Gasoline Madness;When to Stop

[K7LYF]

"Please sir share the electrolyzer DC voltage and DC current (most important!), as well as any details concerning the chemistry and construction you would care to."



See this link: http://www.phact.org/e/bgas.htm

mike

[k4kyv]

Can you point out any errors?

Articles I have read there are consistently loaded with obvious political/religious agenda. The whole thing is basically a propaganda piece, as implied by its name. I have no interest in reading every piece of factual information I seek, from political or religious viewpoint.

For example, the entry on "amateur radio" shows a total word count of 545, excluding the external links.  But the section dedicated to "Amateur Radio and Christianity" shows a word count of 171, or 31.3%. Now, I may be interested in the subject of Christianity, but not necessarily when learning about amateur radio. What about amateur radio and Judaism?  What about amateur radio and computers?  Amateur radio and foreign languages?  Amateur radio and crossword puzzles, amateur radio and growing tomatoes, etc?  Looks and smells like a politico-religious agenda to me.

Some Wiki articles may indeed show the bias of the author, but show me where the bias is consistent.

All encyclopaedias and other sources of knowledge are prone to error and bias on the part of the author of the text.  No one person could authoritatively write an entire encyclopaedia, and if one were able to achieve such an accomplishment, the entire work would reflect the bias, knowledge and ignorance of the author. It is always advisable to use more than one source for information. They taught me that back in high school freshman English.

[W1RKW]

The HHO cell draws about 7 amps cold and as high as 9amps when warm at 14.1vdc.  Output is about 700ml per minute when warm. Chemistry: distilled water and pure NaOH.  Just enough NaOH to give the current draw outlined above which is a 1/2 teaspoon to 1/2 gallon of distilled water.  Cell construction is as follows:  A microwaveable container with a locking lid and neoprene gasket houses the plate arrangement.  There are 13 4"x4" 316 stainless steel plates.  3 of the plates are at +12v, 2 are at vehicle ground.  The others in between are floating. The plates are held together via nylon bolts. All plates are spaced about 3/16" apart. Joints of the cell are sealed with RTV. Gas output is put into a bubbler which serves as a spark arrestor.  It's simply a piece of 12 inch long 1.5 inch PVC plumbing with permanent and removable end caps.  The output from the bubbler is attached right at the front of the throttle body.  Current is monitored using a 15 amp panel meter in the cab. The arrangement is fused by a 15amp fuse and turned on by a toggle switch in the cab. It's also enabled via a relay that is controlled by the ignition switch.

Please sir share the electrolyzer DC voltage and DC current (most important!), as well as any details concerning the chemistry and construction you would care to.

[W3RSW]

Absolutely no reason why addl' fuel in the way of H₂ combustion shouldn't give you increased mpg if you could find a way to keep from consuming additional horsepower running the generator used to create the H₂ in the first place.

Now if you hooked generators to the brakes, i.e. electrical brakes generating power instead of heat, did a lot of city driving, then I could see an increase in mpg compared to the usual mechanical brakes.

Hmmm. 

But perhaps your just burning water , H₂O, or as you say HHO at the already high cylinder temperatures of the usual engine.  This is exactly the system used for last resort in WWII fighter aircraft. Yes water will burn, given enough pre-temp. .... and it's the last thing the pilots used in a dog fight;.. .only in escape...  most times their engines were toast after that trick.  A one shot deal.  So you might check ring, piston wear, cooling, etc. as the life of your engine progresses.  I would say that your combustion temperatures are exceeding manufacturers specs. somewhat.

Exactly what is the gas produced by your generator and is the generator /alternator supply energized by the same motor in which your feeding the gas ?

Maybe I'm missing something here....
won't be the first time,
but there is no perpetual motion machine 

.. and then there's nitro-methane which will give you increased hp output at high rpms with a whole lot of add'l heat and wear.   This is an oxidizer enhancement too.   I've used it sparingly.

