HHO History repeats itself....

[Benjamin]

Good question...

I have attached the patent. I remember reading that but did not look into it further. There might of been an assumption many years ago that might no longer be an issue today. Modern HHO sytems are made for on demand use only, I would not encourage anybody to store HHO as a highly compressed gas.

I will see what i can find.


Cheers


Benjamin

[evolvingape]

So what exactly do you call a tank full of gas?
Anything that drives a piston must ignite and explode.
Any which fuel that needs to exlpode must be stored in large quantity.
Every tank of gas is a bomb.

jdodson, what you wrote there is ignorant nonsense. I will check back at the weekend and if you have not educated yourself in that time and posted corrections, I will do it for you. PM people if you have to and ask them why what you said is demonstrably wrong.

Duncan, my very first line in the first post I made in this thread encouraged people to check the numbers, which should imply to you that I had read the article, you then proceed to make an assumption based on if the figures stack up, which if you had read the article you would know whether they do or not. Before you moan at me for commenting on feasibility, how about you moan at the originator of the thread for claiming feasibility based on nothing more than that article, which my reply was in response to.

Oh yeah, Duncan, tell me how many times overunity, or COP if you prefer, the technology in that article is claiming, and then tell me why the inventor fitted it to a car and did not achieve exponential energy growth, a far bigger story!

[thedude]

The system as described here is a ticking time bomb, you cannot safely store decomposed water as HHO under pressure, it must be created on demand and immediately used because it is a primary explosive:

@ Evolvingape
This article appears to discuss the dissipation of Oxygen and the use of strictly hydrogen. Evolvingape, your describing HHO gas. Not hydrogen. Compressing hydrogen on its own is exponentially less implosive (not explosive as previously stated in this thread) than HHO.

Consider the Oxy/Acetylene torch. See how the Acetylene burns ambient and slow, then add the oxygen and it starts to burn like a cutting torch in a near vacuum within the flame. The oxygen is the true implosive catalyst and is the real danger while considering compression.

I have experiments with using electrolysis and pure hydrogen. Hydrogen will burn with an ambient flame ( like a Bunsen burner ) and offers no implosive consequences when extinguishing, such as HHO most obviously does.

Ben is correct with regard to hydride (solid state) and heating element to release gas. Bob Lazar demonstrates this in a video of his, however i've never seen any other application in use. A particle accelerator is utilized to make the hydride appearently.
Just my 2 cents.

[jdodson]

jdodson, what you wrote there is ignorant nonsense. I will check back at the weekend and if you have not educated yourself in that time and posted corrections, I will do it for you. PM people if you have to and ask them why what you said is demonstrably wrong.

How about instead of insulting somebody just say what you think...This is a discussion forum. Why the hostility??
Gas tanks explode...Many many people have been killed over the years due to exploding gas tanks...Not sure whats so ignorant about that.
Obviously you cant produce regular gas, diesel gas or vegetable oil on the fly so it has to be stored which is why every car is strapped with bombs right now...hit those tanks the wrong way and they can explode.

So the biggest mistake i can see is that i said "any fuel" when i guess i should have said "conventional fuels"....my apologies.

If all that people did was say, thats too dangerous and that cant be done, then we never would have made it into space. Sometimes it just takes the courage to build something that has never been done before and not stop until it becomes reality. I may not be the smartest person in the room but im smart enough to know far more is possible than what we are harnessing.

[Benjamin]

Intent..

I guess all I wanted to do is share a bit of history and that it was possible then with the limited resources compared to today; and if we would of entertain the idea and develop the technology that was presented at the time, the world would be a different place.

I have nothing against the oil companies they produce a lot of neat chemicals good and bad, which makes the world what it is today. I just do not believe we should be burning it. It's difficult to put a meter on water, though we have succeeded to some degree with bottled water.

We grant inventors UFO patents, but decline some really good ideas that have been proven and debunk. The patent office can be are friend as well as are worst enemy. We want to protect our intellectual property, and I understand that. But how to you patent free energy or the intelligent use of energy, you can't and you should not try. Tesla had that idea and JP Morgan made sure he was not taken seriously.

