New Test Cell and why is HHO a pariah?
 

Hello once again Chaps and Chapesses.

In my last thread called 'How Good is HHO', I did say I was going to post some of the construction images of my new test cell.

OK, so the purpose of this cell? to complete the experiments I have outlined in my other thread.

Obviously if I want to show valid test results, I have to declare any vested interests. Er, None.....;) This equipment is not for sale, I will not sell it, and I will not be producing this for sale (regardless of my results) I am doing this for personal academic research only :)

Background, I am a technical consultant, electronic, electrical and mechanical engineer. I have worked on technology from power generation (conventional, nuclear and experimental) worldwide to national IT structures and even an experimental fusion reactor Outside of power, I have worked on biological equipment, mechanical and electronic equipment and weapons systems; I spent many years as an international disaster mitigation engineer. I am an inventor with multiple patents to my name several of which I sold to others who are now having commercial success with them. Not related to this field.

I am a part time lecturer, currently teaching at degree level. Personally, I am waiting to start a degree in physics, and hope to work towards a PhD in physics and electronics

I am hoping to retire in the next few months. This will allow me to spend more time researching, inventing, studying and maybe doing some teaching..... hmmm, about the same as working then, but maybe without so many financial pressures :)

I guess the first question ties into the title of this thread, why is HHO such a pariah? Well, I guess it is because it has the potential to be a reputation killer in some cases. Due to what much of conventional academia believes, HHO falls into 'Fringe Science'..... But sorry, isn't science itself fringe? It could almost be described as practical philosophy. But as in that world, income is directly related to reputation, the very people who should be looking at this are not. Me? well, I am retiring, so who cares. Why still maintain an air of secrecy over who I am? Well, I may be retiring, but the institutions where I teach will still be there, and so I have to respect their anonymity. (Until after my retirement)

So a new cell? that would indicate the presence of an old cell, and here it is... my very first HHO cell, about 7 years old....

Attachment 1551

This is a 4 electrode system with 2 elements per electrode. It leaks like a sieve and is not efficient (apparently). But this is the problem isn't it.... it bubbles like mad, but I do not know if it produces more or less than anyone else's.

Here is the problem, I have seen litre per minute values quoted, but no idea as to what pressure, and also if it is an actual quantified output level. Or if it is the case where people say "well, that's what I got when I tested it". So the new cell had to be made.

Attachment 1552

This is a 12 element Cell, each electrode is made up of 4 elements. Due to the way I have wired it, I am in the region of about 68 interface surfaces. I am tring to get as many pos / neg interface surfaces as possible.

Unfortunately, during pressure testing I found a problem. I have a leak. Currently the blow off is set to 2 bar (about 28 psi) but I want to pressurise it with air to 5 bar (about 70psi) giving me a safety factor of 2.5. Although it hit the peak pressure of this test, it leaks badly....

It is a dry cell, I know it looks like a wet cell, but have a look at the photo below.

Attachment 1553

All the elements are supported in an engineered non conductive holder. Under that, all the elements are connected using solid copper wire silver soldered to each electrode. This was assembled to its base (where the wiring distribution is hidden) then the whole lot sealed with a high grade low viscosity epoxy sealant. This flows between everything sealing and insulating and when it is cured it is as hard as glass. There is not even a gap around the input wire, it is also sealed by the same epoxy.

Therefore the leak is at the top......

Attachment 1554


Here although a bit close up we see the input pipes and also the securing nut for the EEX float switch that controls water input. There is also (although not visible on this, the pressure gauge. I have tried a bit of RTV (room temperature vulcanising rubber) as can be seen, but I have decided to go another route as:-

a) I do not want hydroxy / HHO / browns gas or whatever you want to call it building up around me...
b) How can I claim to be analytic in my approach to this when I do not stop the leak.

So the next step is... Seal the top with epoxy as well. So, I have printed a shield to go around the top of the cell, so I can fill it in it's entirety with epoxy resin.

Attachment 1555

So, as you can see, there is now a 2 1/2 inch (roughly) shield around the top of the cell. You can clearly see the water inlet pipe (short clear one) the gas outlet pipe (long clear one) the pressure gauge and the stainless steel nut holding the level switch.

Enjoy that image..... Once the courier arrives with a large pack of Epoxy potting compound, that sight will be lost forever... I shall edit this and post the sealed top image asap...

