# HHO Discussion



## Anonymous

Post Deleted


----------



## aflacglobal

Fuel Cell :arrow:


----------



## peter i

As a chemist: There is no magic in "Browns gas", "HHO" and whatever people call it (but it seems to fascinate quite a few 110% lunatics on the internet tremendously).
For experiments, stainless steel in sodium hydroxide solution has a fairly low rate of corrosion. But you will loose some energy as heat, and you can never get more energy out than you put in. 1000 Watt is a nasty lot of electricity, maybe you get 600 W worth of hydrogen/oxygen out… and that really isn’t much of a blowtorch.

These systems have some uses, but any oxy/acetylene or oxy/LPG-system will kick their a….


And aluminium will not survive for long in any reactive environment (but will add some hydrogen when dissolving)


----------



## dallasgoldbug

I call it Twister HHO,

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOpv53LvFoc

Ive been working on HHO devices for many years now. Ive experimented with many different types of materials and electrode designs.

This design is in the patent process, but is protected with ip.com, so Im able to finally unveil it.

Briefly heres an overview of how this differs from the rest:

1. I use stainless cups that are stacked inside each other. They are spaced approximately 3/16 apart, and have a rolled upper lip at the top of each. This role is important, it creates a suction pulling the gas bubbles back toward the next cup colliding with the bubbles above, and pushing them away from the electrode quicker. 

This is very important, Designs that use plates stacked one above another trap gas bubbles and dont allow them to move away.

Your objective is to have the electrolyte in contact with the electrode as much as possible. When a gas bubble forms, inside that bubble there is no contact, and therefore no gas production. So you want small bubbles that quickly get out of the way.

2. Stacking the cups aids in the bubbles motion off the electrode. Instead of plated designs that are places one next to another, they don't take advantage of the fast moving bubbles vertical motion. By stacking more cups you get more electrode surface ares and can handle more power.

3. By running the electrode contacts next to each other, you turn them in to part of the electrode. Take advantage of as much stainless surface area as possible for maximum gas production.

4. The next prototype my working with has a turbine spinning at the bottom under the column. This makes the electrolyte swirl around the electrode moving the bubbles away even more effectively. 

5. The best shaped electrodes, I find to be cylinder shaped. Not Plates, spheres, rods, screen, or wire. Think of electricity like you would a sound wave. Speakers with the best sound quality are round shaped. Thats why 6x9 speakers are not used for bass boxes they tend to distort the sound wave. The cylinder shape flared out like the cups allow them to be stacked, while allowing holes to be drilled in the bottoms for the vertical rods to run next to each other.

6. I disagree with designs that claim more efficiency because of pulsing the current. Or resonating at the frequency of water. HOGWASH.

7. I don't agree with Stan Myers Patent information. I tend to believe to was partly intentional to throw off people. You want current that is steady and electrolyte that is in as much contact as possible.


Some history...
The 1979 Water Powered Chevy was a complete different technology altogether. It actually utilized starter coils, one for each cylinder, that sent a massive jolt to a spark plug that was set with a wider gap than normal. This actually created a plasma explosion from the water that was fed into each cylinder (the same as gas is).

This is different than what we are doing here. 

You can see how much gas I'm getting from just a small motorcycle battery. I see video where people are pumping way more into there cells and producing minimum amounts of gas. This cell produces way more than is needed for a burner. Last time I check it was producing 2-3ltr/min so much I had to make a longer bubbler. PVC is a pain in the ass to keep from leaking, plus you cant see the reaction. It also can ignite the gas accidentally due to static discharge. I would not recommend glass, although Ive built many out of mason jars. Mason jars are designed to withhold vacuum, not pressure, so be careful. 

Always use a bubbler or you risk flash back from your torch end. I usually put 2 check valves in line and a cork at the top of my bubbler just in case it gets by and blows it up. 

Ive created several prototypes over the years and have been there done that, blown my rigs up on plenty of occasions. Taken a sodium hydroxide bath more than I wanted to. So make sure you take proper precautions, and always wear your safety goggles.

Double check your connections, bad contact points or melting of the wire is bad. If you don't have a heavy gauge wire (similar to battery cables) running your device your not taking advantage of your power potential. Keep a close eye on the battery, don't let it pop. Place it under mineral oil if you really want to keep it cool.

Cant think of anything else off the top of my head. Free to ask questions, trust me I can probably save you a lot of time and sodium baths, due to having experimented with everything I could get my hands on. Titanium, Carbon, stainless dog bowls, power outlet covers, grease splatter covers, coffee thermos containers, water filters, etc. Yadda, yadda, yadda, BOOM!


:shock:


----------



## Noxx

I like it 

Thanks for the info.


----------



## ThePierCer

I've had amazing success producing HHO. It’s actually quite easy. My Cell maintains 10psi through a 3/8” line, and can produce up to 50psi within 1-2 minutes with the line closed. 
On our first trial run, we managed to get a 8hp engine to run for 1 min on nothing but HHO gas, and our 2004 Chrysler 300 test vehicle is currently on a road test to Florida, averaging around 70 mpg with HHO assist. Our new design is considerably more efficient and has nearly doubled the gas production. 

I can post pics of my design if anyone is interested.


----------



## Lou

70 mpg?! Where do I sign up? 

I get like 24/28 mpg at the moment, and I still groan when I fill her up. Just imagine our European friends, they pay 2-3 times as much per gallon!


I'd like to see some pics--sick and tired of paying for H2 and O2 cylinders and adjusting the torches each time I want to do something. Would be cool if you could make a system that would keep the Hydrogen and oxygen separate for safety and also for adjust-ability--so I could have a reducing or oxidizing flame as needed.


----------



## ThePierCer

The problem most are having is safety storing the gasses, instead of producing them as necessary. We have a simple circuit that increases the current as demand requires it. As for the torch application, that can easily be done manually with a rheostat. 
My design is in hydrias until my assistant returns from Florida (with my control circuit too).

I can tell you that initially we used SS disks in the Cell, and also experimented with a cylinder design similar to Stan Myers. We have switch to Platinum coated disks, when has kept the heat WAY down (around 80’f) while sustaining production.


----------



## Lou

Hm, I have some beefy ~100g Pt anodes that would work.


Speaking of which, if any of you need Pt or Pt solutions for platinizing, let me know, I have good prices.


----------



## Arcani

> Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> As a chemist: There is no magic in "Browns gas", "HHO" and whatever people call it (but it seems to fascinate quite a few 110% lunatics on the internet tremendously).



As a chemist, can u explain how i can run a 5Hp generator with a 12V battery and water? I don't know how to do the math to see if it is over-unity or not.


----------



## istari9

I would like two units for the autos I drive. With gas moving to $4/gal I could use 75mi/gal instead of the 34 I get now. Let us know when you are in production and selling the units. A working model you can sell. May very well make you very wealthy! Your system Looks very nice indeed. Like I said I'll take 2. 

Thanks, Ray


----------



## Platdigger

Arcani,

How long will that 12V bat and water run that 5hp gen?
Randy


----------



## Anonymous

1 horse power is 742 watts * 5 = 35,210 watt/hour but that is output you need more input to get that. If you ran the gen for 1 hour off of that battery with the generator at full load then it would be over unity. 
If you ran it at no load use still most likely would not make it run for 1 hour.

a 12v battery at 6 amp hours would yeild only 72 watt/hours if that helps


----------



## Lou

Arcani said:


> Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> As a chemist: There is no magic in "Browns gas", "HHO" and whatever people call it (but it seems to fascinate quite a few 110% lunatics on the internet tremendously).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a chemist, can u explain how i can run a 5Hp generator with a 12V battery and water? I don't know how to do the math to see if it is over-unity or not.
Click to expand...



Go for it Peter.


----------



## Arcani

> How long will that 12V bat and water run that 5hp gen?
> Randy



I need to make a taller cell, as the water drops it exposes more of the electrodes and thus loses efficiency, I'll let u know how long 1 Litre of water will run the engine when complete.



> Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:38 am Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 1 horse power is 742 watts * 5 = 35,210 watt/hour but that is output you need more input to get that. If you ran the gen for 1 hour off of that battery with the generator at full load then it would be over unity.
> If you ran it at no load use still most likely would not make it run for 1 hour.
> 
> a 12v battery at 6 amp hours would yield only 72 watt/hours if that helps



That does help, I only run it for about a half hour at a time so far. The only test I've run is with a 1 litre bottle upside down in bucket to see how long it takes to fill it with gas. It takes 73 seconds to make 1 litre of gas with 12V battery at 2.4 Amps when cold(10-15 C) as it warms up it uses up to 5 Amps(30-35 C) running at idle speed. Maybe i could capture a set amount of gas in a container and see how long that will run the engine on its own.


Thank you for your input
Arcani


----------



## Anonymous

I would think that a 5 hp gen would have a displacement of at least 100 cc
and would run at 1000 rpm you would need 10 liters per min to fill the cyclinders. This is a educated guess on displacement and rpm you should be able to find the exact number on the gen

Correction forget 4 cycle only fires every other rpm so you would need at least 5 liter per min.


----------



## Lou

I'm too lazy to do the maths on this for you when I know it'll just confirm what I already know.

I suppose you could use something simple like PV=nRT (basic ideal gas law) to solve for moles of gas produced per minute if you assume your pressure is 1 atm. but your V will be changing...you can even make a differential out of this. If you already know the volume produced in an hour, you can cheap out of some math and just use that old ''1 mole of gas at STP is 22,4 L in volume'' :roll: 

Anyway, once you get the moles of gas produced, you can calculate (from textbook values) how many kilocalories or kilojoules are being released from burning that hydrogen with perfect stoichiometry. Then compare to how much energy the battery is capable of supplying and you should find that the amount of electricity the battery is providing to split the water is always more than the amount of energy that volume of H2/O2 gas produces when it burns. You'll never be close to perfect efficiency if your cell warms up. Even if it stays the same temperature it probably just means that the volume of water heats up at the same rate as it cools down to the surroundings.


Hm, this would be a good problem for those poor kids in general chemistry! Make them go through all those conversions just to find out that there is no over unity!! Good way to beat thermodynamics into their heads :twisted: Peter, this is a good question to implement in class!!
Oh, just thought of another good one Peter! Electrolytic calorimetry--have students construct an electrolysis cell for splitting water in an insulating vessel, then have them measure how much the system's temperature increases over a given period of time--from this they can determine how much energy is lost to heating the cell and find cell efficiency through that! This is fun stuff--I would be a diabolical textbook author!


----------



## lazersteve

Lou,

Your discussion reminds me of when I was working with the math associated with my Electronics courses, a whole lot of work to find out the answer is one or zero. :lol: :lol: Better yet I hated the ones that turned out to be negative one. Two pages of complex equations just to get a lousy 1 for the result.

Steve


----------



## Lou

Hahahahah. They get even worse than that sometimes! Some of that electronics crap gets quite laborious! the 1 0 or -1 sounds very much like someone's doing signal processing, very much like a trig function, eh Steve? Bringing all the horror back now, am I? 

My favorite is when you struggle through pages of derivatives, antiderivs, sums/series, partial sums, and every other bit of nuisance math you can think of that requires all sorts of obscure definitions and clever tricks only to get some darn answer like e^4/3 + pi/6 or some crap like that. Those natural numbers show up everywhere and e always seems to come out of any work I do/did with imaginary numbers. Seems also like a lot of series converge to pi multiples. 


I'll let you all in on a secret...I don't like math. Well a few exceptions--Fourier transforms make a lot of nice analytical chem equipment work  not to mention when they're up/low bounded...then they find use in making audio nice and crisp. 

I can go on a rant about how I think mathematicians are sick, sick people...but I have tremendous respect for them!! Without them, we wouldn't live like we do.


----------



## Platdigger

That's all well and good and very true I am sure. I don't doubt the math.

But, think about a heat pump.
You get more heat into your room,
from the same amount of electricity,
by instead of converting the electrical energy directly to heat,
you use the energy to move heat from one place to another.

In this case from outside, into the room.

Just a thought. 

Not even sure how it may 
apply here, if at all, just trying to keep an open mind
on the matter is all.

Randy


----------



## Arcani

> I suppose you could use something simple like PV=nRT (basic ideal gas law) to solve for moles of gas produced per minute if you assume your pressure is 1 atm. but your V will be changing...you can even make a differential out of this. If you already know the volume produced in an hour, you can cheap out of some math and just use that old ''1 mole of gas at STP is 22,4 L in volume''



Cool, much thanks


----------



## peter i

Just to make sure that I understand you correctly, I assume, that a “5 hp generator” is a 5 hp gasoline engine linked to a generator for electricity production?

