Yeah we all know its a scam

[Frank Lee]

I wonder how many man-hours, or even just internet man-hours have been wasted on this ****?

[ecoTex]

Nope.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Wow I saw all these added pages and thought some one made a HHO machine that actually works.
Nope.

And they all work quite well.

[P-hack]

Thanks for investing in a pressure spark plug Rusty (and bringing such a device to my awareness). Would love to see the experiment in any event and I enjoy thinking about this stuff in more detail than I had previously. I do have one other operational caveat to theorize though, P&G hypermilers already target bsfc, which is on the low side of rpm and the high side of load, where ignition timing is fairly close to tdcc. I don't see how hho will help peak bsfc(would hurt it a tiny bit actually), or help a driver who's operating the vehicle with bsfc in mind since there is minimal, if any, area under the curve left of tdcc under those conditions. Am I missing something there, or is that fair speculation? Gasoline engine assumed.

[ChazInMT]

drrbc, OK now you've crossed a line.

1st, In science, we don't make claims of discovery and then challenge the world to prove you wrong. "I made a device that will make a semi truck get 13mpg fully loaded" "Oh Really, what is your proof for that?" "I don't need proof, you have to prove I didn't" (Said no respectable scientist, ever.)

So you telling us to prove why HHO is complete crap by hiring some professor or something is just idiocy on your part.

2nd. Having re-read all your stuff and been following you all along, you have not said anything that a person can hang their hat on with respect to HHO, you've never put up any facts that can be examined to be true or not, you simply spew non-sense about keeping in mind "Open" vs "Closed" thermodynamic systems, which if they were considered, I'm certain the difference between the 2 analyses open and closed would yield a difference so small as to be insignificant.

This has been talked about ad-nausium and here are the key facts as I see it.

1) NASA did some study thing piping straight Hydrogen into an ICE and found there could be like a 3% improvement in combustion efficiency. This was based on using a fairly large amount of Hydrogen (2-4% of total fuel), something no HHO generator could ever do.

2) It is indisputable that a machine cannot be built that disassociates hydrogen and oxygen in water using electrolysis then burns this fuel in an ICE to turn a generator to make more HHO with no gasoline used.

3) When looking at what a gasoline engine uses for fuel, it is primarily the hydrocarbon C8H18 Octane but it is a messy soup of other hydrocarbons (All variations of H & C) with tiny trace amounts of Sulfur, Nitrogen, & god knows what in even tinier tracier amounts mixed in. If there is Ethanol involved, then some Oxygen too. So basically, we run our cars on Hydrogen already. When mixed with the air (Oxygen and Nitrogen) it yields CO2 and H2O, roughly 1 gallon of water is produced for 1 Gallon of fuel burned and a bunch of CO2 as a gas. This is basic theory. No room to dispute this.

4) The amounts of water which are used to create HHO have always been touted as a very small amount by HHO advocates, show me where it says otherwise, but I'm guessing maybe a pint of water for every 600 miles or so. I have to believe a lot of that can be attributed to evaporation. But lets just say 1 pint per 600 miles gets used. So in a 25MPG car, that would be 24 gallons of gasoline consumed, so if 1/8th of a gallon of water is used per 24 gallons, this is roughly 1 part in 196 or .5%.

5) So it is incumbent on the HHO advocate to show how a .5% addition of hydrogen, which is already the fuel being burned, can result in a measurable increase in overall efficiency for a vehicle, given the amount of power (and it is Very Substantial) required to produce the HHO.

YOU go find a thermodynamics professor or chemical/petroleum engineer that will prove your point given the facts and pay him $250 to put his name on it and give us his phone number so we can check his credentials. That would be stepping up to the plate and putting your money where your mouth is.

Please state facts from now on that can be examined, and Rusty Lug Nut is not the guy you want in your corner, his ability to be floored and amazed by unscientific horse hockey knows no bounds. He's the guy you turn to when you don't want simple facts to stand in the way of a really bad idea. If you ask him he probably has a water ionizer under his sink and the plans for an antigravity device he is going to build someday when he gets the time & money together.

