Cooking with Hydrogen.

[JES_VFR]

Again you make good points, but the two things to remember are what does the HHO do to the combustion of the gasoline mixture and how inefficient is the combustion of gas before.

The combustion in just about every ICE out in the world today is so slow that most of it goes out the exhaust port unburned.

What's a source for this claim? I think you are confusing the combustion efficiency with the thermal efficiency. Yes, most of the energy generated by combustion is lost (the thermodynamic conditions are stacked against you from the start) but most of the fuel is burned. Only a small amount is unburned. From this source:

However, unburned fuel and fuel-derived organic combustion products representing ~1–2% of the HC mass in the initial fuel mixture are present in the engine-out exhaust. These emissions are subsequently reduced by 95–99% by the exhaust catalyst.

Dirk

Well I'll have to read that article, but my first question is at what piston speed are they claiming its 1-2 % short of complete?

Even the average car's piston speed is from something around 8 ft/s at a 600 rpm idle to something around 90 ft/s at 6000 rpm redline. An that is getting to be a conservative number with today's high rpm engings. The number soars to a heady 180ft/s at 12000 rpm, which is still conservative when it comes to today's motorcycle engines. The flame rate under compression is not that fast, in fact I'd have to check my references again for under compression, but in free atmosphere the experts claim rates from a little over 1 ft/s to 9 ft/s.

I have sources that have done their research on IC combustion for master's degrees and they have proven that the flame speed is far too slow.

I'll have to get links to their work or pdf copies.

Personally, I think I was pretty much sure of this when I saw big gouts of flame coming from an engine running on test stand without a header.

I've been working on rough calculations so I can try to predict how much closer to complete reduction of the gasoline charge the HHO is getting us. But finding good equations for rates of combustion under compression are not easy.

[JES_VFR]

Think of the system as a wind-up toy car. He's not going to replace the wind-up mainspring -just oil it so that it moves better when it is unwinding. He's not trying to get any real energy out of the "oil" (hydroxy gas) -just using it to lube and improve the efficiency of the "spring" (the gasoline-powered ICE engine).

the toy car reference was a good analogy.

Good try, but not really a good analogy... It would be if you were taking a can of oil off the shelf and oiling the spring.

What you are actually trying to do is use the spring to drill, refine, transport and consume the oil by robbing it of it's finite contained energy.

Everything you do in that sentence costs you energy. Unless you strike the Well-Full-Of-Oil-That-Violates-The-Second-Law you've wasted a lot of energy moving oil around for nothing. (AKA turning water into water)

okay maybe it was too simple an analogy.

maybe it would have been better to say

I fitted a very small pump to pump oil from a small tank onto the bearings and gears, so that the spring can do a better more efficient job of turning them.

that way I'm not making the effect of oil or the delivery of it come from the ether, its done right with in the system using a small amount of the springs potential to make a larger total amount of the springs potential available to move the car.

I never said that making the gas or pumping the electrolyte around in the system did not cost me energy.

All I have ever said was that the addition of the gas to the combustion in the cylinder, makes more energy available for work from the gasoline.

[Serenity_VFR]

I never said that making the gas or pumping the electrolyte around in the system did not cost me energy.

All I have ever said was that the addition of the gas to the combustion in the cylinder, makes more energy available for work from the gasoline.

How about a better analogy then -think about a super-charger. You are taking a little bit of crank energy to turn the blower, but you are putting more air into the bike so the fuel burns better. Would anyone say that a supercharger violates the laws of physics?

I'm sure there were skeptics who said JUST THAT when the supercharger was first envisioned.

[VF1000R]

How about a better analogy then -think about a super-charger. You are taking a little bit of crank energy to turn the blower, but you are putting more air into the bike so the fuel burns better. Would anyone say that a supercharger violates the laws of physics?

I'm sure there were skeptics who said JUST THAT when the supercharger was first envisioned.

Very poor analogy. With a supercharger, you add more air but you also add more fuel and, hence, get more energy. That's why toro's supercharger requires fuel remapping to work.

And I'm still not convinced that a large fraction of the fuel goes unburned. I have several bikes that have no catalytic converter. If they were pumping out a bunch of unburned fuel, the exhaust would smell very rich. It does not. No need to do a master's thesis to test that idea.

Dirk

[JES_VFR]

Very poor analogy. With a supercharger, you add more air but you also add more fuel and, hence, get more energy. That's why toro's supercharger requires fuel remapping to work.