If the electrolysis is running with 100% efficiency, 4 moles of electrons should give you 3 moles of H2-O2 gas with a 2:1 ratio. If we believe in traditional chemistry, that should equal 12 mL of gas per minute from a 1 Amp. current. To give you 5 L a minute, that means drawing a current of a little more than 400 Amps.
Unfortunately, electrolysis of water normally do not exceed an efficiency of 60 percent, so you need to crank up the current to nearly 600 Amps (an ugly lot of current!)
There should be no way around it as it is basic electrochemistry, and “current” is a measure of the number of electrons moving around.

12 V DC and 400 A (to be conservative) is 4.8 kW. 
Want more gas? Add more electrons!

5 hp is the nominal maximum power of the gasoline engine. If the generator was 100% efficient, you would be able to produce an equal amount of electricity: 3.7 kW (there must be a rating on it somewhere. Who cares how big the engine is, we are interested in the electricity when we start the generator).
But making the engine run does not mean full power (just like a 100 hp automobile engine in idle only deliver a few hp). Hook up an electric heater to the generator, and see if you can draw the current it is rated for, that should give a rough comparison to running on gasoline.

Then let it power a water heater, measure the amount of heat delivered to the water, and calculate how much heat you delivered (you should in fact place you generator in a calorimeter, calibrate the entire system and then run it, otherwise the heat lost in the engine will be… well, lost).
Not an easy task, but it is done with regular engines.
The absolute proof that you had something very interesting would be, if you produced enough electricity to run the electrolysis that was feeding the engine. In that case, you could recycle the water from the exhaust, and you would have built a “perpetual motion device” and proven the laws of thermodynamics wrong.
The First Law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; rather, the amount of energy lost in a steady state process cannot be greater than the amount of energy gained.
In other words; there is no free lunch.

You can perform electrolysis on water
You can store energy as hydrogen
You can run an engine on hydrogen
Adding hydrogen and extra oxygen to an engine might raise the efficiency of the engine (and shorten the life of it from running at higher pressure and temperature)
Nobody have ever beaten the laws of thermodynamics (But quite a few believed to have done it)

Beating thermodynamics could be called the physicists version of alchemy…
(The day you do it, the fundamentals of modern science must be fundamentally rewritten)


The simple question is: “Where is the “extra” energy supposed to come from?”


----------



## ThePierCer

With our experiment trying to get an 8hp engine run purely on HHO gas was extremely encouraging. For out first test, we used a very old beat up home generator. If something did go wrong, at least it wouldn’t be a total loss. 

We got the engine warmed up, then shut the fuel off completely. At that point we had 20psi built up in our Cell with a 3/8 fuel line. Once the engine started to sputter from being starved for fuel, we opened the HHO line ¼ turn and the engine came back to life. With that particular Cell (only 12 plates) we were unable to maintain gas production to keep up with the engines fuel demands, so it only ran for about 1 minute. With the fuel ½ - 3/4 off, the engine will run indefinitely. 

Our new design has 36 plates and a more efficient delivery system so we are hoping that will be able to sustain the engine. 

There is so much talk about how it takes energy to make energy, but no one ever takes into consideration how much loss is in even the most efficient engine. Any vehicles charging system will easily power the Cell. We are just utilizing some of the “waste” to make the engine run more efficiently.


----------



## Froggy

I have an old 69' towncar sitting in my Dad's back yard with a 460ci motor, I would really love for it to get 70mpg! sign me up! 8)


----------



## Smitty

You should be going after the cat converter Froggy.


----------



## Platdigger

Well, haha....if it's a 69 there shouldn't be one....


----------



## peter i

ThePierCer said:


> We got the engine warmed up, then shut the fuel off completely. At that point we had 20psi built up in our Cell with a 3/8 fuel line. Once the engine started to sputter from being starved for fuel, we opened the HHO line ¼ turn and the engine came back to life. With that particular Cell (only 12 plates) we were unable to maintain gas production to keep up with the engines fuel demands, so it only ran for about 1 minute. With the fuel ½ - 3/4 off, the engine will run indefinitely.
> Our new design has 36 plates and a more efficient delivery system so we are hoping that will be able to sustain the engine.


You will be, eventually. And that will be around the time you put about twice the amount of energy into the electrolysis cell compared to what the combustion engine delivers burning of the gas.

A combustion engine is nice, because the energy carrier (gasoline) stores a lot of energy (around 40 MJ/kg), is a liquid at normal temperature, relatively safe and easily handled. The efficiency of present day combustion engines is around 30% (http://ecen.com/content/eee7/motoref.htm ).
In short, you have a cell loosing 40% of your energy as heat, and then an engine operating at less than 30% efficiency (and let that drive a generator to produce electricity with a further loss….)
Electric motors run 80-90% efficiency (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html ) so for any purpose where you can live with a cable, electricity is far better than gasoline, and producing it locally is very inefficient compared to a power plant.



ThePierCer said:


> There is so much talk about how it takes energy to make energy, but no one ever takes into consideration how much loss is in even the most efficient engine. Any vehicles charging system will easily power the Cell. We are just utilizing some of the “waste” to make the engine run more efficiently.



If you can use the waste energy, there is a lot to win, but the charging system of a car is not waste energy. The moment you draw current from the generator, the motor must work harder, using more fuel.
It would be like dragging your trailer after the car, insisting that it would use no extra fuel, because you were driving that way anyway.

What you really do is burn more fuel in a low efficiency engine, just to have a loss in a generator, using that electricity to generate hydrogen, which you burn in the original inefficient engine. 
You could cut some of the losses letting the generator drive an electromotor driving a wheel, but making the system simpler, makes the madness of the idea unpleasantly obvious.

(In some applications, like propulsion of trains an ships a diesel powered generator delivers power to electromotors, but that is for practical reasons, not to “cheat” on thermodynamics)


If you could make an efficient thermoelectric and wrap the engine in that, you could use the real waste heat, and really make a difference!
(Becoming very rich!)


----------



## Arcani

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?do...=60&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


----------



## peter i

Oh, these boys are wonderful, but they are pretty far out. Try reading their credentials:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/team.htm 
”comparative mythologists” and ”catastrophist researchers”… HUH?


These guys are to astrophysics what the “Entelligunt desine”-lot is to evolutionary biology. They don’t understand what is happening, don’t like the implications of it and knit together a theory from the little bits, they are unable to fit in the big picture.
But the discussion here makes great reading: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=99727 And http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html takes their arguments one at a time.

Their theories do not conform to the known the laws of physics. That is all right, but if they should be accepted, the theory should offer at better explanation of observations. Present physics explains things quite well and is able to predict how a system will react. The Thunderboltist desperately want a divine element, and to make it fit, they just have to make a couple of dramatic rearrangements of the universe.	

By the way, my mother taught me that it was very bad style to just post an uncommented link or worse; a very long copy-past in any forum.


----------



## peter i

But when quoting, I like the way Harold said it in another thread:



Harold said:


> Nonsense! Get a grip and come to terms with the idea that if you don't understand the basics, you, nor anyone else, will contribute to progress. If readers don't have a clue how to test for gold, or how to recover it, I'd be interested in hearing how they're going to make revolutionary changes in the chemistry of gold. We have professional people that work in chemistry on a daily basis----and I don't hear them touting revolutionary processes, yet you tell me that the common man is on the threshold of something new? Show me.



I would never walk into an operating theatre, with my knowledge of garden irrigation, insisting that the surgeons are doing it wrong, because my experiments with garden hoses clearly shows that open heart surgery should be done quite differently.

I wonder why you have not mentioned Santilli yet. A prime example of a person analysing electrolysis gas, forgetting what he should have learned about spectroscopy in a second year chemistry course, and rather than reading up on the subject to explain the observation that he does not understand, he regurgitates a novel theory to explain his results, requiring a total redefinition of chemical bonding.
But he has delivered a great boost to the “HHO-community”, who totally uncritically have accepted his claims, because they are suitable, not because they are correct.
(A good rule in science is that when something unusual happens, you are either onto something interesting or have made a mistake. The more unusual, the more likely that it is a mistake)

I do not oppose free thought! In fact I will do all I can to promote *critical thinking and observation*


----------



## Arcani

Lou
u have a lot to say about something u probably didnt even watch

This thread is about HHO torches and i felt the video mite help those playing with this tech as it helped me achieve more efficient designs. 

Are Hydrogen/oxygen torches not useful in refining? Does it not benefit everyone to produce these gases from water with a 12V battery, over unity or not?

Heavier then air flight not being possible was once scientific doctrine, until two bicycle repair men proved it wrong. 


ThePeirCer



> Our new design has 36 plates and a more efficient delivery system so we are hoping that will be able to sustain the engine



how many neutral plates ?(Positive, neutral, neutral, negative?)
My latest rigg i went positive, neutral, negative and am getting almost 2 L of gas a minute with 12V at 6 Amps, what kind of production are u getting now?


----------



## Platdigger

May I but in and ask this?

About how many litters a minute would it take to run a small torch?
Randy


----------



## peter i

According to http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/electrol.html 2 L of gas (at normal temperature and pressure) would require 15 kilojoules to produce (they might be wrong, my “back of the napkin-calculation said even more energy… I might be wrong!).

15 kJ in a minute, that is 250 J/s = 250 Watt.

You run just 72 W. If this is correct you are not just running over unity, you are running 3½ times theoretical maximum.

:shock: 

(Expect to be murdered by the oil-conspiracy any moment!)


----------



## Lou

I am not going to bother arguing with you Arcani. I did watch the videos and I liked the design, hence the reason I asked for pictures from dallasgoldbug. Perhaps I should've been more specific and asked for schematics. Other than that, I really don't know where you are coming from, or even what you mean or why you ask rhetorical questions? If I myself use an oxyhydrogen torch, why would I think it not useful technology? If I myself have mentioned wanting to use an electrolysis powered unit rather than one that was cylinder based, why wouldn't I have a lot to say about these torches?


@Randy,

3L/min would be plenty for a good sized torch--180/L per hour is about 8 moles of hydrogen; a good bit! Probably enough to melt 5 oz. + of Pt.


----------



## Anonymous

If you are using a battery to run your equipment you may have a much higher amperage than you think. Measure the resistance between your electrodes. You may only have .1 ohm or less if you have a large enough surface which would mean you would be drawing 130 plus amp from your 12v battery since when the battery is at 12v it is considered dead the voltage should be in the 13v range. You may find if you run your unit for a long time the battery will get hot and your gas production may slow as its internal resistance goes up and voltage drops.

Also measure the voltage across the electrodes while the unit is running 
it most likely would be very low maybe even zero which would indicate your cell is actually short circuiting your battery drawing exceeding high amperage which may ruin your battery if ran for a very long time.

Mind I am not nay saying you just giving you a possible explanation for why you can produce so much gas with a 12v battery which would work for a limited time.


----------



## Arcani

> You may find if you run your unit for a long time the battery will get hot and your gas production may slow as its internal resistance goes up and voltage drops.



it does get hot, i will try measuring amps like u said and see what's up there. I've givin up on running the 5Hp on strait HHO as even with the latest cell i can't go much above idle(engine is far from tip top). I now have a I.V. style gas line that i can measure out gas in and time how long it takes with and without HHO added at the intake. By this testing it improves efficiency about 20%. I bent up the plates square in a brake like angle iron and stacked them vertically, got this idea from DallasGoldBug's stacked SS cups design, I've been playing around with the arrangement of the electrodes and positive,neutral,negative seems to work best but many building these rigs are saying that doubling up the neutral plates helps. This cell up makes a good flame for heating things and such but my U shape ABS cell(my first) doesnt produce gas at much more then 1 Litre a min, its just coiled SS wire in each side(+ oxygen,-Hydrogen), need to make plate electrodes for it and see what i can get out of it as far as cutting metals is concerned. I have been focused on the gas assist because i have a E-test coming up and would like to see how it would affect the results on my old VW. Playing with these cells is fun  if anyone hasn't tried at least a small scale HHO cell, they should




> Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:19 pm Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Electrolysis torches are manufactured and sold, and have been that for half a century or more.


Ford had a patten as early as 1913, which, like many others are expired and free to access


----------



## peter i

WOW, you had me honestly worried there!

I’d read it as if you were using a normal power supply (with a 6 A limit) and actually measured the amperage! 
Now it’s back to a case of guesstimating the value of a parameter, getting “revolutionary result” when the assumption was wrong.

Stacking the plates is normal procedure in electrolytic hydrogen production, but it will not change thermodynamics. It allows you to put a large area in a small space, thus letting a higher current flow and giving you a higher production. It may also improve the circulation, again improving the current flow and the cooling.

