactive to occur in many liquids, even though it is sometimes visualized to do so by students of chemistry. A free hydron would react with a molecule of the liquid to form a more complicated cation. Examples are the hydronium ion in water-based acids, and H
2F+ , the unstable cation of fluoroantimonic acid, the strongest superacid. For this reason, in such liquids including liquid acids, hydrons diffuse by contact from one complex cation to another, via the Grotthuss mechanism."

Sooooo, if I'm reading that right, these have nothing to do with what you're doing because of the extreme reactivity of it. When you posted "Proton" earlier this week, that was my immediate thought, you were referring to H+ somehow. But I knew this would not factor into anything because it would instantly cling to the nearest electron it could find forming some weird molecule and thus be unavailable to you for use as a sort of chemical accelerant.

Explain this "Domino Effect" process of how H2 is going to "Shred" gasoline hydrocarbons when it is at concentration of 1,000:1 causing a vast amount of more free hydrogen or lighter hydrocarbons. The 230CC per minute is assuming it is pure Browns gas which is 66.6% H2 and 33.3% O2, so the 700:1 becomes closer to 1,000:1. Show me where it talks about this reaction on the web somewhere that is NOT an HHO site.

BTW, your bringing added O2 and H2O from your system into the equation are moot since water vapor is present at 2% give er take, and O2 is 23% of the 15,000:1 air that the engine is using. The H2 would be the only added compound which is not already present in the atmosphere.

This seems to me to be the basis of where you're efficiency lies, so it should be reasonable to ask where this information comes from.

Also, there are 6 Red highlighted sections in the post I made earlier that I am seeking clarification on. You claim these are not pseudo-scientific but you have not addressed these. I posted earlier today that it is difficult to have a logical conversation with you because you do not answer questions. I am saying those 6 Red passages are not quantified in anyway and are very confusing to someone who is trying to understand this. Are you going to address these points further? Or just prove my point that you do not answer questions when asked? Or somehow get exasperated with me and continue to attack me thus again avoiding the answers and further digging the chasm you have created by you're unwillingness to discuss things civilly?

Rusty, I am not sure how many people will read post #18 or who understand positively-charged particles hang out in water, but you guys just had one thread closed, and we have another member trying to go the way of Old Mechanic.

Do we need to repeat history? I like having PGFPro around. I miss Mech.

I do not know why people cannot discuss HHO without it getting absolutely out of control. A couple of you say it can work. The rest say it is impossible. However, they specify what proof you need. All that I remember seeing is "I already proved it!" and logical arguments.

Logic is great. I wish that more people used it, but we use logic to test theories.

This debate has been at an impasse since the beginning. None of you are convincing anyone else.

Please stop.

By the way, HHO is off-topic. This thread is about being respectful, you warthog-faced buffoons.

I have to pull that back.
There are no sole hydrogen ions, called hydrons, in water.
In Ph neutral water, there will be about one hydronium ion per ten million water molecules. Just to keep the record straight.

You have wisdom far beyond your years.
 

And your subtle humor is always refreshing.

And you are right. No one can "convince or convert" another over such a topic as this that seems to push peoples buttons all wrong. The funny thing is, I know HHO or Brown's Gas or whatever the "true believers" call it, does not work as advertised. That is the point I am trying to make. It has a very small and specialized effect. It is worth some investigation if only to have answers to a visitor's question of "does it work".

I have hardware and am willing to do installations and tests even if they show that "it doesn't work" so that we can use it as reference. If there is some positive gains, that also can go into our base of knowledge. The question is, can the experimentation be done without it being snowed under and relegated to the trash heap? That is the problem. Would it be possible to investigate with inquisitiveness instead of making it an inquisition?