Just to ensure that the epoxy does not leak everywhere, I have just had a few minutes mad time with some RTV sealant. This is just covering the seams between the plastic shield and the top of the HHO cell. I need this, as the potting compound finds its way through every little gap you can imagine.... I want it to stay in the top shield until it cures. This sealing has no structural advantage. It is the potting compound that will provide mechanical strength, sealing and quite a nice cosmetic finish as well....




I hope you enjoy reading about my adventures with HHO

Ah ..... Mr. Professor, do you mind if I call you by your first name? Good!!

Mad, while you gave a reason following the above quote, that reason sounded suspiciously like a conspiracy theory.

But I have a working hypotheses as to why HHO hasn't been accepted by the mainstream. Evidence.

The most obvious thing about HHO is that it sounds like a perpetual motion machine. It seems to violate the laws of physics. No one has explained why you get more energy out than you put in.

The idea of breaking apart water to produce combustible gases, then putting those in an engine, and then being able to move a vehicle, and still coming out ahead, just doesn't add up.

Sure, if some outside source of energy were to be used to dissociate water and the hydrogen were to be used as a fuel, that would be different. That's a hydrogen fueled car - and an infrastructure is required to produce the fuel.

And, yes, it's possible to have home generating units to produce the hydrogen, but that is also true for electricity and natural gas (where available). This is nothing new.

But the real problem is with the claims. We've seen many claims of improvement - some absolutely ridiculous. But it all boiled down to adding a fuel and not accounting for it. It's sort of like saying I got a 1000% improvement when I modified my engine to use diesel as a fuel - and only accounting for the gasoline usage (which in this hypothetical example isn't being burned at all.)

Bottomline is that Brown's gas has yet to produce any repeatable results.

I wish you luck on your experiments. Just be aware that skepticism is just part of the process. You will either need to account for the energy input or admit that it is hydrogen being used as a fuel.

[QUOTE=But I have a working hypotheses as to why HHO hasn't been accepted by the mainstream. Evidence.

The most obvious thing about HHO is that it sounds like a perpetual motion machine. It seems to violate the laws of physics. No one has explained why you get more energy out than you put in.
[/QUOTE]

This is exactly right. Either Stan Meyers Device or the supplemental additions as are spoken about here are all in effect over unity devices, more out then in!

But, as I keep pointing out, I just want to find out the real facts and document them as fully as possible.

I cannot be attacked by diehard fans or absolute sceptics, as I am not taking one side over the other. I just want the facts as far as possible. So my experiments are designed so that once retirement happens and I can devote a bit more time to this, then people will be welcome to visit either my lab or workshop to verify what I am saying. In both cases the equipment is designed so it can be monitored using my test equipment or the visitor's.... no argument my equipment is out of calibration....

Also, the prime focus of the experiments initially are production methods and quantities along with some indication of purity.

maybe we could design some torque experiments and fuel consumption experiments again with calibrated digital readouts. Just to see if there is measurable differences in..... anything.

Initially, it will be based on an external power supply for the cell, just so I can control every aspect. I really cannot see me trying to design an over unity system, just gain some understanding and publicly show how I arrived at the data.

If we can create a datum point, then we have a system of comparison...
Whatever the results, I will absolutely have succeeded in my task, as my task is only to collect data. Only after that do conclusions begin to form.....


This is brilliant, I cannot fail :D

And just thinking, if you refer to my comment about conventional academia not researching this, not a conspiracy theory at all....

Your research place is typically funded either by the university agenda, or by private investment in a university to provide some specific research.

That leads to researchers getting jobs and if the result is of sufficient magnitude, more reputation increase and more work.

So Mr X has worked on the say the RDX project at Padua, or has worked on Dark Matter experiments at CERN for example. He is world wide renown for his work and his reputation. As a result, he has just taken out a mortgage, got married and had a wee bouncing baby.... So stable family life, good job.

When it is time to move to his next position, he needs the same level of income or more to sustain his lifestyle and ambitions. Would you risk it all by investigating a so-called fringe science?

It may be that for example the next research position is funded by a well known global multinational (pick one of them) They typically take their branding so seriously, that a whisper of that researchers involvement in a project like HHO could end his career..... Not conspiracy theory, just the way some companies are.

I once failed a job interview for one of these companies, as they asked me to stop wearing bow-ties, I was given a list of approved deodorants and was told to shave..... So how do you think they would respond to a researcher who 'did not follow the norm'? Well I guess a lot of people in academia are not willing to find out.....