I have played quite a bit with electrolysis! Here are some of the fun things you can do:

Try to connect your voltmeter to the cell after running it for at short time. It will deliver power!
(And no, contrary to what some people on the ‘net believe, it is not “free energy”. The process is reversible, and your cell now functions as a fuel cell.
But I bet you could fool people very badly with that one, making them invest their savings in the project. All you need to do is to “fine tune the conditioning of the cell” to make it “deliver power indefinitely”, and all you need is a few thousand dollars to make the final tests…)

Build a “Volta gun” or “Volta Cannon” and scare the living daylights out of your neighbourhood.
I built a small one (20 cm of 3/4” pipe and a piezo-igniter) for my son. The crack is deafening (earmuffs and goggles are mandatory, and he loves it!)
Due to the low energy density, it is totally useles as a weapon.

Lead the gas into a cup of soapy water. Pick up a teaspoonful of the foam and ignite it… BAM!
Now to shock the audience: Pick up the foam with your fingers and ignite it (It’s totally safe, don’t worry). To have an enormous crack from you hand really impresses people, and all you feel is a slight push.

But remember the earmuffs! We call the contraption the “tinnitusolator”!

EDIT: I use dilute sodium hydroxide in the system. I simply fill it with water, then slowly add hydroxide solution until it draws 4-5 Amperes.
The charger is rated at 6A, but as the ion mobility increases with higher temperature, it pays to start a little low.


----------



## ddrew

Here's an interesting e-book that I found on the topic, but uses KOH to generate the Hydrogen. It has some good safety info in it. Just thought I'd add this in to the discussion.


----------



## ThePierCer

> You will be, eventually. And that will be around the time you put about twice the amount of energy into the electrolysis cell compared to what the combustion engine delivers burning of the gas.



That’s ridiculous. Hydrogen and Oxygen burn substantially more efficient then gasoline. Electrolysis is splitting Atoms, we’ve done small scale models with a 9v battery and got nice production. I’ve seen several 3hp engines driving an alternator, which powers the HHO Cell, which runs the engine. 




> If you can use the waste energy, there is a lot to win, but the charging system of a car is not waste energy. The moment you draw current from the generator, the motor must work harder, using more fuel.
> It would be like dragging your trailer after the car, insisting that it would use no extra fuel, because you were driving that way anyway.



How is that like dragging a trailer? The charging system is already working, and peaks out at around 2500-3000 rpm’s. The moment you start your vehicle there is a draw on the charging system. Even at full load, it only uses 2-3 hp. One method I’ve seen is the elimination of the “smog pump” on some vehicles (which “robs” the engine of more HP then the charging system). Since the vehicle runs more efficient and produce less emissions from burning less gasoline, it’s essentially not needed. 

There are far to many variables to consider to try to “prove” on paper that it won’t work. There are thousands of people in the USA and abroad who are successfully running HHO driven or assisted engines. Stan Myers was featured of NBC News years ago showing him driving a vehicle powered exclusively by water. Thank God pioneers like him didn’t get discouraged by disbelievers with a pencil and paper. Like I stated before, we are utilizing the normal waste or loss on the standard inefficient engine. 

I agree that an Electric Motor is unquestionably more efficient. But, some of us will never say goodbye to the internal combustion engine. I wouldn’t expect you to understand the accomplishment you get from building your own engine and doubling it’s original HP, or “Tuning” and engine to make it more efficient.


----------



## peter i

ThePierCer said:


> That’s ridiculous. Hydrogen and Oxygen burn substantially more efficient then gasoline. *Electrolysis is splitting Atoms**, we’ve done small scale models with a 9v battery and got nice production. I’ve seen several 3hp engines driving an alternator, which powers the HHO Cell, which runs the engine.



Oh my god! (if I had any)

I rest my case, and will stop discussing this subject, keeping the “Harold quote” in mind.

No hope for you my friend.




*In electrolysis, you split *molecules*. It is not a nuclear reaction

You use energy to split the water molecule, and get H2 and O2 wit a 2:1 ratio. When you burn them, they merge to water, releasing exactly the same amount of energy as you used to split them. It is called “conservation of energy”.

Stan is a prophet to some, and a fraud to others


----------



## Arcani

> But I bet you could fool people very badly with that one, making them invest their savings in the project. All you need to do is to “fine tune the conditioning of the cell” to make it “deliver power indefinitely”, and all you need is a few thousand dollars to make the final tests



I am not selling anything Peter if that is what u are implying
No one wants you to stop posting on this, you've been very helpful, but we could do without being implied scientific heretics or snake oil salesmen.


----------



## ThePierCer

lol.. I think you know I meant to say NOT splitting Atoms. Good job jumping all over a typo. 
But I digress.


----------



## peter i

Arcani said:


> But I bet you could fool people very badly with that one, making them invest their savings in the project. All you need to do is to “fine tune the conditioning of the cell” to make it “deliver power indefinitely”, and all you need is a few thousand dollars to make the final tests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not selling anything Peter if that is what u are implying
> No one wants you to stop posting on this, you've been very helpful, but we could do without being implied scientific heretics or snake oil salesmen.
Click to expand...


I certainly don’t imply that you do that (the moment you did, I would, of course)

But quite a few people in the business are trying to do exactly that. Yule Brown and Stan Myers are a couple of prominent examples.
Both have a long career of fraud and scamming, and Myers was convicted for fraud after ripping of investors.
The best thing to say about them is that they are expert con artists. (were, both seem to have died in 1998 (murdered by the conspiracy?)).

Snake oil and heretics are harsh words.

There is nothing wrong with electrolysis. It may be one of the best options for storing surplus energy we have. And you can drive cars on hydrogen.

Once the problems of storage and fuel cell price/lifespan and storage of hydrogen are solved, the hydrogen powered car is a reality.
http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage1259.html
Hydrogen powered systems are on the market already, here is a Danish example:
http://www.h2logic.dk/Dk/mps.asp




But the moment you start talking “over unity” and believe in beating the fundamentals of thermodynamics I’d more compare it to alchemy. Then you are trying to generate something that is not there, not gold in this case, but energy. 
It could be possible, but then the last 300 years of science and scientific observations would be totally wrong. Is that likely?


Running a car on “just water and electrolysis” with no extra input of energy is like putting a flywheel on an electric motor, attaching a generator to the flywheel, wire the generator to the motor and expect this system to start running and producing extra energy once you give it a little push. Both the electric motor and the generator are far better for converting energy than both the automobile engine and the electrolysis cell. So, why should it not work?
If you continue down that road, a space is reserved for you on this list:
http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html

Make sure that your experiments are well documented and reproducible, and do not fall into the quicksand of wishful thinking, magic and conspiracy theory.

I too enjoy the discussion 
:wink:


----------



## peter i

ThePierCer said:


> I’ve seen several 3hp engines driving an alternator, which powers the HHO Cell, which runs the engine.



"Seen" as "allowed to touch and inspect it" or "seen" as "video" or "very secret, no touch, only look from this angle, will not run today"
?


----------



## Arcani

Peter i


> Seen" as "allowed to touch and inspect it" or "seen" as "video" or "very secret, no touch, only look from this angle, will not run today"
> ?



Pete, he said in past replies that he has bin testing on small engines as have i, we are still learning but others have been driving around with these cells on there cars for years and freely giving information on what they have done. I took from this FREE information and have seen it for myself now.
It seems u would have us ignore our lying eyes? :lol: 

Watch this trailer for a upcoming documentary( will be released this spring)
and maybe it will help u get where we are coming from
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf

and more on waterhttp://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2464139837181538044


----------



## zauggart

hi there
here is a youtube video of hho gas torch and a car that runs on it 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUmlLqkUHd0&feature=related
i thought it was very interesting and dont understand why there isnt more research into this topic than there is ,seems a shame to slow the progress on something that the entire world could benifit from .
Ian


----------



## Anonymous

Did anyone understand that when you use a battery to power your
cell with no limit on the amps available you get the short term appearance of large amount of gas from what appears to be be a small power source. If you ran the cell from the battery until it was dead you will find that you in the end produce less gas than you should in theory produce the amount will be reduced by the amount of heat that is generated in the cell and the battery allong with the wires.

As much as I wish you could produce even the theoreticly available amount of gas, it just is not possible. That is why everyone of these experiments only run for a limited time and do not run until the batteries
are exhausted.

Try it and see, I am guessing you are using a 12v 6amp/hour battery if you let it go until it stops it will produce gas at a volume constistant with your results for around six minutes then it will drop drastically in gas produced.
You should stop every min disconnect the battery and measure its voltage it should start if fully charged in the 13v range and it is dead for all practical purposes at 12v but will still produce some gas. Measure the entire volume of gas produce. If your battery is different than I have stated tell me the amp hours rating and I will tell you how long of period of time you can produce a signification volume of gas for.

Do not use aluminum electrodes they will affect your results.


----------



## Harold_V

ThePierCer said:


> I’ve seen several 3hp engines driving an alternator, which powers the HHO Cell, which runs the engine.


You've been duped! 

If you can show any of us a setup like that that can run endlessly, you may have something. I don't think so. When everything is taken into account, you have expended more energy than you have recovered. The rest is lost as heat (friction) and resistance (more heat). There really is NO free lunch---nor perpetual motion.

What you're suggesting is that there is more energy yielded than consumed. It has never happened in all of recorded history. Even nuclear power yields a balanced equation. 

If you don't take anything else into account, consider the resistance of wire in a generator, and that's one of the minor losses. Only at absolute zero can electrical current flow without loss (resistance).

I shudder to think of the amount of energy that is lost in heat alone. 

Harold


----------



## peter i

Arcani said:


> It seems u would have us ignore our lying eyes? :lol:
> 
> Watch this trailer for a upcoming documentary( will be released this spring)
> and maybe it will help u get where we are coming from
> http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf
> 
> and more on waterhttp://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2464139837181538044



If you are hot on “Expelled", you are further gone that I believed..... If that is where you are coming from, I have no intention of going there!

It can only be described as a “creationist propaganda movie” (and it is supposed to be extraordinarily boring).

Take a look at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php for a preview of the fun (written by another Myers, by the way)

EDIT:
Yes, quite a few people claim to have built “over unity” devices or defied the basics in other ways.

Yes, quite a few of them willingly share some of the information but others are looking for “willing investors”. None of whom have ever gotten their moneys worth.

Yes, these people willingly show their devices, but funnily, they will normally not allow any unbelievers to inspect them critically.
When unbelievers are allowed to test them, they always fail (they are sabotaged, of course)

*Show me just one working device and I’ll convert on the spot. *

But “show” means allow to dismantle, test and measure it, not “look at it and believe the numbers supplied by the inventor”.

“An extraordinary claim requires extraordinarily good proof”


----------



## Arcani

> Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Peter i
> Quote:
> Seen" as "allowed to touch and inspect it" or "seen" as "video" or "very secret, no touch, only look from this angle, will not run today"
> ?
> 
> 
> Pete, he said in past replies that he has bin testing on small engines as have i, we are still learning but others have been driving around with these cells on there cars for years and freely giving information on what they have done. I took from this FREE information and have seen it for myself now.
> It seems u would have us ignore our lying eyes?


I don't have over unity with my cell, never said i did, but am very inpressed with the gas production which, over unity or not, is a HELL of alot cheaper then buying these gases from a supplier. How much do u pay for a tank of oxygen or Hydrogen?



> It can only be described as a “creationist propaganda movie” (and it is supposed to be extraordinarily boring).


Lol, u don't even watch do u, u just google search it and find a sceptic site on it. You have made it clear u think it is a waste of time, so why does it bother u so much that we 'waste our time' on this? Just look at the time u have spent trying to debunk the whole thing, electrolysis torch riggs have been on the market for years, why not make your own???The point of my posting that trailer is that the scientific community can act like Zealots, i was trying to make the point sudeley.




> Try it and see, I am guessing you are using a 12v 6amp/hour battery if you let it go until it stops it will produce gas at a volume constistant with your results for around six minutes then it will drop drastically in gas produced.
> You should stop every min disconnect the battery and measure its voltage it should start if fully charged in the 13v range and it is dead for all practical purposes at 12v but will still produce some gas. Measure the entire volume of gas produce. If your battery is different than I have stated tell me the amp hours rating and I will tell you how long of period of time you can produce a signification volume of gas for.


 I will do that James, the battery i have used is as u stated, i am getting ready to run my car with HHO assist(just running it in the air intake;possible because my VW is not fuel injected). If there is excessive amps being drawn then it shouldn't take long to kill the battery. One problem I'm having is that when when i let off the gas in the car the idle stays high for a while before it settles back to normal, i guess it must take a bit for the censors to adjust.


