Hydrogen Fuel cell/ Joe cells with Landys

[Matt Hawkins]

Hello guys,

Just wondering, has anyone tried using a Joe cell on their Landy yet.

I'm in the process of making mine up now, and ready to start trials on my old Serise 2A diesel, then thinking about moving onto my TD5 130 crewcab.

If anyone does know about the Joe Cell stuff, and orgone energy which has been getting around for the last two years with plenty of blokes starting toplay with it, I'm wondering has anyone tried it on a TD5 yet?

Let me know if you have.

Sincerely,
Matt

[fraser130]

Ummmmm........

Joe Cell (http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Joe_Cell)

Quote:

"An operating cell progresses through a series of stages, the first of which is simple electrolysis, the second is referred to as the seeding stage, in which the cell builds up a charge in the water, which eventually reaches a point where the cell will run an engine. There are higher stages that supposedly can be achieved. For example, in stage 4 the cell is said to exhibit antigravity effects that reduce the weight of the vehicle in which the cell is installed. "

Can you imagine the anti 4wd lobby if we all started flying round the bush, and picking up the kids in flying 4wd's?

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

It gets even better:

Quote:
"A conventional gasoline-powered vehicle experiences explosions inside its engine, but a Joe cell-powered vehicle experiences implosions. Therefore the timing must be significantly advanced so the spark occurs during the compression stroke. A running engine will get cold rather than hot"


Hmmmmm,

Better not comment, might get in trouble with the swear filter.
Perhaps start a thread on religion?
Or those "clone" thingys?
Or even "energy polarizers"?......

Amazing.

[Blknight.aus]

its a crock.....


I will however acknowledge that there might be some benefit to be gained on a turbo diesel by drafting the output from the cell into the intake in the same fashion that drafting lpg into the intake manifold of a diesel-gas engine works.

I doubt that the cell would have the output to do it for long tho.

[Stue 3 doors down]

Interesting, makes you wonder if its a crock or real and the death threats just to add some validation!! :wasntme:

I would love to see it done and made reliable, even just to put it to the oil companies a bit.....:2up: from a dedicated but broke V8 driver :D

Probably cheaper than a supercharger, I am looking in to this matter further just for curiosity:cool:

[d@rk51d3]

I would love to see it done and made reliable,


That's apparently the problem.

You can make a dozen joe cells, before you get on that works. And the ones that apparently do work, are extremely temperamental.
(apparently they LOVE rover V8's)


Still, until there's some sort of scientific basis on the production and use of these units, and the whole "ether" theory, I'm gonna sit this one out.


Now, Nikola Tesla............. there's some interesting reading................if you can find it.

[Matt Hawkins]

I've been looking into a lot of it over the past two months, got some interesting things to consider which are possible, but trials are still needed before anything else comes of it. I've got some files anyone wants to know more.

[Matt Hawkins]

Well depends upon your optimism. On you tube there Jap bloke who has a Toyota Hilux (woops, that's swearing here on this forum) the latest model, efi etc etc, and and he's running a joe cell on his. It works fine apparently, more power and fuel range, so it appears that the CPU seems to adjust itself while reading the amount going into the intake. Still trials have to be conducted.

[Matt Hawkins]

That's apparently the problem.

You can make a dozen joe cells, before you get on that works. And the ones that apparently do work, are extremely temperamental.
(apparently they LOVE rover V8's)


Still, until there's some sort of scientific basis on the production and use of these units, and the whole "ether" theory, I'm gonna sit this one out.


Now, Nikola Tesla............. there's some interesting reading................if you can find it.

Well the basics are, Seamless stainless 316 tube/cylinders, distilled/purified water only, bubbler installation system as a better mouse trap in case of detonation. Stainless cell imperative due to pressure.

I've seen two 2.4L turbo diesels on you tube running joe cells, but have a PVC set up. Seems to work alright.

Concerning Tesla's stuff, very interesting, some sites you can get access to, but you have to quickly down load the info onto your hard drive and then onto disc straight away, because you may find that the very next day your data has been hacked into and deleted by those who in high places who don't want you to know the good stuff, due to fear of loss of power and money.