Just one further thought.... Car wise, I drive a CLK 200 Kompressor (Speedtronic)called Clara. She returns 38.4 MPG (according to the screen) on the motorway and between 28 to 32 on my commute to the office (Urban)

I have not measured, logged this, other than what is on the display. I use my cruise control and basic hypermiling techniques to achieve this. I do now seem to spend less on petrol since I stopped using the cheap supermarket brands. I now only use Shell V-Nitro 97 octane (Superplus unleaded) which costs more per litre, but I put less in.... Not Quantified data, just personal observation. Typically I fill up on Monday mornings, and since the switch, I put less in the tank.... hence the savings.

I do not intend to modify my little baby in any way. So I really do not have an axe to grind one way or another except for one little tiny detail.... There are no properly structured sets of test data. Sod what the data says; for without proper testing and data, it can say whatever it likes, as we are stone deaf. :D

Discussion of HHO in forums suffers from these ills:

- Spam/sales. Forums, especially automotive forums, and doubly so for forums related to fuel economy, alternative fuels, environmentalism, etc, get a constant deluge of HHO spam. Some of it is obviously spam. Some of it is insidious. It's worse when fuel prices rise sharply but it's ever-present. You don't see much of it because staff are constantly on cleanup duty.

- Thermodynamics, perpetual motion, etc. You've acknowledged that issue so I need not expound.

- In our context it is discussed as a fuel supplement or replacement. It has been tried for so very long by so very many people, some dumb, some brilliant, with all sizes of budget and all manner of resources, but no credible or believable success has been shown. This isn't just the past few years, it goes back decades, maybe a century. If nobody has managed to pull it off yet, seeing another attempt just causes skepticism, not excitement and enthusiasm.

- Fringe science, as you said. Not just from a serious mainstream scientist's point of view though, which I am not, but also from the whole scammy industry and shady reports everywhere, and the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories that explain why it has never succeeded.

- So many HHO posts are very long and the users repeatedly start lots of threads with long posts. Sometimes this is legitimate and honest because it is a huge subject that requires a lot of data, research, and discussion and someone legitimately trying can end up posting like that, but either way...after years of reading spam, sales pitches, and people pretending to be DIYers who later turn out to be spammers, it gets tiring trying to wade through it all.

As a whole it's a turnoff and anybody who's been on forums like this for a while is tired of the same old song and dance.

If you're an honest DIYer trying to find that breakthrough that nobody else has managed then I commend your efforts. Please take this post as an explanation, not an argument. Those are the reasons why it's a difficult topic to discuss here.

Oh, and your photos show some really nicely constructed stuff. I wish I could build like that!

Thank you TheHolyCow, I really do appreciate your complements on my build skills.

And you are right about the reasons behind the scepticism. Too many people have vested interests. And there are people trying to build a 'reputation' by being seen to be 'legitimate'. Or there are those who say, let us just see what the heck is going on..... I am definitely in the last group ;) Or they just want people to shell money out on cr@p

But they all have something to prove. I have listed my qualifications, I have sataed that I shall not use this on my car, I shall not be selling. I do not care if I make a breakthrough (not that I am currently looking for one), therefore the only proof I need to show I have done what I set out to do is video and documentary evidence of the tests I have completed, plus the data from repeat tests following system reset, using the same values...... This is to show consistency and also repeatability.

All I want to do is the one thing that no one else has done, systematic documentation of a consistent fuel cell. Comparing input data (voltage, current, frequency and waveform) with output (flow rate, pressure and purity of gas (when compared to the addition of electrolyte).

This is only possible if the cell is absolutely consistent. I can compare the effects of tuning one power source to the cell compared to tuning a power-source of a different operational methodology (DC Gated compared to PWM compared to tank oscillator for example)

I shall post these results as a CSV file and an open source spread sheet of a common type....

At that point, everyone will have a common datum point to base research on. Then, and only then, could any hope of a breakthrough be considered. I am not a sceptic, I am not an evangelical believer, I am an engineer hoping to start a proper discussion about this subject, based on facts, not opinions.

:D

And yes, I do appreciate the comment about the long post, but I am almost famous for it, I have an kind of description of my self.... someone who refuses to use one word when 20 will do perfectly :)

This is something I cannot change, and to be honest, my staff and my students would not have me any other way.... so I am sorry, but these posts are already abbreviated as much as I can :D

The photo of the resin application will be up soon, but I need to go and buy more resin.. I slightly underestimated the amount I would need :D

I too used to prefer twenty words when one would suffice, but I feared that my posts were going unread by the very people for whom I wrote them. In yet another attempt to advance my education towards a degree I took a course in which we discussed brevity and suddenly it all snapped into place. After that I managed to significantly reduce my post length.

