Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.

[sm0ky2]

There's  nothing wrong  with that except that  it isn't HHO that you are using any more.

yes, the cumulative charge in the gases will result in H, H and O2

not O by itself. meaning in theory, a small portion of the combustion energy
will be consumed separating the oxygen molecule
as it forms back into water.

assuming that they truly had a large quantity of monoatomic oxygen floating around in their chamber to begin with....

you could also say that too much oxygen will absorb some of the heat energy, yes "some".....

but in the scheme of things, the reaction is basically the same. as long as there is enough oxygen, and thoroughly mixed enough to combust all of the hydrogen at once.

when a purely molar balance is present in a sealed vessel : you will observe a slightly faster combustion time, a slightly higher temperature, and a resultantly slightly larger pressure.

the difference is not much to write home about... do the math on a carnot cycle, with a 10,000 degree temperature difference.
   then do the math again with a temp of 10,015 degrees

[Marsing]

good morning-day-afternoon-night.


http://www.oocities.org/waterfuel111/water_explosion_menu.html 

.....................................

2005, a guy said he was running his car on water explosion, by adding a second source of electricity (a converter 12/110) to the basic ignition coil of his V8 car, to create a stronger spark, he was able to run it just on water sent to the carburetor, in place of petrol, and exploded with the plasma electric arc.

Official scientific studies confirm the possibility and strong power, and over unity of the exploding of water with an electric arc/spark. See papers from Pr. Peter Graneau University of Oxford, Gary Johnson Kansas State University, George Hathaway, Richard Hull, ...

- from : watercar synopsis.pdf: Kramer's Watercar Project Technology Synopsis Watercar Technology :

There are a number of ways to operate an internal combustion engine using only water as fuel.

The traditional approach is to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen gas using electrolysis, however, this process is quite inefficient. To improve the efficiency of electrolysis, various inventors have sought to stimulate water at its resonance frequencies and thus get more gas production with less energy inputs. This approach works, however, problems have always been in making enough gas on demand as needed by an engine, noting that storing H2 and O2 is a highly explosive alternative that should be avoided.

There is also another group of inventors who make mono-atomic H and O gas, which is very nice as you get larger gas volumes and a more reactive fuel so you use less, but it still must be made on-demand...

Others have tried chemical reactions with water to produce hydrogen gas. The typical approach is with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and aluminum which will produce enough gas so long as you have empty aluminium cans to keep the car running. Sodium hydride (NaH) is even more reactive, but highly dangerous to handle unless properly encapsulated as a company called Powerballs, Inc. is proposing. There are many other chemical reduction reactions that can be used, however, the metals become more costly and re-refining or reprocessing the waste water will be a messy problem. Not such a good ecological approach.

A recently revised approach is to use a plasma arc to dissociate water. US Magnegas Inc. does this in reactors that recycle carbon-based liquid wastes like sewage, used cooking or automotive oils, soaps and cleaning solvents, and so on, to produce a stable and compressible "Magnegas" which has been very successfully combusted in ordinary vehicles and can be used for cooking, metal cutting or in various power generating technologies. This is a worthy approach for liquid waste disposal and generation of a limited amount of usable gas for running vehicles.

The latest watercar technique utilizes a little known "exploding water" technique. This is based on a high capacitance discharge in water or water vapor which causes a "cold fog jet" pressure pulse together with light flash and sonic concussion. This is basically a lightning and thunder reaction and is the approach that shows the most promise when applied to an internal combustion engine. This is the recommended approach as it requires less energy and produces a powerful result without consuming the water, which is simply recycled repeatedly in order to achieve 300 mpg or more.   

...................................

above is copy-paste from the link. now,  which method is being discussed ?     


.

[TinselKoala]

I will just address a couple of the points.

good morning-day-afternoon-night.


http://www.oocities.org/waterfuel111/water_explosion_menu.html 

.....................................

2005, a guy said he was running his car on water explosion, by adding a second source of electricity (a converter 12/110) to the basic ignition coil of his V8 car, to create a stronger spark, he was able to run it just on water sent to the carburetor, in place of petrol, and exploded with the plasma electric arc.

"A guy said" isn't proof of anything. Look into all the work Mark Dansie has done regarding water-fueled internal combustion engines.

Official scientific studies confirm the possibility and strong power, and over unity of the exploding of water with an electric arc/spark. See papers from Pr. Peter Graneau University of Oxford, Gary Johnson Kansas State University, George Hathaway, Richard Hull, ...