[JDNSW]

A cursory look at information on this suggests that attempts to patent it over the past 25 years in the USA have run into the problem that the US Patent Office requires a working model for any patent that appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of mass-energy. Since providing a working model has apparently proved impossible, I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

John

[isuzurover]

These websites are always hilarious:


At least fourteen vehicles in Australia have been fitted with different versions of Joe’s energy cells to be driven without fuel nor battery charging. The engine, radiator and exhaust pipe stays cold enough to freeze water – warranting replacing water in the block with transmission fluid. The timing does have to be advanced between 25 and 80 degrees, depending on the type of engine, to allow the engine to run smoothly. The engine’s power doubles over that when petrol-fueled.

The Joe energy cell is not explainable using conventional mainstream physics. It is not even known if the process inside the cylinders is implosion, explosion, or both. No gasoline is mixed with air inside the carburetor. It appears that zero-point energy is somehow drawn from the ether and converts the air entering the cylinders into some kind of fuel. The inventor claims the process increases the frequency and energy of the air.

For converting existing gasoline-powered vehicles into self-powered vehicles which don’t require fuel nor battery charging from a local electric utility, adding the Joe’s energy cell seems to offer by far the easiest modification. Nearly the entire engine is left alone. A separate heater would have to be provided since the engine runs cold. The vehicle will not rust, and paint will not oxidize.

I haven't laughed so hard in ages!!! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Can someone please tell me what the alternative to "mainstream" physics is??? Loony nutjob physics?

I find it funny how with all these devices, there are always a handfull of people who have done it and/or have a working prototype. Yet there is never one that can be seen in the flesh.



No device claimed to operate using zero point energy has been demonstrated to operate as claimed. No plausible description of a device drawing useful power from a source of zero point energy has been given. Thus, current claims to zero point energy-based power generation systems currently have the status of pseudoscience or constitute outright fraud. [6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

[lardy]

A cursory look at information on this suggests that attempts to patent it over the past 25 years in the USA have run into the problem that the US Patent Office requires a working model for any patent that appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of mass-energy. Since providing a working model has apparently proved impossible, I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

John

mmmmmm! sounds much like the infamous hyclone whatever it was _ take one old tuna tin fashion it into a mad design and it will make your car perform like a show pony

[Bigbjorn]

Ah! A twenty-first century Pogue carburetor.

[POD]

I'm still working to perfect the Zep Cell, which will enable private vehicles and public infrastructure to be powered by the surplus energy of John Bonham's legendary drum solo on 'Whole lotta Love' at Madison Square Gardens in 1974. My kombi is currently using a prototype of the Zep Cell and is showing promising results, although at the moment it is limited to downhill trips only. If I can get enough passengers on board with properly aligned chakras and we all believe hard enough, I think it has real potential.:D

[Ferret]

I'm still working to perfect the Zep Cell, which will enable private vehicles and public infrastructure to be powered by the surplus energy of John Bonham's legendary drum solo on 'Whole lotta Love' at Madison Square Gardens in 1974. My kombi is currently using a prototype of the Zep Cell and is showing promising results, although at the moment it is limited to downhill trips only. If I can get enough passengers on board with properly aligned chakras and we all believe hard enough, I think it has real potential.:D

Looks like your on a winner there. If you can replicate the anti gravity claims of the Joe cell you will be able to go up hill as well. ;)

[Casper]

ROFLMAO

Keep it coming, I havn't laughed so hard in ages :clap2::clap2::clap2:

I have to say, you ever heard of the term "Smoke and mirrors" ?

You cant believe everything you read or see on the net.

[bruiser69]

Joe cells & Browns gas generators are all a load of Bollocks!!

Einstien has never been proven wrong. Even the enormous energy produced by relativly small amounts of matter in fission or fusion reactions can be calculated & accounted for using his equations. Mind you, you can make a lot of money selling the 'Secret' of how to do this at room temperature!
Given that all forms of energy production introduce losses, either from thermal, friction etc, you can [B]never get more energy out than you put in.

What we should be looking at is how to get more 'bang for the buck' from our current technology & there are many devious ways of achieving this, often with Govt backing.

