Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

HHO
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Commander-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

dongirod

Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 140

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: HHO

Commanderland;

  

 Have any of you been reading or viewing on www.youtube.com anything on the HHO, which is  the process of electrolysis to break down water into H & O and feeding it  into the air intake.  Some make claims of 30% up to several hundred per  cent increase in gas mileage including using it on an 18 wheeler to double the  mileage.  I was talking to my Commander and my Credit Card and both thought  it would be a good idea.  Has anyone looked into this in the auto industry  and other than the FAA, would it work in Commanders, probably take several  units.   Just thinking out loud.

  

 Don

   [quote][b]

V-Man(at)v-man.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:21 pm Post subject: HHO

Most of the stuff on YouTube is crap…  The in Japan and Canada truckers use a commercial version that is about $3000 for and all stainless unit capable of running enough Brown’s gas for a decent fuel supplement.  The complicating factor with engines since the first 70’s gas crunch is O2 sensors and computers.  To appreciate the benefit of the gas you must add a couple hundred millivolts boost to the signal going to the computer to compensate for the cleaner burning.    

   

Two other important issues.  DO NOT hook to the intake as all that happens is you create a vacuum and you get steam with is already expanded water and hurts mileage.  Hook to the aircleaner on the side before the aircleaner.  This helps to diffuse the Hydroxy gas and does not create the vacuum.    

   

I am anal about monitoring and have replaced the cassette area in my ’02 Suburban with a custom instrument panel.  It has…  

   

4 air/fuel ratio gauges.  Two that show what is actually going on in the exhaust and two that show what the computer is seeing after the circuit board that I made… ( two because you must cheat both O2 sensors in front of the cat converters )  and I have the all important EGT gauge which is the most important to prevent over leaning…  At 80% or more throttle it is not important as the computer goes to closed loop and dumps full rich fuel in anyway.  Only on the highway is this important.  Then I have a ammeter to monitor the DC motor controller as you have to adjust the current going to the hydrolyzer. (( as it heats up resistance reduces ( unlike an ordinary electric circuit where resistance increases)) You can have thermal runaway.  

   

The most important is don’t be a dumbass like the morons selling the crap on eBay and use baking soda.  It becomes part of the chemical process during hydrolysis and you end up with chlorine gas coming out the tailpipe.  Use potash or  (LYE for making soap) it stays in solution and you must only replace the water in the booster.  

   

Hope this answers a few questions…  

   

Victor    

[img]cid:image003.jpg(at)01C92A5D.3F1E5F50[/img]  

  

       

From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don

 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:48 PM

 To: Commander-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: HHO  

  

  

     

Commanderland;  

    

   

    

Have any of you been reading or viewing on www.youtube.com anything on the HHO, which is the process of electrolysis to break down water into H & O and feeding it into the air intake.  Some make claims of 30% up to several hundred per cent increase in gas mileage including using it on an 18 wheeler to double the mileage.  I was talking to my Commander and my Credit Card and both thought it would be a good idea.  Has anyone looked into this in the auto industry and other than the FAA, would it work in Commanders, probably take several units.   Just thinking out loud.  

    

   

    

Don  

   	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

image003.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

12.58 KB

Viewed:

306 Time(s)

jtaddington(at)verizon.ne
Guest

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject: HHO

Don,  

A friend of mine and I were talking about it and he says it is 34 times as efficient   

as gas and it did not sound that hard to do. He was interested in getting a car to run on it. One problem is if the Hydrogen leaks past the rings it gets into the crank case and can cause a really big explosion. I talked to one of my late wife’s cousins and he said he and some of his friends got a lawn mower to work on it. I was very surprised at how simple it is and wonder why some one is not really pushing hard for it. The friend is really good at electronics and said it could be done for less than $100. He has a certain amount of BS to him but he is a very smart person.  