And I'm still not convinced that a large fraction of the fuel goes unburned. I have several bikes that have no catalytic converter. If they were pumping out a bunch of unburned fuel, the exhaust would smell very rich. It does not. No need to do a master's thesis to test that idea.

Dirk

true a supercharger works by packing more fuel and air into the cylinder. It does nothing to extract more power/work from the normal fuel charge.

first I did not say that the combustion doesn't finish, it does.

Just not in the chamber where it would yield more work.

Have you had the exhaust gas analyzed? Smelling rich is not the issue. If you smell much of anything in the exhaust then you have incomplete combustion.

All you have to do is have a dyno shop stick their EG Probe into you tailpipe and take a reading. If it lists anything more than 0.00 PPM for HC's, you don't have complete combustion.

let me ask you this. If the combustion that occurs in the cylinder is so close to complete, then why oh why do we need the catalytic converters to meet emissions?!?!?!?!

[VF1000R]

let me ask you this. If the combustion that occurs in the cylinder is so close to complete, then why oh why do we need the catalytic converters to meet emissions?!?!?!?!

Because engines are run slightly rich to prevent overheating damage. The extra fuel cools things but, of course, has pollution consequences. (Which is why bikes have lean spots around the RPM range where EPA testing is done.) But the increase of fuel to air needed is a few percent, not large factors as HHO proponents imply. Anyway, we can argue until we're blue in the face. Let's see how your tests work out.

Dirk

[NateRC36]

Hi,

I also have a dry-cell configuration, I was planning to put into my RC36 and use a DC-DC converter to drop the voltage down to 2.6v (the nominal voltage for electrolysis) which would enable me to boost the output up to 20amps without straining the charging system too much (works out a little over 40watts consumption).

To cut a long story short I decided not to install it on my bike as I was stuck for finding a space to install the header tank.

I now have a CB500 which has quite a roomy boot under the seat, in which I will install my dry cell and then mount the tank either on the back rack or directly above the cell.

Does your cell run on brute force electrolysis? I've put together a basic PWM circuit back when I was bench testing a few ideas but I'm not entirely convinced it's worth installing it - especially if I use a DC converter to raise the amps.

PS - to everyone interested in learning about HHO production visit http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Electrolysis

Cheers

Nate

[NateRC36]

BTW forgot to add that's a very neat install you have there and the community a peswiki.com would love to see the dyno results and if there's any improvement on mileage/performance.

Nate

[JES_VFR]

Anyway, we can argue until we're blue in the face. Let's see how your tests work out.

Dirk

fair enough, I'm trying to get an acquaintance to sign-on for the base tune before HHO boosting, the first tune after switching on the HHO and the later performance and mileage runs.

Hi,

I also have a dry-cell configuration, I was planning to put into my RC36 and use a DC-DC converter to drop the voltage down to 2.6v (the nominal voltage for electrolysis) which would enable me to boost the output up to 20amps without straining the charging system too much (works out a little over 40watts consumption).

To cut a long story short I decided not to install it on my bike as I was stuck for finding a space to install the header tank.

I now have a CB500 which has quite a roomy boot under the seat, in which I will install my dry cell and then mount the tank either on the back rack or directly above the cell.

Does your cell run on brute force electrolysis? I've put together a basic PWM circuit back when I was bench testing a few ideas but I'm not entirely convinced it's worth installing it - especially if I use a DC converter to raise the amps.

PS - to everyone interested in learning about HHO production visit http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Electrolysis

Cheers

Nate

Okay Nate, I have to ask a couple of questions.

1. How many cells are in your dry cell design?

2. What material are you using for your plates?

3. What are you using for electrolyte?

4. What is the surface area of your plates and how large are your gaskets?

5. You are using a bubbler/drier as a backflash arrestor, right??

The reason I'm asking this is I'm trying to figure out why you want to send 20 amps through your cell and why you think that 2.6 volts at 20 amps is going yield gas.

If you are using Stainless Steel for both plates, then you should set your voltage drop across each cell gap to roughly 2 volts. So if the bike is charging the battery at say 13.4 volts then run a 6 cell design, but if it regularly runs at 14 to 15 volts then run a seven cell design.

And I would not setup the current draw to be more than .5 for every square inch of exposed plate. To much current is just as bad as too much voltage, either one will make the cell run hot and once it heats up your making steam not hho gas.

