Hydrogen Conversion Kit
01-13-2018, 10:11 AM
#61
CF Veteran
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,481
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
12 Posts
Year: 97
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
It looks like we are all now in agreement that it does indeed work if tuned correctly. The question now would be what conditions are most favorable for it to work in the most efficient manner? Power source and delivery being left aside for later, I would venture to say it starts with the water. What exact conditions would we be looking for to obtain maximum production? We know the process is most efficient with an electrolyte, but the question is what electrolyte and at what percentage?
I think there is an advantageous solution ratio because the generator vessel will have to be cleaned out as a regular maintenance item due to deposits that will naturally collect. Yet there needs to be enough to maximize production at the lowest power draw possible. And of course the further it is in between servicing needs the better off we would be.
I think there is an advantageous solution ratio because the generator vessel will have to be cleaned out as a regular maintenance item due to deposits that will naturally collect. Yet there needs to be enough to maximize production at the lowest power draw possible. And of course the further it is in between servicing needs the better off we would be.
01-13-2018, 10:31 AM
#62
CF Veteran
There's more than just HHO that comes out of hydrogen as well as I have read. Some is H H and O, Some is H2 and O, and some other amalgamations. Joe who ran his car on his own cell using modified ignition timing so he could run the engine on implosion is the only person I've seen make mention of that He rigged his cells up in different ways and had different properties of combustion. In one setup he had yellow and orange flames (he said this was how most people rigged their on-board generators for supplementing a car for better gas mileage).
However, when he rigged it up in the way he ran his car off of it, it was much louder and it produced blue flames (from what I understand blue is higher energy than orange, green and red). He said that was implosion and that, whatever its chemical makeup, was what was running his car. Because it was implosion based the radiator would turn to ice and the engine was always cold. I would like to get that setup running but I know there's hundreds of hours of tinkering that is required to get one of those cells working just right, and you have to modify your ignition. For me I would have to convert to a distributed system. I gaurantee you that is why vehicles went distruborless ignition and left it to the PCM, so people can't tinker with making a Joe cell to run their car off of, because you just can't do it without modifying the ignition timing heavily. Technology keeps keeping us out of the loop as time progresses and that's no accident. Fuel injection came long when gasoline vaporizer setups started to re-gain notoriety. You can still do it, and I have done it myself in the yard, but I don't recommend it because it's possible that fuel injected was also engineered with cam timing to cause more valve heat that required fuel mists to keep the intake valves cool. I don't know that gasoline vapor can keep up with that, but it might be able to. Subjecting gasoline to a vacuum source (the engine) makes it cold as a refrigerated can of pepsi. Within seconds condensation builds up on the outside of the container and on the intake to the manifold as well.
Moar hydrogens, that's the right amount. 
The only reason there will ever be a cut-off for "how much" is because you have to consider how much heat is made in the engine. It can only withstand so much, and if 25%~ of the power in gas keeps the coolant cycling at 195, I imagine 50% efficiency will double that. Might even be way more because you're doubling the power but you only have so much material to dissipate heat with so instead of being a linear equation it turns logarithmic with a sharp gradient.
...unless you increase cooling and just use some of that water as a fine cooling mist into the intake like I am planning on doing. The 150-180 VDC setup will certainly pump out massive amounts of hydrogen gas. The question is will the engine handle it.
However, when he rigged it up in the way he ran his car off of it, it was much louder and it produced blue flames (from what I understand blue is higher energy than orange, green and red). He said that was implosion and that, whatever its chemical makeup, was what was running his car. Because it was implosion based the radiator would turn to ice and the engine was always cold. I would like to get that setup running but I know there's hundreds of hours of tinkering that is required to get one of those cells working just right, and you have to modify your ignition. For me I would have to convert to a distributed system. I gaurantee you that is why vehicles went distruborless ignition and left it to the PCM, so people can't tinker with making a Joe cell to run their car off of, because you just can't do it without modifying the ignition timing heavily. Technology keeps keeping us out of the loop as time progresses and that's no accident. Fuel injection came long when gasoline vaporizer setups started to re-gain notoriety. You can still do it, and I have done it myself in the yard, but I don't recommend it because it's possible that fuel injected was also engineered with cam timing to cause more valve heat that required fuel mists to keep the intake valves cool. I don't know that gasoline vapor can keep up with that, but it might be able to. Subjecting gasoline to a vacuum source (the engine) makes it cold as a refrigerated can of pepsi. Within seconds condensation builds up on the outside of the container and on the intake to the manifold as well.
