Yeah we all know its a scam

[ecoTex]

You are correct that most of the members here, including me, don't know a lot about sub-atomic nuclear physics, or whatever the heck you are talking about. But if you will please go back and read all of your posts, and you are honest with yourself, you will agree, I know a lot about you being 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.

. . . I realized I got all too excited and "sciencey" ( it's a real word - my wife assures me ).

In a short answer, the faster burn returns more efficiency via reduced combustion and thermal losses. However, the gains are smaller than at part load. HHO does improve full load BFSC, but only slightly. It's advantage is broadening the useful "lower floor" of the map.

[ChazInMT]

Originally Posted by drrbc

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



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.

>>>Blah Blah See above Blah Blah<<<<

opportunity to "revise and extend" their remarks before we get going?

I don't even know where to begin here again.

First off, let me say I'm not attacking you, just the stupid notion that HHO can even begin to work. If you're that vested in the idea that HHO is the greatest thing since the wheel, and any attack on it, is one on you, then I guess I'm attacking you. I do not care for LugNutz, if you are him posting as 2 people, then .....well that would just be weird.

What "Claims" have you made?

You still have not defined anything, just a bunch of crap about how we're all too stupid consider open and closed loop thermodynamics. That's it. Explain the difference to us and how it allows the hydrogen produced by an HHO system to create 10 times the energy when used as a fuel supplement as it would just being burned on its own. I really want to hear how this works!!! I don't want to hear speculation, I want to see factual numbers, then we can discuss that instead of discussing how badly we treat people. WTF is so hard to grasp about that!!??!!! Lets talk FACTS, Science! You only seem bent on trying to prove we're all a bunch of Jerks instead of being bent on describing the wonders of HHO.

Let's see some numbers!!!! Give us formulas and percentages of energy in vs. energy out with HHO and without and how much HHO is being generated and combusted. Show us how HHO Works!!

Don't rip on me.....tell me where my logic is wrong? I laid out facts, and as far as I can see, the only rebuttal you have to any fact I stated deals with U235 which is an enriched form of Uranium that has a large macroscopic cross section of absorption of thermal neutrons making it an ideal submarine reactor fuel, and hydrogen being used to create a fusion reaction on the nuclear scale......Now just keep going down the path that you're going to create fusion in the combustion cylinders of the car and that there is proof that you're just a galactic moron. I will attack you at that point, personally, professionally, in any way I can cause there ain't no fusion goin on in no cars.

Please....No more "you called me this" and "you just fail to consider that" "Validate this" "Ego That" "Ur all just a bunch of meanies" "Generating Browns Gas creates a quantum singularity in the combustion cylinders allowing the fusion of hydrogen to use the power of the sun to fuel our cars"

Numbers, formulas, volumes, joules produced, joules used in the process. ANYTHING Please!!!

Also, you do realize this is a discussion forum in a fringe website with zero influence on society in general....most people here just like thinking about this stuff and are mildly entertained on accounta some unfulfilled need we have from our spouses, moms, dads, or pets or something. (at least that's my story) Your 3/5 conditions....and bold statements about terms of not posting for 60 days & such seem sort of out of place here. It's just a forum.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

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 CO2 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.




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.

Octane has 18 hydrogen atoms.

You still have C2O2 as one of your product gases.

And you call me a what?

I have never made any claims other than what I have posted. But you haven't read my postings. Bad on you if you didn't. If you did read them, it is obvious to all that you don't understand them. Bad on you for not having a higher education.

And I don't have an ionizer under my sink, or an anti grav device in my spacecraft.

[RustyLugNut]

And Chaz, that other guy does not speak for me. I am simply on the path of building and researching. We will see what we will see.

[P-hack]

edit: response to "sciency post"

Thanks rusty, been a long time since I did any serious chemistry, not sure I entirely followed that, but the effect is similiar to higher initial cylinder pressure (i.e. higher compression ratio or more MAP) AFAICT. I just want to be careful with the comparisons to HCCI (high compression, fine grained EGR control, and lots of it, direct injection).

Meanwhile hho is purported to have an octane rating of 50ish, and (in addition to heating the fuel/incoming air) would increase the likelihood of preignition. Whereas direct injection removes that possibility, for all practical purposes.

You don't believe HHO is on it's way to %50 efficiency, or do you?

[ChazInMT]

Rusty, I lost all confidence in you over the GEET reactor discussion. I changed my formulas that you pointed out. It was a silly mistake by me, I was thinking the middle carbon atoms in the chain each had 1 Oxygen attached, even though in my mind I was picturing 2....go figure....and the Carbons on the end of the chain had 2, and I pictured 2...Derp 6+4 equaled 10, C8H10 Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt....No. I'm sorry, the correct answer is C8H18. I was wrong.

Now tell me where exactly I'm wrong in my facts regarding HHO and the possibility that it could ever produce a positive energy output. You seem quick to want to put me down on formulas, what about my logic and numbers involved in the process. Where am I wrong there??? Let's learn something.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by P-hack

edit: response to "sciency post"

Thanks rusty, been a long time since I did any serious chemistry, not sure I entirely followed that, but the effect is similiar to higher initial cylinder pressure (i.e. higher compression ratio or more MAP) AFAICT. I just want to be careful with the comparisons to HCCI (high compression, fine grained EGR control, and lots of it, direct injection).

Meanwhile hho is purported to have an octane rating of 50ish, and (in addition to heating the fuel/incoming air) would increase the likelihood of preignition. Whereas direct injection removes that possibility, for all practical purposes.

You don't believe HHO is on it's way to %50 efficiency, or do you?

And the implementation is vastly different than what we can do with the average car. HCCI needs fine EGR control, and direct injection along with numerous sensor feedback to control the system and keep it in the sweet spot for controlled detonation to occur. Broadening this useable sweet spot is the main thrust of research as ignition is now well understood.

And I have seen 50% thermal efficiency with HHO, but that was in a lean burn engine and that was at a singular data point. Efficiency fell off rapidly on either side. Augmented lean burn is a subject all to itself.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

And they all work quite well.

So then why are they in the unicorn corral?

Waste all the time you want just don't poison the ecomodder community with BS.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

...
And I have seen 50% thermal efficiency with HHO, but that was in a lean burn engine and that was at a singular data point. Efficiency fell off rapidly on either side. Augmented lean burn is a subject all to itself.

I thing you can appreciate that, even though well qualified as a single data point, such a claim (even with lots of data points) would need to be backed up by describing the procedure well enough for independent verification as well as what was used for a control, before expecting folks to believe it was not a simple error.