Connect with us

(Woo Woo) Efficient HHO Cell

Discussion in 'General Electronics Discussion' started by van0014, Apr 30, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Scroll to continue with content
  1. van0014

    van0014

    13
    0
    Mar 15, 2012
    Using a PWM power supply, at the resonant frequency of the specific electrodes in use, can utilize maximum efficiency of production by reducing circuit resistance. And to find that resonant frequency, you can use a piezo speaker and a violin string. It varies with different types of metal, and plate size so it is unique to each cell.

    Most people make the cells with some cheap metal for the electrodes. Platinum is more efficient, and readily available. Hard drive platters are electroplated with it, and they are easy to get. The limitation is the voltage or current, as too much will eat at the platinum. Resonance may also be unkind to them.

    Now, given that each cell needs a bare minimum of 1.23v and 1.48v is good but only 83% efficient, a better voltage should be the in between voltage. 1.355v. The only problem with that is, if voltage drops below 1.23, production ceases completely.

    I believe 9 cells, or 10 actual plates is possibly optimal for a cell in a car. Over voltage is ok but under voltage won't be productive.

    Notice how i haven't mentioned current draw? In a vehicular environment, the alternator and battery are quite sufficient, but excesses of current should not be necessary at optimum efficiency.

    There is no reason a car needs a large production of this gas, more specifically, why should the car consume much more gas than it would petrol? The gas must not be injected before the throttle, as it restricts flow (in a final and complete application mainly, but it is fine for testing purposes).

    Ideas: Gas entering through the fuel injectors (if it could work) must be more efficient. Only a tiny and specific amount of gas is allowed to enter the engine. This could be a major bottleneck. The engine only needs a small amount of gas, and any extra only reduces efficiency and increases gas consumption

    Warnings: For use in vehicles, if air flow is restricted or cut off from the engine, it will run faster. Open the throttle, and the engine will go slower (when gas enters after the throttle).
     

    Attached Files:

  2. BobK

    BobK

    7,673
    1,684
    Jan 5, 2010
    Woo Hoo! Get 120 MPG! The technology the car and oil companies are suppressing! And you can make It yourself in your garage!

    Bob
     
  3. van0014

    van0014

    13
    0
    Mar 15, 2012
    Exactly! Just don't advertise, as the government has assassinated people over this discovery.

    The key point here is that most people DO NOT use this fuel properly or efficiently, and that's what makes it so hard for them to use as a stand alone fuel.

    The worst idea people could have is feeding HHO gas through the air intake. There is a fuel line for a reason, that's the only way HHO gas should be fed into an engine, because it is regulated. You wouldn't run your car by feeding petrol through the air intake. Even with a carby, the gas is restricted by the throttle and choke, and air enters the system. HHO does not require air as it contains the perfect balance of oxygen. At the least, the air filter should be replaced with something to block it completely.

    Most people who get a car running on HHO need lots of amps to produce lots of gas, but a car runs with only small amounts of fuel. The less gas the better, in general. A half full deodorant can explodes violently, while a full one is inefficient because there is too much gas for the size of the container and there is no room for combustion.

    The engine needs to accept HHO minimalistically, and as required only.

    Edit: The gas is so volatile and energetic that cell inefficiencies don't matter much at all, as long as the gas is fed to the engine properly it really doesn't take much to run.
     
  4. KrisBlueNZ

    KrisBlueNZ Sadly passed away in 2015

    8,393
    1,267
    Nov 28, 2011
    Ooh! Ooh! Can I ban him? I've never banned anyone yet...

    To the OP: Next time, post in a forum that's read by credulous numbskulls who don't know anything about chemistry or electronics. It's obvious that your schematic doesn't do anything, and your pitch (though unfinished) is tiresome.
     
  5. van0014

    van0014

    13
    0
    Mar 15, 2012
    Yeah, your right. The schematic was just me gathering ideas, but it is perfectly useable as the Arduino produces a 5v PWM signal to switch the big transistors, and allow a larger voltage to be switched. Through a similar circuit, i have faded a 12v RGB LED, so no issues there.

    Honestly, you are abusing your role. To claim i know nothing about chemistry or electronics, when you have never entertained these ideas, and throwing in a petty insult is unacceptable behavior for somebody of your stature and responsibility.
     