I'd be very cautious of these materials as there are long term issues with the wrong stainless steels (304 is a no-no long term) and issues with Hexavalent chromium leeching. Electrolyte becomes poisoned over time and is a hazardous waste.

I am doing brute force electrolysis, using Ti and Ti MMO coated plates. The voltage drop for my plate materials is higher at approximately 3.5V's and my plates have just a little over 22 sq inches of area so my current limit is just over 11 amps. Nothing leeches into the electrolyte to render it ineffective or more dangerous than when it was first mixed.

At some later date, I would love to move up to voltrolysis (High voltage/low current gas production through dielectric breakdown of water in the cell).

For now though, I am looking at some additional items to add to the cell to increase its production and add more control to it. A variable frequency pwm for current limiting is one of the items that I am considering.

Did you consider laying the cell on its side and using a small pump to keep it circulating?

It only draws an amp or so while running and the flushing action tends to help make more gas.

then the tank only has to be slightly higher than the cell and you can probably fit both under the seat on the rc36.

I'd bet I can fit a cell like mine on the RC36. Send me a picture of under the seat and under the rear fairing, as well as one from below looking at the back of the rear fender.

I mean I'm seriously considering adding a double stack version of my cell to the underseat/undercowl area on my RC51.

That setup would draw nearly 24 amps (11+ amps for each stack plus 1+ for the pump), so I'll have to work out the charging system issues first, but fitting the cell, the main tank and the bubbler would be no sweat.

I'll be sharing my results with several forums (including the watercar forum on yahoo) as well as posting to the company website.

And I'll be doing lots of videos as I go along discussing each change and its results.

[NateRC36]

Okay Nate, I have to ask a couple of questions.

1. How many cells are in your dry cell design?

2. What material are you using for your plates?

3. What are you using for electrolyte?

4. What is the surface area of your plates and how large are your gaskets?

5. You are using a bubbler/drier as a backflash arrestor, right??

I won't go too far into detail but I'll answer the above..

1. 9 plates

2. high molybdenum content stainless.

3. still not decided on this.

4. Plates are 150mm x 75mm, plate gap is 1.25mm. I did work out the active surface area but don't have the notes to hand.

5. I've been using a standard in-line flashback arrestor as the reservoir acts as the bubbler and it has a pop-off lid to prevent pressure build up.

What pump are you using to circulate the electrolyte? I have experimented with one from a water cooled PC block although it isn't suited to the harsh chemicals involved.

Btw - using low voltage means I can configure the plates +-+-+-+-+ amperage and voltage is inversly proportional, so dropping the voltage will mean I have a higher number of amps to play with 20amps @ 3v is equal (no including losses) to 5amps @ 12v

I look forward to seeing your results and I'd like to add I'm not on here to debate, just to offer support as this is a subject I'm very much interested in.

I've been distracted from this project and have been following Orbo as well as working on a replication of this...

http://www.fdp.nu/cack_movie/janPCack.asp

I have an interest in magnetics and have been playing with a basic magnetic resonance circuit using a ferrite barium magnet core and the sound output from my PC as a signal generator... I wish I could afford an oscilloscope!

I believe refining the combustion engine is flogging a dead horse and clean, solid state electric gen is the way forward...

I will post pics of the cell/space under the CB when I get the time to.

Nate

[JES_VFR]

I won't go too far into detail but I'll answer the above..

1. 9 plates

2. high molybdenum content stainless.

the high moly content is good, Your really looking for low iron and low chromium alloys. That's were the SS starts to get expensive.

3. still not decided on this.

I'd use a medium concentration of Potassium Hydroxide if I were you, but I'm always looking for a better electrolyte.

4. Plates are 150mm x 75mm, plate gap is 1.25mm. I did work out the active surface area but don't have the notes to hand.

Well the total surface area is only 12.2 sq-in..

5. I've been using a standard in-line flashback arrestor as the reservoir acts as the bubbler and it has a pop-off lid to prevent pressure build up.

good, but a second small bubbler with just some windshield washer fluid in it would scrub and dry your gas as well as easing any leveling issues with your main tank.

What pump are you using to circulate the electrolyte? I have experimented with one from a water cooled PC block although it isn't suited to the harsh chemicals involved.

Im using on of these fuel pump. Admittedly its kind of over kill for what it can circulate compared with what I really need, but it can withstand the environment and continuous duty.

