Hydrogen generator

[Tagor]

Don't take it badly, but it's you
we also call that a "Troll" on econology

for the moment this manipulation is not stable and needs to be confirmed
but a first result gives:

According to the plans text, the cell is a 12.5 volt design that produces a copious 5 liters per minute using less than 15 amps and requiring no electrolyte. In previous testing, the has not reached over 88 degrees.

Previous models were completed, producing 2 liters / minute (LPM) with 10 amps each. Three of those units were fitted to run a 3.55 kw Troy Bilt Generator. The generator ran 100% on 6 LPM of HHO gas, which was produced by the Troy Bilt Generator itself, and ran light bulbs and other shop devices. The only thing that bogged it down was a large bench grinder drawing 4.9 amps on top of the 200 watts being taken from 2 light bulbs. The key here, is that electricity was being produced with 100% water for fuel technology, no gasoline or any other fossil fuels. The Troy Bilt generated enough power off of HHO gas, to operate the HHO cells, and provide extra power for small household items.

The basis of this design is the voltage separation, the fact that it self-circulates, and the spacing between the anode and cathode is only 1/32 ”.

[elephant]

Capt Maloche wrote:

note that the higher the T ° of the electrolystic bath, the better the yield

Doubly logical:

1) the speed of a chemical reaction is a direct function of temperature: elementary

2) I remain convinced that under the low pressure prevailing in the system (due to the suction by the motor) (0,4 to 0,6 bar) there is steam passing through the motor. So, we easily get close to the water vaporization temperature.

[Capt_Maloche]

Sorry but I jump when reading this topic!

PS: Captn Meloche is an excellent moderator, I'm on an American site, I know what I'm talking about!

AH, I hadn't seen that,

thank you, it's too much

What site are you from?

[jonule]

hi there,

Evidence and figures, please! As long as I do not know the figures for the quantity of gas produced by a PWM, I will not lose a single kopeck and not a single second trying to reproduce the experiment.
In my opinion, the only interest of a PWM is that it could possibly produce gas without electrolyte, but, unless I am mistaken or omitted, no one has yet produced convincing figures.

If you have figures, publish them, otherwise shut up Evil or Very Mad

hey shut up yourself then
no, I'm kidding, I'm going to raise a bit: I'm not talking to you technically about HHo production with PWM, I'm talking about the "ALL SHORT" PWM: are you going to deny its definite advantages? this is what makes it possible to have top current for stepper motors and proven qualities of battery regeneration, all thanks to the pulse train.
there are lots of ways to orchestrate these wave trains, you know that.
one of mey's patents describes the successive stages of the wave train to separate the water molecule, but this is another story for when you are 50 ... (private joke let's point it out)
therefore nothing to publish. I just note that its use of PWM allows a greater production of gas for less current, the link with PWM technology (puls with modulation) is obvious I have nothing to prove.

Still alive the 405 turbo fried ???

+ than ever! =)

but since I drive for free I don't bother to put an electrolyser, simply I see that everything is logical, and especially that the site that I quoted brings new elements, for those who would be interested of course. for the others, well too bad!

no time to respond in detail to all this tintouin

ah well i see the seriousness that takes a blow, suddenly!

I never said it was true, I just said "it's not 'not true'".

what you call inconsistency is actually a can, I take it as a doubt, and a possibility, as a utopia (look at the real definition) and that's what bothers me, especially that you take more than one in your tumultuous fall, this is what bothers me the most ...

so technically, since this is the essence of the debate (well anyway!)

I already put on my previous post the values ​​of HHO recommended by the type, but when I read up to 50% savings, I strongly doubt (The energy comes out of space time with a special 4th dimension touch ? Cheesy Grin)

well I'm not going to discuss your doubt of the 50% savings, I'm like you. but the site speaks well of "20 to 60%": so you exaggerate, which I spend my time pointing out to you.

Hydrogen will undoubtedly reduce unburnt fuel, around 5% on a properly tuned vehicle, then how would you explain it?

where does the 5% come from? what proof, source, calculation rule? which engine? what conditions?
So once again I do not have to explain and it is certainly not up to me to answer, the why of the how of% which would exceed YOUR rule of calculation.
I only stressed one thing on their part: to make significant savings, you have to find THE right ratio. look, I'm just repeating this! I even gave a link that you couldn't find! a little hard for a moderator ... but I also read that to check, there, you do not have time, I see ...

