Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 56 users online :: 3 registered, 0 hidden and 53 guests


Most users ever online was 155 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:40 am

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

HHO Gun possibility?

Post questions and info about combustion (flammable vapor) powered cannons here. This includes discussion about fuels, ratios, ignition systems, safety, and anything else relevant.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: inonickname » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:31 am

Ugh. Have a squiz at thermodynamics please. You don't get more power out than you put into it. The hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell is using energy created by the engine (battery), or from an external source.

So either:

1) Your battery goes flat
2) It does nothing

*note that not only will you not get more power out than you put in, using hydrogen in that way is one of the least efficient methods. It's much more efficient to use the energy to charge a fuel cell.
  • 0

PimpAssasinG wrote:no im strong but you are a fat gay mother sucker that gets raped by black man for fun
User avatar
inonickname
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2606
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:27 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Insomniac » Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:09 am

jimmy101 wrote:Might just try a couple of US Nickels. :D Perhaps a couple US quarters (silver over copper, coat the edges with wax or something to protect the copper edge of the coin). Silver is sometimes used as an electrode material. Silver is almost as inert as Pt and a lot cheaper.


US currancy is a little hard to find around here lol :D .

I read through the patent and it makes no mention of electrode material, and only once breifly mentions citric acid. Damn.
  • 0

I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges.
Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.

Add me on msn!!! insomniac-55@hotmail.com
User avatar
Insomniac
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 3:47 pm
Location: Australia
Country: Australia (au)
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: TurboSuper » Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:05 am

Not to get off topic, but the whole electrolysis cell in a car thing isn't a complete scam. It allegedly increrases the thermal efficiency of the engine, so you're not getting power where none existed before, just making better use of what's already there.

There is evidence to support that it works, but it requires way more H2/O2 than any onboard cell can generate:

http://www.fisita.com/students/congress ... s/sc11.pdf
  • 0

"If at first you dont succeed, then skydiving is not for you" - Darwin Awards

TurboSuper
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 986
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:44 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: inonickname » Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:59 am

Correction, it is a scam.

The amount of energy lost through obtain hydrogen and oxygen then burning it is massive, and no benefits will outweigh it.
  • 0

PimpAssasinG wrote:no im strong but you are a fat gay mother sucker that gets raped by black man for fun
User avatar
inonickname
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2606
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:27 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Technician1002 » Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:03 am

That is the first scientific test I have seen with it with measurable results. A rate of 240 liters/hour of gas was used. Not listed however is the power requirements nesassary to generate the gas and the horsepower used verses the power gain. I have given the offer to some people to bring one over and connect it to my 1.5 KW electric generator and do a runtime test on 8 fl oz of gasoline while running a 1.2KW electric heater. so far, I have had no takers. Maybe someday I'll have results to post, Runtime of an electric generator with and without this. Electric power would be supplied by the generator, not an outside source.
  • 0

User avatar
Technician1002
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5190
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:10 am
Reputation: 14

Unread postAuthor: boyntonstu » Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:26 am

Technician1002 wrote:That is the first scientific test I have seen with it with measurable results. A rate of 240 liters/hour of gas was used. Not listed however is the power requirements nesassary to generate the gas and the horsepower used verses the power gain. I have given the offer to some people to bring one over and connect it to my 1.5 KW electric generator and do a runtime test on 8 fl oz of gasoline while running a 1.2KW electric heater. so far, I have had no takers. Maybe someday I'll have results to post, Runtime of an electric generator with and without this. Electric power would be supplied by the generator, not an outside source.


A few comments:

240l/hr is a very doable 4LPM.

My tiny Amoeba Cell does 2 LPM 13.5 Volts 25 Amps

Amoeba cell at 45* video ~2 LPM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=savkds42IC4

50 A at 13.5 VDC is 675/746 HP or .9 HP. (Not much of a load.)

Their test use advanced spark timing which causes the piston to fight against itself on the way to TDC..

Since the flame speed of Hydrogen is 10X that of gasoline, the timing could be retarded even past TDC.

There were some earlier NASA tests as well.

I have my doubts too about MPG gain but there is some good data out there from Emission Test stations that emissions are reduced.


