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

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by TribeOfManyColours

 

If you can measure how many liters per hour it consumes, you can build an tank large enough to keep it running for hours and hours. Its a static electric discharge generator. At the end of the day, you hand pump it back.

Or you make it a part of the circulatory system of your home or company.

Did you forget that water used is under pressure? If you release the pressure you just have a house full of water. Again, I don't see where this can be feasible.

If you think this set-up can pump water up and create enough energy to keep pumping it up, that by definition, is a perpetual motion machine, it will not work. Many have tried....

Oh dear...such a shame.

Knowledge is power mate.

*You are absolutely wrong*.

But don't take my word for it, search 'Hydraulic ram pump' and suck it up.

reply to post by spikey

A typical efficiency is 60%, but up to 80% is possible.

Hydraulic Ram

reply to post by nh_ee


Hi again mate.

My family bought a small diesel car because we couldn't afford the £1.45 per LITRE for the fuel they are ripping us off for here in the UK.

That works out at around £6.60 per UK imperial gallon, or nearly $11.00 USA per gallon!

Yep, that is what we have to pay here, in a G8 country in the 21st century for our fuel.

Anyway, the car is simply too bloody small for our family, despite trying to live with it for a few months, we can't get what we need in it...so i'm going to change it for another larger car, but to do that and be able to afford to run it, i'm going to *have to* attach a HHO reactor (or two)...so i really have no choice but to try and install one.

I need to get at least 30-35mpg to be able to afford to bloody drive...a small car will do this, but i burn wood to save money, so need to cart about logs and trees etc, and my young family and our small car isn't up to it.

Autowrench seems to be the man in the know about these systems, i know you said your an amateur AW, but then so are we all really...and you know more than we do!

Cheers all.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by spikey

 

A typical efficiency is 60%, but up to 80% is possible.

Hydraulic Ram

Yes?

And your comment?

Think carefully, before showing yourself to be less astute than you'd like us to imagine mate...

I'll give you a clue shall i?

60% - 80% efficiency...of what..exactly?

The power fed into it? And where, pray tell does that energy originate from?

(this is where you think about it btw)

reply to post by spikey

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

Explain how losing 20-40% during pumping the water up, you would see any great energy gain when you let it fall again (in the first system mentioned).

In a closed system the entire operation would shut down very quickly. Or the amount of water needed would grow exponentially.

There is no way the two systems you are talking about would produce energy better than a turbine could at a fast flowing river.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by spikey

 

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

Explain how losing 20-40% during pumping the water up, you would see any great energy gain when you let it fall again (in the first system mentioned).

In a closed system the entire operation would shut down very quickly. Or the amount of water needed would grow exponentially.

There is no way the two systems you are talking about would produce energy better than a turbine could at a fast flowing river.

You keep telling yourself that mate.

Losing 20-40% of..what? That's the question i'm asking you, that you don't seem to understand.

Where does 100% of the energy come from?

Now tell me what losing 20-40% of *that* energy actually means.

I'll save you the bother...nothing...that's what it means, absolutely nothing.

If 100% of the 'supplied energy' is from the water, gravity and pressure...there is *NO* electricity used to power the cycling or pumping of the water..now, tell me how 'spending' 20 - 40% of that supplied *free* energy, in order to use 60 - 80% of it to cycle the system is a negative in your view?

What it means mate, is that these ram pumps, which are a completely proven technology, dating back *centuries* will cycle water, under pressure from a water source, along great distances, up steep slopes and hills in order to perform work....for no other cost than it costs to manufacture the pipes and valves and install it.

80% of a free resource, used to create energy during the cycle = 100% free (cost free) energy.

reply to post by autowrench


The Map enhancer is little more than a battery that supplies a constant 1.2V that you wire inline with the sensor, isn't it?

It just feeds this 'signal voltage' and that's it basically...is't it?

