It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Built this Today

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah. Only way I could see it being efficient enough to be worthwhile is if you have a windmill or waterwheel giving the electricity and then store the HHO under pressure to use for welding/cutting or maybe for a bbq grill, etc.




posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I know nothing about engines as far as this goes.......

could you make a generator that would run on water like that, that would produce enough energy?

Curious



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Man, I'd guess you probably could, but I have no idea if it would produce enough energy. I guess it all depends on how you build it and what it's used for.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: esteay812

Bravo ! !

Must run much hotter than stock; if so NOx emissions would be higher than normal, might upset some greenies.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

I'm not sure about the heat, haven't had any problems. As far as emissions, it burns very clean, much, much cleaner than a standard gas engine would. This is because it is burning basically 99% of the fuel, leaving no bad emissions. In comparison, a regular engine burns @ about 28% efficiency.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: esteay812

Again, great work.
Star and Flag




posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: esteay812


I got this pressure washer from my sister after the pump failed. The engine is still fine, but I had nothing to use it for, so I decided to build this vapor-only intake system for it. I had most of the parts for it and the other pieces of PVC and extra items cost less than $20.

This is the 2nd one I have built, but this one is put together much faster. The first one is a little beefier and more fine tuned, but it's underneath a shroud and is a pita to take apart. The first engine can run for a couple weeks with the same amount of fuel I'd burn in a day using the stock set-up.

I've heard of people doing this to cars, but I don't know much about that.

I know ATS usually enjoys stuff like this and I hope you like the video. Let me know if you have any questions and I'll do my best to answer them.

[/quote

Just FYI be careful of flashback/misfire on larger projects, My younger brother fitted a home made inlet throttle body on an old 70s ford inline engine and got 2nd deg burns to hands and face. He didn't have an arrestor to prevent flames making it's way to his vapour box and it got blown apart. It's a different ball game with larger engines with changing RPMs. Take care ATS friends,
edit on 25-2-2017 by Robbo2006 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Half assed pollution controls in the mid 70's had a tendency to fry rings, burn exhaust valves, creating dead cylinders, usually at the higher front position where coolant sometimes is supplanted by air pockets. We had some Buicks that gave off that purple smell when you floored it, and you'd hear pinging too. The odor was unmistakeable. Soon after that, both cars, with 455 cid, were gimpy, had less balls than a healthy 305, with bad miles per gallon. The other 6 cylinders had to carry the dead ones, which were pressuring fuel mixture past the rings, into the oil, out the exhaust pipe.

They say that fuel serves to cool the piston and cylinder, and when you start getting great (above normal) mileage, you are also destroying cylinders. Water injection can prevent this if done carefully.

The old rule is that you need to stay within a narrow range of fuel to air or you are asking for trouble. With crude carb aspirated cars it's better to be a little on the fat side, at least under heavy load or wide open throttle. It's just not fun to pull heads, after a compression check, and then pull the block too. Unless you like that sort of activity.

# 680
edit on 25-2-2017 by TheWhiteKnight because: Brian Epstein was dead. Klein snapped his fingers. "I got'em," he said.

edit on 25-2-2017 by TheWhiteKnight because: * I took a favorite Queen Anne chair. John took two Lowry paintings, and Nat took a blackamoor table.

edit on 25-2-2017 by TheWhiteKnight because: And still the money rolled in, or did it? When Brian was a



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: esteay812

Is the point of the video to show a 5 HP engine run for weeks on that 2" of gas in the wind shield washer bottle?



Hmmm i was thinking the exact same thing...
Maybe some MORE explanation, for us nitwits
here, that doesnt have ANY clue what it is
actually doing or what its for...



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Miccey

The tube in the top of the milk jug only goes in about 2".

There is another tube that enters from a hole cut beneath the top of the jug. That tube has tiny holes cut in it and is submerged below the gas.

When the engine is started, the compression causes air/gas vapor to be sucked in through the top hose, pulling air from the second hose. The air coming through the 2nd hose bubbles underneath the gasoline, creating more fumes into the mix. The engine is running on the fumes/air mix.

The use of fuel this way is more efficient than the standard way of introducing fuel to the engine.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: esteay812

here's a link you might find interesting,
How to run your vehicle on gasoline fumes.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Thanks hounddog. They are using the same principle there. The only difference is the bubbler, where the air intake is submerged beneath the gas line.

I'm not sure which way is better. It seems more fuel would be used with the evaporation of my set-up. It may be even more efficient to use it their way. I'll try it out and see if I can get it to work right.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: esteay812
a reply to: Miccey

The tube in the top of the milk jug only goes in about 2".

There is another tube that enters from a hole cut beneath the top of the jug. That tube has tiny holes cut in it and is submerged below the gas.

When the engine is started, the compression causes air/gas vapor to be sucked in through the top hose, pulling air from the second hose. The air coming through the 2nd hose bubbles underneath the gasoline, creating more fumes into the mix. The engine is running on the fumes/air mix.

The use of fuel this way is more efficient than the standard way of introducing fuel to the engine.


So what i read in that statement is that you basicly do that
to a gas engine and get more miles on the gallon...?!?!?

Wow.....



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Miccey

Yes, much more efficient. It also dramatically reduces the emissions.

I don't know how it would translate to MPG, I'm not sure how well it would work on a larger engine. I've heard people claim to get anywhere between 100-300mpg using a similar set-up on cars. Again, I have no idea if that's even remotely accurate for a larger engine.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I've looked at such systems online but have never experimented. Most critics claim that by having a smaller amount of fuel, you also have less of the detergents and such that help maintain the valve train and rings and that engine failure would be likely. Of courselves they hadn't experimented either.
So what I'm curious about is how your older unit is doing and how low has it been running in that configuration?



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ThickAsABrick

It seems fine. It's been used since last spring. I'll know more about that when I get it back out in a few more weeks.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThickAsABrick
I've looked at such systems online but have never experimented. Most critics claim that by having a smaller amount of fuel, you also have less of the detergents and such that help maintain the valve train and rings and that engine failure would be likely. Of courselves they hadn't experimented either.
So what I'm curious about is how your older unit is doing and how low has it been running in that configuration?


Just normal lubrication will ensure good engine life. You don't need additives.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I was thinking the same thing. Maybe if it were a larger engine it would be more important to watch out for.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Groot
Very cool !

Nice knowing you though, the powers to be will be knocking at your door soon.



Nah, I think he'll be fine as long as he doesn't try to market it.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: esteay812

Interesting stuff OP, thanks for sharing.

As for doing it with automobiles, the three figures that have invented their own ultra-efficient carburetors here in the US are Pogue, Fishe, and Ogle. All encountered odd resistance when attempting to bring their inventions to market, with differing results. None were successful in marketing their inventions. I tried to pull up a PESwiki page on it to link here, but it appears the whole site is down now.

I also thought I'd link the PJK Book here, which is a compilation of different free energy device designs and theories. The author compiles everything he can find and makes it available in a free ebook. I thought you would like to see this, since you seem to be interested in experimenting.
www.free-energy-info.com...



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join