Pure Hydrogen Challenge

[Smith03Jetta]

I'm throwing down the gauntlet for every innovator and inventor on this forum. Consider this a challenge.

I'm challenging you to build a system that can easily electrolyze water on demand and create pure hydrogen gas for use in an internal combustion engine. The implications of success in this challenge could be revolutionary. Scientists at MIT have been successful but have been relatively tight lipped so far. Given the fact that it is possible we should be able to figure out how to do it and do it with less expense.

Rules:

1. The entire system must be powered by a production automobile electrical system or with solar power assist that can be integrated into a standard size automobile. That means 12 to 14 volts with alternator alone.
2. The system can consume no more than 35 amps using alternator alone.
3. The system creates Hydrogen and Oxygen from Water and separates the Hydrogen from the Oxygen.
or
4. Creates pure Hydrogen Gas from Water leaving negative ions (Oxygen) in the water.
5. In the spirit of Home-Builders it must be easily built in a home garage with standard tools. Any parts built with Lathes, mills etc. must not be extremely expensive to purchase or machine. The "Machine Shop down the road" should be able to build it.
6. The build must be photographed and documented. The information must be shared with everyone on this forum. Video is a plus.
7. The discovery would be OPEN SOURCE for the WORLD to benefit from.
8. You must prove (without a doubt) that it works and others can duplicate it. I volunteer to duplicate it if someone else beats me to it.
9. There is NO CASH PRIZE for this challenge. The prize will be our eternal gratitude. Heck, it might make you world famous.

We know that HHO is a struggle because the Oxygen part of the equation causes problems with the O2 Sensors. The Hydrogen is what we want. We do not want the Oxygen.

If you are able to create a system that separates the Oxygen and Hydrogen and is able to store each separately for use later that is a plus. That technology will be beneficial for use in powering homes.

Do we have any takers? If you accept this challenge, put your name on the line for this endeavor by adding to this thread. I'm putting my name on the line because I'm convinced it is that important.

My name is Steven A. Smith. I'm 34 years old. I live in Rocky Face, GA, USA.

[smartHHO]

They have machines that separate the H from the O now. Just look at this video. This house is pretty cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEdQRVQtffw

Grant it, this is mass production of Hydrogen, but we want something much smaller scale. I do believe someone was on track when they said, Hydrogen is lighter then O2, so it should float up higher and be extracted. Only problem is they are mixed and yet hard to separate. There was a guy that talked about putting a piece of plexiglass in the water between the neg and positive in order to separate the two. I am guessing that is how the box in that video is doing it. Good luck everyone. It is doable, but how doable on a much smaller car scale.

[buffordboy23]

Do you have a link for the results obtained by the MIT scientists? I know that a group of researchers there have developed a plasmatron fuel converter, which modifies a portion of the gasoline on-board into hydrogen.

Hydrogen and oxygen are initially divided, since they form at different electrodes. A porous barrier can be placed between the electrodes that permits the flow of the ionic components of the solution and separates the gases to a very large degree.

[Smith03Jetta]

Both of you guys are thinking along the right lines. FYI, I've already mailed Dr. Nocera at MIT. I'm waiting to see if he or anyone on his team contacts me. I would love to be able to talk with them about their discovery and see if they are willing to share any of their information.

[rjn]

Have you seen this?
http://aardvark.co.nz/hho_challenge.shtml
It's worth a million bucks!

[Smith03Jetta]

I could care less about the ardvark challenge unless you want to front me a car and $5000 USD.

[JojoJaro]

Its a freaking bogus challenge. He writes rules that can be loosely interpreted.

Like, "drive the car around for 6 months", driven by who? Whose to say this driver will not 'abuse' the way he drives to negate the MPG gains. Is it a double blind drive test?

What constitutes 'no damage' to the engine? Are ECM adjustments acceptable? O2 sensor modifications? etc.

Where is the money? Is it assured?

[rjn]

Very good points. First would have to be a conviction that the money was really there. I'm not sure how one would do that but once you had Mr. "it's all b.s." draw up a contract, reviewed by your buddy the lawyer, those specifications would be spelled out and satisfactorily hold up to scrutiny, and, court room decorum. The money would probably want to be in an escrow account. You're probably right, this would not be worth the time & effort of pursuit but

You know that it does work and think how much better I would feel seeing you post a return to the "gauntlet thrown down" on this guy's site and the whole world would be watching and .....hold my beer , watch this shit!

[JojoJaro]

I sent him an email telling him his challenge is bogus.

That if he specifies more specific rules and guidelines about what can and can not be done, that I will accept his challenge.

I hate it when people only sees his rant, that people don't see that his challenge is being accepted.

[rjn]

Kudos my friend. There are probably a lot of people posting on this site who would contribute to your effort and very much enjoy watching the process unfold, so, if you don't have a lawyer for a buddy, when it comes time to hire one, count me in. This might even make a good "sticky".

[godoveryou]

Zack West already does this with his bubbler/seperator. If you go to the "Seperate the gasses" thread under the Idea's Forum you can read my post regaurding it.

GOY

[volomike]

The guy over at Aardvark is a moron. All his arguments forget that gasoline is used in these engines and that we're doing HFI (Hydrogen Fuel Injection). In fact, someone should tell the guy that the National Hydrogen Association, made up of hydrogen experts in the automotive industry and colleges around the USA, recently endorsed HHO. They call it HFI, or Hydrogen Fuel Injection. They enlisted a new member last year from Canada -- a company that produced HFI 6 years ago for Canadian trucks and buses doing the same thing we HHO enthusiasts are doing. And now that the NHA are on tour with the H2&You campaign, driving around the USA in hydrogen vehicles, they are spreading the news on Hydrogen as well as HFI.

And the facts are the facts -- there are some small to somewhat large performance and fuel economy gains from HHO. And I know this firsthand because I have done it myself.

[snapper1d]

Mr Smith,I have a question for you,well for anyone really.I read somewhere and its been over 30 minutes ago so I cant remember where.Does hydrogen come off of one electrode and the oxygen come off of the other one?If so which one gives off the hydrogen,the pos or the neg side?Now if this is right why couldnt you build a plexiglass bos and have the pos electrode in lets say the left side and then the neg on the right side.Now take this box and have a stainless plate in the center just like a netural but this plate will completely seperate both sides.This plate will not let any electrolyte or gas pass from one side to the other.So now we have this box with two sides seperate from each other and your currant can pass thru the netural plate to the other side and you hydrogen would have to come out from one side of your box and the oxygen from the other side.I hope what I am trying to say makes sense to yall.If it doesnt I will have to explain it some other way.I would try to build one but right now my disability check is still far off.