If you want to be swayed by facts, I just laid 25 of them out in simple terms. If you want to be floored and amazed by BS, yer on yer own.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

drrbc, OK now you've crossed a line.

1st, In science, we don't make claims of discovery and then challenge the world to prove you wrong. "I made a device that will make a semi truck get 13mpg fully loaded" "Oh Really, what is your proof for that?" "I don't need proof, you have to prove I didn't" (Said no respectable scientist, ever.)

So you telling us to prove why HHO is complete crap by hiring some professor or something is just idiocy on your part.

2nd. Having re-read all your stuff and been following you all along, you have not said anything that a person can hang their hat on with respect to HHO, you've never put up any facts that can be examined to be true or not, you simply spew non-sense about keeping in mind "Open" vs "Closed" thermodynamic systems, which if they were considered, I'm certain the difference between the 2 analyses open and closed would yield a difference so small as to be insignificant.

This has been talked about ad-nausium and here are the key facts as I see it.

1) NASA did some study thing piping straight Hydrogen into an ICE and found there could be like a 3% improvement in combustion efficiency. This was based on using a fairly large amount of Hydrogen (2-4% of total fuel), something no HHO generator could ever do.

2) It is indisputable that a machine cannot be built that disassociates hydrogen and oxygen in water using electrolysis then burns this fuel in an ICE to turn a generator to make more HHO with no gasoline used.

3) When looking at what a gasoline engine uses for fuel, it is primarily the hydrocarbon C8H10 Octane but it is a messy soup of other hydrocarbons (All variations of H & C) with tiny trace amounts of Sulfur, Nitrogen, & god knows what in even tinier tracier amounts mixed in. If there is Ethanol involved, then some Oxygen too. So basically, we run our cars on Hydrogen already. When mixed with the air (Oxygen and Nitrogen) it yields C2O2 and H2O, roughly 1 gallon of water is produced for 1 Gallon of fuel burned and a bunch of C2O2 as a gas. This is basic theory. No room to dispute this.

4) The amounts of water which are used to create HHO have always been touted as a very small amount by HHO advocates, show me where it says otherwise, but I'm guessing maybe a pint of water for every 600 miles or so. I have to believe a lot of that can be attributed to evaporation. But lets just say 1 pint per 600 miles gets used. So in a 25MPG car, that would be 24 gallons of gasoline consumed, so if 1/8th of a gallon of water is used per 24 gallons, this is roughly 1 part in 196 or .5%.

5) So it is incumbent on the HHO advocate to show how a .5% addition of hydrogen, which is already the fuel being burned, can result in a measurable increase in overall efficiency for a vehicle, given the amount of power (and it is Very Substantial) required to produce the HHO.

YOU go find a thermodynamics professor or chemical/petroleum engineer that will prove your point given the facts and pay him $250 to put his name on it and give us his phone number so we can check his credentials. That would be stepping up to the plate and putting your money where your mouth is.

Please state facts from now on that can be examined, and Rusty Lug Nut is not the guy you want in your corner, his ability to be floored and amazed by unscientific horse hockey knows no bounds. He's the guy you turn to when you don't want simple facts to stand in the way of a really bad idea. If you ask him he probably has a water ionizer under his sink and the plans for an antigravity device he is going to build someday when he gets the time & money together.

If you want to be swayed by facts, I just laid 25 of them out in simple terms. If you want to be floored and amazed by BS, yer on yer own.

I am very capable of discussing combustion. You are still in high school chemistry. So lets cut through the endless discussion and just do this.

I expect you to keep this post up so we can refer to it, ok?

I expect everyone else to keep their derogatory posts up for everyone to refer to.

I expect everyone to man up and eat their words when proven wrong.