[W1RKW]

I'm not sure why I'm getting a 2 to 3 mpg increase. I'm not a thermodynamics or chemistry expert. But from what theories I have read about this concept is that it just an enhancement to making fuel burn more efficiently. Again, who knows.  Maybe I'd get the same result if I simply replaced the O2 sensors since they've never been replaced.  Who knows. I do know that if there is a performance change toward detriment, it is not perceptible. Engine temp is actually running slightly below normal. I have no pre-detonation, actually it is less when I didn't install this contraption. Throttle response and overall drive-ability remain unchanged.  With a vehicle that is due to be replaced at some point, the ole Ranger has 230k miles on it,  I have little concern if it do destroy it.  If it keeps on going, either way I have nothing to lose the way I figure it.  It's a guinea pig.

[Bacon, WA3WDR]

Seems to me that adding some ordinary hydrogen, from whatever source, would add some extra thermal expansion on ignition.  It's just flammable fuel.  It -might- somehow cause the pressure dynamics to work better with the hardware... I donno.  If it didn't cost much, and mileage improved, that's what matters.

Wasn't there a system of adding a little bit of water spray to the fuel-air mixture?  The idea was that the water vaporizing took some heat, and that slowed the burn slightly, and this was a good thing.

I guess that would reduce temperature, but maybe not reduce the pressure very much, because the water vaporizes.  It might still deliver more power because of the delayed burn, maybe less ping, etc, I donno.  People have made that claim over the years.  I never tried it.

[Opcom]

9A @ 14.1V is 126.9 watts. If you are really getting even 2MPG more with that, it would be a benefit. You did not say how much MPG the ranger gets normally or with the device. Say the ranger gets 18MPG on the highway at 60MPH.

So, if you now get 20MPG instead of 18, that is a 10% savings, making your gas for 20 miles cost $3.60 rather than $4.00. I'll take that. Driving records are useful but the quality of gas changes over the seasons and also the weather affects things. I don't have a dyno where a specific load could be put on the vehicle, so that is out. The point is that a scientific test is very hard to do.

The guy over at http://hytechapps.com/ has a video with his ford wagon and some results that show he is using about 1200 watts DC (100A) and getting a substantially big increase. This is why I was asking about the power input and the electrolyzer.

His weldng machine is of interest also, I note the flame burns cool, yet melts anything it contacts. His electrolyte is a secret and he does not say if the plates have to be periodically replaced, etc. The ideal thing would be an electrolyzer that uses a catalytic function so that the electrolyte and materials are not rapidly consumed.

When you are going down the road and throw the switch, can you tell a difference or is it more subtle? It's one of those seeing is believing things. I'd hate to spend the time and $ and be disappointed. Yet alot of people are doing this.

[ka3zlr]

Well I think alot of us have been to the Drags and have built a few things to run and compete I know George has and Bob, I've built a few Sportster's and one Kaw 900 along the way and understand Fuel and Fuel Mixes and Cooling and handling...Intake Ducting and Air viscosity and Flow arrangements...Anything to get an Edge...and it's a travesty the way Fuel is handled and mixed, Dumped and redumped, water content is at an all time high..unstable octane levels...Blaaa....There's Junk Fuel in this country..."Sad Chemistry"... For the prices we're paying folks SHUD be screaming for a Better Quality product.... but for the masses "you" get what they hand out...too bad...Deregulation..Baaaaa...

We've enjoyed a pretty good time as far as transportation, But Biting the hand that feeds the machine isn't the answer...Either...I'm all for Profit Engineering, I hope the select few Enjoy the ride it's only gona last so long...

Folks in this country properly motivated are capable of anything...Interesting times are ahead....Too bad i'm to old to compete..LOL....If we woulda had the Ignition systems available Today back when...man..think of the performance levels that would've been possible......awesum...   Look what these younger cats are doing at the track Today...With these 4 cylinder Pony motors...Super Kewel....

[Bill, KD0HG]

Here  in the Rockies, we pay the same price for 85 octane as you Easties pay for your 87 octane.