[Painless]

Mr Smith,I have a question for you,well for anyone really.I read somewhere and its been over 30 minutes ago so I cant remember where.Does hydrogen come off of one electrode and the oxygen come off of the other one?If so which one gives off the hydrogen,the pos or the neg side?Now if this is right why couldnt you build a plexiglass bos and have the pos electrode in lets say the left side and then the neg on the right side.Now take this box and have a stainless plate in the center just like a netural but this plate will completely seperate both sides.This plate will not let any electrolyte or gas pass from one side to the other.So now we have this box with two sides seperate from each other and your currant can pass thru the netural plate to the other side and you hydrogen would have to come out from one side of your box and the oxygen from the other side.I hope what I am trying to say makes sense to yall.If it doesnt I will have to explain it some other way.I would try to build one but right now my disability check is still far off.

Hydrogen is produced at the negative electrode and oxygen at the positive.

What you are talking about is splitting the gases, this is a subject that has been covered more than once here. Firstly, a hydrogen molecule in the presence of two oxygen molecules will produce much more energy under combustion than just one hydrogen molecule, this alone is a good reason to produce it all together and burn HHO.

The design you mentioned is possible and would achieve the desired result, however, you would need to ensure that the electrolyte could still conduct the current between the negative and positive electrodes.

If you want to learn more about the electrolysis of water, wikipedia has an excellent page that is worth a good read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_electrolysis

[timetowinarace]

Zack West already does this with his bubbler/seperator. If you go to the "Seperate the gasses" thread under the Idea's Forum you can read my post regaurding it.

GOY


I agree, Zack West has already met this 'pure hho challenge'.

Two electromagnets outside the bubbler, positioned 2.5 inches (65 mm) above the base, are connected as part of the electrical supply to the electrolyser, and these cause most of the oxygen and hydrogen bubbles to separate and exit the bubbler through different pipes. There is a divider across the bubbler to assist in keeping the gases from mixing again above the water surface. The bubbler also washes most of the potassium hydroxide fumes out of the gas as the bubbles rise to the surface, protecting the engine as these fumes have a very destructive effect on engines.


There are several ways to seperate the gasses. Non of them a secret.

[snapper1d]

I believe you are missing the point here.If you use just the hydrogen it will still get oxygen in the air flow into your engine.The porblem is everyone is getting too much oxygen to start with and it is working against your sensors.Also there is no reason to have the electrolyte flow all around between both electrodes.The stainless plate that is the seperator between the two works like a netural plate and you electrolyte is in contact with the electrode on the positive side and the negative side so there will be currant flowing thru to both electrodes.This is how the hydrogen filling stations work in seperating the gases.Those home filling stations do this and compress the hydrogen to 300 psi and you fill your tank at home from these.There are some in production now and are selling for around $2100 and some run entirely off solar.

[Smith03Jetta]

The problem with putting a stainless steel separator in between the pos and neg is that it will function as one of our traditional neutral plates and produce Oxygen on the Hydrogen side of the separator and Hydrogen on the Oxygen side of the separator. I'm looking for something that will allow current to pass through but not produce gas. I read somewhere that Cellophane will do the job. I would like to try it. I'm sure there are some nano-materials out there that are stronger than cellophane.

The Electrode surface will also need to be enlarged. An electrode coated in Nickel Iron Nano-particles will increase the surface area over 10,000%. Nickel Iron has also been proven to stand up to long term Electrolysis use. It is possible that using a Nickel Iron nano-plating instead of Platinum will increase the output past 85% efficiency. That's just what I'm reading from some research white papers.

I saw a Youtube video last night that has got me to thinking a little differently. Maybe it is not the extra oxygen that's causing the O2 Sensor to go BERZERK. I watched an experiment where a guy pumped 6 liters/minute of pure oxygen from a cutting torch cylinder into his exhaust pipe above the O2 sensor with the engine running and it had no real effect on the O2 Sensor Voltage Reading. Maybe I'm misguided about trying to use pure hydrogen...

Maybe I could get a tank of pure hydrogen and pump it into my engine at .5 liters a minute to see if my MPG improves without affecting the O2 sensor/ECU/Fuel Injection system.

[dcunio55]

what is wrong,with using your own car-as long as it meets the requirements-

[Smith03Jetta]

I like my car. I don't want somebody driving it for 6 months doing who knows what in the back seat. Also, there's the issue of shipping the car to New Zealand and back.

How many Morons really take that guy seriously?

[godoveryou]

I saw a Youtube video last night that has got me to thinking a little differently. Maybe it is not the extra oxygen that's causing the O2 Sensor to go BERZERK. I watched an experiment where a guy pumped 6 liters/minute of pure oxygen from a cutting torch cylinder into his exhaust pipe above the O2 sensor with the engine running and it had no real effect on the O2 Sensor Voltage Reading. Maybe I'm misguided about trying to use pure hydrogen...


I don't think you understand how traditional oxygen sensors work. The remaining gasoline creates an electrochemical reaction in the oxygen sensor that produces the voltage the sensor sends to the ecm. Even when dumping oxygen into the stream, there is still enough gasoline pressent to create the required reaction because that oxygen wasn't involved in the combustion process.

IF instead that oxygen was present in the combustion chamber, more fuel would have been burnt, leading to less gasoline present to create that electrochemical reaction that leads to the voltage the O2 sensor send to the ECM. You would think that the O2 sensor reads "Ratio's" of air/fuel but it doesn't. It just indicates via reaction how much fuel is left over in the exhaust stream, NOT the ratio of that fuel compared to the oxygen present.

The reason HHO leans out the mixture is NOT because of the exygen. It's because gasoline combustion in an engine occurs in two phases. The first phase is seperation caused by the spark plug. This is why the ignition is so far advanced in gasoline engines. The second phase is combustion. It's a relatively slow process, and therefore timing in an engine advances as engine speed advances up to a point. The hydrogen in he HHO ignites the momment the spark plug arc's. It's almost pre-ignition in effect, but what that does is cause the gasoline to seperate much more quickly, therefore it can spend more time burning. By the time the fumes make it to your O2 sensor, there is much less gaslone present to create the required reaction to generate the voltage that the ECM wants to see. Normally, the fuel wouldn't be completely burned unless there was very little of it to begin with in contrast to the oxygen present (lean ratio in the chamber), and it would hit the O2 sensor creating voltage.

HHO supplementation has very little to do with oxygen and a lot more to do with burn rate.

Oxygen sensors aren't direct ratio devices. They react to gasoline to create voltage. They don't care how much oxygen there is present to do so as long as enough gasoline is there to create a reaction.

[timetowinarace]

I don't think you understand how traditional oxygen sensors work. The remaining gasoline creates an electrochemical reaction in the oxygen sensor that produces the voltage the sensor sends to the ecm. Even when dumping oxygen into the stream, there is still enough gasoline pressent to create the required reaction because that oxygen wasn't involved in the combustion process.

IF instead that oxygen was present in the combustion chamber, more fuel would have been burnt, leading to less gasoline present to create that electrochemical reaction that leads to the voltage the O2 sensor send to the ECM. You would think that the O2 sensor reads "Ratio's" of air/fuel but it doesn't. It just indicates via reaction how much fuel is left over in the exhaust stream, NOT the ratio of that fuel compared to the oxygen present.