One way of saving gas is to have enough Hydrogen to idle the engine.

Each minute of gas idling wastes a mile of gas.

The idling goal may be worthwhile for the savings and the emission reduction..

see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1MeR4My6XA


and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBlPpfFzMC4

BoyntonStu
  • 0

User avatar
boyntonstu
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:59 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jimmy101 » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:20 pm

boyntonstu wrote:Each minute of gas idling wastes a mile of gas.

I kind of doubt that. That would sugggest that for an efficient modern car that fuel consumption at idle is the same as fuel consumption at 60 MPH. 1 minute of fuel use at idle = 1 minute of fuel use at 60 MPH which would have moved the car 1 mile. Fuel use at idle is quite a bit lower than fuel use while cruising at 60 MPH.

The idling goal may be worthwhile for the savings and the emission reduction..

True, idling waste gas but the starting system in some modern cars have advanced to the point where they can be shut off instead of idled and restarted quickly enough (and without wasting a big slug of fuel) to be unnoticed by the driver. That's a much simpler approach to reducing fuel waste at idle than is adding a secondary on board fuel generation, storage and utilization system.
  • 0

Image

jimmy101
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: boyntonstu » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:39 pm

jimmy101 wrote:
boyntonstu wrote:Each minute of gas idling wastes a mile of gas.

I kind of doubt that. That would sugggest that for an efficient modern car that fuel consumption at idle is the same as fuel consumption at 60 MPH. 1 minute of fuel use at idle = 1 minute of fuel use at 60 MPH which would have moved the car 1 mile. Fuel use at idle is quite a bit lower than fuel use while cruising at 60 MPH.

The idling goal may be worthwhile for the savings and the emission reduction..

True, idling waste gas but the starting system in some modern cars have advanced to the point where they can be shut off instead of idled and restarted quickly enough (and without wasting a big slug of fuel) to be unnoticed by the driver. That's a much simpler approach to reducing fuel waste at idle than is adding a secondary on board fuel generation, storage and utilization system.


No storage is required nor slightly desired do to the danger of a stoch mixture explosion.

The requirements to generate and to deliver H2 are not a huge hurdle.

If H2 can reduce emissions we may be able to gain efficiency by that alone.

A catalytic converter must have a supply of unburnt gas to operate.

In addition, gas cools the cylinder and so would burning H2.

We are delivering energy to the converter in order to reduce emissions and to the cylinders for cooling.

If we could do away with the converter by generating H2, we would all benefit.

BoyntonStu
  • 0

User avatar
boyntonstu
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:59 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jimmy101 » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:12 pm

boyntonstu wrote:The requirements to generate and to deliver H2 are not a huge hurdle.

Well actually, yes it is a "huge hurdle". Technically it's a piece of cake. Economically it isn't. Adding $1000 to the price of a car overwhelms any minor increases in efficency, power and emissions.

A catalytic converter must have a supply of unburnt gas to operate.

In addition, gas cools the cylinder and so would burning H2.

We are delivering energy to the converter in order to reduce emissions and to the cylinders for cooling.

In the exhaust system the catalytic converter isn't supposed to be doing anything. Only when the engine is running inefficiently is it doing anything, and all it is doing is completing the burning of any unburned fuel. Currently the energy released in that process is waste heat.

Yes, hydrogen can increase the power and/or efficiencey of an ICE. The problem is it takes power to generate the H2 and the generation and combustion of H2 is not 100% efficient. So, to actually acomplish anything the gain in engine efficieny has to be greater than the energy loss in the H2 system. H2 combustion is a combustion process. In a typically ICE figure the efficency of just that one step is only about 30%. It doesn't really matter all that much what the fuel is, in a combustion based heat engine that is basically the limit of possible efficiency. There really isn't anything that can be done with the limitations of an ICE to do much better than that 30%. That means for every Joule of energy the H2 contributes the engine had to burn at least 3J of gasoline to do it. There just is not any way to make a H2 system worth the cost, weight and crappy efficiency.