The only reason there will ever be a cut-off for "how much" is because you have to consider how much heat is made in the engine. It can only withstand so much, and if 25%~ of the power in gas keeps the coolant cycling at 195, I imagine 50% efficiency will double that. Might even be way more because you're doubling the power but you only have so much material to dissipate heat with so instead of being a linear equation it turns logarithmic with a sharp gradient.
...unless you increase cooling and just use some of that water as a fine cooling mist into the intake like I am planning on doing. The 150-180 VDC setup will certainly pump out massive amounts of hydrogen gas. The question is will the engine handle it.
Last edited by CoffeeCommando; 01-13-2018 at 10:40 AM.
01-14-2018, 07:29 AM
#63
CF Veteran
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,481
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
12 Posts
Year: 97
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
There's more than just HHO that comes out of hydrogen as well as I have read. Some is H H and O, Some is H2 and O, and some other amalgamations. Joe who ran his car on his own cell using modified ignition timing so he could run the engine on implosion is the only person I've seen make mention of that He rigged his cells up in different ways and had different properties of combustion. In one setup he had yellow and orange flames (he said this was how most people rigged their on-board generators for supplementing a car for better gas mileage).
However, when he rigged it up in the way he ran his car off of it, it was much louder and it produced blue flames (from what I understand blue is higher energy than orange, green and red). He said that was implosion and that, whatever its chemical makeup, was what was running his car. Because it was implosion based the radiator would turn to ice and the engine was always cold. I would like to get that setup running but I know there's hundreds of hours of tinkering that is required to get one of those cells working just right, and you have to modify your ignition. For me I would have to convert to a distributed system. I gaurantee you that is why vehicles went distruborless ignition and left it to the PCM, so people can't tinker with making a Joe cell to run their car off of, because you just can't do it without modifying the ignition timing heavily. Technology keeps keeping us out of the loop as time progresses and that's no accident. Fuel injection came long when gasoline vaporizer setups started to re-gain notoriety. You can still do it, and I have done it myself in the yard, but I don't recommend it because it's possible that fuel injected was also engineered with cam timing to cause more valve heat that required fuel mists to keep the intake valves cool. I don't know that gasoline vapor can keep up with that, but it might be able to. Subjecting gasoline to a vacuum source (the engine) makes it cold as a refrigerated can of pepsi. Within seconds condensation builds up on the outside of the container and on the intake to the manifold as well.
Moar hydrogens, that's the right amount.
The only reason there will ever be a cut-off for "how much" is because you have to consider how much heat is made in the engine. It can only withstand so much, and if 25%~ of the power in gas keeps the coolant cycling at 195, I imagine 50% efficiency will double that. Might even be way more because you're doubling the power but you only have so much material to dissipate heat with so instead of being a linear equation it turns logarithmic with a sharp gradient.
...unless you increase cooling and just use some of that water as a fine cooling mist into the intake like I am planning on doing. The 150-180 VDC setup will certainly pump out massive amounts of hydrogen gas. The question is will the engine handle it.
However, when he rigged it up in the way he ran his car off of it, it was much louder and it produced blue flames (from what I understand blue is higher energy than orange, green and red). He said that was implosion and that, whatever its chemical makeup, was what was running his car. Because it was implosion based the radiator would turn to ice and the engine was always cold. I would like to get that setup running but I know there's hundreds of hours of tinkering that is required to get one of those cells working just right, and you have to modify your ignition. For me I would have to convert to a distributed system. I gaurantee you that is why vehicles went distruborless ignition and left it to the PCM, so people can't tinker with making a Joe cell to run their car off of, because you just can't do it without modifying the ignition timing heavily. Technology keeps keeping us out of the loop as time progresses and that's no accident. Fuel injection came long when gasoline vaporizer setups started to re-gain notoriety. You can still do it, and I have done it myself in the yard, but I don't recommend it because it's possible that fuel injected was also engineered with cam timing to cause more valve heat that required fuel mists to keep the intake valves cool. I don't know that gasoline vapor can keep up with that, but it might be able to. Subjecting gasoline to a vacuum source (the engine) makes it cold as a refrigerated can of pepsi. Within seconds condensation builds up on the outside of the container and on the intake to the manifold as well.
