Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
disturbing facts
Author Message
pimpa Offline
Member
***

Posts: 105
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #1
disturbing facts
hi everyone,
I read recently the NASA report ,after my failed attempt to increase mpg on my carburated engine(no leaning no mods)
reading it carefully reveals a huge difference between their experiment and our attempts.
they used a 7 liter chevy engine and bottled hidrogen ( feeding rate 0.6kg/hour) and an other onboard hidrogen generating device using ethanol (feeding 0.2kg/hour to the engine)
there was a significant difference between the two, but both performed really well.

0.6kg/hour hidrogen is really a small amount compared to the petrol consumed by the engine.that engine could go through
10kg/hour (approx 3 gallons) petrol easily during the test.

I made some rough calculations and the amout of hidrogen we produce with electrolysis is less than pathetic compared to even the 0.2kg/hour ((200gramm/hour)) NASA generator.

some data from the net:
oxigen standard atomic mass: 16g mol-1
hidrogen : 1g mol-1
hidrogen gas mass: 0.1g/liter at atmospheric pressure, zero degrees celsius.


which in my case is (1LPM) about 0.6g/hour pure hidrogen, which is the active ingredient.


keeping the standard atomic mass in mind, in our HHO there are 9 times more oxigen (by weight!) in the
mixture than hidrogen. I know that there are twice as much hidrogen than oxigen in the gas but the hidrogen has no
mass compared to the oxigen.
so at 60liter/hour we see about 6liter of pure hidrogen which equals 0.6g/h

we have 0.6g/h against the NASA's 200g/h. that is what I call a difference.

the NASA did not use electrolysis, my question is why? because they needed sufficient hidrogen?
they used too much H or we use too little?
honestly I find hard to believe that less than 1 gramm/h hidrogen has any affect on combustion.
now u may jump on me!
:-)
11-30-2008 01:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mattsauto Offline
Member
***

Posts: 112
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #2
RE: disturbing facts
pimpa Wrote:hi everyone,
I read recently the NASA report ,after my failed attempt to increase mpg on my carburated engine(no leaning no mods)
reading it carefully reveals a huge difference between their experiment and our attempts.
they used a 7 liter chevy engine and bottled hidrogen ( feeding rate 0.6kg/hour) and an other onboard hidrogen generating device using ethanol (feeding 0.2kg/hour to the engine)
there was a significant difference between the two, but both performed really well.

0.6kg/hour hidrogen is really a small amount compared to the petrol consumed by the engine.that engine could go through
10kg/hour (approx 3 gallons) petrol easily during the test.

I made some rough calculations and the amout of hidrogen we produce with electrolysis is less than pathetic compared to even the 0.2kg/hour ((200gramm/hour)) NASA generator.

some data from the net:
oxigen standard atomic mass: 16g mol-1
hidrogen : 1g mol-1
hidrogen gas mass: 0.1g/liter at atmospheric pressure, zero degrees celsius.


which in my case is (1LPM) about 0.6g/hour pure hidrogen, which is the active ingredient.


keeping the standard atomic mass in mind, in our HHO there are 9 times more oxigen (by weight!) in the
mixture than hidrogen. I know that there are twice as much hidrogen than oxigen in the gas but the hidrogen has no
mass compared to the oxigen.
so at 60liter/hour we see about 6liter of pure hidrogen which equals 0.6g/h

we have 0.6g/h against the NASA's 200g/h. that is what I call a difference.

the NASA did not use electrolysis, my question is why? because they needed sufficient hidrogen?
they used too much H or we use too little?
honestly I find hard to believe that less than 1 gramm/h hidrogen has any affect on combustion.
now u may jump on me!
:-)

Hey pimpa, the average guy out there will not play with this stuff (hydrogen, oxygen, gasoline, diesel fuel..etc...) To begin with, you have to be mentally disturbed "wacko" (me included), in order to play with this stuff...
(This post was last modified: 11-30-2008 01:29 PM by mattsauto.)
11-30-2008 01:23 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joe38socalif Offline
Member
***

Posts: 55
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #3
RE: disturbing facts
Hydrogen Junkie Wrote:When the spark is sent to the combustion chamber, the hydrogen is ignited in an instant, and happens several degrees before top dead center. I beleive we need to adjust the timing closer to (TDC) to gain as much as possible from electrolosys,at any amount produced(just a thought)..."Thinking out of the box is better"...Jason


I read something advancing the timing 10 % will to the job, but im not sure as I know VERY little about motors.

now ask me to fix a A/C tile, drywall, ext ext ext im all over it.