The production of HHO is done chemically only if there is displacement of an electron (current), and there is no inertia, I tested it, so there is very little chance that a PWM or other because it supplies the electrodes by pulse train improves the efficiency

I don't know if it's good French but I can't understand you, excuse me:
I insist again: if the electric current does something, the PWM technology will only improve it, it is an easily demonstrable point it seems to me, if you prove that the PWM technology is harmful to the electric element which is supplied, then there I am taker.
So: you say that there is no inertia, what is this inertia? Are you talking about the inertia of water, the electrolyzer, the current?
can you also put a link that shows what you are saying, about the HHo production which is only done with a swell of electron, thank you.
it's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I think there is not just ONE rule that governs the production of HHo via electrolysis ...
however, zero inertia is never exactly zero, and
"Kinetic blocking imposes a large electrical voltage to obtain a decent current, and therefore a significant efficiency."
according to your wikipedia link. therefore it is possible via a specific electrical signal. n / A.

after, there remains the possibility of a "resonance" which has NEVER been verified, it is not for lack of trying, ask nlc

I did not tell you about resonance as it seems to me, and it is not because you have not arrived that it is not true, there is still a world, for whom you would you take i ask you ?!
you can deny the resonance, but not tell everyone that it does not exist because you are moderator.

The atm pressure bottle test. is very valid, it makes it possible to determine the volume of gas produced in relation to an energy consumption: this makes it possible to fix a production yield to within a few%. note that the higher the T ° of the electrolystic bath, the better the yield

we are not talking about that here, but since you insist, well you forget in your rule full of parameters, like the T ° C of the electrolysis according to a time scale, the evaporation of water, the presence or not an electrolyte, the increase in pressure on a time scale, finally your rule is too summary.
just for the sake of clarity, it's a u = ri rule and doesn't take into account the PWM, so I'll tell you "yes there is a link factor" but you make a difference which is considered negligible by you alone.
for me it is much higher than your so-called 5% improvement in combustion, which come out of which we do not know where ...
So that's what I say: you exploit yourself the negligible% by directing them where you want your reasoning to go: you exaggerate, especially as a moderator you should observe a right of reservation.

I'm not even talking to you about what you quote from wikipedia your extremist and troll friend, you will understand the link with what I just said if you are as intelligent as I think (and I think).

Any other presentation of an electrolysis is only sterile palaver, if there are no real tests.

precisely: the site that I linked is a summary of 15 months of internal testing and the rest of the other users, forums etc: that's why there is new information, and that I posted this link.

Quote:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectrolyse_de_l'eau

The energy efficiency of water electrolysis can vary significantly. The efficiency range varies between 50-70% [1], while others indicate 80-94% [2]. These values ​​refer only to the efficiency of the conversion of electrical energy into chemical energy of hydrogen. The energy lost during the generation of electricity is not counted.


I especially remember that the production efficiency of HHO on board a vehicle is 15 to 20% max, it's already 80% of fuel wasted in the air

you see, you exaggerate again: nowhere are indicated in what you quote the 15 to 20% of which you conclude.
you are moderator.

in your reasoning, not once do you want to take into account that at a certain% of production there is a significant gain.

so
> you don't take into account what I'm saying
> you exaggerate your results wikipedia
> you are moderator and you are kidding me

to put you on the track I even told you that for oil it works, and for pantone you have to suspect that it is the same thing.

but you are unable to take it into account in your reasoning, you reflect in a parallel way, while being stubborn on rules that you have drawn up and towards which you believe hard as iron not to move forward: I say it's normal that you will NEVER advance.

I want to note that you have cut one of your Wiki quotes, the last one on the electrical efficiency of the electrical conversion which is worth its weight on wikipedia:

"So when considering a nuclear power plant converting the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen by electrolysis, the total efficiency is in the order of 25-40% [3]."

wow! must leave, stuff like that!
I put back the link, which does not work on your post:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectrolyse_de_l'eau

Now, instead of convincing us that you cannot demonstrate the benefits of such an installation, and if you are really convinced (it is your strictest right), then do this montage and share your results with us.

again, you will have nothing! =)
but I proved that there were new elements, that's all I bring.
from there to get started, I admit that your support as a moderator does not make me very want ...

PS: on the link you gave us, the guy sells his products well, contrary to what you say

well where? at least link!
sorry, but all the links he gives in his "buy" section point to links giving them to resellers other than himself, so he redirects to SEVERAL sellers;
I'm sorry but it looks different from the ones we usually see who only sell their product.

and that's also why I put this link, name of a friend!

oh well anyway.

[jonule]

sorry alainG, but whether it's metal5 or something else, it's still advertising, remetalizing as you say it's already different.
but he typically said "the addition of Sp95 is much more efficient than the addition of HHo".
I am sorry but it is not admissible.
after I never criticized the remetalizers, it seems logical to me.