----------



## Anonymous

Are you running the car off of the battery in the car? If so do not draw it down to dead like I suggested for the test it will drastically shorten the life of your battery if it does not kill it outright. What size engine are you running? I would imagine your eletrolysis system would have to be huge to generate enough gas to run a car engine. I would also caution that the unburnt gasoline in normal operations serves to cool the cylinder and prevent the fuel denoating instead of burning. I think with the ideal mix of pure hydrogen and oxygen under compression is going to detonate and ruin your engine if you run it to long, you may not notice this when there is no load applied. If you know all of this and have taken appropriate precauions or have a car that you don't care if it goes to the junk yard then I would stay experiment away. I would not however do this to my car, maybe a old genset or something. I have studied alternative fueling for engines as a hobby for quite some time. I have a generator that runs off of coal by putting the coal in a container and not allowing enough air in it makes some CO which burns and other hydrocarbons which are driven off of the coal. This process keeps the ash from entering the engine.
Coal outcrops only a few feet under the dirt at my house. I do not use the genset it was just a proof of consept thin.


----------



## Arcani

James

The car is a old 4 cylinder VW golf 1.8 L gas and the battery is old aswell so i don't care if it gets done in, I'm not running it on HHO alone, i couldn't get a 5HP engine i tested on to run above idle so i started adding the gas into the air intake of the engine. On the VW i took apart a section of the intake hose and put in a piece of ABS that fit nice and snug with gear clamps. A hole in the ABS is where i feed in the HHO from the bubblier, i haven't driven anywhere yet but have been revving the piss out of engine to see what problems might arise, so far just the problem with the rpm's staying high after u let off the gas, i figure this is the oxygen censor getting confused. I hope to have it mounted in the engine compartment this weekend so i can drive it around a bit and see how it is under load. From my testing with the 5HP i found that adding the HHO (just stuck the hose through the air filter) to the gasoline improved efficiency about 20%. Running completely on HHO would require a lot of amps from what I've seen others do, but a little HHO torch is great to have given the price of buying it and easy to make, u should give it a go if u haven't already, my 1LPM cell(just u Shaped ABS with coiled SS wire for electrodes) makes a good hot little flame and the 2lmp cell is even better(Plate style). The plate design worked a lot better then the coil style, keeping the plates close, like 2 mm, seems to force the bubbles out faster and thus make more use of the surface for creating more bubbles. After seeing Dallasgoldbug's cell with stacked SS cups, i took my plate cell apart again and bent the plates at 90 and stacked them vertically with the corners pointed down, it improved slightly so the angle would seem to help expel the bubbles even more. Some people claim that high volt, low amp AC current works better but i have only used 12V DC. 

That coal engine sounds interesting, u have any links to more info? or is it something u have developed yourself?


----------



## Anonymous

I did not develope it, I saw a article or something on a sawmill that ran a
v8 engine to drive the mill using the waste sawdust and slabs and choking the flame down which basically at first makes a lot of smoke that is rich in unburnt hydrocarbons but after they are gone you get a lot of CO which 
provides less power but you just add more wood or in my case coal.

I only ran it while experimenting with how much to choke the flame down for about a week or two. I live in the country and the power goes out alot so I was trying to develope a back up system were I would not have to go out to get fuel. 

My next project is going to be a biomass digester. There are lots of farms around me that I can get manure and staw, etc from then return to them as compost when it is done processing.


----------



## Anonymous

how have you determined that you got a increase of effeciency by 20 percent?


----------



## ddrew

Arcani said:


> That coal engine sounds interesting, u have any links to more info? or is it something u have developed yourself?



That technology he is using is called 'Producer Gas' and is also know as 'Wood Gas' when they use wood to make the gas byproducts. I've been seriously looking this technology, but see the HHO as a more viable option, if it really works. I have several books on Producer Gas and Wood Gas (Mother Earth News even has a set of plans on Wood Gas), and FEMA has a report they publish on it too. The technology was used in Europe during WWII since petroleum-based products were so scarce.

Here are some links to more information on this technology:

http://www.green-trust.org/woodgas.htm
http://www.survivalring.org/pdf/fema_wood_gas_generator.pdf

Google "wood gas" or 'producer gas" and you'll find a wealth of information on it.

Hope this helps . . .


----------



## Anonymous

I was in the works of planning on building a can to feed the hot exhaust from the gen set into to heat the wood inside to make the gas in a closed container to improve power density and leave me with clean charcoal for my forge. I planned to start the engine on gas then when producing change to the gas produced by the wood but I could not figure how to control the amount of gas produced without venting unburnt gas. This thread has inspired me to start kicking that idea around again.


----------



## scavenger

I tried several homemade cell designs on my vehicle and found that if wired directly to the 12v system I gain nothing. The hydrogen boost only balances out the extra work the engine has to do to run the cell. Running the cell of a seperate battery or batteries works. Only hassle is charging the batteries after a drive. I now use a modified version of this design http://www.rexresearch.com/celis/celis.htm I found that the original design made a small difference. I tried adding waste oil to the water to produce hydrocarbons. A little better. I noticed my exhaust was very clean.
I held white tissue paper over the tailpipe and nothing. I could not even smell the exhaust. I figured the high heat of combustion was cracking the hydrocarbon steam into HHO and it was being spat out the exhaust. I made a T section in the exhaust before the muffler and ran tube to the air cleaner. The results are outstanding. I now have to adjust the idle screw out 5 mins after starting to keep the rpm down. I have tried disconnecting the gas and unfortunately it does stop running. At a rough guess I'm getting 50% plus more mileage out of a litre of gas. Water cost nothing and waste oil cost nothing. It cost me about NZ$80 to make. Please dont tell me why this should not work and check out these links before you ask me any questions. http://www.rexresearch.com/pantone/pantone.htm 
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel/index.htm


----------



## Harold_V

james122964 said:


> I think if we continue this it should be off forum as it really has gone beyound being related to refining by any strech of the imagination.



Excellent observation. If it must remain on the board, please move to the Bar & Grill section. 

Harold

A note: My sig line is new, and does not relate to the ongoing conversation. Please do not take it personally.


----------



## lazersteve

I moved them.  

Steve


----------



## Anonymous

Harold, that is hard to do when you make a point of pointing it out.


----------



## scavenger

Sorry Harold.


----------



## Harold_V

james122964 said:


> Harold, that is hard to do when you make a point of pointing it out.


I pointed it out _because_ of the lousy timing. I'm sincere in saying it was not directed at any one in particular. It happens to have come in some email I received a few days ago, and I liked what it said. In an idle moment this afternoon, I added it as a sig line----which was most unfortunate considering my following post related to what could easily be construed as a complaint (it was not----just a move to help those that have no interest in reading the subject matter to avoid doing so). Sorry it looked like it did, but it was not intentional---just a matter of poor timing. That's why I went back and posted my little note. 

Maybe I should have kept quiet? 

I like the sig line and it will remain. Again, it is not pointed at anyone in particular. 

Harold


----------



## Harold_V

scavenger said:


> Sorry Harold.



No problem. There's room for all polite conversation on this board- just try to keep it in the appropriate forum so those that have no interest can avoid checking the posts. As it was, the topic had drifted well off topic and was very misleading. 

Harold


----------



## peter i

Arcani said:


> Just look at the time u have spent trying to debunk the whole thing, electrolysis torch riggs have been on the market for years, why not make your own???The point of my posting that trailer is that the scientific community can act like Zealots, i was trying to make the point sudeley.



Have I tried to debunk electrolysis or have I denied that it was possible to build an electrolysis apparatus yourself?
I think not! All I’ve tried to make painfully clear is that there is no known ways to cheat thermodynamics.

“Steam reforming”, “water gas shift reaction”, “cracking of hydrocarbons” are well known processes with lots of very important industrial applications. They are smart, and use thermodynamics and chemistry without any need of magic (but a lot of good old fashioned engineering and the practical experience of more than a century, no magic at all).
Why should it not be possible to scale those systems down or apply them for other purposes?


Why don’t I build a “water torch” myself? As I wrote earlier, I have used one for welding thermocouples and I loved doing it. And I was allowed to look into the very simple welder, including the maintenance manual.
There would be no real problems in building one (and still no magic)

But I’ve also done the math, and it showed me a few things
i)	It would take a nastily big power supply to deliver a power in the torch of a scale that would be useful for anything but welding very thin wires.
ii)	Even if it was fed with a couple of kilowatts, the delivered heat in the flame would only be a fraction of what any reasonably sized blowtorch with a disposable butane canister will deliver
iii)	The baby-apparatus above is adequate for playing
iv)	Other projects have a higher success-rate and make more fun
v)	LPG and a “cyclone”-burner deliver the heat I need

Yes, scientists can be bitches, backstabbers and zealots, they are human after all. But the good ones attempt to be fair and honest. 
The HHO-community is riddled with frauds and pseudo-science, and that’s a pity for those doing a good and honest job in the field of electrolysis. Wishful thinking, greed and lack of basic knowledge can lead to a lot of hasty conclusions.

Like having a huge gas production from a “6A”-battery.
Yes, you have a lot of gas, but if you kill a battery by doing it, you save very little money.


“Sudeley”? Sorry, I’m not a native speaker. Is that an insult or a typo?


----------



## Arcani

James and Drew
thanks for the info on the producer gas, very interesting, i my have to play with this in the future :lol: 
and Jame as I've stated in prior posts i used a I.V. style gas tank so i could measure out 200ml of gas and see how long it takes to be consumed under different variables, not high-tech but enough for me to see some benefit in pursuing it further.


And Scavenger
Wow, a lot of great info, thank you for the input, i have some questions

Did u modify the O2 censor at all or just the idle spring?

Also, i was wondering what size engine u have run this on?(# of cylinders and litres displacement)

Peter
Please stop regurgitating moot points and unfounded insinuations of our previous posts.
If you want a definition of a word you need only google it



> james122964 wrote:
> I think if we continue this it should be off forum as it really has gone beyound being related to refining by any strech of the imagination.
> 
> 
> Excellent observation. If it must remain on the board, please move to the Bar & Grill section.
> 
> Harold


Where u find that quote, another thread, lol, how long did it take you to track that down and drag it out of context? I'm using a small torch cell to heat HCL and for burning down filters. Why not put it in 'Equipment' section? :lol: and about your tag, I think its prefect.

since we are in 'Bar and Grill' now check this outhttp://video.google.ca/videoplay?do...688&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 That's the establishments irrefutable and indisputable for ya :lol:


----------



## peter i

one hour and 10 minutes!

But luckily it linked to this one:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6382404323275730473
Just four minutes, enjoyable and informative!


----------



## Arcani

No attention span eh? that clears a few things up,lol


----------



## scavenger

Hi Arcani, The vehicle is 1987 1.8 litre toyota van with 350000 ks on the clock. No 02 sensor or cat. I use it everyday for my recycling business. 
Had this system running for a week now and have saved a lot on fuel. 
I am positive that it can be made even more efficient by installing a adjustable valve after the T section to regulate exhaust flow.

I have an idea you may be interested in as well as any PGM experts reading this. If you have an understanding of how a catalytic converter works, I wonder if the things would produce hydrogen if a water injection system was installed on the intake manifold. I am going to try this on my brothers Nissan as soon as I have the time.


----------



## Arcani

> I have an idea you may be interested in as well as any PGM experts reading this. If you have an understanding of how a catalytic converter works, I wonder if the things would produce hydrogen if a water injection system was installed on the intake manifold. I am going to try this on my brothers Nissan as soon as I have the time.



Great idea, Platinum acts like a catalyst to certain reactions if present(like it's use in a car) but have no idea how it would react to water in that situation.

Anybody know where to find that out?


----------



## Platdigger

I do know this, water heated to it's critical temperature in the presence of a carbon and perhaps a catalyst, will by steamreforming form different gasses and fuels.
I used to study this, I was all set up for an experiment. Still am really.....if ever.......
Randy


----------



## Arcani

found some good info
http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/KellyAndBoyce.pdf


----------



## peter i

Arcani said:


> found some good info
> http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/KellyAndBoyce.pdf



It seems you accidentally made a double post, it is here too:
http://goldrefiningforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=2086&start=15

Repeating it will not make it more correct (and I still do not have 60,000,000$)


----------



## Arcani

Peter , they give the info out freely and are asking for donations to bring this technology to the public. They are an offshoot of The Disclosure project, a group of former government employees(Documented employees) that have come forward seeking a congressional hearing so they can go on the record with what they know. people have been working on this for years in secret government programs and believe the time has come for disclosure.