Moar hydrogens, that's the right amount.
The only reason there will ever be a cut-off for "how much" is because you have to consider how much heat is made in the engine. It can only withstand so much, and if 25%~ of the power in gas keeps the coolant cycling at 195, I imagine 50% efficiency will double that. Might even be way more because you're doubling the power but you only have so much material to dissipate heat with so instead of being a linear equation it turns logarithmic with a sharp gradient.
...unless you increase cooling and just use some of that water as a fine cooling mist into the intake like I am planning on doing. The 150-180 VDC setup will certainly pump out massive amounts of hydrogen gas. The question is will the engine handle it.
The other thing most people don't realize is just how complex combustion is. Fuel plus oxygen is not the only thing involved. In my research for my chemistry degree I studied combustion of coal. There are at least five different chemical processes happening when coal burns, and at one point in the process if you inject water vapor, it will enhance the reaction because the carbon monoxide will pull oxygen from the water which generates heat as it reacts to form carbon dioxide and that leaves the hydrogen to react with any other free oxygen farther up in the stack to generate more heat as it forms water vapor again. The process can easily be observed if you burn a large brush pile and it begins a light misty rain, the fire will actually start to become hotter. Only if the amount of water falling on the fire exceeds what is needed to enhance the combustion will it begin to extinguish the fire, because it is evaporating when in contact with the burning wood, which removes enough heat from the process to kill the combustion.
01-14-2018, 01:00 PM
#64
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Dawson Springs, KY
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Year: 1985
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 2.5L
Hydrogen will burn with an invisible flame, any color comes from metalic impurities, such as from the electrolyte. If there is sodium in the electrolyte you will have a yellow flame, potassium will give a reddish purple flame, iron is more orange, ect. If you have a gas stove or a propane torch, put regular table salt in water then dip a steel wire or stainless steel fork into the solution and put it into the flame and you will see a burst of yellow flame from the sodium. If you use "No-Salt" you will see the purple flame from potassium. Sea Salt will give several colors from all the different metals in it. A copper wire will also cause the flame to be slightly green.
I have to shake my head at someone mentioning implosion running an engine. Implosion does happen when a star dies and forms a blackhole, but not when burning hydrogen. A hydrogen bomb is called an implosion device, but that is because in the design a small nuclear explosion is shaped to put pressure inwards on a core of hydrogen "imploding" or "squeezing" into a small enough space that it actually undergoes nuclear fusion which then explodes with many times more force than a normal atomic bomb would.
An internal combustion engine works on the principal of gasses expanding because of the heat generated by combustion in a closed space which pushes the piston down and drives the crankshaft. If the fuel was imploding, then there would be a vacuum formed in the combustion chamber and the piston would want to move upwards instead of downwards, if it is already at the top of the stroke, then the vacuum formed by the implosion would suck the piston up farther, and since it can't go up farther it would simple lock up the engine and the vacuum in the cylinder would hold the piston in place until you opened a valve to let air back in, so at best the engine would rotate backwards and you would have to drive in reverse to go forwards, and that would only work in a manual transmission since the reverse rotation would cause a torque converter to not work in the automatic because of the configuration of the fins in the converter.
I have to shake my head at someone mentioning implosion running an engine. Implosion does happen when a star dies and forms a blackhole, but not when burning hydrogen. A hydrogen bomb is called an implosion device, but that is because in the design a small nuclear explosion is shaped to put pressure inwards on a core of hydrogen "imploding" or "squeezing" into a small enough space that it actually undergoes nuclear fusion which then explodes with many times more force than a normal atomic bomb would.
