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.

 

In search of HHO power to anything always. Out of the claws, into.... something new.

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Stanley Meyer, “Method for Production of a Fuel Gas” US Patent 4,936,961



I feel that this is information that needs to be publicized. Especially since this ingenious American inventor was silenced by big oil after not accepting their bribes.


Here is one of Stanley Meyer's original Patent submission diagrams ....for all to share.

RIP Stanley Myers....and thanks for your contributions to science....You are Gone, but certainly Not Forgotten.








The Link to original diagrams.

www.doctorkoontz.com...




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


I use this one right here: MAP / MAF Sensor Enhancer On a GM vehicle, the MAP sensor has three wires coming from it, and a vacuum hose. The outside wires are positive and negative, the middle wire is the ECM feed wire. This is the one you splice into for the Enhancer. You will notice in the photo there is a small toggle switch and two dials. On mine, flip the switch to "city," place the transmission into Drive, hold your foot on the brake, and adjust the dial for the leanest mixture you can and still keep the engine running smoothly. Then take off, and when you get to about 40 mph, flip the switch to "highway," and then adjust the dial for as lean as you can and still have available power. When RPMs drop off, going up a hill, passing another car, flip the switch back to "city," thus increasing the fuel. This is a very simple apparatus, I paid out $150 total for everything to make it work. In the first month, I put $200 in my pocket that I would have spent on gasoline. I could take the ECM Enhancer apart, and see how it is wired, but I am too lazy, and I need it on the truck. For $150 you cannot go wrong. Even if it takes 3 months to realize your money back, it is still worth it, isn't it?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Ok, please don't think I'm trying to one up or rain on anybody's parade. I just have tons of experience here, and do this for a living. I am part owner in an automotive shop, and make good money doing HHO conversions that work. MAP/MAF sensors are nothing but a potentiometer in the signal line of the sensor. $150 was way too much money to pay for one. You can get the parts to build one for under $5. If you can put in a car stereo you know three times more than you need to know to builld one. You can literally jusk put a 10K Ohm pot. in the line, and you have a MAP enhancer sans the nice enclosure. I am not in doubt that you saw gains, and am glad that you are happy with it. However... I don't know what year your GM is or the control protocol, I assume it is older as the MAP enhancer works for a bit. You cannot leave the MAP enhancer on any one setting for more than a run cycle or two because the PCM will learn around it easily. OBDII is a closed loop control architecture. This means the PCM looks at the readings from it's sensors, makes a decision, then checks the results, and makes adjustments. If you skew a reading with a MAP/MAF enhancer the PCM sees the discrepancy, assumes the MAP is worn, dirty, or otherwise faulty, and simply adjusts the fuel trims back to right where they were before. This is called stacked tolerance. It can work for or against you. A good engine control system that manipulates sensor readings to modify the fuel tables the PCM chooses will have to address ALL sensors on the vehicle to create a believable virtual reality for the PCM to see, or it will simply assume worn parts, and go right back to the same fuel tables it always uses for a given condition.

A logic controller is much better at controlling fuel, and timing tables. It changes the look up address that the PCM refferences to make fuel decisions. It changes addresses faster than the car's PCM processor speed so the PCM never sees it. They only have 4 wires that connect to the OBDII port under the dash. They take 10 minutes to install, and they only cost $150 installed. As I mentioned before an analog control system must be very sophisticated, and complex by necessity to work. Good ones are very expensive, $1200 to get started, then usually $75 an hour for 8 to 12 hours to install, and tune it. Then you might have to re-tune if you run into a glitch. The logic controllers tune themselves, and are very simple by comparison. A well tuned analog controller will get better gas mileage because they can be dialed in to whatever you want. You can also blow an engine with one. Logic controllers don't get as big of a gain, but they are consistent, safe, simple to install, maintenance free, 100% EPA legal in all 50 states, and offers a very rapid return on your money.

When I played with MAP/MAF offsets, EFIEs, temperature hacks, and O2 extenders it was nothing but headaches. O2 extenders actually do the opposite of what you want. They reduce, and mute the O2 signal causing a false lean read which tells the PCM to go rich. EFIEs are too inelegant to work well. Temp. hacks are a fools errand. The gains never stuck, and the PCM complained constantly. The high end piggyback ECUs were better. They would at least work, but they were cost prohibitive, and time consuming. The logic controllers are plug and play, set it then forget it.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Excellent !
Thanks again !