Originally posted by Binder
reply to post by nh_ee

 

A manual switch is a good idea. However the best plan is to energize your system only when the engine is running. This can be accompished in one of two ways. Both methods require a standard Bosch style 30 amp automotive relay. The first is the simplest method, energize the coil on the relay from the power side of the fuel pump relay. On cars with a variable output fuel pump this is not feasible. Not a lot of cars are this way so it works 80% of the time. The other option is to use the oil pressure switch, and the normally closed side of your Bosch style relay. When the oil pressure is low, as in the not running condition, the relay has ground, and the N/C side is open. When the engine starts, and the oil pressure switch losses ground the N/C side is closed, and powers the cell. You do have to use a second relay however to deny the cell relay power when the cars electrical system is completely off. Not as complex as it sounds. I have only ran into one car that neither of these methods would work. We put a "T" between his factory OPS switch, and a dedicated OPS switch just to run our system. Good thing an OPS switch is only about $10 at the parts store.

To attenuate Amp draw to the cell: The simplest, and most reliable method is to control your electrolyte mix. The down side is that it takes a bit longer to warm up, and produce best gas. A PWM(Pulsed Wave Modulator) is another option, but a good one is about $150, and takes some know how to make it work properly. The PWMs for hydrogen use are still in their infancy currently however, and are still a bit problematic, I don't care what the guy trying to sell you one says. Lots O' experience there.

You can run a lot "hotter" mix with a PWM, but if it fails you will have big time thermal run away, and melt your cell down. If the voltage comparator, timer chip, or a transistor blows out(which happens a lot) you're screwed. It's all or nuthin', you either drop to zero, or go wide open owing to what condition the failure leaves the circuit in.

Several years of experience has led me to the conclusion that the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle applies here. The more sophisticated you get the more headaches you have. A 13 plate cell with at least 2" x 2" plates, 0.125" spacing with a safety bubbler, using your electrolyte concentration to limit maximum amp draw with a logic engine controller, not analog. EFIEs are garbage they are too simple, MAP adjusters are a joke. I know of only one analog sensor based programmer that works, and you can't afford it. It takes proprietary software to run, so it is not do-it-yourself. It takes a full day, or two to program, and tune correctly if you know what you are doing. Awesome results, but not time, or cost effective.

I built a system with a PWM, an auto leveling system, a stand alone fuel management system, and all the bells, and whistles I could think of. It took 6 months to work the kinks out, and it only got 5% better mileage than the simple system I am running now, but cost 5 times more!

edit on 9-5-2011 by Binder because: spelling

Many Thanks for the information Binder.
I have been studying Autowrench's system and looking at any potential differences and for starters my 1998 Jeep Cherokee is an OBD2 system whereas Autowrenche's Van is a 1990, indicating his is an OBD1.

Also, my Inspection Authorities here in New Hampshire do read codes prior to issuance of an inspection sticker.
Which I always clear by disconnecting my battery before inspection time with my elderly Jeep.
Which does throw codes on occasion.

I feel that is where I need to begin to investigate as to how the differences in the two systems might impact the level of complexity , if any exist at all.

The good thing is that I worked for almost 6 years on a project for some of the leading German automotive companies on the development and implementation of a digital fiber optic based Infotainment system (Sound,Navi/GPS,Phone) for the Audi A8, Mercedes Maybach, S Class and All Porsches (911,Boxster&Cayenne).

We did many miles of testing on road, and on the Autobahn at very high speeds I might add, using a laptop to assess and evaluate the massive amounts CAN and MOST network traffic as well as toggling/setting ECU parameters on the fly.

So I am willing to roll my sleeves up when it comes to my ECU and interacting with it via the diag port.
I will need a better scan tool though...

I enjoy learning and can fix most anything. I perform all maintenance on my carbureted 1975 Honda CB550F Supersport "Betty" and my other vehicles as well..

I am installing a 3.5" suspension lift kit on the Jeep, her rear leafs were shot. As well as rebuilding the rear brakes and installing new brake lines due to corrosion.