The link i gave in my previous post is a good source for those who would like to build a HHO cell, and i don't consider it double posting if it is relevant to both threads, and it most certainly is.

B.T.W i have 255 Km's with the cell installed on my car and the battery is not dead yet as u predicted it would be, i will have to finish up the tank to see if there is any significant fuel savings.


----------



## peter i

I don’t think I ever spelled doom for the battery? Another member mentioned that drawing a very high current (short circuit) could kill a battery or drain it very quickly.
Neither do I expect it to go flat as long as you are charging it in the car.

I’m looking forward to the disclosure (but remember, that the conspiracy will delete all traces; there will be either nothing or a “we tried, but found nothing”-front).


Some rather nice designs of cells in the paper, I fully acknowledge that. Lots of work and thought has clearly been spent on that. They should concentrate on that part of it, using the possibility of storing energy from surges in production to the surges in demand.

I also look forward to your fuel results, but remember that it may be biased. My consumption varies from 18 km/litre when driving long trips at moderate speeds to less than 14 km/L if it is short trips or high speed at the highway. Knowing that you want to save fuel could make you drive nicer than normally.


----------



## goldsilverpro

About 25 or 30 years ago, I spent 2 years experimenting with ion exchange (electrodialysis) membrane cells. For the compartments, I used square boxes of about 150 mL capacity made from a hard, brittle, clear plastic - some form of styrene, I think. I used a Dremel and cut holes in them about 1" X 1" square. The end boxes had one hole and the middle boxes had 2 holes on opposite sides. The membranes were in a sheet form and I cut pieces somewhat larger than the hole. I put Dow silicone lab grease around the edge of each hole, to prevent leakage, and sandwiched the membranes between the boxes. I could line up a string of as many compartments as I wished - for one experiment, I once used 9 compartments. I held the whole thing together with large rubber bands. I put electrodes in the end compartments and filled all the compartments with various solutions. Most experiments used metal ions and I had an AA and other equipment to measure changes in the various compartments.

I mainly used 2 types of membranes - those that passed only negative ions and those that passed only positive ions. I also had some that only passed only +1 ions. I would first work out a diagram of the membrane arrangement and the solutions on paper. I saw many interesting things. For example, I set up a large one to remove all the +1 Ag from a silver cell and leave the +2 copper behind. This became a simple way to maintain the cell.

Towards the end of this period, I came up with a setup, on paper, that would produce an unbalanced solution in one of the compartments. For example, it could have either an excess of positive or negative ions. I thought, "Wow", bottled energy. However, when I tried this, I found that the system compensated, and balanced itself, by splitting water in that compartment, at the membrane surface. This was very interesting, since the membranes, themselves, are a non-conductive polymer. Nature resists being electrically out of balance. 

I then duplicated the arrangement, 3 times, in one long line of compartments, with 2 electrodes at the ends. I got water splitting in each unbalanced compartment. I got triple the amount of H2 gas. For the same amount of current, I did use a bit more power (higher voltage), due to the increased resistance from the added compartments. However, this increase in power usage was much less than the H2 produced. I got more out than I put in. Believe it or not.

It's been a long time and I can't remember the arrangement. If I wanted to spend a week on it, I could probably figure it out.


----------



## Palladium

Chris,

What about the nitric acid process machine. You ever come up with anything yet ?


----------



## lmills148

I just noticed this thread and its allready 5 pages long, so excuse me if I am brining up a dead subject.

How important is unity when your talking about making a gass engine more efficient? Do you consider all the energy wasted extracting, refining, transporting..or the social and economic impact of our dependancy on oil, before the fuel ever makes it into the engine, when you are calculating UNITY? How efficient is the engine before the hho cell? How many gallons of oil will we not burn using one? 

What about the enviromental impact ( yea I've hugged a tree or two) ? Is the HHO cell the answer?(rhetorical) of course its not, neither is wind or solar ... not by them selves anyhow. 

Isn't the HHO cell used to decrease the cunsumption of oil, not increase the efficiency of the engine?

peter I
I don't have the knowledge to be able to argue the science behind the theory here so I won't. It does seem though as if some of your post are becomeing somewhat demeaning toward those trying to use and understand this. I don't think this is really that kind of forum usually everyone tries to "constructively" help each other. I may be going out on a limb here but you probably have a lot more to offer some of these folks then sharp criticism. Your knowledge is what is appreciated.

g'day all, my rant is done. I'll post again next month(LOL)
Lloyd
edit I spelled my name backward


----------



## goldsilverpro

What if you could make water climb, with a large series of wicks. Wicking material has become quite advanced in these latter years.


----------



## Harold_V

lmills148 said:


> peter I
> I don't have the knowledge to be able to argue the science behind the theory here so I won't. It does seem though as if some of your post are becomeing somewhat demeaning toward those trying to use and understand this. I don't think this is really that kind of forum usually everyone tries to "constructively" help each other. I may be going out on a limb here but you probably have a lot more to offer some of these folks then sharp criticism. Your knowledge is what is appreciated.



In defense of peter I's position, all he's done is quote what is well known by physicists----which is you can't get more out of anything than you put in. In other words, there is no perpetual motion machine, nor is there likely to be one, not now, not ever. Man has yet to recover more energy than has been expended, and the method makes no difference. Perhaps that will change, but up to now it is fact. 

Many choose to ignore what is known to be ---but that doesn't make their belief true. I'm of the opinion peter is trying to keep these people well grounded----not talking down to them. He certainly hasn't been rude, which is important on this site. None of us wish to see it degenerate to the level of others. 

Lets keep this conversation going-----who knows----maybe one of you guys will prove me wrong, right along with peter. I hope you do.

Harold


----------



## peter i

Thanks Harold!

I would not mind being proven wrong in this, it could lead to some very interesting science.

Based on what we know about the nature of things, going "over unity" is just plain impossible (maybe something could happen, but it is highly unlikely).

And I feel a little sorry for the people lured into that dream. There is a lot to gain from improving storage of energy and the efficiency of its use, but so far, "creating energy from nothing" which is what "over unity" mean is a sort of alchemy. 

None of us doubt that it is likely that the ways of extracting gold from scrap and ore may be improved, but very few of us find it likely, that it is possible to "transmute" the base metals in that same scrap or ore into gold.
(And no one have done it so far)

Wishful thinking make people do a lot of things, not all of them are rational. The only alchemist to ever become rich were the frauds preying on the dreams of others.


----------



## Harold_V

peter i said:


> Thanks Harold!


My pleasure. 

I think you'll come to find I'm a no nonsense kind of guy. I quit believing in the tooth fairy many years ago, and have witnessed more than enough to understand that there is no free lunch. 

One of my customers (when I ran my commercial machine shop) fancied himself an inventor. He came up with the most absurd designs you can imagine, none of which would work, which was immediately apparent to me, if no one else. I learned that the only way he could be convinced was to build his designs. Nothing short of holding a useless piece of junk that he swore was going to revolutionize transmission of power would convince him that he was off base. 



> I would not mind being proven wrong in this, it could lead to some very interesting science.


I share your feelings, but I also understand that people like Einstein, who made predictions that baffled even his peers, has been proven to be right about almost everything. Only in quantum mechanics do some of the rules fail to conform to what we commonly accept as reality. Perhaps that is an avenue of hope for these guys that hope to revolutionize power, and how we create (or make) it-----but there are learned people that have made a lifetime study of the very idea, and it has yet to be conquered. Still, I'm pulling for anyone that has a dream-----just don't get in over your head. All too many people do that and end up losing everything, including their families. 



> Based on what we know about the nature of things, going "over unity" is just plain impossible (maybe something could happen, but it is highly unlikely).


The world wants to believe it can happen, but it has yet to occur. I'm sure most of us remember the cold fusion fiasco of '89. Lots of noise, but the claims could not be substantiated. Turned out to be nothing but bad science. 



> And I feel a little sorry for the people lured into that dream. There is a lot to gain from improving storage of energy and the efficiency of its use, but so far, "creating energy from nothing" which is what "over unity" mean is a sort of alchemy.


A tip for anyone that gets involved with this concept. 

Follow the money. When you understand where it comes from, and where it goes, you should then have an understanding of why these people promote, endlessly, the idea of a free lunch. For them, there is. The people that believe their diatribe are the ones picking up the tab. 



> None of us doubt that it is likely that the ways of extracting gold from scrap and ore may be improved, but very few of us find it likely, that it is possible to "transmute" the base metals in that same scrap or ore into gold.
> (And no one have done it so far)


I'm not sure that's true. If memory serves, bismuth has been converted to gold in a reactor, and damned little was created. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

As I recall, there isn't much fear of gold becoming commonplace. My recollection dictates that the cost of producing an ounce of gold was something like $35 million bucks. 

In the book Red Giants and White Dwarfs, written by Robert Jastrow, there is discussion on the making of the heavy elements. The third level reaction occurs at 600 million degrees, and is generally the result of a supernova. I'm trusting to memory here, so if I have it wrong, I apologize. I haven't looked at the book in years. Anyway, clearly, the heavy elements are not common, nor are we in much danger of some revolutionary process coming along to make them. 



> Wishful thinking make people do a lot of things, not all of them are rational. The only alchemist to ever become rich were the frauds preying on the dreams of others.


Indeed! And there is money to be made. People want to believe the tales. They are generally easy pray for the scoundrels that promote false hope. 

Harold


----------



## Palladium

I'm not sure that's true. If memory serves, bismuth has been converted to gold in a reactor, and damned little was created. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 


You are most likely correct Harold. Transmutations do happen and are documented in science. It's the cost and control of the process that eludes scientist.


----------



## Arcani

This discussion is starting to get somewhere,.... nice.

I will have to drive for a few tanks to see if the cell on my car is worth it or not, but so far no problems. In the meantime I have started on a better cutting rig cell, think i will try high voltage like some of the designs on The Orion Project site. Whatever the electricity cost it will probably be less then buying tanks of H and O. I hope to get to a design that could be used by all on this forum for there refining, does anybody care to guess at what sort of production i would need to generate to be useful in melting gold or silver? Maybe 3-5 litre a minute, or will i need more then that? keep in mind the best i got with 12 V was 2 L/min drawing 4 to 7 amps, plan to use welding unit to power the new cutting rig, to start
any suggestions appreciated, as always


----------



## Froggy

GSP, "What if you could make water climb, with a large series of wicks. Wicking material has become quite advanced in these latter years." Do you have any links? interesting!!


----------



## Palladium

Ok did i miss something ? What's the deal with the water climbing. :?


----------



## scavenger

I assume the water climbs the wick and drops off to climb again. Perpetual motion?
Heres a good link for u arcani. This design makes loads of hydrogen. http://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel/html/aquagen.htm
Also a nice simple cold fusion experiment that can be done by anyone.
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/html/cfr11.htm


----------



## goldsilverpro

No links. Just an idea of mine. I spent some time playing with filtering using wicking materials. I always noticed that the solution climbed up the filter paper. I did some experiments to see how high it would climb with various materials under various conditions. One thing about using wicking materials for filtering is that they never clog. It's all capillary action of the liquid. The solids stay behind. One of those possible patentable ideas that never came to fruition.

You're right, Scavenger.


----------



## peter i

If nuclear reactions count as transmutations, then yes, there are lots of transmutations happening every day.

In the alchemical sense however, people try to change one element to another by chemical and magical means, and that's a lost cause.


The wick-idea wont work. Fluids climb the wick by capillary action, and they will prefer to climb down along the wick, and then they may drip of. But going uphill, they will not leave it voluntarily. You could wring out the water at the top, but that would use more energy than the water could deliver dripping down.



Arcani said:


> keep in mind the best i got with 12 V was 2 L/min drawing 4 to 7 amps



Did you? Have you measured the amperage, or is it wishful thinking?
I think you draw a significantly higher current.

Edit:
As a believer in classical electrochemistry it is quite easy to calculate how much power you need:

If you want 2000W of energy in the flame and have a 60% efficient cell you need 2000/0.6=3333Watts input.

That will be a current of 278 A in your 12 V system.
Quite a bit!



"Smooth driving" alone can reduce your gasoline consumption with 5-10%, by the way.