The reason HHO leans out the mixture is NOT because of the exygen. It's because gasoline combustion in an engine occurs in two phases. The first phase is seperation caused by the spark plug. This is why the ignition is so far advanced in gasoline engines. The second phase is combustion. It's a relatively slow process, and therefore timing in an engine advances as engine speed advances up to a point. The hydrogen in he HHO ignites the momment the spark plug arc's. It's almost pre-ignition in effect, but what that does is cause the gasoline to seperate much more quickly, therefore it can spend more time burning. By the time the fumes make it to your O2 sensor, there is much less gaslone present to create the required reaction to generate the voltage that the ECM wants to see. Normally, the fuel wouldn't be completely burned unless there was very little of it to begin with in contrast to the oxygen present (lean ratio in the chamber), and it would hit the O2 sensor creating voltage.

HHO supplementation has very little to do with oxygen and a lot more to do with burn rate.

Oxygen sensors aren't direct ratio devices. They react to gasoline to create voltage. They don't care how much oxygen there is present to do so as long as enough gasoline is there to create a reaction.

Good post. I have a better understanding of the O2 sencor.

[daveczrn]

i was thinking that an 02 sensor really does not see 0xygen...

i thought about his for a while.. and i still come up with the same conclusion.

if the o2 sensor saw oxygen, then removing the oxygen from the HHO production would lessen the oxygen seen in the exuast. the computer would compensate, and less fuel would be added.

If the o2 sensor sees unburned gasoline, then removing the oxygen from the HHO production would benifit as well. Because hydrogen burns quicker it will use up the oxygen faster in the combustion chamber, it should burn before the gasoline does. Because of this the o2 sensor should see a rich fuel mixture in the combustion chamber. The computer will compensate by adding less fuel, because we are making our own fuel(hydrogen)

the only problem i see with this is the fuel mixture. H2 burns with 0xygen at a 2 to 1 ratio. gasoline burns at a 14.7 to 1 ratio. I am worried that using just h2 might lean the mixture out too much as the h2 use's twice as much o2 as gasoline does.

maybe i'm wrong but that's how i see it right now
dave

[Smith03Jetta]

Then why in the world do they call it an O2 Sensor? I have never read one technical document that says an Oxygen sensor senses the amount of fuel in the exhaust. Everything I've ever read says an O2 Sensor measures the level of O2 in the exhaust compared to ambient O2 Levels.

Here is a link to Bosche Technical information on all types of O2 and Lambda sensors. http://wbo2.com/lsu/lsuworks.htmI think everybody needs to read this information. Some of it is pretty complicated but the sensors DO read the levels of Oxygen in the exhaust gasses. They have to be at a certain temperature to work but the DO read the levels of O2 in the exhaust.

The reason why the U-tube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNmL0H7B-Uof the guy testing the O2 sensor on his car showed no results is probably because his O2 Sensor was not up to full operating temp. It was a narrow band sensor and his volt meter was stuck on .9 volts. .9 volts is an indication of RICH.

[snapper1d]

There is no two phases of combustion.I dont know where you heard that but its wrong.Your spark plug does not seperate anything.Your spark plus on serves to produce the spark to start the combustion.The advance on the ignition is because of the burn rate of gasoline.When your engine speeds up and the vacumn advance increases your ignition advance so it can get a more complete burn before it comes back up with your exhaust stroke.If it didnt do this you would be having lots of gas going out the exhaust unburned.You would loose your power.Turn your ignition back to top dead center and pull your vaccum advance and the centrifical advance off and give your engine more gas.You just cant get any power!Then advance your timing a little.Hum,your engine speeds up.You then get more gas burned and you get more power.Now advance it too far and you start loosing.Your gas is started burning too soon and getting preignition.You gas is now burning way before its time and it is pushing your piston backwards before it gets to top optimum for your performance.

[Smith03Jetta]

Some of these comments are actually making sense. I'm thinking about reducing my HHO output and see what happens. I've been unable to get 33.5 MPG since I increased my HHO output from 700 ml/minute to 920 ml/minute. I'm thinking about tuning it back down to 500 ml/minute and see what happens to my Jetta. I'm also going to reset all my LEAN fuel settings back to STOCK settings. I'm thinking about adjusting my timing only and see what happens with a lower HHO output.

I know when I introduced 1.5 liters of HHO into my Touareg it had the same effect as climbing up-hill or pulling a loaded trailer. MPG instantly decreased. I'm thinking it started the burn cycle too early and started putting back pressure on my pistons.

I'm WISHY WASHY Today....

[godoveryou]

There is no two phases of combustion.I dont know where you heard that but its wrong.Your spark plug does not seperate anything.Your spark plus on serves to produce the spark to start the combustion.The advance on the ignition is because of the burn rate of gasoline.When your engine speeds up and the vacumn advance increases your ignition advance so it can get a more complete burn before it comes back up with your exhaust stroke.If it didnt do this you would be having lots of gas going out the exhaust unburned.You would loose your power.Turn your ignition back to top dead center and pull your vaccum advance and the centrifical advance off and give your engine more gas.You just cant get any power!Then advance your timing a little.Hum,your engine speeds up.You then get more gas burned and you get more power.Now advance it too far and you start loosing.Your gas is started burning too soon and getting preignition.You gas is now burning way before its time and it is pushing your piston backwards before it gets to top optimum for your performance.

Obviously you are dead set in having complete faith in that, which is fine. Wrong, but fine. However, while you are patting yourself on the back please explain to me how the surface tension of gasoline is broken in order to create one flame front, not thousands of small bursts. If the surface tension of gasoline was not broken down to create a more finely distributed mist, that's exactly what you'd have... thousands of small ignition points all combating each other, and very few making for practical expansion to push the piston down.

Thank you,
GOY

(Too everyone else, please review page 66 and 67 of this link. http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter10.pdf )

[godoveryou]

Then why in the world do they call it an O2 Sensor? I have never read one technical document that says an Oxygen sensor senses the amount of fuel in the exhaust. Everything I've ever read says an O2 Sensor measures the level of O2 in the exhaust compared to ambient O2 Levels.

Here is a link to Bosche Technical information on all types of O2 and Lambda sensors. http://wbo2.com/lsu/lsuworks.htmI think everybody needs to read this information. Some of it is pretty complicated but the sensors DO read the levels of Oxygen in the exhaust gasses. They have to be at a certain temperature to work but the DO read the levels of O2 in the exhaust.

The reason why the U-tube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNmL0H7B-Uof the guy testing the O2 sensor on his car showed no results is probably because his O2 Sensor was not up to full operating temp. It was a narrow band sensor and his volt meter was stuck on .9 volts. .9 volts is an indication of RICH.

I've read Bosch's Red Book, which is the programming basis for your Jetta's Motronic Management System. I've spent YEARS burning proms for GM ecm's - the 730, 749, 747, and 165 with great extent, all which use bosch "Oxygen Sensors." Some are MAP, Other's MAF EFI, and TBI. The explaination given in your references are a dumbed down explaination of a 5 wire o2. Could you imagine trying to explain electrochemical reactions to the average Joe in a way they would understand? Not only would it not work, but it would take forever to get nothing accomplished.