An internal combustion engine works on the principal of gasses expanding because of the heat generated by combustion in a closed space which pushes the piston down and drives the crankshaft. If the fuel was imploding, then there would be a vacuum formed in the combustion chamber and the piston would want to move upwards instead of downwards, if it is already at the top of the stroke, then the vacuum formed by the implosion would suck the piston up farther, and since it can't go up farther it would simple lock up the engine and the vacuum in the cylinder would hold the piston in place until you opened a valve to let air back in, so at best the engine would rotate backwards and you would have to drive in reverse to go forwards, and that would only work in a manual transmission since the reverse rotation would cause a torque converter to not work in the automatic because of the configuration of the fins in the converter.
01-14-2018, 01:17 PM
#65
CF Veteran
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,481
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
12 Posts
Year: 97
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Hydrogen will burn with an invisible flame, any color comes from metalic impurities, such as from the electrolyte. If there is sodium in the electrolyte you will have a yellow flame, potassium will give a reddish purple flame, iron is more orange, ect. If you have a gas stove or a propane torch, put regular table salt in water then dip a steel wire or stainless steel fork into the solution and put it into the flame and you will see a burst of yellow flame from the sodium. If you use "No-Salt" you will see the purple flame from potassium. Sea Salt will give several colors from all the different metals in it. A copper wire will also cause the flame to be slightly green.
I have to shake my head at someone mentioning implosion running an engine. Implosion does happen when a star dies and forms a blackhole, but not when burning hydrogen. A hydrogen bomb is called an implosion device, but that is because in the design a small nuclear explosion is shaped to put pressure inwards on a core of hydrogen "imploding" or "squeezing" into a small enough space that it actually undergoes nuclear fusion which then explodes with many times more force than a normal atomic bomb would.
An internal combustion engine works on the principal of gasses expanding because of the heat generated by combustion in a closed space which pushes the piston down and drives the crankshaft. If the fuel was imploding, then there would be a vacuum formed in the combustion chamber and the piston would want to move upwards instead of downwards, if it is already at the top of the stroke, then the vacuum formed by the implosion would suck the piston up farther, and since it can't go up farther it would simple lock up the engine and the vacuum in the cylinder would hold the piston in place until you opened a valve to let air back in, so at best the engine would rotate backwards and you would have to drive in reverse to go forwards, and that would only work in a manual transmission since the reverse rotation would cause a torque converter to not work in the automatic because of the configuration of the fins in the converter.
I have to shake my head at someone mentioning implosion running an engine. Implosion does happen when a star dies and forms a blackhole, but not when burning hydrogen. A hydrogen bomb is called an implosion device, but that is because in the design a small nuclear explosion is shaped to put pressure inwards on a core of hydrogen "imploding" or "squeezing" into a small enough space that it actually undergoes nuclear fusion which then explodes with many times more force than a normal atomic bomb would.
An internal combustion engine works on the principal of gasses expanding because of the heat generated by combustion in a closed space which pushes the piston down and drives the crankshaft. If the fuel was imploding, then there would be a vacuum formed in the combustion chamber and the piston would want to move upwards instead of downwards, if it is already at the top of the stroke, then the vacuum formed by the implosion would suck the piston up farther, and since it can't go up farther it would simple lock up the engine and the vacuum in the cylinder would hold the piston in place until you opened a valve to let air back in, so at best the engine would rotate backwards and you would have to drive in reverse to go forwards, and that would only work in a manual transmission since the reverse rotation would cause a torque converter to not work in the automatic because of the configuration of the fins in the converter.
01-15-2018, 06:49 AM
#66
CF Veteran
It cools because it's an endothermic reaction. Combustion is the opposite, exothermic. That's why one drops temperature and the other increases it. Breaking bonds releases heat, forming them creates cold.
01-15-2018, 07:01 AM
#67
CF Veteran
Hydrogen will burn with an invisible flame, any color comes from metalic impurities, such as from the electrolyte. If there is sodium in the electrolyte you will have a yellow flame, potassium will give a reddish purple flame, iron is more orange, ect. If you have a gas stove or a propane torch, put regular table salt in water then dip a steel wire or stainless steel fork into the solution and put it into the flame and you will see a burst of yellow flame from the sodium. If you use "No-Salt" you will see the purple flame from potassium. Sea Salt will give several colors from all the different metals in it. A copper wire will also cause the flame to be slightly green.