I have no doubt that he is an excellent moderator but look at the way he treats me: he is not impartial with me, I emphasize this and note that this deviates his objectivity from moderation, even going so far as to mislead his judgment and his scientific reasoning.

if he doesn't see it i feel compelled

to return to its Wikipedia definition, I will use it to better defend myself:
the definition of its link
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extr%C3%A9misme
return to "
Thought mode [edit]

In many extremist positions, we find recurring elements: dogmatic thinking, the recommendation of violent methods and a conspiracy.
Dogmatic thinking [edit]

A person who takes an extremist view is persuaded that they have "the" truth. It considers a priori as false what is wrong with it, without providing proof or reasoning. [ref. desired]
Recommendation for violent methods [edit]

As these proposals will always face adversaries who are by nature opposed to them, radical violent methods are often imagined, advocated or used to impose the desired system. It could be an attack, an assassination, a revolution or a coup. To serve its revolutionary ideals, the French underground group Direct Action, for example, has committed around fifty attacks or assassinations. The inquisition of the Roman apostolic catholic church had an extremist action just like the pogroms, the night of the long knives or the saint Barthélemy.
"

therefore this refers to 3 modes of thought, of which only 2 are described and only 1 was retained by captmaloche: dogmatic thought.
I'm sorry but I'm not advancing anything stronger than what he says namely "no it doesn't work, you have to prove that it works".
however, dogmatic thought rightly says "A person adopting an extremist point of view is persuaded to hold 'the' truth. He considers a priori as false what does not go in his direction, without providing proof or constructed reasoning":

so I ask, what do I say that is wrong?

Hello?

while he is the moderator who says that the electrolysis of water as a fuel saver is wrong!

it's the world upside down!

and I'm sorry Alain G, as much as I respect your electrical knowledge, as much I can teach you that it is not because you think you are a good moderator, that you have the right to affirm that captmaloche is a good moderator, you can just think about it.




but let's go back to the definition of the beginning of the page, not cited:
"
Extremism is a term used to qualify a doctrine or attitude (political or religious) advocating action by all means to achieve its ends "

what action will I have you are referring to, captmaloche?





so again, you’re exaggerating. you are therefore not objective.

I don't see why you are stubborn

I am however convinced that you think you are doing your role as moderator, but that is also the question somewhere ...

[Capt_Maloche]

Excerpts

hi there,

I never said it was true, I just said "it's not 'not true'".

what you call inconsistency is actually a can, I take it as a doubt, and a possibility, as a utopia (look at the real definition) and that's what bothers me, especially that you take more than one in your tumultuous fall, this is what bothers me the most ...
...
so technically, since this is the essence of the debate (well anyway!)
...
well I'm not going to discuss your doubt of the 50% savings, I'm like you. but the site speaks well of "20 to 60%": so you exaggerate, which I spend my time pointing out to you.
...
where does the 5% come from? what proof, source, calculation rule? which engine? what conditions?
So once again I do not have to explain and it is certainly not up to me to answer, the why of the how of% which would exceed YOUR rule of calculation.
I only stressed one thing on their part: to make significant savings, you have to find THE right ratio. look, I'm just repeating this! I even gave a link that you couldn't find! a little hard for a moderator ... but I also read that to check, there, you do not have time, I see ...

The production of HHO is done chemically only if there is displacement of an electron (current), and there is no inertia, I tested it, so there is very little chance that a PWM or other because it supplies the electrodes by pulse train improves the efficiency

I don't know if it's good French but I can't understand you, excuse me:
...
So: you say that there is no inertia, what is this inertia? Are you talking about the inertia of water, the electrolyzer, the current?
can you also put a link that shows what you are saying, about the HHo production which is only done with a swell of electron, thank you.
...

after, there remains the possibility of a "resonance" which has NEVER been verified, it is not for lack of trying, ask nlc

..., for whom would you take you I ask you ?!
you can deny the resonance, but not tell everyone that it does not exist because you are moderator.

The atm pressure bottle test. is very valid, it makes it possible to determine the volume of gas produced in relation to an energy consumption: this makes it possible to fix a production yield to within a few%. note that the higher the T ° of the electrolystic bath, the better the yield

we are not talking about that here, but since you insist, well you forget in your rule full of parameters, like the T ° C of the electrolysis according to a time scale, the evaporation of water, the presence or not an electrolyte, the increase in pressure on a time scale, finally your rule is too summary.

just for the sake of clarity, it's a u = ri rule and doesn't take into account the PWM, so I'll tell you "yes there is a link factor" but you make a difference which is considered negligible by you alone.
for me it is much higher than your so-called 5% improvement in combustion, which come out of which we do not know where ...
...: you exaggerate, especially as a moderator you should observe a right of reservation.

I'm not even talking to you about what you quote from wikipedia your extremist and troll friend, you will understand the link with what I just said if you are as intelligent as I think (and I think).

...

Quote:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectrolyse_de_l'eau

The energy efficiency of water electrolysis can vary significantly. The efficiency range varies between 50-70% [1], while others indicate 80-94% [2]. These values ​​refer only to the efficiency of the conversion of electrical energy into chemical energy of hydrogen. The energy lost during the generation of electricity is not counted.