Of course it would have to do with the fuel Mixture...Duh !!
You know I already have thought of using one of these anyway.

They can help with your mileage whether you are running HHO or not.

You can make one for about $10. in parts. I am posting this just to show how simple it is.
You will need a soldering iron and electrical solder and tape .

Here's the Parts List:

Multi-turn Cermet Potentionmeter 1000 ohm
LM317T Adjustable Voltage Regulator
220 ohm metal film resistor
Mini Terminal Strip
Heatsink for Regulator
SPDT toggle switch
Black plastic project box


The Switch is the most important because it allows you to toggle between the factory 5.0 V input and the adjusted input that you dial in yourself.

Also if the circuit were to fail you could flip the switch and bypass the entire thing and resort back to factory settings and operation if needbe.


Just to share with everyone...here's one for my Jeep's 4.0L engine ....It is in essence only a Voltage Regulator and should be the same for most American vehicles.

Here's the Circuit:




Here's the schematic:




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 

You mean the fraud who got sued by the investors he ripped off?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Wait a minute. Back up and look at the post, and the link again. The device mentioned costs $34.95. The ENTIRE HHO system, that is, all supplies necessary to construct and make an HHO generator cost about $150, for everything.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


The Patent itself was not Fraudulent or else it would not have been granted by the regulating authority of the US Patent Office.

Any inventor requires investment capital in order to launch or capitalize their product.

And hence the term Capitalism.

I too am certain that the majority of investors lost their investment capital with Meyers simply due to the fact that it does make it slightly difficult to repay your investors based upon the profits of your invention when you are Dead.

If you haven't anything more constructive to contribute to this thread as far as pertinence to the technical aspects of the implementation of HHO in our vehicles, as is the predominating theme and topic of this thread, then consider this my first and last response to you.


Have a Nice Day !


edit on 10-5-2011 by nh_ee because: Typos and additions



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


My bad for assuming $150. too. Should have known it was a bit high for what it actually is....

$34.95 is a relative bargain actually. The packaging alone and the ability to mount on the Dashboard is also a Plus.

Well, it least we now know how it works and if we ever had to fix it we'd have a good idea of how to.

I am focused on the $150. solution. Not to much to invest with real potential for decent ROI Return On Investment in Gas savings.

Back to the $150. So far we have...

HHO Generator - Link provided - Thanks again.

Switch

Relay, wires, connectors,etc. for power.

MAP Sensor Enhancer

Electrolyte

Distilled Water

T connectors etc. necessary to plumb into intake.

What else especially as far as major components are concerned ?

Anything ?

I plan on setting this up on my bench first anyway. I won't require the mounting etc. at this stage of the game.

Simply the basic components and connections, switch and battery, and verification of HHO generation and later amperage and HHO volumetric measurements....



Thanks Autowrench !!


I am not ignoring you Binder...simply a lot to absorb and respond to in your posts at the moment.




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by nh_ee

The Patent itself was not Fraudulent or else it would not have been granted by the regulating authority of the US Patent Office.

Your DO NOT need to demonstrate an idea works in order to obtain a patent.


Any inventor requires investment capital in order to launch or capitalize their product.

And the fraudster preys on ignorant and gullible investors in order to part them of their cash.


I too am certain that the majority of investors lost their investment capital with Meyers simply due to the fact that it does make it slightly difficult to repay your investors based upon the profits of your invention when you are Dead.

Dead people don't get sued.


If you haven't anything more constructive to contribute to this thread as far as pertinence to the technical aspects of the implementation of HHO in our vehicles, as is the predominating theme and topic of this thread, then consider this my first and last response to you.

You think it's destructive to point out obvious fraudsters? Fine, keep your fingers in your ears. Fraudsters prey on the ignorant and gullible.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Energy Density Table



Below is an energy density table for comparison purposes.

In comparing the energy density of Gasoline to that of Gasohol, it makes it apparent as to why Gasohol actually reduces your fuel economy and mileage whereas Hydrogen Gas at 143 (MJ/Kg) vs 46 (MJ/Kg) of Gasoline contains almost 3 times the volumetric energy density as that of Gasoline does.