Jim         

  

From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don

 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:48 PM

 To: Commander-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: HHO  

  

     

Commanderland;  

    

   

    

Have any of you been reading or viewing on www.youtube.com anything on the HHO, which is the process of electrolysis to break down water into H & O and feeding it into the air intake.  Some make claims of 30% up to several hundred per cent increase in gas mileage including using it on an 18 wheeler to double the mileage.  I was talking to my Commander and my Credit Card and both thought it would be a good idea.  Has anyone looked into this in the auto industry and other than the FAA, would it work in Commanders, probably take several units.   Just thinking out loud.  

    

   

    

Don  

   	  Quote: 	
		              - The Commander-List Email Forum ---> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

        [quote][b]

drwer2

Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 41
Location: Squaw Valley, CA

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:04 am Post subject: HHO

And you wonder why they dont let pilots work on aircraft......

  

 



--- On Thu, 10/9/08, Jim Addington <jtaddington(at)verizon.net> wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		  From: Jim Addington <jtaddington(at)verizon.net>

Subject: RE: HHO

To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Thursday, October 9, 2008, 9:17 PM



       

Don,

 

A friend of mine and I were talking about it and he says it is 34 times as efficient 

 

as gas and it did not sound that hard to do. He was interested in getting a car to run on it. One problem is if the Hydrogen leaks past the rings it gets into the crank case and can cause a really big explosion. I talked to one of my late wife¢s cousins and he said he and some of his friends got a lawn mower to work on it. I was very surprised at how simple it is and wonder why some one is not really pushing hard for it. The friend is really good at electronics and said it could be done for less than $100. He has a certain amount of BS to him but he is a very smart person.

 

Jim 

    

 

From: owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-commander-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:48 PM

To: Commander-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: HHO



 

 

  

Commanderland;



  

 



  

Have any of you been reading or viewing on www.youtube.com anything on the HHO, which is the process of electrolysis to break down water into H & O and feeding it into the air intake.  Some make claims of 30% up to several hundred per cent increase in gas mileage including using it on an 18 wheeler to double the mileage.  I was talking to my Commander and my Credit Card and both thought it would be a good idea.  Has anyone looked into this in the auto industry and other than the FAA, would it work in Commanders, probably take several units.   Just thinking out loud.



  

 



  

Don



 	  Quote: 	
		                - The Commander-List Email Forum -               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ---> http://forums.matronics.com             - List Contribution Web Site -                              -Matt Dralle, List Admin.  	
0 	  Quote: 	
		    	
1

 	  Quote: 	
		    	
2

	


           [quote][b]

_________________
No Generality is worth a damn....including this one.

cogito ergo aero-geek

cschuerm(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:16 am Post subject: HHO

Don wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    

 Have any of you been reading or viewing on www.youtube.com 

 <http://www.youtube.com> anything on the HHO, which is the process of 

 electrolysis to break down water into H & O and feeding it into the 

 air intake.


	


I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who think this will 

work (no personal insult intended Don). 

Let's take as a given that "burning" a fuel releases energy.  In a 

piston engine, some of this energy is turned into mechanical motion, but 

a lot is lost to heat.  Net loss in the energy conversion - agreed?  Now 

we take that mechanical motion and generate electricity.  Quite a bit of 

energy lost in that conversion as well.  Now we take the electricity and 

via electrolysis, split a molecule.  Certainly a net loss of energy 

there as well, not to mention that even a huge electrolysis cell 

generates a tiny amount of hydrogen unless fed *huge* amounts of 

electricity.  Next we're going to take that fuel we created by so many 

lossy steps, burn it, and get more energy out than we put into it's 

creation ?????

chris



ps: I have some "carbon offsets" I'm willing to sell cheap.  I'll take 

$45/flight hour for them.  Less than 75 hours available, so get 'em quick.

dongirod

Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 140

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:55 am Post subject: HHO

Chris;



I have read a great deal of the arguments, and I realize there is no such 

thing as 'perpetual motion', this said, I have also read many things that 

were quote 'impossible' until, something was changed and then it worked, 

Mr. Firestone comes to mind with I believe it was sulfur, as well as Mr. 