I consider myself a good scientist and a good engineer [Electrical & Computer], I down play it a lot; always interested in seeing peoples point of view. Like everyone, we learn at all and anytime. I was 16 when I got my first copy "The Amateur Scientist" by C.L Stong -sbn 671-20747-4 for those of you out there who is interested in this type of reading.

I manage to stay alive with all of the experimenting and only gave my parents a few scares; I am in my mid 40’s today and still as curious as ever. I look forward in sharing some of my bench work with you; hopefully I will inspire a few and hope to learn a lot from everybody.

Cheers

Benjamin

[citfta]

Hi Benjamin,

Please continue with your posting info for us. There are many people on this forum that will be glad to look at what you have. If you have made any breakthroughs please share them. My son added a HHO unit to his dodge diesel pickup and increased the mileage by 15% to 20%. So I know it is possible to use HHO safely. And separating it into hydrogen and oxygen makes it even safer. There are already some threads on this forum about making fuel from water so you might want to search for them and see what some of the people here have already tried.

Carroll

[Benjamin]

My idea of an immediate future...

My idea of an immediate future...

Thank you Caroll,

I believe that we are spending too much time and effort in converting energy. Why not just use water as is. It’s a fuel, it’s that simple. As we speak there is not one auto manufacture that not has their own version of Plasma Arc Fuel Injectors. No need to inform you on a few inventors that are dearly departed that made that one possible.

I know they’re still a few bugs to work out, especially with cold countries. Nothing that emulsification can fix.

Plasma arc water fuel injectors produce ionized water via a resonant frequency which is sent through the spark plug, and then passed through a plasma arc. This allows the hydrogen and oxygen to be liberated, and burnt on the fly.

Sure solves of lot of issues about hydrogen storage and manufacturing. We need to find an easy way for the everyday person to duplicate their own, everyday person meaning the hard core tinkerers like us.

Who knows maybe we are closer then we think to a non patented prototype easy to duplicate and install.


Cheers


Benjamin

[evolvingape]

jdodson,

I have recognised that I have exceeded my tolerance limit and just have to let go, I have reached a point where I am too easy to provoke. I have been working too hard for too long and induced a level of stress in my life that is unsustainable. People like me who do have a sound technical and practical background are top priorities for targeting, and are harassed until they snap and leave. If you are a genuine researcher and not a psyop agent, then my comments were perhaps harsh, but not innacurate.

There is a perpetual psyop in play in the open source energy research community that has been here since the beginning. It is deeply embedded at the root level with operatives running multiple user names to manipulate the information and perception. It's purpose is to delay the development of energy technologies as long as possible and maintain the status quo. It is probably the cheapest and most productive war that has ever been waged, and requires nothing more than confusion, distrust, and a few choice words in the ears of the deluded to continually pollute the knowledge base. A perpetual wasting of resources and the encouragement of the uneducated to contribute to a subject that requires education and understanding, conventional or not, to innovate safely and effectively.

So why were your comments innacurate ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb

See the picture of a pipe bomb? It requires both explosives and a detonator to fit the definition of a bomb. A fuel tank has no detonator integral to the design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primar...mary_explosive

An explosive sensitive enough like HHO to be set off easily, especially by shock. A perfect example is the bullet round, the primer (primary explosive) in the base set off by shock of the hammer (a crushing force), which in turn sets off the main charge (secondary explosive), which then deflagrates (not explodes) and the rapid expansion of the gases repulses the bullet. You can decide for yourself what category of explosive a standard car fuel tank is, but it is not a primary or high explosive by design.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflagrate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation

The bastardisation of correct terminology in the correct context, and therefore meaning, is rampant in the OU community and adds to the confusion. No self respecting engineer or scientist will continually use incorrect terminology in conversation with his peers as he would be shunned as an incompetent. I have not elaborated on sub and super sonic here and what that means because it requires an understanding of the concept of Time = 0. You can find information about it in the links provided though if you are interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tank