Also as to why one needn't produce ample amounts of Hydrogen Gas when combined with gasoline to realize it's benefits as far as fuel economy is concerned.

J = Joules are the standard scientific units of heat energy produced as a result of combustion.


Storage Type_____________Specific Energy (MJ/kg)


Hydrogen Gas ____________________143

Methane (1.013 bar, 15C) ____________55.6

Natural Gas _______________________53.6

LPG (Propane)_____________________49.6

Gasoline (Petrol)___________________46.4

Diesel Fuel________________________46.2

Gasohol E10_______________________43.5




en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Basic HHO System Components




Here is a list of components and a picture of what my HHO system is comprised of....


1.) HHO Generator

2.) Vaporizer(for charged system only)

3.) Catalyst - aka Baking Soda

4.) Installation hardware

5.) Tubing for Water Charging

6.) PCV Enhancer

7.) Vacuum T Hose

8.) Vacuum Hose for Air Filter Side

9.) Electrolyzer Wiring Harness - aka Fused Link

10.)Dual Edge Map Sensor Enhancer

11.)Fuel Heater






This is from several years ago (2008) so there might exist some new improvements and additions as to what this system recommends.

This IS experimental technology at the moment ....

But as with all new ideas, it will only improve with time and as more people try it.

Thanks to all of the positive contributors to this thread !






posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Autowrench I just recently discovered your thread on your HHO on your VAN while having recently

discovered and perusing the automotive section here on ATS.

I Starred and Flagged it.

Lets get the word out...and Deny Ignorance.



www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


No prob. nh_ee. I've put about a hundred of these lil' buggers on, and just want to try to streamline the process for you. I have found out the hard way what does, and doesn't work. A lot of times a certain simple solution will work on one vehicle, but not another. Sometimes not even the same identical vehicle type. I do manufacture, and sell HHO on demand systems, but I also fully support do-it-yourselfers, and give away a lot of info, and tips, that cost me years, and $1000's to find out. There is plenty of market out there, and most people have no interest in building their own. The learning experience is well worth it. I started as a do-it-yourselfer too.

If you want to play around with analog sensor hacks you will spend a lot of time, and money, but you will learn a lot too. You will have to purchase a good OBDII scanner that reads live PIDs so you can see the live data from your car's PCM. That's the only way to see what you are doing. You also have to know how to interpret the data the scanner gives you, and understand some combustion theory, and principles of stoichiometry to figure out where to go next. Don't be surprised if you actually get worse gas mileage the first few tries.

I would also suggest buying an AFR guage so you can look at your live O2 signal. You will quickly see what works, and what doesn't. For example look at your unmodified O2 signal, then mount the sensor in an O2 extender, and look at the signal again. You will see immediately why an O2 extender is a terrible idea. The signal amplitude becomes muted, and the switch time slows. The PCM sees this and thinks it has a bad O2 sensor. On most vehicles the protocol demands at least 25 switches per minute. The PCM even throws something like a "Crazy Ivan" and gives a false rich or lean command to make sure the O2 sensor is responding correctly. The computer in your car is way smarter than most people realise. Tricking it is seldom a simple task. Older computers are easier to trick. Newer ones are nigh impossible. 1990-1995 models are relatively easy. 1995-2003 are actually a bit easier if you know the ropes. 2003-2007 very hard to manipulate. 2007-current forget about it unless you have wicked skills, and $10K+ in equipment.

Making HHO is relatively easy. Making your car's PCM utilize HHO to your advantage is very complex if you choose direct sensor manipulation. This is why I recommend the logic controllers if you just want something that works on anything right away, and want a return on your investment. If you want to learn about engine control, and don't mind paying more in time, and money to get to your goal then play with the analog sensor hacks. You will learn a lot, and if you like techno-piddling it will be fun. But you will not save money by using them. You will spend far more money on components, and vastly more time making it work.