And I hope people understand by now, I am quite capable of taking verbal abuse. It really doesn't bother me like it does others. So don't do it. I'll just take it and throw it right back at you. But, What really, really bugs me is having my train of thought derailed. I don't like anyone's train of thought derailed! Even threads that are not mine, but are an enjoyable read. I follow Oil Pan4's threads because he has a practical, hands on approach to finding solutions. And yes, I do the same with T_Vago because he has convinced me to purchase and try to program Arduino controllers. Even in their threads, I find posts that are better serviced in PMs or by waiting. It is just an irritant for me, but it reduces the pleasure of reading and following along. That is just in the normal thread. Imagine a reader trying to get any information out of any HHO thread. 99% of the posts will be tangential or defamatory.

I expect a certain amount of static on my thread to investigate the Brown's Gas Phenomenon. That is only to be expected. I am just trying to pave the way to reduce that to a tolerable level.

you are pretty close to grasping the concept of what H+ can do as a radical.
 

As you pointed out and linked to, the H+ atom is VERY short lived. At it's creation in an electrolysis cell, it will immediately look for some way to be stable and will thus migrate to the negative plate, take on an electron and pair up with another H atom to form the diatomic H2 atom which is even more stable. This is of course a gas, which is bubbled out and which we are attempting to use in our engine under discussion.

The fact that H+ is so short lived due to it's reactivity is why it is called a radical. That H2 gas, in the combustion chamber, with enough conditions to add enough energy, dissociates back to a pair of H+ radicals. Since there is not near enough hydrogen to combust, the H+ is caught there in the nano seconds before ignition. But, it is not just sitting there. It is very reactive, as you linked to. It looks for something to do with it's reactivity. The C8H18 carbon chain is available and thus suffers the ravages. That is where the domino effect starts in. This happens billions of times a second at the flame front, but if it can be started before hand, we can gain that fraction of a second.

Originally Posted by mcrews View Post


If we want to be narrow minded ....we can!
THe mods are clear on what can be posted and what can't.
you seem to want to create rules that apply to you and your 'needs'.

How odd.....you DO tend to misrepresent what is written to fit your thought process.


"IF" is the key word here. it is a choice, we don't have to exercise it and may never exercise it, but it is a given option. One of several allowed by this particular forum.

"being the aim" where did that come from? no one is 'aiming' to be anything.

'majority' So you interpret what I said was an 'option' as being the 'aim or goal of the majority'?????

you of course are assuming that 'being narrow minded' is a decided choice.
There are always people who thru a lack of knowledge, culture or expose are narrow minded by no choice of their own.

So that I understand the final piece of logic:
you agree that 'the mods are clear."
BUT you want something 'more clear' for yourself?
If the mods are 'clear', then you are being treated in a manor that the mods have made 'clear'.
However, you have an entire thread about treating you differently "that's all I ask", so the mods MUST NOT be clear?:confused::confused:

I would like to add, if you must verbally abuse someone over this or any other corral topic, abuse me. Because I don't mind being the lightning rod. But we are losing members, and have in the past because of the behavior of certain members of this community. So, if you just HAVE to have someone to yell at, yell at me. I've been here a long time and I'm not planning on going anywhere anytime soon and, you might feel just a bit better.

I think the reader can see your position.
 

"Being closed minded is not a choice". You make some points. Does it apply to ecomodder readers? Goodness, I hope not.

But, understand, the mods have made it clear and I get that. Do you?

I am willing to abide the rules. Are you? Are others? That is all I'm asking. You seem to think I am asking for anything different. I am not.

What? (WHAT? would be yelling)

"'verbally abuse'.....abuse me"
again, proof that you want something different.
People here can do what ever they want to whom ever they want(within the Mods clear rules)
We don't need you playing passive/aggressive and 'accepting all the verbal abuse' "BECAUSE you can take it."
Please point out who is 'YELLING"?

but again, as a reminder:
" You consistently have proven yourself incapable of logical discussion because you refuse to answer questions directly." How is a person supposed to have a logical discussion with someone that does not provide the information asked? I would like to understand how your system is supposed to work but you only speak the language of pseudoscience. This is why you raise the ire of those of us here.
" :thumbup:

you do understand the 'BELL CURVE" from statistics?
Of course it applies to ecomodders.
it applies to a room full of quantum scientists. (as long as the sample size is large enough)

been here 7 years......just never had a thread make it to the uni-corral.:thumbup:

Riiiiiiiiiight. That is why you shat all over my EGR thread two years ago. You were following the rules!