CALL YOU CONGRESS MEN AND OR LOCAL LEGISLATOR AND TELL THEM TO REMOVE ETHANOL FROM ARE FUEL. TELL THEM FOOD ON THE TABLES OF AMERICANS IS MORE IMPORTANT AND KILL THE ETHANOL FROM CORN DEAL. ETHANOL FROM CORN CAUSES EVERYONE TO PAY MORE FOR FOOD.
11-30-2008 08:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gtkco Offline
Member
***

Posts: 322
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #4
RE: disturbing facts
Well, this is the way I use the Nasa report. First of all it's scientific jargon is quite thick and not defined. Hence, it is difficult to follow. I do not know how to convert kg H to LPM HHO. Maybe your analysis is correct I don't know. What's your formal training? I am not trying to be difficult or insulting but I have seen a lot of relatively sophisticated ammatures really mess up the meaning of scientific reports. But what I do know is the report confirms the chemistry/physics of the process. Now, here is where I am going to use the risky first hand reports on this forum for my decision making. If the amount of HHO is truely not enough then on a forum like this with lots of tinkerer's I would expect to see almost zero possitive results. Yes the world is full of scammers and people who are often wrong but seldom in doubt but there are too many reports here for all of them to fit into these two catagories. So I think it is worth the try. So, it becomes a somewhat inexpensive hobby with maybe a cost reduction on the up side. Yes it is inexpensive. Try sking. You can blow $500 bucks in a heartbeat. Of course sking is lots of fun. If someone is not getting any fun out of this HHO stuff then they should wait until someone comes up with a plug n play system.
12-01-2008 07:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
finallyME Offline
Member
***

Posts: 148
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #5
RE: disturbing facts
pimpa Wrote:hi everyone,
I read recently the NASA report ,after my failed attempt to increase mpg on my carburated engine(no leaning no mods)
reading it carefully reveals a huge difference between their experiment and our attempts.
they used a 7 liter chevy engine and bottled hidrogen ( feeding rate 0.6kg/hour) and an other onboard hidrogen generating device using ethanol (feeding 0.2kg/hour to the engine)
there was a significant difference between the two, but both performed really well.

0.6kg/hour hidrogen is really a small amount compared to the petrol consumed by the engine.that engine could go through
10kg/hour (approx 3 gallons) petrol easily during the test.

I made some rough calculations and the amout of hidrogen we produce with electrolysis is less than pathetic compared to even the 0.2kg/hour ((200gramm/hour)) NASA generator.

some data from the net:
oxigen standard atomic mass: 16g mol-1
hidrogen : 1g mol-1
hidrogen gas mass: 0.1g/liter at atmospheric pressure, zero degrees celsius.


which in my case is (1LPM) about 0.6g/hour pure hidrogen, which is the active ingredient.


keeping the standard atomic mass in mind, in our HHO there are 9 times more oxigen (by weight!) in the
mixture than hidrogen. I know that there are twice as much hidrogen than oxigen in the gas but the hidrogen has no
mass compared to the oxigen.
so at 60liter/hour we see about 6liter of pure hidrogen which equals 0.6g/h

we have 0.6g/h against the NASA's 200g/h. that is what I call a difference.

the NASA did not use electrolysis, my question is why? because they needed sufficient hidrogen?
they used too much H or we use too little?
honestly I find hard to believe that less than 1 gramm/h hidrogen has any affect on combustion.
now u may jump on me!
:-)

Well, I will nitpick a little. For HHO at 1lpm, you get 3.26 g/hr of H2 at room temperature. You forgot that hydrogen is diatomic in gas form and weighs 2 g/mole. Also, we generally don't do electrolysis in our engine compartment at 0C, so even my number of 25C is low. Anyways, for 1lpm of HHO, you get .666lpm of H2. There are .04 moles of hydrogen in 1 L at room temp and .08 g/L.