A fuel tank exists in a liquid vapor equilibrium, no (or very little) air, and therefore oxidiser involved until the tank is ruptured, which also means it is no longer a pressure vessel, because it is ruptured. Which brings us onto thedude's very accurate and correct point, Hydrogen is not HHO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammability_limit

So what we should really be discussing in relation to this article is the lower and upper flammability and explosive limits, within which Hydrogen can either deflagrate or detonate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometric

The natural ratio for HHO, but if you change the volume of either Oxygen or Hydrogen for storage you must consult the LFL/LEL - UFL/UEL constants for safety considerations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limiti..._concentration

It is very rare for a fuel tank on a vehicle to explode with life threatening power, if you believe otherwise please provide checkable references and facts to support your assertion. It is common for them to burn setting fire to the car, which is not in itself a hazard if you have time to get out. So every fuel tank is not a bomb.

I will post once more in this thread before I retire, to explain why I said the article is not feasible as described. I would have done so already but seems nobody was interested in my analysis, only in the opportunity to attack me, which might help explain my level of hostility. If you look at my first two posts there was no hostility in them, until I was provoked, perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not.

As an aside I am always interested in old articles. I stumbled upon the Pulsometer steam pump once upon a time because I was looking for existing steam pump technology to save myself some work. I then proceeded to research extensively, track down the original manufacturer and verify that the technology was once real and that you could once buy it. It is also available for viewing in museums. I then proceeded to reverse engineer the operating principles to fill in the blanks. Once done I presented this information, without obligation, to you all and explained it and possible upgrades. The only thing I did not do is tell you that the principles of operation are perfectly viable for containing a steam boiler explosion event which you can think of as an implosion of the expanding steam bubble, although it's not really, it is just a negative acceleration volume vector phase change, but without the same level of danger. The energy is conserved but the volume is manipulated by instantaneous phase change collapse of gas to liquid.

Rob

[thedude]

not HHO in the original design!

@ evolvingape

Hi Rob. I'm def not trying to provoke you and there is absolutely no prejudice coming from me. I am a serious researcher, i have my work here on the forums with pure hydrogen to back up my statements to an extent.

Just wanted to say that "disinfo" can come in many forms. Misinterpretation is one of them.

The model which is the topic of this thread is NOT discussing the use of HHO. Only pure hydrogen. Extremely different products. Way less volatile. Untill you've actually worked with pure hydrogen in comparison to HHO, you won't believe how much less reactive it is.

Please try and understand the differences as the designs given by the author of this thread are referencing pure hydrogen, not HHO. Discussing the dangers of HHO in relationship to the design is moot.

@ All - IMO the design, that the author of this thread is postulating on, is feasible, but perhaps not practical. The shear volume of pure hydrogen being liberated from the water through standard electrolysis, that would be required to run a large combustion motor, such as an automobile, may require some serious electrical input. Perhaps more current than the alternator/generator could provide from the motor. All the while also propelling the automobile. This is not to say that i don't believe Stan Meyer was able to do it, but is completely different concept from what the model being disscussed here.

These are the very same factors that i'm currently working on in my thread with a GEET modified electric generator (whose only running source of fuel will be hydrogen and ambient oxygen). I am only now just getting back to work on my project but will post some results back here soon if i can make it run effectively.

[evolvingape]

HHO is the product of an electrolytic cell!

Hi dude,

I never thought you were trying to provoke me, I am aware of your serious work. I acknowledged your point as accurate and correct. It is late now and I have to get up for work early so the analysis will have to wait a while. Your correct that disinfo can take the form of misinterpretation, to which end I respectfully suggest you read the article, and the patent supplied in support of it, again.

Have a nice night,

Rob

[thedude]

Hi dude,

I never thought you were trying to provoke me, I am aware of your serious work. I acknowledged your point as accurate and correct. It is late now and I have to get up for work early so the analysis will have to wait a while. Your correct that disinfo can take the form of misinterpretation, to which end I respectfully suggest you read the article, and the patent supplied in support of it, again.

Have a nice night,

Rob

Hi Rob,

I didn't think you felt provoked by me, but was worried you might feel threatened following your previous statements.