Also, most cars still don't use 5 wire units. They use 3 or 4 wire units, and sometimes a 1 wire unit if the vehicle is old. You have an exceptionally good sensor in your vehicle, but if you notice, your article never mentions anything about what causes the oxygen ions to bind together. It's not magic that causes that.... Give your articles a little more in depth reading and ask yourself "What causes that to happen," when they tell you something occurs. You will find your answer is fuel. However, the average joe's takeaway from that will be "Oh, it measures oxygen." Actually, it measures a reaction based on fuel present pre-determined and a set lookup chart of fueling and spark tables in your ECM.

IF that was not the case, MAP systems would not need constant tuning for fueling tables after modifications were made to the engine. The oxygen sensor would be the primary fuel metering device, but it's not. IF the oxygen sensor was so precise in it's measurement of oxygen, as you are saying, then the ecm would be able to adjust fueling requirements without reference to manifold pressure. But it can't! This is why MAF systems have bettered the MAP systems in adaptability under NA conditions, and the oxygen sensor wasn't even taken into account. The O2 is referred to only in closed loop only because of the accuracy of the predetermined fueling tables, not because of the accuracy of the sensor in measuring oxygen!!!!

If you really still want to beleive that it's oxygen the sensor detects, do this. Take an o2 sensor and ground the sensor body, then using a multimeter on the signal wire, blow compressed oxygen on the back of the sensor. Then the front of it. Measure voltage readings. Then put it in the stream of your cars exhaust while it's running. Measure that voltage.

Obviously the compressed oxygen would have a higher oxygen content then the ambient air, so you should generate significant voltage, right? I mean, if it's oxygen the sensor detects and it's oxygen that causes the reaction, then it should cause a reaction in the exercise, right? But *IF* you find voltage is created when it's placed in the exhaust stream of your car... what's present there that isn't present in the ambient air? FUEL.

It's called an oxygen sensor because it a rough means to measure the ratio of OXYGEN to fuel in the combustion chamber, not in the exhaust stream despite being placed there. I would venture to guess it will make it's way into the combustion chamber in the future, but not right now. They could have easily called it a fuel sensor or a gasoline ratio sensor, but then that would become confusing as the gas tank has a fuel level sensor, etc. It was named that for simplicity, not for a precise description of what it does.

[Q-Hack!]

(Too everyone else, please review page 66 and 67 of this link. http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter10.pdf )

Wow, I hope you don't believe everything you read. This is one persons theory of what happens inside the combustion chamber. It pretty much goes against standard theory about combustion engines.

I too am going with the notion that the timing of an engine based on burn time of the fuel. This two phase burn theory is a little hard to swallow.

[Smith03Jetta]

Attempting to measure the O2 sensor voltage OUT of the car will prove nothing. The O2 sensor has to be under a certain operating temperature to register. It's operating temperature is somewhere near 900C.

Now that I think about it, the guy on Youtube pumping 6 liters of pure oxygen a minute through a hole he cut in his exhaust pipe was probably not that intelligent. I also noticed that he had the door on his garage closed with the engine running.

[godoveryou]

Smith,
LOL, okay. So you aren't even willing to try it just to see if there's any voltage? Not accurate voltage, just voltage? The process will occur regaurdless. You could get really ingenius and heat it up with a torch even prior to the exercise, but I wouldn't want you to think outside the box too much. You remind me of people who won't try HHO, but just say it won't work because it doesn't contain as much energy as gasoline. Circumstances don't have to be ideal to make the results of the exercise self evident and valid. Go pick up a cheap $15 one wire sensor for a GM TBI vehicle from the parts store and try it if you are that curious. If not, why even bother playing with any of this?

Q-Hack,
As far as the two part process, that link was just one quick way to reference it. If you don't want to buy it, that's fine. You still can't explain the flame front, but that's fine. I'd love to hear why you think pre-ignition occurs with low octane fuels in high compression engines. Do we break the laws of science and just "Create" energy to cause ignition? No. The heat caused by compression and held in the metals is enough to begin to process by pre-seperating the fuel. That's why aluminum heads are less prone to detonation all things being the same. Less heat = less energy avaliable to begin to 2-step combustion process. Heat is energy. What do you think causes the combustion process to begin with under normal circumstances in an engine with reasonable compression and reasonable fuel? Could be heat from the electrode arc'ing. Or it could be magic I suppose. :)

Here's something to chew on. In a diesel engine, why do you think car makers are moving to super high pressure systems with super fine injector mists? Why do you think diesels tend to run poorly cold when not equiped with fresh glow plugs? Heat. Heat breaks down the surface tension of fuel. In a gasoline engine, that heat is provided by spark. That breaks the surface tension of the fuel. In a diesel, it's the heat of compression. Ignition is a given once the surface tension is dramatically reduced and there is enough surface energy in the form of heat present.

If you don't break down the surface tension, it's like having a bunch of small puddles in the chamber all catching on fire. There's little to no expansion, and not a whole lot of work gets done per the amount of energy put into the process.

[Q-Hack!]

You still can't explain the flame front, but that's fine.

I am not sure that it matters if you have one flame front or a million. Either way you still have burning fuel which causes expansion. You talked about competing flame fronts, I have no idea what you mean by this. In a fuel vapor you have random mix of fuel (gas) and catalyst (oxygen). The only thing you need is an ignition source.

To give another example, think about how a bullet works. There is no compression stroke to cause the fuel (gun powder) to break up its molecules into smaller particles. It is just fuel, oxygen and a spark. The resulting expansion of gasses is what causes the bullet to travel down the barrel of the gun. If you want a different velocity, you can either increase the amount of gun powder or change the chemical composition of same. Different gun powders have different burn times. It's analogist to what we are doing with the HHO; changing the burn time of the fuel.

[godoveryou]

First - fuel doesn't "Vaporize" on it's own. That would require ENERGY. The fuel doesn't fall out of the injector and magically CREATE the energy required to do that. What don't you get? You can't CREATE energy. That's not how energy works. You can REALIZE stored or potential energy, but you can't create it....

Secondly, google "multiple flame fronts engine." Then tell me if you still think having one flame front is a good idea or not.... (Think pre-ignition). So yes, knowing how the flame front is made is not only required, but ***ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL*** to understand what happens inside a combustion chamber. If you don't understand what happens with gasoline in an engine, how are you going to attempt to understand what happens with hydrogen on how the two combustables would interact?? Why do you think combustion chambers are shaped in different manners? How about piston faces? How about spark plug position? What about sharp surfaces in a chamber? If you were just setting fire to fuel in a box (as with a bullet), none of that would matter. The flame front is absolutely critical in combustion. There is no other more important factor than the flame front, no matter what fuel is used, and each has a unique burn rate and pattern.

Thirdly a cartridge, bullet, and propellant have nothing to do with the physics of energy use in an engine. That's about the poorest misapplication of energy physics I could imagine. Even water evaporation via sunlight would have been more accurate for comparison because at least then you have energy transfer and change of state in the equation.

