Klein/Brown's/HHO Gas

Submarines · Coal Joined: May 07, 2008 Posts: 9

Thanks for the link, RM. Very interesting read.

BTW, the unit I just rec'd and am putting together also uses KOH as an electrolyte. To you use that as well or just water? I have read that some people are just DI water only.

RMForbes · Tar Sands Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 55

KOH should also be a good catalyst, I used filtered drinking water and Baking Soda because it was what I had on hand when I first put my unit together. When I tested with plain water it produced gas but when the Baking Soda was added it was a dramatic differance.

chipjumper · Coal Joined: May 16, 2008 Posts: 2

Has anyone taken FE measurements with EFIE turned on and the HHO system turned off?

In this situation, the engine would run lean --- correct?

I'm curious to if it would get any increases in FE.

RMForbes · Tar Sands Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 55

I don't have any access to real automotive test equipment anymore, haven't worked in the industry for over 4 years. An engineer friend of mine made me a shunt so I could test current with my digital MM.

WatchfulEye · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 07, 2007 Posts: 54

RMForbes · Tar Sands Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 55

WatchfulEye,

You may be right, I was not suggesting this is the reason for increase in combustion speeds that seems to be the factor that makes hydrogen injection work. In the 2005 University of Calgary study I quoted they were attempting to hypothesize why there was such a dramatic reduction in the hydrocarbon emissions, drop in exhaust manifold temps, increase in mileage, and lack of NO2 creation when they added the gas produced from a 100 watt unit into the intake of their test car.

SolarDave · Heavy Crude Joined: May 19, 2005 Posts: 381

RMForbes · Tar Sands Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 55

SolarDave has issues,

I'm not sure what you are ranting about, if you are refering to my post that I mentioned WWII fighter using water injection for a momentary boost in performance you must have misread it.

Here is the exact quote,

All I know is my car is running stronger and getting better mileage with the unit installed. This may even be a result of the added moisture carried to the combustion chamber by the HHO gas. I know that WWII era fighters used water injected directly into the combustion chamber to give a boost in performance.

2. Yes I know all about using NO2 as a performance booster when injected into the intake, but as a componet of exhaust it is seen as major pollutant. Lower levels of NO2 in the exhaust is a good thing.

And I'm not sure what is accually going on. I am just stupid enough to have tried it before I researched it. I built a unit from 7 4x5 inch stainless plates that I got from old dead computer harddrives which produced some pretty good results. That's it.

No matter how much the detractors rant and rave about how it can't work, I know it does from my own observations. I would be a real idiot to remove the unit from my car now and go back to getting just 16 to 18 mpg, when I now get 24 to 29 mpg with the unit installed.

Do you have a vested interest in killing this string? Why?

perf · Coal Joined: May 13, 2008 Posts: 17

in response to solar dave

earlier you gave posted a link to the wikipedia definition of water electrolysis.

i read it, and found that this process is actually very highly efficient.

efficiencies as high as 94% not including the electrical system.

now consider the fact that the electricity used is basically "throw away" electricity that you could use or not while your car is running without noticing at all in terms of performance.

i know that you're saying that 1 l/m is not a lot of hydrogen to add to your tank as compared to air, or what you would apply with n2o

but we're adding pure oxygen and pure hydrogen generally, with some spare change probably from the catalyst.

and when that small amount of hyrdrogen and oxygen are added very observable results are obtained by thousands of people testing the system.

now how on earth is it that you find it appropriate to discount real world experimentation in favor of your theories?

and given the wide discrepancy between your calculations and observable results, how is it you think it's appropriate for this thread to "die"?

surely if you're any kind of scientist you'd want to dig into this and figure out why it is your calculations are not matching real world tests.

because your calculations are real nice, but they explain this "phenomenon" for crap at present.

you have a lot to say about it. why not invest 150 bucks and find out for yourself that it works. then do us all a favor and help us figure out why.

i love present day science.

physicists agree with einstein's theories, but "renormalize" the energy potential of the vacuum. as in to say, well, because this equation equals infinity we're going to ignore it.

not because it isn't valid, but because they can't deal with the ramifications.

and then they find that the amount of matter in the universe is way the hell off compared with their equations.

off by 96%.

which is to say 96% WRONG.

and instead of going back to basics and figure out why the equations that are proven in many many ways aren't balancing out, they make up crap like dark matter and string theory.

extremely complicated mathematical theories that fail to actually describe anything at all. just put an insanely complicated mathematical theory in place of where we should be suspending our disbelief and looking back to the basic elements of the equations.
, "hmmm....
math and the real world aren't adding up.

what should we do? well, the math is right! so the real world must be wrong. clearly there is "stuff" out there that we can't see, because damn it, i'm not doing this math again!"

that's a cowardly cop out in my book.

a sign of weak minds. it took 50 years for someone to "solve" einstein's equations. and they "solved" it by ignoring the most difficult variables to calculate.

and ran with that. that theory hasn't been touched since the 60's.

just built on that shaky weak foundation.

but try to mention it is a physics classroom and see where it gets you.

"no, our theories are right!"

"but the universe doesn't look anything like you'r theories!"

"then the universe is wrong."

dude.

JRP3 · Heavy Crude Joined: Oct 23, 2006 Posts: 395

Washburn · Coal Joined: May 13, 2008 Posts: 4

You obviously didn't visit the link I provided. The calculation is for optimizing the amount of HHO gas based on the LITERS OF ENGINE DISPLACEMENT Here's another link to dyno testing done at Purdue University:http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/raw%20data.html and here's where you can go buy one.
http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/raw%20data.html
http://dieselhydrogen.us/
http://www.hydrogencommand.us/ and finally http://www.marshcreekllc.com/html/energy.html
click the HYDROGEN CELL EMISSIONS REDUCER at the bottom of page
You trying to tell me this is all BS? You might as well be arguing about the physics of why an incandescent light won't work while you sit in a dark room with the switch off.

JRP3 · Heavy Crude Joined: Oct 23, 2006 Posts: 395

Please show me one link to any third party peer reviewed testing information, just one. Nothing you linked to says anything about testing done by Purdue University. If there was a study backing up those charts why was it not cited? I even did a quick google on "Purdue university hydrogen testing" and found nothing.
_________________
The shovel with a wheel - The Wovel.
http://wovel.com/

Building the AMPhibian
http://amp-phibian.blogspot.com/

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/

JRP3 · Heavy Crude Joined: Oct 23, 2006 Posts: 395

I did find this interesting exchange with the BBB. Funny how they are asking for the exact same thing I am, studies from a third party independent testing lab, and this guy talks in circles about why he can't produce those studies.
BBB questions

Submarines · Coal Joined: May 07, 2008 Posts: 9

Submarines · Coal Joined: May 07, 2008 Posts: 9