Notice. New forum software under development. It's going to miss a few functions and look a bit ugly for a while, but I'm working on it full time now as the old forum was too unstable. Couple days, all good. If you notice any issues, please contact me.
VK4AYQ Guru Joined: 02/12/2009 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2539
Posted: 12:25pm 09 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi Oztubes
Thanks for your critical assesment and supporting theooretical assesment I must admit that is all above my head as as I learned and forgot it all over the last 45 years.
However what I have done is put it together in ignorance of the fact? that it wouldnt work, as I have found that theoty and practice dont always swim together.
While I am the first to admid that my data collection methods where far from sientific using using things that I had laying around or made from adapted parts.
The results I got where useful and indicated a 30% or thereabout increase in fuel economy by what ever means it happened. So I stand by the results I got and dont understand the theory as to why it cant happen.
Possibly the underlying factor is that nothing complied with standard conditions as the truck engine never is operating at fixeed standard conditions the loading is highly variable and temperatures vary from 10deg C to Over 100Deg C under the bonnet varying RH from 5% to 85%
The extra 100 amp alternator fitted is inclused so what ever losses where there are included I just was able to note that it did give 100 amps into the cell when required, being pressure regulated at 35 psi it didnt work all the time only on demand, on low power settings and power off situations it didnt draw any power at all on steady high power settings, going up hill it would use the reserve gass and the pressure decay until power was reduced. the first reserve cas container was a 6" tube about 12 " long later replaced with a LP 20lb tank better but still to small.
My metering valve was directly connected to the accelerator with an diaphram enrichment connected to the turbo pressure line MPG,
This cell was in reality to small for the engine but to me it proved the concept.
The second cell was made for dyno test about four times the capacity of the mobile one and it would saturate the engine causing loss of power maybee from the effect you explained in your equation. Dont know for sure but it happened. Dyno time was expensive and only spent an hour on the dyno and half of that trying to get the rear wheeld from spinning on the rollers.
Another thing that happened was the temp in the cells increased a lot depending on the energy input, if opperated continious they would boil and become a steam injector.
Another point on your comment on the engine design I was refering to increasing comp ratio and spark timing and intensity. Like a lean burn setup in vogue years ago. Not applicable to diesel but maybee common rail timing could be of benifit.
I am now working on a resonant cell with high frequency high intensity pulsed at 50 amps average preliminary results are good with much higher gas output when compared to DC input, if I dont know it wont work I might get it to work. I dont know about quantam mechanics as such but am still blumdering my way through the do and observe effects method as a hobby now.
You are spot onwith the statement that as soon as you take the input energy out the resonance stops, not much inertia there but with the well timed push it keeps going and the gass it produces dosnt seem to effect the resonance.
I have probable missed some points and bow to your superior theoretical knowelege there.
I cling to the fact that sientests of the time a hundredand ten years ago decided it was impossible to fly a heavier than air machine.
Fools rush in whereangles fear to tread.
I cannot swollow the implosion theory however as being the cause of several HHO explosions and suffering the results I still say that is a wrong concept, unless you extend the time frame to the point of equlibrium when all explosive events revert to a static point, the variable is the time requied to decay to that state and the effect of other elements in contact with the event.
I will now get out my textbooks and try to make sense of your sientific explanation.
All the best
BobFoolin Around
VK4AYQ Guru Joined: 02/12/2009 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2539
Posted: 04:04pm 09 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi Oztubes
I still havnt made sense of your figures but from my engineering hand book the amount of energy you are talking about 1000 KW is enough to raise the temperatire of 1000kg of water from 16 deg C to 100 deg C. and equates to 134 hp / hr
Is in line with you thinking or am I barking up the wrong tree.
Present results:
My small test cell running at 200 watt input forced cell with no balance plates produces approx 100 ltr hour hho, the pulsed semi resonant cell went 300 ltr hour before it blew up due to current limiter failing not enough plate area to absorb the current, and I havnt finished the resonant cell yet so time will tell there.
All the best
Bob
Foolin Around
oztules Guru Joined: 26/07/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 1686
Posted: 09:30pm 09 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
[quote]I still havnt made sense of your figures but from my engineering hand book the amount of energy you are talking about 1000 KW is enough to raise the temperatire of 1000kg of water from 16 deg C to 100 deg C. and equates to 134 hp / hr
Is in line with you thinking or am I barking up the wrong tree.[/quote]
You seem to have transposed some figures. The current required was 958 amps (call it 1000). Your quoted voltage was 100V.. this gives us 100kw, not 1000kw
Bob, it is not the voltage that is important, it is the current. The electron flow is the key to the volume. You must satisfy the equation. You cannot release a hydrogen atom from the clutches of the water molecule without pushing in that electron... so it will without fear or favour, cost you 1 electron per hydrogen atom.
