Mix 1 retired teacher few old parts and what do get? backyard hydrogen conversion , page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 25 times


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 08:50 PM by LightFantastic
Originally posted by geo1066
What I was thinking about was, let's say that my old '92 duallie came eqipped with a 70amp alternator. Well it's set up for everything that I may want to add on (ie-trailer brakes, tow harness, additional lights,etc) well I'm not needing all those things and at full electrical output, I'm only drawing about 30amps. Well I still have the avalible amperage needed to run a hho unit.

Plus as I stated before, there is a new design that uses significantly less amperage (2amps compared to 17amps) and produces the same amount of HHO

This is a great site-
www.overunity.com...


I see where you are going wrong now. An 70A alternator doesn't produce 70A all the time, leaving some getting wasted when you are drawing only 30A for example.

Unlike voltage, current is dependant on the load. If you only had a LED drawing 10mA connected then the alternator would only be outputting 10mA and its shaft would be easy to turn. If you connected a bulb drawing 10A then the alternator would produce 10A and the shaft would be much harder to turn.

Thanks for the Overunity link. I used to be a member there over 10 years ago. I see the same things are still being discussed!


reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 10:46 PM by daddio

www.youtube.com...



Well, I must say, I have used an HHO cell in my half ton truck for 8 months. Got 23.5 mpg. Without the HHO generator I was getting 17 mpg. 100 amp alternator and a simple stainless steel plate generator.

Truck is a 5.7 liter Dodge Ram 1500 4x4 manual trans. I took it off fro one reason only, the hexavalent chromium liquid after the process had depleted the solution. How to get rid of it? Was a hassle, explaining it to the hazardous chemical people all the time.

The Youtube link is the guy who is the most advanced in research on HHO, "zerofossilfuels". He has a ton of videos of all the things he's worked on. This guy is brilliant. He has all the test equipment and machinery to make everything. It's bigger than you think, many people are using it with great success, this is nothing new.

I even tried Titanium for the anode and cathode, didn't last long, not sure what exactly went wrong.


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 08:42 AM by LightFantastic
reply to post by Rikhart


You're right, why bother learning anything? It might all be wrong - look at all the times science has been wrong in the past.

If someone said "I know science says round is the best shape for a wheel. But I am going to try square", would yet let them try it or explain why it isn't a good idea?

If we as a race had to try everything ourselves we wouldn't get very far technologically. The penalty paid for this is that certain effects and knowledge might be missed but it is a price worth paying. Science is a system that builds on previous knowledge.

Please explain where the boundary is where we should ignore previous experience and learned knowledge and just 'try it'?



reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 09:18 AM by endisnighe
reply to post by Phage


Phage the "man", Maintenance Engineer(Haven't used it for 12 years) and A&P mechanic. You are correct, kind of, on the lean fuel air mixture. The perfect ratio for fuel air mixture for any internal combustion for power production, actually would burn the engine up. To cool the engine you usually either enrich the mixture(more fuel) or lean it(less fuel). You increase the air to increase power or lessen it to decrease power and the fuel is kept at a ratio to the air intake. I know "a little" about it.

What I had posted earlier in the thread, I was referring to something else than the hydro and oxy use of water. I was never very good at chemistry. I was referring to the breakdown of the water into several different components. Not just straight hydrogen and oxygen. As I stated, I am not that good at the chemistry end. The math works. More energy can be made from the breakdown. The engineering is being worked on as we speak. Different ways of fracturing the water molecules by both lasers and frequencies is the key.

This has already been done many times. And I am not talking about Brown's gas or hydrogen and oxygen. Stan Meyer used it. It just gets covered up. But this time, it cannot be stopped. Too many have seen the math. The engineering was the hard part. The application is basic but time consuming in small shops. It will happen.

Just think everyone. Matter cannot be destroyed, it can only be converted. Same as energy. Emissions from a hydrogen engine is water. Did you hear that? Water and oxygen. You could put your mouth over an exhaust pipe and breath.


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 10:11 AM by geo1066
Originally posted by getreadyalready

reply to post by getreadyalready


What I haven't found on the internet is something similar to the way a catalytic converter works (platinum mesh) or anything exploiting the polarity of water molecules (i.e. magnetic field to polarize the water and separate the molecules), I think this is the next big break through that needs to happen.]



Now I really like that idea! Great concept.

The implications of this idea are astounding. If such an idea can become plasible and you were able to pull the magnetic bonds of the water molecules apart, would your application apply to other materials?