  6. KrisBlueNZ

    KrisBlueNZ Sadly passed away in 2015

    8,393
    1,267
    Nov 28, 2011
    LOL :) Sorry, we do science here, not pseudoscience.

    Edit: Ahh, that's better.
     
  7. (*steve*)

    (*steve*) ¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd Moderator

    25,299
    2,737
    Jan 21, 2010
    Come on Kris, maybe he is willing to listen to argument.

    Or maybe he truly has made a discovery that will revolutionise science and gain him a Nobel prizes for Chemistry AND Physics (and possibly the Nobel Peace prize too).

    We really are privileged to be here right now to see what will be a turning point for either him, or all of humanity.
     
  8. KrisBlueNZ

    KrisBlueNZ Sadly passed away in 2015

    8,393
    1,267
    Nov 28, 2011
    The only turning I can foresee is Messrs Joule and others turning in their graves.

    Do you think banning him was inappropriate?
     
  9. KrisBlueNZ

    KrisBlueNZ Sadly passed away in 2015

    8,393
    1,267
    Nov 28, 2011
    van0014, if you see this, I apologise for banning you. You had not violated any forum rules. I was too hasty and I made the wrong decision. I have asked Ian to un-ban you, if that's possible, but he hasn't replied to my PM yet. Please don't hate Electronics Point or any of the other members and moderators because of my hasty and inappropriate action. Thank you.
     
  10. van0014

    van0014

    13
    0
    Mar 15, 2012
    No harm done. You do not need to apologize. I stepped way out of line, and retaliated. I am sorry for that. I would just like to ask for the original topic title to be restored.

    You brought up a good point... is this pseudoscience? The electrolysis of water alone is nothing new, and nobody disputes that.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen

    The issue seems to be that for the energy it takes for electrolysis, only less energy can be produced.

    I obtained an oxyhydrogen wielder. While its fun to burn things with, i thought why not test something out. I have an old engine, and the stuff it makes burns. So why not, if others claim they can run engines.

    Emptying out all the fuel and oil (2 stroke), i ran the engine dry. Then i squirted the gas into it. It really tried to run. Eventually, after opening up the throttle, i got violent backfires. I left timing as-is, just to test it.

    The weilder gives 5v 60A to the electrolysis process. I turned the nozzle right down, so not much gas was used at all. That means that 5v 60A gives more power than what is necessary to run the engine, meaning that there is a chance it could work especially with less power than 60A

    Edit: the sticker on the back of the oxyhydrogen welder claims it can make 400L/H. That is heaps. The gas can be stored and used just like natural gas, to abide by the laws of science and physics. I just fail to see how, if an engine can run of this and the electrolysis process uses less amps than the car produces, why it wouldn't,t keep running until the water is used up. It is not perpetual, since it cannot run forever.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2014
  11. (*steve*)

    (*steve*) ¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd Moderator

    25,299
    2,737
    Jan 21, 2010
    I'll restore the original title as long as you assure me that the energy you get out of burning HHO and getting water is less than the energy required to electrolysise water to H2 and O2.
     
    KrisBlueNZ likes this.
  12. KrisBlueNZ

    KrisBlueNZ Sadly passed away in 2015

    8,393
    1,267
    Nov 28, 2011
    Well I'm sure I did the wrong thing, and abused my power (such as it is), and I do apologise.

    As for the title, I didn't change that, so it's not my call.

    Sure, electrolysis, like any other process, can never generate more energy than it requires. This is just a basic fact of reality, although some people will try to convince you that they have found an exception. Often, when they want to sell you something. That was what I assumed you were planning. If I was wrong, I apologise for that as well.

    Unfortunately, the people who make these claims don't seem to provide any evidence, and when knowledgeable people offer to test their products (see desertphile on YouTube), they disappear into the imaginary realm whence they came.

    You are of course welcome to mess around with HHO, and any other claimed over-unity crock that's out there. In fact it's quite possible that HHO could improve your gas mileage, because engines are so inefficient... Increasing your mileage doesn't require overunity, just improved efficiency. It's just that no one (AFAIK) has ever demonstrated these performance gains under proper observing conditions. Hence the "woo woo" in the thread title.

    If you're not a purveyor, just one of the deceived, then I would be interested to hear the results of any testing you do. Remember that you have to demonstrate a repeatable, measurable improvement in efficiency - that is, fuel in vs. energy out - for any claims to be meaningful.