[W1RKW]

I throw the switch at start up most of the time now.  Earlier on when I was testing the apparatus it was used intermittently for fear of trouble.  But as time went on I gradually increased its on time to being on at startup and off when done driving.  During those times I noticed little to no change in performance. And even if I did notice what I thought was a change it would not have concerned me unless the mileage went down.  When I first started using it, mileage actually decreased but after using the setup consistently going through a full tank, the results were positive.  They were about 10% or slightly more. Overall I was pleased to see the increase.  I'm not sure why it went negative initially then positive afterwards.  So it's on now 100% of the time.  The vehicle responds very well as it always did. Engine temp remains normal and no pre-detonation is evident.

My ranger without the enhancement got 21mpg on average.  After putting in the hydrogen fuel enhancement it went up to 23mpg.  I have a 4.0L V6.  I'm estimating my next reading at 24mpg based on the fuel gauge and miles traveled.  I will know for sure when I do the fillup and math.  I've achieved 450miles on this tank.  I've never seen this before in the 6 years I've been driving this little truck.  I'll post numbers soon after the next fill up.

For what it's worth, I spent about $40.00 to $50.00 in materials to build this and several hours in time building.  After a few runs it should pay for itself hopefully. 

9A @ 14.1V is 126.9 watts. If you are really getting even 2MPG more with that, it would be a benefit. You did not say how much MPG the ranger gets normally or with the device. Say the ranger gets 18MPG on the highway at 60MPH.

So, if you now get 20MPG instead of 18, that is a 10% savings, making your gas for 20 miles cost $3.60 rather than $4.00. I'll take that. Driving records are useful but the quality of gas changes over the seasons and also the weather affects things. I don't have a dyno where a specific load could be put on the vehicle, so that is out. The point is that a scientific test is very hard to do.

The guy over at http://hytechapps.com/ has a video with his ford wagon and some results that show he is using about 1200 watts DC (100A) and getting a substantially big increase. This is why I was asking about the power input and the electrolyzer.

His weldng machine is of interest also, I note the flame burns cool, yet melts anything it contacts. His electrolyte is a secret and he does not say if the plates have to be periodically replaced, etc. The ideal thing would be an electrolyzer that uses a catalytic function so that the electrolyte and materials are not rapidly consumed.

When you are going down the road and throw the switch, can you tell a difference or is it more subtle? It's one of those seeing is believing things. I'd hate to spend the time and $ and be disappointed. Yet alot of people are doing this.

[Opcom]

That's pretty cool. Well I'm impressed. I have noticed over the last month the fuel economy has decreased from 16.5 overall to 14.4.

I stopped by the chevy dealer and aksed the mechanics because I know them and they have never lied to me. They told me I was only the 13th person today who inquired about fuel economy. They said its the reformulated fuel for the summer, and the stuff is full of ethanol, the full 10%, and that they have pulled some nasty looking fuel out of a few vehicles lately and alot of people have been coming in with fuel mileage complaints, but there's nothing wrong with most of the vehicles.

Apparently when water gets into a tank of fuel that has a high ethanol content, it does not stay well mixed in the fuel and you end up with water in the bottom of the tank causing all kinds of driveability issues, whereas water stays better mixed with gas that has little or no ethanol and tends to just go on through and 'burn' with the gas.

It's time to change things so we buy fuel by the BTU, not by the adulterated gallon.
I want to get the energy I am paying for to be standardized, not allow them to make up the weight/volume the other crap I don't want.
Fuel should be required to meet certain standards for BTU and the metering should reflect the energy being bought, not the non-combustible Spody-Ody added to the fuel today.
http://www.last.fm/music/Pere+Ubu/_/Drinking+Wine+Spodyody
http://www.bumwine.com/

[W1RKW]

Hi Patrick,
Actually, I think it's the other way around. Ethanol by itself is water soluble.  With ethanol in the gasoline, gasoline then has a susceptibility to absorb water. So water will pass through the engine but it also makes the gas go bad much faster.  It's the same effect that "dry-gas" has as a fuel line dryer.  Water and real gas repel each other by nature and with real gas one can see water actually sit on the bottom of a container.  Gasoline without ethanol will make water sink to the bottom since gasoline is refined oil essentially and is lighter in density. 

