Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.
 Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here: https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

### Author Topic: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.  (Read 23827 times)

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2015, 03:57:15 PM »
Can someone enlighten me please, what is so special about HHO, isn't it just two lots of hydrogen gas mixed with one lot of oxygen by volume?

Oxygen and hydrogen both exist normally as diatomic molecules, H2 and O2.  This is what you get bubbling up from the electrodes in any normal electrolysis cell.
All normal gases at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP) occupy 22.4 liters per mole of gas. One mole of water H2O weighs 18 grams, of which 16 grams are oxygen and 2 grams are hydrogen. So you get one-half mole of O2 (one mole of O2 is 32 grams) and one mole of H2, per mole of water electrolyzed. This means you should be getting  11.2 + 22.4 = 33.6 liters of gas at STP per mole of water. However, "HHO" implies two moles of monoatomic hydrogen plus one mole of monoatomic oxygen per mole of water. So this means you should be getting 3 x 22.4 liters = 67.2 liters of "HHO" gas at STP, per mole (18 grams) of water electrolyzed.  As far as I am aware, nobody has ever actually proven, by gas volume measurements, that such a thing as "HHO" gas actually exists as a product of electrolysis at all.
Of course, maybe amongst its other magical properties, "HHO" gas also violates the combined Boyle-Charles universal gas law.

#### Paul-R

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2084
##### Re: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2015, 04:25:02 PM »
As far as I am aware, ... nobody has proven ...  that such a thing as "HHO" gas actually exists as a product of electrolysis at all.
Some ridiculous chancer tried to sue (I believe it was Bob Boyce) for calling the products of his electrolysis (strictly speaking, water fracturing) hydroxy gas. They reckoned they had ownership of the word "hydroxy" despite the fact that it has been used as the label for an ionic radical since Victorian times (along with "hydroxyl"). And so it was mandated that everyone call the gas HHO.

The trouble with these fruit bats is that they can have pots of money to spend in court.

#### tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5365
##### Re: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2015, 05:13:58 PM »
Can someone enlighten me please, what is so special about HHO, isn't it just two lots of hydrogen gas mixed with one lot of oxygen by volume?

What other fuel do you know of that turns back into it's raw state when burnt.
What other ash from burnt fuel can be refined to become that fuel again-over and over.

All you have to do now is find a way to create the HHO for less energy than you get from burning it.

Holly sh-t,i just had a braingasm.

#### Paul-R

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2084
##### Re: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2015, 06:30:15 PM »
Can someone enlighten me please, what is so special about HHO, isn't it just two lots of hydrogen gas mixed with one lot of oxygen by volume?
TK's words are right on the money. But it should be added that HHO is what you get from electrolysis or water fracturing of most types. It comes in EXACT stoichiometric proportions and is therefore explosive and difficult to store and handle. It burns with a flame front which travels supersonically and the bang or crack can damage or puncture ear drums. It is best generated and used at the same time, preferably being pumped straight into a combustion engine to produce improved performance. Do not underestimate the hazards.

#### markdansie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1471
##### Re: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.
« Reply #19 on: July 22, 2015, 04:40:44 AM »
Having spent several years working with and testing for a variety of companies making automotive HHO products I submit the following. All up we used some of the best labs in the world and hundreds of thousands of dollars
The following results are based on research with diesel engines. You can expect more with gasoline because of the difference in the  nature of combustion. The following conclusions are not specific and more like a generalization after analysis of thousands of on road studies, and engine lab testing results[/font][/size]
Before proceeding I have never found a HHO device that could run an engine in a closed loop arrangement (Water for Fuel) without an additional fuel source. In every instance they turned out to be scams or would not allow testing .[/font][/size]TestingIt should be noted that engine lab tests often yield different results to on road tests. There are several reasons for this.
1. The human Element. In the lab the is removed. On road tests using a double blind method often netted better than 15% improvements when the driver thought he had the system turned on and it was not functional. We had the reverse where no improvement was recorded when it was turned on and they we led to believe it was turned off[/font][/size]
2. The extra power meant that taller gears could be used up hills, this is not reflected in lab engine tests but was recorded in Dyno tests.[/font][/size]
3. Using a smog meter from a smog shop did not compare with results of using instrumentation available n the labs. Often they were out by 70% or more especially measuring NOx[/font][/size]
4. Traffic and weather can distort results with road tests and are removed in lab conditions.[/font][/size]
5. Long term road tests run over several months proved to provide the most reliable results, especially when the same driver and route was used.[/font][/size]
6. In at least one engine lab test we actually took over all the functions of the ECM so no other variable could come into play. Many of the setting were set and did not vary.[/font][/size]
The HHO devices tested over many years ranged form simple backyard plastic devices to professionally well built and engineered units costing many thousands of dollars. The main difference was the efficiency of production of gas and the quality of the gas. Typically a well built unit consumed around 150 watts of electricity to produce 1 liter per minute of HHO. Some of the bad ones took over 400 watts. The less efficient ones ran at much higher temperatures.[/font][/size]
Many units also through poor design allowed a lot of water vapor to be transported with the gas…this was not a problem unless it contained KOH in high concentrations which then corroded engines.[/font][/size]