Btw - using low voltage means I can configure the plates +-+-+-+-+ amperage and voltage is inversly proportional, so dropping the voltage will mean I have a higher number of amps to play with 20amps @ 3v is equal (no including losses) to 5amps @ 12v

okay so instead of configuring the cell in series, you've configured it as a parallel stack. Now I get your voltage and amperage numbers. You can add the plate areas together to since they are all in parallel and send a lot more current through design, but at that lower voltage.

Still that would seem to be a lot of more work than is needed.

I would have built the cell as a center tapped double stack and not bothered with trying to do the DC/DC conversion. Any energy conversion offers another efficiency loss.

plus if it was reconfigured as the double series stack, it would only need about 12-13 amps to make the best gas.

I look forward to seeing your results and I'd like to add I'm not on here to debate, just to offer support as this is a subject I'm very much interested in.

Hey, I'm glad to have your input, I just was trying to understand your design, and at some level get an understanding of your knowledge about HHO.

I've had people come up to me over the last week or so and say things like "those things never work because you have to pump like a 100 amps into them to get them to make any gas".

Which we both know is not an accurate statement. I've also seen designs built locally that were trying very hard, but were all build on the wrong principals of operation so they were all making way more steam than gas.

I've been distracted from this project and have been following Orbo as well as working on a replication of this...

Its interesting that you are working with magnetics now, as magnetic fields are one of the interacting technologies that I'm planning on trying to increase performance in the cell.

I have an interest in magnetics and have been playing with a basic magnetic resonance circuit using a ferrite barium magnet core and the sound output from my PC as a signal generator... I wish I could afford an oscilloscope!

I believe refining the combustion engine is flogging a dead horse and clean, solid state electric gen is the way forward...

Well, Its not the best work horse we have, but there really are not any better mobile choices yet.

I will post pics of the cell/space under the CB when I get the time to.

Send a couple of pictures of the underseat and underneath space on the rc36 as well.

Nate

Well I'm off to see that emissions crap issue the wife's car has now.

[NateRC36]

Cheers for the update/info.

Here's the link for the DC-DC converter

http://gb.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Artesyn-Technologies/SMT40C-12SADJJ/?qs=wFvjjzoUshL%252bTAp46cm1Cg==

The benefits of using one is that you can cut the number of plates you use and have access to a higher amperage than say with a neutral stacked plated arrangement - as that relies on neutrals to lower the voltage between plates yet it's still limited by the supply current - where as stepping down the voltage greatly increases the amount of current available at the load side of the DC-DC converter 10amp @ 12v or 40amps @ 3v both equate to 120 watts consumption.

Regards to the metal, conditioning it thoroughly before use is a necessity - I carried out 5 x 6 hour cycles - each time using a fresh KOH electrolyte until there was no residue floating on the surface. I'm not 100% sure about using KOH in the engine as it can be carried in the vapour which would cause heavy damage to the valve edges.

Here's another link you may be interested in http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Moray_King:Closed-Loop_Water_Fuel_Cell

From what I've studied to get an engine to run exclusively on HHO you need to carry out a number of internal modifications :

- ignition needs to be past TDC, Hydrogen ignites at a significantly faster rate than petrol, if it were to be ignited at the same point as petrol it would cause bad pinking/knocking... basically f***ing the piston/rods.

- Eliminate any waste spark that may occur (unless timing is taken off of the cam gear) since the ignition advancing will bring it to the intake cycle igniting the intake (kablammo!)

- stainless exhaust (lots of water vapour - a by product of HHO combustion)

- stainless steel valves

- possibly ceramic coat the bores to ensure longevity (long term exposure to hydrogen causes the metals to turn brittle)

You can get really deep into this - stuff like tuned resonance circuits, saltwater radio wave combustion, joes cell, shim-stock coil cells, bacterial hydrogen, additives that react with water to produce hho, etc etc.

I no longer own my RC36 - partexed her for the CB500 solely to save money on fuel/consumables and to make servicing easier (plus I've been promised a new motorcycle pending a payrise at work - maybe a Datona 675 or a Thruxton... not too sure yet!)

[JES_VFR]

Cheers for the update/info.