----------



## Arcani

scavenger, neat links, but there is more detail on larger scales rigs on this sitehttp://www.theorionproject.org/en/research.html, best info i have found so far


Peter, 


> Arcani wrote:
> keep in mind the best i got with 12 V was 2 L/min drawing 4 to 7 amps
> 
> 
> Did you? Have you measured the amperage, or is it wishful thinking?
> I think you draw a significantly higher current.



yes i have, a little over 7 amps at max temp(hot), 4 amps at start-up(cold)




> If you want 2000W of energy in the flame and have a 60% efficient cell you need 2000/0.6=3333Watts input.
> 
> That will be a current of 278 A in your 12 V system.
> Quite a bit!



My question was


> anybody care to guess at what sort of production i would need to generate to be useful in melting gold or silver?



If someone has ever used H/O to melt gold or silver they might be able to give a good guess at what kind of output i would need, as well, i stated that i would be using a welding rig to power it, which is not 12V


> plan to use welding unit to power the new cutting rig, to start



And another quote of mine from page 5


> Peter
> Please stop regurgitating moot points and unfounded insinuations of our previous posts.


but you clearly don't get it, do you?


----------



## scavenger

Arcani, There is nothing new on your link. There are almost as many non profit??? free energy sites as there are non profit??? cancer research sites. 
And most of them tell the same story but with different words. Hell I could set one up in 2 hours and be getting donations. Remember that WWW can not distinguish between truth and bullshit. There are hundreds of other sites and forums dedicated to this research that just share information and ideas. Google and u shall find. Just trying to save u a bit of time mate. 
Heres a nice link for ya. Watch it and then imagine the hydrogen produced being used to fuel the burners and the water recirculating back to the boiler. It might never stop.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czoxOqZ8rxk


----------



## Platdigger

Scavenger, I have a hard time watching videos with dialup.

How are they producing the hydrogen in this vidoe?
Thanks, Randy


----------



## scavenger

Hi Randy, Heres the write up the guy included. It pretty much explains it. Shame u cant watch it. Very simple experiment. Superheated steam, steam heated to a temperature higher than the boiling point corresponding to its pressure. It can not exist in contact with water, nor contain water, and resembles a perfect gas; called also surcharged steam, anhydrous steam, and steam gas.

Steam and Superheated Steam

This demonstration illustrates the characteristics of steam under two different temperature conditions. Initially, water is simply boiled in a flask and allowed to pass through a coil of copper tubing. When a beaker is brought near the end of the tubing, the water condenses to liquid in the beaker. If a match is placed into the steam coming out of the copper tube, nothing happens. If a piece of steel wool is placed into the stream there is no observable change in the steel wool.

Two burners are ignited below the copper coil. These burners heat the steam to a very high temperature. The steam still condenses to liquid water in a beaker. A match placed into the superheated steam ignites. When steel wool is placed in the superheated steam, the steel wool glows brightly and reacts with the steam. Reaction with superheated steam can cause metal pipes in electric power plants to corrode and wear out.

(When very hot steam is used, the steam will react readily with iron and cause the tubes and other components of the power plant to form iron oxide. This places an upper limit on the temperature of the steam, which also limits the efficiency of the power plant.)

In an electric power generating plant, steam is used to turn turbines that generate electricity. The hotter the highest temperature of the steam is, the more efficient the plant is. When very hot steam is used, the steam will react readily with iron and cause the tubes and other components of the power plant to form iron oxide. This places an upper limit on the temperature of the steam, which also limits the efficiency of the power plant.

Thanks for watching.

Be safe with your experiments.


----------



## peter i

But there are "super alloys" designed for high temperature and high corrosion resistance.

I personally use Inconel 625 in an apparatus handling up to 450°C and 500 bars of pressure without corrosion. And were not only talking pure water, but also solutions of rather aggressive chemicals.

But these alloys are not cheap, and they can be a real PITA to machine.


----------



## peter i

Arcani said:


> Peter,
> 
> 
> 
> Arcani wrote:
> keep in mind the best i got with 12 V was 2 L/min drawing 4 to 7 amps
> 
> 
> Did you? Have you measured the amperage, or is it wishful thinking?
> I think you draw a significantly higher current.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes i have, a little over 7 amps at max temp(hot), 4 amps at start-up(cold)
Click to expand...


Thats nice, and you are really able to produce 2 litres a minute? That is 10-20 times more than should be expected...
That is an incredibly high yield. But how could I believe otherwise when you clearly state in that post, that you have simply estimated it from the nominal amperage of the battery.






Arcani said:


> Peter i said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want 2000W of energy in the flame and have a 60% efficient cell you need 2000/0.6=3333Watts input.
> 
> That will be a current of 278 A in your 12 V system.
> Quite a bit!
Click to expand...




> My question was anybody care to guess at what sort of production i would need to generate to be useful in melting gold or silver?
> 
> If someone has ever used H/O to melt gold or silver they might be able to give a good guess at what kind of output i would need, as well, i stated that i would be using a welding rig to power it, which is not 12V
> 
> 
> 
> plan to use welding unit to power the new cutting rig, to start
Click to expand...




Melt how much under which circumstances? Melting a thin wire require very little energy, heating a small but well insulated furnace, quite a bit more. My own furnace runs on propane with a 5kW (+) burner and is most satisfying, melting 500 grams of silver without any fuss.
Melting in a melting dish means loosing a lot of heat to radiation, which means more power from the torch is needed.

To heat something, you simply deliver more heat than it loses (very simple, no magic applied)
But as long as you keep secret how you intend to melt it, how should anybody be able to answer?

Battery or welder? For all I know you can hook it up to the local nuclear power plant, and you still need to have an input of 3333W to have a 2000W flame if you run a 60% efficient cell





Arcani said:


> And another quote of mine from page 5
> 
> 
> 
> Peter
> Please stop regurgitating moot points and unfounded insinuations of our previous posts.
> 
> 
> 
> but you clearly don't get it, do you?
Click to expand...


I love you too!

I also get it 100%
You insist to have met the Tooth Fairy, and I claim that during the last 200 years of looking for her, no one but the hard core Tooth Fairians have seen her. When asked to show her to others, they have always failed.

As long as you claim to have seen the Tooth Fairy (and the hard core scientific proof has not been shown) I will keep repeating the good old "moody unfounded arguments" of 200 years of science.

There are forums where you will meet no opposition to your claims, but here, I consider them "jolly good sport".


----------



## Platdigger

So Peter, how does 3333 watts for 2000 watts of gas hold up to buying hydrogen and oxygen in bottles?
What I mean is, which is more expensive?
Randy


----------



## Harold_V

peter i said:


> There are forums where you will meet no opposition to your claims, but here, I consider them "jolly good sport".


Count me in!

Sorry, folks, but I have nothing short of a hard time when otherwise seemingly intelligent people turn their back on sound, fundamental science and try to get more out than they put in. Seems to me that by now, one person would be on the other side of this proposition, but the rules of physics seem to win every time. 

If a large gathering of people that have a common agenda in believing something that has thus far been proven impossible, substantiated by the rules of physics, countless numbers of believers won't make something that has proven to be impossible, possible. 

Something to keep in mind. The rules of physics are not randomly selected, but, instead, based on careful observations. Man did not create the rules, *he simply observed them*. 

While the venture is harmless, the sadness comes from brilliant minds wasting their time when they might be spending it constructively. On the positive side, just like those that have tried to prove Enstein wrong, only to bolster his findings, eventually those that think there is a free lunch will come to understand, and, perhaps, help others come to the same understanding. Or not. Some people have the incredible ability to ignore anything with which they don't agree, in spite of overwhelming evidence. 

Harold


----------



## peter i

Platdigger said:


> So Peter, how does 3333 watts for 2000 watts of gas hold up to buying hydrogen and oxygen in bottles?
> What I mean is, which is more expensive?
> Randy



Now that's a good question!

Situation 1
If I was making fine jewellery, doing repair work, maybe even working with platinum, I would love to have a "water torch". It can deliver a very high and very concentrated heat (reducing and with very little carbon) that could be perfect for welding and soldering small objects. 
Another instance could be a studio in an apartment, where the fire brigade would just hate seeing cylinders of oxygen/hydrogen/acetylene.
In Denmark cylinders are horrendously expensive to buy or rent, and they must be tested on regular intervals (that's costly too!)

Situation 2
Casting metals and alloys up to 100 grams
Melting dish and either oxy/acetylene, oxy/LPG or a powerful LPG burner would do the trick.
A powerful water torch could maybe do it, but it would have to be really mean to live up to any gas-burner regarding delivered energy. (Several kilowatts, and drawing more than 2½ kW would start popping fuses for me. Having a high power electrical connection installed is expensive too)
(I use the LPG-burner. It's fine for alloys, but the temperature is on the low side for pure gold and silver, but it is doable with a little extra insulation. Delivered energy is in excess of 5 kW)


Situation 3
Melting relatively large amounts of metal (more than 100 grams) on a regular basis for casting. 
Optimum solution is either an electric crucible furnace or an LPG-fired furnace.
In a furnace, there is no need for concentrated heat, what matters is a lot of heat (BTU's) which is quite the opposite of the water torch. Losing heat in an electrolysis cell is counter productive, when all the electrical energy could go directly to the heating elements in an electric furnace.

So in situation 1 the water torch is a good alternative, in 2 a possibility and in 3 a real stinker (IMHO).


For me, LPG is cheap nice and easy (LPG cylinders are low pressure and in general use, thus pretty low cost). If I change the burners it has very broad usefulness. 
I'm mostly situation 2 and 3 myself, and the jewellery I do can be done with LPG and a nice array of blowtorches. Sometimes higher temperature would be nice, but saving the extra money is worth the trouble for me.

Amortizing a commercial water torch would require quite a production, and I do it just for fun when I have the time.

So in short; whether a water torch could compete with cylinders would be a question of *what work it was supposed to do, in what volume and the cost of cylinders and electricity in the area*.
(Quite a nasty calculation to have to make!)

I'm afraid there is no simple answer.


----------



## lmills148

Harold_V said:


> In defense of peter I's position, all he's done is quote what is well known by physicists----which is you can't get more out of anything than you put in. In other words, there is no perpetual motion machine, nor is there likely to be one, not now, not ever. Man has yet to recover more energy than has been expended, and the method makes no difference. Perhaps that will change, but up to now it is fact.



I would be an idiot to argue this. I was reffering specifically to the use of the HHO cell in a car to reduce the consumption of oil. I don't think that unity is the goal in that case.


----------



## Harold_V

lmills148 said:


> Harold_V said:
> 
> 
> 
> In defense of peter I's position, all he's done is quote what is well known by physicists----which is you can't get more out of anything than you put in. In other words, there is no perpetual motion machine, nor is there likely to be one, not now, not ever. Man has yet to recover more energy than has been expended, and the method makes no difference. Perhaps that will change, but up to now it is fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be an idiot to argue this. I was reffering specifically to the use of the HHO cell in a car to reduce the consumption of oil. I don't think that unity is the goal in that case.
Click to expand...


The problem is, as I understand it (I'm not one of those well educated physicist of which I spoke), is that the cost of producing the fuel is greater than the benefit. No matter how you cut it, there is a loss. Electricity is produced by consuming energy. If it's done by water, the cost is generally low, but not free. Assuming man had to pump the water to a higher elevation (which is done by nature), more energy would be consumed pumping the water than would be realized when it was used to create more energy (electricity). 

If an electrical system on a vehicle------any vehicle-----is called upon to electrolyze water to fuel, the energy of the fuel produced will be less than the energy it took to produce the fuel. That's part of the laws of physics. If that were not true, you could, indeed, build a perpetual motion machine. Losses guarantee that will never happen. Simply trading a common notation (H2O) for HHO changes nothing. It is but another tool in the arsenal of the misinformed, or that of a charlatan trying to screw you out of money. 

Harold


----------



## scavenger

I disagree that perpetual motion is impossible. The earth is in perpetual motion. The sun is always burning. Rivers are always running. You could almost call a turbine spinning in dam perpetual motion. Nothing happens without nature being involved. Science is man imitating nature. Imagine a solar powered satelite tracking the sun and broadcasting electrical frequencies back to earth. Its entirely feasible. Tesla invented wireless electricity 100 years ago.


----------



## Anonymous

The earth is not perpetual motion it will eventually fall into the sun. The sun will eventually will burn out. Protons decay so everyting is doomed.


----------



## scavenger

Ha Ha. How long are planning to live for James?


----------



## Anonymous

Not sure, but I would hope to die before my protons decay :lol:


----------



## Froggy

Magnets do stick to ice boxes a very ,very long time! I really wonder how long a really strong one can stay stuck to a fridge? Guess I will google my way to an answer... The earth is a big magnet.................So? But so far the only true perpetual motion I find is the Human brains ability to percieve that the act of perpetual motion exist, some brains will go on and on and not stop! :lol:


----------



## Harold_V

scavenger said:


> I disagree that perpetual motion is impossible.


