Hho

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

I was looking at fishing line, and presuming it's nylon, it does appear to be long term incompatible with alkaline solutions, but then so would zip ties be. I believe it would be wise to tear down and rebuild the cell annually. It's first meant to send the surface milky and crazed looking. This might actually be a protective layer to the rest, not sure. Seems it would turn it brittle, so anything under tension might give way. Might be a plan to arrange things such that no mechanical restraint is required of the fishing line or zipties.

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

Originally Posted by Russ

dose any one have any new ideas towards hho i would be interested to try ?

Phosphoric acid in electrolyte, strongly promotes hydrogenation, strongly prevents oxidation... in theory. Ascorbic acid in electrolyte "vitamin C" in quantities between 150 and 400 ppm, strongly inhibits plate corrosion, drops surface tension of water by an order of magnitude (10x) and enhances polarity.... in theory. Greater quantities of vitamin C will chelate away the plates.

[Ford Man]

I don't know whether HHO gives any benefit in FE or not, but I'm not going to put it down until I have tried and failed and probably not even then because others may know things I don't. As far as the FE of big rigs idling I had a truck driver/owner tell me recently that a diesel engine in a tractor only uses about 1 gallon of fuel per 8 hours of idling if this is the case then the hydrogen wouldn't make a large difference in total FE. This is something that really surprised me, but he is the one with the experience. This is a person who has been driving for years and is in his 60's. I can't see why he would have any reason to lie about it, after all he is the one buying the fuel. I am working on a hydrogen generator now and once I feel comfortable with the system I will give it a try. I know I won't be able to explain why it does or doesn't work. I am receiving all my information from the Internet. I know nothing at all about chemistry.

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

Originally Posted by Ford Man

As far as the FE of big rigs idling I had a truck driver/owner tell me recently that a diesel engine in a tractor only uses about 1 gallon of fuel per 8 hours of idling if this is the case then the hydrogen wouldn't make a large difference in total FE.

I think that's trucker misinformation because they hate all the anti-idling laws coming in everywhere. Normal is about a gallon or so an hour.

[ZugyNA]

Originally Posted by quadancer@bellsouth.net

Thank you Gassaver. I've been ready to quit this site for a while as I'm so busy studying everything I can about HHO and the continuing developments; and that's when I'm not in the garage building something for one. I just don't have the time or patience to answer the same questions over and over to people who won't study this because of their superior knowledge.
As Gassaver posted, I posted and others...regardless of knowledge, it works. As for a LOG, I've had one going of sorts, as I experiment with my installation, log changes, output, amperages, heat (very important) and finally a road test that blew me away. I always check my mileage at fillups for many reasons, and know exactly how my truck acts. Gaining mileage in traffic that exceeds highway mileage has me very optimistic, to say the least.
My log as is: http://hhoinfo.ning.com/forum/topic/...3ATopic%3A5601
There is a lot of antagonistic attitude here and only a few defenders or people with working units. I just prefer to spend my time in the positive enviornment of fellow experimenters for this particular subject, as we learn from each other. I don't learn anything from pseudo science that considers only desktop realities. Our cars are different, the variables are many, and there is much to learn beyond the basic laws of physics.
I don't know all about HHO, but enough to understand the installation and how to calculate the results. The sciences are interesting, but not totally necessary. That's how inventions are borne; of faith and persistence.

I'd pretty much agree with you...but some do bring on the criticism themselves due to poor testing methods.

It is best to side step the naysayers....it's not cool to argue with fools. Look for those who claim some success and follow their lead to some extent....keeping in mind that some test poorly and tend to exaggerate.

I waited quite a while before testing a generator due to poor results posted on another forum...while the guy went ahead and designed other generators and now expects to sell one for $1K.

So you need to avoid those in it for the profit...either selling poorly made cells...or dissing cheaper cells that work...and the gotta make a tero cell fanatics. A reasonably designed mason jar generator set will work...but results can depend on the vehicle they are installed in.

Keep on testing....avoid the noid.