Here's the link for the DC-DC converter

http://gb.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Artesyn-Technologies/SMT40C-12SADJJ/?qs=wFvjjzoUshL%252bTAp46cm1Cg==

The benefits of using one is that you can cut the number of plates you use and have access to a higher amperage than say with a neutral stacked plated arrangement - as that relies on neutrals to lower the voltage between plates yet it's still limited by the supply current - where as stepping down the voltage greatly increases the amount of current available at the load side of the DC-DC converter 10amp @ 12v or 40amps @ 3v both equate to 120 watts consumption.

Hey whatever works for you. I don't see how it saves you plates as you need just as many plates (if not more) to make enough cells to make up enough parallel plate area to handle the higher amperage. If you don't do this then you get into an over-current density situation. Add in that you have the complexity of wiring up all those plates to a positive or negative bus, versus three connections if I was to build a double stack with your plates. My cell only needs one positive and one negative connections and the current flows across all cells equally. As you pointed out the wattage is the same whether you use the Voltage stepdown converter or not, but I have not seen anything that proves to me the parallel cell would make more gas than your plates in a center tap double series stack would.

These is some discussion about the field effect from the continuous flow of current increasing production in a series design versus the parallel designs. I do have a experiment planned for a slightly later date to compare a center tapped double series stack to a current aligned double series stack. Just to see if adding the one extra insulator plus one extra plate and aligning the current to all flow in one direction makes any difference in the output.

Regards to the metal, conditioning it thoroughly before use is a necessity - I carried out 5 x 6 hour cycles - each time using a fresh KOH electrolyte until there was no residue floating on the surface.

If the electrolyte is still taking on a yellow to orange color, its still leeching out iron and chromium

I'm not 100% sure about using KOH in the engine as it can be carried in the vapor which would cause heavy damage to the valve edges.

That is what the second freshwater (it's about 50% windshield washer fluid to keep it from freezing) bubbler is for its scrubs any last trace of KOH out of the gas.

Here's another link you may be interested in http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Moray_King:Closed-Loop_Water_Fuel_Cell

cool, I check that out later, I think I was there a long time ago.

From what I've studied to get an engine to run exclusively on HHO you need to carry out a number of internal modifications :

- ignition needs to be past TDC, Hydrogen ignites at a significantly faster rate than petrol, if it were to be ignited at the same point as petrol it would cause bad pinking/knocking... basically f***ing the piston/rods.

Yup, it needs to be pretty much at TDC.

- Eliminate any waste spark that may occur (unless timing is taken off of the cam gear) since the ignition advancing will bring it to the intake cycle igniting the intake (kablammo!)

Or change the camshafts events, which since your running a closed intake system, very much like a propane conversion, you can afford much smaller intake and exhaust events and almost no duration in the camshaft

- stainless exhaust (lots of water vapour - a by product of HHO combustion)

I recommend that for any car and Ti for any bike so that is nothing new for me.

- stainless steel valves

Again, or inconel or ti.

- possibly ceramic coat the bores to ensure longevity (long term exposure to hydrogen causes the metals to turn brittle)

that is only if it isn't already on of this Nikasil or other silicon/carbide cylinder treatments.

You can get really deep into this - stuff like tuned resonance circuits, saltwater radio wave combustion, joes cell, shim-stock coil cells, bacterial hydrogen, additives that react with water to produce hho, etc etc.

that's an understatement! Add in all the infighting and arguing over what works and what doesn't it's enough to make sane person crazy.

I no longer own my RC36 - partexed her for the CB500 solely to save money on fuel/consumables and to make servicing easier (plus I've been promised a new motorcycle pending a payrise at work - maybe a Datona 675 or a Thruxton... not too sure yet!)

Well that is truly a shame. Putting a cell on a rc36 would have been a treat. I hope the raise does pay for a new machine. I'm leaning towards either a sprint 1050 or the new VFR1200F for the corporate asset long term test machine. It will live in my garage as one a test/demonstration unit.

Well the latest development is that the sight glass on the tank does not work. So there is a refilling issue. I'll probably have to add a topside T fitting to it and lengthen total tubing length. Either that or mock up a different tank. If I have to do that I'm going to go bigger and use a different fill method

[ericlw]

i think im going to stick with plain old gas and not have all this other stuff adding complexity and weight. when you get your perpetual motion machine working let me know :)

[JES_VFR]

i think im going to stick with plain old gas and not have all this other stuff adding complexity and weight. when you get your perpetual motion machine working let me know :)

fine when we get to the 80+ mpg VFR we WON'T bother you.

