HHO, GEET Pantone, Ram wings, Turbonators

[CaseyJones]

Many pages of this thread just to say:
1) The principle is right and it works as is on carburettor engines
2) Needs some improvements to do its best on every condition, expecially with fuel injection engines.

All righty, then!

I'll pass along another broad hint. Use the gas production figure from some of the available kits (stated at around 2 liters per minute). Then find the air flow requirements of your test engine at 1000 rpm. Express gas flow (assuming availability of the entire 2 liters per minute) to air flow as a ratio. Tell me what you think.

Next, find if you can a conservative air flow number for your test engine considering acceleration under moderate load, say at 3500 rpm. Bear in mind that your air flow requirements increase as do your fuel flow requirements. Gas production remains static at 2 liters per minute.

[roberto]

The point on you focused is one of the things I put on my point 2: improvements.
I've a simple pwm control on electrolysis, but a perfect system needs a specific injection of HHO (just like for fuel).
The simpler way is like injecting a standard value of fuel, and varying the trottle to let more air to accelerate. Well, it isn't the optimum, but it's a good start point.

[stink]

Don't get yourself all worked up Roberto. Casey is the epitome of dumb a$$ (just read his posts) who believes the government knows what?s best for us and won't accept ideas that aren't already "approved."

Last time I checked, some of the most brilliant ideas on the planet originated from someone thinking outside the box.

Hell, 5 years from now I'll have perfected my engine which runs on used beer

Stink
________
Ford Model Tt History

[Omar]

Guys,
I removed some inappropriate posts. Let's keep things civil around here so I don't have to continue to delete posts or lock threads.

Thanks,
Omar

[leaveitalone84]

His process allows for TDC detonation, exhaust so clean you can breath it , and the ability for traditional ICE to burn Diesel/Turpins/Gas/Alcohol (first distillation on up) etc. It really is incredible. It's actually incredibly easy.

1) No carboration/throttle body
2) Re-key the timing or adjust to TDC electronically
3) Needle Valve(s) at the cylinder intake valve with atleast 5% intake charge of hydrogen to idle the engine
4) other bio/petrol fuels for the main charge through direct injection (he has a cool spark plug + injector unit for retrofit).

Implementation once again is a more complicated that it looks at first glance.

Let's go back to Tony's stationary diesel. It's a "flat earth" application because the fuel delivery map doesn't have substantial contour to it.

In a diesel app we can ignore ignition timing because diesels once running require no additional spark.

We can ignore a complicated fuel flow curve because the stationary diesel runs at a constant speed.

We can ignore a complicated fuel flow curve because the stationary diesel sees a consistent load.

Change speed and load parameters and it becomes necessary to change the fuel delivery curve.

"Setting ignition at TDC" is an oversimplification. Ideally ignition needs to be mapped in relation to fuel flow, air flow, air density, load and as many other variables as can be compensated for. In practice none of the variables are static.

In practice we need to meet increasingly stringent emissions requirements. Entire buildings full of very clever engineers work to bring us engine controls that meet all the criteria we have to build to. We require our powerplants to produce reasonable power at all speeds and loads. The EPA requires that our powerplants meet emissions requirements at all speeds and loads. The consumer requires that our products function at any altitude or temperature on varying grades of fuel. The OEMs barely hit their marks and only with great expense and effort.

Casey,

I will kindly disagree with you. With a 5PSI hydrogen charge a 5hp john deer motor will idle without a carb and fire TDC no problem.

Too accelerate you simply supply more hydrogen. The engine will increase its RPM and self regulate the air intake. Firing is still TDC. No increase in emissions, no worry about altitude etc. It just works.

The only reason you need to retard timing is because of the low octane rating of most fuels, hy-boosting ups the octane substantially, allowing very close to TDC (or TDC) at all RPMS and loads. It's dependent on how much Hydrogen you can introduce to the charge. If you dont supply enough, you do need to back off timing.

The reason we have 20mpg cars is because the auto/oil industry is corrupt beyond imagination. By applying Roy's engine methods we could all have at least a 30% increase in MPG and power, most likely more. There's no expensive conversions...it works. He has thousands of fleet vehicles all over the world doing this.