In some of the best commercial electrolysers, 5 ltr/min can be obtained with as little as 2500 watts. Think about it, 2500 amps at 1 volt... or 1000 amps at 2.5v.... or any other combination where ExI=2500. I'm guessing 3-5v
With high efficiency units, figures of 4kwh/1000L are bandied about by pro electrolyser folk..
So instead of 100v, if you keep the voltage down very low, you will get a more realistic conversion rate.
The energy when we recombine is in the order of 286kj/mole.... thats our explosion. I too have been too close to this and been covered in acid. Remember a mole of any gas will occupy 22.4ltr of volume at STP. So this equates to 79 watt hours per 22.4ltrs.
This makes the 4kwh/1000l pretty optimistic... but maybe possible @ 90% efficiency conversion).
One assumes this is using alkaline rather than PEM style electrolysers. PEM has a higher current density (1.2A/cm^ versus .4A/cm^) but lower efficiency.
So Bob,
you have it all in front of you..... and I hope you have fun with it. The figures you have garnered are yours, but the automotive industry seems to differ with you. I would have thought 30% efficiency gains for a simple system would have attracted attention....not to mention the untold wealth.
Edit: It just occured to me... the resistance of a strong electrolyte should be in the order of tenths/s of an ohm. I would expect electrolysis to begin at around 1.2v.....perhaps more typically running at 4-6v.
If you have to run at 100v to get any real current flowing, I would be wondering at your cross sectional area and electrolyte conductivity....
............oztulesEdited by oztules 2010-01-11Village idiot...or... just another hack out of his depth
VK4AYQ Guru Joined: 02/12/2009 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2539
Posted: 01:47am 10 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi Oztubes
Sorry for my late night typo error, shouldnt try to think late at night
I think we have some crossed wires here the quote from your last listing.
{If you have to run at 100v to get any real current flowing, I would be wondering at your cross sectional area and electrolyte conductivity....}
my entry said that I was using 24 volts in fact around 28 volts in charge confiquration not 100 volts as included in your assumptions and 100 amps current using a old carbon pile regulator of a old generator set.
The figures I used to calculate the heat came from your assesment of 100 volts and a 1000 amps = 100,000 watts.
100kw raises the temp of 1000kg water from 16 C to 100 C
and equals 134 HP acording to the tables in my Handbook
I know it isnt ideal to force a 2v cell to that level as I was but with the neutral plate in place it moderated the reaction somewhat.
The ideal unit would have had 12 cells with a stronger electrolyte to mimic a battery but then the output per sq ft of plate is lower you can probably do the maths I can't I'm afraid I have tried several cells based on this concept and found them to have low output unless using 30 % acid as a electrrolyte which isnt ideal for mobile application.
At the time fuel was relativly cheap and the engine companies I tried to interest in the concept killed it off becauce of warranty reasons and didnt see a increase in fuel economy as a big issue. That was 1979 we used distilate to spray weeds and wash hands and all sorts of things like it was water not liquid gold like it is now.The next year I was poisoned with organophosphate and that took me out of circulation for the next ten years so no furthur development wasn done,
My interest was aroused again in 2002 when on a trip to the states I inspected a system the friend of my associates was running on his pickup a dodge ram V8 which he was running on hho, I looked at it critically as I couldnt get that to happen for me, but I was satisfied that it was working no tricks smoke and mirrors and I drove it from Reno to Las Vagas and it went well, cold start was a problem but he had a set of block heaters to maintain temp in the block, the other obvious mod was 2 huge alternators powering the cell at 12 volt and a lot of amps and 2 large batteries 200 ah from memory.
He was very evasive on how it was put together and controlled as he was cautious of his work getting out.
He to had a reserve gas tank in the tray made from a old stainless beer keg.
He later sent me a concept document with the comments of have a go at this to get you started, and I did in blissful ignorance that it wouldnt work.
Now here I am foolin around with it again.
All the best
Bob
Foolin Around
oztules Guru Joined: 26/07/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 1686
Posted: 03:58am 10 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Egad, now I'm messing up the figures.