[quadancer@bellsouth.net]

RW: I was using the fishing line (when I find some more SS) as a spacer only between the plates...as a contractor, I've learned that when caulk and some silicones dry, they tend to draw in or shrink. I'd be using black RTV silicone sealant for the mechanical means of holding the plates AND sealing the edges simultaneously. Once cured, I'll put plastic pieces on the sides and bottom to further insulate from current leakage, using the silicone. If the fishing line dissolved or broke down, it would be of no consequence, IMO.
IF nylon breaks down from NAoH, all the fittings we use will be jeapordized as well.
My tests on the truck will take a while, since I use the car whenever possible to save money, but I'm leaving it as is until I fill up again. Everything I do from this point, (VPM's, EIFE's, etc.) will depend upon my results. One thing at a time so that I know what's really happening. If the new cell does well on bench, it goes into the car, which now gets 27mpg average. I can't wait!
I was a trucker for nine years. Your gallon an hour figure is closer to correct.

[GasSavers_BEEF]

people talk about complicated calculations and how it doesn't matter about them or the physics behind it. there are matters at play here that all of us don't understand, even the ones that claim to understand it more than others.

my biggest problem is.....it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or an engineer) to divide MILES DRIVEN by GALLONS USED. that is literally all it takes to fill in a gas log and it is even easier than that on this site. you simply put in the numbers and the math is done for you.

just figured I'd point that out.

[GasSavers_RoadWarrior]

Okay, this is freaking amazing, this is doing the math right and seeing where it goes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterma...mic_Efficiency
We're using that equation, and if we're being dumbasses we'll take g as a constant, it sort of is, every time you only put liquid droplet form gasoline and air at 20C at standard temperature and pressure into a motor of 10:1 compression ratio, 46% is the best efficiency possible.

However, what if you wanna put a little bit of hydrogen in there? Just a little?
Now because the specific heat of hydrogen and the specific heat of steam is 14ish and 2ish, you get a ratio of 7, (Which makes pure hydrogen theoretical efficiency 99.99) but we wanna just put a teensy weensy bit of H2 in there, would that DO anything? Well, let's say 2%, 2% of 7 is .14 that makes our "g" value around 1.5 now instead of 1.27, that makes our theoretical possible efficiency jump to 61%!!!

61% is 175% of 46, so that's a 75% theoretical increase possible with 2% HHO in the mix. BUT, remember that we see MPG after all losses, and remember that extra frictional and pumping and driveline losses aren't going to pop up just from what fuel's you're sticking in there. So say we're seeing an exceptionally efficient 30% efficiency out of the motor, with the remainder of the 46% going in losses, that would mean our 2% HHO could theoretically DOUBLE apparent efficiency. This should mean that whatever efficiency your HHO cell is, in converting from crank energy to HHO, that as long as you stay over 5% efficiency, you should see a gain. Since alternator efficiency is about 60% and electrolysis is about 80% efficient, then it takes twice as much gasoline to make the same amount of HHO, but, when you only need 2% to theoretically double efficiency, it doesn't matter. Basically the power to generate that 2% HHO would cost you 4-5% in gasoline consumption, if you just vented it overboard, that's what you'd see, about 4-5% drop in mileage. Stick it in the motor though and increase thermodynamic efficiency by 75%, or double output after frictional losses and you're laughing, what does the 5% "cost" matter then?.

[feroz]

Originally Posted by Russ

Hello i have started a new HH-O site and wanted to get the word out,

Been looking through the projects here and am very impressed,

Never give up Happy experimenting

Hi Russ, I have been reading the thread from last few days and found the topics interesting. Now I am a member of the gassavers.org. What is the site address you mentioned.

[feroz]

Hi all the Gas savers, I have just joined as the member, I have one HHO electrolyser under my belt. Just made a one to check if it really works and it did. I have received lots of knowledge from the internet, Youtube, and offcourse the gassavers, I am preparing to use the HHO in our 1996 deisel engine vehicle. Best of luck to me.