What is an efficient cell?

[BoyntonStu]

IICRC The theoretical Faraday limit of efficiency for a cell is 7 mlmmw

Which means 7 milliliters/minute/milli-Watt

I have not seen units that were much better than 5 mlmmw.

For a car voltage of 14.5 Volts, 5 mlmmw translates to 13.79 Amps to produce 1 liter in a minute.

A 30 Amp cell with a 5 mlmmw efficiency will produce 2175 ml/min.

When you purchase an air conditioner you look for SEER.

When you make/purchase a generator you should consider mlmmw.

How does your cell compare?

BoyntonStu

[HYDROTEKPRO]

"...13.79 Amps to produce 1 liter in a minute..." is too generalized, as some electrolyzers are more efficient than others. Even if it takes 20 or 30 amps to make 1 LPM, it's worth it.

Some have said that Faraday's formulas weren't always correct. :confused: Too much subjective theory contemplation is counter-productive against real-world, objective testing and tangible results, right?

Even LPM is not as important as actual % mileage gain.

[Stratous]

The double cell I built about ~3 weeks ago was pretty efficient then. ~1.3LPM at ~13 amps. No, I dont have exact numbers, I dont have a video camera and I wasnt able to duplicate it on the next cell. It took 3 more amps to produce 1.4LPM on the next build. I believe it was because on the second build, the plates were not perfectly cut in length. The edges of the cell were not straight. I didnt have time really to figure it all out as I had to give the cells to their owners.

[BoyntonStu]

"...13.79 Amps to produce 1 liter in a minute..." is too generalized, as some electrolyzers are more efficient than others. Even if it takes 20 or 30 amps to make 1 LPM, it's worth it.

Some have said that Faraday's formulas weren't always correct. :confused: Too much subjective theory contemplation is counter-productive against real-world, objective testing and tangible results, right?

Even LPM is not as important as actual % mileage gain.

"some electrolyzers are more efficient than others."

Exactly!

I guess that you choose inefficient energy wasting electrolytes that make heat instead of Hydroxy.

Perhaps NASA should follow you example and they should replace their efficient 27% KOH solution?


Your logic is very interesting.


BoyntonStu

[HYDROTEKPRO]

"some electrolyzers are more efficient than others."

Exactly!

I guess that you choose inefficient energy wasting electrolytes that make heat instead of Hydroxy.

Perhaps NASA should follow you example and they should replace their efficient 27% KOH solution?


Your logic is very interesting.


BoyntonStu

Your attitude is what that is very interesting. :mad: Did I touch on something in my last post? Surely you aren't here to try to thwart our individual successes, by attempting to confuse and mislead those of us that are timid and uncertain, are you?:mad: That would be very WRONG of you. Let's see what you're really up to here, shall we?

Our applications are not intended for outer space use. Weightlessness is a different factor for example. The electrolyzer in the International Space Station, that I mentioned earlier, was built in Russia, so it isn't even NASA's design.

All electrolyzers make heat, to a greater or lesser degree. Even in outer space this is true.

27% KOH is really pretty strong, even for outer space. Wouldn't the electrolyte be slushy or jell-like at that percentage?

What supposedly works for NASA doesn't matter, does it? YOU know that and WE know that, and WE know that YOU know that!

If you have honest questions or contributions we will be happy to engage. If you are a sneaky, slimey person, with other undisclosed goals in mind, it's probably best that you go back to the BIG OIL forum, and the BIG OIL cigar bar:cool:.

We're helping people and we're helping the environment. Who are YOU helping?

[BoyntonStu]

Your attitude is what that is very interesting. :mad: Did I touch on something in my last post? Surely you aren't here to try to thwart our individual successes, by attempting to confuse and mislead those of us that are timid and uncertain, are you?:mad: That would be very WRONG of you. Let's see what you're really up to here, shall we?

Our applications are not intended for outer space use. Weightlessness is a different factor for example. The electrolyzer in the International Space Station, that I mentioned earlier, was built in Russia, so it isn't even NASA's design.

All electrolyzers make heat, to a greater or lesser degree. Even in outer space this is true.

27% KOH is really pretty strong, even for outer space. Wouldn't the electrolyte be slushy or jell-like at that percentage?

What supposedly works for NASA doesn't matter, does it? YOU know that and WE know that, and WE know that YOU know that!