Your quite right, 24 (28)v@ 100 amps not volts.
So 2800 watts for 10ltr/min or about 6.6ltrs H2(g).
I'm now getting the idea of your construction. Correct me if I"m wrong. You have a stack of 10 series cells feeding off the 100A 24v nominal input.... equivalent to a single cell of 1000A @ 2.4-2.8v.... Seems we are closer than we think.
Thats in the right ball park for production. Now you should be able to see from the calculations, perhaps for the first time, how / why it works chemically.
For all intents and purposes, I think we agree on production now.
Your 2.8kw of alternator will probably be nearer to 4kw of input from the motor (70%@100A... belt and electrical). This is what we need to cover.
Recombination energy is 286kj/mole We found before we made near 18 mole of H2(g) in an hour so 5148kj energy release if we recombine it or 1.42kwh
So the next part will be where we diverge probably forever. So far we are running a 3:1 deficit in power... and not taking into account the engine inefficiency to make the power in the first place.
Previously I worked out the amount of H2(g) and O2(g) you introduced into the combustion chamber, and it come out to about 10/18000 or .00055. A simple calculation of gasses moved through the motor in 1 minute verses the amount of your gas introduced. Being diesel, there is no restriction to the air, so should be close.
Unless we can resolve how such a tiny tiny tiny change in the fuel/air ratio can make a 30% difference... I can't see how to move on from here... and I assume the auto industry met the same insurmountable wall... and having to spend say 4kwh to get back 1.5kwh will be topical too.
I'm glad I was at least able to see that your production figures were realizable in the end. You also came in at the better end of possible results compared to the commercial boys.... gotta be pleased with that
A 30% fuel reduction in heavy vehicles at least would be worth the entire Australian GDP for world trucking in 1 year (only a trillion or so). I'm sure this has been looked at by the powers that be.
But have fun anyway. From the figures, you've built a good electrolyser and thats a start.
Hydrogen will burn over an unusually large range It can run from 4 to 75% in air. It's maximum temperature will occur near 3:10 ratio with air concentration (just over 29% for just over 2000 degC). .055% is pushing it too far for my money.
...........oztules
Village idiot...or... just another hack out of his depth
VK4AYQ Guru Joined: 02/12/2009 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2539
Posted: 04:57am 10 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi Oztules
No worries its like my typo last night and lack of proof reading and I wish there was a spell checker on this.
On the burn power conversion I know what you mean there and I believe it is using the hho as a combustion enhancer rather than a fuel as such in my trials, when driving and switching off the converter it resulted in a distinct loss of power and egt temp so my conclusion was that it was helping the diesel to burn more efficiently rather than its contribution as a fuel in its own right.
Exhaust smoke dissapeared indicating a better combustion of the fuel itself. A simular effect to the origional water injection I started out with. To me it is a fuel enhanser rather than a fuel.
I havnt been able to duplicate the system as on the dodge ramm but live in hope.
All the best
BobFoolin Around
oztules Guru Joined: 26/07/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 1686
Posted: 08:19am 10 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
One other thing I need to clear up.
Diesel and petrol motors are completely different in their ignition and burning regimes.
For a petrol motor, the explosion is initiated with a spark, and is kept going by the transfer of energy via the flame front... which emanates from the area around the spark. For this, it is important to have the right fuel mixture ratio, or too lean it will fail, and too rich it will fail.
A diesel is different in that the intake is wide open all the time.... no throttle butterfly, so we get a full cylinder of air each time. We compress, and add fuel. We don't care about the ratio, if we want small power (idle) we add tiny drop, if we want full power, we add more fuel. The air stays the same.
This means that we cant and don't rely on a flame front as I understand it, but every fuel molecule surrounded by lots of air, spontaneously combusts with whatever ratio is around it.
In this case, we CAN have more O2(g) than is decent, and it will have no effect on the flame front.... there isn't one. In a petrol engine, it will go lean and will eventually snuff out in the extreme case,... but not in a diesel, all fuel molecules will combust using what they need/surrounds them at the time.
Forgot about that earlier when answering Bob on excess O2(g).
And no, I don't know how the .05% browns gas effects this..... I would have thought very little.... but??
That should be as much as I can usefully add I would think.
..............oztulesVillage idiot...or... just another hack out of his depth
Greenbelt Guru Joined: 11/01/2009 Location: United StatesPosts: 566
Posted: 08:13pm 10 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
I mole of Hydrogen atoms Atomic weight 1, will weigh 1 kg.