#### markdansie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1471
##### Re: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.
« Reply #20 on: July 22, 2015, 04:43:32 AM »
Part 2
10 Facts about HHO from the testing1. HHO will reduce carbon monoxide up to 90%. Carbon monoxide is a fuel and HHO is a catalyst to promote its combustion
2. HHO will reduce HC or hydrocarbons in a range 10% to 90%[/font][/size]
3. HHO will reduce particulates, especially organic particulates in a range between 10% and 70%[/font][/size]
4. HHO will reduce EGT (Exhaust gas temperature) from 50 to 150 degree F (depending on engine load)[/font][/size]
5. HHO will quiet the engine down (was noticeable in every lab test by all the technicians but not measured[/font][/size]
6. HHO will not always reduce NOx and in some circumstances increase it (water injection reduces it really well)[/font][/size]
7. Only a small amount and a very specific amount of HHO is needed depending on engine capacity. If too much is applied engine efficiency will be reduced if using electrolysis to produce the HHO[/font][/size]
8. Horsepower is increased between 3% and 12% depending on the engine a grade of diesel used.[/font][/size]
9. HHO did improve and clean heavily carbonized engines. Often after weeks of running fuel efficiency increased through this cleaning process. In one case an improvement of 13% was obtained and when the unit was removed it still retained a 11% improvement.[/font][/size]
10 HHO works best when an engine is at a  ertain speed or above. There we no benefits at idling speed.[/font][/size]

[/font][/size]EfficiencyThis is where a lot of variables come into play including engine condition, engine load, fuel used and gas injected. The results varied from 2% to 22%.
1. In the labs I worked in over the years I always asked the operators the best result they had witnessed in regards to diesel. They were under NDA with specific companies but as a general rule of thumb none had seen better than a 5% improvement In one case the lab had tested over 15 HHO devices over many years. I never witnessed anything above 5% except in testing one device that was generating the hydrogen from the fuel and injecting it directly in to the fuel (well that was the theory)[/font][/size]
2. In some long term tests fuel efficiency did improve between 10% and 20% by cleaning the engine. Up to 80% of this efficiency was maintained after removing the device[/font][/size]
3. Road tests in countries like South Africa have yielded up to 20% improvement, mainly due to assisting the combustion of poor quality fuels. However fuel additives have also achieved similar results in these vehicles.[/font][/size]
4. results on road were typically better on the road, Typically they are in the 2% to 8% range with clean engines burning quality fuel, however i have seen some tests regularly achieve over 10% and up to 20% with older vehicles[/font][/size]
5 In some marine trials over 20% had been obtained. I reveiewed the data but did not take part in teh actual testing[/font][/size]

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3942
##### Re: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.
« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2015, 04:55:35 AM »
TK's words are right on the money. But it should be added that HHO is what you get from electrolysis or water fracturing of most types. It comes in EXACT stoichiometric proportions and is therefore explosive and difficult to store and handle. It burns with a flame front which travels supersonically and the bang or crack can damage or puncture ear drums. It is best generated and used at the same time, preferably being pumped straight into a combustion engine to produce improved performance. Do not underestimate the hazards.

its a much safer practice to separate the gasses at the point of electrolysis

For an ICE, the general practice is the throw the oxygen away and just use the air intake for O2
although some have ran the oxygen into the air intake, or even injected it with the fuel at the manifold.

by keeping them separate, the hydrogen is less likely to go volatile.
and with the proper fire arrestors and bubbler tank, its' safer than most everyday activities.

#### markdansie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1471
##### Re: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.
« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2015, 04:56:16 AM »
What other fuel do you know of that turns back into it's raw state when burnt.
What other ash from burnt fuel can be refined to become that fuel again-over and over.

All you have to do now is find a way to create the HHO for less energy than you get from burning it.

Holly sh-t,i just had a braingasm.

If you piss in the water it requires less voltage

#### pomodoro

• Hero Member
• Posts: 720
##### Re: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.
« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2015, 02:06:32 PM »
Thanks for all that info TK and it was good to read the other posts. I agree,  if the mystical BS is taken away, it is still does have some very special traits.