If you have honest questions or contributions we will be happy to engage. If you are a sneaky, slimey person, with other undisclosed goals in mind, it's probably best that you go back to the BIG OIL forum, and the BIG OIL cigar bar:cool:.

We're helping people and we're helping the environment. Who are YOU helping?


We're helping people and we're helping the environment.

I am trying to help design more efficient cells and to discourage others from being satisfied with fuel wasting cells that they indicate are good 'nuff.

Perhaps you missed my point.


BoyntonStu

[HYDROTEKPRO]

No I didn't. YOU missed your point.

[mario brito]

I am trying to help design more efficient cells and to discourage others from being satisfied with fuel wasting cells that they indicate are good 'nuff.

BoyntonStu

no. what you are doing is saying that i should not use a hammer to put a nail on my wall before i know the hammer's mass, at how many m/s i should hit the nail and the friction between the nail and the wall. that's not helping, and you know that !

[dennis13030]

IICRC The theoretical Faraday limit of efficiency for a cell is 7 mlmmw

Which means 7 milliliters/minute/milli-Watt

What is the source of this information? Also, is this equivalent to 7 liters/minute/Watt? This seems like a huge amount of gas production per Watt.

[justaguy]

no. what you are doing is saying that i should not use a hammer to put a nail on my wall before i know the hammer's mass, at how many m/s i should hit the nail and the friction between the nail and the wall. that's not helping, and you know that !

LMAO, now that is a good answer.

I agree, who gives a rats ass what science or nasas equation is.

My guess is the stu in boyntonstu means he is a student, so he only thinks he knows what he reads in books not from experience.

[HHOhoper]

no. what you are doing is saying that i should not use a hammer to put a nail on my wall before i know the hammer's mass, at how many m/s i should hit the nail and the friction between the nail and the wall. that's not helping, and you know that !

I couldn't have put it better myself. :D

[timetowinarace]

I actually agree with both sides of this discussion.

For those trying to get mpg increases on computer controlled ic engines, too much hho can hurt. Thus, production effeciency is not important. Another note of interest is the size restrictions under the hood of most vehicles. A small electrolyser in this envirnment is very restricted for production. That is why they are called 'boosters'.

I have a project vehicle that I will attemp to run on as much hho as possible. I do not have computer issues to deal with and it has mechanical timing. With it being a small pickup I do not have unit size restrictions. Effeciency will be very important. Knowing everything my damaged brain can remember will be a must. I'm leaning towards a Zach West style system with some Bob Boyce electronics enhancements.

[BoyntonStu]

For those trying to get mpg increases on computer controlled ic engines, too much hho can hurt.

Please define the amount "too much".

What experimental or researched information have you gathered to confrim this?


Also, efie and O2 adjustments may make better use of the "extra" Hydroxy.


BoyntonStu

[mario brito]

For those trying to get mpg increases on computer controlled ic engines, too much hho can hurt.

Please define the amount "too much".

What experimental or researched information have you gathered to confrim this?


Also, efie and O2 adjustments may make better use of the "extra" Hydroxy.


BoyntonStu


anything above the amount that you can compensate within your engine safety values.

in other words, if i need to change my engine's working parameters beyond safety values to be able to continue gaining MPG thanks to HHO, that could be considered "too much".

one of the most amazing achievements of the humam brain is to be able to use "vague, incomplete and scarse" data and still get a true solution to a problem...

thanks

[BoyntonStu]

anything above the amount that you can compensate within your engine safety values.

in other words, if i need to change my engine's working parameters beyond safety values to be able to continue gaining MPG thanks to HHO, that could be considered "too much".

one of the most amazing achievements of the humam brain is to be able to use "vague, incomplete and scarse" data and still get a true solution to a problem...

thanks

Great!

How do you determine the max liter/min value?

Before you diddle, do you know your engine's safe limits?

See my lawnmower thread.

BoyntonStu

[mario brito]

Great!

How do you determine the max liter/min value?

Before you diddle, do you know your engine's safe limits?

See my lawnmower thread.