Are You Sure?
22.4 liters of Hydrogen gas at standard temperature and pressure weighs 1 kg. (2.2 pounds.)
1 cubic meter of hydrogen at sea level =
(1000 liters / 22.4 = 44.64 Kg. = 98.2 pounds)
The density of air at sea level is about 1.2 kg/m3
I've been telling people for years that Balloon's don't work.
Time has proven that I am blind to the Obvious, some of the above may be True?
oztules Guru Joined: 26/07/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 1686
Posted: 09:54pm 10 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
[quote] I mole of Hydrogen atoms Atomic weight 1, will weigh 1 kg. [/quote]...Are You Sure?.... Well really it should be 1.00797 kg.... I'll call it 1.... maybe I should have called it protium.... and not hydrogen.
Your having the same problem I had with Bobs figures. Read it again. It says hydrogen atom, not H2(g) molecule
If the Hydrogen ATOM had three extra quarks, as in two down quarks and one up quark, we would have deuterium, and then your atomic mass would become 2 for the single atom
As it is, it has only three quarks total arranged as two up quarks and one down..... hovering around this at some statistical distance is an almost massless electron This will give you a single proton / electron atom with an atomic mass of one point not much.... One mole of them will equal about 1 kg, and boyles law won't work as they are not arranged as a H2(g) molecule. (More likely as a hexagonal lattice...or free plamsa... temp dependent.. I don't recall)..... and then there's tritium.
Check your figures, but I think a mole of H2(g) will weigh about 2.016kg, not 2.2 pounds with a density relative to air of about 0.07...... you will still get your 22.4litres of gas/mole at STP..... Remember, although the atoms making it up are atomic weight 1, the molecular weight is now 2 (H2(g)).... so 6.02x10^23 of them will be approx 2kg.... not 1
But I think Bob already knows that now.
............oztules
Edit.... damn spelling!!Edited by oztules 2010-01-12Village idiot...or... just another hack out of his depth
Greenbelt Guru Joined: 11/01/2009 Location: United StatesPosts: 566
Posted: 10:34pm 10 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hey OZ;
Don't you mean Gram rather than KILOGRAMS (kg.)
Well really it should be 1.00797 kg.. The two pounds
is your numbers Kilograms Converted I was trying to be funny.Edited by Greenbelt 2010-01-12Time has proven that I am blind to the Obvious, some of the above may be True?
oztules Guru Joined: 26/07/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 1686
Posted: 10:44pm 10 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Good grief yes change the kilo's to grams and I make some sense.
I was only out by a factor of 1000 maybe 35 years is too long to try to remember things sometimes.
I'ts tough sometimes being the village idiot.
...........oztules
Edit ... now I understand why my balloon won't fly thanks GreenbeltEdited by oztules 2010-01-12Village idiot...or... just another hack out of his depth
VK4AYQ Guru Joined: 02/12/2009 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2539
Posted: 11:01pm 10 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi All
Tis makes for interesing reading sorry it lost format during pasting into forum energy sourcws covered but not interactions between different sources of energy
All the best
Bob
This table gives the energy density of a complete system, including all required external components, such as oxidisers or heat sources. One MJ ¡Ö 278 Wh ¡Ö 0.32 HPh.