I'm really interested in your concept but the thing that keeps running thru my mind is the futuristic idea of the 'Phaser' that's set on high and vaporizes you or the 'Beam me up, Scotty' syndrome.

My imagination sometimes gets the better of me..

[edit on 22-10-2009 by geo1066]


reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 12:03 PM by daddio
Originally posted by LightFantastic
Hi MrGalleria and Daddio

Your improved MPG results must be due to an improvement in the combustion process because there is a net energy loss creating the hydrogen. Similar increases in efficency can be seen from the VAG groups Fuel Stratification engines which improve combustion.

I would be grateful if you could answer a few questions so I can run some calcs...

1. Do you have carbs or electronic fuel injection?
2. If you have carbs did you make an adjustment?
3. How much water does the car use per mile on average?
4. What electrolyte are you using?
5. How are you measuring your MPG?
6. Do you have a control system that varies the HHO output in relation to RPM?
7. Do you know the average gas volume output of your cells?
8. Are you injecting HHO before or after the MAF meter?
9. Do you think adding the system changed the way you drive at all?

Sorry for the huge list

PS Have you tried cobalt phosphate in your cells?


[edit on 22/10/2009 by LightFantastic]


Well, it is electronic fuel injection, it is a one gallon container of Distilled water and potassium hydroxide, I measured MPG by driving long distances and calculating MPG like normally done, fill tank after almost empty calculate miles traveled.

I did adjust my timing and fixed the mechanical advance. I put on a K&N clean air filter system and piped the HHO generator into the tube above the Injector head.

I did get an O2 compensator to remap the O2 levels the computer was reading. Didn't drive any differently, actual drove more aggresively to see how it worked, engine ran cooler as hydrogen burns cool to begin with, and made more power to tow my enclosed trailer.

I would suggest watching some of "zerofossilfuels" HHO videos on youtube.


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 12:53 PM by Rikhart
reply to post by buddhasystem


And why dear sir do you claim it to be impossible? Prove it please.
Let me just remind you that it is widely assumed by most serious scientists we dont really understand how water does some of the things it does. Just a hint.



reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 01:11 PM by getreadyalready
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by mrgalleria
Second- People who ran cars entirely on water- Herman Anderson, Stanley Meyer, Andrija Puharich, Daniel Dingle, Bob Boyce. And there are others.
People have also ran cars on air- google Lee Rogers air car, for example.


There is a big difference between engine optimization (possible) and over-unity energy production in the engine, aka perpetual motion (impossible). The paragraph you posted contains the latter.


Over Unity as defined by most amateurs is impossible. BUT......achieving the appearance of over unity on Earth is entirely possible, and already being done by several Universities.

The secret is expanding your "system" to include a large mass such as the Solar System or Universe. In such a case you can trade a considerable amount of force place on an object on Earth, with the less than negligible counter force it applies to the larger system.

There is some very, very good research at CalTech with spinning wafers producing an overunity result, and then being magnified using centripetal force as an "anti gravity" or propulsion system. It is proven in theory, and backed up by lab results!!

Similar things can be done with "perpetual motion" machines that are highly efficient and able to use a variety of power sources to overcome the effects of their environment, without actually needing an input. (Think ambient heat, or solar, or kinetic sources).

So, something that operates in an overunity capacity for our immediate use is possible, even though the mathematics and engineering behind it are accounting for those extra inputs and true overunity is not accomplished.


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 05:11 PM by getreadyalready
reply to post by buddhasystem


In a more scientific language, this amounts to violation of the law of conservation of energy and hence it's impossible not only for amateurs but also for professionals of highest caliber.


I think you were agreeing with me, but I want to clarify anyway. I said "as defined by amateurs." In other words, people who are not familiar with basic physics, could possibly see a result that they cannot explain, and call it overunity. But, in reality, if they expand their system somewhat, they will find that conservation of energy was adhered to.

Also, something doesn't have to be "closed" to count it as a closed system for calculations. I.E. I can "slingshot" something around the sun using gravity for acceleration, and consider the masses of my object and the sun as a closed system. I can also obtain an enormous amount of acceleration, but the Sun will be affected in less than a negligible amount, thus providing "free" energy!

This is just a simple example. It is not meant to be perfect, I am only trying to illustrate the fact that an amateur mechanic, with no formal education or scientific background could happen upon a process that appeared to obtain overunity. It may even revolutionize some process, and provide an economical windfall, but to a professional physicist, they would eventually be able to define the process in the larger "system" and find out that Newton's laws were correctly accounted for!
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^