For instance, I have installed solar hot water & halved my power bill.
I did this wih the Govt rebate & RECS scheme & payed remainder off interest free over 12months. Living in Qld I have never seen the electric booster cut in.
I also used the water tank rebate scheme to get a nearly free 3000L water tank with pump installed, so my council rates are now much lower.
I have three vegy gardens plus a variety of citrus & fruit trees & produce most of our requirements at minimal cost.
I have resisted going solar electric as I believe it is not viable. Currently you receive 44c/KW input for solar to the grid. This is unsustanable & will only drive up prices for everyone in the short term. Those who installed these expensive solar generators will find that the input prices will dramatically drop in the future, and they will be left with a system that produces electricity when they are not home to actually get the benefit. Early morning & late afternoon/night you are using 100% power from ulility, as none of these systems has battery storage.

Cheers..B

[clean32]

Joe cells & Browns gas generators are all a load of Bollocks!!
Joe cells is a load of bollocks, Browns Gas is something quite different, produced by a different method ( still electrolysis) and has and is being used in industrial applications, generation of browns gas and running a car on it, well that is rubbish.


Einstien has never been proven wrong.
but he has never been proven correct either. thats why we have Newtons Law and Einstein's theory.



Even the enormous energy produced by relativly small amounts of matter in fission or fusion reactions can be calculated & accounted for using his equasions. Mind you, you can make a lot of money selling the 'Secret' of how to do this at room temperature!
Given that all forms of energy production introduce losses, either from thermal, friction etc, you can [B]never get more energy out than you put in.
actually the energy or product you get out exactly equals the energy or product put in. BUT the energy and or product you get out may not all be in a form that is usable or desirable. you mention friction, the energy used to over come the friction is energy produced just because it never makes it to the back wheels dint mean that it is losed its Just not where we want it, IE at the back wheels.
Dr Diesel started out from a theoretical point. his first Diesel motors were made of Glass, the idea being that glass will not retain or rob the combustion process of energy like steel. good in theory but all he produced at that stage was a glass grenade. but today we use alloys aluminum and ceramics for basically the same reason.


we should be looking at is how to get more 'bang for the buck' from our current technology & there are many devious ways of achieving this, often with Govt backing.

For instance, I have installed solar hot water & halved my power bill.
I did this wih the Govt rebate & RECS scheme & payed remainder off interest free over 12months. Living in Qld I have never seen the electric booster cut in.
I also used the water tank rebate scheme to get a nearly free 3000L water tank with pump installed, so my council rates are now much lower.
I have three vegy gardens plus a variety of citrus & fruit trees & produce most of our requirements at minimal cost.
I have resisted going solar electric as I believe it is not viable. Currently you receive 44c/KW input for solar to the grid. This is unsustanable & will only drive up prices for everyone in the short term. Those who installed these expensive solar generators will find that the input prices will dramatically drop in the future, and they will be left with a system that produces electricity when they are not home to actually get the benefit. Early morning & late afternoon/night you are using 100% power from ulility, as none of these systems has battery storage.

Cheers..B

so true

[lardy]

i want a glass diesel now .....sounds fun!!

[clean32]

i want a glass diesel now .....sounds fun!!

lol start to play with one of then and you will end up feeding the fish

[JDNSW]

.........
I have resisted going solar electric as I believe it is not viable. Currently you receive 44c/KW input for solar to the grid. This is unsustanable & will only drive up prices for everyone in the short term. ....
Cheers..B

NSW electricity prices went up by an average 20% at the beginning of the month - a trivial amount compared to the amount they will go up when the government's ETS is introduced. I don't know where you get the future drop in prices!

John

[bruiser69]

I was only referring to the Solar feed in tariff. I doubt very much that this will remain so far in excess (4 times) of normal tariff as this will only accelerate the price hike.
I know that Govt wants to reduce demand for new coal fired power stations, hence the $8000 rebate that is now scrapped due to over subscription. If Govt really serious about lowering carbon emissions they would legislate to have coal fired stations modified to run on natural gas instead of shipping it to China!
Natural gas is much cleaner burning than even the best coal. I read a report stating that if natural gas used, that there would be no need for expensive CO2 geosequetration.
Another option currently being pioneered by Carbon Energy CarbonEnergy (http://www.carbonenergy.com.au/) in a trial plant in Qld . This Underground Coal Gassification produces very little emissions & the gas can be used directly to generate clean electricity. The Syngas can also be converted to sulfur free diesel & many other products.

Cheers..b

[ozzirt]

I'll apologise before I start for not having read the whole thread, but I feel that the worst I can do is reiterate what someone else has already said. The simple answer is:

No form of electrolysis (or any other onboard fuel generation) is going to improve your mileage.