Sigh!
Feel free to disagree. Now show me. Where is your perpetual motion machine? Where is your "free lunch"?



> The earth is in perpetual motion. The sun is always burning. Rivers are always running. You could almost call a turbine spinning in dam perpetual motion.


Almost? That's like being "almost" pregnant. You are or you aren't. It is perpetual motion, or it isn't. 

The earth is NOT perpetual motion. The sun is nuclear, it is not perpetual motion. Rivers run because of gravity---it is not perpetual motion. Water spinning a turbine is there because of heat exchange with the atmosphere. Should you have to pump the water high enough to run the turbine, you'd understand how much energy was involved (more than the amount the turbine produces, by the way). It is NOT perpetual motion. 



> Nothing happens without nature being involved.


Nature is powered by forces that you likely do not understand. It is not perpetual motion. They will all be gone eventually. They will be gone because the energy source will have been exhausted, what ever it may be. 



> Science is man imitating nature. Imagine a solar powered satelite tracking the sun and broadcasting electrical frequencies back to earth. Its entirely feasible. Tesla invented wireless electricity 100 years ago.


Show me. Show me wireless electricity, that is. Do not confuse radio waves with electricity. While they are related, they are not one and the same. They are also NOT perpetual motion. Please try to remember that Tesla, as wise as he was, died a poor man. He spent too much of his time trying to accomplish tasks that are not feasible. One of them is wireless electricity. Where is it today if it's such a great idea? Why do power generating companies build hugely expensive distribution systems if they could transmit the power without doing so? 

Harold


----------



## Palladium

It went from HHO to over unity to perpetual motion. 
Next stop the Flux Capacitor.


----------



## peter i

Palladium said:


> It went from HHO to over unity to perpetual motion.
> Next stop the Flux Capacitor.



And yet they are all the same. Products of wishful thinking and neglecting the very basic physical realities. 

They make fun reading and good discussions, but that is all they are likely to produce instead of energy.

8)


----------



## lmills148

> ="Harold_V]
> 
> If an electrical system on a vehicle------any vehicle-----is called upon to electrolyze water to fuel, the energy of the fuel produced will be less than the energy it took to produce the fuel.
> Harold


Harold
I understand what your saying. I don't dispute it at all. I will try to articulate my point as well as I can here and I am not discounting the possabillity that I am completely wrong:

Is it possable to create any amount of HHO without an additional load to to the amount of fuel burned(in this case lets say gasoline)? I don't know the answer to this, mathmatically NO, but there is an awful lot of wasted energy in a gasoline engine. IF you could somehow use this wasted energy to produce the HHO, the HHO would reduce the amount of gasoline consumed. So it seems to me the question should be how much "extra" energy is produced by the charging system? and Is the engine burning more efficient with the HHO? Considering it burns both hotter and faster you should be able to advance the timing closer to top dead center wich would result in much less heat loss into the block and a small increase in horsepower. 
I guess my point is that there is a differance between the effeciency of an engine and the efficiency of fuel when cost is a factor? Keep in mind that the goal isn't to produce a more efficient engine but rather to reduce the gasoline consumtion and those two may not go hand in hand.

Lloyd


----------



## Platdigger

" Keep in mind that the goal isn't to produce a more efficient engine but rather to reduce the gasoline consumtion and those two may not go hand in hand. "

They do go hand in hand.

And there is no "extra" electrical energy produced......in the sence that you could draw any off without placing extra load on the engine.

Whether or not the increase in eficiency is greater than the power drawn to produce HHO is the question.

There is a huge loss of energy with a gasoline engine.
If some of the waist heat, could be used to produce HHO, then you would really have something.
Randy


----------



## peter i

lmills148 said:


> I guess my point is that there is a differance between the effeciency of an engine and the efficiency of fuel when cost is a factor? Keep in mind that the goal isn't to produce a more efficient engine but rather to reduce the gasoline consumtion and those two may not go hand in hand.
> 
> Lloyd



The more of the chemical energy in the fuel is converted to work, the more efficient the engine is.
And in principle it does not matter how that happens, whether the fuel is burned in a stem-, jet-, internal combustion engine or a fuel cell.

The efficiency varies greatly between the possibilities, but they all have in common, that they change chemical energy to work and heat.
The more work, the higher the efficiency.
The electricity generated in a car is not free, it costs work (aka burn fuel-loose heat) to turn the generator.

There is heat lost through the exhaust and cooling system, but it is a "low value" heat that is pretty difficult to use for anything but heating.
The person who invent a cheap and efficient thermoelectric capable of using that heat will become very rich!


EDIT:
Aaaaargh, *Platdigger* beat me to it!

The efficiency of an internal combustion engine rises with temperature and compression, but this generates a lot of other problems with wear, weight, heat transfer and NOx.

And if the waste heat could be transmogriffied into electricity, it would be much more sensible to let an electric motor assist the vehicle. That would be much more efficient than converting the electricity to hydrogen (losing energy) and then burn the gas in an engine much less efficient than an electric motor.

... a good fuel cell and an electric motor, that would be something!


----------



## Harold_V

lmills148 said:


> Is it possable to create any amount of HHO without an additional load to to the amount of fuel burned(in this case lets say gasoline)?


Unfortunately, I have no idea. The one way it would be possible is to capture the energy that is lost in the way of heat, and use that energy to create the two gasses involved. I think that's the concept to which you're alluding. 

That being the case, I concede that you would benefit---and I'll try to keep in mind that you have not proposed a free lunch, but a lunch that is less expensive, which would not be an unreasonable goal, nor impossible to achieve. 

Assuming a person can convert the heat losses to gasses, I see no reason why it wouldn't be more efficient, but it clearly can not be tied to the generating system of an engine, assuming the generator is driven by the engine. A generator draws power from an engine in order to break the lines of flux, which in turn generates a flow of electricity. The greater the flow (amperage), the greater the power demand. The amount of power required is typically equated to horse power, which is the ability to lift 33,000 pound one foot in one minute. You can modify the equation to do the work in less time, but it requires more power. More time equates to less power. 

The amount of work required to create the needed gasses would require more energy to turn the generator (alternator) than the consumed gasses would yield. Those are the losses attributed to heat loss, and they can't be recaptured in total. Assuming they could, you would have a system that produced the same amount of energy it consumed, but it would be nothing more than a novelty----for the moment you placed a load on the system, it would fail to create enough power to sustain itself and would end operation. That, in a nut shell, is why there is no perpetual motion, and there never will be. 

You can look at your concept in the same light. You can take advantage of the losses to heat by creating the needed gasses, assuming you have a method to achieve that goal, which would, indeed, extend mileage. The addition of the gasses to an engine would, indeed, alter it's operating characteristics, but how would have to be determined. If you've worked with gasoline powered engines, you already know that advancing timing (before top dead center) yields more power, whereas retarding the firing to, or after top dead center, reduces power. Anyone that is calling on an engine to deliver top power, at least in my day, advanced an engine until there was minor pinging, and that was where the engine was allowed to operate. 




> I don't know the answer to this, mathmatically NO, but there is an awful lot of wasted energy in a gasoline engine. IF you could somehow use this wasted energy to produce the HHO, the HHO would reduce the amount of gasoline consumed. So it seems to me the question should be how much "extra" energy is produced by the charging system?


That one is easy. None. Don't be mislead by the idea that a generator (alternator in today's autos) runs free of charge, regardless of the work it does. Alternators have a field that is excited by demand---so it puts out the amount of amperage required, up to its capacity, with speed of rotation one of the controlling issues. There is NO free electricity created by an alternator. You can spin an alternator easily with fingers, because it is doing no work. Place a demand on the alternator by turning on any appliance, and it demands no less than the amount of energy it is creating, to be driven. That means the engine driving the alternator will consume in fuel, more energy than would be realized by the power produced by the alternator. Remember, even an alternator that is driven without a load is consuming energy. The friction of the drive assembly, coupled with the friction of the bearings sees to that. Just idling, a power generating device is already costing more to operate than if it was not operating. 



> and Is the engine burning more efficient with the HHO? Considering it burns both hotter and faster you should be able to advance the timing closer to top dead center which would result in much less heat loss into the block and a small increase in horsepower.


That may or may not be the case. If it was that easy, it would have been done long ago. Contrary to popular belief, the oil companies are not preventing more efficient engines. Physics prevents more efficient engines, nothing more. Engineers have worked vigilantly, since the first oil shortage in the early 70's, real or not, to improve the performance level of reciprocating engines. They have also trimmed the gross weight of vehicles by substituting lighter panels that have been strengthened through configuration instead of thickness, plus used synthetic products, all in the attempt to lower the overall weight of vehicles. You can tie all of this to the same formula we talked about earlier----that it requires one horse power to lift 33,000 pounds one foot in one minute. We can't ignore that formula----we can just work around it. A given volume of any fuel is known to contain a given amount of energy--the only thing you can do to get better performance from that fuel is to make the device that converts the energy from one form to the other more efficient, which is the concept to which you're alluding. I agree------it can be done----but it is likely beyond the ability of the common man at this point. I hope I'm wrong. 



> I guess my point is that there is a differance between the effeciency of an engine and the efficiency of fuel when cost is a factor? Keep in mind that the goal isn't to produce a more efficient engine but rather to reduce the gasoline consumtion and those two may not go hand in hand.
> Lloyd


I get your point, and I agree. Fact is, I'm facing that very problem right now. I heat with oil, and have no other options. There is no natural gas at my location, in spite of the fact that there is a huge underground natural gas storage facility within a few miles of my address, as the crow flies. My rural address insures that there will never be a pipeline to my home. I was paying 72¢ per gallon for oil when I first used my hydronic heating system. I am now facing a price just under $4 per gallon. The heat energy in the oil hasn't changed, but the price of oil has. Our location is privileged to have reasonably priced electric power. We pay only 4.27¢ per kwh of power. It is now cheaper to heat by resistive electric heat than to run our boiler. Far more energy is lost with resistive heat because of the heat losses at the power plant, plus the heat losses in transmission and transforming----but I pay less for that power, including losses, than I pay for oil. These are all economic issues, and have nothing to do with the problem we're discussing, the one where we are trying to lower the cost, in the way of fuel consumption, of driving a vehicle. That will be accomplished only through greater efficiency, or the lowering of the overall weight of the vehicle. I think we're on the same page----the main difference being I have a hunch of the difficulty involved, while you may see it as a small hurdle to overcome. It isn't a small hurdle--it's vastly complex and will not yield its secrets easily. Those damned (observed) laws of physics keep getting in the way. 

Harold


----------



## Platdigger

Peter writes:

"And if the waste heat could be transmogriffied into electricity, it would be much more sensible to let an electric motor assist the vehicle. That would be much more efficient than converting the electricity to hydrogen (losing energy) and then burn the gas in an engine much less efficient than an electric motor. "

I did not necessarily mean to use the waist heat to produce electricity,
altho you could.

I just meant, if there was a way to use the heat to produce the HHO.
Randy


----------



## scavenger

Hi Harold love your replies.
Scientists? estimate the age of the earth at million? billion? 100 billion years old? And all that time it has been spinning. It hasn't slowed down, sped up or even changed its axis. Thats perpetual enough for me mate. And now scientist? predict its gonna crash into the sun etc... Hell, These guys cant even accurately predict the weather. Wireless electricity is blatantly obvious. 
Does a lightning bolt need wires? One bolt of lightning lights up the entire horizon. Most technology we enjoy today was considered impossible and inconceivable 100 years ago. Tesla may have died poor, but I highly doubt he was a man concerned with financial gain.


----------



## agpodt77339

The earth's rotation is slowing down-- this is why there are leap seconds. The slowing down is caused by the moon.


----------



## Froggy

? Harold, "Engineers have worked vigilantly, since the first oil shortage in the early 70's, real or not, to improve the performance level" I have had several 91-92 honda accords, I always averaged around 32-36 mpg I saw a commercial the other day advertising a new accord, they were showing all kinds of gas pumps and claiming that it was a fuel stingy car, at the bottom the fine print said EPA average , something like 19-26 mpg,, geez I can remember an older civic HF (stands for High fuel Milage) range was 55-62 , the NEW honda's and toyota hybrids dont even get that!! And the Hp rating are similar...the milage has gotton worse on these vehicles over the years, someone posted awhile back that old 74' model volvo diesels use to get at least 60 mpg.... My old 74 chevy carb. P/U gets as good or better milage than these new ones.... Wow modern technology is so wonderful.... Engineers are actually paid to make things more complicated than what they have to be so that the average Joe cannot service his vehicle, lighter materials are used because they are cheaper and break easily.. I could go on, I use to work as a heavy line mechanic pulling out motors and trannys at a chevy dealership and can flat out tell you what screw ups (improvements)they do on purpose,,,, hey, an engineer has to do something to keep his job..... and they have to keep ahead of the aftermarket companies, but thats a whole other story. Put it this way, I did a job on a van once at the dealership, the part was $2 bucks, the labor was $1200, straight up book time,, yea, I was really proud of that job, not!!! Poor customer...


