High voltage HHO by IronHead

[kokomoj0]

Welcome to the forums popeye68
Yes experimenting wit RF itself is where it went wrong. No  using to much water is where it went wrong. I knew better than to fool with 2 oz of water at a time. If you mess with RF treat is like a stick of dynamite and  use drops not onces .

If you cold vaporize the water it will go boom when you hit the right RF Feq.
aslong as your gun is made right.

And never do RF in a photon light chamber in UV or IR with alot of water.

LNB , for RF you will need to build a multichannel transducer to sweep the range
Make sure you put a receiver on this thing and you know why.

That should be enough to keep you busy, kill you or bring MIB around.


Thats all I will post about this subject , for now.

sounds like i should think about blowing the dust off of my 2kw antique tube linear amp and dig out the ham transmitter and use this puppy as a tank load    Just enough to tickle it!

Maybe the 100 watt kicker amp is enough...

This should get VERY interesting!   i better build myself a bomb shelter first!  LOL

[d3adp00l]

For that 2.o litre engine I would say you weren't getting very get fuel economy, 10L/km is 23 miles per gallon to put it into perspective for everyone, 6.5 l/km should be a little closer for a 2.0 L engine(depending on vehicle weight, if the 10 l/km car weighs alot it would be correct). The comparison of % of hydrogen to oxygen burnable range is usually stated for H2 and O2 and usually given in weights not litres, in other words 4% to 75% hydrogen to air by weight. But given the assumption you stated, and the figures you have for your engine the math is correct. Using a slightly different method, the one I used on the original post, I will run the numbers in the same fashion to give a range for everyone to see.

2liter engine                  
1:1612 (16.12 kilometers/liter fuel milage)                  
speed 100kmh                  
10km each 6 minutes/ .62 liter fuel each 6 minutes                  

5039 liter air per .62 liter fuel (every 6 minutes at 100kmh) ,                  
839l per minute ,
13.99liters air each second.                  

I can't see your math from here though each time I try to do what you did, I come up with different numbers, but I think I can see what was intended;
(air per second) X ( % of hydrogen/.6666) or:
13.99 X (.04/.6666) = 13.99 X .06 = .839 litres per sec hho gas needed

amount of hydroxy a second    (increasing power)                  
   at4%(hydrogen=6%HHO)   ,839   liter   
      8   %      1,68   liter   
      12   %      2,5   liter   
      16   %      3,39   liter   
      20   %      4,24   liter   
      24   %      5,09   liter   
      28   %      5.93   liter   
      32   %      6,78   liter   
      36   %      7,63   liter   
      40   %      8,48   liter   
Funny thing about this math is at 66% you have to put in 13.99 litres of hho, which is the intake amount of the engine, above 66% you have to put in more HHO than the engine is intaking. And that doesn't make any sense to me. At 66% hydrogen you would have 100% HHO gas and no intake air. That is interesting I just made O/U in math by making 66%=100% of something, heh pretty good. In reality 40% hydrogen (in the HHO gas) would be 60.6% of the total volume of the intake (20.6% is the oxygen mixed in the HHO gas) and 39.4 % is intake air. Using HHO gas you could never get 75% of the intake to be hydrogen from HHO gas. Pure HHO limits the ratio to 66% hydrogen to oxygen, with no inert gase in the mix (atmospheric nitrogen).

I want to say this to everyone but most to IH these numbers are to give everyone working on cells a working concept of gas production needs for IC engines, it is not to discourage anyone or to encourage anyone to hook cells up to engines. It is a fact that pure hydrogen combusts with a lot more force than the hydrogen that is released from hydrocarbon based fuels. hydrocarbon fuels are not very efficient in combustion. They must break the carbon bonds before the hydrogen can be burnt with oxygen. And before that the fuel must be vaporized using heat and pressure inside the chamber. Those two reactions are a negative component to the overall reaction taking energy out, only after that is done can the hydrogen be used to add energy in. In other words if hydrogen has an energy capability of 10 units and 4 units are used to vaporize fuel and break bonds, you end up with 6 work units going to the engine. With hho all 10 hydrogen energy units go to the engine.  Most engines can't handle an increase in work energy and stay in one piece. Please do not let this info distract you from what IH is trying to show everyone, and please to not get too far ahead of yourself. It is important to understand the power available when hydrogen is released.
Now I am going to let my head blow off pressure, before it pops off my shoulders, doing conversion calcs always gives me a headache.




Let's calculate with a car at normal cruising speed ,
first with gasoline then converted to hydrogen
consumpsion ;

Air weights 1,3grams/liter
gasoline weights 720grams/liter
ratio=553

amount of air per liter fuel:
air/fuel=1:14.7
14,7 x 553 = 8129 liter air per liter fuel



2liter engine                  
1:10 (10 kilometers/liter fuel milage)                  
speed 100kmh                  
10km each 6 minutes/ 1 liter fuel each 6 minutes                  

8129 liter air per liter fuel (every 6 minutes at 100kmh) ,                  
1354 per minute ,
22,5liters air each second.                  


Asume a 4% to 74% hydrogen to air usage;
(2/3 of hydroxy contains hydrogen)                        

amount of hydroxy a second    (increasing power)                  
   at   4   %      1,4   liter   
      8   %      2,7   liter   
      12   %      4,1   liter   
      16   %      5,5   liter   
      20   %      6,8   liter   
      24   %      8,2   liter   
      28   %      9,5   liter   
      32   %      10,9   liter   
      36   %      12,3   liter   
      40   %      13,6   liter   
                          etc.


Sound fair







[/quote]

[d3adp00l]

@koko based what I can figure, running pure HHO (mind you these are volume calcs, HHO very well could yield more power than gas and therefore require less volume in an engine to do the same work) you would get about 6 mpg water, at a conversion rate of 1 gallon of water to 1800 gallon (0 psi same temp) HHO gas, you would have to create 6000 gallons HHO.

However I need colaboration data on water volume to hho gas volume rates. When it is possible can someone (or multiple) use a test sample of water, and capture a volume of gas so that a baseline expansion conversion can be agreed upon.

[rapttor]

Guys, a good place for info & ideas also to see some variations on what we are doing here, check this out... if this is a repost, sorry:
Some of the cells these guys have built are works of art.

http://blog.waterforfuel.com/

-rapttor

[IronHead]

The same fuel in gasoline  that makes your car go is the same fuel that is in water,
Hydrogen . There is 2.5 times more hydrogen  in water than there is in gasoline.
And there is much more oxygen in water as well. Oxygen is a fuel enhancer ?