[Tightwad]

I am by no means a scientist…but I do love the theory and discussion. One thing I keep hearing is that “you can’t get as much work out as you are putting in”….I understand this theory, and it is true in every case I have seen tested, but I think the point of it all is that we aren’t currently at a 1:1 ratio of effort to work, and thus there is room to improve the ratio without violating any laws of physics. The effort to distill the HHO is a perfect example….why worry about the work involved to distill it as long as it doesn’t require a charging system upgrade (which would draw more power)?

If he gets 1 verifiable MPG more, without power loss, it will be a success. People are willing to run gas additives that claim the same thing…what’s the difference?

My thoughts on how to verify the upgrade I still stand behind…if you are adding HHO AND a Powercommander, you have to test them individually…otherwise you have no proof that the additional power and/or MPG changes are HHO related and not PC related, right?

[Guest whitecl0ver]

Its a perfect stoichiometric blend of H2 and O2. If ignited it will rapidly burn and produce WATER!!!!. ...... and less unburned hydrocarbon fuel going out the exhaust port.

What are you trying to accomplish? Better mileage? More power? I never did read a clear explanation of goals.

Explain to me again how adding a stoichiometric mixture of one fuel is going to reduce the unburned portion of the primary fuel. I am not seeing the change in the amount of free oxygen available to burn off the original excess primary fuel.

Electrolizing water = 2H₂O --> 2H₂ + O₂ (with the input of electrical energy from your motorcycle)

Combusting those gasses = 2H₂ + O₂ --> 2H₂O (with the creation of heat energy, some of which is lost to the atmosphere)

You're converting water into gasses then converting them back into water, correct? But you've used electrical energy from your motorcycle to do it. Unfortunately you don't recieve all that power back, thanks to the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.

Plus, you are taking up the finite space in the cylinder that could be filled with gasoline and air and substituting in a fuel that has a lower specific energy.

It has been a long time since I have sat through a Chem lecture, so please feel free to point out any error in my understanding.

Add in the pump that you are also running and what I'm seeing is a motorcycle that is less efficient than it was before. A motorcycle that has less power than it did before. And a motorcycle that is mechanically more complicated and argueably less safe than it was before.

This about sums it up.

Google "Brown's Gas" for a thorough debunking.

and all this time I that 'brown gas' was the by product of a good burrito! :fing02:

Edited May 17, 2010 by whitecl0ver

[JES_VFR]

I am by no means a scientist…but I do love the theory and discussion. One thing I keep hearing is that “you can’t get as much work out as you are putting in”….I understand this theory, and it is true in every case I have seen tested, but I think the point of it all is that we aren’t currently at a 1:1 ratio of effort to work, and thus there is room to improve the ratio without violating any laws of physics. The effort to distill the HHO is a perfect example….why worry about the work involved to distill it as long as it doesn’t require a charging system upgrade (which would draw more power)?

Hallelujah, He get's it. I'd go one step further, even if I have to upgrade the charging system to get enough power for the HHO production, who cares as long as it yields more total work from the engine for less gasoline consumption.

If he gets 1 verifiable MPG more, without power loss, it will be a success. People are willing to run gas additives that claim the same thing…what’s the difference?

Yes, that is technically correct, but if I only get 1 mpg, then I'm going to be a little disappointed. I'd certainly be off looking at what the design needs to make it more successful.

My thoughts on how to verify the upgrade I still stand behind…if you are adding HHO AND a Powercommander, you have to test them individually…otherwise you have no proof that the additional power and/or MPG changes are HHO related and not PC related, right?

Hey I never argued that the PC V should not be tested and numbers recorded to see what it can do, then the HHO and a map for boosting added to see what it can do. I'm kind of doing the data recording for a third option right now, and that is "what does the HHO do with no tuning"

and all this time I that 'brown gas' was the by product of a good burrito! :fing02:

I thought that depended on how much Guacamole was in the burrito,

But seriously did you expect the guy to change his name just because someone was going to name a science discovery after him?

[kaldek]

My thoughts on how to verify the upgrade I still stand behind…if you are adding HHO AND a Powercommander, you have to test them individually…otherwise you have no proof that the additional power and/or MPG changes are HHO related and not PC related, right?

Absolutely - the Powercommander alone can corrupt the data because if you fit this thing and then get a custom tune, you could well end up with better MPG purely because of the Powercommander.