#### Paul-R

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2084
##### Re: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.
« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2015, 06:21:56 PM »
its a much safer practice to separate the gasses at the point of electrolysis

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

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3942
##### Re: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.
« Reply #25 on: July 23, 2015, 04:04:52 AM »
There's  nothing wrong  with that except that  it isn't HHO that you are using any more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#### Marsing

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 300
##### Re: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.
« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2015, 03:23:34 AM »
good morning-day-afternoon-night.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.
« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2015, 12:35:33 PM »
I will just address a couple of the points.

good morning-day-afternoon-night.

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

2005, a guy said he was running his car on water explosion, by adding a second source of electricity (a converter 12/110) to the basic ignition coil of his V8 car, to create a stronger spark, he was able to run it just on water sent to the carburetor, in place of petrol, and exploded with the plasma electric arc.
"A guy said" isn't proof of anything. Look into all the work Mark Dansie has done regarding water-fueled internal combustion engines.
Quote

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

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

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

There are a number of ways to operate an internal combustion engine using only water as fuel.
Again, check out Mark Dansie's long history researching this topic. There are a number of things you can _try_ but you cannot run an internal combustion engine using only water as fuel.
Quote
The traditional approach is to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen gas using electrolysis, however, this process is quite inefficient. To improve the efficiency of electrolysis, various inventors have sought to stimulate water at its resonance frequencies and thus get more gas production with less energy inputs. This approach works, however, problems have always been in making enough gas on demand as needed by an engine, noting that storing H2 and O2 is a highly explosive alternative that should be avoided.

There is also another group of inventors who make mono-atomic H and O gas, which is very nice as you get larger gas volumes and a more reactive fuel so you use less, but it still must be made on-demand...
There is no proof anywhere that "another group of inventors" has made any monoatomic H and O gas.
Quote
Others have tried chemical reactions with water to produce hydrogen gas. The typical approach is with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and aluminum which will produce enough gas so long as you have empty aluminium cans to keep the car running. Sodium hydride (NaH) is even more reactive, but highly dangerous to handle unless properly encapsulated as a company called Powerballs, Inc. is proposing. There are many other chemical reduction reactions that can be used, however, the metals become more costly and re-refining or reprocessing the waste water will be a messy problem. Not such a good ecological approach.

A recently revised approach is to use a plasma arc to dissociate water. US Magnegas Inc. does this in reactors that recycle carbon-based liquid wastes like sewage, used cooking or automotive oils, soaps and cleaning solvents, and so on, to produce a stable and compressible "Magnegas" which has been very successfully combusted in ordinary vehicles and can be used for cooking, metal cutting or in various power generating technologies. This is a worthy approach for liquid waste disposal and generation of a limited amount of usable gas for running vehicles.
Magnegas, as it is called, has been around for a long long time and giving it a new magic name doesn't change anything.
Quote
The latest watercar technique utilizes a little known "exploding water" technique. This is based on a high capacitance discharge in water or water vapor which causes a "cold fog jet" pressure pulse together with light flash and sonic concussion. This is basically a lightning and thunder reaction and is the approach that shows the most promise when applied to an internal combustion engine. This is the recommended approach as it requires less energy and produces a powerful result without consuming the water, which is simply recycled repeatedly in order to achieve 300 mpg or more.
There is no such thing as a "cold fog jet" as actual experiments run _with full cooperation and guidance from Peter Graneau himself_ have solidly proven. There is no excess energy released in a capacitor discharge in water or water vapor. There is indeed a pressure pulse, which Graneau and his early collaborators didn't know how to analyze properly. As soon as more, and more rigorous experiments were performed in Hathaway's laboratory, and a proper model of the events in the arc chamber was evolved by scientists at U of Toronto, it became clear to everyone that Graneau's theory and claims were simply wrong.
Quote
...................................

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

.

#### ramset

• Hero Member
• Posts: 8056
##### Re: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.
« Reply #28 on: July 24, 2015, 04:56:06 PM »
Water is an amazing thing , I'll never forget the time I was doing a Job in Kentucky on a train derailment ,we had to come up with a quick fix
for the damaged concrete railroad ties which the train took out [reattaching the rail to the ties on site] this was high strength seamless rail and a fellow shows up with
a water cutter ,I guess this was 1992 ?? I was unaware that such a thing was possible to do with Water at a remote location.
few years later another one of my customers was using a water jet to cut 12-14 inch thick sheets of steel into pieces for MRI machines [FONAR Corp]

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

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: Testing HHO explosion and implosion effects.
« Reply #29 on: July 24, 2015, 08:28:18 PM »
What to do? It's no good using it in an internal combustion engine except as a means to slightly increase the efficiency of _normal fuels_.

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

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