Your real point is that it is still not the 200g/hr. I will have to look back at the paper, but I remember it being very confusing as to what they actually injected, and how they got that number.

My vehicles:
2002 Saturn SL2 4 banger
2006 Chrysler Town and Country

You can kill two birds with one stone, but you can't kill one stone with two birds. Big Grin
12-01-2008 12:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ptours99 Offline
Member
***

Posts: 162
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #6
RE: disturbing facts
joe38socalif Wrote:
Hydrogen Junkie Wrote:When the spark is sent to the combustion chamber, the hydrogen is ignited in an instant, and happens several degrees before top dead center. I beleive we need to adjust the timing closer to (TDC) to gain as much as possible from electrolosys,at any amount produced(just a thought)..."Thinking out of the box is better"...Jason


I read something advancing the timing 10 % will to the job, but im not sure as I know VERY little about motors.

now ask me to fix a A/C tile, drywall, ext ext ext im all over it.
you have to retard the timing maybe 10 degrees so it can ignite closer to top dead center which means more power and torque along w/mpg.

selling an enclosure for the rear of cab semi truck 28''X20''X6'' CUSTOM MADE ALUMINUM TO HOUSE HHO GENERATORS AND INCLUDING A RESERVOIR BUBBLER AND REGULAR BUBBLR ptoures@sbcglobal.net usa only
12-01-2008 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gary Offline
Member
***

Posts: 1,542
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 4
Post: #7
RE: disturbing facts
except that on many late model vehicles you can't change the timing - the ECU resets it to stock. Go beyond the range and it goes open loop.
12-01-2008 03:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Zolar1 Offline
Got a Cheezeburger 4 me?
***

Posts: 185
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #8
RE: disturbing facts
Here's the timing specifications you need for proper operation.

-3deg at full advance, -12 deg at idle. And not on any systems that use a waste spark.
12-01-2008 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
benny Offline
Member
***

Posts: 332
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: 5
Post: #9
RE: disturbing facts
gtkco Wrote:Well, this is the way I use the Nasa report. First of all it's scientific jargon is quite thick and not defined. Hence, it is difficult to follow. I do not know how to convert kg H to LPM HHO. Maybe your analysis is correct I don't know. What's your formal training? I am not trying to be difficult or insulting but I have seen a lot of relatively sophisticated ammatures really mess up the meaning of scientific reports. But what I do know is the report confirms the chemistry/physics of the process. Now, here is where I am going to use the risky first hand reports on this forum for my decision making. If the amount of HHO is truely not enough then on a forum like this with lots of tinkerer's I would expect to see almost zero possitive results. Yes the world is full of scammers and people who are often wrong but seldom in doubt but there are too many reports here for all of them to fit into these two catagories. So I think it is worth the try. So, it becomes a somewhat inexpensive hobby with maybe a cost reduction on the up side. Yes it is inexpensive. Try sking. You can blow $500 bucks in a heartbeat. Of course sking is lots of fun. If someone is not getting any fun out of this HHO stuff then they should wait until someone comes up with a plug n play system.

Agree wholeheartedly. I'd much rather make bubbles than climb up a hill just to slide back down again.. That I gave up at age 12 when I progressed to the big boys school. Course, back in those days we had to make do with old corrugated iron sheet rather than two flat sticks.Big Grin
(This post was last modified: 12-01-2008 03:33 PM by benny.)
12-01-2008 03:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gary Offline
Member
***

Posts: 1,542
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 4
Post: #10
RE: disturbing facts
Wow, all we had was cardboard boxes. Sad
12-01-2008 04:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)