The point is his method doesn't need to worry about meeting regulations, it's a complete combustion and you can suck on the tailpipe all day without worrying.

Engines are way easier then people make them out to be. They self regulate to a point.

Anyways I know you wont do this, but check out Roy Mcalister. YouTube took down most of his videos (all the engine ones, and i wonder why) but they left up his classroom lectures.

[CaseyJones]

From the SAE, "The simulations and measurements show substantial benefits to improve the combustion process..."

Sweet! Simulations?!

Don't get yourself all worked up Roberto. Casey is the epitome of dumb a$$ (just read his posts) who believes the government knows what’s best for us and won't accept ideas that aren't already "approved."

Stinkmeister, my good man!

Hate to break this to ya bro but you got me exactly wrong. Anarchist wannabes need to know exactly what the laws are before breakin' 'em. One needs to know which fight is worth fightin', how to retreat until victory and how to live to fight another day.

Uncle Jim had the last word:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMRANk8t0rE

The laws of physics are relatively inflexible, they're enforced by The Cosmic Cop.

Casey,

I will kindly disagree with you. With a 5PSI hydrogen charge a 5hp john deer motor will idle without a carb and fire TDC no problem.

Too accelerate you simply supply more hydrogen. The engine will increase its RPM and self regulate the air intake. Firing is still TDC. No increase in emissions, no worry about altitude etc. It just works.

We're talking about Brown's Gas not straight hydrogen. Urban legend has it that one can produce enough Brown's Gas from an onboard "generator" to yield fuel mileage gains, in the vast majority of applications it simply ain't so. That's what our Italian buddy is trying to promote. That's what Dartanion wants to believe.

Neat trick, kids don't try this at home: Run down to AirGas and buy a big cylinder full o' hydrogen, a regulator and a hose. There's 3000 psi in a fresh cylinder so don't drop it on its valve. Strap it down to the trunk of yer hoopdee like Bambi's Dad after the third day of huntin' season. Now drive yer fancy new creation through The Big Dig or over that nifty bridge. Let us know how you make out.

The science is right, if you try to make a generator with existing technology you cannot produce enough gas to run an engine. But since the internal combustion engine is so incredibly inefficient any optimization in the burn and moving detonation to top dead center will overcome the loss added by the booster.

Not to be a jerk but it would seem I'm bein' a little difficult...

"Detonation" in this context means pre-ignition which is a bad thing. "Ignition" is the correct term. Detonation is what we're tryin' to avoid, to avoid it we need the mixture and the ignition timing to be correct.

"Correct" takes at least a short list of parameters into consideration.

[roberto]

Thanks Omar for removing those posts.

Back In Topic:
The interesting "fil rouge" about this kind of threads is that people talks for pages about single words, and not about concepts. Result: the most part of readers stop reading at the 3rd post.

NASA made an interestind HHO test on a Chevy.

[CaseyJones]

Just for laughs I looked into a couple "HHO" sites. I'm not gonna post links, no use giving scammers any exposure. Laughs I got. The claims have inflated to 40% or 50% or more improved fuel mileage, "enough to pay for the kit in a week".

The angle I'm seein' here in the U.S. is "install this kit and claim your tax credit on your income tax". So... the kit sellers charge between $295 for a "basic" kit and around $700 for a "deluxe" kit. But don't worry, you don't have to pay for it, you'll get it back from the tax people.

Everyone gets scammed.

"We tried several experts and toolkits like this before, yet nothing worked.
But when we started using the methods of (brand name deleted to protect the guilty) toolkit, the engine finally started working properly and burning less gas. Our experiments showed a 57.4% improvement on MPG."