Yes, you are correct in the fuel mileage decrease with the change in formulation.  I see that in all my vehicles too when the state of CT mandates the formulation change. I also see problems with my small engines more often because of the ethanol like hardened and leaky fuel lines.  Ethanol kills rubber.

This website might interest you:  http://www.fuel-saver.org  There's a guy who has installed 2 HHO devices a Ford Probe and is getting over 80mpg using this HHO stuff. 

[flintstone mop]

It's time to hold on to your wallets. Pennsylvania legislators want to allow electric companies to start slowly with the increases NOW that are coming our way as the contracts run out in two years for the increase in oil prices. So,we don't get slammed with the increase overnight.
Apparently we see the increases in our gasoline immediatley.
There's so much coal here in the USA. Why can't we use it.


Fred

[W1RKW]

We've had some increases in electric over the last couple of years.  The power company we use is seeking another increase again.  Probably for the very same reason you outlined.

Here in the NE I'm getting concerned about the cost of fuel oil to heat this coming winter.  Some big changes (conservation) will be coming to my household this winter.

I'm still thinking about converting my oil burner over to a multi-fuel burner.

[k4kyv]

It's time to hold on to your wallets. Pennsylvania legislators want to allow electric companies to start slowly with the increases NOW that are coming our way as the contracts run out in two years for the increase in oil prices. So,we don't get slammed with the increase overnight.

So they rake in all that extra money from customers between now and the next two years, to make the jolt less painful then?  If they invest that surcharge for the next two years into an interest-bearing fund that will further delay the full price increase beyond the present contract, to further cushion the rates increase and drag it out over a  couple of additional years into the new contract, it wouldn't be such a bad deal. 

But I'd almost be willing to bet that is not part of the plan.

[Bill, KD0HG]

Well, I've been researching this over and over...I had initially thought of switching to an electric from propane boiler. Initially, that would be cheaper per BTU (here), but electric rates are going up. For about the same investment as an electric boiler and peripherals, I could install evacuated tube solar panels on the south facing part of the roof. a 7'x27' area would do for now.

The key thing is overnight heat storage. Some have used stored hot water, some have heated piles of rocks, but since I've got a heated radiant slab on the first floor, that 50+ tons of concrete will have decent thermal inertia.

I guesstimate saving 30%-40% off the fossil fuel bills by adding the solar.

[flintstone mop]

Let's not forget heating with a pellet stove. We are toasty warm with our system and my heating bill for next winter has been paid. $488 + $100 delivery. A little over 2 tons of pellets. (A healthy fella and his skinny wife unloaded the 80 bags in 15 minutes on the two pallets in my garage) The discount for pellets will be over in another month.
The house would normally be in the high $300's per month with Nat Gas. There's a little maintenance involved to keep the stove and the flue clean from the soot build up. Usually a tear down and cleaning out the ashes every 2 mos. It will run on our coldest period in Western Pa 24 hrs /day.
Fred

[w4bfs]

Hi Bob and others ... what do you think of this HHO technology? ... It has been rumoured for years that very high mpg engines existed but were being squashed for obvious reasons ... meow ...73 ...John

[K6JEK]

Well, I've been researching this over and over...I had initially thought of switching to an electric from propane boiler. Initially, that would be cheaper per BTU (here), but electric rates are going up. For about the same investment as an electric boiler and peripherals, I could install evacuated tube solar panels on the south facing part of the roof. a 7'x27' area would do for now.

The key thing is overnight heat storage. Some have used stored hot water, some have heated piles of rocks, but since I've got a heated radiant slab on the first floor, that 50+ tons of concrete will have decent thermal inertia.

I guesstimate saving 30%-40% off the fossil fuel bills by adding the solar.

You can buy this stuff, "evacuated solar tubes."  I didn't know they were available to civilians.  Can you give me a pointer?

[W1RKW]

You can buy this stuff, "evacuated solar tubes."  I didn't know they were available to civilians.  Can you give me a pointer?