If you wish to pursue an analog control regime here is what you will need minimum:

OBDII scanner($200-$500)
Several LM317 voltage regulator circuits (I have a much smaller in-line design, the case will get in your way.)
An EFIE for each O2 sensor on your vehicle (Some have 2 upstream, 2 downstream)($200)
A wave generator designed for CPS(crank position sensor) modfication($300-$600)
Proprietary software to program wave generator ($1200)

-or-

Piggyback ECU such as a UNIchip with all the above components integrated($400)
You will still need the scanner.($200-$500)
Proprietary software for piggyback ECU.($800)

Recommended additional equipment:

Automotive Oscilloscope($1500-$5000)
AFR guage($50-$100) each (might need 4)

Simply offsetting the 5Vref line on some sensors with a regulator, or boosting the O2 signal alone won't work. You have to "match up" the offset on your load sensor(MAP/MAF) to the expected lambda(O2 sensor) result by watching LTFT(long term fuel trim), and STFT(short term fuel trim). Once you learn how to do that you have control of your fuel tables. Now you have to address your timing tables. Fuel tables are easy to modify, timing tables are much more complex. You also need a standing wave generator to mimic then modify your timing signal. This is where you get into the big money. If you don't address your timing tables you won't get anywhere near the results you are loking for. Modifying the fuel tables changes the timing needs of the engine, so does adding HHO. The stock timing tables will be all wrong, and the PCM will have no way to compensate. If this all sounds wickedly complex it's because it is. After playing around with sensor hacks for over 3 years I can make them work, but I don't want to. There is a far better way. A logic controller is $150 installed, or $125 if you put it in. It takes 20 minutes tops(I can do it in 5), and it works, first time, every time.

If you are thinking that 1 or 2 simple sensor hack devices tweeked "just so" will do the trick, please rethink your position. It does happen occasionally, but it is exceedingly rare. We modified a 2001 Saturn SL with HHO a few years ago, and all the guy did was wrap his O2 sensor in aluminum foil, and the darn thing got 48 mpg on the HWY, up from 34. So we took another 2001 Saturn SL and did the exact same thing, and lost 2 mpg. Statistical outliers are not good to rely on for engine modification. I DO NOT want to discourage you from trying. I just want to give you a realistic view of what to expect. It is not easy, and it is not cheap to do it yourself. It IS worth it though in the knowledge gained, and the sense of satisfaction derived from engineering the thing from whole cotton. Research, and learn what each device does, and why, and how it's built. 99% of the time you can build one 10x cheaper from radio shack to see if it even works at all. Far more people get frustrated with HHO conversion trying to do it themselves than have success because they get caught up in gimmicky gizmos, and waste all their money on them. I did it, and have the T-shirt. I'm just trying to show you the T-shirt. If I had it to do over yes I would do it all again. It isn't wasted time and money if you learn from it, and learn do it it right and/or efficiently. But I know 1001 ways you can't tune an engine, and 3 or 4 really good ways to do it, and I'm willing to share.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
[more

Provided you have a kit, or a completed unit, you will have: A one quart tempered Mason jar, and a plastic lid with fittings installed. You will have the enhancer, some electrical automotive wire, a good quality toggle switch, and hand tools. Yep, that's it. Install, prepare a mix, fill the jar, start the engine, let it warm for a few minutes, then start the reactor. You will hear the engine quiet down right away. It takes a few days to get all of the carbon out, but after that you have a clean burning engine.
My mix:
2 ml of human urine
1 quart of clean, mineral free water
1 Tablespoon of Arm & Hammer baking soda
Heat until water/urine mix is near a boil, add soda and stir until dissolved
Fill the jar and screw on the lid.
Make sure you have a one way check valve inline with the PCV port
Unhook your Oxygen sensor, it will not work with this setup. I just cut the wire on my truck
Make sure you do not have any vacuum leaks, I replaced all of the vacuum lines for less that $5 worth of hose.
Congratulations, you are now an enemy of BIG OIL.

Be aware, you will feel inclined to tell anyone who will listen about your new toy. Most will not listen, or will listen then disregard what you said.

edit on 5/10/11 by autowrench because: Edit to add content



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


Disconnecting the O2 will make a MAP/MAF offset work as it takes your closed loop sensor out of the loop so to speak, and makes your PCM run in open loop mode. Open loop, or "limp home" mode is characterized by the selection by the PCM of very rich fuel tables, and very retarded ignition timing. The PCM is basically blind, and on life support trying to protect the engine. You can over come the over-rich fuel tables with the MAP offset, the retardation in timing is sometimes helpful for the HHO modified flame front. However it is usually too far retarded, and some advance needs to be added. It is much better in the long run to utilize the lambda sensor to work with you instead of against you, or instead of disabling it altogether. Yes you will see gains in mileage, but you could get a lot more from better engine control. It is quick, and simple, but you are sacrificing the ability of the PCM to accomodate to some running conditions.