And C202 is one of the partial reaction compounds in hydrocarbon combustion that oxidize into CO2 in the presence of adequate amounts of O2. Please don't spit out combustion chemistry and expect us to believe you when you name a carbon monoxide dimer ( which is relatively unstable ) as a base product of complete oxidation.

I am meeting today with the machine shop foreman. I own the shop and machines but I don't have the time to be editing G-code and running post processors. We will be talking about the work load for the next few weeks. I will be slipping in the parts for a reduced scale electrolysis cell.

The OBD II interface is up and working.

The bid for a battery of pressure sensing spark plugs and the logging software just came in shy of 10,000USD. I am going to have to dispense with the idea of a pressure sensing feedback loop or I may have to get on the electric discharge machine and fabricate my own pressure sensing plugs and code a pic chip to read and process the data.

My wife doesn't mind me appropriating her little Dodge SUV to experiment on, just as long as I get her another Mercedes.

This hobby is getting expensive.

[drrbc]

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

drrbc, OK now you've crossed a line.

1st, In science, we don't make claims of discovery and then challenge the world to prove you wrong. "I made a device that will make a semi truck get 13mpg fully loaded" "Oh Really, what is your proof for that?" "I don't need proof, you have to prove I didn't" (Said no respectable scientist, ever.).

Yeah, so what's your point? I never made any claim- until now.

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

So you telling us to prove why HHO is complete crap by hiring some professor or something is just idiocy on your part.

I don't believe I ever asked anyone to prove HHO anything.

But let me go ahead and make my claims, as in 1 through 5 below-
1.) y'all are using the Law of the Conservation of Energy improperly in regards to what Rusty described (that the Law applies to ISOLATED systems only)
2.) Members that discuss certain topics are ridiculed by this same group which cites the Conservation of Energy in flagrant disregard to the conditions the Law is applied.
3.) This group uses this as a "club" to suppress discussion, i.e.- that others less familiar with physics would assume the group was correct, hence removing support for those you badger.
4.) This group is not interested in learning how to apply the Law correctly, as evidenced by instruction given several times in the thread.
5.) And that one can only conclude your reasons for not wanting to learn are selfish and self-serving in nature to say the least.

My reason for wanting to bring in an outside expert was so that you could have a non-biased third party instruct you that you were using the Law of the Conservation of Energy improperly by applying it to an open system.

It was hoped that publicly faced with such an expert, the group would be forced to stop attacking others with science that they apparently do not understand, so that all that will be left for them is name calling, attacking a persons country of origin, or that English is not their primary language. (re: the Tahoe guy "100+mpg" IIRC)

It was through this I hope to expose the group as the common school house bullies that they are with the hopes that they would at least change their venue, if not their ways.

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

2nd. Having re-read all your stuff and been following you all along, you have not said anything that a person can hang their hat on with respect to HHO, you've never put up any facts that can be examined to be true or not, you simply spew non-sense about keeping in mind "Open" vs "Closed" thermodynamic systems, which if they were considered, I'm certain the difference between the 2 analyses open and closed would yield a difference so small as to be insignificant.

Whatever, but I think you may be quite surprised about the difference between the systems. One would be a little bit of hydrogen in a bomb calorimeter that is ignited. The other is a little bit of hydrogen crushed and pumped with some U-235 and a Li-6 catalyst at several million degrees. How the hell y'all can miss the difference between the two is beyond me.

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

This has been talked about ad-nausium and here are the key facts as I see it.

1) NASA ...(and it is Very Substantial) required to produce the HHO.

Nothing to do with my claims stated above.

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

YOU go find a thermodynamics professor or chemical/petroleum engineer that will prove your point given the facts and pay him $250 to put his name on it and give us his phone number so we can check his credentials. That would be stepping up to the plate and putting your money where your mouth is.

No prob. Give me at least 5 days (in the middle of a work "tour"). This should be worth a giggle or two!

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

Please state facts from now on that can be examined, and Rusty Lug Nut is not the guy you want in your corner, his ability to be floored and amazed by unscientific horse hockey knows no bounds. He's the guy you turn to when you don't want simple facts to stand in the way of a really bad idea. If you ask him he probably has a water ionizer under his sink and the plans for an antigravity device he is going to build someday when he gets the time & money together.

