HHO heaters design questions

[CompuTutor]

under 22-PSI and/or OVER a 3/16 lead from the event horizon (flame rear) to the source,
your comfortable from incessive recursion into the flow path of standard HHO, despite arresters..

My inflator was a Bendix, standard basketball model,
didn't measure, I've moved, no additional data, sorry.

Previous = tested factors / post equals noted exceptions

This is going to seem counter intuitive,
but the closer you get the flame to the orifice the better.

Let me try to be clearer, when we diddle with regular gasses,
we tend to be cognisant of the burn rate by example/experience.

We are "Obeservant" of effect and change because we can see them...

But, those that have tested a 50' piece of 1/16" fish-tank hose know repeatadly,
that the flash at the other end into the ballon (at send end) appears instantanious.

So, seeing a lead frame before re-combination is an order more stable and predictable,
than with traditional gasses that we can "see" burn rate reaction because the flame propagation is within our visible observance and cognitive range of perception !

Don't underestimate how much error/horror has occurred due to this.

We are accustomed to "Being Able" to envision change with all we work with,
we ARE NOT accustomed to reactions outside of our perception range for sure.

To say "We saw that" implies we ONLY "saw that" in this case, as you can see...

I'll leave you with this question,
I'm from new England (Boston),
our granite emits heat very well,
moved to Pennsylvania next, sad,
but Houston Texas is MUCH WORSE.

What I mean is that if you heat our (NE) stone,
it emits better far IR than penn., and TX., by far.

why?

analisis shows only slightly higher sodium content...

There has to be so much more we just don't know.

There is a soap-stone I was given a sample of in Mildand, TX,
It would not secumb to sublimation at any range at all,
but sadly, it could not emit a snig of heat either it seemed...
"If it can change, it can / If it can change, it will"

Doesn't seem to apply here
what frequency is that soapstone re-emiting at,
that we most clearly cannot see ?

Sorry, spell like crap, type worse...

[Paul-R]

LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) is a misnomer,
Just as bad as HHO is actually.

I think you will  find that the term HHO was coined by the legendary Bob Boyce
as a reply to a probalby spurious charge by someone who reckoned that they
owned the word "hydroxy".

HHO is defined as a stochiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen generated on
demand by electrolysis or more preferably by water cracking.

[ydeardorff]

Funny,
I was conversing with CAL-TECH professors about "water cracking" 17 years ago. Before the HHO explosion, hell before youtube. lol

Just because someone claims ownership of something doesn't mean it can be stopped. Ideas, cannot be contained once they are shared. That's the difference between people trying to make the world a better place for everyone, or make a buck for themselves.
Too bad people place greed before generosity most of the time.

[Paul-R]

Funny,
I was conversing with CAL-TECH professors about "water cracking" 17 years ago. Before the HHO explosion, hell before youtube. lol

Just because someone claims ownership of something doesn't mean it can be stopped. Ideas, cannot be contained once they are shared. That's the difference between people trying to make the world a better place for everyone, or make a buck for themselves.
Too bad people place greed before generosity most of the time.

Bob coined the expression; that's all. He owns rights on his hardware,
referred to in Chapter 10 which can be acquired through his site.

Nobody owns "water cracking". It goes back to the late 19th century and
John Worrell Keely. Hit water with a sound wave at 42.7172 hz and stuff
happens, apparently. (NB not an electromagnetic wave).

[ydeardorff]

Well the new test bench is up and running.
The first night i fought leak after leak in my lines. First in the reservoir lid, all the way down the lines.
Then my cell was surging, on its gas release, telling me a gasket has gone awry inside. This pulsing of the gasses made my O2 ball flow gauge bounce horribly. Once my temps were up to 115 degrees, I ran the 500ml bottle test and came up with only a 1.06mmw.
So somethings isn't right with the cell Ill have to look more into it, by cracking it back open and verifying everything.
    So this isnt inspring results, I know. But i would have thought a much better flow rate, but too many variables were left out, like the strength of the electrolyte wasnt known, leaks, and the cell misbehaving. The internally manifolded system utilizes gaskets to channel the flow of fluid and gos, while keeping the plates perfectly separated at 1/8". Its probably my fault, as I was in a hurry to get the thing together, rather than nit pick every detail.
I wont make the same mistake next time.
The 96 cavalier surge tank had its own problems... Namely the filler cap has flat spots on two sides, I imagine it was designed to release gas, not contain it. So I may have to modify it, or buy a new one.