You are also in a legal grey area. Owing to where you live, and who you know you may, or may not be able to get an inspection sticker. Most state laws will not allow a service center to put a sticker on a vehicle with an illuminated MIL lamp. Unplugging your O2 sensor will definitely turn on the check engine light. A lot of stations now even run a scanner before issuing a sticker. Most of the guys I know that run this way turn off the HHO generator, plug the sensor back in, reset the MIL lamp with a code reader, and run the car a few days before getting a sticker so that it will pass without unwanted questions, and fines. If you live in California, Colorado, or another heavy emissions regulated state, don't even think about doing this, or the fines alone will far outweigh your fuel mileage gains.

If your vehicles is CAN protocol (usually 2003ish or newer) It will not run without a signal from the O2 sensor, or it will run extremely poorly, and drink gas faster than you can pump it in. This solution works, but has it's down sides, and sacrifices. I'm not a real fan of it because it is akin to poking a friend's eyes out so he'll follow you. It's a little inelegant, and a little barbaric from a trained technician's standpoint.

People call me from all over the world on an almost daily basis to pick my brain about fuel mileage solutions, and to get "The rest of the story" about an idea, or gizmo they have found.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
Your DO NOT need to demonstrate an idea works in order to obtain a patent.
With the exception of perpetual motion machines. Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model.

A car running purely on HHO made using power from the car's alternator would be a type of perpetual motion machine, though the USPTO may not recognize it as such.



Originally posted by Binder
People call me from all over the world on an almost daily basis to pick my brain about fuel mileage solutions, and to get "The rest of the story" about an idea, or gizmo they have found.
Did you read the article from Popular Mechanics I linked to in this post where they had an installer put all kinds of mileage improving gadgets including HHO, and had the car accurately tested on EPA dynamometers before and after, and found no improvement in mileage?

What are your thoughts on that article and the investigation done by Popular Mechanics and NBC, trying to see if there was anything to the mileage improvement claims?

edit on 11-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


There are multiple reasons the systems they tested failed as tested. The first, and most obvious being that the products lacked significant sophistication to produce results. The second reason being these ineffective systems were most likely targeted for testing by the tester who likey had a bias to prove that the concept was invalid by testing products likely to fail. The third reason they failed is possibly due to inadequate, or inappropriate installation, or application of the products. This seems the least likely, but still possible. I do not own a Dyno, but I have access to one, and have dyno'd systems that do work. It is intersting that most of the before, and after results were basically "no change" I find this highly suspicious. when I do tuning work on a dyno almost any minute tinkering I do shows a measurable change. Even if the systems made things worse, there would be a change.

HHO boosting is not a perpetual motion, or over unity device by any means, or stretch of imagination. They do not break, or even slightly bend any of the precious laws of thermodynamics. Most people coming from that tack simply do not understand ALL the physics involved, and their math is too simple, and does not include all the variables, and in fact completely ignores the most important variables. Yes it takes more energy from the alternator to break the water down than the resultant energy obtained by combusting the gas ALONE. Key word there, alone. The HHO breaks down long chain hydrocarbons to shorter chains that burn faster. You are extracting more joules of energy from a given gram of fuel. But wait there's more... HHO increases combustion propagation, and flame front velocity. This releases those extra joules of energy in time to do more work because more energy is released before the piston's connecting rod reaches critical crank angle. This is also why ignition timing is just as important, if not more important to engine control than just leaning the fuel mix down. Ignition timing must be modified to exploit the modified combustion characteristics with HHO enhancement. Most people simply have no clue what they are doing. This includes the vast majority of automotive mechanics, and manufacturers of HHO systems. I have professional ties with a group of combustion engineers that design engines, and control systems, and they are all hydrogen junkies, and taught me all the ropes. They designed the logic control system I use.