So I am not afraid of tools, oil and grease or getting my hands dirty either. And I buy GoJo hand cleaner and PB Blaster by the Gallon !

reply to post by spikey


It is really just a variable resistor placed inline to the voltage read by the Map sensor.

By varying the resistance you vary the voltage sent to the Map sensor.

Ohms Law:

Voltage = Resistance x Current

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by nh_ee

 

Hi again mate.

My family bought a small diesel car because we couldn't afford the £1.45 per LITRE for the fuel they are ripping us off for here in the UK.

That works out at around £6.60 per UK imperial gallon, or nearly $11.00 USA per gallon!

Yep, that is what we have to pay here, in a G8 country in the 21st century for our fuel.

Anyway, the car is simply too bloody small for our family, despite trying to live with it for a few months, we can't get what we need in it...so i'm going to change it for another larger car, but to do that and be able to afford to run it, i'm going to *have to* attach a HHO reactor (or two)...so i really have no choice but to try and install one.

I need to get at least 30-35mpg to be able to afford to bloody drive...a small car will do this, but i burn wood to save money, so need to cart about logs and trees etc, and my young family and our small car isn't up to it.

Autowrench seems to be the man in the know about these systems, i know you said your an amateur AW, but then so are we all really...and you know more than we do!

Cheers all.

I definitely understand your plight. I have lived and worked in Europe (Germany). While doing development work for Audi, I drove around a big V8 powered Audi A8 for almost an entire year and I was appalled at what it cost to fill that beast of an automobile up. I also drove a Porsche Cayenne and it too being V8 powered was close to a fortune to fill weekly...

We in the states are used to buying gas by the Gallon but in Europe they sell it by the Litre which is about a Quart or a quarter of a gallon for those unfamiliar with the metric system.

The Audi A8 took about 85 Litres on an avg refill and when you multiply that times the price per Litre in Germany and once you factored in the exchange rates it was always well over $100. USD !

Today it is even higher with a weaker Dollar @85 Litres x 1.40Euros/Litre = 119 Euros which and converting that to USD @ 1.43 Euros/Dollar translates to $170. today !!!

Can anyone imagine paying $170. to fillup your car ? Once a week ?

Fortunately I was reimbursed but it really makes it clear as to why most in Europe drive such small fuel efficient automobiles and alot of turbo diesels.

The sad thing is that the original Diesel engine design was intended to be run on vegetable oil grown by a farmer on his own farm and not exclusively dependent upon petroleum products !

This is something the Oil industry will never reveal.....the simple fact that they've cornered the market on an engine design that was purposefully intended to NOT be run on petroleum based fuels....
What a scam !

Looking at the ongoing trend of fuel prices and with the flourishing economies of China and India placing even more demand on already (by design) tight gasoline market.

Our fuel prices will ONLY continue to rise.

Instead of bickering about the impossibility of implementation of HHO technology as some here tend to subscribe. I refuse to waste my time and energy beating a dead horse so to speak.

For It is considerably more prudent and constructive for us and as well as for our futures, to at least investigate the realm of possibility of implementing this relatively new HHO technology in our existing gasoline fueled vehicles.

Because one thing is for certain.

The OIL Corporations and those reaping their massive Billion dollar profits will certainly not do it for us !

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by autowrench

 

The Map enhancer is little more than a battery that supplies a constant 1.2V that you wire inline with the sensor, isn't it?

It just feeds this 'signal voltage' and that's it basically...is't it?