"Fact" #1- apparently not even you can wait to disparage someone the group has selected to pick on. For a moment though you had me fooled into thinking you were a reasonable person. That saddens me greatly.

And because that new development, I'm upping the ante a little bit: If just 3 of my above 5 claims are validated, all of y'all have to write open letters to be published on ecomodder.com admitting to those validated claims, apologizing to those your remarks were directed at, and apologizing to the membership as a whole for collusion to stifle members speech. And you will also refrain from any posting for a period of 60 days.

If 0/5 are validated I will write an open letter to the membership apologizing to each of you by name for my acts that could have impugned the character of such fine men. I will also surrender my membership to this site.

BUT

If 5/5 are validated all of you just go away. Forever.

Sound fair?

How about this- are there any members that would like to sign up for the opportunity to "revise and extend" their remarks before we get going?

[ecoTex]

What an A-hole.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Thanks for investing in a pressure spark plug Rusty (and bringing such a device to my awareness). Would love to see the experiment in any event and I enjoy thinking about this stuff in more detail than I had previously. I do have one other operational caveat to theorize though, P&G hypermilers already target bsfc, which is on the low side of rpm and the high side of load, where ignition timing is fairly close to tdcc. I don't see how hho will help peak bsfc(would hurt it a tiny bit actually), or help a driver who's operating the vehicle with bsfc in mind since there is minimal, if any, area under the curve left of tdcc under those conditions. Am I missing something there, or is that fair speculation? Gasoline engine assumed.

There is always some wasted pressure, but under certain conditions, these areas are minimized as you have pointed out. But, just as long as the RPM is low enough (ie, there is enough time ) there can exist, pre-combustion, some of the combustion products as found pre-detonation. Combustion is not a simple one step release of heat energy as many believe but a series of complex steps of endothermic decomposition and re-organization and then a final fall to the lowest entropy and the final exothermic release of the heat energy. That is why there is a flame front. And that flame front is robbed of some of it's energy to provide the energy to start the hydrocarbon oxidation decomposition and so forth. This explains why pure hydrogen has a flame front roughly an order of magnitude faster than hydrocarbons - it doesn't "waste time and energy" in side reactions since it is the simplest of oxidation examples as you can get. This is also one of the reasons HCCI engines, as mentioned before, can reach and exceed 50% thermal efficiency. The rapid oxidation across the entire combustion mixture means minimal energy losses to transfer heat across the "thermoclines". This is part of the irreversible combustion losses you often hear about. These losses can approach 20% of thermal potential depending on variables. Also, concentration of heat release around the classical 14 degree after top-dead-center results in maximum pressure build with minimal heat loss since the combustion chamber area is at a minimum.

The addition of HHO aids the decomposition of the classical fuel C8H18 by the fact that hydrogen needs relatively low energy to dissociate into H+ and to form OH radicals. These highly reactive radicals rob more hydrogen from the carbon chain to form HOOH radicals (very short lived) reducing the carbon chain to shorter and simpler chains such as C6H6 (benzene) down to C2H2 (acetylene). The release of hydrogen atoms is the first thing that happens in thermal decomposition of the carbon chain, but the fact that it is already present in the combustion mix accelerates the release in a domino effect. The results are not as dramatic as the HCCI combustion regimes, but with added enthalpy, our non-HCCI engines can reap some of the benefits in a small way with the addition of HHO.

This is all of course highly simplified to the point of being incorrect on some details, but it does drive home the point - in a gasoline engine, a small amount of HHO can tip a sub-critical detonation engine into faster more efficient combustion.

[drrbc]

Originally Posted by ecoTex

What an A-hole.

Whatever dude. I was trying to be nice to you, but since you don't like to read or learn either I can only conclude you're afraid of the daylight as well.

We'll let your remarks stand as is.