BoyntonStu

after i put more HHO, and see no gain, i know that i've reached the max value.

no, i do not, but common sence tells me that no common stock engine is working at it's limit, so, i can "guess" that 1% difference will probably not damage my engine.

see ? no precise data, and 2 true solutions !

don't take me wrong, i think that you have a brilliant mind full of usefull data and information, but to you everything has to have a 0.0000000001 precision, and most people don't work that way, and more important, they don't whant to work that way !

thanks

[HHOhoper]

There has to be a balance. The best things that have come out of this planet have come because there was enough DOING combined with enough THINKING. If you have too much THINKING, then you end up an absolutely brilliant cave man who knows everything with nothing to show for it. If you have too much DOING, then you blow up the planet in an experiement and take everyone with it. We need both sides of the fence and more often than not, you have one person who is stronger on one side or the other. We need to respect that balance as well as each other. Balance in all things young grasshopper. :D

P.S. No, I am not a hippie.

[Dewayne]

BoyntonStu,

Will you please share your design work you have done on your HHO generator. We all want to know where your design flaw is so we can help you.

Maybe your flaw is not in your hardware but in your mind.

[HHOhoper]

BoyntonStu,

Will you please share your design work you have done on your HHO generator. We all want to know where your design flaw is so we can help you.

Maybe your flaw is not in your hardware but in your mind.

I asked that same question in another thread and received no response. I'd really like to see some designs as well.

[justaguy]

There has to be a balance. The best things that have come out of this planet have come because there was enough DOING combined with enough THINKING. If you have too much THINKING, then you end up an absolutely brilliant cave man who knows everything with nothing to show for it. If you have too much DOING, then you blow up the planet in an experiement and take everyone with it. We need both sides of the fence and more often than not, you have one person who is stronger on one side or the other. We need to respect that balance as well as each other. Balance in all things young grasshopper. :D

P.S. No, I am not a hippie.

The owner of the company I work for is a college physics teacher. It didn't take me very long to realize that he thinks too much. I have 22 years experience in operating the machines, he doesn't even know how by experience but tries to tell me how to do everything. I have a hard time getting him to understand that it just doesn't work that way.

He constantly changes his mind because he is always looking for a different answer.

[timetowinarace]

For those trying to get mpg increases on computer controlled ic engines, too much hho can hurt.

Please define the amount "too much".

What experimental or researched information have you gathered to confrim this?


Also, efie and O2 adjustments may make better use of the "extra" Hydroxy.


BoyntonStu

"too much" hho is defined as: too much.

One of the advantages of this board is not only learning how to maximize hho production, but to learn what happens when we add more hho into a cumputerized ic engine. More often than not, a small amount of hho will improve mpg's somewhat. Increase the hho and lose the gained mpg's or even get worse than pre-installed mpg's.

It's true that with enough time and money, these computerized ic engines can run on as much hho as can be produced. However, I maintain the notion that throwing more time and money into making a booster work that produces "too much" hho for the vehicle it was built for, defeats the purpose. The only thing gained is who you give your money to. The oil company or the electronics components company.

[BoyntonStu]

"too much" hho is defined as: too much.

One of the advantages of this board is not only learning how to maximize hho production, but to learn what happens when we add more hho into a cumputerized ic engine. More often than not, a small amount of hho will improve mpg's somewhat. Increase the hho and lose the gained mpg's or even get worse than pre-installed mpg's.

It's true that with enough time and money, these computerized ic engines can run on as much hho as can be produced. However, I maintain the notion that throwing more time and money into making a booster work that produces "too much" hho for the vehicle it was built for, defeats the purpose. The only thing gained is who you give your money to. The oil company or the electronics components company.

We need definitions of "small amount" and "too much".

If you could make 500 l/min and run your car on pure Hydroxy, would that be too much?

Has anyone defined the l/min per engine cc necessary to improve mpg?

Is it .5, .75, 1, 2, 5, 7,.... l/min?


See my lawnmower thread which explains how to determine this information.


BoyntonStu

[timetowinarace]

We need definitions of "small amount" and "too much".

If you could make 500 l/min and run your car on pure Hydroxy, would that be too much?

BoyntonStu

First, I don't think anyone here is trying to run on pure hydroxy. A person with that kind of aspirations would be better off doing some serious electronics research than sitting here reading about boosters.

Second, your about the 50th person to ask about l/min per engine cc necessary to improve mpg. The answer here is always the same. There are way too many variables in engine design, tuning, effeciency, ect, for differnet makes of engine of even the same size to have a set l/min per engine cc. Unless someone starts testing every vehicle made and documenting results, trial and error will be the defining factor.