[snapper1d]

As I said before there is no two stage to to the combustion.The seperation you are talking about is not done by the spark plus.The spark plug has only one job and that is to deliver the spark.The more finely atomized your gasoline is the better your burn rate is.Your thousands of little flames is part your combustion process and they dont work against each other.The more your gas is mixed with oxygen the better it will burn.The preignition happening on lower octane fuels is because the flash point is lower.Higher octane fuels are made to raise the flash poin so to keep it from preigniting.

[snapper1d]

Q-Hack your explanation is right on due to the powder being located where it is.On an engine the combustion chambers and piston faces are arranged to get all of your fuel compressed into one location that your burning fuel will give the most and best push on your piston.Your gasoline is sprayed into the combustion chamber plus your air rushing into the cylinder all help in atomizing your gas for a better burn.If you could premix your gasoline and your oxygen to the optimual before it gets into your cylinder would also help in getting a better burn.Thats one of the things racers found years ago with the high riser manifolds.

[godoveryou]

Okay according to what you wrote, spark doesn't make heat, it just makes light. Got it.

Okay according to what you wrote, there's no energy required to mix fuel with air, it just naturally does it. Like they have a high school crush on each other. Captivating.

Okay according to what you wrote, flash points just have to do with fire, not explosion, but fire and explosion are the exact same thing according to your explaination. Thank you for your education.

You should write a physics paper on the energyless engine process followed by an amazing study you conducted on setting a puddle of gas on fire without heat and how to caused a magical explosion.

Flash Point: the lowest temperature at which a liquid in a specified apparatus will give off sufficient vapor to ignite momentarily on application of a flame

A flame does not constitute explosion and therefore expansion. They are not the same. A flame is the oxidation of a substance. A flame doesn't preform work, it "can't Create" energy, or any of the other assumptions are you making with your explaination.

Did anyone in here graduate high school? Heat is the force of energy that drives an engine! Heat expands the gasoline which holds the potential energy that later creates even more heat, which later creates expansion. Everyone here claims to be internal combustion expert but nobody understands the pyshics of an engine, or even energy for that matter. Everyone just think that gas catches fire and burns pushing the piston down. It's as if you could just squirt gas into a chamber and not provide heat or any kind and it would expand on it's own. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT.

All I've gotten back is basically "Fuel goes boom and piston moves down," with no understanding of combustion, heat, energy, etc. Fine fine fine, fuel goes boom and piston goes down. You win. Don't dare try to ask how it exactly happens, it just does. There's no transfer of energy or the release of potential energy......... it just goes boom. You could leave a lit candle wick in the spark plug hole and the same thing would happen according to your incomplete line of thinking. You're simply wrong, but I can't argue with an idiot because they are incapable of realizing things aren't as simple as they appear ;) Of course, you've been feed your dumbed down explaination of the combustion process for years, so there shouldn't have been an expectation on my part that you would be capable to self motivated thought.

Boom Boom Boom. It's not heat, it's magic. You win.

[sp1r0]

I am not sure that it matters if you have one flame front or a million. Either way you still have burning fuel which causes expansion. You talked about competing flame fronts, I have no idea what you mean by this. In a fuel vapor you have random mix of fuel (gas) and catalyst (oxygen). The only thing you need is an ignition source.

To give another example, think about how a bullet works. There is no compression stroke to cause the fuel (gun powder) to break up its molecules into smaller particles. It is just fuel, oxygen and a spark. The resulting expansion of gasses is what causes the bullet to travel down the barrel of the gun. If you want a different velocity, you can either increase the amount of gun powder or change the chemical composition of same. Different gun powders have different burn times. It's analogist to what we are doing with the HHO; changing the burn time of the fuel.

Sorry dude, you are wrong, when it comes to HHO igniting. The gas implodes. Consider this video for your edification. If the gas is expanding, then why is the needle indicating vacuum when he ignites it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AoOdjt-xyg&feature=related

[Q-Hack!]

First - fuel doesn't "Vaporize" on it's own. That would require ENERGY. The fuel doesn't fall out of the injector and magically CREATE the energy required to do that. What don't you get? You can't CREATE energy. That's not how energy works. You can REALIZE stored or potential energy, but you can't create it....


You are absolutely correct. I never said it didn't. What I am questioning is the two stage process that the document you first presented showed. It stated that the molecules of the fuel vapor are broken down again before combustion. This is wrong. They are just compressed/heated. Nothing more. I will agree that as the cylinder heats up you get more mixing of the fuel and air, but to call this a two stage process is a bit of a stretch. When you first start an engine it has no heat in the cylinder walls. The energy required to mix the fuel vapor is that which comes from the spraying of the fuel into the cylinder. One could say that the burn efficiency is less when the engine is cold though.



Secondly, google "multiple flame fronts engine." Then tell me if you still think having one flame front is a good idea or not.... (Think pre-ignition). So yes, knowing how the flame front is made is not only required, but ***ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL*** to understand what happens inside a combustion chamber. If you don't understand what happens with gasoline in an engine, how are you going to attempt to understand what happens with hydrogen on how the two combustables would interact?? Why do you think combustion chambers are shaped in different manners? How about piston faces? How about spark plug position? What about sharp surfaces in a chamber? If you were just setting fire to fuel in a box (as with a bullet), none of that would matter. The flame front is absolutely critical in combustion. There is no other more important factor than the flame front, no matter what fuel is used, and each has a unique burn rate and pattern.

I am not going to ague any of this. Its a complicated way to say the better your fuel/air mixture the better the burn, the more power out. As long as your timing matches your burn rate you are good to go. Once you start adding HHO it changes your burn rate and thus means you need to change your timing.

There is no reason to make this more complicated than it needs to be.

[timetowinarace]

Okay according to what you wrote, spark doesn't make heat, it just makes light. Got it.

Okay according to what you wrote, there's no energy required to mix fuel with air, it just naturally does it. Like they have a high school crush on each other. Captivating.

Okay according to what you wrote, flash points just have to do with fire, not explosion, but fire and explosion are the exact same thing according to your explaination. Thank you for your education.

You should write a physics paper on the energyless engine process followed by an amazing study you conducted on setting a puddle of gas on fire without heat and how to caused a magical explosion.

Flash Point: the lowest temperature at which a liquid in a specified apparatus will give off sufficient vapor to ignite momentarily on application of a flame

A flame does not constitute explosion and therefore expansion. They are not the same. A flame is the oxidation of a substance. A flame doesn't preform work, it "can't Create" energy, or any of the other assumptions are you making with your explaination.

Did anyone in here graduate high school? Heat is the force of energy that drives an engine! Heat expands the gasoline which holds the potential energy that later creates even more heat, which later creates expansion. Everyone here claims to be internal combustion expert but nobody understands the pyshics of an engine, or even energy for that matter. Everyone just think that gas catches fire and burns pushing the piston down. It's as if you could just squirt gas into a chamber and not provide heat or any kind and it would expand on it's own. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT.