Energy Densities Table
Storage type
Energy density by mass (MJ/kg)
Energy density by volume (MJ/L)
Peak recovery efficiency %
Practical recovery efficiency %
Antimatter[3]
89,876,000,000
Hydrogen fusion 645,000,000
Deuterium-tritium fusion
337,000,000
Uranium-235 used in nuclear weapons 88,250,000 1,500,000,000
Natural uranium (99.3% U-238, 0.7% U-235) in fast breeder reactor
86,000,000[2]
50%
Pu-238 ¦Á-decay
15,500,000
Reactor-grade uranium (3.5% U-235) in light water reactor
3,456,000 30%
Hf-178m2 isomer
1,326,000 17,649,060
Natural uranium (0.7% U235) in light water reactor
443,000 30%
Ta-180m isomer
41,340 689,964
Specific orbital energy of Low Earth orbit (approximate) 33
Lithium + Fluorine
23.75[4]
battery, Lithium Sulphur[18]
1.26 1.26
battery (Sodium Nickel Chloride), High Temperature 0.56
battery, Silver-oxide[13]
0.47 1.8
Flywheel
0.36-0.5[19][20]
5.56 ¡Á 45 mm NATO bullet[clarification needed]
0.4 3.2
battery, Nickel metal hydride (NiMH), low power design as used in consumer batteries[21]
0.4 1.55
battery, Zinc-manganese (alkaline), long life design[13][15]
0.4-0.59 1.15-1.43
Liquid Nitrogen
0.349
Water - Enthalpy of Fusion
0.334 0.334
battery, Zinc Bromine flow (ZnBr)[22]
0.27
battery, Nickel metal hydride (NiMH), High Power design as used in cars[23]
0.250 0.493
battery, Nickel cadmium (NiCd)[15]
0.14 1.08 80%[17]
Spring power (clock spring), torsion spring
0.0003[30]
0.0006
Storage type Energy density by mass (MJ/kg)
Energy Densities Table
Storage type
Energy density by mass (MJ/kg)
Energy density by volume (MJ/L)
Peak recovery efficiency %
Practical recovery efficiency %
Hydrogen, liquid
143 10.1
Hydrogen, compressed at 700 bar [31]
143 5.6
Hydrogen, gas
143 0.01079
Beryllium (toxic)
67.6 125.1
Lithium borohydride
65.2 43.4
Boron[32]
58.9 137.8[citation needed]
Methane (1.013bar, 15¡ãC) 55.6 0.0378
Natural gas
53.6[33]
0.0364
CNG (NG compressed to 250 bar ~3600 psi) 53.6[33]
9
LPG propane [34]
49.6 25.3
LPG butane [34]
49.1 27.7
Gasoline[34]
46.4 34.2
Diesel fuel/residential heating oil [34]
46.2 37.3
Polyethylene plastic
46.3[35]
42.6
Polypropylene plastic
46.4[35]
41.7
Gasohol E10 (10% ethanol 90% gasoline by volume) 43.54 33.18
Gasohol E85 (85% ethanol 10% gasoline by volume) 33.1 25.65
Lithium
43.1 23.0
Jet A aviation fuel[36] / kerosene
42.8 33
Biodiesel oil (vegetable oil) 42.20 33
DMF (2,5-dimethylfuran)[clarification needed]
42[37]
37.8
Crude oil (according to the definition of ton of oil equivalent)[clarification needed]
46.3 37[33]
Polystyrene plastic
41.4[35]
43.5
Body fat metabolism
38 35 22[38]
Sod peat
12.8
Sodium (burned to dry sodium oxide)
9.1 8.8
Zinc
5.3 38.0
Teflon plastic (combustion toxic, but flame retardant) 5.1 11.2
iron (burned to iron(III) oxide)
5.2 40.68
iron (burned to iron(II) oxide)
4.9 38.2
battery, Lithium-Air rechargable[citation needed]
3.6[47][Need quotation on talk to verify]
battery, Zinc air[48]
1.59 6.02
Liquid nitrogen[clarification needed]
0.77[49]
0.62
Latent heat of fusion of Ice[citation needed]
Thermal 0.335 0.335
Water at 100 m dam height (potential energy) 0.001 0.001 85-90%[citation needed]
Storage type Energy density by mass (MJ/kg) Energy density by volume (MJ/L)
Peak recovery efficiency % Practical recovery efficiency %
Foolin Around
oztules Guru Joined: 26/07/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 1686
Posted: 01:42am 11 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
See....now there's your problem Bob.
If you stop throwing electrons at the hydrogen atom, and toss in some neutrons. instead... its a whole new ball game. Hydrogen fusion 645,000,000... beats the pants off a few hundred kj/mole making water with it
I figure that if the sun can do it without expensive machinery, I'm sure an engineer with a few spanners and a cup of coffee could beat this before dinner...........................silence.................... ... more silence................................
hmmm, I have this other idea................
........oztulesVillage idiot...or... just another hack out of his depth
Greenbelt Guru Joined: 11/01/2009 Location: United StatesPosts: 566
Posted: 02:01am 11 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
hmmm, I have this other idea.... If its an electron gun??? to blast the cell... I thought of it first.! Since the molecule is sharing an e- , just give it one,, Broadside,! it will dump the H and hopefully find a O to fly away with. Keep the Electrode voltage at
the threshold to prevent a sudden total conversion. Edited by Greenbelt 2010-01-12Time has proven that I am blind to the Obvious, some of the above may be True?