And since you want to speak in pithy clichés, here's another one: Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!

To me, an apology consists of two parts. First, the apologist must show real regret over whatever it is that prompted the apology. Second, there's an implicit promise made by the apologist to not repeat said behavior or action.

You, RustyLugNut, have shown neither trait. Until and unless you show some concrete proof of what you're preaching, you will continue to be considered to be a fraud. You've had two years since your disgraceful behavior with regard to my EGR thread, and you have NOTHING to show for it.

I've had him on ignore for quite a long time. It is quite helpful. :thumbup:

here is a GREAT (emphasis, not yelling) example!
You want threads to look, act and be a certain way. You clearly state that.
Yet there is not a perfect thread(by your standards)
I actually stated earlier that threads and forums our by nature clunky and dysfunctional.
Yet, you are 'closed minded' to this concept and keep (repeatedly) stating you 'want' something different. you ignore the reality of the forum world.

what you REALLY seem to want is a peer-review' environment.


"if only the threads flowed logically":rolleyes:

"Let me take the verbal abuse" :rolleyes:


This is a FORUM. A PUBLIC FORUM.
you get what you pay for. (of course, you haven't even donated......):thumbup:

So.....you start a thread about 'demanding courtesy' and keep breaking up the flow of topicality and 'train of thought' by interjecting facts about HHHH.

THAT. IS. EXACTLY. "what really, really bugs you" !!!!!!

:D

The thing I linked to says that H+ does not exist in a fluid, unless it is a melt yer bathtub (Breaking Bad) acid. The H2 isn't going to just spontaneously split....so when added Hydrogen is in your "Flamefront" it is just H2 till it finds some O2 to combine with.

Why are you insisting that H+ can possibly make it to the combustion chamber when presented with facts that say otherwise by outside sources?

You say that there is not enough H2 to combust, well duh. Nobody has ever ever purported that the H2 was the sole fuel source. (Well some have, but lets not go there) But, the gasoline vapors that are present in a 1000:1 ratio to your added H2 do indeed combust. The .1% H2 combines with O2 and combusts too.

I am VERY skeptical that the H2 in the exact moment of its combustion separates into 2 hydrons and goes around knocking apart a bunch of long chain hydrocarbons, which are themselves in the process of being conflagerated.

Where is your link to a non HHO derived paper or something addressing the "Ravaging" "Shredding" effect of H2 on fuel vapor either in the intake plenum or the combustion chamber? I can find a few papers on aerocap additions to pickup trucks written by PhD candidates & such. Certainly something like H2 seeding of an ICE fuel stream for improved performance has been written about.

.....the 'verbal attacks' you throw right back......:rolleyes:

The truth, however, keeps you from returning :thumbup:

I helped care for my terminally ill father in that time frame.
 

I used you as an example. Do you understand that.

As you see in my other posts, I don't rip apart threads like I did yours. It was to show to the readers how easy it is to undo a perfectly good post from a well respected member.

Get over it. No more apologies to you. You have a narcissistic streak that is not becoming of you.

Your posts are also quite . . .
 

. . . easy to ignore. And I don't even try.

The truth is, so few of you know enough about this subject . . .
 

. . . thus you attack the messenger. Really nice of you. Keep spending your energies here. I am not going away based on a few threatening personalities.

I do get numerous emails and IM's supporting my position. YOU are certainly not speaking for the rest of the forum.

And I spend my Saturday's tutoring students in science and math. It is something I have always felt strongly about and thus spend my time supporting. This weekend was elementary age and some middle school. Science and math go hand in hand and catching them young can spark their desire and intellect.

I then spent my Sunday supporting the Homeless Veterans Stand Down here in San Diego. Our homeless vets suffer severely even with the local killer now in custody.

Your desire to continue posting scathing and implied put downs is really very unbecoming.