I run hydrogen systems on all my vehicles, and even my Harley. You cannot tell me they don't work. A lot of them maybe insufficient, but the concept is sound.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Binder
 


I tried it both ways. Here is Southern Ohio we do not have to get inspected, and by the way, I took my van to a garage that tests for emissions, and they told me I had a clean running engine. The guy was so interested in my system he took photos of it.
I tried it both ways, hooked up and not. Hooked up it cuts my mileage in half, unhooked it runs cheap. Easy decision here, huh? Took out that pesky check engine light, and eventually I will have a port fuel injected setup with an engine management system on it, fully configurable. There are ways to get around Federal Emissions standards, and why not if you are running clean. By the way, I believe it is a violation of Federal Law to use a mileage enhancement device on your car anyway. Someone in here posted about this a while ago. So what? the Feds can stay out of my truck. If they wish me to run legal, then lower the freaking gas prices.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


I hear you. I'm not saying to not bend the rules when when the rules are ignorant, and it is advantageous to do so. If you live in an area where they are looking for modifications, and ding you for it though, be ready to put on your "good little boy" face when necessary.
Also if the methodology you are using works for you, then by all means continue on. If it ain't broke don't fix it. I think you will be much happier with your results when you get your stand alone fuel management worked out.

The controllers I use are absolutely legal in all 50 states. And yes it is crazy that you would get in trouble for making a modification that makes your car run far cleaner on the basis of pollution standards. That's an oxy you moron!



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TribeOfManyColours

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by TribeOfManyColours
 




I love this concept very much. I would love to see this in large. So that you would have an continuous spark or something
It takes energy to raise the water to a level for it to pour down. Meaning, the system is not practical for real world use. Unless it was supposed to replace turbines but I highly doubt it yields more electricity.


You can clearly see that the rate this water drops isn't so fast. If you make an tank, is that problem solved. I see great potential in this concept. Brilliant idea


Actually (and fortunately) Boncho doesn't have a clue what he/she is talking about.

TOMC, Have a look at information on 'Hydraulic water ram pumps', or put another way, PUMPING water uphill *without electricity or any external added energy*.

These pumps work off gravity and hydraulic water pressure, using cleverly designed valves and traps, that force water to effectively pump itself.

These pumps can pump water hundreds of meters, even miles *uphill*.

They have been around for over a century, and there are some that were installed in large estate homes, to supply fountains and such we energy for displays etc, that *ARE STILL working* all these years later...all down to vacuum pressure and the water itself.

Here's a link to get an idea of what i'm talking about:
www.theramcompany.com...


The Fleming Hydro-Ram is an efficient, lightweight, dependable and inexpensive hydraulic ram pump made possible by modern technology. It works on the same principles of physics that enable its cumbersome predecessors to water the farmlands of Europe, the MidEast and Asia over the past two hundred years.

John Whitehurst is credited with inventing a non-self-acting ram pump in England in 1772. By 1796 a Frenchman, Joseph Michael Montgolfier, had added a valve, which made the device self-acting, making the ram pump almost a perpetual motion machine when water supplies were steady.

In 1809, the first American patent was issued to J. Cerneau and S.S. Hallet in New York...but it wasn't until 1832 that information began spreading across the eastern states about the "simple pump that pushes water uphill using energy from falling water."


Emphasis added by me.

YouTube has LOADS of videos of pumps that circulate and pump water uphill using the water itself and pressure as 'fuel'...searching will yield many results.

Use one to continually fill and cycle to power a water turbine, one of these 'water static' generators in the video you attached, or get really creative, and add plastic coated, floating neo magnets to the water flow, and wrap high voltage magnet wire around the outside of the water pipe, so the magnets are moved by the water inside the ram pump, and current is generated in the magnet wire (thin gauge, HV) wrapped around the outside of the water pipe.

Some of these pipes can be hundreds of meters long (or longer), and can be scaled up or down to almost any size required, so there is a lot of potential to generate electricity...essentially for free.

These pumps can also be adapted to other cycling systems too...all it takes is imagination and a little engineering 'thinking outside the box'.

Oh, that and paying absolutely no attention to negativity from member who don't know what the hell they're talking about...that always helps.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join