If you want a l/min per engine cc to run completely on hho, I can get you some estimates.

[Q-Hack!]

Actually I would like to see some estimates on how much l/min/engine_cc. Even a broad estimate is helpfull for those just starting out.

[BoyntonStu]

Actually I would like to see some estimates on how much l/min/engine_cc. Even a broad estimate is helpfull for those just starting out.


Your request is logical and most reasonable.

Please see my lawnmower thread.

BoyntonStu

[timetowinarace]

Actually I would like to see some estimates on how much l/min/engine_cc. Even a broad estimate is helpfull for those just starting out.

As all engines are built differently, I only see one way to accomplish what is being asked.

Let's assume X engine is a 2.0L and gets an average of 24MPG economy.

Now Y engine from another manufacturer is a 2.0L and gets 30MPG.

Are we to assume from your request that you think both engines will each use the same amount of HHO, let's call it 100L/M, because they are both 2.0L? Not likely.

Now if you want to compare the energy used by X engine burning gasoline to the amount of HHO it would take to equal that energy, you might come up with a ballpark figure. It just won't be the same ballpark figure for Y engine. But comparing engine size alone to determine the amount of HHO is just plain unrealistic.

[BoyntonStu]

As all engines are built differently, I only see one way to accomplish what is being asked.

Let's assume X engine is a 2.0L and gets an average of 24MPG economy.

Now Y engine from another manufacturer is a 2.0L and gets 30MPG.

Are we to assume from your request that you think both engines will each use the same amount of HHO, let's call it 100L/M, because they are both 2.0L? Not likely.

Now if you want to compare the energy used by X engine burning gasoline to the amount of HHO it would take to equal that energy, you might come up with a ballpark figure. It just won't be the same ballpark figure for Y engine. But comparing engine size alone to determine the amount of HHO is just plain unrealistic.

I disagree somewhat, but you also make a valid point.

By definition, if you know the mpg you know the fuel consumed.

If the lawnmower test would be run, we would know how much Hydroxy/gallon of gasoline was effective in making the engine run more efficiently.

Scale up from there to your engine.

The point may not be cc but instead gallons/mile consumed.

BoyntonStu

[Q-Hack!]

If you are not running 100% Hydrogen, then I would think if you look at in percentages it would be closer... eg. a 2.0L engine with 1 LPM might see 31% increase in fuel economy. Then if you have a heavy car that only get 17 mpg or a light car that gets 30 mpg you will see similar increase in fuel economy. It would still be a broad example and not hard fact as each setup will be different. But it will give others an idea of what to shoot for.

If we are talking about running an engine on 100% Hydrogen. Then yes, I would have to agree that different manufactures will have different requirements for peek performance. However, a 2.0L engine is still a 2.0L engine regardless of manufacture and thus will have the same displacement. It is reasonable to assume that given amount of Hydrogen in one manufactures engine will be close to the amount required in the other.

[mario brito]

If you are not running 100% Hydrogen, then I would think if you look at in percentages it would be closer... eg. a 2.0L engine with 1 LPM might see 31% increase in fuel economy. Then if you have a heavy car that only get 17 mpg or a light car that gets 30 mpg you will see similar increase in fuel economy. It would still be a broad example and not hard fact as each setup will be different. But it will give others an idea of what to shoot for.

If we are talking about running an engine on 100% Hydrogen. Then yes, I would have to agree that different manufactures will have different requirements for peek performance. However, a 2.0L engine is still a 2.0L engine regardless of manufacture and thus will have the same displacement. It is reasonable to assume that given amount of Hydrogen in one manufactures engine will be close to the amount required in the other.

maybe yes, maybe no. let me explain :

in europe, and i guess that this happens in US too, we have the same car model, with same engine capacity ( lets say 2L for example ) but with different power versions, 110HP, 135HP, 150HP, 170HP. this happens a lot in turbo-diesel engines. usually the engine is the same, but with different turbo settings/size, and ECU's configurations. it's very common to buy the cheapest model ( with less power ) and put a mod chip to rase the engine's power.

so, i think it's very difficult to make real comparisions unless we are talking exactly same engine model.

thanks

[timetowinarace]

If you are not running 100% Hydrogen, then I would think if you look at in percentages it would be closer... eg. a 2.0L engine with 1 LPM might see 31% increase in fuel economy. Then if you have a heavy car that only get 17 mpg or a light car that gets 30 mpg you will see similar increase in fuel economy. It would still be a broad example and not hard fact as each setup will be different. But it will give others an idea of what to shoot for.