Did i miss the patent? :P Sorry if i did.
The part i am referring to is
"As before mentioned the oxygen is liberated by suitable automatic valves, and the hydrogen is retained and past thru a mixing valve, similar to the usual carburetor used on all gasoline engines and which can be controlled from the driver's seat, following the standard practice in motor-car equipment."

Considering that it is exceptionally difficult to separate H2 from O2 contained within the same volume, I have to accept that they are separating the gases at point of electrolysis.

If there is pressurized HHO in this equation then i'm not seeing it. Unless that is no longer your position with this set up.

I respect your opinion an offer no prejudice.

[evolvingape]

Hi dude,

I will take my emotion level down a couple of notches and discuss things calmly, I am enjoying this conversation with you. I will outline my position hopefully later tonight, but I gotta go spend time with my family first. I had insomnia last night and only slept for 3 hours but will try and get back here.

Benjamin posted a patent in reply #16 with the statement "I have attached the patent" so I presume at this point it is in relation to the article, although I have some issues with it. See what you think. If it is an off topic patent then ignore this paragraph and any statements I made regarding the patent.

"Considering that it is exceptionally difficult to separate H2 from O2 contained within the same volume, I have to accept that they are separating the gases at point of electrolysis." I love what you said there and will discuss more about it later.

Rob

[Matthew Jones]

Hi Benjamin,

Please continue with your posting info for us. There are many people on this forum that will be glad to look at what you have. If you have made any breakthroughs please share them. My son added a HHO unit to his dodge diesel pickup and increased the mileage by 15% to 20%. So I know it is possible to use HHO safely. And separating it into hydrogen and oxygen makes it even safer. There are already some threads on this forum about making fuel from water so you might want to search for them and see what some of the people here have already tried.

Carroll

Hey Carroll and all....
While back around the last time I seen you or shortly after while I was traveling, I was asked to go look at a system and give my opinion on the validity of it.
I am going to leave the names and places out and most of the specifics because of the NDA I signed for 2 years. But these guys were already running long haul trucks on the system they had designed as suppliment and were working on computer systems to run both the truck injectors, and manage the HHO system at the same time. They had it all worked out. They were also testing full hydrogen systems on a dyno in a lab designed to run benched diesel engine's.
Anyway they were separating the Hydrogen from the Oxygen like Dude is doing.
They claimed the power from the recombination was greater than the power they had used to separate the water, in the range of 10 fold. And that because they were recombining the Oxygen and Hydrogen they could also control the heat factor in the cylinders.
Just burning the hydrogen will give you a very slow burn but by premixing it with the oxygen then the fresh air the burn rate was improved.
They still had to spill raw oxygen, as the amount off the cell was too high.

Anyway I just wanted to point the remixing of the gases,prior to mixing with fresh air, has a gain, at least according to these people.

Cheers
Matt

[evolvingape]

I managed to pinch a few minutes and Matthew Jones comment is worth the diversion from my planned discussion. What is being discussed here is the ratio change of the fuel / oxidiser mix. When we look at the article we see a gasoline air ratio of 7% mentioned. What they mean there is the ratio 14.7:1, which is the optimum for gasoline. So when we do 100 / 14.7 we get 6.8% which is close to 7%. This is all about running rich or lean or at optimum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_sensor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflag...ion_transition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_knocking

Hydrogen Safety

http://www.wmhuittco.com/images/Hydrogen_Ignition.pdf

http://www.hysafe.org/science/eAcade...DDTintubes.pdf

Main Page - Spud Wiki

Cannons

I designed the Linear Firing Valve and RotoMax Hybrid with all of these principles in mind, and some more not included here, and just gave you the hardware with relatively minimum explanation. I know this looks like it departs from ICE's, but it actually doesn't.

That's all the time I got, pay attention to the spud hybrid

Rob

[evolvingape]

If you followed my hint you may have ended up here:

Hybrid cannon - Spud Wiki

DDT - Spud Wiki

Reverse engineer the LFV and see how many of the boxes it ticks in relation to hybrid operating principles, and what additional boxes does it tick that the spudgun community does not have... ?