Edison and carbon.  So I usually don't just 'write something off', just 

because so far it hasn't worked.  I also read that God probably made the 

perfect compressed hydrogen, its call H2O, something like 1,800 to one 

compressions. I try and keep and open mind, one day I firmly believe, a 

revolutionary change will happen to greatly improve our internal combustions 

engine.



No thanks on the 'carbon credits', I can just put the money in the NYSE, but 

I prefer gold.



Don

---

dongirod

Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 140

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: HHO

I thought they did, have lots of pilot friends who  are also A&P and also AI's.

 [quote]   ---

John Vormbaum

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 273
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:16 am Post subject: HHO

Don,



I love your sense of optimism, and yes, things thought impossible have 

been conquered. But sulfur, Firestone, Edison and carbon didn't violate 

the First Law of Thermodynamics. The HHO thing is the worst sort of 

pathological science. You can't generate MORE energy by recombining H & 

O2 (combusting) than you used when splitting the H2O in the first place. 

If you had a 100% efficient (as in, no loss to heat or mechanical 

inefficiency) method of both splitting & recombining them, you'd end up 

with exactly a net-Zero energy production.



I think, if this actually worked, that you could just plug a couple of 

electrodes into the ocean and turn the world into a small sun, right?



Perhaps someone will come up with a nice, simple Cold Fusion powerplant. 

What ever happened to Fleischmann & Pons anyway?



/John



Don wrote:

[quote] 



 Chris;



 I have read a great deal of the arguments, and I realize there is no 

 such thing as 'perpetual motion', this said, I have also read many 

 things that were quote 'impossible' until, something was changed and 

 then it worked, Mr. Firestone comes to mind with I believe it was 

 sulfur, as well as Mr. Edison and carbon.  So I usually don't just 

 'write something off', just because so far it hasn't worked.  I also 

 read that God probably made the perfect compressed hydrogen, its call 

 H2O, something like 1,800 to one compressions. I try and keep and open 

 mind, one day I firmly believe, a revolutionary change will happen to 

 greatly improve our internal combustions engine.



 No thanks on the 'carbon credits', I can just put the money in the 

 NYSE, but I prefer gold.



 Don

 ---

rsrandazzo(at)precisionma
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: HHO

John-



So this extension chord I'm running over to lake tahoe isn't gonna work

either?????



Robert S. Randazzo

N414C



--

John Vormbaum

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 273
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: HHO

Sure, but you gotta plug it into a really BIG wall socket.



Robert S. Randazzo wrote:

[quote] 



 John-



 So this extension chord I'm running over to lake tahoe isn't gonna work

 either?????



 Robert S. Randazzo

 N414C



 --

cschuerm(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:12 am Post subject: HHO

John Vormbaum wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Perhaps someone will come up with a nice, simple Cold Fusion powerplant.


	


John, I purchased the DeLorean used in the movie "Back to the future" 

off ebay a few years ago.  I've since reversed engineered the "Mr. 

Fusion" module and intend to make the design public very soon.  Before I 

do that, I'm investing heavily in banana peel and empty beer can futures 

as that's where I think I'll make my millions.  I've also broken the 

88mph barrier and am now flying my Aztec entirely on half-empty beer 

cans.  The only significant technical issue that I've run into is that I 

have to drink the first half of the can for it to work right.  The eight 

hour "bottle-to-throttle" rule has significantly impacted my flying 

unfortunately.  I'm trying to get an STC for my new designated autopilot 

design, but at least one tea-totaling fed at the local FSDO office has 

been quite opposed to the whole idea.  I'm hoping that if I take him out 

to a topless bar and get him highly intoxicated that he'll be more 

willing to sign off on the field approval.   Always something holding up 

progress....