I have to shake my head at someone mentioning implosion running an engine. Implosion does happen when a star dies and forms a blackhole, but not when burning hydrogen. A hydrogen bomb is called an implosion device, but that is because in the design a small nuclear explosion is shaped to put pressure inwards on a core of hydrogen "imploding" or "squeezing" into a small enough space that it actually undergoes nuclear fusion which then explodes with many times more force than a normal atomic bomb would.
An internal combustion engine works on the principal of gasses expanding because of the heat generated by combustion in a closed space which pushes the piston down and drives the crankshaft. If the fuel was imploding, then there would be a vacuum formed in the combustion chamber and the piston would want to move upwards instead of downwards, if it is already at the top of the stroke, then the vacuum formed by the implosion would suck the piston up farther, and since it can't go up farther it would simple lock up the engine and the vacuum in the cylinder would hold the piston in place until you opened a valve to let air back in, so at best the engine would rotate backwards and you would have to drive in reverse to go forwards, and that would only work in a manual transmission since the reverse rotation would cause a torque converter to not work in the automatic because of the configuration of the fins in the converter.
I have to shake my head at someone mentioning implosion running an engine. Implosion does happen when a star dies and forms a blackhole, but not when burning hydrogen. A hydrogen bomb is called an implosion device, but that is because in the design a small nuclear explosion is shaped to put pressure inwards on a core of hydrogen "imploding" or "squeezing" into a small enough space that it actually undergoes nuclear fusion which then explodes with many times more force than a normal atomic bomb would.
An internal combustion engine works on the principal of gasses expanding because of the heat generated by combustion in a closed space which pushes the piston down and drives the crankshaft. If the fuel was imploding, then there would be a vacuum formed in the combustion chamber and the piston would want to move upwards instead of downwards, if it is already at the top of the stroke, then the vacuum formed by the implosion would suck the piston up farther, and since it can't go up farther it would simple lock up the engine and the vacuum in the cylinder would hold the piston in place until you opened a valve to let air back in, so at best the engine would rotate backwards and you would have to drive in reverse to go forwards, and that would only work in a manual transmission since the reverse rotation would cause a torque converter to not work in the automatic because of the configuration of the fins in the converter.
I said it before, the ignition ignites several degrees before TDC. It has to because gasoline is a slow burning fuel source. If hydrogen was working against it, it would decrease gas mileage and none of these independent companies would have never popped up all over the internet making hydrogen fuel cells to begin with.
Let's not forget something else. None of us knows everything about what's going on in the combustion process. I bet you there's at least 1 thing, that I can think of, taking place that no one is mentioning. Does HHO simply go into the cylinder and upon explosion have absolutely 0% interactivity with the gasoline molecules around it when it implodes? I bet it does have an effect. A reduction by 1800 times for the amount of gas is going to drop the pressure. Compressed molecules are harder to break down than when they are in open atmospheric pressure, or better yet in a vacuum.
But I would wager there's more to it than that, on a physics+chemical level. Theorizing and speculating is just that, and it's based on what you know. It's the things we don't know that are far more in abundance. That's why closed minded people are always the 16% of the community that are the laggards in the law of diffusion of innovation. Only 2.5% of the populace are the innovators that are making discoveries that change the way we see things, and enhance technological advancements. Just from the statistics I know I am on to something when someone who appears to have a nay to say about what I am up to and they're a small part of the total range of the community as a whole. I know I'm the one innovating, and I do know that what I have done does work. So when I get pushback from someone that doesn't do what I do and hasn't done their own testing and verification, I'm probably talking to a late adopter at the minimum. It's one thing if you've done it yourself and can verify it. It's another when you haven't but you're just trying to shoot ideas down like you know what you're talking about because you read words in a book, and that was the extent of your practical application.
The first hydrogen fuel cell I made gave me 28% better gas mileage in a 2005 Ford Focus back in 2015. It was the worst design of cell I have made to date, and I didn't use any electronic manipulation on it at the time. It had a noticeable amount more pep in the pedal when I pushed it. I think the fact that it had reduced gas mileage from what it should have been was a factor in why I didn't need electronics, but I am still not sure.