"HHO" is a pipe dream and a con. There are much easier, cheaper and proven technologies for significantly increasing the efficency of cars. The most important thing is simply the size of the engine and the weight of the vehicle. It really isn't necisary to use a 4,000 LB vehicle to move a single 200 LB person.
  • 0

Image

jimmy101
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: boyntonstu » Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:05 pm

jimmy101 wrote:
boyntonstu wrote:The requirements to generate and to deliver H2 are not a huge hurdle.

Well actually, yes it is a "huge hurdle". Technically it's a piece of cake. Economically it isn't. Adding $1000 to the price of a car overwhelms any minor increases in efficency, power and emissions.

A catalytic converter must have a supply of unburnt gas to operate.

In addition, gas cools the cylinder and so would burning H2.

We are delivering energy to the converter in order to reduce emissions and to the cylinders for cooling.

In the exhaust system the catalytic converter isn't supposed to be doing anything. Only when the engine is running inefficiently is it doing anything, and all it is doing is completing the burning of any unburned fuel. Currently the energy released in that process is waste heat.

Yes, hydrogen can increase the power and/or efficiencey of an ICE. The problem is it takes power to generate the H2 and the generation and combustion of H2 is not 100% efficient. So, to actually acomplish anything the gain in engine efficieny has to be greater than the energy loss in the H2 system. H2 combustion is a combustion process. In a typically ICE figure the efficency of just that one step is only about 30%. It doesn't really matter all that much what the fuel is, in a combustion based heat engine that is basically the limit of possible efficiency. There really isn't anything that can be done with the limitations of an ICE to do much better than that 30%. That means for every Joule of energy the H2 contributes the engine had to burn at least 3J of gasoline to do it. There just is not any way to make a H2 system worth the cost, weight and crappy efficiency.

"HHO" is a pipe dream and a con. There are much easier, cheaper and proven technologies for significantly increasing the efficency of cars. The most important thing is simply the size of the engine and the weight of the vehicle. It really isn't necisary to use a 4,000 LB vehicle to move a single 200 LB person.


The purpose of adding Hydrogen/Oxygen is not to add energy to an engine.

It takes more energy to create Hydrogen/Oxygen that we can get out of it. Water is the burnt ember of H2 and O2. Hydrogen is an energy carrier like a battery. Hydrogen is not a fuel. (Many arguments on that issue.)

Why use Hydrogen?

As a possible catalyst to increase the gasoline burn rate and at the same time to reduce emissions.


BoyntonStu

Logic? A NASCAR driver can crash at 200 MPH and survive.

It is exponentially easier to build vehicles to enable survival of almost any accident under 80 MPH.
  • 0

User avatar
boyntonstu
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 8:59 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jimmy101 » Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:38 pm

boyntonstu wrote:As a possible catalyst to increase the gasoline burn rate ...

That assumes that the fuel burn rate is a significant limiting factor in an ICE. I don't think it is. There has been a lot of work done on getting the fuel to burn faster. Multiple sparks, specialized shapes of the head and top of the piston and of the injector(s) (to increase turbulance). To my knowledge all those things increase the burn reate but have a minor affect on the efficiency and/or power of the engine. The affects are so small that if $$$ is any kind of a consideration then they aren't used since their benefits can't justify the cost. In a high performance engine where money isn't an issue then those techniques are occasionally used.

A hydrogen oxygen mixture burns considerably faster than does gasoline+air. To my knowledge a hydrogen + oxygen ICE is not significantly more efficient than is a gasoline engine.

Is there a possibility of reducing the emisions with H2? Perhaps. But where is that H2 coming from? The burning of more gasoline to generate electricity to run the electrolysis cell?
  • 0

Image

jimmy101
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: THUNDERLORD » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:49 pm

wOW,A bunch of info here.

As far as the car idling thing, the important thing to look at in the fuel economy is RPM's... That gives you the best way to tell fuel consumption.
Look at the tachometer (if it has one) a vehicle sitting still with the motor at say 3500 RPM's will burn the same fuel as a motor turning gears at 3500 RPM's while moving 60MPH...RPM is the motor speed(combustion rate)... (Most cars/vehicles idle @ 1000-1500RPM) so...


... The most important thing is simply the size of the engine and the weight of the vehicle. It really isn't necisary to use a 4,000 LB vehicle to move a single 200 LB person....