Chris

drwer2

Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 41
Location: Squaw Valley, CA

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:32 am Post subject: HHO

Now- now...enough pilot bashing.  I think its cute you know enough thermo to order a latte.  but if you were really good, you'd figure a way to file STC's without an act of Congress.

  

 Yeah we could use more efficient engines.....but what we really need is a streamlined STC process to put modern engines on some great flying (yet older) air frames. (and I dont mean turbocharged chevy's)

  

 So....Back to the "COMMANDER' list topics.

  

  

 Bud

 



--- On Fri, 10/10/08, Chris <cschuerm(at)cox.net> wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		  From: Chris <cschuerm(at)cox.net>

Subject: Re: HHO

To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Friday, October 10, 2008, 12:11 PM



 	  Quote: 	
		  --> Commander-List message posted by: Chris <cschuerm(at)cox.net>



John Vormbaum wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Perhaps someone will come up with a nice, simple Cold Fusion powerplant.


	


John, I purchased the DeLorean used in the movie "Back to the future"



off ebay a few years ago.  I've since reversed engineered the "Mr. 

Fusion" module and intend to make the design public very soon.  Before I 

do that, I'm investing heavily in banana peel and empty beer can futures 

as that's where I think I'll make my millions.  I've also broken

the 

88mph barrier and am now flying my Aztec entirely on half-empty beer 

cans.  The only significant technical issue that I've run into is that I 

have to drink the first half of the can for it to work right.  The eight 

hour "bottle-to-throttle" rule has significantly impacted my flying 

unfortunately.  I'm trying to get an STC for my new designated autopilot 

design, but at least one tea-totaling fed at the local FSDO office has 

been quite opposed to the whole idea.  I'm hoping that if I take him out 

to a topless bar and get him highly intoxicated that he'll be more 

willing to sign off on the field approval.   Always something holding up 

progress....

Chris



	
	


           [quote][b]

_________________
No Generality is worth a damn....including this one.

cogito ergo aero-geek

cschuerm(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject: HHO

Don wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I try and keep and open mind, one day I firmly believe, a 

 revolutionary change will happen to greatly improve our internal 

 combustions engine.


	


Well Don, I applaud your positive outlook.  From a purely scientific 

perspective, there are very few areas to improve a traditional Otto 

cycle engine.  Even if some new miracle material were to arrive that 

would allow unlimited temperature operation, basic physics still apply.  

Small efficiency gains could be had, but there is simply no room for 

huge improvement.  Energy out equals energy in minus losses.  As long as 

the "energy in" part involves oxidation of petroleum products, you are 

limited by that reaction.  Most likely, someone will eventually come up 

with an efficient means of directly generating electricity from a 

chemical reaction and the next "great advancement" in transportation 

will involve electric motors.  I'm not aware of any ground-breaking 

technology in that arena currently under development though. 



cheers,

Chris

drwer2

Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 41
Location: Squaw Valley, CA

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject: HHO

From an engineering and Thermodynamics standpoint, the internal combustion engine (at least the Otto Cycle) is pretty maxed out.  For regular piston-gasoline pushrod or overhead cam engines the total efficiency is dictated by the maximum pressure you can obtain.  Lately, higher compression and higher temperatures have pushed the efficiency to the limits obtainable with current materials (aluminum blocks, nitrided steel cylinders etc).  computer control of the mixture took it to another level, but noone will allow a micro controller on an AC without going through an extensive Qual process.  

  

 Newer High Temperature materials may increase this but absolute "e" is still = [T(high) - T(low)]/T(low).

  

 Diesel's are less dependent on T(high) but are still dependent on the Max pressure.  Thats why they are so good at being turbocharged at high altitude.  Same goes for Brayton cycle engines (jets).  in that case the limits are [P(high) - P(low)]P(low). 

  

 Now you know why those old---GSO-480's are still popular.  Lots of juice and still efficient at high altitude if you roll back on the throttles. (but who would?)

