The International Open Source Hydrogen On Demand Builders Network.
HODINFO IS SHUTTING DOWN IF YOU WANT ANY DATA ON THIS NETWORK THE NETWORK IS UNLOCKED. COPY IT!
I added this at "ehrwin", so kinda re-post with more writings.
... For instance why not to use one "soup casserole" and insert another inside, smaller sized soup casserole in it? Obviously it would be much easier and somewhat cheaper. This is why I am getting back to formulas. When people saying there needs to be a feed of electeric power of certain modulation at certain AMPs - they already figured out "why".
So for calculation of the most efficient outcome, I am looking for a volume of liguid, surface (sq inch, sq mm, sq sm) of the metalls (plates, tubes, shapes), electric load (modulation and AMPerage) for sustainable gas output.
Then of course it might be necessary to figure-out safety valve to prevent gas accumulation at "start" and "stop" of the device. For instance, if there will be any gas (HHO) left after engine (and device itself) stop, where will be unburned HHO collect in?
Then, when engine (and device) will start over in 10 minutes or 3 hrs, does it affect anything? Or the gas (HHO) will dissolve somehow? If yes, through which way?
Then how safe is to run such devices in very hot weather? Any reviews?
Again, maybe it is somewhere at this portal and I just could not find it yet?
Secondly, after reading some articles on Hydrogen burning inside the internal combustion engines of modern design, I begin to see that there are clearly physycal limitations:
"And there is even a concept, and somewhat of a device, called a Fuel Cell (originally conceptualized in the 1830s), which can use this chemical reaction to generate electricity. During the 1960s, NASA developed Fuel Cells which produced electricity for spacecraft. They worked reliably and fine, but they were horrendously expensive. There have been people trying to make inexpensive versions ever since! In the early 1990s, some breakthroughs were found. The concept of a Fuel Cell is actually pretty simple. You provide a supply of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas (which is usually from the air) which are separate, with a unique barrier between them. The simplest version of a Fuel Cell is to allow the NUCLEUS of the hydrogen atom to pass through the barrier while not allowing the electron to also pass through. The electron is then caused to follow some DIFFERENT path to eventually get to where the nucleus had gone to, where the end result will be water molecules. The electrons are negatively charged, and when they are forced to follow that alternate path, they are MOVING CHARGES which is the same as an electric current. In words, it therefore seems quite simple to have a Fuel Cell produce electricity. However, in practical terms, there are lots of complications! It may still be ten or twenty years before any reliable technology will exist which has tolerable cost.
And WHY is a Fuel Cell such an attractive thing? Why not simply try to BURN the Hydrogen in a conventional engine? There are actually two major reasons. The central one is that modern internal combustion engines only have an overall efficiency of around 21% (up from around 15% in the 1970s), while the fuel cell process has the THEORETICAL CAPABILITY of being nearly 100% efficient (although existing ones are generally around 40% efficient). The second reason is that Fuel Cells provide a CONTROLLED OUTPUT of power. In an internal combustion engine, the oxidation of Hydrogen can and would occur in two VERY different ways!
The desired on is by combustion (technically, conflagration), where the laminar flame front speed is around 8 feet per second at standard temperature and pressure. The undesired one is by explosion (technically, detonation), where the flame speed is over 9,000 feet per second, many times the speed of sound and incredibly dangerous!
You might notice that NO experts really ever talk about using Hydrogen as an actual FUEL for existing engines (although there are many less educated people who talk about that a lot!) These are the reasons for that! (A few experimental vehicles HAVE been built to burn Hydrogen in a modified internal combustion engine, but they have not really impressed anyone.)"
Taken from here: http://mb-soft.com/public2/hydrogen.html
Not posting to discurage home-cooking entusiasts but trying to get a clue on LIMITATIONS.
And again, I wonder if anyone reached the point of feeding HHO to a fuel line to the point of uncontrollable explosion.
For instance there is a ratio of the gasoline feed determine by electronic processor in the car. So mini-computer reads data from O2 (not just from that sensor obviously) and since we're "tricking" the sensor it sprinkled lesser amount of gasoline into the feed lines.
So perhaps we know what is the minimal spray of the gasoline could be possibly obtained during such routine?
What is the minimal (lowest on the gasoline side) "gasoline - oxygen" ratio that mini-computer can provide in any given make/model? Any better performance after connection of these additional "tweeking" devices?
Any calculation or known limitations are out there?
Now, back to the flow.
KNowing the most efficient ratio that COULD be achived via connection of some of these devices it might give us ultimate ratio for HHO feeding and in its volume. By knowing the maximum and safe amount of HHO we could figure-out necessary capacity (up to maximum) of our "fuel cells". And so on and on, down to the formula that I am looking for.
I understand that I am probably far behind on this than most of you folks, so I am asking all this before I'll start screwing some plates and wires. If there any known pre-calculations according to limitations of existing engine models - link me up. I'd really appreciate that.