Author Topic: Results from some tests...  (Read 42413 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #40 on: July 02, 2009, 19:16:37 pm »
notice how the outside tubes are being held only by a stainless strip attached at the base... then all the inner tubes are connected to a base plate... this tells me the inner tubes disqualify the idea of series on the negative side, but it still allows option for switching on the positive side... notice the drawing is from around 1993.. notice it has notches cut out of the outter tubes at the top.. this set up would allow for vibration without a doubt i would say..

Offline Login to see usernames

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #41 on: July 02, 2009, 21:23:37 pm »
I got out some tubes and  trial fitted some tie wraps as spacers to make  free floating center tube.

Just an idea,  but may be worth a try.

Drawing attached

Online Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4441
    • water structure and science
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #42 on: July 02, 2009, 22:48:58 pm »
I got out some tubes and  trial fitted some tie wraps as spacers to make  free floating center tube.

Just an idea,  but may be worth a try.

Drawing attached

Good idea, Goey. Maybe you better add some softfoame under the " bars" , lets say on top of the outertube...

Online Login to see usernames

  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4441
    • water structure and science
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #43 on: July 02, 2009, 22:58:42 pm »
Update: just tried tap water with 2 car 12 V car batteries as input. Output increased as did the amps. With 25 V input the Amps sky rocketed to 10 Amps!! Unbelievable if you compare to a normal HHO cell with electrolyte! :o
This HHO cell will beat anything on the market, mark my words.

Now we tried to estimate the output at 3V input and 0.3 Amps(input 0.45 Watts). The output looks like at least 50 ml gas output per minute(0.05 lpm).
I have hard 1 lpm equals 60 Watts output.
That means output is 0.05*60 = 3 Watts
Input is 0.5 Watts to be on the safe side
COP is 6 according to this. First we estimated gas flow to 0.1 lpm and halfed that estimate.
Now we are CONVINCED this is OU by all means despite the "farmer solution"(or thanks to it). Vibration is amazing.
We will measure gas flow more accurately soon but preliminary indications are this is easily OU.


Hi Gauss,

Maybe you must help me out here with your calculations....
3V*0.3A = 0.9 Watts and not 0.45 is it?
Assume you get 0.05lpm gas from that amount of power, then you say you need like 60 watts for 1 litre per minute of HHO
My math says: 1/0.05 = 20   so 0.9watts times 20 = 18watts a litre/minute
That would be fantastic. However, the more volts on the cell, the more amps and the worse efficiency you get..
But it still would be great...
I hope you can confirm all this soon.

br
Steve

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 136
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #44 on: July 03, 2009, 02:34:20 am »
Hi Gauss,

For brute force electrolysis 13.8 vdc and 10 amps yields 1 LPM as a norm for about 2 volts/set of plates so that's about 138 watts.

Regards,
Andy

Offline Login to see usernames

  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #45 on: July 03, 2009, 04:33:03 am »
Hi Gauss,

For brute force electrolysis 13.8 vdc and 10 amps yields 1 LPM as a norm for about 2 volts/set of plates so that's about 138 watts.

Regards,
Andy

So that would mean  for maximum efficiency with a 13.8V supply,   you would need  7 tube sets wired in series.
Which I  think would require that that the outer tubes be insulated ......   




Offline Login to see usernames

  • Moderator
  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 96
  • "Help people enlighten to truth"
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #46 on: July 03, 2009, 09:27:31 am »
@Steve, I use 50% duty cycle so that means 3V*0.3 Amps*0.5(50%) = 0.45 Watts input

But I made an error on the HHO energy content. 1 litres of hydrogen holds 7744 Joules(?) of energy as far as I ahve found out. That means about 125 Watts effect for 1 LPM hydrogen. Assuming our HHO has the same(!) energy content as "normal" hydrogen that means we can at least double my calculation again(COP 12).

However, I believe I might have exaggerated the output despite all(most bubbles at 3V are very small and it is hard to estimate their volume) so let´s assume COP 6 for now anyway. At least we can get OU that is or sure.

Chris Eckman wrote an article where he measured 1 LPM HHO to generate more than 700 Watts, which I don´t believe..... Let´s not get excited.

We will measure gas flow(which is hard) soon.

And yes you are right, AMPS lowers the efficiency(normal electrolysis will always diminish our COP) dramatically but the effect is cool(after 3 seconds you run...).

I maintain this phenomena is truly an interesting proof of concept but holds little industrial value.
However, if you understand what this HHO is and then mix it with positive water mist and neutral water mist, then you have the water ion engine à la Meyer, that is where we aim. This is the first part and it is always the hardest.

I recommend anyone near Arizona to go to Teslatech 2009 and see Chris Eckman about Brown´s gas, or buy the hard copy of the latest issue of Extraordinary Technology.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Moderator
  • 50+
  • *
  • Posts: 96
  • "Help people enlighten to truth"
Re: Results from some tests...
« Reply #47 on: July 03, 2009, 09:42:02 am »
@Goeytex, yes IF we think normal electrolysis you are right. If we think vibrational electrolysis we might have a different situation.

Maybe we should consider chords, minor thirds, music and tones like Keely did instead? And now things get complicated(at least for me)..... :o