I especially remember that the production efficiency of HHO on board a vehicle is 15 to 20% max, it's already 80% of fuel wasted in the air

you see, you exaggerate again: nowhere are indicated in what you quote the 15 to 20% of which you conclude.
you are moderator.

in your reasoning, not once do you want to take into account that at a certain% of production there is a significant gain.

so
> you don't take into account what I'm saying
> you exaggerate your results wikipedia
> you are moderator and you are kidding me

...

but you are unable to take it into account in your reasoning, you reflect in a parallel way, while being stubborn on rules that you have drawn up and towards which you believe hard as iron not to move forward: I say it's normal that you will NEVER advance.

Now, instead of convincing us that you cannot demonstrate the benefits of such an installation, and if you are really convinced (it is your strictest right), then do this montage and share your results with us.

again, you will have nothing! =)
but I proved that there were new elements, that's all I bring.
from there to get started, I admit that your support as a moderator does not make me very want ...

oh well anyway.

JONULUS

You do not understand French?
Don't you know the basic physics basics?
Go back to school or train
If you don't understand that the proven ground rules are used to assess the capabilities of a system, forget about us.
Stop telling bullshit
You don't say anything, you only report non-verifiable information, your interventions are sterile

------------------------------------------------------------
My job is precisely fluids and energies
I do thermal and energy assessments regularly in industry and construction.
I set up processes and solutions that confirm my initial assessments, otherwise I would be fired ...


16% is the efficiency of on-board electrolysis on primary energy, namely, fuel. and I confirm that if you use this HHO in your 30% efficiency engine, the overall balance is 5% efficiency at the end of the tree.

Honestly, do you really think that there is 20 to 50% of unburned fuel in an engine? have you ever done a combustion balance?

PFFF, you are desperate
we seek and remain open to all possibilities, but not just how

farewell

[Capt_Maloche]

but he typically said "the addition of Sp95 is much more efficient than the addition of HHo".
I am sorry but it is not admissible.
after I never criticized the remetalizers, it seems logical to me.
... hello?

while he is the moderator who says that the electrolysis of water as a fuel saver is wrong!

it's the world upside down!

...

what action will I have you are referring to, captmaloche?

I am however convinced that you think you are doing your role as moderator, but that is also the question somewhere ...

I tested the benefits of adding SP95, and several forumeurs confirmed

We have for the moment on this forum had no serious feedback regarding an on-board electrolyser and the savings observed.

I did not say that the addition of HHO was not effective, I said that the throughput of an on-board production was insufficient
I'm tired of seeing you write bullshit

You affirm things without having checked them, I would prefer that you propose

My role as moderator of this forum is to make sure that the subjects in which I work are well maintained, and complementary mission, to make sure that the contents of forumThey don’t come to discredit the site by writing anything

whether you like it or not

[Remundo]

Hi CaptN and Jonule,

This is the subject H2 in the water here. Is there water in the gas?

Otherwise, PWM is Pulse WidModulation

Do you have reliable conclusions?

Personally, I would like to be a combustion specialist and know once and for all the improvements made by some free radicals, like HO *, H * or even H * O * produced a posteriori by the attack of O2 on H2 .

So that's what progression in the combustion efficiency by the contribution of small quantities of chemical species inducing in the reaction medium free radicals

@ + friends.

[Capt_Maloche]

Ah yes, and I do this on my own time, in addition to my job


____________________________________________________

Hi Rému

No answer on free radicals

On the other hand, the answer on the pulse trains seems more within reach

When we look at an electrolysis up close, we see bubbles forming on the surface of the electrodes

We also see, when the direct current stops, the small bubbles in contact on the electrodes reduce in diameter at the same time as we observe a potential between the 2 electrodes (the battery effect), it is indeed reversible, you already know

I do not see why pulses would be more effective than a direct current of the same potential, since the production of gas is proportional to the current (= amperes = number of electrons for recall)

apart from a possible resonance which has still not been noted, reproduced, validated or simply seen by the stepfather of the boyfriend of the cousin's sister of a vague acquaintance

I ask only that, to be able to see one of these thousands of montages presented on the net, in order to see for myself or a member of this forum, but it's funny, it makes PSSSHIIT every time

[Remundo]

The question is : does PWM allow electrolysis at lower electrical expenditure?

On the intensity, nothing can be gained, because so many electrons are needed for so many hydrolysed moles. We can however gain a little bit on the tension.

And that said, this is not where most of the energy gain is made ...

For example, if 100 Welec (neighbors of 100 Wmeca) produce H2, and this H2 carried away by the fresh air at the intake saves 5% on the combustion of a 100 Wmeca engine, it is 000 Wmeca earned.

While electrolysis requires 100, 90 or 110 W in PWM, you see ... is not the key to bp except to agitate the languages.

Small calculations made on "pipeau" returns of course, but to locate the problem.