All I've gotten back is basically "Fuel goes boom and piston moves down," with no understanding of combustion, heat, energy, etc. Fine fine fine, fuel goes boom and piston goes down. You win. Don't dare try to ask how it exactly happens, it just does. There's no transfer of energy or the release of potential energy......... it just goes boom. You could leave a lit candle wick in the spark plug hole and the same thing would happen according to your incomplete line of thinking. You're simply wrong, but I can't argue with an idiot because they are incapable of realizing things aren't as simple as they appear ;) Of course, you've been feed your dumbed down explaination of the combustion process for years, so there shouldn't have been an expectation on my part that you would be capable to self motivated thought.

Boom Boom Boom. It's not heat, it's magic. You win.

I've found on this board it often takes some time for facts to sink in.

There is no question your correct.

I've seen some go a couple months before catching on. I used to think it was me not explaining very well.

Oh, no need to referance material. They won't look at it. EDIT: unless it is on youtube. LOL

Good luck.

[godoveryou]

I'm going to break down my answer.

Spraying fuel does not cause it to become a vapor. Otherwise the fuel injector would be set up to spray gases, not liquids.

Heat does turn the liquid into a vapor. The spark plug provides heat, which vaporizes the fuel.

The mechanical work preformed during compression creates a phenominal amount of heat, much more than the 10-80kV the spark provides, which creates the amount of energy required to begin combustion, and eventually expansion.

Sometimes this can be reversed, AKA, retarding the timing behind top dead center. In some circumstances, the heat held in the chamber material, combined with the energy in the form of heat gathered during compression will be enough to seperate and ignite a mixture with very late spark or no spark.

Think of when a carberated car "Deisels." There's no spark from the plug, but there's enough energy in the form of heat to continue both seperation or vaporization and combustion. No spark. And the material in the chamber will cool as this goes on because the vaporization and combustion process is using the heat as energy.

The spark plug vaporizes the liquid fuel. By vaporizing it, you create "Seperation." Liquids are more dense than gases. Vapor being less dense, is "SEPERATED" fuel.

If the spark from the spark plug created combustion, as sp1r0 insists is the truth, then cars would be unable to deisel. End of story. Vaporization (seperation) and combustion. 2 steps.

[Q-Hack!]

Sorry dude, you are wrong, when it comes to HHO igniting. The gas implodes. Consider this video for your edification. If the gas is expanding, then why is the needle indicating vacuum when he ignites it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AoOdjt-xyg&feature=related

Ehh... What??? Ignition of HHO creates an explosion. When a molecule is in its gas stage it is much more agitated and occupies more volume. As a liquid the molecule is less agitated. When the HHO is ignited it does create water and therefore occupies less space. Which is what you see in the video. What you don't see is the pressure created during ignition. Anybody want to take that video and slow it down to see if there is a spike in pressure before the vacuum takes over? I'll bet you find it does.

[godoveryou]

Ehh... What??? Ignition of HHO creates an explosion. When a molecule is in its gas stage it is much more agitated and occupies more volume. As a liquid the molecule is less agitated. When the HHO is ignited it does create water and therefore occupies less space. Which is what you see in the video. What you don't see is the pressure created during ignition. Anybody want to take that video and slow it down to see if there is a spike in pressure before the vacuum takes over? I'll bet you find it does.

On this point I will say you are correct. The energy spike required to change forms dictates that the displacement of space will occur.

I hate to say it, but much like liquid turning to vapor assists in generating heat in an engine that is used to combust. I'm just drawing the comparison is all. :)

[timetowinarace]

I'm going to break down my answer.

Spraying fuel does not cause it to become a vapor. Otherwise the fuel injector would be set up to spray gases, not liquids.

Heat does turn the liquid into a vapor. The spark plug provides heat, which vaporizes the fuel.

The mechanical work preformed during compression creates a phenominal amount of heat, much more than the 10-80kV the spark provides, which creates the amount of energy required to begin combustion, and eventually expansion.

Sometimes this can be reversed, AKA, retarding the timing behind top dead center. In some circumstances, the heat held in the chamber material, combined with the energy in the form of heat gathered during compression will be enough to seperate and ignite a mixture with very late spark or no spark.

Think of when a carberated car "Deisels." There's no spark from the plug, but there's enough energy in the form of heat to continue both seperation or vaporization and combustion. No spark. And the material in the chamber will cool as this goes on because the vaporization and combustion process is using the heat as energy.

The spark plug vaporizes the liquid fuel. By vaporizing it, you create "Seperation." Liquids are more dense than gases. Vapor being less dense, is "SEPERATED" fuel.

If the spark from the spark plug created combustion, as sp1r0 insists is the truth, then cars would be unable to deisel. End of story. Vaporization (seperation) and combustion. 2 steps.

Got it. Vaporization then combustion. 2 Parts.

So applying this to hho, I'm going to assume the idea is that hho aids in the first part, vaporization, so that the second part, combustion is more effeciant.

Correct, or too simple?

[godoveryou]

Pretty much dead on in a supplementary level of hho.

Everyone says that hho makes gasoline burn more efficiently (which should be completely not efficiently), but nobody says how or why it does. That's because they don't understand the process inside a combustion chamber. This is how and why hho makes gasoline burn more completely. The engine still has all of the power avaliable to it because even though there is less overall gasoline present, a greater percentage is being used to push the piston. Hydrogen is a weak fuel compared to gasoline, but it's super fast flame front releases enough stored energy in the form of heat to create fast and more complete seperation, or vaporization of gasoline.

I don't understand what all the arguement was over. I suppose I should have pointed to engines deiseling with no spark present earlier.

[Q-Hack!]

I'm going to break down my answer.

Spraying fuel does not cause it to become a vapor. Otherwise the fuel injector would be set up to spray gases, not liquids.


This is exactly what starts the mixing process to create vapor.



Heat does turn the liquid into a vapor. The spark plug provides heat, which vaporizes the fuel.


The spark plug is just an ignition source. If you think that it creates enough heat to mix the fuel/air into vapor before ignition... I am dumbfounded.



The mechanical work preformed during compression creates a phenominal amount of heat, much more than the 10-80kV the spark provides, which creates the amount of energy required to begin combustion, and eventually expansion.


Exactly; it is the compression of the fuel/air that creates the vapor needed for combustion. Yes, the spark happens on the upstroke, which in turn starts the combustion process, which helps provide pressure and heat to finish mixing the fuel/air into vapor. But by this point most of your fuel/air is already turned to vapor.



Sometimes this can be reversed, AKA, retarding the timing behind top dead center. In some circumstances, the heat held in the chamber material, combined with the energy in the form of heat gathered during compression will be enough to seperate and ignite a mixture with very late spark or no spark.

Think of when a carberated car "Deisels." There's no spark from the plug, but there's enough energy in the form of heat to continue both seperation or vaporization and combustion. No spark. And the material in the chamber will cool as this goes on because the vaporization and combustion process is using the heat as energy.

The spark plug vaporizes the liquid fuel. By vaporizing it, you create "Seperation." Liquids are more dense than gases. Vapor being less dense, is "SEPERATED" fuel.