My 1997 Ford Probe GT also had a small increase (I have my theories on why it wasn't as much, one of them being the VAF vs MAF design). I ran the numbers on my mileage and I was getting 24-25, and this was in a car that was missing 5th gear. That test trip was on the highway in 4th gear. Usually I would get 20-22MPG previously. There wasn't as drastic of a difference in that car, but with the electronics I am sure it would have been 15-25% better (judging by other people's experiments in the community).
The design I have now is much better and is employing a few other things I didn't do previously. I'm fairly certain there was a lot of heat in my first setup which I have gotten away from. I think using heat is actually just what you want, because as the water heats up it becomes easier to electrolyze.
Last edited by CoffeeCommando; 01-15-2018 at 07:15 AM.
01-16-2018, 05:02 AM
#68
CF Veteran
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,481
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
12 Posts
Year: 97
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Joe used water from the creek in Australia (where he lives). He sat there and showed yellow flames (same cell), then reconfigured it and got blue flames (sometimes clear as well on both of them). The way you run the electrons through certain cells creates different properties of hydrogen gas. This only works with the graduated cylinder style that I am aware of. With that setup a magnetic force is generated. In order to ever get it to work like J does you have to align the norths and souths on the tubes so they aren't in conflict. I didn't even know SS could have any magnetic properties, but when it's cut it will gain them, on both ends.
I said it before, the ignition ignites several degrees before TDC. It has to because gasoline is a slow burning fuel source. If hydrogen was working against it, it would decrease gas mileage and none of these independent companies would have never popped up all over the internet making hydrogen fuel cells to begin with.
Let's not forget something else. None of us knows everything about what's going on in the combustion process. I bet you there's at least 1 thing, that I can think of, taking place that no one is mentioning. Does HHO simply go into the cylinder and upon explosion have absolutely 0% interactivity with the gasoline molecules around it when it implodes? I bet it does have an effect. A reduction by 1800 times for the amount of gas is going to drop the pressure. Compressed molecules are harder to break down than when they are in open atmospheric pressure, or better yet in a vacuum.
But I would wager there's more to it than that, on a physics+chemical level. Theorizing and speculating is just that, and it's based on what you know. It's the things we don't know that are far more in abundance. That's why closed minded people are always the 16% of the community that are the laggards in the law of diffusion of innovation. Only 2.5% of the populace are the innovators that are making discoveries that change the way we see things, and enhance technological advancements. Just from the statistics I know I am on to something when someone who appears to have a nay to say about what I am up to and they're a small part of the total range of the community as a whole. I know I'm the one innovating, and I do know that what I have done does work. So when I get pushback from someone that doesn't do what I do and hasn't done their own testing and verification, I'm probably talking to a late adopter at the minimum. It's one thing if you've done it yourself and can verify it. It's another when you haven't but you're just trying to shoot ideas down like you know what you're talking about because you read words in a book, and that was the extent of your practical application.
The first hydrogen fuel cell I made gave me 28% better gas mileage in a 2005 Ford Focus back in 2015. It was the worst design of cell I have made to date, and I didn't use any electronic manipulation on it at the time. It had a noticeable amount more pep in the pedal when I pushed it. I think the fact that it had reduced gas mileage from what it should have been was a factor in why I didn't need electronics, but I am still not sure.
My 1997 Ford Probe GT also had a small increase (I have my theories on why it wasn't as much, one of them being the VAF vs MAF design). I ran the numbers on my mileage and I was getting 24-25, and this was in a car that was missing 5th gear. That test trip was on the highway in 4th gear. Usually I would get 20-22MPG previously. There wasn't as drastic of a difference in that car, but with the electronics I am sure it would have been 15-25% better (judging by other people's experiments in the community).
The design I have now is much better and is employing a few other things I didn't do previously. I'm fairly certain there was a lot of heat in my first setup which I have gotten away from. I think using heat is actually just what you want, because as the water heats up it becomes easier to electrolyze.
I said it before, the ignition ignites several degrees before TDC. It has to because gasoline is a slow burning fuel source. If hydrogen was working against it, it would decrease gas mileage and none of these independent companies would have never popped up all over the internet making hydrogen fuel cells to begin with.