Hydrogen fuel (HHO) from water might sound like the answer, but because of some very simple, but ever so important laws of physics it cannot gain you any power (or mileage). The simple fact is, that to generate enough electrical power to make the gas will take more energy from your engine than can be gained by using that extra fuel in the engine.

You have a nett loss of power. End of story,... sorry.

[clean32]

I'll apologise before I start for not having read the whole thread, but I feel that the worst I can do is reiterate what someone else has already said. The simple answer is:

No form of electrolysis (or any other onboard fuel generation) is going to improve your mileage.

Hydrogen fuel (HHO) from water might sound like the answer, but because of some very simple, but ever so important laws of physics it cannot gain you any power (or mileage). The simple fact is, that to generate enough electrical power to make the gas will take more energy from your engine than can be gained by using that extra fuel in the engine.

You have a nett loss of power. End of story,... sorry.

your logic is sound if you were looking at only an H2o to H and O conversation and then a H and O to H2O to run you vehicle. perpetual motion, you are correct it just will not work.

However if you are looking at producing Hydrogen onboard and adding that to the hydrocarbon fuel ( in some manor) the things start to look a bit different.
the original post stated "Joe cells" what i have written above is not what these "Joe cells" claim to do.

[clean32]

I was only referring to the Solar feed in tariff. I doubt very much that this will remain so far in excess (4 times) of normal tariff as this will only accelerate the price hike.
I know that Govt wants to reduce demand for new coal fired power stations, hence the $8000 rebate that is now scrapped due to over subscription. If Govt really serious about lowering carbon emissions they would legislate to have coal fired stations modified to run on natural gas instead of shipping it to China!
Natural gas is much cleaner burning than even the best coal. I read a report stating that if natural gas used, that there would be no need for expensive CO2 geosequetration.
Another option currently being pioneered by Carbon Energy CarbonEnergy (http://www.carbonenergy.com.au/) in a trial plant in Qld . This Underground Coal Gassification produces very little emissions & the gas can be used directly to generate clean electricity. The Syngas can also be converted to sulfur free diesel & many other products.

Cheers..b

i agree with you, the disparity between the buy and sell price of electricity will be eroded as more suppliers come on board and as the producers are allowed to.
one thing about russia is that thay have been using gas for everything for decades, it is in away how thay have managed to pipe there gas all over russia, with local power stations, water plants etc. every thing is smaller and more localized.

[Matplat]

However if you are looking at producing Hydrogen onboard and adding that to the hydrocarbon fuel ( in some manor) the things start to look a bit different.


No they don't unfortunately as the same rules still apply. You will be using energy generated from the hydrocarbon to create browns gas. If this is then added to the fuel mixture and combusted, you will get back exactly the same amount of energy you originally used to generate the gas in the first place, minus losses due to inefficiency along the way. There will be no surplus energy generated that you can use to drive the car.:rulez:are:rulez:

[JohnF]

I have me people who were illegally running their car on browns gas. It first of all sounded like "Perptual motion" to me, but too manyhave met have already done it. One guy removed the generating system for the gas after his car back fired and realised he could blow up the whole town, as it generates hydrogen gas--as in the Hindenberg disaster. As one man pionted out, you can get other things out of the exaust other than water by burning hydrogen and oxygen. For example H2O2--hydrogen peroxide, H2CO3--carbonic acid, etc. I have seen welders that use browns gas, but have a wopping great big transformer to generate it. But by using a catylyst it may be posible to generate it with less energy. do not know, but met too many who claim to be running their cars on it already.

Just a side issue, on TV last night, chanel nine I think, they were talking about in the Solomon Islands they run diesel motors on up to 80 percent coconut oil, 20 percent deisel. said it is a slower burn.


Joe cells & Browns gas generators are all a load of Bollocks!!

Einstien has never been proven wrong. Even the enormous energy produced by relativly small amounts of matter in fission or fusion reactions can be calculated & accounted for using his equations. Mind you, you can make a lot of money selling the 'Secret' of how to do this at room temperature!
Given that all forms of energy production introduce losses, either from thermal, friction etc, you can [B]never get more energy out than you put in.

What we should be looking at is how to get more 'bang for the buck' from our current technology & there are many devious ways of achieving this, often with Govt backing.