  

 bud

 



--- On Fri, 10/10/08, Chris <cschuerm(at)cox.net> wrote:



  	  Quote: 	
		  From: Chris <cschuerm(at)cox.net>

Subject: Re: HHO

To: commander-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Friday, October 10, 2008, 12:18 PM



 	  Quote: 	
		  --> Commander-List message posted by: Chris <cschuerm(at)cox.net>



Don wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I try and keep and open mind, one day I firmly believe, a 

 revolutionary change will happen to greatly improve our internal 

 combustions engine.


	


Well Don, I applaud your positive outlook.  From a purely scientific 

perspective, there are very few areas to improve a traditional Otto 

cycle engine.  Even if some new miracle material were to arrive that 

would allow unlimited temperature operation, basic physics still apply.  

Small efficiency gains could be had, but there is simply no room for 

huge improvement.  Energy out equals energy in minus losses.  As long as 

the "energy in" part involves oxidation of petroleum products, you

are 

limited by that reaction.  Most likely, someone will eventually come up 

with an efficient means of directly generating electricity from a 

chemical reaction and the next "great advancement" in transportation 

will involve electric motors.  I'm not aware of any ground-breaking 

technology in that arena currently under development though. 



cheers,

Chris



	
	


         [quote][b]

_________________
No Generality is worth a damn....including this one.

cogito ergo aero-geek

cschuerm(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: HHO

willis robison wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Now- now...enough pilot bashing.  I think its cute you know enough 

 thermo to order a latte.  but if you were really good, you'd figure a 

 way to file STC's without an act of Congress.




	


No way I'd ever bash John - he's an old buddy and I'm pretty sure he 

knows I was just rolling with his humor about cold fusion.

I've heard of a drink called a latte, but don't think it's made it to 

Oklahoma yet, so I'll just stick with the beer.  I think it's more 

likely to perfect cold fusion than streamline STC's.......



chris

John Vormbaum

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 273
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: HHO

Chris, remember, ANY Delorean will exceed 88mph, IF you have the proper 

Flux Capacitor and a power source that can generate 1.21 Gigawatts.

Chris wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 willis robison wrote:

> Now- now...enough pilot bashing.  I think its cute you know enough 

> thermo to order a latte.  but if you were really good, you'd figure a 

> way to file STC's without an act of Congress.

>

 No way I'd ever bash John - he's an old buddy and I'm pretty sure he 

 knows I was just rolling with his humor about cold fusion.

 I've heard of a drink called a latte, but don't think it's made it to 

 Oklahoma yet, so I'll just stick with the beer.  I think it's more 

 likely to perfect cold fusion than streamline STC's.......

 chris

 .

rsrandazzo(at)precisionma
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:23 pm Post subject: HHO

John-



I have a flux capacitor good to 1.21Gw powering all the electric displays we

just put into N414C... I have a spare on the shelf in the hangar just in

case we have to send one out for overhaul.



You guys can borrow it if I get a ride in the delorean OR the bear-can

burning commander.  



Robert S. Randazzo

N414C



--

John Vormbaum

Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 273
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: HHO

Deal! Right now the only kind of flying I can do is hangar flying. Makes 

me want to drink 1.21 Gigabeers and blow my flux into the porcelain 

capacitor. Luckily I've matured (well, a little) and will instead remain 

stoic until I have new engines hung on 3CC.



/John



Robert S. Randazzo wrote:

[quote] 



 John-



 I have a flux capacitor good to 1.21Gw powering all the electric displays we

 just put into N414C... I have a spare on the shelf in the hangar just in

 case we have to send one out for overhaul.



 You guys can borrow it if I get a ride in the delorean OR the bear-can

 burning commander.  



 Robert S. Randazzo

 N414C



 --

rsrandazzo(at)precisionma
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: HHO

John-



How much longer, you think?



Rob



--

tfisher(at)commandergroup
Guest

Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: HHO

Back in the early 70's I used to fly John Delorean around in helicopters at 

his plant in Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada.

Tom

C-GISS



 ---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Commander-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum