Are these figures correct ?

[Manta]

A couple of days ago I was pondering on the hydroxy thing,  And it dawned upon me to try approaching it from the other direction. So, good people (and also the not so good  ), let me know if you think the following is right or not.

Your riding along a reasonably level road on a single cylinder motor bike.  What size doesn't matter.

You know that your bike does 50 miles per gallon (Imperial = 4.54 Litre)  at 50 mile per hour and 2000 rpm.

Thus your burning 1 gallon per hour.

This equates to 4540/60 = 75.66 cc per minute.

So, as only half  these rpm are inlet strokes (it's a four-stroke) you are burning 4540 cc of fuel per hour for 60,000 inlet strokes.

So each stroke uses 75.66/1000 = 0.07566 cc.

Also,  if  the air:fuel mix is about 16:1 then you only use 0.07566 x 16 = 1.2096 cc of air per compression stroke.

Not much,  is it ?

If this reasoning is correct then we get down to the fact that this engine, on gasoline,  is using much less that one tenth of a litre per minute.(see the green highlighted bit above)



Please show me where I am wrong .

Manta

[Bob]

Um ok.... glad to see you thinking about it Manta... but I THINK there are a few points that need corrected....
 technically a 4 stroke engine intakes on 1 out of 2 rev's or 4 movements of the piston (hense the term 4 stroke.... let me explain....
  starting at the INTAKE stroke....  the piston goes down  and on its way back up its on compression stroke (that's 1 rev) it fires, forcing the piston down on the power stroke and comes back up on the exhaust stroke( that's 2 rev.) as the piston starts down again its on intake again so its completed its cycle in 2 revolutions....
that part you have correct!
...

75.66cc per minute is regardless of the intake strokes , that is taking the fuel consumption
over time, but we can figure out how many intake strokes per min uses that much fuel.
and that is the 60,000 strokes.
that much we agree on....
 from here on we have differing opinions, and here is why...
if we had 60,000 intakes and used 75.66cc's of fuel  then 75.66/60,000=0.001261 cc per stroke.
(I don't understand how or where you got 75.66/1000   ...(whats the 1000?)
so from that point the figures are borked, to determine the amount of air used at 16:1 its
0.001261 times16:1 (0.001261x16)=0.020176cc of air per stroke
to check my math  its .020176/.001261=16   which is correct.for the 16:1 ratio.
 which is 2 100ths of a cc of air per stroke and only 1 1000th of a cc of fuel or close to those figures....(rounding off that far looses much accuracy!)
 but you can see that its not NEARLY as much as one would first think
...
remember when your riding along at 2000rpm on a 350cc single and getting 50mpg (yes, I had a Honda 350cc single that did exactly that!(349cc)) the throttle is just over 1/4 open... and the engine isn't trying very hard at all at 2000rpm.
 it Can't be working very hard if its going to use only 75.66cc of fuel per minute !
how many cc's in an ounce ? an oz. I can relate to... cc's I can't  
 However I know that 16oz of gas will get that bike all the way home from the bus stop 1.9miles away and still have gasoline left ! LOL ! ( the float stuck and drained the tank I got a Pepsi bottle full of gas from the neighbor and road home... after smacking the float bowl a few times to get it un stuck! ...I never forgot to shut off the gas after that ! )
...
...
that's what I get doing it your way Manta... so what is the 1000 for in your figures ? maybe I'm all screwed up here
....
Using such a SMALL amount of fuel air each time it fires makes the small amount of Hydroxy gas we make that much MORE ! if we're injecting 2LPM into an engine that's well over 50% in some cases of the air it needs....
 but you never hear any of the people say that... its always "your putting in such a small amount of HHO as to not make a difference in the performance !"....
 but 50% is NOT a small amount when its practically free, and burns better than gasoline ! ....
now if you had 2LPM on that motorcycle you should be able to run it on 100% HHO CORRECT ?
....which I think is doubtful , but the numbers say it should work...<GRIN>
...
 How many CC's in a Liter ?
LOL





... Bob........

 

[Bob]

that's very interesting...
at 2000rpm I already know that the engine is not filling the cylinder full with fuel mix because of the throttle position ... but just a wiff of gasoline is all it takes to fire the cylinder... far less than a drop even !
 and if the fuel/air ratio is at 16:1 (which is mighty lean for an air cooled motorcycle) its easy to see that the engine is running in a state of Perpetual vacuum...  which proves my point earlier about small bangs run the engine not BIG bangs....
  and sense this is true then a small amount of HHO can really effect the engine's performance
and this goes right along with what we see in testing. more power , less throttle needed to cruse at the same speed that you used to do...
...
  But it makes me wonder what happens to the big guys , that put out 8LPM and run their truck at 2000rpm ? obviously the air volume is much bigger because the engine is bigger but as we saw above we are only making small bangs , not big ones, so the same things apply here
which means they are probably running 100% volume of HHO already and just dumping the gasoline through the engine needlessly...  could this actually be true ? ...it sure looks it!
...
weird!
...
Bob......

[Bob]

hehehe ok lets do that for a v8 then....
350cid that gets 20mpg at 2300 rpm at 60mph
....
at 60mph you have to go 20 miles to use 1 gal of gas.... 60mph is exactly 1 mile per minute
so following that 60/20=3 or 3 gallons to drive 60 miles  in 1 hr.
....
3x4540(cc's per gal)=13620cc total used/60min=227cc per minute used !
...
so now we need how many intake strokes over a 1 min period at 2300rpm
sense its a 4 cycle engine half of the number of RPM's is the amount of intake strokes
2300/2=1150 intake strokes in that 1 min period. ( i think I see where Manta got the 1000 now)
...
ok....1150/227cc=5.0660cc's per stroke  (that's fuel used)
...
and at a 14:1 air to gas ratio that's 5.06607929*14= 70.9251 cc's of air per stroke.

this is on a 350c.i.d. V8 engine at 2300rpm
....
 I did it this time without using the 60,000 intake strokes on the previous example
and I'm not sure if it will effect the outcome or not....
a v8 has 8cylinders all connected together, so its immaterial that it has more cylinders
because they are all 4 cycle ,so its rpm/2=intake strokes times 60 min=69,000 intake strokes
....
ugh my mind just turned to puddy  can't think ... must be time for bed....
more later ! HAHAHAHHAHHA
...
Bob.........

[Manta]

Bob,

A couple of quick notes,  I'll be back to discuss more later.

1000 cc to 1 litre

I don't know off-hand what gasoline weighs per litre,  so I'll have to check that.
Re,
...(I don't understand how or where you got 75.66/1000   ...(whats the 1000?)...

Remember that my engine is turning at 2000 rpm,  that's 1000 inlet strokes per minute.

I get the 75.66 from..

1 gallon (4.54 litre,  4540 cc) per hour/ 60 minutes  = fuel consumed per minute.

Just checked weight.  Gasoline weighs 6.15 pound /US Gallon.  I'll have to do the conversion to litres later.

It will probably be easier for me to just weigh some.

catch you soon.
Manta

[Bob]

OK well, to me the figures you used then are correct... I can't find any error in them. I'll double check again later just to be sure....
... ISN'T IT AMAZING ! such a small amount powers our vehicles around!
...
this is where Most of the Skeptics are totally wrong... they insist that the internal combustion engine guzzles huge amounts of gas and massive volumes of air while cruising... and the only time the engine gets anywhere NEAR their figures is at FULL THROTTLE... yet they don't understand that ! that is why to them its imposable for HHO to work.
if their volumes were correct they would be right... but their NOT !
...
  Now that we know how much volume we actually use at cruse speed... we can calculate how much HHO we NEED to make a big difference in the running engine.  I've said for a long time 1~2LPM per liter of engine displacement... but that figure now looks WAY WAY HIGH ! ...we'll see I suppose !
...
lets take my 2.4liter R22 toyota truck sense I know it best. (it got 22~24mpg before modifications)
(and over 40MPG with 2LPM of Hydroxy gas added)
the question is what kind of percentage of the total displacement is actually being used at cruse speed of 2000rpm and how much of that intake is HHO ?
 its going to be a larger percentage than I ever thought it would be!
...maybe that is why it gained speed doing down hill so easily ! LOL....I had to ride the brakes!
even with the throttle off ! it wanted to do 70mph ! HAHAHAHAHA

more later!


Bob.....

[Bob]

hummm...I've been going over my figures and found some errors the 69,000 intake strokes for instance... is not correct
...
for a 350cid V8 at 2300RPM cruising at 60mph and getting 20mpg.
...
the RPM of 2300/2 gives us the number of intake strokes but we need to multiply by the number of cylinders (....
so 2300/2=1150 , 1150x8=9200 intake strokes per min if we want per hour its that times 60min.
or 552,000 intake strokes per hour.

****what I am trying to figure out here is the Ratio of HHO to air volume per min ****

so I need to know the Air volume used per min of that 350 V8 at 2300rpm
so I have to work backwards, and make darn sure I am using apples with apples and oranges with oranges...and not mix them !
2300rpm *60min= rpm per hr.=138,000 rph /2=intake strokes per hr*8=552,000=intake strokes per hr.... /60=9200 intake strokes per min. (this jives with the above.)
...
finding the MPG per Min. is harder... at 60mph we travel 1 mile per min so in an hour we travel 60 miles at 20MPG that uses 3 gal of gas (60miles/20mpg)=3 gallons used in 1 hr.
3gal per hr/60 min= 0.05gal per min.
***
***oops found a screw up here ! I forgot to mutiply 4540*3gal to get total CC's***
***
Manta said that a Gal=4540cc or (4540*3)=13620cc's per hr.(13620/60)=277cc's per MINUTE
(not 75.6666)
so if we're working in Minutes now  we can take 9200 intake strokes per min.... and divide it by 277cc per min. and get  how much each intake stroke uses (9200/277)= 33.212996cc per intake stroke / by 8 cylinders(33.212996/8)=4.1516245cc per cyl. on intake stroke.
...( this seams right to me as its barely a squirt from a pump oil can!)
now for the air volume used....
 we know that a 14:1 air to fuel ratio is maintained as close as possible in the engine...
so (4.1516245*14)=58.122743cc's of air per cyl on intake stroke. when cruising at 60mph at 2300rpm.
so we have ....
4.1516245cc's of gasoline
58.122743cc's of air....
for a total volume of  62.2743cc's per cyl when fired.
...
if we have 2LPM of hydroxy gas pumping into the intake or 2000cc's per min.
we use 4.1516 cc' of gas,9200 intake strokes and 58.122743cc  air per stroke.
we have 58.122743*9200=534729.2356 cc's per min of intake air volume...
or (534729.2356/1000)=534.7292 Liters per min of Air coming into the engine.
...
so there we see it in black and white... almost 550liters of air per min coming into the engine .... we give it a mere 2LPM and we really need 55LPM to even reach 10%
that's why we need so much Volume output from out Hydroxy generators !
...
but keep in mind that is for a 350cid v8 engine a smaller engine means less volume and a bigger engine means More.
also realize that 10% of Hydroxy gas is probably enough HHO to run the engine on by itself because it is so Volatile a gas....this isn't proven yet, its just speculation... but its allot of HHO gas indeed at 55LPM it "should" run the v8 real easily !
...
I know from my research that Hydroxy gas will thin out some but not much and still explode when mixed with air, and if I remember correctly 10% was at the bottom end of the tolerances
when thinned out Hydroxy gas looses Much of its explosive power....it just reaches a point it will not explode anymore by itself. if Mixed with another component that burns it can be thinned way down well beyond 25% to 30%.... with air and still explode but with less and less power as it gets thinner..... obviously.

...
I'll calculate my pickup later ...my head hurts ! LOL
....
Bob........

P.S. I checked and re-checked this for errors and screw-ups... Manta (or anyone ) I'd appreciate double checking my Math and REASONING.... on what is needed for the calculations!
I am anything but a mathematician <grin> and on something this long its very easy to mess up
and one mistake will mess up everything ! 
 

[Bob]

EDITED !



OK... I've had a burning question about this very subject sense the beginning of my HHO experience.... and that is ...what would it take to power my truck on 100% Hydroxy gas !?!
...
and I think I can answer that question now.

... my 2.4liter R22FI Toyota truck Pickup (it got 22~24mpg before modifications)
(and over 40MPG with 2LPM of Hydroxy gas added)

I'll attempt to do the calculations AGAIN and see what I get.
at 60mph I got right around 23mpg
so...at a mile a minute(60mph) that's 60miles/23=2.60 gal of gas
at 60mph the engine is tacking 2200rpm/2=1100intake strokes per min.
now i need to convert that to hours because the gas used is in 1 hr.
so...1100*60min= 66000 intake strokes in an hour...
66000 intake strokes used 2.6 gallons of gas in an hour.******* having trouble with this bit**
(2.6/66000)=3.939393939393939394e-5 gal per intake stroke...3.939393939393939394e-5 *1000(to get cc's)=0.03939393939393939394 of gas per stroke....
 
following the 14:1 fuel air ratio that's (0.03939393939393939394*14)= 0.55151515151515151516cc's of air per stroke



Manta does this look right to you ?



Bob...

[Manta]

Bob,

Just adding a bit more to my earlier piece.

Just found that gasoline weighs 720 Kilo/cubic metre, Seems right as water weighs 1000 Kilo/  cubic metre. so that gives 720,000/(100 x 100 x 100) to get gramms/cc.  I get 0.720 gramm/cc.

Also is appears that gasoline gives 34.8 MegaJoules/  litre of energy. Which is 34.8 KiloJoules/cc .  From this I get that our hypothetical bike needs 34800 x 0.0756 = 2630.88 ( = 2.6309 KiloJoules) per stroke of energy to maintain it's 50 MPH - 50 MPG progress.

Now the question becomes, what is the energy content of hydroxy gas (in KiloJoules/Litre) ?  My logic is that it will need the same energy from the hydroxy as it does from the gasoline to attain the same end product.

I'm going to come back to you multi-cylinder engines in a bit,  but one thing to remember is that a very large amount of the air (78 %) that is pulled into,the engine is Nitrogen. Only 21 % is the Oxygen we need for combustion. So it would seem that in...almost 550liters of air per min coming into the engine ...,  only 21 % of this ( = 115.5 litre) is used in the actual combustion of the fuel.  The rest,  mostly nitrogen,  goes along for the ride.

Back soon.

Manta

Any one else able to help us out with this one ?  

[Manta]

Where did the smileys come from ?  Ignore them.

Manta

Re,

...****what I am trying to figure out here is the Ratio of HHO to air volume per min ****

so I need to know the Air volume used per min of that 350 V8 at 2300rpm...

Don't forget you are running on a partial throttle opening.  And that hydroxy brings it's own oxygen to the party.

Manta

Got rid of the spurious smileys.  They were caused by not leaving a space betreen the left-hand bracket and the 'equals' sign.

[Manta]

Bob,

Just applied the same logic to your 2.4 truck.  I get,  for 1 US gallon equal to 3.7854 Litre,


2.6 US gallon                  to do 60 mile in 1 hour at 2200 rpm

= 2.6 x 3.7854 litre           ------------"--------------------

= 9.842 litre                     -----------"--------------------

= 9,842  cc                     ------------"--------------------

= 9,842/60 = 164.033 cc   to do 1 mile at 2200 rpm

= 164.033/220 = 0.0754 cc per revolution of crank




This stacks up very well against my bike figures when you consider the different speed and rpm.

Now we only have to factor in the contribution from the hydroxy to account for the improvement.

Manta

[Manta]

If we use fuel used per crank revolution to define the consumption,  it removes having to calculate for the number of cylinders.  Should make things easier and is just as valid,  even allows for 2 strokes.

Manta

[Bob]

Manta:
 I wondered about your last when I was doing it.... something told me I was wrong in multiplying by the number of cylinders.... ...so that is where I screwed up and that is what made the per stroke so tiny
...
but I have to wonder, if by considering revolutions alone...we are actually making the V8 into 1 large single cylinder..... while in a V8 the intake strokes take place all the way around the revolution on different cylinders... and so does the power strokes, this is mainly what gives the V8 its high power output is its power strokes are distributed evenly throughout the revolution,
but sense we're not calculating power , just consumption, I can't see a problem with it... only a slight
amount will be lost at the beginning and end of the count time but I think that's acceptable for our calculations.
...
I know I have the Jules of energy for Hydroxy gas here somewhere... I will try to find it but don't hold your breath! LOL
...
And THANK YOU FOR THE HELP.... this is at the edge of my brain power ! LOL
...
Bob...

[Bob]

 OK
so if my R22 Toyota pickup uses 0.0754 cc per revolution of crank. that is 7 0ne hundredths of a cc !
.... WOW... that ain't much!
...so the air intake would be 14*0.0754= 1.0556 cc's....
and a total volume per cylinder of 1.131 cc's when that cylinder is fired.
hardly seams like enough to push the piston down Uh ! but a gas/air mix  expands at 1200 times when ignited...giving a VOLUME of 1357.2cc's which is more than the volume of the cylinder which is what it should be, to force the piston down.
 to me these figures look right.
I'll edit my other posts to try ands make them correct ....UGH!
...

Bob.....

[Manta]

Bob,

Don't edit the posts.  I for one prefer to leave all the reasoning,  even the faulty reasoning as it was posted. I never liked the idea of history being re-written.

I do,  of course,  edit my typos.

Manta

[Manta]

Your right about us not trying to assess power,  only fuel consumption.
I think the basic idea is to try and find out how much hydroxy it takes to match the energy capacity of the gasoline needed to sustain combustion in the conditions described above.
And I passed the outer edge of my brain power ages ago.  Flying blind now.

Manta

[Bob]

ok.... yah that's reasonable as a teaching tool !
that way people can see WHERE "I went wrong" in the figuring....  and unfortunately that isn't always apparent.
...
I'm more convinced than ever now that I can make enough Hydroxy gas to run my truck on 100% hydroxy gas.... but I havn't even got to the values needed yet... HEHEHE call it faith!
...but the amount of Hydroxy gas needed may well increase from the 15~20LPM of my first estimates....
 already I've shown that 55LPM will provide a 350v8 with 10% of the hydroxy gas it needs  at a "CERTAIN SPEED".... but its important to know that if the load changes or the speed changes those values of the "NEEDED LPM" will change very quickly.
....
I remember reading some fella's explanation of how a small amount of HHO can and does change the running of the IC engine... although he erroneously used the RPM times engine displacement to get the volume needed. his IDEA was still sound.
 He said that at even 2% of the volume is more than ample to make large changes in gas mileage
...but with his VOLUME figures so far off it was more or less just an IDEA to me... no way near an established fact as he tried to make it.
...
  I have no doubt that adding Hydroxy gas into the incoming air the engine use to mix with the gasoline and burn HELPS the ignition process, because I have seen the results with my own eyes .
 but what Most people don't realize is that today's cars are indeed designed to burn a certain amount of fuel over time, weather the engine needs it or not. so Adding something else to make the engine burn the fuel better is no help to saving gasoline !
 That is why it is vital to reduce the fuel being burned by the engine at the same time...
if you don't cut back on the Richness of the gasoline in SOME MANOR you will not see any improvements....
 but the  obvious statement to follow this is well if I lean out the engine wouldn't I get better gas Mileage WITHOUT the HHO being added ? and the answer is Yes, Of Course!
 But you run the risk of running to lean and too hot where with HHO added I haven't seen that problem at all. (that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! I just haven't seen it!)
  Example: with my truck leaned out real lean and running HHO  I achieved a consistant 40MPG
however when I took off the HHO generator for the winter I left the settings on the leanness just as they were....  the engine started Missing and had no power to pull hills and the temp started to come up.... so I re adjusted the parts to make it NOT so LEAN and it ran fine again.... and I started to achieve a 30~32mpg all the time without HHO
...
 so I feel if your after HIGH mileage you NEED to add the HHO.
...
Bob....

[Bob]

Manta...
I'll make a concentrated effort to find the "Power in Hydroxy gas" ...I'm fairly certain I have it here somewhere.... Hopefully I can find it for ya ...
and I agree... matching the power of the fuel would tell you what it takes to replace it.
...
don't worry about flying blind Manta.... your doing better than I am ! HAHAHA THANK YOU !
...
Bob......

[Bob]

I've looked all over through all my files and then google searched and found Nothing on the BTU of Browns gas...
but I did see something on an electrolizer that made 41LPM by using 60plates and feeding it with 120vac then through a bridge rectifier.... and it only used 1200watts !
... this guy mainly used his cell to do welding experiments with the browns gas
but 41LPM is a Humongous amount of Hydroxy gas! ....
 I am sure it is Bob Boyce's design as it was described as exactly as his cell is built.
...we already Know that Bob Boyce design is a fantastic one for large outputs
but this guy hooked it directly to the house hold current(AC) and used it to do his welding... including cutting Tungsten steel!
....
it sounds to me if I want a Large HHO Output  I should build one of the Series Cell designs of Bob Boyce !  ... fed with a AC/DC inverter it should work as good as with the house hold power. and giving that much HHO to the engine would allow even a V8 to run on 100% Hydroxy gas ! ...
  his cell was a 60plate Series design with separate electrolyte per cell
 (as per Bob Boyce's design) 2vdc per cell with a total of 120v DC... and 41LPM !
 he did not say the size of each plate unfortunately... but I expect 8"square or larger. as this was Bob Boyce's design size.
...
...
41LPM.... man that's hard to believe ! and with very little heat too !
...
Bob...

[Manta]

Bob,

.....I had to ride the brakes! even with the throttle off ! it wanted to do 70mph....

I suspect that,  if you were running with no regulation on your hydroxy (just feeding it in through a pipe), then even though you had the throttle closed there would still be gas drawn into the engine and thus it would be acting as if you had some throttle open.

Manta

[Bob]

Indeed ! that is what I thought was going on too.... even with the throttle closed ! the engine picked up speed ... although it did it gently , not like I stomped on the throttle at all ...it just crept up faster and faster....
before the addition of the hydroxy generator I could leave the truck in 5th and take my foot off the throttle and only have to touch the brakes once near the bottom of this one long hill I had to traverse every time I went to town , but after the addition of the hydroxy generator I had to slow it down from the very top of the hill all the way to the bottom !... I tried turning off the generator and that immediately slowed down the truck... but for the usual trip to town I left it running all the way regardless of the hills LOL
... it may well be that my injection point wasn't the best of choices too... I put the gas into the snorkel between the engine and the Mass air flow sensor... which I found out later it should have been put into the air box so the MAF could sense its volume as part of its Job !
....this may have added to the speedup going down hills, though I'm not sure at all.
...
Bob.....

[Bob]

I remember reading about the BTU's of gasoline/air Mix compaired to Hydroxy gas/air Mix and the difference was astounding gasoline had Way WAY more BTU's and if you wanted to get technical about it that shows you that it would take more HHO than gasoline to do the same job...
 I just wish I could remember how much the difference WAS... I think it was something like 10 times more...but I am far from certain on that...
this in itself would explain why so much HHO is needed in a gasoline engine if ALL things stayed the same.... but all things don't stay the same, they never do.
...
if we ASSUME that My truck gulps in a mere 277cc's of fuel/air mix at 2300RPM ( or what ever it was) per minute a simple 2LPM generator would power it on 100% HHO alone....
 so that tells us we are way out in left field chaising our tails and not getting anywhere! HAHAHAHAHHAHAH
  just using logic I can shoot that down, we know my truck cannot sustain even an IDLE on 2LPM
so it "HAS TO" use more than 2LPM.... but how MUCH more is the question !!
from other peoples experiments I've found if I Tripled that 2LPM and had 6LPM I could probably get the engine to idle on 100% HHO but that's all, any throttling action will cause an over lean condition and the engine would die.
 But it is a starting point.
 if 6LPM will idle the truck,at 1000rpm, I "THINK" that the fuel consumption is exponential with engine RPM.... so if my target RPM is 3000RPM its 6^3=216LPM.
if fuel consumption is simply Linnier with RPM its 6*3=18LPM...... which all of my research
points towards this amount...between 15 and 20LPM.  (so fuel consumption Must be Linnier.)
...
 this "guesstimate" is as good as any at this point.... and up to now I had no way of getting over 4LPM.... but with Bob Boyce's Cell I may be able to achieve 35 to 41LPM and that is more than enough to run my truck on 100% HHO even with a heavy load.
....
 SO.... it looks like I need to purchase 61- 6"x6" 316 stainless steel plates and a bunch of Plexiglas for the box to put it in !   I already have a 2500watt AC/DC inverter.
so the rest is incidental...
 Looks like I have a Direction in which to go now on this Hydroxy Gas Stuff !<Grin>
....
Bob.......

[Bob]

I just re read this thread and I think we were on the right track....
not "chasing out tails" at all !
Remember then I said that the truck spead up going down hill on 2LPM of HHO ?
thats throttle off and hardly any air getting into the engine at all...
what Little air it does get is almost ALL HHO because at that stage the whole intake manifold would be full of HHO and hardly any air at all because the HHO generator is constantly pushing in 2LPM weather its used or not....  so because of the air bypass in the intake manifold
HHO is allowed to enter into the cylinders, not a whole lot, but enough to slowly gain RPM and speed... so, 2LPM under these conditions is actually running the engine just fine...
that's why it gained speed.
 this stands to reason if our measurements on the gas and air consumption figures are anywhere near correct... that very small amount of fuel/air consumed per stroke is so small that most of the time the explosions are only big enough to fill the volume of the cylinder and no more !.... this is How the engine in the cars work, we've known that for years...
when the engine is not working hard the bangs are SMALL in the cylinder....just enough to keep everything turning, and no more....  because it doesn't take that much power to keep something in Motion... once it is in Motion. 
...
 I'ed almost bet that 2LPM is enough to idle my truck at 200 to 400rpm if it would stay running at that slow of a speed, it likes 800rpm but a bit higher is usually where I set it
(I don't like to hear the engine laboring to stay running...hehehhe)
if that's the case then 4LPM should Idle the truck on HHO alone (800rpm)
8LPM should then get me 1600rpm right ?
and 16LPM should get 3200rpm !
and sense I never rev the truck that high , even when shifting 16LPM should be enough for normal driving without a heavy load...
...
 does that make sense ?
...
Bob.........

[janmarsh]

Calorific values:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html

[Bob]

OH ! Fantastic ! that's Just what Manta was Looking for ! BTU and CALORIES ! of Gasoline
.... Unfortunately they do not list "Browns Gas" (Hydroxy Gas) but they do Hydrogen...
perhaps a 2:1 figuring could be done with Hydrogen and Oxygen combined ? or would that be correct? sense the Oxygen enhances the burn so much?
....
THANK YOU VERY MUCH JANMARSH!
Now Lets see what Manta Has to say about that ! <GRIN> !
.... I'm Kind'a at a loss here ! HAHAHHAHA
....
Bob......

[janmarsh]

Bob, Also found this literature:

http://amasci.com/weird/bgf1.html

[Bob]

Janmarsh !
 Ugh...my eyes hurt ! LOL but that is a fascinating read !
But I am having serious trouble believing that Browns gas IMPLODES and doesn't Explode !
even though about 30 scientists concur that that is what is going on there ! ....
all this makes my head hurt ! HAHAHAHAHAHA I understand the part about the torch on all the various metals yet the torch feels like its only about 270 degrees but it can melt things that take over 6,000 degrees to melt.... they guess at a top temperature of around 8,000 plus degrees
the problem is all the temperature probes melt on even the fanciest equipment! (I've hurd of that before!)
.... sense the Structure is Mono Atomic in Browns gas strange things happen... so it may well be that Hydroxy gas Implodes.... but fill a balloon and Light it with a match on a long stick and it throws the balloon fragments all over the place... it doesn't crumple them up in a ball
... and it runs I.C.Engines... how can it possibly do that if it turns into a vacuum upon ignition ?....
....
the making of that cell was very interesting however ! and I'd really like to have a 2500Liter per hour hydroxy generator here !.... that's incredible !
....
Hummmm I gott'a think on that a while... I certainly do not understand all I know about it NOW ! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
....
thanks for the link.... and Manta you need to read that !
....
Bob......

[janmarsh]

Bob, Implosion is a fact.

The ratio 1,860:1 refers to the fact that when the gas is electrically sparked, it immediately returns to water. If the amount of gas sparked, and thus imploded could fill 1,860 units, then the amount of water produced by its implosion would then only fill one unit. The resulting space instantly becomes filled with a very high and particularly clean vacuum.

HHO becomes explosive when additional air is included.

Considerations have been made to design a pull/push combustion engine. Air mixed above the piston , pure HHO beneath the piston.

I myself am only now getting my head around this !    HaHa.

Lab. tests have also proved engines run cooler on HHO/air mix. I have been aware since my younger days an engine ran cooler when fueled with methanol,  must be the same reason with HHO/air................ More rapid burn.

[Bob]

Fact ? (raises Eyebrow!)
I make it a Point NOT to believe everything I read, just because I read it ! some people don't
and these Facts as you call them proliferate because of that.  I read the explanation and Understand what he is saying.... but I seriously doubt that is what is really happening
again... if you take a balloon and light it with a match on a long stick it explodes... it doesn't IMPLODE.... but the guys pushing this THEORY would say HOW can you tell ?.... and I say ....I can't !
 the IMPLOSION and explosion are so close to being identical in results that looking at it will not tell you a thing ! ...I understand this!  I'm saying that the Hydroxy gas I put in my truck actually EXPLODES because it shows in the added power.... if it IMPLODED it would
reduce power a HUGE amount.... if not try to run the engine backwards.
 but test results have proven to me that Hydroxy gas EXPLODES when used in an engine..
...
if in its PURE form Hydroxy gas IMPLODES how does adding a small amount of air to it change its properties so dramatically ?  Just adding air to Hydroxy gas Simply dilutes it, it can't change its method of explosion to Implosion or vise versa.... unless there is something going on at the Atomic level that changes the gas itself Just by diluting it a bit.
... so you see that I can't swallow their Theory , I don't care if 5 or 6 people with a bunch of letters by there name says its so, they are simply convinced by a adamant person that his theory is correct. <GRIN> 
  However, I cannot account for the Flame Phonimum of a Hydroxy gas Torch... Normal gasses do not do what they have documented... the ONLY thing I can think of is the Mono Atomic structure of the gas. Now does Mono Atomic Gas IMPLODE ?  if it did it would have ruined my engine in my truck !   
  I am at the stage where I do not understand all I know about this gas.... and expect I will be here a Long time too ! LOL !
.....
it actually makes sense that when you Ignite the Hydroxy gas you reverse the process of its creation... but in so doing the Hydrogen and Oxygen are burned up... they are destroyed in the conversion process...they do NOT return back into water because their components are no longer there !  Hense the EXPLOSION ... if it simply reverted back into water you'd have allot of water left.... but there is hardly ANY water left after it is ignited, considering the volume difference of 1,860:1  you still should see some water left... but the only water left is the stuff that DIDN'T IGNITE.... the rest is destroyed in the explosion/implosion process (how ever you want to look at it!)... so its Not SLAMMING back together as he states
and that causes the IMPLOSION...it simply explodes...or you'd have the same amount of water left that it took to create the gas... the destruction of the Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms
keeps IMPLOSION from happening.... it can't revert back to its original form because the atoms are SPENT, burned up.... GONE.
 do you see my point ?
...
Bob

[janmarsh]

Completely agree.  I am confused as you are concerning it's complete return to that original single unit of water after ignition.  Nothing has been expended if that is the case.   You cant get something for nothing.

Things get more confusing when you consider the fact that with HHO, burn is allways total so why is that water remaining after ignition if we are considering it totally consumed in the power output.

[janmarsh]

Found these videos on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9ExzAT-d-k&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndpk3qAJS-8

[Bob]

Janmarsh:
  those are interesting animations... someone took allot of time to make them so precise indeed!
... but you'll notice that he had to change the make up of the engine in order to get the IMPLOSION idea to work... the timing of the cams had to be changed and the firing timing is also changed.... just to get the IMPLOSION idea to run an engine... and in reality None of that is necessary to get an engine to run on HHO ! we know that from experiments that have been done by others already.... which shoots down the IMPLOSION theory in one fell swoop.
....
  Lets take the explosion of HHO for instance here.
 we break up the water molecules into their atomic parts, making 2 hydrogen and one oxygen atom
per each water molecule ... so we have a huge amount of Hydrogen and half of that same volume of Oxygen again all mixed up in the same container.... a very volatile mixture. 
We know that Hydrogen by itself will explode when ignited, adding Oxygen to it only speeds up that explosion and enhances it as it does...this resulting explosion changes its VOLUME by
around 1200 times...(if I remember my figures correctly) it EXPANDS in volume a large amount
....
the same thing happens with gasoline/air Mix.... the process is identical...
it has to be or Our engines wouldn't run on HHO ! 
 if HHO  IMPLODED upon ignition what would happen in the engine....
first off we ignite the HHO closer to TDC because of its extremely fast ignition....
if we ignited the HHO at TDC or close to it, and the gas IMPLODED it would STOP rotation instantly.... the extreme Vacuum it would cause would keep the piston pinned to the head !
because the gas IMPLODED and didn't Explode...
 However we don't see that ! , what we see is with the timing changed to TDC the engine runs like normal on HHO... so HHO HAS to EXPLODE... there is no other way it can be.
its just another Fuel Source, not a Mysterious Gas that Implodes when ignited.
....
 Just because People have PHD's in front of their Names, or titles... does NOT mean they don't make mistakes ! and whats worse is that they are usually totally convinced that they are correct.... And it takes an act of congress to convince them otherwise !<GRIN>
 "Practical Experience Trumps theory almost every time!"
...
 My question is not about the IMPLOSION, to me that is a mute fact, engines all over have proved that theory wrong. but the FLAME of a HHO torch ! how can a torch with a burning temp
that you can pass your hand through without being burned, melt titanium ? no matter how long the torch is on the metal ( and it doesn't take all that long!)...this boggles the mind!
I think their explanations of the center of the torch flame being the hottest part is correct
but its that way for a Oxy/acetylene torch as well... so that can't account for the heat output... the only thing I can think of is the Mono Atomic structure of the flame ! it must have qualities for transferring heat that is much higher than a normal flame...
 You can pass your hand through a Oxy/Acetylene torch flame but you better not do it too slowly.... you will get burned ! the same can be said for the HHO torch I suppose... its foolish to be too slow ! but you can immediately tell the difference in the temperatures
the HHO flame is Much much cooler to the touch... yet it melts metal that a Normal torch has trouble with.... WHY ?
...
 From what I can gather the large cell ran with AC house current partially rectified (ONE DIODE ?) is the way to go for large volumes of HHO
 and I think the configuration of -NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN+NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN- is the way to go...
or perhaps -NNNNNNN+NNNNNNN-NNNNNNN+NNNNNNN-NNNNNNN+NNNNNNN- (for all 60 plates)
rather than Bob Boyces original -NNNNNNN(58N's)NNNNN+...
60 plates because we want to keep the 2v per plate 2x60=120v
 this Monster of a cell can either power a car or a torch setup !
...
Bob......

[Manta]

Janmarsh,

Only just found the latest posts here,  but off the top,

...HHO becomes explosive when additional air is included....

Would seem to wipe out the observation that if you fill a balloon with hho you can ignite it electrically (from the inside) and the balloon promptly disintegrates ,  not collapses back in on itself as it would with an implosion. Which would have then to leave a residue of water in the balloon.

Bob,

... From what I can gather the large cell ran with AC house current partially rectified (ONE DIODE ?) is the way to go for large volumes of HHO...

You would get half-wave rectification.  Which could be seen as a sort of 60 cycle pulsed wave with a soft rise and fall.  I don't see any advantage here as you are losing more than half your current flow through the cell as opposed to normal full wave rectification.

Manta

Off to read the rest of this page and it's links.

[Bob]

yah your right there... I think what was ment on the site was simple bridge rectifier without trying to eliminate the pulses of the high peeks just let be a continious ripple... not a pulse and then nothing and then another pulse.... so my ONE diode idea is totally wrong <GRIN> what we want is a continious RIPPLE of DC then. not smoothed out with capasitors simply rectified with the diodes.
  that makes more sense
...
Bob......

[janmarsh]

Bob,       You mentioned mon-atomic gas a little earlier.           Seems as though their are various qualities of Browns Gas.  Makes you wonder if Prof. Brown managed to somehow make a pure mon-atomic gas ....  2H:O

QUOTE:
 

A pure 2H:O mixture (two mon-atomic hydrogens and one mon-atomic oxygen) and in a pure form will implode with NO explosion first, because it does not require a "self propigation" temperature to break the atomic bonds. There are no atomic bonds to break; therefore the mon-atomic atoms can form directly to water, which is an implosion with NO explosion. This "Pure" mon-atomic gas has no name at this time because I know of no one who can make it.

Brown's Gas is a mixture of mon-atomic and di-atomic hydrogen and oxygen, with a bit of water vapor thrown in. I measure the "quality" of Brown's Gas by the amount of mon-atomic portion. 100% gas is pure di-atomic; 200% gas is pure mon-atomic. My testing of a BN 1000E showed a typical quality of 120% Brown's Gas. Our ER 2200 gets 130% quality Brown's Gas. In these qualities you will still get an explosion before implosion, because the explosion caused by the di-atomic portion is greater than the implosion of the mon-atomic portion. As the Quality goes up, you get less explosion and more implosion.

[Bob]

Ok ! that may well be !
 and we're all playing with crappy browns gas because it explodes extremity well ! LOL
thanks for that bit.... that actually answers allot of the questions....
...
 so how did he make PURE Mono Atomic Gas I wonder ? hehehehhehe
...
Bob....