For instance, I have installed solar hot water & halved my power bill.
I did this wih the Govt rebate & RECS scheme & payed remainder off interest free over 12months. Living in Qld I have never seen the electric booster cut in.
I also used the water tank rebate scheme to get a nearly free 3000L water tank with pump installed, so my council rates are now much lower.
I have three vegy gardens plus a variety of citrus & fruit trees & produce most of our requirements at minimal cost.
I have resisted going solar electric as I believe it is not viable. Currently you receive 44c/KW input for solar to the grid. This is unsustanable & will only drive up prices for everyone in the short term. Those who installed these expensive solar generators will find that the input prices will dramatically drop in the future, and they will be left with a system that produces electricity when they are not home to actually get the benefit. Early morning & late afternoon/night you are using 100% power from ulility, as none of these systems has battery storage.

Cheers..B

[clean32]

No they don't unfortunately as the same rules still apply. You will be using energy generated from the hydrocarbon to create browns gas. If this is then added to the fuel mixture and combusted, you will get back exactly the same amount of energy you originally used to generate the gas in the first place, minus losses due to inefficiency along the way. There will be no surplus energy generated that you can use to drive the car.:rulez:are:rulez:
as i said adding hydrogen to a hydrocarbon is a bit different. If you are talking about a simple H2O - H 2 + O - H2O then your argument would be correct, but if you are adding Hydrogen to a hydrocarbon fuel then your logic becomes floored as we are no longer looking at a h 2 0 to H2o reaction

thats why manufactures of hydrocarbon especially diesel add hydrogen!!

[JDNSW]

as i said adding hydrogen to a hydrocarbon is a bit different. If you are talking about a simple H2O - H 2 + O - H2O then your argument would be correct, but if you are adding Hydrogen to a hydrocarbon fuel then your logic becomes floored as we are no longer looking at a h 2 0 to H2o reaction

thats why manufactures of hydrocarbon especially diesel add hydrogen!!

Refiners add hydrogen to larger molecule hydrocarbons to shorten the carbon chain, and reduce the viscosity, as well as to modify the cetane rating. Nothing to do with the energy content of the fuel. The available energy from burning a hydrocarbon can be calculated from the exothermic reaction of H2 + O2 and C + O2, less the energy needed to break the H-C and C-C bonds. No commercial fuel contains free hydrogen, as it is too dangerous (greatly lowers the flash point) and would soon be lost in any case.

The only possible advantage of adding minute quantities of "Brown's Gas" (or any other form of hydrogen)to the intake of a diesel would be to improve the combustion process by making up for poor atomisation or flame front progression to some extent. While this may make a perceptible improvement in an older diesel or one in poor condition, it is very unlikely that it would make any measurable difference in a modern diesel in reasonable condition. More difference would in many cases result from the effect of water carried with the "Brown's Gas" from the producer acting as a pre-cooler, and this would account for any observed results. But a water injector would be simpler, cheaper and more effective.

John

[bruiser69]

Thank God the water molecule is so difficult to crack, it's inherent stability allows us to exist in the first place.

Cheers..B

[clean32]

Thank God the water molecule is so difficult to crack, it's inherent stability allows us to exist in the first place.

Cheers..B

lol its the universes Battery

[Jonno_G]

Sorry to stir the pot on such a 'controversial' topic, but I have questions to pose to those that might know.:twisted:

I understand and agree that no 'self-contained' (i.e. running from alternator charge) electrolysis cell system (Brown's Gas generator) can be usefully employed to improve the mileage of an engine,.....BUT,....

i) How much current would a suitably sized cell require to produce enough gas to make a useful difference?

ii) Would it be feasible to add a PV array (solar panel/s) charging your secondary battery (Isolated from the vehicles primary charging system) and use the charge from the secondary battery as your energy source for your Browns Gas generator?

Might not be any use for long trips, as I suspect that the current required would be more than that supplied by the PV array, but for the many vehicles that drive for up to a couple of hours in the morning on the way to work, and then the return trip the following evening, I found myself wondering if one couldn't perhaps create a basic form of "Hybrid".:angel:

[HBWC]

it all depends on condition of your engine and how ificant it is (some injected ones need looms to stop them overfueling)
browns gas is a bit more complicated and most designs a suseptable to bumps
so a simple forsed hidrogen setup is brobably better to start playing with
i have a book hear i can but on a dvd and send if your intrested

[Jonno_G]

it all depends on condition of your engine and how ificant it is

OK then, let's use some known quantities then - how about we talk in terms of a brand new (0km, std factory trim or freshly rebuilt equivalent) Isuzu 3.9l 4BD1T. I know it's an older design, but it's tried and true and there's no electronic management system to have to work around. I don't know the efficiency figures for this particular engine, but surely someone here can help us with that info?


browns gas is a bit more complicated and most designs a suseptable to bumps

How so? Excuse my ignorance on this, but I would have thought that a common ducted brown's gas generator would actually be less susceptible to bumps than a separated electrode hydrogen/oxygen generator, as it could (theoretically, at least) operate at any angle up to the point where the electrolyte covered the outlet port - in a conical vessel with sufficient neck length (> 1.5 times the neck diameter) the cell should be able to be laid over to almost the same angle as sides of the vessel itself (momentarily, at least) without either uncovering the electrodes or covering the outlet port.

Could you please point out where my logic is flawed?


so a simple forsed hidrogen setup is brobably better to start playing with

Can you please explain what you mean by a 'Forced Hydrogen' setup? I'm not sure I follow.


i have a book hear i can but on a dvd and send if your intrested

Thanks for the offer, I may take you up on it at a later stage.

[Jonno_G]

OK, well, according to the figures on the website BrownsGas.com, who sell gas generators for running cutting/brazing/soldering torches etc, you need approximately 100 Watts per Litre of gas generated per minute, so bear with me while we bash some numbers about....

So, using VERY rough numbers, to produce enough gas to displace 10% of your diesel consumption (assuming 10l/100km) then you'll obviously need 1 litre of gas per 100km, or 10cc of gas per km. (Like I said, bear with me. ;))

Another assumption for timeframe says you're travelling at 100km/h, and so that means you're doing roughly 1.67km/minute, so you're requiring approximately 17cc of gas per minute.

So far that all looks good, if you need 100 Watts per litre per minute then to make 17cc per minute you only need a measly 17 Watts, or 1.42 Amps @ 12 Volts.

Pretty convincing, hey? I could nearly sell these things on the basis that you can generate enough gas to displace 10% of your current fuel consumption with less energy input than it takes to run your interior cabin light...

...BUT - I haven't included one very important factor called "Energy Density"...

Diesel has an energy density of approximately 32.8 MJ/kg, whereas Hydrogen has an energy density of about 142MJ/kg. So one kilogram of Hydrogen has about 4.33 times the amount of energy as one kilogram of Diesel.

Still sound good? OK, well one kilogram of Diesel is approximately 1.18 litres by volume - now for the kicker - one kilogram of Hydrogen (@STP) is just over 11,123 litres.

This is where it all falls over.

The last lot of numbers means that while Diesel has roughly 27.8 MJ/litre available energy, Hydrogen only has about 0.013 MJ/litre available energy. This means that in order to replace 10% of the energy requirement for your vehicle - i.e. 1 litre of diesel, or 27.8MJ of energy, per 100km - you'd need to supply 2,138.5 litres of gaseous Hydrogen per hour (at 100km/h).

Given the requirements of 100 Watts per litre per minute to generate the Hydrogen, and the requirement of 35.6 litres per minute (2,138.5 litres/60 minutes), this translates to around a 3.5kW power requirement to run the gas generator.

In terms of current that translates to approximately 292 Amps - or about the same current that your starter motor draws each time you hit the key.

Somehow I'm not seeing the efficiency in it...:eek:

[clean32]

ok almost on the correct track BUT
you have based your numbers on browns gas, browns gas being produces with a different electrolyte is the most efficient electrolysis way of producing gas so you production numbers will be a bit on the high side.

secondly you are using numbers for a strait hydrogen oxygen burn which is not what happens under compression with diesel nitrogen etc present.

have a look at how Dgas works as it is more simlur to that than the track you have taken.

how ever your results are close to mine i got 102 amp per minute.

[Jonno_G]

...browns gas being produces with a different electrolyte is the most efficient electrolysis way of producing gas so you production numbers will be a bit on the high side...