Actually, it isn't that at all. What it is is two variable rate resisters wired to a two position toggle switch. It is spliced into the ECM feed wire. Now the fuel injectors operate on voltage. Increase the voltage, more fuel. Decrease the voltage, less fuel is fed to the injectors. When the reactor is hot and running, it produces HHO gas, that is, two parts Hydrogen, one part Oxygen. Thus HHO, twice as much hydrogen as oxygen. This gas is sucked up, via engine vacuum, to the Positive Crankcase Ventilation (PCV) port, there is a one way check valve in the line, in case of backfire. Now with the HHO entering the engine, the gasoline is enhanced to near 100% efficiency. The gas you put in at the pump is not very efficient at all, by comparison. So not your gas is actually fully burnable gasoline, so you do not need as much anymore. So you reach over and turn down the flow some. Do you see how it works now? If this explanation is not satisfactory, pleas reply and I will attempt to make it more easy for you to understand. I am not being a smartass, no, I am a long time auto mechanic who cannot do that anymore, and I hate big corporation with a passion. I am doing this because a lot of you need to get good mileage, you have families to support. So ask away, I will answer any question as best I can.

reply to post by nh_ee


It sounds like you are up for the challenge, and you will thoroughly enjoy doing this. I would recommend using a Unichip as your tuning platform if you wish to go analog, and directly modify your sensors. Individual discreet components on each sensor cannot accomodate for changes in running conditions, or work together. A Unichip can. The correct setting at idle, is not right for cruise, what is right for cruise doesn't work under pull, or higher rpms etc... Your needs change as driving condition changes, and it changes constantly. MAP hacks EFIEs, and resistors in temp. sensor lines are static, or have to be manually changed. The Unichip has 196,000 programmable data points, and samples several thousand times a second. It changes the offset on the sensors in accomodation with engine data constantly. This is why it is called a piggyback ECU. It is doing the same thing the car's computer is doing, but feeding modified data via sensor changes to the native PCM. Unichips can even be used as stand alone fuel management systems to put fuel injection on older carby engines. They work way better than the after market computers that come with the kits. They will work with the old style square wave from your distributor to pulse the injectors. Most kits have a throttle position sensor in them. That's all you need to do your own EFI is engine speed, and throttle position really. A MAP sensor for load, coolant temp. sensor, and an intake temp. sensor helps, but you can make do without it. I put throttlebody injection on my old IHC ScoutII with a Unichip, and it works great. I am running a full sensor set too, quite a feat on that old of a vehicle. Of course it has an HHO booster on it, and I get almost 20mpg around town, but oddly it drops to about 18 on the HWY due to my low gearing for off-road. It's a 4 on the floor so that helps mileage too. Most Scouts get about 10mpg rain or shine.

Again for the cell I would use a 13 plate design. 316L stainless about .020 thick, spaced 1/8"(3mm). Rough the plates up good with 80grit sandpaper, clean them up before putting it all together, and start with about 5% KOH to water by weight. You want your MAX Amp draw to be 15 Amps or a little less on a hot day with the cell as hot as it will get. This should get you a little over a liter per minute of gas output, and be just about right for your Jeep engine. I am assuming it is the 4.0 straight 6. Great engine BTW. In the 13 plate design your two outer most plates will be the Anode(+), and the middle plate the cathode(-). You will have 2 banks of 6 cells sharing a common ground. It makes gas great, and doesn't have as much heating issues as some other designs. You can experiment with adding a plate to each side on the outside to make 2 banks of seven, or one of six, and one of seven if you have a heating issue. This further divides your voltage. You want about 2v per cell. The actual figure is 1.87v, but that doesn't account for resistance throught the stainless, which is a bit high because 316L is non-magnetic, austensitic metal. It is chosen for it's non-corrosive properties. Titanium, or iridium works better, but is cost prohibitive, and cutting and working it is a pain in the arse. Use a safety bubbler, not optional. It is as much for cleaning the gas as it is for flashback protection. If the gas in the cells ignites it won't really hurt your car other than the electrolyte getting on stuff. The cell will implode, and be REALLY loud, and make a mess, but it won't blow anything up. Ask me how I know! Most intakes are aluminum, and KOH eats aluminum with a passion. So you don't want any fumes in your HHO, this is the most important reason for the bubbler. Have fun, and keep us updated.

reply to post by spikey

Posted by spikey
You keep telling yourself that mate.