I'm not sure it would necessarily work for this purpose, though. I suspect that it really does take all twenty words. Regardless, it's still a huge wall of text on a tired subject. :( It is probably not wasted though, as there are certainly people who are not worn out on it, with the proper constitution and interest.

I do agree, it is a subject that has tumbled on for years, I have even seen the interview with Stan meyer on the programme ghosted by a. C. Clark..... Which certainly dates it. He predicted 3 years.... And in all that time, I still have not found anyone creating a standard and then a set of test results based on the standard...... How can any impressions let alone conclusions.

I have seen new electronics connected to a new cell and also a new catalyst...... Where can any advancement come from that. So, I shall have created a standard test cell, standard electronics and a standard water composition.

Then one by one, each one can be calibrated.
Down to data capture and even specific reactance values for the cell. Maybe the capacitive and inductive values have an effect?

I certainly hope that by providing such detailed accurate results, regardless of conclusion, but just the act of accurately reporting the data I'll actually be fresh research. :-)
But maybe here, and with the help of the forum, we can complete the data logging.

I wonder, if I were to work out a set of measurement criteria, and possibly made some raspberry pi and arduino monitor sets if I could send them to a few forum members so we have a wider range of test data..... Will have to work out how to do that.... And be able to afford it.....
Possibly if I design a system that fits into a small box and send them to the first group of people. Would they know others who they could send them to?....

Maybe it is time to wake up a tired subject in the name of facts. :D

And sorry for another long post, and typos, am on my phone :D

And the right people are those who read posts this long......
:D

Lets get this done man I have a need for some fuel savings. Will it work on my 2014 GMC Sierra Crew Cab SLT 4x4 5.3 355hp gas engine with direct injection variable valve timing and Active Fuel Management? I would like to get around 50 mpg please. What is your schedule for complete results???

You're not going to get a Sierra to get 50 MPG. Not gonna happen. If you're lucky and you drive it right you may hit 30 on the highway. Plus, HHO is risky. If not done properly you can damage your engine. If you dealer figures out that you were running HHO, the warranty will be void.

Sorry to take so long to get back into the discussion. I don't know if the professor is still following this or not, but here's an illustrative anecdote.

While doing fleet tests of tires for a major tire manufacturer, I became aware that driving around the city (as opposed to driving between cities) caused tires to wear faster. I had evidence in the form of those fleet tests, but there was never any apples to apples tests - there was always a banana in there somewhere. I couldn't get anyone in the company interested in getting a controlled test - apples to apples - because it wasn't going to add anything beneficial to the company.

So while fringe ideas are great discussion points, unless there is some advantage, it isn't likely to get researched.

HHO is one of those things where it just doesn't make sense - unless we are talking about hydrogen as a fuel. That's why it hasn't been researched much

A side thought: I wonder if the following isn't true for HHO. Many great ideas don't turn out - and the research is never published because there was nothing positive to publish.

There has been considerable research over the years concerning the use of hydrogen as a motor fuel. Hydrogen, by weight, is about the highest energy fuel available. But there are problems. The primary one is that hydrogen is not found in any quantity as a free element - it is always combined with something else and has to be separated out. That separation requires more energy than is gotten back when the hydrogen is burned.

Hydrogen is very difficult to store in usable quantities as a motor fuel. It will not condense into a liquid unless it is cryogenically cold, and stored as a compressed gas it requires quite heavy tanks. There has been much experimenting to overcome this problem, and the best solution I have heard about is zeolites. Even then, it requires several atmospheres of pressure to work.

When used as a gaseous fuel in internal combustion engines, it detonates severely. That requires exhaust gas recirculation to reduce the oxygen content, which adds complexity and reduces efficiency. I'm not sure, but I don't think it will ignite in a compression-ignition engine (diesel) unless there is an oil pilot injection to light the fire.

Okay, folks. The information is out there. All you have to do is look for it.

Now I think about it, perhaps the most spectacular use of hydrogen as a fuel is the now-retired space shuttle. The three rocket engines on the shuttle were fueled by hydrogen and oxygen, stored in liquid form in the main tank beneath the orbiter. The foam insulation on that main tank was required to keep the fuels cold enough to remain liquid.

I will bite, where is mads data? I have an older vehicle that needs to be getting 100 mpg so lets GIT UR DUN

I was actually reading the history of the Hindenburg, and found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...n_technologies which shows just how long hydrogen has been studied.