Look deeper. Hathaway retracted papers that he wrote and published with Graneau once it was discovered that Graneau's model of analysis was deeply flawed, circular reasoning and incorrect. There is no such thing as fast cold fog from water arcs, and several of the reports of what actually happened are severely flawed and even fabrications. The "supersonic" fog claim is based on one single photograph of Richard Hull where the _assumption_ of supersonic velocities are made due to the shape of the water plume, not from actual velocity measurements. There is no excess energy produced in water arc explosions, Graneau's model is wrong and Graneau himself didn't tell the truth about a lot of things concerning the work with water arc explosions. There is a lot more I can say, and have said, about Peter Graneau and his son Neal, Hull, Hathaway etc.

- from : watercar synopsis.pdf: Kramer's Watercar Project Technology Synopsis Watercar Technology :

There are a number of ways to operate an internal combustion engine using only water as fuel.

Again, check out Mark Dansie's long history researching this topic. There are a number of things you can _try_ but you cannot run an internal combustion engine using only water as fuel.

The traditional approach is to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen gas using electrolysis, however, this process is quite inefficient. To improve the efficiency of electrolysis, various inventors have sought to stimulate water at its resonance frequencies and thus get more gas production with less energy inputs. This approach works, however, problems have always been in making enough gas on demand as needed by an engine, noting that storing H2 and O2 is a highly explosive alternative that should be avoided.

There is also another group of inventors who make mono-atomic H and O gas, which is very nice as you get larger gas volumes and a more reactive fuel so you use less, but it still must be made on-demand...

There is no proof anywhere that "another group of inventors" has made any monoatomic H and O gas.

Others have tried chemical reactions with water to produce hydrogen gas. The typical approach is with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and aluminum which will produce enough gas so long as you have empty aluminium cans to keep the car running. Sodium hydride (NaH) is even more reactive, but highly dangerous to handle unless properly encapsulated as a company called Powerballs, Inc. is proposing. There are many other chemical reduction reactions that can be used, however, the metals become more costly and re-refining or reprocessing the waste water will be a messy problem. Not such a good ecological approach.

A recently revised approach is to use a plasma arc to dissociate water. US Magnegas Inc. does this in reactors that recycle carbon-based liquid wastes like sewage, used cooking or automotive oils, soaps and cleaning solvents, and so on, to produce a stable and compressible "Magnegas" which has been very successfully combusted in ordinary vehicles and can be used for cooking, metal cutting or in various power generating technologies. This is a worthy approach for liquid waste disposal and generation of a limited amount of usable gas for running vehicles.

Magnegas, as it is called, has been around for a long long time and giving it a new magic name doesn't change anything.

The latest watercar technique utilizes a little known "exploding water" technique. This is based on a high capacitance discharge in water or water vapor which causes a "cold fog jet" pressure pulse together with light flash and sonic concussion. This is basically a lightning and thunder reaction and is the approach that shows the most promise when applied to an internal combustion engine. This is the recommended approach as it requires less energy and produces a powerful result without consuming the water, which is simply recycled repeatedly in order to achieve 300 mpg or more.   

There is no such thing as a "cold fog jet" as actual experiments run _with full cooperation and guidance from Peter Graneau himself_ have solidly proven. There is no excess energy released in a capacitor discharge in water or water vapor. There is indeed a pressure pulse, which Graneau and his early collaborators didn't know how to analyze properly. As soon as more, and more rigorous experiments were performed in Hathaway's laboratory, and a proper model of the events in the arc chamber was evolved by scientists at U of Toronto, it became clear to everyone that Graneau's theory and claims were simply wrong.

...................................

above is copy-paste from the link. now,  which method is being discussed ?     


.

[ramset]

Water is an amazing thing , I'll never forget the time I was doing a Job in Kentucky on a train derailment ,we had to come up with a quick fix
for the damaged concrete railroad ties which the train took out [reattaching the rail to the ties on site] this was high strength seamless rail and a fellow shows up with
a water cutter ,I guess this was 1992 ?? I was unaware that such a thing was possible to do with Water at a remote location.
few years later another one of my customers was using a water jet to cut 12-14 inch thick sheets of steel into pieces for MRI machines [FONAR Corp]


Water is amazing and holds many surprises ,I am sure some are aware of recent extraordinary claims for HHO yields,and others trying to figure out what to do with that Gas....
What to do.....?

[TinselKoala]

What to do? It's no good using it in an internal combustion engine except as a means to slightly increase the efficiency of _normal fuels_.

But use it _externally_ to make heat to power a free-piston Stirling design with an integral linear alternator.

Something I could show you... if only I had my machine shop tooling available to me.