Losing 20-40% of..what? That's the question i'm asking you, that you don't seem to understand.

Where does 100% of the energy come from?

Now tell me what losing 20-40% of *that* energy actually means.

I'll save you the bother...nothing...that's what it means, absolutely nothing.

If 100% of the 'supplied energy' is from the water, gravity and pressure...there is *NO* electricity used to power the cycling or pumping of the water..now, tell me how 'spending' 20 - 40% of that supplied *free* energy, in order to use 60 - 80% of it to cycle the system is a negative in your view?

What it means mate, is that these ram pumps, which are a completely proven technology, dating back *centuries* will cycle water, under pressure from a water source, along great distances, up steep slopes and hills in order to perform work....for no other cost than it costs to manufacture the pipes and valves and install it.

80% of a free resource, used to create energy during the cycle = 100% free (cost free) energy.

Actually no. You are misrepresenting the two systems. I already covered what you are claiming, unless you can show that the system is more efficient than a standard turbine used in hydro-dams.

You are talking about using the system that gets electricity from running water down hill, getting energy from it, then pumping at an it back up at a 20-40% loss. Please explain how that system would prove more energy than current standard turbines used.

Hydrogen out of sunlight

www.visionair.nl...
hwww.cinf.dtu.dk...[9F6151E4-704D-4AA0-9BCB-B9F21CDF62AC]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7260a7e9f453.jpg[/atsimg]

Hydrogen fuel tech gets boost from low-cost, efficient catalyst
Scientists from CINF, CASE, Stanford University and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory have engineered a cheap, abundant alternative to the expensive platinum catalyst and coupled it with a light-absorbing electrode to make hydrogen fuel from sunlight and water.

A collaboration of scientists from DTU, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and Stanford University recently published their results in Nature Materials. The discovery is an important development in the worldwide effort to mimic the way plants make fuel from sunlight, a key step in creating a green energy economy.



Hydrogen is an energy dense and clean fuel, which upon combustion releases only water. Today, most hydrogen is produced from natural gas which results in large CO2-emissions. An alternative, clean method is to make hydrogen fuel from sunlight and water. The process is called photo-electrochemical, or PEC, water splitting. When sun hits the PEC cell, the solar energy is absorbed and used for splitting water molecules into its components, hydrogen and oxygen.



Progress has so far been halted in part by the lack of cheap catalysts that can speed up the generation of hydrogen and oxygen. A vital part of the American-Danish effort was combining theory and advanced computation with synthesis and testing to the process of identifying new catalysts. This is a new development in a field that has historically relied on trial and error. "If we can find new ways of rationally designing catalysts, we can speed up the development of new catalytic materials enormously," CASE Leader Jens Nørskov said, who is head of the research group at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and Stanford University.



The team first tackled the hydrogen half of the problem. The DTU researchers created a device to harvest the energy from part of the solar spectrum and used it to power the conversion of single hydrogen ions into hydrogen gas. However, the process requires a catalyst to facilitate the reaction. Platinum is already known as an efficient catalyst, but platinum is too rare and too expensive for widespread use. So the collaborators turned to nature for inspiration.



They investigated hydrogen producing enzymes from certain organisms, using a theoretical approach Nørskov’s group has been developing to describe the behavior of catalysts [ today.slac.stanford.edu...]. "We did the calculations," Nørskov explained, "and found out why these enzymes work as well as they do." These studies led them to related compounds, which eventually took them to molybdenum sulfide. "Molybdenum is an inexpensive solution" for catalyzing hydrogen production, said Professor Ib Chorkendorff from the Center for Individual Nanoparticle Functionality (CINF) who was leading the molybdenum sulfide experiments. /upload/centre/case/nyheder/nature mat (020511)/02a_si-pillars_semimage_cropped.png



The team also optimized parts of the device, introducing a "chemical solar cell" designed to capture as much solar energy as possible. The experimental researchers at DTU designed light absorbers that consist of silicon arranged in closely packed pillars, and dotted the pillars with tiny clusters of the molybdenum sulfide. When they exposed the pillars to light, hydrogen gas bubbled up—as quickly as if they'd used costly platinum.

www.nature.com...

reply to post by Binder


I really do appreciate the pointer to UNICHIP Binder...that is excellent.
I see that it provides two settings, regular and high octane...can you optimize these maps to work better with HHO ?

There are quite a few Jeeps with 4.0L running HHO. I have found so I am also going to look at what is working for them as long as they have an ODB2 4.0L Jeep engine similar to mine..

I fortunately did learn about cars back in the pre computer days with vacuum advance, dwell meters and point ignitions, as my '75 Honda motorcycle being carbureted still actually does have.
I have always done my own tune ups on my own vehicles. As well as performance modifications.

So in that regard, I also understand the role of the Engine Control Unit (ECU) when it comes to ignition timing, spark advance and fuel maps etc. also as to why we don't have to perform tune ups as often for that matter.

The Jeep is currently in the garage on Jack stands at the moment but...
Once I complete this suspension upgrade, I will then begin moving towards the HHO project.

Artificial Photosynthesis Creates Hydrogen

Since this hasn't been mentioned much here in our discussion on Hydrogen and HHO.
The neat thing is that the only thing that is necessary is this playing card sized artificial leaf and water.
Any type of water, whether it be clean or dirty.

An MIT Professor of Chemistry named Dan Nocera has invented a method of recreating photosynthesis which takes sunlight and water and converts it to Hydrogen and Oxygen.

This process uses direct solar energy (no electricity is created) to stimulate the bacteria. According to MIT, their research team, “…engineered a common, harmless bacterial virus called M13 so that it would attract and bind with molecules of a catalyst (the team used iridium oxide) and a biological pigment (zinc porphyrins). The viruses became wire-like devices that could very efficiently split the oxygen from water molecules.”
The process is much less energy intensive than the brute force electrolysis of water to create hydrogen fuel. The energy that would be spent will be on creating the devices to split the water and not on the process itself of splitting water.
The photosynthesis that occurs in naturally plants is a twofold process. First, natural pigments capture sunlight and second catalysts aid in splitting water. In the MIT method, solar panels will capture energy and transfer that energy directly to the viruses and other nanoscale structures to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Artificial photosynthesis is an important emerging field right now with many researchers working concurrently on the solution of splitting water using algae, bacteria, or harmless viruses to do the dirty work. More work of course is needed to perfect, scale up and commercialize these processes. But, it’s only a matter of time until this happens on a larger scale.

www.hydrogencarsnow.com...


My thinking is that in the future. These artificial leafs could be built into the roofline body panels of the car, pulling the hydrogen and oxygen into to storage tanks, later to be fed directly into an internal combustion engine of a car.

reply to post by nh_ee


Instead of getting a pre-programmed Unichip. You need a blank one with the tuning software. Your best results will come from a custom tune. Sounds like you already mostly know what to do. I can help you with learning the software.

Originally posted by TribeOfManyColours
Someone.

Could it be done.? Produce power via water cups and lemons for example??

And then power a small HHO producer.?? Perhaps with the diode technic and some small fans that produce power deu to the flow of the producing HHO water??

This was something that I remember from reading the Von Daniken books years ago. The Baghdad Battery.

Have you ever heard of the Baghdad Battery ?

It was an ancient single cell battery comprised of an earthenware pot, with a copper tube and an iron rod, that ran on lemon juice/vinegar that predated Volta's 1800 discovery of the electro chemical cell by at least a millennium.

You could create a small HHO Generator from this principle.
You would need quite a few to create the necessary Amperage to move enough molecules around to separate the water into HHO.

That's why we use such strong acid, such as sulfuric acid in car batteries. But, believe it or not, each cell only produces 2 volts and why there are 6 caps on top of car batteries...one for each cell.
It's the amperes though that are considerably stronger and actually due the work.




en.wikipedia.org...