Here's a couple of places I had bookmarked.
http://www.builditsolar.com/
http://www.aaasolar.com/AAASolarCatalog2008.pdf

[Bill, KD0HG]

You can buy this stuff, "evacuated solar tubes."  I didn't know they were available to civilians.  Can you give me a pointer?

http://www.sunmaxxsolar.com/sunmaxx-30-evacuated-tube-solar-collector.php

They'll give you 30% off the MSRP. Seem to work amazingly well, better than the flat plate collectors. More efficient, more tolerant of sun angle and operate at hotter temps. I saw a demo of one making 130 degree water in New York on a cloudy winter day. Two of the 30-series panels should be able to make a max ~~8,000 BTU/HR around here in the winter.

[K6JEK]

You can buy this stuff, "evacuated solar tubes."  I didn't know they were available to civilians.  Can you give me a pointer?

http://www.sunmaxxsolar.com/sunmaxx-30-evacuated-tube-solar-collector.php

They'll give you 30% off the MSRP. Seem to work amazingly well, better than the flat plate collectors. More efficient, more tolerant of sun angle and operate at hotter temps. I saw a demo of one making 130 degree water in New York on a cloudy winter day. Two of the 30-series panels should be able to make a max ~~8,000 BTU/HR around here in the winter.

Thanks.   I just installed something else( http://tctsolar.com/doc/specguide.pdf ). I think the evacuated tube stuff is better.

[k4kyv]

For years SUVs have been the cash cow of American car companies like GM, Ford, and Chrysler. But with gas prices hitting $4/gallon nobody wants to pay the $100/tank or more to fill up their large gas guzzlers anymore. These inefficient beasts have seen sales drop precipitously in the last few months and trade in values are dropping thousands of dollars each month. Some are calling this the death of the SUV. GM is reportedly selling off its Hummer line.

The end of America's love affair with the SUV is turning into an expensive divorce. Drivers wanting to get rid of the gas-guzzlers as pump prices hit $4 a gallon are losing a lot of money on the sales—if they can even find buyers. Some SUV owners find themselves owing the bank more than their vehicle is worth.

Car dealerships are offering steep discounts, offering 0% APR financing, and writing inventive ads but often find the behemoths impossible to shift. Experts in the field of auto sales think the switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles will be a permanent move.

But what to do if you let yourself get sucked in by the hype and already bought one of the POS's (unless you happen to one of the rare individuals who actually has a need for such a vehicle)?  Best to just bite the bullet and keep on driving it until it craps out.  The amount of money you would most likely lose in a trade-in would far exceed the extra $1.50/gallon you are now paying to fuel it, compared to what you paid when you bought the thing, for the rest of its useful life.

My brother-in-law is one of the few people who actually has a use for a SUV.  He maintains two-way radio systems for the state of California, and some of his sites are on mountaintops near Lake Tahoe.  It is a steep climb, difficult any time of year, and sometimes the snow gets too deep even for his SUV in winter.  I visited him once during the month of June and he took me with him up to one of the sites.  We got hit by snow and sleet while we were up on the mountain!

[W1RKW]

Hi Bob and others ... what do you think of this HHO technology? ... It has been rumoured for years that very high mpg engines existed but were being squashed for obvious reasons ... meow ...73 ...John

Honestly, I don't know much about the HHO technology.  After hearing a few at work talk about how they installed homebrewed devices in their vehicles and got some good results and they giving me some websites and info to look at, I said to myself what the hell do I have to lose.  So I built something out of real cheap materials to the tune of about $50.00 and with some stuff I had kicking around the house. There was no real science applied to it.  Just good ole mechanical and electrical construction and a teensy-weensy bit of chemistry.  So I slapped one together.

I may try something else to see if a larger gain in gas output can be done without increasing the current draw.

The most fun part of the project was filling 1L soda bottles with the gas and launching them into the air.

[ab3al]

thats great news don.  my wife has been wantin a hummer for a long time.  was by the dealer the other day and the discounts are deep enough i just might have to write a big check.  for her doesnt really matter she drive 5 miles to work.  as for me my work truck is an 06 crewcab 1ton dodge deisel.. spend about 1k a month in fuel.  lovin every mile... for those of you in Riolinda 1k means 1000