Yes, because a common ducted browns gas generator appears to the simplest system for one to DIY - the generator, at least. As for a different electrolyte, I'm not sure what you mean there - the systems I was looking at were just using distilled water.

You also say my "...production numbers will be a bit on the high side..." - which ones?


secondly you are using numbers for a strait hydrogen oxygen burn which is not what happens under compression with diesel nitrogen etc present.

Agreed. As I said early in my post - they were VERY rough numbers. Essentially I was working it out as I wrote the post. But surely you must also agree that in order to reduce the amount of diesel consumed by one litre, you must replace the energy that would have been provided by that litre of diesel? Some of that will come from the improved combustion of the diesel that is already present, but most of it will come from the additional combustible hydrogen that has been introduced.

Now I have to admit that I haven't included the additional benefits of improved combustion into my calculations, but I would have to say that without a significant background in chemistry, physics, and mechanical engineering, then the calculations to include those factors are likely to be beyond the average Joe. (pun intended!)


have a look at how Dgas works as it is more simlur to that than the track you have taken.

In what way? In that it does improve combustion and reduce emissions? I can concede that. However, even with a diesel/LPG system you're still providing additional energy by introducing the LPG into the mix.


how ever your results are close to mine i got 102 amp per minute.

I'm not sure I'd completely agree there - there's a fairly big difference between 102 Amps and 292 Amps. Would you care to share you calculations?

[clean32]

im not going to tackle your post as written but will try to explain it another way, it is quite logical once you get it.

Heat will not push a piston down. but it is heat that excites what ever is in there to push the piston down. if you were to produce a total vacume in a combustion chamber and then manage to introduce heat, nothing would happen.

to follow that line of though and oxygen and hydrogen reaction will only produce water, thats simple. but water is smaller by volume than that oxygen and hydrogen as a gas. so logically if you were to use only oxygen and hydrogen in a combustion chamber it would suck the piston up not push it down.
well that doint happen ether, the piston will go down but only because heat is produced as a by product of the reaction or burn. this heat turns the water to steam.

so rather than calculate just the amount of energy produced you must calculate the difference in volume between the oxygen and hydrogen gas and its product steam at a given tempter. i think you will fined that there is very little difference.

BUT if we were to introduce another gas like nitrogen to replace some of the o & H gasses we would see a very different response, Nitrogen which takes no place in the reaction is heated and becomes the main force in pushing the piston down.

next,lets add some other stuff, carbon for example. now we have oxygen hydrogen and carbon present in the reaction, this is where things start to get more complicated. but in short all IC motors are the same regardless of the fuel. diesel and petrol are just a bunch of carbon and hydrogen all linked together, Octane = 8 Centaine = 10, think of it that way. once you understand that, then you will understand that the reaction in a combustion chamber is just a matter of mixing up what ever is put in there, pulling it to bits and building up new stuff to come out the back pipe.
to put it another way, diesel has less hydrogen than petrol but more other stuff to be heated up and push the piston down. petrol has more hydrogen but less other stuff. by adding more hydrogen to a diesel you are making it a bit more petrol like or the reaction a bit more petrol like. its is not to separate reactions diesel oxygen and a hydrogen oxygen. for example you will not get water out of you tail pipe if you add hydrogen to you diesel, ( well you do any way but not much and there is little change.

being very over simplistic but i hope it helps.

Oh browns gas, its only difference is what you add to the water, apart from that it looks the same. but if you dont add any thing DC current will not flow very well, just dont add salt.

[Jonno_G]

im not going to tackle your post as written...

I do wish you would, please - I asked a few questions in there that I'd like to see answers to if possible.

[clean32]

I do wish you would, please - I asked a few questions in there that I'd like to see answers to if possible.

but i have answered your questions, as for the maths i have already done this ( some where)

[Jonno_G]

but i have answered your questions, as for the maths i have already done this ( some where)

Actually, no, you haven't answered my questions. There's this one:


You also say my "...production numbers will be a bit on the high side..." - which ones?

You kind of answered this one:


In what way? In that it does improve combustion and reduce emissions? I can concede that. However, even with a diesel/LPG system you're still providing additional energy by introducing the LPG into the mix.

But I'd really like to see an answer to this one (even if it's just a link to a post in another thread that shows the calcs):


I'm not sure I'd completely agree there - there's a fairly big difference between 102 Amps and 292 Amps. Would you care to share you calculations?