Good point, I think about it every day when I'm riding my harley-davidson...Stupid effin' four wheeled crap jammin' up the road!!! :evil:

...Logic? A NASCAR driver can crash at 200 MPH and survive....

Didn't work for my personal favorite driver (RIP...Dale E.)... :cry:
There are few fixed solid objects on race tracks (very unlike streets)...Also the reason I am always looking for open spaces and paths least resistance when I ride fast on especially motorbikes...I've even jumped off before and allowed the bike to crash while I floated into free space, got up and walked away! :shock:

As far as Hydrogen being "useless" for spudding....???
I don't want to break the rules and state too many details, but a C-4 powered claymore landmine is a most effective even over the M-16 so...(pretty rapid DDT there, no(?))
Besides, maybe a pnuematic could use it to open a pilot valve(?)....Or...

Anyway, since I mentioned the term "POOP" earlier, Turns out even POOP is useful for spudding fuel maybe. :shock:


...2. Any chemical name that is 200 years old is never considered "incorrect". It is considered a trivial name and completely exceptable in chemical parlance....

Why hydrogen always turns into automotive discussion when this is a spudding forum(?) I do understand the "con" thing sort of like fast talkers for myself (etc.),
But why not just refer to it as "HHO" for 200 years THEN it would be accepted terminology then???

Any spud fuel that can be made from water, baking soda and electricity from solar cell, fusion etc. is ... 8) in my book... 8)
  • 0

-----SPEED,STRENGTH, AND ACCURACY.-----
"Procrastination" is five syllables for "Sloth".
Theopia 8)
Born To Be Alive!

THUNDERLORD
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:42 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Technician1002 » Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:15 am

THUNDERLORD wrote:wOW,A bunch of info here.

As far as the car idling thing, the important thing to look at in the fuel economy is RPM's... That gives you the best way to tell fuel consumption.
Look at the tachometer (if it has one) a vehicle sitting still with the motor at say 3500 RPM's will burn the same fuel as a motor turning gears at 3500 RPM's while moving 60MPH...RPM is the motor speed(combustion rate)... (Most cars/vehicles idle @ 1000-1500RPM) so...



RPM is only partial. Load is a big part. My electric generator runs a constant 3600 RPM no load to full load. Runs from 3.5 hours to over 8 hours on a tank of gas. Kicking on a heavy load such as a table saw is quite obvious as the throttle opens up to pour on the power.

You gave no reference. I can give references for generators.
http://www.yamaha-propane-natural-gas-generators.com/fuel_consumption.htm
Yamaha generators, constant RPM to maintain 60 HZ output.

You can safely assume a car idling at 3600 rpm will draw much less gas than plowing air at 60 MPH with an engine speed of 3600 rpm.
  • 0

User avatar
Technician1002
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5190
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:10 am
Reputation: 14

Unread postAuthor: THUNDERLORD » Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:32 am

Technician1002 wrote:...You can safely assume a car idling at 3600 rpm will draw much less gas than plowing air at 60 MPH with an engine speed of 3600 rpm.


You are WRONG!!!
Not to be rude, but yes, that is completely incorrect and I am sure...Good thing is, it gives you a chance to re-evauluate your opinion (which is wrong in this case)... :wink:
  • 0

-----SPEED,STRENGTH, AND ACCURACY.-----
"Procrastination" is five syllables for "Sloth".
Theopia 8)
Born To Be Alive!

THUNDERLORD
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:42 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: inonickname » Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:24 am

THUNDERLORD wrote:But why not just refer to it as "HHO" for 200 years THEN it would be accepted terminology then???


Because it's a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. It's not a compound. It's completely and utterly incorrect. It has a proper name, and no need to be called HHO. It will never, ever be HHO.

It turns into automobile discussion when people call it 'HHO' because that's the term all automobile scammers use.
  • 0

PimpAssasinG wrote:no im strong but you are a fat gay mother sucker that gets raped by black man for fun
User avatar
inonickname
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2606
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:27 am
Reputation: 0

PreviousNext

Return to Combustion Cannon Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]

cron
Reputation System ©'