I still think it's all hogwash. In todays market if the best engineers in the world aren't working on this right now, it means it doesn't work. Saying different = conspiracy theory.

[JES_VFR]

Absolutely - the Powercommander alone can corrupt the data because if you fit this thing and then get a custom tune, you could well end up with better MPG purely because of the Powercommander.

I still think it's all hogwash. In todays market if the best engineers in the world aren't working on this right now, it means it doesn't work. Saying different = conspiracy theory.

So your saying that good ideas can only come from the "best engineers in the world". Wait aren't these the same Engineers that gave us the Half-assed Vtec on the 2002? Or the mighty GM Impact? Or the Ponitac Aztek? Or another number of disasters, including the last wave of gas guzzling SUV's???

Who determines "best engineers in the world" status????

If these so called "best" engineers aren't working on it right now, it only means that the mother corporation doesn't see a tax break or a profit in it.

That's all.

No conspiracy theory, just a simple fact.

These companies (GM, Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Yamaha, Nissan, Toyota, Suzuki, etc...) don't see HHO as a technology that will increase their bottom line, so it gets ignored.

[VF1000R]

These companies (GM, Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Yamaha, Nissan, Toyota, Suzuki, etc...) don't see HHO as a technology that will increase their bottom line, so it gets ignored.

And yet, several of them make and sell hybrids, capitalizing on the market desire for more fuel efficient vehicles. If your claims about the gas mileage benefits of HHO were true, I would think that they would be all over it since it is a much cheaper and less expensive/complex solution than a hybrid setup.

Dirk

[tok tokkie]

I have followed this with interest. I look forward to the dyno test results though I don't expect any improvement. I compliment you on the way you have responded to the doubters & challengers - you have politely & patiently stated your interpretation of the theory each time.

It strikes me that if we are looking for more power how difficult is it to replace the existing alternator with one that generates the required Amps at the required Volts instead of running full tilt all the time & dumping the excess Watts as heat?

[NateRC36]

...I compliment you on the way you have responded to the doubters & challengers - you have politely & patiently stated your interpretation of the theory each time.

Well said!

I'd try and help out with my understanding of it all but I've been through all that before.. the proof really is in the pudding with this one.

Regarding conspiracy theories.. take the Diesel engine for example, that was originally designed to run on crop oil grown by farmers to power their machinery - the inventor was murdered and the engine was reborn years lator to run on a by product of oil refining!

The oil companies are very powerful and they dictate almost every aspect of our lives - just think of all the products that come from oil, it's mind boggling to say the least - then imagine our modern way of living without those products...

Nate

:biggrin:

[SEBSPEED]

These companies (GM, Ford, Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Yamaha, Nissan, Toyota, Suzuki, etc...) don't see HHO as a technology that will increase their bottom line, so it gets ignored.

Umm... not quite the same as your setup, but, - http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/how-fcx-works.aspx

James May reviewed it during an episode of Top Gear.

And I happen to like my VTEC, a lot... :beatdeadhorse:

[kaldek]

So your saying that good ideas can only come from the "best engineers in the world". Wait aren't these the same Engineers that gave us the Half-assed Vtec on the 2002? Or the mighty GM Impact? Or the Ponitac Aztek? Or another number of disasters, including the last wave of gas guzzling SUV's???

Hardly. I'm thinking more the folks at MIT, CalTech, Stanford, et al. These are guys that create the stuff which eventually makes its way to the corporates. I see none of those guys giving weight to the whole HHO idea.

It reminds me of some Aussie fellas who had "invented" a backyard perpetual motion machine. It used permanent magnets that - once you started spinning it by hand - kept it spinning forever and ever and generating electricity. They were TOTALLY CONVINCED it worked - TOTALLY. When actual physicists came in and PROVED it was total bollocks, they didn't accept it, because they were unable to actually comprehend the laws of physics properly.

The fundamental problem here is that the people coming up with these ideas don't understand physics enough to prove themselves wrong. They only know enough to keep proving themselves right, and are constantly surprised when they can't get energy out of the system. But they KEEP GOING because they don't have the ability to prove themselves wrong.

A good scientist knows when to call something a dead end. A bad scientist wastes his entire life on it with nothing to show for it except conviction.

Of course everything I say here will only make y'all think I'm "a suit", "the man", "brainwashed by big oil", "too stupid to understand the intricacies of the technology", etc.