If the spark from the spark plug created combustion, as sp1r0 insists is the truth, then cars would be unable to deisel. End of story. Vaporization (seperation) and combustion. 2 steps.

Wow, All I can say is wow!
If by your own definition; if the spark plug is what is generating the vapor then when you kill the power to the spark plug it would no longer be able to create vapor.

Dieseling has nothing to do with the spark plug per se. Several things can cause dieseling. Carbon build up for one (usually caused by improper timing). The carbon heats up and will allow a continued ignition of the vapor. It is just one example of what causes dieseling, there are others.

[godoveryou]

Well if all you can say is wow, that's fine. I'll take wow.

The fuel injector doesn't begin the vaporization process. It simply sprays fuel. Watch injectors being sprayed in a clear case, like when they are being flow tested and matched. You don't see any vapors, just liquids. Heat creates vapor. Heat from the plug or when conditions will allow, compression.

That carbon also increases the engines compression. Increased compression increases the heat generated during the compression stroke.

All I can really say is that if I am so far off, why have so few counter facts been presented? All I've gotten back from anyone is that vaporization and combustion is one step (?) and spark plugs are the end all to gasoline combustion. You even admitted that deiseling has nothing to do with a spark plug, but it is still vaporization AND combustion, no spark! So how can that arguement hold water if I'm incorrect?

Both are obviously not the case, but on the same hand, nobody is willing to admit I'm correct either. Talk about a no win situation.

[snapper1d]

godoveryou,your post are starting to make less and less sense as you go on.Your thoughts are just ramblings.I am not just a shade tree I have two degrees in on engines and have worked in the field for over 40 years.You are getting in to pure ramblings and I dont want to have anymore part of this so I am on the sidelines and you can argue all day and ramble all you want and I will have no more comments to this thread at all.

[godoveryou]

Okay? Your the one with the post that contains no facts, just opinions, yet I'm rambling?

Whatever makes you happy guy. ;)

BTW, what is an "Engine Degree" anyways? ASE certification is not a "Degree."

"I have 3 degree's in decks, so I can build the best deck?" Really? Did you just basically say the same thing there?

[Q-Hack!]

All I can really say is that if I am so far off, why have so few counter facts been presented? All I've gotten back from anyone is that vaporization and combustion is one step (?)


Now you are changing your tune. Earlier you were saying that combustion is a two step process. The document you presented shows the gas vapor being broken down to smaller molecules before combustion. That is what I have a beef with.

Once fuel/air is a vapor it doesn't get broken down to smaller particles. That is a two step process I just can't believe. Sorry if you think otherwise.

[godoveryou]

I'm not changing anything. I said fuel seperates. Liquids are denser than gases. The molecules seperate. It becomes vapor. That's fuel seperating... I'm not changing my tune. There may have been a miscomunnication, but it's still a two step process.

Step 1:
Seperation (into a vapor)
Step 2:
Combustion (and expansion)

My degree in basketweaving or roller skating backs it up. :D

Actually Q, I don't understand how you think fuel could vaporize with no energy input. We are talking about a state of matter change. Energy is going to be required. Just as you feel sorry for me knowing that combustion is a 2 step process I feel sorry for you for thinking that "Energy" is an accident and not a cause or effect of an event or reaction.

[timetowinarace]

Pretty much dead on in a supplementary level of hho.

Everyone says that hho makes gasoline burn more efficiently (which should be completely not efficiently), but nobody says how or why it does. That's because they don't understand the process inside a combustion chamber. This is how and why hho makes gasoline burn more completely. The engine still has all of the power avaliable to it because even though there is less overall gasoline present, a greater percentage is being used to push the piston. Hydrogen is a weak fuel compared to gasoline, but it's super fast flame front releases enough stored energy in the form of heat to create fast and more complete seperation, or vaporization of gasoline.

I don't understand what all the arguement was over. I suppose I should have pointed to engines deiseling with no spark present earlier.

I agree, I should have said the gasoline burns more completely rather than efficiantly with hho supplementation.

I feel this is an important point because this boards main focus is supposed to be hho supplementation. My own observations the past few weeks has been the trend to add more hho to the point it is more of a second fuel wich would be fine except they expect it to behave as a supplement.

Now I'm rambling.:D

[Painless]

I've been reading and reading this thread to glean all the points from it and I have to say that what godoveryou is trying to communicate does make sense to me. I'm not a mechanic or a physics expert, but this is what I see he is trying to communicate:

1) Fuel is injected into the inlet manifold, as the piston begins its non-powered down-stroke, this creates vacuum in the cylinder which sucks the liquid fuel and air into the cylinder.

2) The cylinder begins its upward compression stroke, compressing the mixture, at a pre-determined point (by the ECU) during this stroke the spark plug fires introducing heat into the cylinder / fuel-air mixture. Further compression of the mixture until the piston reaches top further increases the temperature of the gas / air mixture (if you compress air, the temperature of the air is increased exponentially, this is how your A/C compressor works) until there is enough heat energy to move the fuel/air from liquid to gaseous/vapor state (like boiling a kettle).

3) At some point after the spark and the vaporization of the fuel/air mixture, temperature becomes high enough (due to continued compression) to cause combustion of the mixture in the cylinder, providing heat expansion to push the piston down, thus creating the power-stroke.

I'm pretty sure this is what godoveryou is saying and it makes good sense to me. Am I understanding correctly?

[godoveryou]

Yes sir.

I may not be wording things correctly today, or there may be some other communication issue, but thanks for sifting though all of it to summarize it. Sometimes my mind runs faster than I can express ideas and I unintentionally talk in circles. Then I get frustraited and sometimes speak to people in a poor manner. Sorry for that guys :( Underneath it all, I just want to help, but I don't want to do it at the expense of confirming bad information just to avoid confrontation.

GOY

[godoveryou]

I just want to say that I do sincerely feel bad about making some of the comments I did... There was no reason to make personal attacks.

[sp1r0]

Very believeable argument. I guess the main issue is how much expansion versus implosion. It's got to be simple physics. ( I am rereading this thread AGAIN)

[Q-Hack!]

Ya, looking back at the conversation I noticed that we are arguing semantics mostly. Its amazing how something worded just off can mean several things. Looks like most of the confusion stems from the document that you presented for reading (but didn't write yourself). The document makes it seem like the chemical composition of the fuel is being broken down into something else. You have not stated in your arguments anything along those lines. So I blame myself for part of this miss-communication. Hopefully somebody reading our banter will pick out the good stuff. :D

[Smith03Jetta]

I knew there was something I was leaving out. Spark Plugs!!! That's why my car's not getting better than 32 mpg. I left out the spark plugs.:eek:

I really think this thread was hijacked by somebody claiming to be GOD over YOU.

You are not the boss of me!

Some of the stuff you are saying makes sense and some of it does not. Who cares, That was not the point of this thread.

[double it]

Would you guys like some help on what happens to fuel during combustion from a chemical point of view?

If so I will write something up this evening when I return.

And by the way Godoveryou is only partially right. The spark plug in most engines are not capable of providing enough heat to crack fuel.