If we are talking about running an engine on 100% Hydrogen. Then yes, I would have to agree that different manufactures will have different requirements for peek performance. However, a 2.0L engine is still a 2.0L engine regardless of manufacture and thus will have the same displacement. It is reasonable to assume that given amount of Hydrogen in one manufactures engine will be close to the amount required in the other.

There is more to an engine than displacement. The intake design alone can make a major difference in performance and fuel consumption. The size and shape of valves, not to mention how far they open have a huge effect. Exhaust makes a difference. That's just a couple examples. Engine displacement actually is just one part of many that determines how much fuel of any kind is needed to operate it. You will never get a single figure for how much HHO is needed for a particular displacement. Impossible.

As for percentage figures for boosters, the problems are multiplied. More variables are added to the equation. The ECU being the biggest. If there is no ECU, manual timing adjustments ect will make changes. The hurdles are endless.

[Q-Hack!]

There is more to an engine than displacement. The intake design alone can make a major difference in performance and fuel consumption. The size and shape of valves, not to mention how far they open have a huge effect. Exhaust makes a difference. That's just a couple examples. Engine displacement actually is just one part of many that determines how much fuel of any kind is needed to operate it. You will never get a single figure for how much HHO is needed for a particular displacement. Impossible.


Oh, I never said it would be easy, I just said I would like to see that kind of data. I agree that different intakes/exhausts will have a variance on power out. I have always wondered just how much something like a cold air intake hurts fuel mileage? I knew that they increased power, but wouldn't that help the mileage? I know that most people who add them to their cars tend to stomp on the gas, but it seems to me that any increase in power would mean the engine can handle the load better and thus have better fuel mileage.

And to Mario: Do they really cut back on the ECU chip to provide a less capable car in Europe? That seems almost fraudulent. I haven't heard of them doing this in the states, but one never knows.

[timetowinarace]

Oh, I never said it would be easy, I just said I would like to see that kind of data. I agree that different intakes/exhausts will have a variance on power out. I have always wondered just how much something like a cold air intake hurts fuel mileage? I knew that they increased power, but wouldn't that help the mileage? I know that most people who add them to their cars tend to stomp on the gas, but it seems to me that any increase in power would mean the engine can handle the load better and thus have better fuel mileage.

And to Mario: Do they really cut back on the ECU chip to provide a less capable car in Europe? That seems almost fraudulent. I haven't heard of them doing this in the states, but one never knows.

Making conventional mods to an engine, like a cold air intake, can improve MPG's and performance. If you go to far increasing power you lose mpg's. Your correct on that aspect.

The question was directed at Mario but yes, even here in the states, manufacturers tune down engines. More so in diesels but gas as well.

Example: My '06 5.9L Cummins has higher factory horsepower and torque specs than any previous year and even slightly higher than the newer and larger displacement '07-'08 Cummins. The 5.9L (excact same engine) in marine applications has a much higher horsepower and torque rating. One easy way for me to increase power on my truck is to use marine fuel injectors as they are much larger.

There are many reasons this is done. The main one being warrenty. More power equalls shorter engine life. Simple as that.

[Smith03Jetta]

Tune down:

I'm a victim of it as well. My VW Touareg is for all practical purposes a Porche Cayenne. It has the same platform, suspension, engine and drivetrain as the V6 Porche.

Porche agreed to combine forces with VW to design the vehicles together to save money. VW, however was asked to tune down the horsepower 20 horsepower from 240 to 220 so the Porche would have an advantage in the luxury SUV market. It's the SAME engine but tuned down because it is a VW and not a Porche.

If you go back and look at the Nissan Pathfinder compared to the Izuzu rodeo you will see this same thing. My mom ran over a deer and the deer's antler punctured the radiator. They were out of state when it happened and were told that it would take 2 weeks to get a Honda Radiator. When they told me I got on the phone to the Isuzu dealership and had a radiator the same day.