----------



## scavenger

1 second a year occasionally. Brilliant. Here is a video that I challenge anyone to explain scientifically. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4B_Lj1JM6g


----------



## Palladium

This thread is all over the place.  

Harold >>We pay only 4.27¢ per kwh of power.

Where we live the hydro power is what i consider cheap. About 6.8 per kwh of power. I switched to all electric about two years ago when i seen where oil was headed. I've seen other peoples gas bills and boy am i glad i did switch. I don't see how some people can pay it.


----------



## Harold_V

Froggy said:


> ? Harold, "Engineers have worked vigilantly, since the first oil shortage in the early 70's, real or not, to improve the performance level" I have had several 91-92 honda accords, I always averaged around 32-36 mpg I saw a commercial the other day advertising a new accord, they were showing all kinds of gas pumps and claiming that it was a fuel stingy car, at the bottom the fine print said EPA average , something like 19-26 mpg,, geez I can remember an older civic HF (stands for High fuel Milage) range was 55-62 snip balance


I drive two Dodge trucks. One is a '94, 3/4 ton automatic trans, equipped with a Cummins diesel engine. It gets right at 22 mpg. The second one is a '99 1 ton, four wheel drive, 5 speed manual trans, with a 10' cube on the back (it was purchased new as a cab/chassis, with the box installed by an equipment fitter). It is also a Cummins diesel. It gets about 15 mpg, and did from the day it was purchased. Sort of defies what I said, eh? 

While engineers have worked to increase efficiency of engines, don't lose sight of the fact that the buying public has demanded larger and larger automobiles. That comes with a price. My one ton outweighs the 3/4 ton by about a ton. 

Harold

edit: corrected typo


----------



## Harold_V

scavenger said:


> Hi Harold love your replies.
> Scientists? estimate the age of the earth at million? billion? 100 billion years old?


I believe the age of the earth is commonly accepted to be something like 4½ billion years old. The universe is roughly 15 billion years old. 



> And all that time it has been spinning. It hasn't slowed down, sped up or even changed its axis.


Cites, please. That is contrary to accepted theory. 

The earth has undergone many changes in the scheme of things. Poles are known to change---and it definitely has lost speed. The moon is also moving away from the earth. Nothing is static or constant. 



> Thats perpetual enough for me mate.


I'm OK with your thoughts, but they don't stand the scrutiny of science. Nothing is free. 



> And now scientist? predict its gonna crash into the sun etc... Hell, These guys cant even accurately predict the weather.


No argument, but they sure as hell know how the earth will end---it's just a matter of when------assuming we're not taken out by a large object from space first. Sort of sounds like the same thing as weather prediction, now that you make mention. :lol: 



> Wireless electricity is blatantly obvious.
> Does a lightning bolt need wires? One bolt of lightning lights up the entire horizon.


Indeed! And it can split large trees, start fires and in general raise all kinds of hell, including killing golfers that should have stayed at their job instead of reporting in sick, and killing baby ducks when it strikes near them. How often would you like some delivered to you by that method, and how will you do anything with the incredible power of such a delivery? I'd be somewhat concerned if anyone wanted me hooked to a grid like that. Don't confuse what is akin to the discharge of a huge capacitor to distribution of useable electricity. They're hardly the same thing. 



> Most technology we enjoy today was considered impossible and inconceivable 100 years ago. Tesla may have died poor, but I highly doubt he was a man concerned with financial gain.


That's right----most of it was considered impossible 100 years ago, or perhaps longer-------but none of the things that we have invented violate the rules of physics. Perpetual motion does, as does the idea of transmitting electricity without a conducting medium. 

As I've said-----if you don't believe that to be true-----show me. :wink: 

Harold


----------



## Froggy

Thats Dodge for ya, i had the same exact truck as the guy next door, exact! cummins, 4x4, rear end ratio and all, his averaged at least 5-8 mpg better than mine and our driving style was similar. I,m a ford fan now,I pruchased an excursion 4x4 diesel, loaded eddie b.,,, loaded with 6 kids and two adults and baggage, I obtained24-26 mpg from texas to Big Bear Cali. even at 75 mph! go figure , better than a new accord!!!I loved that truck, and really despise dodge now..


----------



## lmills148

> ="Harold_V] A given volume of any fuel is known to contain a given amount of energy--the only thing you can do to get better performance from that fuel is to make the device that converts the energy from one form to the other more efficient, which is the concept to which you're alluding. I agree------it can be done----but it is likely beyond the ability of the common man at this point. I hope I'm wrong.
> 
> ...... I heat with oil, and have no other options. ..


I've installed more electric baseboard heaters this last year than I have in the last ten combined (electrician)


> ... It is now cheaper to heat by resistive electric heat than to run our boiler. Far more energy is lost with resistive heat because of the heat losses at the power plant, plus the heat losses in transmission and transforming----but I pay less for that power, including losses, than I pay for oil.


 making some technologies, such as photovoltaic, much more reasonable.


> These are all economic issues, and have nothing to do with the problem we're discussing, the one where we are trying to lower the cost, in the way of fuel consumption, of driving a vehicle. *That will be accomplished only through greater efficiency*, or the lowering of the overall weight of the vehicle. I think we're on the same page----the main difference being I have a hunch of the difficulty involved, while you may see it as a small hurdle to overcome.


 certainly not a _*small*_ hurdle but IMHO I think it can will and must be overcome and its likely that it will not be with any single peice of technolgy but an arrangement of multiple technologies that work together......


> It isn't a small hurdle--it's vastly complex and will not yield its secrets easily. Those damned (observed) laws of physics keep getting in the way.
> 
> Harold



well said, what started this thread anyway? this has been the weirdest since I've been here.

edit: typo


----------



## Arcani

http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=4934566news like this started it

As well, this company is manufacturing and selling HHO cutting rigshttp://video.google.ca/videoplay?do...182&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

They can be built at home easily and cheaply and are ideal for refining


----------



## peter i

Yes, that is the guy who teamed up with Santilli. Santilli is wery clear about tha fact that the inventor approached him for an analysis (of an apparatus that worked nicely).
Then Santilli "discovered the fantastic and revolutionary HHO-molecule"

(Santilli did not know the basics of spectroscopy, and invented a brand new theory of chemical bonding to explain it, rather than learn the basics)


Nothing wrong in electrolysis!

(and working with such a flame will produce ultra violet, it is not an alternative to fossil fuels in an environmental perspective unless the electricity is made with wind-, hydroelectric or nuclear means, only in a technical sense where hydrogen substitutes a hydrocarbon fuel)

... and scientists still don't believe in HHO, because only Santilly has seen it.

Santillis paper:
http://www.i-b-r.org/docs/magneh.pdf
(Who can spot the fatal error he made?)


(Santilli is member of the circle of people who do not believe in the Theory of Relativity either)


----------



## goldsilverpro

Please tell us the fatal error? I don't have time to wade through 36 pages of pseudo science. What little I read reminds me of the Laskey articles in the old California Mining Journal.


----------



## peter i

goldsilverpro said:


> Please tell us the fatal error? I don't have time to wade through 36 pages of pseudo science. What little I read reminds me of the Laskey articles in the old California Mining Journal.



Spoilsport!

OK, then.

He analyses a sample of the gas with mass spectroscopy, finding H2 (m=2), O2 (m=32) and a species with m=18 (Yes, water vapour)

Then he tries infra-red, but sees no characteristic broad peak et 3360 cm^-1 expected from a wet compound.

Conclusion; it can not be water!
And then he invents a whole new chemistry to explain it 
:shock: 


He did not do it himself, and the data are poor. But before concluding something that remarkable, he should have done a little reading.
*
Gaseous water do not give the "expected broad peak at 3360"*

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
Shows the pattern from H20 as gas, liquid and solid.

But people want to believe, so who cares about facts?

Yes, it is a showcase of pseudo-science (or pathological science)


----------



## Froggy

Interesting links for those interested in 70-80mpg http://www.easywaterfuel.com/


----------



## Arcani

Froggy, they want money on that link
you can get the same or better info for free herehttp://www.theorionproject.org/en/research.html

Peter, who is this Santilli supposed to be teamed up with?(as that seems to be the only relevance of his mention) And whatever his theories may be, it doesn't change the fact that these cutting rigs have been sold on the open market for years. This thread is about making these devises our selves


> If you are not a part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate


----------



## peter i

"Founder and Chairman Emeritus, Dennis Klein" of Hydrogen Technology Applications, Inc. ( http://www.hytechapps.com/company ) asked Ruggero Santilli to analyse the gas from the electrolysers he was making and selling, and Santilli made some rather "interesting" conclusions as described above. (Wiki on Santilli: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruggero_Santilli)

Santilli claims to have invented this special sort of electrolysis (and critics say he has invented nothing but another jolly branch of pseudo-science)


Yes, we want to build good electrolysers, but we need to grasp the theory and avoid the pitfalls to do that, or we'll really end up in the precipitate (in this case: sludge), believing in fairies and perpetual motion devices.



By the way:
... I'm playing with a rewound microwave oven transformer. I just need to find a good (and cheap) diode bridge capable of handling high current at low voltage (not an easy thing to do).

100 A AC is quite impressive as it is!


----------



## Anonymous

You can biuld one, I get diodes/rectifiers for microwave for about 5 buck each. I think they are 2300 v 20 amp but would work in parallel.


----------



## Froggy

I bought this the other day, used and cheap,Im now getting 80mpg ,, would love to modify it for more...


----------



## Palladium

:shock: OMG :shock: 

A frog on a moped going 60 mph. With 10 Cats strapped to the back.

ROFL


----------



## Platdigger

hahaha...yea..I can see it...

Say Frog...did you cut the cat off it yet?


----------



## Palladium

They say everybody has an opposite twin somewhere in the world.
Just think right now somewhere in the Ming sue delta their is a china man running around with a rickshaw full old CRT monitors and computer boards being pulled by oxen just wishing he had that moped.

Froggy, you need a side car.


----------



## Froggy

Hey its a Honda 250 reflex, very chic' ,, now i just need a fat chick.. I moved away from my friends so I dont mind being seen riding either! 8) Hmm, I'll have to check for the cat, foreign mini? I use to have a big ol' honkin honda vtx1800,, I love riding this thing around, its (for the lack of a better word) zippy.... Wonder how it would do with an hho system... 120-190mpg?


----------



## markqf1

I disagree,
It looks like it could haul at least 25 cats at a time, ( without the fat chick) with a little modification. Yea, now you've made me want my bike back.

Mark


----------



## Froggy

Back in Indonesia, it would haul 300 chickens in bamboo cages,, when the wind blew they were all over the road, amazing what one could haul on these things, Hey,we even impressed the locals by 6 :shock: of us riding on one, make sure you have good tires and alot of pressure.


----------



## EVO-AU

Peter1: I know that this is rather dated, but have you ever seen the link WWW.ALLABOUTCIRCUITS.COM ? lOT OF GENIUS AND INFO ON THAT ONE. Phill


----------



## peter i

EVO-AU said:


> Peter1: I know that this is rather dated, but have you ever seen the link WWW.ALLABOUTCIRCUITS.COM ? lOT OF GENIUS AND INFO ON THAT ONE. Phill



Well, I see the link, but I'm unable to open it. Seems the server is down.

*That page is huge, are you thinking of anything in particular?*
(I'm a chemist after all, dealing only with electronics when I have to)

But even when a server is down, "The wayback machine" (internet archive) will give an answer.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080213035646/http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/


----------



## EVO-AU

Try typing in only.........allaboutcircuits.........That is how I first found it.!


----------



## peter i

EVO-AU said:


> Try typing in only.........allaboutcircuits.........That is how I first found it.!



It's working now, it didn't when I tried this afternoon.
The people there seem quite competent (and I saw only very weak attempts at crack-pottery and pseudo-science, that had all been rapidly "put to sleep")

I wish I had the time to learn more about electronics!


----------



## EVO-AU

Yeah, me too ! The stuff fascinates me, but - like you said - just so much time ! I've got three separate labs in my place now !Have a nice weekend ! Phill


----------