The combustion of fuel in a Gasoline fired engine is not a two step process but a linear process that is based on temperature with the flame front being the final conversion of the fuel. Think of a fuel cracking. Fuel cracking only causes the larger molecule chains to be broken down into smaller chains and this is done with heat, and it is done at extremely fast rates

[overtaker]

smith03jetta, I doubt godoveryou is claiming to be God over you! I think he is just paying tribute to our maker and NOT looking down on the rest of us.
double it, yes please add what you know. I can't offer any insight on this topic but I am enjoying this discussion.

[Smith03Jetta]

Here's my understanding of Gasoline and how it works in an engine. Please tell me if my understanding is skewed.

Gasoline is made up of a blend of lots of different types of Hydrocarbons. Each of the hydrocarbons evaporate at different temperatures. Some evaporate at room temperature. Some evaporate at 130F degrees. Some evaporate at temps above 350F degrees. Some higher.

The Spark from the spark plug ignites the hydrocarbon fumes that have evaporated at low temperature. Those fumes increase the temperature, allowing other hydrocarbons to start evaporating. As each stage of hydrocarbon evaporation happens those hydrocarbons are burned off until the fuel is eventually burned up. This all happens very quickly of course but if you slow it down and analyze it it happens like I have explained.

If you want to test this theory, leave your gas can lid off for a day or two. Let the gas evaporate for that time period. Then put the remaining gasoline in an empty gas tank and try to crank the engine. You will have trouble starting the engine and you will have trouble getting the gasoline to run the engine properly because you are missing the low temp hydrocarbons from the mixture.

Gasoline is designed to burn slowly in my opinion. It needs to burn relatively slow so power is produced until the piston is pushed all the way down. If all the gasoline is burned up before the piston is pushed all the way to the bottom you will lose power.

The fact that spark plugs fire before the piston reaches Top Dead Center takes advantage of the low temp Hydrocarbons. It takes a moment for the low temp burn to start the evaporation reaction for the higher temp hydrocarbons.

Here's what I understand about HHO being added to the burn. The HHO ignites REALLY REALLY REALLY fast. It burns off the low temp hydrocarbons REALLY REALLY fast. The temp in the cylinder heats up faster, the high temp hydrocarbons start evaporating and burning quicker. Down pressure is put on the piston before it reaches TDC. Also, most or all of the gasoline is burned up prior to the piston reaching Bottom Dead Center. An engine Knock sensor on modern engines will notice this happening so it will move the ignition timing closer to Top Dead Center so the burn is corrected.

[godoveryou]

Now, I'm not trying to be nasty or anything Smith, I just want to point something out. That's all. Nooooo nastiness. :)

The only problem with what you are saying is that a flame is as hot as the substrate it touches. In other words, just because there are two different combustables present, doesn't mean there are two different flame tempatures, one burning certain hydrocarbons and another burning a different set during expansion. It's all one flame front during expansion.

The HHO flame front heats the gasoline up enough to seperate (vaporize so there's no confusion) it upon the spark plug providing heat. After that, there's very likely none of the hydrogen left, but almost all of the gasoline then is seperated, as oppossed to just a portion of it without the hydrogen. THEN full compression occurs and you have gasoline ignition and that primary flame front is what drives the piston.

Combustion occurs as the result of heat generated during expansion and compression occuring at the same time in a gasoline engine. With HHO injected, gasoline is still the primary power providing fuel. We are just creating better conditions for the combustion of it. We aren't burning both fuels at once.

[SamB52]

Interesting discussion, guys!
If we moved slightly away from the flame theory and a little more toward the empiric...can anyone tell me form a practical standpoint how much hho for how much engine displacement would require how much spark advance?
Specifically, for a Jeep Hemi 5.7 liter, do I need 1 lpm, 2 lpm, 6 lpm? And will I need spark retard once I get to 6 lpm?
And BTW, godoveryou, have you got your cell design posted somewhere? I would love to see a super efficient cell.
Thanks!

[godoveryou]

Which cell, lol. No, not typically. My various cells are always in a state of flux. A picture I take one day could be obsolete just hours later. I can describe basic operating principles, as those don't change as often. I've gotten a few emails about it... I should problem make some kind of post, but I tend to lack the ability to write something for the few without offending the many.

A super simple design would follow these generic rules. Take your voltage, divide it by 1.5, and the result is you cell number. Within those cells, take your target current draw, determine the resistance of your electrode per square inch or mm - the resistance per inch or mm of wiring/fuses, the specific resistance of your exact dielectric at the tempature and pressure which it will be operating, and with that information you can begin to target in the number of electrodes to use. You take your total number of electrodes and divide them amoungst the cells. I use acrylic cases with a minimum thickness of .220 inches. If heat is a concern, I chemically weld fins onto the case to act like a heat sink. Spacing between electrodes is determined by your dielectric conditions and power application method. Erase the term "molecular resonance" from your memory, it doesn't exist. Aim instead for periods of hyper excitment for the electron in hydrogen which is roughly 1/137 the speed of light. You can then create the self-ionization of the dielectric and once that occurs the remaining HO becomes very unstable and easily seperated. You will hit peak production near this level of activity, but all of the above has to be taken into account, otherwise heating the dielectric with unwanted current with not permit any of this to occur beyond the scope of Faraday's law. I know that's really short but it's hard to tackle the entire scope of something in very little space.

[SamB52]

From godover on 8/21/08
"Oxygen sensors aren't direct ratio devices. They react to gasoline to create voltage. They don't care how much oxygen there is present to do so as long as enough gasoline is there to create a reaction."
Thanks for clearing that up, man! I have been trying to reconcile more complete combustion with leftover oxygen at the sensors since I started getting interested in hho...They shouldn't be called O2 sensors, should they? More like leftover hydrocarbon sensors.
So leftover hydrocarbons generate higher voltages and tell the ECU to lean it out, and complete combustion leaves fewer leftovers, leading to a low voltage, signalling the ECU to dump more fuel in...Perfect!

[godoveryou]

Well exactly. It's not as if you could heat the sensor and then spray concentrated oxygen on it to produce voltage. It just doesn't work that way. It's also why oxygen sensor's are slow monitoring devices and why their output, even in a completely solid state test where exact amounts of fuel are being exposed to it, vary so much. The reaction takes time. Not a lot of time but it's much slower than the sampling rates of a MAF or MAP sensor.

If the O2 sensor was as accurate and quick as some feel they are (as they have been told they are), then MAF's and MAP's would no longer be around. The MAF is an expensive item to make, cutting one $100 item from an entire line of vehicles would save an automaker MILLIONS per car model annually. The fact is, if O2 sensors were that great, all ECM programming for cars would be done as Alpha-N and O2. However, in high load conditions, the O2 is just no good because of it's poor sampling rate, and it's relatively inaccuracy, and without that the Alpha-N is at a serious handycap. It still can be done, and is done all the time in aftermarket race applications, but on predetermined formula's for very specific conditions. Not often is it done for daily driving and economy or emissions.

GOY