    Are you interested in a critique of your schematic?
     
  13. KrisBlueNZ

    KrisBlueNZ Sadly passed away in 2015

    8,393
    1,267
    Nov 28, 2011
    And were you responsible for his avatar as well? I don't know where you get them from, but I love them! GSOH Steve.
     
  14. (*steve*)

    (*steve*) ¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd Moderator

    25,299
    2,737
    Jan 21, 2010
    Not one of mine.
     
  15. van0014

    van0014

    13
    0
    Mar 15, 2012
    Hehe, I found that avatar ages ago.
    Schematic critique? Yes :)

    Well, I am quite misinformed. I don't see why the HHO producer needs to be powering itself or the car. I will of course entertain my theories and experiment, but nothing is stopping people producing and storing the gas, and using it as if it were natural gas or LPG. No onboard cell, no pseudoscience.

    If it were on a car, would it simply run the battery flat to keep the reaction occuring? I won't post anything else without evidence or new ideas, I'm sure everyone is tired of me by now.

    I would just like to reiterate my original idea, that surely anybody experimenting with this would have better results injecting and controlling the gas rather than using the air intake and hoping for the best
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2014
  16. Harald Kapp

    Harald Kapp Moderator Moderator

    9,654
    2,017
    Nov 17, 2011
    The cycle to observe goes this way:

    1. Input energy -> electrolyse water to HHOI
    2. burn HHO -> drive motor -> drive generator
    3. generator -> provide (inpuut) energy to electrolytic converter

    Let's disregard any additional losses from e.g. transmissions, friction etc.
    Let's also assume a ridiculously high efficiency of 99% for each of the above processes, meaning that for each 1 unit of energy inserted 0.99 units of energy are available as output (note that real numbers are much much much lower!).

    1. Start with inputting 1 kJ (kiloJoule) of energy into the electrolytic converter. Out come 0.99 kJ of energy in the form of HHO.
    2. Put 0.99 kJ HHO into the motor to generate 0.99*0.99 kJ = 0.9801 kJ of mechanical energy (rotatio) at the motor's shaft.
    3. Put 0.99*0.9801 kJ = 0.970299 kJ of energy into the generator and get 0.99*0.970299 kJ to get 0.9606 kJ of electrical energy at the generator's output.
    With each cycle you loose (1-0.9606) kJ = 0.0394 kJ and you have not yet used any amount of energy to move the car even a cm!
     
  17. van0014

    van0014

    13
    0
    Mar 15, 2012
    What i meant by that was, why is the HHO producer not just in the shed, filling up a gas cylinder, to put in the car.

    I do not have the time for arguments, and will not share anything important i discover. Resonant frequencies? hah. Why believe Tesla, lets put science in the way of progress.

    If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.
    -Nikola Telsa
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2014
  18. duke37

    duke37

    5,297
    739
    Jan 9, 2011
    It would be helpful if some numbers were used to back up your proposals.

    A petrol engine has an efficiency of about 30%, a diesel about 40% and very big diesels a little more. These numbers are limited by heat loss and the efficiency of the heat cycle.

    I can believe that it may be possible to improve the burning of oil with the addition of hydrogen but the effect cannot be great.

    If I understand correctly the gas is a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. Just a bomb waiting to go off. High pressure oxygen cylinders must not have grease lubricated valves because of explosions, how much worse would be oxygen/hydrogen mixture. What pressure could be achieved before the mixture would spontaneously explode?
     
  19. BobK

    BobK

    7,673
    1,684
    Jan 5, 2010
    You should read up on yydrogen powered cars. The biggest problem is storing enough fuel since it only liquefies at very low temp or high pressure. This is why the HHO people produce the gas from water in the car, the water can be stored easily and safely.

    Bob
     
  20. duke37

    duke37

    5,297
    739
    Jan 9, 2011
    To get liquid hydrogen it needs to be below 33K, a little bit chilly. High pressure on its own will not do it.

    If hydrogen is to be produced, it should be used in a fuel cell which is better than an inefficient infernal combustion engine.
    As has been pointed out before, ther is no point in going through a series of inefficient steps.

    A mix of hydrogen and oxygen is just a bomb, the higher the pressure, the higher the energy density and the bigger the bang.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-