Let's not forget something else. None of us knows everything about what's going on in the combustion process. I bet you there's at least 1 thing, that I can think of, taking place that no one is mentioning. Does HHO simply go into the cylinder and upon explosion have absolutely 0% interactivity with the gasoline molecules around it when it implodes? I bet it does have an effect. A reduction by 1800 times for the amount of gas is going to drop the pressure. Compressed molecules are harder to break down than when they are in open atmospheric pressure, or better yet in a vacuum.
But I would wager there's more to it than that, on a physics+chemical level. Theorizing and speculating is just that, and it's based on what you know. It's the things we don't know that are far more in abundance. That's why closed minded people are always the 16% of the community that are the laggards in the law of diffusion of innovation. Only 2.5% of the populace are the innovators that are making discoveries that change the way we see things, and enhance technological advancements. Just from the statistics I know I am on to something when someone who appears to have a nay to say about what I am up to and they're a small part of the total range of the community as a whole. I know I'm the one innovating, and I do know that what I have done does work. So when I get pushback from someone that doesn't do what I do and hasn't done their own testing and verification, I'm probably talking to a late adopter at the minimum. It's one thing if you've done it yourself and can verify it. It's another when you haven't but you're just trying to shoot ideas down like you know what you're talking about because you read words in a book, and that was the extent of your practical application.
The first hydrogen fuel cell I made gave me 28% better gas mileage in a 2005 Ford Focus back in 2015. It was the worst design of cell I have made to date, and I didn't use any electronic manipulation on it at the time. It had a noticeable amount more pep in the pedal when I pushed it. I think the fact that it had reduced gas mileage from what it should have been was a factor in why I didn't need electronics, but I am still not sure.
My 1997 Ford Probe GT also had a small increase (I have my theories on why it wasn't as much, one of them being the VAF vs MAF design). I ran the numbers on my mileage and I was getting 24-25, and this was in a car that was missing 5th gear. That test trip was on the highway in 4th gear. Usually I would get 20-22MPG previously. There wasn't as drastic of a difference in that car, but with the electronics I am sure it would have been 15-25% better (judging by other people's experiments in the community).
The design I have now is much better and is employing a few other things I didn't do previously. I'm fairly certain there was a lot of heat in my first setup which I have gotten away from. I think using heat is actually just what you want, because as the water heats up it becomes easier to electrolyze.
But when talking about the combustion process it is important to remember hydrogen has over double the flashpoint ignition temperature of gasoline. So what happens is this... It is pulled in and thoroughly mixed with the primary fuel air mixture. But because it's flashpoint is higher than the gasoline it doesn't ignite until you ignite the gas with a spark. But... When the combination does ignite it burns twice as fast and much more thoroughly and completely because of the hydrogen added as a catalyst. Yet at the same time it creates steam which prolongs the rate of the burn causing a longer push on the pistons. Strange but it works.
Last edited by Bugout4x4; 01-16-2018 at 05:07 AM.
01-19-2018, 08:49 AM
#69
CF Veteran
When I get a job and repopulate my funds I'll be able to test my theories on mist. I really want to get pure fog as that would be much better but that setup gets complicated and expensive. I saw a video where someone had developed a legit fogger that runs off of normal hose pressure. It looked like a missile inside of a silo. I never checked to see how much it was and didn't like the idea that if I wanted to have more fog I would have to use multiples of those guys. The mist setup might not be as good but it'll certainly be a fraction of the price of what that thing goes for.
01-19-2018, 08:56 AM
#70
CF Veteran
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,481
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
12 Posts
Year: 97
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
When I get a job and repopulate my funds I'll be able to test my theories on mist. I really want to get pure fog as that would be much better but that setup gets complicated and expensive. I saw a video where someone had developed a legit fogger that runs off of normal hose pressure. It looked like a missile inside of a silo. I never checked to see how much it was and didn't like the idea that if I wanted to have more fog I would have to use multiples of those guys. The mist setup might not be as good but it'll certainly be a fraction of the price of what that thing goes for.
01-19-2018, 09:02 AM
#71
CF Veteran
Actually had that kit except for the reservoir stashed in a sealed container in the garage. Looked for it a while back but the garage ghost must have stolen it. Same one that steals tools.