Dinges Senior Member Joined: 04/01/2008 Location: AlbaniaPosts: 510
Posted: 02:32am 11 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
[quote]I'm sure an engineer with a few spanners and a cup of coffee could beat this before dinner.[/quote]
Nah, I don't drink coffee, but will gladly accept a hot chocolate.
And it will take at least a chainsaw and a slightly modified PC PSU..... and a lot of capacitors!
Do you want me to mention you in the Nobel prize acceptance speech, or do you prefer anonimity?
Peter. (<-- wondering where he left that jar with fast neutrons)
VK4AYQ Guru Joined: 02/12/2009 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2539
Posted: 02:38am 11 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Good point mate, I might try a steam injected plasmer reaction and see what sort of bang for buck doing that.
A good ceramic burner and a magnetic fiels concentrator shouldnt be to hard to rig up, a big enough gas turbine to harnes the energy may be a problem I think it would cook my turbo test rig.
All the best
BobFoolin Around
Downwind Guru Joined: 09/09/2009 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2333
Posted: 01:23pm 12 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
For the interest of all, while i was away i called in on trucking company and took some photos of a HHO system used on some heavy transport that i quoted in a previous posting.
It might be hard to understand that these systems costed around AU$5000.00 per unit and now are on a fleet of trucks as they have proven their worth from a single trial conducted by the fleet owner.
I know of no fleet owner that would spend that sort of dollars if a good return was not garenteed from the investment cost due to a trial.
As i maintained previous the benifits are there for heavy diesels but not pracital for smaller vehicals.
As far as i can aceataine the system runs on 12 volt as the control module is nothing more than a 24v to 12v converter one attached to each cell.
The system has 2 x HHO cells and a bubbler as a flash back arrester.
Every chamber is made of SS tube, welded as as sealed unit.
The electrolite used is Phoshoric acid and water.
Bubbler
System supplyer/installer
Power supply
For the oversea's members these are the baby rigs running these systems, called a "B'Double" here.
I say baby in size as road trains are much bigger and are more common to central Austraila and lesser built up areas. ( you try turning a primemover with a triple set of trailers through a set of trafic lights #&*@ no more lights $$$$ )
The rigs shown do a 1000km round trip daily, 6 days a week.( washed and serviced on the 7 day )
Which would be considered a short run in trucking standards.
Pete.
Sometimes it just works
VK4AYQ Guru Joined: 02/12/2009 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2539
Posted: 01:53pm 12 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi Pete
Wow that is a rig a bit bigger than my old 78 volvo I did the testing on, the unit is much smaller than what I had, but the stronger acid EL would make the difference I think.
I have found the notebook with all my origional testing before and after fitting so one day will put it together as a summery averageing all the results. although I am now nearly convinced that it wasnt working because it dosent comply to applied physics, thenagain something happened to the 75 ltr water used on the trip. If it had been beer some other trucky may have pinched it but water I never seen them drink that.
If you are interested I will send you a copy of the cell the guy with the dodge ram sent me, it isnt what he is using now but it was what he started with.
All the best
BobFoolin Around
Downwind Guru Joined: 09/09/2009 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2333
Posted: 03:19pm 12 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Errr?
The stronger the acid the more current it draws but nothing else changes, other than current = HHO production rate,
I think these cells were operating under 10 amp per cell.
Pete.Sometimes it just works
oztules Guru Joined: 26/07/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 1686
Posted: 05:38pm 12 Jan 2010
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
How many cells Pete? If it is only 2 cells......20A.... I smell snake oil. At least Bob had equivalent to 1000A for his 10L/min This was more than plausible.
20A is only 20/1000 X 10 = 200ml/min. If that effects a massive motor like that... draw your own conclusions.... must be using cold fusion.
2 cells would have to draw over 500A each to match Bobs unit.... and I suspect his motor was not quite of that scale.
Out of curiosity Bob, how much water was used for how many miles ...... even a good guess will do..... we can then calculate the number of water molecules used, and compare that to the original calcs.
..... and I will try to get my grams and kilo grams in order this time too.
.........oztulesEdited by oztules 2010-01-14Village idiot...or... just another hack out of his depth
Page 3 of 4
Print this page
The Back Shed's forum code is written, and hosted, in Australia.
Notice. New forum software under development. It's going to miss a few functions and look a bit ugly for a while, but I'm working on it full time now as the old forum was too unstable. Couple days, all good. If you notice any issues, please contact me.
Print this post
thanks Greenbelt