This one is kinda cool:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 016170.pdf

That's a 472 C.I. '69 Cadillac engine, close to 7.5 liters! "Back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth!" It's not exactly "HHO", they used a catalytic unit which, being NASA, is rocket science compared to the current crop of fish tank aerators. The part I like is that they injected their hydrogen between the "fuel atomizer" (that's a carburetor, dude!) and the intake manifold runners. They're talkin about a plate system similar to an entry level nitrous kit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igXdVIkPYxY

[roberto]

Just an upgrade:

Many pages of this thread just to say:
1) The principle is right and it works as is on carburettor engines
2) Needs some improvements to do its best on every condition, expecially with fuel injection engines
3) Many people speculate on this






4) Casey is boring

[CaseyJones]

Just an upgrade:

Many pages of this thread just to say:
1) The principle is right and it works as is on carburettor engines

Depends on which principle you're talkin' about. If you're talkin' hydrogen either as a fuel or as a fuel additive, sure, that works.

If you're talkin' one of the many commercial available "HHO" kits no, they don't work. The volume of hydrogen they generate is insignificant and the energy input is ridiculous in relation to hydrogen output.

In short it's a massive scam. $250 per bogus unit x 1000 units = $250k. The actual scale of the deception is much larger.

2) Needs some improvements to do its best on every condition, expecially with fuel injection engines

The first necessary improvement is to make the numbers work. Hydrogen production needs to be dramatically increased while the cost of production needs to be dramatically decreased. That's the same challenge that faces "fuel cell" technology.

Anyone can buy a tank of hydrogen and say, "See! Look, it will run the engine!" The challenge is to find a lot of really inexpensive hydrogen.

3) Many people speculate on this

Sure. And in between the nonsense there are very few credible claims. There's a quick way to identify a credible claim:

A credible claim will list substantial hydrogen production by weight not volume. A kilo of hydrogen at atmospheric pressue is enormous by volume. Take a look at NASA's 1977 study, they used a lot of hydrogen. No mention is made of cost effectiveness.

I'm genuinely sorry that document is in English, it must be a chore to wade through with English as a second language. I'm not kidding.

Some of the most impressive looking units make no mention of either volume or weight of production.

In practice the production volume is so low it's like sayin' you can catch a buzz by sittin' next to a drunk. Come to think of it, that works... if you're drinkin, too!

A simple tell is to look at the weight of feedstock (in this case water or electrolyte) in relation to generator output by weight. "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." If we're converting water into a substantial amount of hydrogen we want to see the water go away (it's converted). Yet vendors of most commercially available units state, "The unit is practically maintenance free. Just clean the red grunge out every six months and add a little more water." Substantial hydrogen production means substantial feedstock consumption.

Near as I can tell "many people specluate" whether consumers are gullible enough to pay $49.00 for an information packet that's readily available for free, or whether they're gullible enough to spend $250.00, $350.00 or as high as $1500.00 for a product that's untested and unproven. There are a lot of people in this but virtually none with good science to back up their claims.

4) Casey is boring

You flatter me, sir!

The proof to the contrary is that we have a pages long exchange and we've merely reviewed a few interesting if largely unsubstantiated claims.

[roberto]

Sorry Casey, not interested in writing billions words, 'cause nobody will read them. They are simply boring.

Thanks for your interest.

[CaseyJones]

Sorry Casey, not interested in writing billions words, 'cause nobody will read them. They are simply boring.

I can see that. 'Cuz we have pages and pages and none of it is your original thought. I asked you a few simple questions which you are either unable or unwilling to answer. You can re-hash other people's ideas ad infinitum but apparently have none of your own.

[roberto]

Good flame try, Mr Jones! Please retry later with better ideas!

[CaseyJones]

Good flame try, Mr Jones! Please retry later with better ideas!

It's not a flame. If you can point out glaring anomalies in a line of reasoning including my line of reasoning then you're an intelligent human being and you have my respect. If you simply regurgitate pages and pages without pondering the relative merit of the information contained therein... well, you figure it out. I haven't seen you figure out anything important so far.

End of story. If you want to tax my generosity by gettin' the last word so be it.

[roberto]

Casey,
the entire history of your posts, in this thread, is just flame.
How many times you called me "Tony"? How many times you said "BS" then "I can made this work" then again "BS" and then again "it works" then "it can't" then you talked about ebay sellers.. This is not a line of reasoning. The only thing you want to obtain is make peolpe bored of reading.

This is my last reply to you.
Enjoy.